Home › Bond Movies › Actors
Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
The 4 definitive Bond actors: Sean Connery, Roger Moore Daniel Craig and Pierce Brosnan
would you guys agree with me these are the 4 definitve Bond actors among general audiences.?
Sure Timothy Dalton and George Lazenby did a great Job in the role but they didn't connect much with general audiences, or maybe they did very few films for audience to remember them?
well at least they are very popular now among true Bond fans since they understand Fleming and see the franchise with the big picture but your average Joe the only existing Bond actors were: Sean Connery, Roger Moore, Pierce Brosnan and Daniel Craig.
One great thing about Daniel Criag is that ended up with the course that after a very succesful Bond comes an un succesful one.
Sure Timothy Dalton and George Lazenby did a great Job in the role but they didn't connect much with general audiences, or maybe they did very few films for audience to remember them?
well at least they are very popular now among true Bond fans since they understand Fleming and see the franchise with the big picture but your average Joe the only existing Bond actors were: Sean Connery, Roger Moore, Pierce Brosnan and Daniel Craig.
One great thing about Daniel Criag is that ended up with the course that after a very succesful Bond comes an un succesful one.
^ 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
I agree that Bond 007 will also be a massive success. I'm quite certain of that.
Id love to be Fassbender that 5th very succesful Bond actor. I like idea the of him as Bond a lot the only issue is his high profile career just like Henry Cavil but in a different way.
Fassbender is a little high profile in the respected actors circle, he is a 2 times Oscar nominiee and Cavil is Superman a very iconic role.
But going back to what i said the course seems like it was broken forever. Craig managing to even surpass in Popularity Brosnan who was a very succesful Bond at his time has opened the minds of everyone to accept the next Bond once the previous one leaves the role.
so i do think Bond 007 will be the 5th definitive Bond in general popularity.
Any film fan/cinephile knows and recognises Lazenby and Dalton as well. Most of them even favourably these days.
Those who don't, occasional viewers if you will, one shouldn't care for. What do they know anyway?
You have a good point that its true movie critics and cinephiles recognize Dalton and Lazenby as well and like you said in a good way. Latley they have gotten the love they deserved long time ago with the people with a refined movie taste.
However Bond is for everyone The casual movie goers and cinephiles. Thats why we have two groups of definitive Bond actors.
The general audiences definitive Bonds : Sean Connery , Roger Moore, Pierce Brosnan and Daniel Craig
The True Movie fans, Bond fans and critics definitive Bonds: Sean Connery, Timothy Dalton, Daniel Craig and George Lazenby.
Note : if we find the common denominator of each Group. We'd get the two most important qualities in a Bond actor.
My dad doesn't know the name of Daniel Craig but my mom she does and like me has learned to like him, she didn't like him first
Though my uncles are not huge fans but they do all like Craig and say its great he added more realism to the character and now he sweats and bleeds but they also enjoy the almost super human Bond.
I agree @Birdleson. The general public is just not all that invested in all the secondary characters. M & Vesper maybe, but I doubt many remembered who White was, and the less said about Quantum, the better as far as most of the general audience is concerned, sadly.
Come to think of it, that's probably why they did the hanging photo thing at MI6 HQ in SP. To remind people. Perhaps that came out of test screenings.
Yes its a constant debate of continuity vs Standalone missions.
It's funny how even though I defend much the classic take and advocate to back to it, i still do like vrey much Craig 's tenure as Bond,i liked all his films though I didn't like How Spectre tied everything together.
And yes its fine to like both takes as well : the almost super human Bond and the more realistic especially the way Craig did it hehe.
Personally I enjoy both a slight preference for the classic take on it.
No. Brosnan was awful and represents the opposite of a definitive interpretation of the character. His acting was all over the shop and his four films are pretty dire, bar an occasional good scene.
Both Lazenby and Dalton were more definitive even though they only did one and two films respectively.
Connery and Moore remain THE definitive interpretations for me. Craig is solid although not sure his films will stand the test of time in the same way.
Laz and Dalts remain a delight to watch IMO.
Brozza was the only truly dud casting error in the series.
Dalton is largely forgotten, although Lazenby will always have the unfortunate moniker of being 'That guy who only did one'.
Also, no offense to the poster above but Brosnan being a dud is only in certain peoples opinions, not the general public. He was truly well loved and still is among the masses outside of these boards.
While you deem Brosnan worthless, something we all didn't need repeated, by the way, he is for many the jumpstart to the series following the big hiatus, and he is responsible for being the reason many in my generation and the one before are even Bond fans at all, because many were young enough to be introduced to the series at that point or old enough to really appreciate what was happening when Brosnan made his debut during a time when Bond seemed dead. GE remains a big hit for many Bond fans, and is often listed in Best Of rankings. All of this, collectively, as well as Pierce's big profile on TV before Bond, largely led to him still being fondly remembered and recognized when the character is brought up.
Looking at Dalton or Lazenby, on the other hand, and you won't see the same recognition from the public like there has been for the four mentioned in the opening post, which I agree with. While I love Dalton's Bond, his short time as the character, his films' lack luster success after the Moore era and its shocking tone for the time culminated in an era that is largely forgotten by the public. Outside of Great Britain, I think Joe Public would likely scratch their heads when a picture of Dalton was shown to them, and even if some recognized him, it's likely that most wouldn't connect him to the character.
In the case of Lazenby, he was one and done, which already hurts his chances of being remembered. Adding to that, he still had the unfortunate position to enter the stage after Connery, and many opposed him just for that reason, leading to an increase in how forgettable he felt to the public at large. Nowadays, though the profile of OHMSS has been largely more appreciated over time, Lazenby isn't commonly remembered by name. Instead, when you mention his name, you'll get a quizzical look, or those more familiar with the franchise may pipe up and say, "is that the guy after Connery?" or "is he the guy that did one film?"
While I enjoy Lazenby in the role and Dalton is easily my third favorite Bond-or second if I'm allowed to have Sean and Dan tie-they aren't that remembered, because other factors beyond what they brought to the table, including the public perception of their era's tone or what they were following were obstacles in the way of their upward trajectory. When you realize that George was only ever going to get slaughtered by the first cinematic Bond fans who only had Sean in their minds when the character was discussed, and that Tim's grimmer films had to contend with a public who was overly accustomed to Roger's light and fun approach, they were dead in the water before they even got a chance. I don't like it, but that's the way it is.
Sean got the good fortune of being first out of the gate, cementing himself in the minds of fans and the collective public forever, while also just being the damn coolest bastard ever, which I genuinely don't think he gets enough credit for. Sure he was first and yes, Young helped him out, but that's all Sean you see when watching his films. You can't teach someone to be that effortlessly cool and charming; they either have it or they don't. That's why he's the most revered and loved.
Roger also was fortunate that his era is largely the one known for being the campiest and most over-the-top, which sets it apart from much of the Bond canon, lending to the man's unforgettability. Add to the fact that the films feature the best location shooting in Bond, and gave audiences of the grim and tested 70s something to have fun with, and it's easy to see why Roger is so fondly remembered, especially since for a large group of Bond fans, LALD was their first Bond film. I don't know why that film pops up so heavily as people's first, but there you have it. And of course, Roger's charm is unmatched.
Brosnan's fortunes have been discussed, and it's clear why Dan's a winner, as we've all already discussed in the past 10 years or so. Though what they brought to the table in their eras, however short, was something, Lazenby and Dalton have always drawn the shorter sticks of the lot, I'm afraid. Again, I don't like it, but that's the way it is.
As far as what the public thinks, I think saying that there are four "definitives" kind of defeats the purpose. I don't see how 4/6 of something can be determined to be definitive, as the idea here seems to just be you're looked at as definitive if you lasted for more than two films. For the public, I think it always has been, and always will be, Sean Connery. The rest of them, not even Craig, seem to measure up to that, so I can't really find cause to give Moore, Brosnan, and Craig that label.
With regards to Brosnan, yes he was popular amongst the popcorn munching hordes, but that's not the same as being a 'definitive' Bond. Even his fans seem to acknowledge that all he was serving was warmed up imitation Moore - he was always too afraid or incapable of doing anything original or distinctive with the role.
As I've said countless times before, Brosnan could have been a decent Bond. Some of his other roles show how he might have played a slightly darker more complex, perhaps definitive, character. I think Tarantino directing Brosnan as Bond would have been really something's but it wasn't to be.
People come on here saying how great Pierce was, and telling me I'm just bashing him, but the funny thing is that Pierce would tell you exactly the same thing that I'be been saying for years.
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/apr/14/pierce-brosnan-james-bond-never-good-enough
If people can't accept the truth when it's spoken by the man himself then there really is no hope for rational discussion on these threads.
Btw, I actually otherwise like Pierce and have enjoyed many of his non Bond films. To me EON never found a director who understood what it was that Pierce brought to the role. They treated him jist like his boring clothes horse, rather than realising that actually his strength is in playing flawed, vulnerable and (sometimes) slightly devious characters. His Bond was always so vanilla and bland - a missed opportunity.
Also, the alleged unpopularity of Dalton and Laz is always exaggerated. TLD was a successful entry - certainly it had better BO than AVTAK. Dalton was at the time also well received by the critics. Even LTK did well at the BO everywhere apart from the US. I think the perception that Dalton was a failure was largely due to the 6 year hiatus. In people's minds this was associated with Dalton, even though it was nothing to do with him.
Moore got off to a slightly rocky start with his first two but then almost eclipsed Sean for a period.
Had Dalton done at least one more in a lighter tone (as he himself had suggested) then the Dalton legacy would be more rounded.
As it is, Dalton's two beat Brosnan's four hands down, not least because Dalton really did have an idea what he wanted to do with the character.
This is where I actually lose some sympathy for Pierce, because the actor always has scope to bring their own interpretation, even if the scripts are not great, but Pierce just never got a grip on the role, as he himself admits.
Pierce has said time and time again that he'd have loved to do a more Fleming-esque take on the role, as all of us know, but was never really afforded the opportunity with scripts that never dared to be any more than blockbuster, over-the-top fare that just so happened to have James Bond in them. Pierce had a place he wanted to go, but in the writing he wasn't given that chance, so I don't place all the blame on him for any issues I may have with the films.
And, if you asked most Bond actors, they'll have the same self-deprecating response as he does when asked about his Bond legacy. Sean would be rather modest, if he talked of Bond at all, and would pride the early team on making the phenomenon such a powerful and everlasting thing with him apart of it. Lazenby would probably excuse the chance to speak on his own performance to comment about how, beyond anything else, it was an experience and it got him some quick money, shined a brief spotlight and provided him some women to roll around with for a while. Roger would say he's the worst of the six, and that his work never stood up to Sean or any of the other interpretations before or after him, stating that he was playing more of himself than Bond, really, but enjoying the ride all the same. Dalton would quite stately say he appreciated what the role afforded, and that he, more than anything just tried to bring a bit of Fleming to the franchise in the little time he had. And Dan would smirk it off and say he was flattered in an effort to stop being asked his thoughts on his performance, stating that Sean will always be Bond to him.
It's really nothing new.
Yees all made a very nice contribution to the role but the 4 I mentioned were just the most popular with regular audiences who like Bond but are not fans.
For example like me with Batman
The fans know all the guys who played him so far I only know 4 names: Michael Keaton,
Val Kilmer, George Clooney, Ben Affleck and Christian Bale.
Ohh and on Tv Adam West but thats it
Hehe didn't know about him because im not a batman fan, i like some films of the franchise but not a Batman geeks and that's exactly my Point the Batman experts know all of them like we Bond fans know all the actors but general audiences only know the 4 who did more than two films or did some of the most memorable Bond flicks.
@Birdleson now that's interesting - I'm 25 years old but my mother is only 7 years younger than yours.
I disagree. If you read Brosnan's comments they are very different from reflex self deprecation which we expect from pretty much everyone. Brosnan makes specific and frankly very honest criticisms of his portrayal.
I find it amusing the way it's the alleged Brosnan fans who insist on ignoring what the man himself said and making out he didn't actually mean it.
To me what Brosnan says about his era makes total sense and totally aligns with my own assessment of his time as
Bond.
I have to say it's surreal that although those comments from Pierce have been around for a long time, some on here pretend he never made them and keep on insisting that Brosnan's performance was on a par with
Connery, Craig or even Moore.
If Craig felt his performance was this bad he'd have walked away. I have never heard any of the other actors criticise their take on the role in this way. Most of the actors, including Moore, had a specific interpretation. They knew what they were trying to do with the character, regardless of scripts, directors etc.
To me it was clear from the very start (the bizarrely overrated GE) that
Brosnan wasn't inhabiting the
character because he didn't have a clear idea of who the character was. he seems to agree with me.
I'm with Pierce on this one.
In the end he was given some pretty crummy one liners that he struggled with. He delivered them like a punch line to a joke complete with a twinkle in his eye.
So we had him bent over the dead body of Paris Carver, complete with undisguised grief. Two minutes later he exacts revenge offering the cool, ruthless killer he had referred to. Five minutes after that he's gurning and joking around with a remote control car, utterly carefree.
He simply didn't think it all through the way Craig did, working out where the character would be from one scene to the next.
Brosnan was an amiable, likeable Bond, handsome as the day is long, but he was also his own worst enemy. After two films he decided to play Bond in a different manner (TWINE), and then in DAD it changed again.
Four different directors didn't help, but Brosnan certainly should have controlled his own destiny.