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
50 years from now, will revisionist Bond historians upgrade or downgrade various actors who played
^ 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
OR
If the serie has run its course it will be a more sensible vision on the strenghts and legacies that we can often not see as clear yet.
For example: Lazenby is not, today, highly regarded as Bond. In 50 years, will his stature increase?
Two things will likely happen IMHO. Connery will become a little diminished to some people (his stock will rise with some as he will always be the original, or template if you will, and the longer the series lasts then the better he looks for having started it). For quite a few he will be less special as more and more different interpretations of Bond come along many people will have less rigid ideas of what truly constitutes "Bond".
The other thing that can happen is that a fresh, new take on Bond can illuminate the shortcomings of a previous actor. Dalton's youth and darker interpretation made Moore's version look even sillier and older; Craig's physical prowess and acting chops made Brosnan look lightweight in comparison. Had Moore been followed with Brosnan, or Brosnan with, say, Hugh Jackman we likely would have different opinions (assuming that Jackman played it closer to Brosnan than Craig). If Craig is followed by someone who has a similar level of acting ability but is also able to give a starmaking, fun performance that the general audience loves then Craig may seem diminished in comparison as well.
However it would be difficult to rewrite history as the internet will be a huge repository of information about how the actors were received in their time. So I can't see anyone credibly getting away with saying that Brosnan wasn't popular with the general public, or that Craig wasn't found to be attractive by women.
Dalton & Craig got Bond, the rest after will be comic book adaptations IMO.
It's the way of things.
The first four - Harntnell, Troughton, Pertwee and Tom Baker - their reputation is still pretty good. The ones in the middles ie 5-7 reputations are variable. But Matt Smith, like Craig will carry a good reputation for a long while.
The wider spread opinions will come from the critics of the day, who will not have been born when TD was Bond. So they will consider Connery, Moore, maybe Craig, any other long term Bond and whoever is the Bond of that day.
Judging from the critical reanalysis Dalton has experience just in the last 5 years or so, I think he would hold up even moreso that Connery. I'm just glad that other actors besides Sean are now actually eligible for being the "best Bond ever".
I think once the dust settles on the Craig era, popular consensus will see him ranked third behind Moore and Connery.
It's all useless though because everyone's different and has different tastes and opinions, no one can generalise it fairly
The writers always say they're writing for this or that actor- I stopped going to see the Bond films when I saw where they were taking the series after watching LALT. George Martin, as if.
I would have preferred more Lazenby, I swear it. I don't think the movies would have been so bad- I can watch an actor grow into a part if the movies don't suck.
By the time AVTAK came out, I was missing Bond and went to see it and still couldn't stand RM as Bond but the movie had Walken (again, the blonde-hair thing) in it, and Barry did a great job on the music. Never heard of A-Ha at the time but the theme was smashing.
In fifty years writers will be repeating the same stuff that you see now. Archives have been un-locked, wharehouses breached, all the best trinkets have been sold at auction, what will be left, it'll all be in private collections.
Now, will the series be around for another fifty, and another six, maybe seven actors playing the part, some of those actors not yet born?
@Goldenball - A-ha wouldn't turn up for another two years...
Fifty years from now, the Bond actors will be rated as they should be, on the basis of their strengths combined with a historical hindsight. EVERY actor has contributed to the franchise, and EVERY actor has been entertaining. I don't own (nor do I want to) every Bond movie, but my collection contains movies with EVERY actor. FWIW.
An old Bond film may as well have come out yesterday.
But had we not had the prevalence of home video, then yes, some Bonds would be forgotten. When I was a kid, I was not aware of Connery as Bond. Because whenever I saw a Bond movie on TV, it was with Roger Moore. It was much later that I realised who the first Bond was and how great he was.
Plus Bond films to an extent are milestones of culture in the era they are set in. I mean Afghanistan is relevant now and was featured in TLD. Ironically Bond is helping the people the west are at war with now.
In fact TLD was removed from the collection in 2003 under the guise of a rights issue which did not make any sense as they are all from the same studio. But it is obvious it was removed because of who Bond allies with and for some it painfully reflects western policy 25 years ago.
And once you become a Bond fan, you watch all the films. I at one point hated Lazenby and OHMSS. But over time I grew to like the film as well as him. It offers something valuable to the series, He did one film then again we still remember Max Shreck in Nosferatu from 1922.
Each Bond film is a major motion picture. And even for a new audience, it is great to go back and see how fashions were as well culture.
Yes, Bond's alliance with the mujahadeen in TLD was a bit of a mistake with hindsight! That's always a problem when they try and make the stories too 'relevant' - i.e. history catches up with you and bites you on the backside.
Yes, Bond's alliance now looks like a mistake and needless to say so was American and British foreign policy. The Americans invested $5 billion into Bin Laden's campaign against the Russians. It was thought at the time that the more radical the Mujahadeen was, the better they would fight the Russians and fulfill our policy aims.
The Bond producers were reflecting Bond in accordance where western intelligence thought is the best strategy against the Russians.
The Russians were seen as the bad guys in the west and the collapse of the Soviet union was not on the horizon in 1987. No one could predict how things would change.
On the other hand, historically TLD is arguably one of the most relevant Bond films ever and who we are helping in that film is still an issue that has not been overcome militarily.
And though the film is controversial now, it still is a reminder of how our governments get things badly wrong. What happened 14 years after the film was released?
True. FRWL is the closest of the Connery era to portraying the Russians as the bad guys.
But with TLD, because they went back to Fleming. The Cold War narrative is brought to the boil. On one hand it shows some Russians like Pushkin wanting change and harmony. But then they show Koskov who wants Russia to go the other way and that is the Russia Bond goes up against.
And boy does Bond help the Taliban-like guys get what they want. He facilitates the decimation of the Russian forces in the finale of the film. In fact, Dalton is even dressed like the Mujahadeen in those scenes and that shows how Bond can fit in culturally anywhere if he has to.
They get on like a house on fire and sub-consciously there will be some who will hate Dalton's Bond because of that. Some call him the Muslim Bond. I bet any money that he will have more popularity in The Middle East and he is liked in Pakistan. For instance, I met some Pakistanis who loved him as Bond because of his alliance. They also said he is a man that culturally would fit in their world and they found his dark looks not that different to someone from that region.
Dalton has Sicilian ancestry and the Arabs once conquered that region. I mean his hair is damn black for a caucasian. This has been pointed out to me.
I remember my dad, who is a bit of a leftie, pointing out back in the 80s that the mujahadeen were not actually very nice people... I didn't get it at the time, but history proved him right!
What was that Tom Hanks film about Afghanistan? Charlie 'something's' War? Very good I thought at showing how it all happened and billions of US dollars went to training Bin Laden and his henchman.
Of course they were not nice people. But at the time that was overlooked as they were the underdogs against the Russian might.
Yes, that Tom Hanks film shows how irresponsible we were to achieve the collapse of The Soviet Union at the expense of a worse battle to come. We won the battle and lost the war. I mean, Afghanistan is far from over.
For some, what me and you are talking about is uncomfortable.But it is what it is and there is no point of sugar coating it. We were indoctrinated with anti-Russian propaganda growing up or at least I was, and now we see things way more different.
Yes the Russians did bad things but so did the west. And in an interview Dalton did for LTK, he alludes to the fact that things are not black and white. And Bond is as bad as the so called enemy but seen as good because of the side he works for. That is a more honest assessment of Bond than this good guy persona some believe.
Actually Rambo 3 used to be dedicated to "the brave Mujahideen fighters of Afghanistan", but I think they changed that on the DVD/Blu Ray.
The film is still great. But TLD had noble intentions for the time it was set in. Had it been made today, then that would not be so good.
It is a fantasy film and I can enjoy it on those merits. But controversy is not always a bad thing when it comes to longevity. TLD is getting a resurgence in popularity with even The Daily Telegraph newspaper ranking it in the top 5.
It is a historical fact that if anything, serves as a reminder where short term policy objectives lead to. So far those misguided policies have cost trillions and we have not even scraped away the tip of the iceberg.
TLD is more valid today than 15 years ago.
Anyway, we were helping them, so the characterization of the Mujahideen in TLD probably wasn't too far off at that time, but once the Soviets were gone, the Supreme leaders were free to redirect the goal towards taking over the country completely & then ridding themselves of the stupid foreign devils that ARMED them! And later Taliban slipped in there... what a mess.