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
Connery voted best Bond in Vanity Fair poll. Journalist opinion differs.
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/shocker-sean-connery-voted-best-james-bond-60-minutes-vanity-fair-poll-article-1.1030234
This article shows Connery predictably came out on top of a '60 minutes'/Vanity Fair poll by American readers, well ahead of Pierce, Roger and the rest...
However, perhaps more interestingly, this journalist offers much praise to Lazenby and Craig's performances and controversially, is openly critical of Connery and the others.
This article shows Connery predictably came out on top of a '60 minutes'/Vanity Fair poll by American readers, well ahead of Pierce, Roger and the rest...
However, perhaps more interestingly, this journalist offers much praise to Lazenby and Craig's performances and controversially, is openly critical of Connery and the others.
^ 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
Connery is King. I don't think Lazenby or Craig (at this stage) can touch the great man's Bond.
It was a that point I stopped reading.
I do not mind the polls, most funny is how after so many years Connery does always play a large part in such polls. It means that his person still means something big when we talk about 007.
The journalist who wrote the piece is a mediocre person for finding his own taste more important than actually looking at what this result might mean in the light it has been taken.
Dalton and Craig have yet to achieve the strenght that a Connery & Moore have added toi the franchise.
Well, in all fairness it has to be said that it was most likely done as a bit of a filler, without much passion or any other relevance other than a Bond production currently in the works. Minimal research and a mix of facts - the poll - and opinion - the guy's bias. Not a highlight of the trade.
I second that. Dalton deserves alittle more respect than that.
But "daltons films deserved their weak spot"....... The best bond ever does not deserve a weak spot. He deserves the top spot.
When I was a kid in the late 80s timothy dalton and bruce willis were the coolest people on the planet. I think dalton added alot of strength to the franchise.
^:)^ ^:)^ ^:)^ ^:)^ ^:)^ ^:)^ ^:)^ ^:)^ ^:)^ ^:)^ ^:)^ ^:)^ ^:)^ ^:)^ ^:)^
If I look at it now you could say hand on heart that maybe ALL the Bonds could ideally be the best, Lazenby included if you stop to think about it for a while
Moore, for all his nonsense and antics later on, did give us a very good Bond at times and it's easy to see why some have him down as a personal favorite
Brosnan, same again, grease monkey and too americanized sometimes, but then again every now and again an almost epitome of Bond greatness, but in short supply, he was up there with Dalton and Connery for a short time
Craig, bit of a hot head and roughneck sometimes, but it's clearly visible why some may have him down as Best Bond ever, at times in Royale and, QOS to a lesser extent, he showed some real Fleming qualities and seemed the very essence of 007 now and again
Dalton, well no need to elaborate, easily visible Bond characteristics, could be the best ever
Lazenby, OK only did the one picture, George gets the shittiest end of the stick from most people and probably the least Bond like of the lot but some may see him as a possible top candidate and who actually really enjoyed his one appearance
Connery, once again, no need to say anything really, between 1962-65 he was easily a most super James Bond, even if Goldfinger was disappointing. You watch Doctor No and From Russia With Love and the man seems the very epitome of the Fleming character, he only went by the wayside in later releases
All said, I feel as always, Dalton first and Connery on his coat tails, i.e. Best Bond
You mixed the names of Roger and Sean, 0BradyM0Bondfanatic7. I fixed it for you.
Sounds about right.
I disagree. I think the fact that Connery is Connery has something to do with it. There is no deneying that Connery has a charisma and star power that none of the other actors that have portrayed Bond really have. Even apart from Bond, he is one of the most memorable and charsimatic actors who have ever graced the silver screen.
Before I joined in on these forums I thought I was the only one who thought Dalton was a great (best in my opinion) Bond. Glad to see that among real Bond fans the man has a lot of respect and followers. I remember driving back from Plymouth's Drake cinema after having seen TLD and thinking 'we've got Bond back.'
p.s. Connery will always have a high spot in Bond, because he was the first.
People today who probably haven't even seen his films just assume Dalton was crap because he only fif two films. Shame, because he was pretty popular when he was Bond.
NO he was NOT.
Not sure when you live but where I lived lots of people liked him as Bond, even in the 90s with the gap between films. And his films didn't do too bad box office wise and critics liked him, so yeah, I think he was pretty popular.
I don't care who berates Dalton, he was always my favorite of the six actors. Maybe Connery between 1962-63 was better, but it's hard sometimes to seperate these two as closest to the original Fleming character. Said it before and will say it again, but such a pity that Dalton didn't get another opportunity to play Bond again, while Moore and Connery towards the end of their tenures embarrassed themselves or participated in some awful entries when they were evidently too old for the part, legal issues prevented another Dalton release (or two) when he was still capable and able to do a fine job as Bond, but it's no good crying over spilt milk
That makes literally no sense. A person's position in the timeline of the character lends no credence to how good they are or how they are favored by the public. Sean is remembered as the hands down best because he was. Nobody can be as suave, as ruthlessly cold and calculating like him. You saw a rough history in his eyes and how he went about his work, and why he is the blueprint for all that follow in his magnificent footsteps.
Exactly. But then you get people on here who just ignore that argument and say "so what, it's Bond, it should've done well anyway", etc.
But lets look at it this way. LTK was up against Indiana Jones and Batman. The latest Bond film was QOS. If QOS had gone up against The Dark Knight, or Indiana Jones 4, then that would've had some serious competition and not made as much money.
Plus, LTK didn't do too badly. It was just America where it underperformed.
Not sure this argument is so cut and dried. Of course the timeline doesnt alter your ability in the role but swap Sean and Broz around and would there be such a gulf in class?
Pierce would now benefit from having no one to be compared to, the early scripts which were largely faithful to Fleming and would have Cubby and Harry to guide him whereas Sean would have to spout P&Ws inept dialogue, have the publics expectations after Pierce, Laz, Rog and Tim to contend with and survive poor decisions in casting and directors by Babs and MGW.
I would say put any of the actors in DAD and it would still be a disaster. Even Rog would struggle to make you suspend your disbelief as you are happy to do in MR.
If you swap Broz's and Sean's tenures around I think it conceivable that the gap between them in terms of who is best would be significantly closer. Its even possible Pierce would be regarded as the best. The quality of films in an actors reign helps to determine how he is generally regarded over history hence:
Sean: 3 great films, 3 decent and 1 rubbish - 1st
Laz: Only 1 film but a great one so he is held in higher regard than if that one had been TMWTGG or DAD irrelevant of his performance.
Rog: 2 (almost) great, 2 decent, 2 average and 1 rubbish - someone who did a solid job but not everyones cup of tea.
Tim: 1 great and 1 decent - tragically cut down in his prime.
Broz: 1 (almost) great, 2 average 1 abortion - probably bottom.
Dan: 1 great and 1 average - promises a lot but if SF is another DAD then how will he be remembered?
At the end of the day after GE Pierce was pretty badly served for scripts but I think if anything his performances got stronger as he went on but no one really remembers that and like a football manager he carries the can for his films being less than brilliant.
In my opinion it would be:
Daniel Craig
Timothy Dalton
Sean Connery
George Lazenby
Roger Moore = Pierce Brosnan
I agree with SM's statement regarding Dalton. I was 25 when TLD was released and remember how not popular he was. I didn't understand it nor did my father and brother, except to say that from what I saw, people were TOO used to how Sir Roger had played the role and his many fans didn't welcome the change, especially in the direction of the character. The people who knew the classic Connery films like we did felt very differently, they got it and welcomed kick ass versus sight and sound gags and an actor who clearly was too long in the tooth to be believable with the women they wanted to cast and even more clearly could no longer handle (and some people have fairly questioned that Moore could ever handle) the physicality the role demanded.