It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Yes indeed. I am no fool and though I love Dalton's take, it would be insulting. I know that Connery is the reason Bond took off and he did a phenomenal job as Bond. No Connery means no Dalton.
I also give credit to Roger Moore for at least giving the series a new flavour. And it was fine for the era it was set in.
I do appreciate Daniel Craig, but even he I doubt would balls out say he is the best. He is great with his interpretation and should be valued in that context.
But there seems to be so much revisionism. I actually think Roger Moore is too modest about his contribution to the series. He certainly added something special.
Rog takes way too much criticism. His era is unfairly maligned as a non-stop, eyebrow-raising cheese-fest, when IMO, it gave us many of the most memorable, tension-filled and simply enjoyable entries in the series. I get so bored of people slagging off the Moore era or using it as lazy short-hand for 'dumb and campy'. Rog rocked. He's firmly ensconsed at No.2 in my hall of fame, just behind Sir Sean. The Daltinator sits is in a solid bronze medal position, with DC and Laz in 4th and 5th and right at the back, poor old Brozza bringing up the rear.
On a whole, I always felt the love for Connery was a bit over the top. He defined the character yes, but that doesn't make anybody else following him inferior and I mean ALL of them.
If those others hadn't followed, who would talk about Bond anymore? Nobody. Sean Connery? He woud be far less known or praised. So - in this way - his importance relays as much on those, who followed and made the character their own, as its the other way around. Its a circle.
IMO - ALL of them were successful enough to make it to 50 years and that in its own answers the question. There is no BEST really, more and less successful, yes, but each ensured the legacy.
So - is DC the best? No, as there is no BEST in my mind. Just different actors, who were almost all hugely popular during their run. DC just is - too.
Sir Roger certainbly made a terrific Bond, whom I still can enjoy. The Connery films to me are not very enjoyable anymore, for example.
If they put Eva Green up for auction, I'd be there.
Have to say that I disagree (predictably) about Sir Sean. I think if the films had ended with YOLT, Bond would still be remembered (and copied) to this very day. Those 5 films were epoch-defining in terms of style, design, fashion, music and helped confirm the status of the 60s as one of the most important in the history of popular culture. Connery's performances are incredible and, for me at least, still immensely enjoyable. I very much doubt that had Sir Rog been in those films that they would hold the same status that they do today. Sean was perfect for that era, just as Sir Rog seemed better suited to the 70s and 80s.
I very much doubt that had ANY of the other 4 actors been around and cast at the time that the series would have enjoyed anything like the success it has done. None of them (IMO) has the same superstar screen presence of Connery, or even of Sir Rog. That's not to say they're not good actors, just that there was something about the leading men of that era that doesn't seem to exist these days. Connery in particular and Moore to a lesser extent are old school screen idols.
As much as I like most of sir Sean's outings as Bond, not everyone sees them as the ultimate Bondfilms. Which is another reason this series has survived for 50 years.
Well, she was telling me to avoid her yesterday. Then I bump an 18 month old thread and up she pops. But don't worry, it was actually meant as a joke.
I have to agree here @Germanlady. To me there is no best. Whilst I respect Connery hugely, he is not the one and only. Cubby Broccoli proved that after Sean left the franchise. There is something about each one I really enjoy. I used to hate George Lazenby for years, but one day on watching OHMSS, I really liked him.
One thing about any Bond film, even Moonraker is that so much work goes into making that film and I always bear that in mind. Each Bond is a labour of love. Even DAD, which is not my favourite has some moments I appreciate.
I also came back full circle to appreciating Roger Moore.As much as I like realistic and true to Fleming, I do love his light touch. It certainly suited his personality and therefore was believable in the context. He is the funniest Bond. Better than many comedians I see these days.
With Connery, his director Terence Young had a lot to do with making Connery come across as smooth and suave. Sean was actually very rough and they needed to make him get used to wearing a suit. Terence would take him out to learn about the finer things in life. Even how Sean moved was influenced by Terence who saw himself as a James Bond type and added those attributes to Connery.
I think with modern style film making, there is a different approach. In the old days, most shots would be set up to flatter the lead actor. But nowadays they try to make characters more believable by not making them jump off the screen.
The old style would not work in today's modern cinema. Acting standards have changed dramatically pardon the pun.
An example is someone like Christian Bale. He is a brilliant actor and a star, but he is more subdued and less camera conscious. But he holds your attention in a different way to a Cary Grant.
Do I think Bond would have been a success if an actor other than Sean played the part first. I could be wrong, but if Cary Grant was Bond for a few films and used Terence's guidance then who knows. It is almost the reverse of asking if Bond could be successful without Sean Connery after he left the franchise.
The actor is a factor and a major one. But then so is the director and the other people on board who have to make sure it looks good and is exciting. It takes more than one person to make a Bond.
Thanks @Sandy Actually, this post made me think about something. I used to make the mistake of going to see a Bond film in the cinema and instead of enjoying it as it's own movie, I would sit through the screening comparing the other actors to the actor I was watching. And I ruined the film for myself. It was silly looking back what I would do.
And I realised something. If Sean was the best, then what would be the point of me watching the other films in the series? I always go to see every Bond film because they always provide great bang for the buck. It is a quality brand even during the worst times for the franchise. Give me DAD over the XXX franchise any day!
As for best Bond. Depends on my mood. On some days I will watch a Bond film with the actor that suits my mood. If I feel down, I watch Roger for instance. He fits the bill. If I want deeply psychological and modern then Craig is the man. They all cover something that is like an aspirin to the headache that is life.
Bond is like food. If you watch the same actor over and over ignoring the others, then you will get bored of that actor after a while. Who likes eating the same thing every day?
Bond has a great menu of six actors so far who add not detract from my enjoyment.
For example, I probably watched OP more than any other Bond film. It's not the best Bond film, not my favourite, it's not even my favourite Moore Bond. I prefer the more serious ones however, when I want to have some fun, it's the one I pick up.
Yeah they all have their merits. Having seen so many people review Bond films on Youtube, it is glaringly obvious that audiences are so cynical and more so than I remember. What one person loves the other one hates. And that must make it a fine balancing act for the Bond makers these days.
A film that takes 2 years to get made can be destroyed by someone on Youtube in 3 minutes.
The Bond producers have to move with the times whilst keeping a foot in the past. Take QOS. I liked it in the cinema and understood why Bond was how he was in that film. But then others said he was not Bondy enough. But I am someone who does not mind slight departures if it suits the story.
But I am also someone who prefers a serious Bond film to stay true to it's intention. You cannot please everyone and sometimes Bond films suffer when they attempt that.
Roger Moore's era in a way had less interference than say Daniel Craig. What I mean is that if I was the producer and went on the internet, I would be damn confused as to what people want and cannot avoid all the conflicting views people have.
In Roger's or Sean's days, only people close to the industry would have an input and maybe the occasional fan that they met. And perhaps that is why those films left a huge mark on the series because the hands were less tied in terms of freedom to just get on with it without reading "do this" or "do that".
And audiences I feel were more grateful back then than they are now. I mean sometimes films are so disposable these days. Someone like my mum was amazed at LALD when she saw it in the cinema. It was like nothing else and she was not polluted by others negativity. In a way, I envy her.
... and so do I. This is why I don't particularly enjoy the ranking obsession with Bond actors (as though it were a competition). Like Ebert, I've ceased caring or entering into that pointless debate. I think people can very well come up with their favorite Bond, which is completely different and totally valid, as is trying to explain what it is about that particular Bond or his interpretation that makes him your own personal favorite. That is an enjoyable debate when it doesn't descend into insulting and slagging off your least favorites in a totally unfair dismissal of their contribution. In all honesty, as Bond fans, I think we can pretty much find something enjoyable in even our least favorite Bonds or the movies they starred in.
I think Craig is JB and then some at this point after having seen SF. I rate and value him as highly as I ever did Dalton, who I loved right off in 1987. He was just what the series needed, just like when Craig came along. Both replaced lighter versions of Bond and brought depth of character, while the scripts brought storyline over mindless action and sight/sound gags.
Exactly. It's all been set up now for just that with the usual supporting cast now established.
I think Jarrod's got a point. Although where they take Bond from here, I'm not sure.
Therapy?
Actually, we already had three Bondfilms. Changing some details, making a direct sequel and exploring his origin doesn't change that fact.
Therapy? That was funny.
Point taken about QOS. But instead of a normal adventure, the focus was on a farewell to M and establishing the new regulars. It was good though to see Craig's Bond more polished and looking much closer to what we generally expect of the character. Just would have liked a little more cliche in the way of the girl in the end. But the end scene, well, I believe the impression of normalcy was delivered as strongly as possible and I feel good that next time all the cliches will be there start to finish.
It is. People were saying it after CR too. And now we're still saying it. Before it was "Look at the end, he becomes Bond" then it was "the Vesper arc is finished and there's a gunbarrel" now it's "Q, Ms office and Moneypenny are there and there's a gunbarrel"
I can give SF a pass since I loved it anyway but I really am hoping for a normal Bond with Bond 24.
But that's hoping, not expecting. I've learned my lesson about that.
And best of all, unlike last time, we shouldn't have to wait four years to see this. It's all good.
I don't think he wants to play that character.