Poll: The Bond Men

[Saelune]

Sean Connery
Never Say Never Again

This movie is not considered part of Bond canon.

OT; I grew up with Moore, but I liked Brosnan better.

What even is Bond canon? I generaly assume each actor's movies are their own series.

That doesn't quite work. Lazenby was in the midst of Connery's run, so they can't really be different characters. Secondly, past movies have occassionally made shotouts to previous ones. GoldenEye makes reference to Bond's past female history and Judi Dench's M is stated to be new (i.e. a replacement for the previous M's), TWINE has Q retiring (not necessarily confirmation of shared continuity, but makes sense), Die Another Day spotlights gadgets, and from what I've heard, novelizations of the Bronsan films outright confirm the same continuity. It's only when we get to Casino Royale in the movie series that a new continuity has explicitly begun.

Well they do a poor job of keeping them connected. And novelizations are never something to refer to...especially the novelization of a film adaptation of a book series.

 

[Hawki]

Sean Connery
Never Say Never Again

This movie is not considered part of Bond canon.

OT; I grew up with Moore, but I liked Brosnan better.

What even is Bond canon? I generaly assume each actor's movies are their own series.

That doesn't quite work. Lazenby was in the midst of Connery's run, so they can't really be different characters. Secondly, past movies have occassionally made shotouts to previous ones. GoldenEye makes reference to Bond's past female history and Judi Dench's M is stated to be new (i.e. a replacement for the previous M's), TWINE has Q retiring (not necessarily confirmation of shared continuity, but makes sense), Die Another Day spotlights gadgets, and from what I've heard, novelizations of the Bronsan films outright confirm the same continuity. It's only when we get to Casino Royale in the movie series that a new continuity has explicitly begun.

Well they do a poor job of keeping them connected. And novelizations are never something to refer to...especially the novelization of a film adaptation of a book series.

Actually, novelizations are referred to all the time. Film novelizations tend to get access to early scripts, and there's no reason to consider them non-canon unless a policy dictates as such. Some novelizations even surpass or equal the original film in my experience.

Also, the Bronsan films don't have Flemming equivalents, so they're the second, rather than third adaptation in the chain, so to speak.

 

[Flatfrog]

It's only when we get to Casino Royale in the movie series that a new continuity has explicitly begun.

And even then, it doesn't really make a lot of logical sense - Skyfall includes lots of shout-outs to older-era Bond that sort of imply it's the same Bond. I think it was intended as a statement of "Look, we know and you know that this makes no sense, but look! It's the Aston Martin!"

 

[Hawki]

It's only when we get to Casino Royale in the movie series that a new continuity has explicitly begun.

And even then, it doesn't really make a lot of logical sense - Skyfall includes lots of shout-outs to older-era Bond that sort of imply it's the same Bond. I think it was intended as a statement of "Look, we know and you know that this makes no sense, but look! It's the Aston Martin!"

"Shoutout" isn't the same thing as same continuity. Yes, I've used shotouts as my evidence above, but Casino Royale explicitly takes place post-9/11, and has a newbie Bond. Storyline takes precedence over shotout.

Now the Aston Martin is explicitly a shoutout, but it's more reflective of Skyfall's themes than tying in to prior films. We have Bond, who's already starting to feel out of place in the information age (themes Spectre further runs with), and M, who's the last tie-in to the original film series, with M dying at the end of the film and making way for a new M. Casino Royale may have started the new era of Bond, but in many ways, Skyfall is the solidification of that era. How Spectre ties in thematically is another matter, but I've already given my thoughts on the Bond films as a whole on another thread.

 

[Flatfrog]

I don't really think there's any way to say which Bond actor is the 'best' because they took different approaches in different eras. Connery was the coolest, Moore was the most fun, Craig the hardest and Brosnan the all-rounder. Dalton and Lazenby didn't really get much of a chance to prove themselves, although personally I think Dalton would have been easily the best if he'd come at the right time - Licence To Kill is hugely underrated.
I voted for Moore because for me, Bond is first and foremost about fun. Lots of series have great action, but Bond's uniqueness is its crazy escapist action. Live and Let Die is far and away my favourite Bond movie, with For Your Eyes Only coming a close second.
In later years Moore got too sleazy (as did Brosnan) and there were too many plain silly gags (Moonraker was awful, and while I love Octopussy with a guilty passion, that crocodile submarine was a travesty). But I love Moore's light-hearted approach to the role.
I think Daniel Craig is great as a performer, but I'm not as keen on the films he's been in. Even Skyfall, which I really enjoyed, doesn't really stand up to repeat viewing: it looks beautiful but there's not actually anything to it. It's the Man with the Golden Gun of the Craig era.

 

[Kyrian007]

Connery is best Bond.

On Her Majesty's Secret Service is the best film of the bunch though.

Just because of this I was about to vote Lazenby, but then I saw that Brosnan was actually beating Connery at the time I was voting... and it was more important to correct that than vote for my favorite. And Thunderball is the movie in which "Bond films are at their MOST BONDIEST." So Connery is the most iconic face of the character.

But seriously, Lazenby needs to at least beat Dalton.

 

[SweetShark]

Sean Connery will always my first thing when someone say to me James Bond.
On the other hand I never see the appealing seeing Roger Moore as J. Bond.

 

[JohnnyDelRay]

Connery, of course. He's really the one to outline who Bond really is supposed to be. And that's why I put Craig at the bottom, because he's strayed the furthest.

Brosnan has the look and the sleaziness to be the second best Bond, and definitely enjoyed his movies. Other than that, Roger Moore, because his flicks were the best for their time as well.

 

[Saelune]

Sean Connery
Never Say Never Again

This movie is not considered part of Bond canon.

OT; I grew up with Moore, but I liked Brosnan better.

What even is Bond canon? I generaly assume each actor's movies are their own series.

That doesn't quite work. Lazenby was in the midst of Connery's run, so they can't really be different characters. Secondly, past movies have occassionally made shotouts to previous ones. GoldenEye makes reference to Bond's past female history and Judi Dench's M is stated to be new (i.e. a replacement for the previous M's), TWINE has Q retiring (not necessarily confirmation of shared continuity, but makes sense), Die Another Day spotlights gadgets, and from what I've heard, novelizations of the Bronsan films outright confirm the same continuity. It's only when we get to Casino Royale in the movie series that a new continuity has explicitly begun.

Well they do a poor job of keeping them connected. And novelizations are never something to refer to...especially the novelization of a film adaptation of a book series.

Actually, novelizations are referred to all the time. Film novelizations tend to get access to early scripts, and there's no reason to consider them non-canon unless a policy dictates as such. Some novelizations even surpass or equal the original film in my experience.

Also, the Bronsan films don't have Flemming equivalents, so they're the second, rather than third adaptation in the chain, so to speak.

I find it redundant to read the movie I just watched (or play it as a video game). Atleast with book to movie its about getting to see what was written. Plus theres always that weird blur when its mostly the same, but then it adds some, but changes others and it becomes a mixed bag of what counts and what doesn't. I like my canons clean and clear.

 

[Squilookle]

I can find something to like about all the Bonds, though Craig's blunt instrument is really difficult to empathise with.

Daniel Craig and Eva Green had good chemistry, right from their teasing analyzations of each other when they met. It was real romance for once. I'd argue the other Bonds were colder or more distant with their women. Outside of the relationship, there was humor too. Daniel Craig could have been more likable, but he was wasted on mediocre producers, mediocre writers and mediocre directors.

Totally agree. I found the Craig/Green romance completely believable. I loved CR, and at least in that film Craig showed some brains. Remember how he had to make a conscious effort to out-think the far more nimble parkour guy to keep up with him in the Madagascar chase? But in all the movies that followed he just seems to bash and punch his way to the finish. Hell, Spectre even has him uncovering a clue by punching a tunnel through a wall You wouldn't see any of the other Bond actors being so meat-headed.

I kind of dislike Craig only because the new movies are missing exactly what I liked about James Bond.
Without gadgets and crazy villains it's just some dude running around killing random people, which is "lame ass action movie 101".

You hit the nail right on the head. The new Bonds are so ashamed of everything that set the Bond films apart they transform him into just another average action grunt. No, blaring the Bond theme isn't enough to make whatever Craig's doing cool, guys. It's Connery checking his hotel room in Russia all over again. Calm down maestro, for pete's sake.

I don't really think there's any way to say which Bond actor is the 'best' because they took different approaches in different eras. Connery was the coolest, Moore was the most fun, Craig the hardest and Brosnan the all-rounder. Dalton and Lazenby didn't really get much of a chance to prove themselves

That's pretty much how I see the lineup as well. I will always enjoy a Moore film (even Moonraker- come at me haters) and I'll take an eyebrow raise from Moore over a wide eyed panic-face from Dalton anyday.

But seriously, Lazenby needs to at least beat Dalton.

Yeah I'd agree with that too.

I like my canons clean and clear.

Here you go then: Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton and Brosnan all play the same continuity, the same timeline, the same man. This is shown multiple times throughout their films. Nice and simple.

Craig is a new continuity, with a Rookie (but also an old fogey overdue for retirement apparently for some reason??) Bond in a post 9/11 world.

Or at least it was until Connery's rigged up DB-5 warped into Skyfall and just messed everything up. Now who knows what the hell is going on? Bond grew up under the same roof as his arch nemesis? Give me a freaking break....

 

[Hawki]

Connery, of course. He's really the one to outline who Bond really is supposed to be. And that's why I put Craig at the bottom, because he's strayed the furthest.

Meant to be...based on what? Certainly not the novels, of which Dalton and Craig are proportedly the closest.

But in all the movies that followed he just seems to bash and punch his way to the finish. Hell, Spectre even has him uncovering a clue by punching a tunnel through a wall You wouldn't see any of the other Bond actors being so meat-headed.

He uncovered that clue by watching a rat and gauging the angle of the floor, and gauging that there was a room behind the plaster. How else is he going to get through it?

The new Bonds are so ashamed of everything that set the Bond films apart they transform him into just another average action grunt.

By my interpretation, I find the old Bonds far more generic. Probably the reason why I rate Craig, Bronsan, and Dalton highly is that they feel like actual human beings. Skilled, suave, and highly trained human beings, but people nonetheless. The Connery and Moore Bonds...what are their flaws, exactly? I haven't seen every Connery and Moore film, but come to think of it, I'm not sure if I can really say anything about their backstory that's presented in the films themselves, or any distinct weaknesses. Dalton, Bronsan, and Craig all have moments of vulnerability or at least, moments where they lose their cool. Connery and Moore ascribe more to the idea of power fantasy.

Which can have its charm - Goldfinger does take #4 spot on my Bond films list for a reason. But the Bonds of the Connery/Moore era are in the realm of what we consider pulp. The same pulp that Indiana Jones is a love letter to. I've found Bond to be at his best when it's shown changing times (post-Cold War in GoldenEye, post-9/11 in Casino Royale, information age in Skyfall and Spectre, etc.)

I guess to me, "generic" is "good guys vs' bad guys," or "guy gets the girl." Not that Bond DOESN'T get the girl nowadays, but I'm more likely to remember villains like Trevelyan (revenge), Silva (revenge), and leChiffe (economical greed), than those who want to take over the world because...reasons. When I look at how Mission: Impossible also made a transition from Cold War (the TV series), to post-Cold War (MI1) to the information age (Rogue Nation), and how it feels all the stronger for it, it's hard not to look on the old Bond films as products of a different time. Fun products to be sure, but I'm pretty sure that the Cold War didn't include satellites swallowing up US and Soviet astronauts by a villain who lived in a volcano. 0_0

That's pretty much how I see the lineup as well. I will always enjoy a Moore film (even Moonraker- come at me haters)

Moonraker was only good for that secret level in GoldenEye.

Craig is a new continuity, with a Rookie (but also an old fogey overdue for retirement apparently for some reason??) Bond in a post 9/11 world.

Or at least it was until Connery's rigged up DB-5 warped into Skyfall and just messed everything up. Now who knows what the hell is going on? Bond grew up under the same roof as his arch nemesis? Give me a freaking break....

Where's it stated that the DB-5 is the same car as the one in the original continuity? Maybe I missed something, but by my reading of Skyfall, the DB-5 is part of the overall themes of the film - a changing world, and how someone like Bond can operate in the age of cyber-terrorism (again, ideas that Spectre also ran with). The Aston Martin is part shoutout, part symbolic - it's the car that will take M to the place where she'll die, Judi Dench being the last link to the original continuity (in as much that she's the same actress). As I've explained elsewhere, Casino Royale is the start of the Craig era, but it's Skyfall that 'solidifies' the era in regards to its motifs, themes, etc.

 

[JohnnyDelRay]

Connery, of course. He's really the one to outline who Bond really is supposed to be. And that's why I put Craig at the bottom, because he's strayed the furthest.

Meant to be...based on what? Certainly not the novels, of which Dalton and Craig are proportedly the closest.

I'll come out and say that based on every book and movie, I'm kinda uninformed. I haven't read much of the books (it was ages ago anyway), and it's been a long while since I've seen a Connery Bond movie. But it seems Connery was the most sleazy, sharp, suave, quick-witted Bond. I'm not saying that Craig isn't all those at all, just that Connery seemed to pull it off most naturally. And Brosnan too, even with just his facial expressions and mannerisms. Craig is a bit dull in that regard. I'm also saying that Connery set those standards for me, so not based on anything other than my humble opinion from seeing the first Bond movies, I'm afraid!