Who is your favorite Bond?

[Edward]

There were two actors played Bond before Connery, both for radio plays. I've not heard those, though. Connery created a very believable anti-hero who I believed in as a genuine killer that you wouldn't want to cross. They then took five attempts to find a credible replacement before they got it right in Craig. The rest of them, meh. Can't look at them without thinking - "Yeah, I could batter him", which makes it impossible to take them seriously. I do agree with the notion that, after Connery, it was almost as if they ran out of ideas or got bored and just started to run it as a parody. With Dalton, they were clearly trying to make it more serious again, but they didn't have any direction, especially with running out of the original books as a guide (even if some of those that had previously been lifted from the books, such as the execrable Moonraker, bore little resemblance to the source material other than a title and a few names). Dalton's outings have also dated painfully - perhaps even moreso than Moore's (despite the fact that Moore was the one whom they dressed most contemporary-fashion), given Dalton's complete lack of charisma, which Moore - however dire the films - had in spades. (Crucially, I always got the feeling Moore was 'in' on how ridiculous it all was, rather than playing it straight.) Brosnan would have been okay (though not a convincing killer), but the series really had no idea what it wanted to be then - not even the self-assured parody of the Moore era. Craig came along at the right time.....

Always amused me that Connery gave up Bond in part because he believed he was too old, and Roger Moore was his senior by two years... (Even that aside, Connery in Never Say Never Again was infinitely more credible than Moore in the same-year Octopussy.)

TBH, though, I think the whole thing is just about played out by now. They really need to recognise how outdated the character is, and if they want to continue let somebody like Netflix do a true-to-the-books remake, Mad Men style, where they can stick to what was in the books, though they'd have to find some postmodern way around the fug of misogyny and casual racism....

 

[Fading Fast]

...(Even that aside, Connery in Never Say Never Again was infinitely more credible than Moore in the same-year Octopussy.)....

Your hammertoe is less ugly than mine - whatever.

...TBH, though, I think the whole thing is just about played out by now. They really need to recognise how outdated the character is, and if they want to continue let somebody like Netflix do a true-to-the-books remake, Mad Men style, where they can stick to what was in the books, though they'd have to find some postmodern way around the fug of misogyny and casual racism....

⇧ Great idea. It could bring fresh energy and perspective to Bond in a way that the movie-TV handoffs have for "Star Trek." And, as implied in your post, TV's production quality today (at least some of it) is incredibly high and could do an outstanding job with it. I love the "true-to-the-book" approach.

 

[Frunobulax]

...though they'd have to find some postmodern way around the fug of misogyny and casual racism....

Maybe not. At least the imbalance of the sexes is on full display in Mad Men.


Sent directly from my mind to yours.

 

[scottyrocks]

Moore was to Bond as West was to Batman.

 

[Kirk H.]

"TBH, though, I think the whole thing is just about played out by now. They really need to recognise how outdated the character is, and if they want to continue let somebody like Netflix do a true-to-the-books remake, Mad Men style, where they can stick to what was in the books, though they'd have to find some postmodern way around the fug of misogyny and casual racism...."

They sort of did with the BBC Mini Series which is on Netflix "Fleming, the Man Who Would Be Bond"

 

[MisterCairo]

Yawn...

 

[AmateisGal]

Connery, then Craig. But sometimes I put Craig first because honestly? I think he epitomizes the character in Ian Fleming's novels. He's cold and ruthless, yet can be charming. Connery did the same, but I think Craig puts a finer point on it.

Moore? Oh man. I *never* liked him as Bond. He was a dandy, IMO, and nowhere near Fleming's character.

I have a special place in my heart for Timothy Dalton and I'm not sure why, but I sure did enjoy The Living Daylights. License to Kill was completely awful.

 

[scottyrocks]

I agree with you^ on everything but Dalton. His onscreen persona never seemed to have anything under control. Your description of Craig is spot-on.

 

[nick123]

Moore...and his movies always seemed more entertaining than those with the other actors.

 

[Seb Lucas]

Moore...and his movies always seemed more entertaining than those with the other actors.

For real? Moore was my first Bond and his matched the high camp 1970's. But they were like kid's films. I remember seeing Goldfinger after The Spy Who Loved Me and thinking how adult Connery and his film was by comparison. They looked better too. Memorable production design. Moore's, especially his 1980's films, looked shabby and often felt like B grade Bond imitations. Which I guess they were. Can there have been anything more half-arsed than Octopussy... no wait, Moonraker.... no wait, View to a Kill.... no wait.....

Dalton was eminently forgettable and Brosnan played Remington Steele light, if that's not an oxymoron. Brosnan's Bond was a lot like Moore's, a menswear catalogue model with a frown and he felt about as dangerous as a soggy train ticket.

But for me Craig, although a substantial improvement on the last three, is dull too much of the time. Perhaps this is meant to be brooding. I always thought Bond films could have been so much more than product placement and former models circling an improbable spy story.

 

[nick123]

For real? Moore was my first Bond and his matched the high camp 1970's. But they were like kid's films. I remember seeing Goldfinger after The Spy Who Loved Me and thinking how adult Connery and his film was by comparison. They looked better too. Memorable production design. Moore's, especially his 1980's films, looked shabby and often felt like B grade Bond imitations. Which I guess they were. Can there have been anything more half-arsed than Octopussy... no wait, Moonraker.... no wait, View to a Kill.... no wait.....

Dalton was eminently forgettable and Brosnan played Remington Steele light, if that's not an oxymoron. Brosnan's Bond was a lot like Moore's, a menswear catalogue model with a frown and he felt about as dangerous as a soggy train ticket.

But for me Craig, although a substantial improvement on the last three, is dull too much of the time. Perhaps this is meant to be brooding. I always thought Bond films could have been so much more than product placement and former models circling an improbable spy story.

Not kidding. Yes, the Moore films were somewhat "out there", but I liked them! Exception is Connery's "You Only Live Twice". That is in my top 5.

 

[AmateisGal]

I agree with you^ on everything but Dalton. His onscreen persona never seemed to have anything under control. Your description of Craig is spot-on.

I tend to be one of the few who like Dalton. I think it was because when I first saw them, I was a high school teen girl who fell in love with his good looks. I'd never read the Bond books before, but had only watched Moore and Connery in the roles. Even then, though, I couldn't stand Moore.

 

[HudsonHawk]

I tend to be one of the few who like Dalton. I think it was because when I first saw them, I was a high school teen girl who fell in love with his good looks. I'd never read the Bond books before, but had only watched Moore and Connery in the roles. Even then, though, I couldn't stand Moore.

I agree that Dalton was terrific and terribly underrated. He's the closest to the character Fleming created, IMO. He also had the worst scripts to work with on the screen.

The analogy to Batman is probably spot on. To many, Batman will always be the campy caricature created by West, and they'll never identify with the "Dark Knight". Likewise, Moore will always have his fans. But I think the real test is how well the films hold up over time, and the early ones with Connery are far superior in that regard to anything Moore did. I think Craig's Casino Royale will as well, though he's gone downhill since.

 

[CBI]

I think Craig is the closest to the gritty, cold-blooded, darker aspects of the original novels but that is a bit besides the point as up until recently, there was little effort to capture that ethos in the films. The "in the know" answer would be Connery of course, but his acting always seemed pretty surface-y to me. like he never really believed in the part. Of course, great and classic but.....................

 

[Fading Fast]

Connery and Craig are the only two that are close to the books (Dalton tried and got part of the way there, but the scripts / '80s made it hard to judge his performances past that point). For me, Connery gets the nod as he had to create the film persona with no prior model to pivot from and he balanced the serious spy stuff, aloof attitude and womanizing very well without (in the first three) making it feel patronizing or forced.

My one quibble with Craig - who also did/does an outstanding job - is that he seemed a bit too serious (no, that's not it), a bit too pissed off / too always angry (yup, that's it). Connery kept that aspect dialed down more - only showing it in flashes - whereas, Craig leads with it and, IMHO, it becomes wearing and is not quite right for the character's balance.

 

[MisterCairo]

I think Craig is the closest to the gritty, cold-blooded, darker aspects of the original novels but that is a bit besides the point as up until recently, there was little effort to capture that ethos in the films. The "in the know" answer would be Connery of course, but his acting always seemed pretty surface-y to me. like he never really believed in the part. Of course, great and classic but.....................

My issue is that Connery played Connery. Which is great, but frankly he mailed it in in several films. I also never saw any anger or angst in his portrayal. He spoke eloquently of port wine and martinis, got the girl, and fought off cartoon villains and ludicrous contraptions (a product of the times and not his fault, of course).

"Oh my god! A flame-throwing John Deere tractor on the beach!"

Craig's films have the advantage of being modern productions, and I am not talking of effects. We have seen his background, how and why he developed his attitudes towards relationships, and somewhat clumsily how his nemesis has been affecting him.

i believe Craig is Bond.

I know Connery was Connery.

Great, but....

 

[Benzadmiral]

My issue is that Connery played Connery. Which is great, but frankly he mailed it in in several films. I also never saw any anger or angst in his portrayal. He spoke eloquently of port wine and martinis, got the girl, and fought off cartoon villains and ludicrous contraptions (a product of the times and not his fault, of course).

"Oh my god! A flame-throwing John Deere tractor on the beach!"

Craig's films have the advantage of being modern productions, and I am not talking of effects. We have seen his background, how and why he developed his attitudes towards relationships, and somewhat clumsily how his nemesis has been affecting him.

i believe Craig is Bond.

I know Connery was Connery.

Great, but....

To be fair, when Connery started in Doctor No, he had not been acting long, and was still growing into what he would become as an actor. Plus the first two Bond films were nearly straight translations from printed page to screen: They were action stories straight up, without much room for nuances. (Fleming gave Bond nuances, but they weren't dramatized in the early films.) Yes, Connery did sort of saunter through the role after the first two films; his Bond is much lighter in his approach to things in Thunderball and the following movies.

Anger? I think he displays some, when Red Grant has him trapped on the train in From Russia With Love -- anger at himself for being so foolish as to trust Grant-as-Nash. Fleming, in that scene, has Bond shiver, not with fear, but with disgust at himself.

I agree, however, that Craig's Bond is still a tougher creature than Connery's Bond became. And Skyfall would be a great adventure/spy thriller on its own, even if the main character were not James Bond.

 

[Fading Fast]

I view Connery's Bond as his first three outings; after that, there was a noticeable drop off in seriousness and a noticeable drift to full-on action-adventure movie. The first three are story and character driven. The rest (up until Craig's "Casino Royale") are action adventure movies with Bond as the action hero.

 

[Benzadmiral]

Connery and Craig are the only two that are close to the books (Dalton tried and got part of the way there, but the scripts / '80s made it hard to judge his performances past that point). For me, Connery gets the nod as he had to create the film persona with no prior model to pivot from and he balanced the serious spy stuff, aloof attitude and womanizing very well without (in the first three) making it feel patronizing or forced. . . .

At the time it amused me that film buffs pointed to Dalton's Bond and his relationship with 1 woman in Living Daylights as reflecting the "new monogamy" we were seeing in America (the 1980s trend away from the singles bar scene -- said trend ignited by the fear of AIDS). Fleming's Bond was a serial monogamist; he usually had but one "affair" per book. (Goldfinger was an exception with 2.5 "Bond girls," Jill Masterton and the infamous Miss Galore, with Jill's sister Tilly preferring Miss Galore's side of the street.)

 

[Seb Lucas]

My issue is that Connery played Connery. Which is great, but frankly he mailed it in in several films. I also never saw any anger or angst in his portrayal. He spoke eloquently of port wine and martinis, got the girl, and fought off cartoon villains and ludicrous contraptions (a product of the times and not his fault, of course).

"Oh my god! A flame-throwing John Deere tractor on the beach!"

Craig's films have the advantage of being modern productions, and I am not talking of effects. We have seen his background, how and why he developed his attitudes towards relationships, and somewhat clumsily how his nemesis has been affecting him.

i believe Craig is Bond.

I know Connery was Connery.

Great, but....

This is for me a key reason why the Craig films don't work especially well. Connery played Bond like a hedonistic sociopath. Great. It's all we need. But we live in the era where everything has to be explained with try-hard back stories and frankly, I don't give a toss why Bond does what he does. This is not Tolstoy. These are action films and explaining Bond's influences spoils the spell for me and just shows up how silly it all is. I wish the self-conscious and clumsy myth making would stop.

Reminds me of that dreadful Tim Burton Willy Wonka travesty wherein Burton had to explain Willy Wonka. How his father - groan - was an abusive dentist. Wonka got into candy to get over his abusive childhood. What a piece of mood-killing vandalism!

Some characters belong to the world of primal magic and trying to fit them into a conventional world of cause and effect just destroys the spell.