› ›

Bond actor elimination game 2016

1…45679

Comments

  • GBFGBF
    Posts: 3,197
    Amazing how Roger survived so long :-) How often has he had 1 point now... Just as Bond. He cannot die :-)
  • Agent007391Agent007391 Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start
    edited July 2016 Posts: 7,854
    Wednesday

    Sean Connery - 68 (-1)
    Roger Moore - 0 (-1)
    Daniel Craig - 23 (+1)

    Eliminated
    3. Roger Moore
    4. Timothy Dalton
    5. Pierce Brosnan
    6. George Lazenby

    The job's done. And the Moore is dead.
  • Risico007Risico007
    Posts: 9,847
    Thank you agent

    I will say this though Moore is my third favorite but that is because Connery is ranked 4th and before people scream the titles of his first three films ... I love From Russia with love it is usually either my second or third favorite film depending on where Quantum lies... But honestly I feel one has to look at ones over all tenure and say what you will about Moore but he always loved being James Bond Connery didn't and you can tell that with his final 3 films (even never say never again he looks bored and uninterested) heck of it wasn't for his performance In the first four films being so amazing I almost would put Brosnan over Connery

    So let us see if Craig can beat Connery
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,591
    Very happy to see some Moore love.
  • GBFGBF
    Posts: 3,197
    jake24 wrote: »
    Very happy to see some Moore love.
    Absolutely.

    He is my favourite Bond actor and will always be. I like his more ironic approach as long as he does not go to far (as in Moonraker). OK he cannot act as a serious spy but imo James Bond films aren't serious spy films. I think it is a completely different genre. Even a more serious film like OHMSS is by no means very realistic. Or would you expect a super villain who is brainwashing young women with hypnotizing ceilings in order to poison the world in a serious spy thriller? :-)
  • Mathis1Mathis1
    Posts: 7,434
    Well, at least there was some sanity! Craig at least finishing above Rog!
    Roger Moore was great as Bond, and great in his roles outside of Bond. But for him to finish ahead of Timothy Dalton who did so much to give us Flemings Bond, is ridiculous. Moore was vocal at the time that he didn't read the novels, that to him Bond wasn't a hero, that people like Policemen and Firemen (I think Moores Dad was a Fireman?) were heroes to him. Dalton went straight to the books, tried to interpret the character as Fleming wrote. Connery too wasn't fond of the books, and especially Flemings lack of humour for 007!
    Anyway, its just a game! Maybe next time Dalton might get the respect he deserves (But probably not!!)
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    edited July 2016 Posts: 10,591
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    Well, at least there was some sanity! Craig at least finishing above Rog!
    Roger Moore was great as Bond, and great in his roles outside of Bond. But for him to finish ahead of Timothy Dalton who did so much to give us Flemings Bond, is ridiculous. Moore was vocal at the time that he didn't read the novels, that to him Bond wasn't a hero, that people like Policemen and Firemen (I think Moores Dad was a Fireman?) were heroes to him. Dalton went straight to the books, tried to interpret the character as Fleming wrote. Connery too wasn't fond of the books, and especially Flemings lack of humour for 007!
    Anyway, its just a game! Maybe next time Dalton might get the respect he deserves (But probably not!!)
    If it helps, it was very close. Moore did bring a lot of Fleming to the table towards the start of his tenure, but the quality of his later scripts didn't call for it. I like to give him the benefit of the doubt. I love Dalton as well, and I would probably rank both in the same spot if I could.
  • Mathis1Mathis1
    Posts: 7,434
    At least Dalton didn't finish below Brossa. I would have given up on this forum if that happened! Anyway, apologies to Roger for voting against him, a great 007, but Dalton is still my main man! The Best James Bond imho!
  • GBFGBF
    Posts: 3,197
    Why does everyone always point at Flemming? It really seems to be a new religion. What would Flemming say about this and that. But Flemming is no a prophet and who cares what he intended? I only judge the films and the actors on their own quality, no matter whether they fit in any very subjective "Flemming category".
    The books and the films are two separate elements. Every actor brought something new to the role. Furthermore, the time has progressed since the 50s and the early 60s when the books were written. Flemming himself first did not appreciate Connery in the role but later liked him very much. We all also don't know how the Bond novels would have developed if Flemming had lived a bit longer. Anyway, no film is a complete copy of the novel (OHMSS is certainly close) but for me this has never been a problem. And if all Bond actors would have portrayed the very same Flemmingesque (whatever this means) character the franchise would not have been a big success.
  • MyNameIsMyBondRnMyNameIsMyBondRn WhereYouLeastExpectMeToBe
    edited July 2016 Posts: 221
    Matt Damon-Jason Bourne-july 29 2016..!
    -"You Know H Is Name"-
  • vzokvzok
    Posts: 4,044
    GBF wrote: »
    Why does everyone always point at Flemming? It really seems to be a new religion. What would Flemming say about this and that. But Flemming is no a prophet and who cares what he intended? I only judge the films and the actors on their own quality, no matter whether they fit in any very subjective "Flemming category".
    The books and the films are two separate elements. Every actor brought something new to the role. Furthermore, the time has progressed since the 50s and the early 60s when the books were written. Flemming himself first did not appreciate Connery in the role but later liked him very much. We all also don't know how the Bond novels would have developed if Flemming had lived a bit longer. Anyway, no film is a complete copy of the novel (OHMSS is certainly close) but for me this has never been a problem. And if all Bond actors would have portrayed the very same Flemmingesque (whatever this means) character the franchise would not have been a big success.

    If the books and the films are completely separate then we might as well just watch any old action film. Aren't we hoping that the films represent Bond with at least some element of the character that fleming created?
  • MayDayDiVicenzoMayDayDiVicenzo Here and there
    Posts: 5,080
    God, some of the Daltonites are acting like the remain camp after the referendum. Chin up, chaps.
  • vzokvzok
    Posts: 4,044
    Wednesday

    Sean Connery - 69 +1
    Roger Moore - 0
    Daniel Craig - 21 -2

    Eliminated
    3. Roger Moore
    4. Timothy Dalton
    5. Pierce Brosnan
    6. George Lazenby
  • MansfieldMansfield Where the hell have you been?
    Posts: 1,263
    Wednesday

    Sean Connery - 70 +1
    Daniel Craig - 19 -2

    Eliminated
    3. Roger Moore
    4. Timothy Dalton
    5. Pierce Brosnan
    6. George Lazenby

    Deserved second place for Daniel and of course the gold standard for Connery.
  • GBFGBF
    Posts: 3,197
    vzok wrote: »
    GBF wrote: »
    Why does everyone always point at Flemming? It really seems to be a new religion. What would Flemming say about this and that. But Flemming is no a prophet and who cares what he intended? I only judge the films and the actors on their own quality, no matter whether they fit in any very subjective "Flemming category".
    The books and the films are two separate elements. Every actor brought something new to the role. Furthermore, the time has progressed since the 50s and the early 60s when the books were written. Flemming himself first did not appreciate Connery in the role but later liked him very much. We all also don't know how the Bond novels would have developed if Flemming had lived a bit longer. Anyway, no film is a complete copy of the novel (OHMSS is certainly close) but for me this has never been a problem. And if all Bond actors would have portrayed the very same Flemmingesque (whatever this means) character the franchise would not have been a big success.

    If the books and the films are completely separate then we might as well just watch any old action film. Aren't we hoping that the films represent Bond with at least some element of the character that fleming created?

    How many Bond fans have not even read any of Flemming's novels? I think very many. I think all of us (at least those who were born after 1970) have watched the films first and only after we became Bond fans discovered the books. I like all novels but I don't think anyone would read them today if there had not been the films. Therefore I think that we should not only always point at the novels to showcase who Bond should be.
    Apart from that, we all also know that continuity is not one quality of the franchise. There have been several reboots that have damaged the Bond time line. The interesting thing is that Bond survived not despite but because of the variability of its main character. He adapted to different trends and took the skills from the respective actor and hence became popular throughout the many years since 1962.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Interesting to see that Craig has surpassed Moore here now.
  • Agent007391Agent007391 Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start
    Posts: 7,854
    GBF wrote: »
    vzok wrote: »
    GBF wrote: »
    Why does everyone always point at Flemming? It really seems to be a new religion. What would Flemming say about this and that. But Flemming is no a prophet and who cares what he intended? I only judge the films and the actors on their own quality, no matter whether they fit in any very subjective "Flemming category".
    The books and the films are two separate elements. Every actor brought something new to the role. Furthermore, the time has progressed since the 50s and the early 60s when the books were written. Flemming himself first did not appreciate Connery in the role but later liked him very much. We all also don't know how the Bond novels would have developed if Flemming had lived a bit longer. Anyway, no film is a complete copy of the novel (OHMSS is certainly close) but for me this has never been a problem. And if all Bond actors would have portrayed the very same Flemmingesque (whatever this means) character the franchise would not have been a big success.

    If the books and the films are completely separate then we might as well just watch any old action film. Aren't we hoping that the films represent Bond with at least some element of the character that fleming created?

    How many Bond fans have not even read any of Flemming's novels? I think very many. I think all of us (at least those who were born after 1970) have watched the films first and only after we became Bond fans discovered the books. I like all novels but I don't think anyone would read them today if there had not been the films. Therefore I think that we should not only always point at the novels to showcase who Bond should be.
    Apart from that, we all also know that continuity is not one quality of the franchise. There have been several reboots that have damaged the Bond time line. The interesting thing is that Bond survived not despite but because of the variability of its main character. He adapted to different trends and took the skills from the respective actor and hence became popular throughout the many years since 1962.

    I, too, believe that the books and films should be judged separately on their own merits, but, without those books, without Fleming creating the character, those films would not exist. To ignore the intentions of the author just because means you're not respecting his creation. Can actors be different from that interpretation of Bond? Yes. Literary characters can always be reinvented in interesting and unique ways, but they must always pay homage to where the character came from, be it James Bond, Sherlock Holmes, Batman or Scooby-Doo.

    So, yes, the films should be judged on their own and the Bonds should be judged on their own, but it should never be forgotten that they came from the mind of Ian Fleming.
  • Risico007Risico007
    Posts: 9,847
    As long as Craig still exists tomorrow I will down vote Connery lol
  • Mathis1Mathis1
    Posts: 7,434
    Same here! it does get a little tiring hearing the same old story of Connery/Moore. Great and all as they were, to me Dalton and Craig have presented a more interesting James Bond!
  • GBFGBF
    Posts: 3,197
    Agent007391 wrote: »
    GBF wrote: »
    vzok wrote: »
    GBF wrote: »
    Why does everyone always point at Flemming? It really seems to be a new religion. What would Flemming say about this and that. But Flemming is no a prophet and who cares what he intended? I only judge the films and the actors on their own quality, no matter whether they fit in any very subjective "Flemming category".
    The books and the films are two separate elements. Every actor brought something new to the role. Furthermore, the time has progressed since the 50s and the early 60s when the books were written. Flemming himself first did not appreciate Connery in the role but later liked him very much. We all also don't know how the Bond novels would have developed if Flemming had lived a bit longer. Anyway, no film is a complete copy of the novel (OHMSS is certainly close) but for me this has never been a problem. And if all Bond actors would have portrayed the very same Flemmingesque (whatever this means) character the franchise would not have been a big success.

    If the books and the films are completely separate then we might as well just watch any old action film. Aren't we hoping that the films represent Bond with at least some element of the character that fleming created?

    How many Bond fans have not even read any of Flemming's novels? I think very many. I think all of us (at least those who were born after 1970) have watched the films first and only after we became Bond fans discovered the books. I like all novels but I don't think anyone would read them today if there had not been the films. Therefore I think that we should not only always point at the novels to showcase who Bond should be.
    Apart from that, we all also know that continuity is not one quality of the franchise. There have been several reboots that have damaged the Bond time line. The interesting thing is that Bond survived not despite but because of the variability of its main character. He adapted to different trends and took the skills from the respective actor and hence became popular throughout the many years since 1962.

    I, too, believe that the books and films should be judged separately on their own merits, but, without those books, without Fleming creating the character, those films would not exist. To ignore the intentions of the author just because means you're not respecting his creation. Can actors be different from that interpretation of Bond? Yes. Literary characters can always be reinvented in interesting and unique ways, but they must always pay homage to where the character came from, be it James Bond, Sherlock Holmes, Batman or Scooby-Doo.

    So, yes, the films should be judged on their own and the Bonds should be judged on their own, but it should never be forgotten that they came from the mind of Ian Fleming.

    For sure, Flemming desserves as much respect as possible for the invention of James Bond and the initial stories. As I said, I like all his novels and recommend them to everyone. I never question his opus at all. But as you said, let us judge the films and the books separately.


  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    Agreed @GBF even the producers have said, they keep going back to the Books. Both
    Dalton and Craig have spoken of constantly reading the books to get an idea of the
    Character of Bond.
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,138
    Thursday

    Sean Connery - 71 +1
    Daniel Craig - 17 -2

    Eliminated
    3. Roger Moore
    4. Timothy Dalton
    5. Pierce Brosnan
    6. George Lazenby

    This should be fairly quick now.

    ;)
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Yes, it should be over before Christmas.
  • ChirazChiraz
    Posts: 1,066
    Thursday

    Sean Connery - 72 +1
    Daniel Craig - 15 -2

    Eliminated
    3. Roger Moore
    4. Timothy Dalton
    5. Pierce Brosnan
    6. George Lazenby
  • sirseanisbondsirseanisbond
    Posts: 2,189
    James Bond - 73 (+1)
    Russian Sailor - 13 (-2)

    Eliminated
    3. Roger Moore
    4. Timothy Dalton
    5. Pierce Brosnan
    6. George Lazenby
  • GBFGBF
    edited July 2016 Posts: 3,197
    Thursday

    Sean - 74 (+1)
    Danny - 11 (-2)

    Eliminated
    3. Roger Moore
    4. Timothy Dalton
    5. Pierce Brosnan
    6. George Lazenby
  • tanaka123tanaka123
    edited July 2016 Posts: 4,325
    Thursday

    Sean Connery - 72 (-2)
    Daniel Craig - 12 (+1)

    Eliminated
    3. Roger Moore
    4. Timothy Dalton
    5. Pierce Brosnan
    6. George Lazenby
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    Thursday

    Sean Connery - 70 (-2)
    Daniel Craig - 13 (+1)

    Eliminated
    3. Roger Moore
    4. Timothy Dalton
    5. Pierce Brosnan
    6. George Lazenby

    just to make a game of it :)
  • MansfieldMansfield Where the hell have you been?
    Posts: 1,263
    Anyone want to go back to +1/-1? =))
  • SoundofthesinnersSoundofthesinners
    Posts: 3,236
    Sean Connery - 71 +1
    Daniel Craig - 11 -2

    Eliminated
    3. Roger Moore
    4. Timothy Dalton
    5. Pierce Brosnan
    6. George Lazenby

Sign In or Register to comment.