Who's the Best Bond?

[Joe Redifer]

I just can't buy Craig as Bond with that weird lip thing he has goin' on.  Decent action star yes, Bond no.

I bet Will Smith will be the next Bond.  Bond's new catchphrase will be "Awwww hell no!"

[Black Tiger]

I'll always be partial to Roger Moore since he's the Bond I grew up with and "defined" the role in my eyes.

Same here, but if I were to think without bias and judge the films in general, not as "Bond" films, then Daniel Craig. Roger Moore's films were the peak of the ridiculousness/fun/"Bond"ness of the series.

[mobiusclimber]

The author, who's name escapes me at the moment, has gone on record as saying that Sean Connor best embodies what he had in mind for Bond, that is a man who straddles a fine line between being refined and being an animal, the kind of guy who's a misogynist and uses women for sex, and looks cool doing it. Bond is meant to be an anti-hero. It's why Brosnan and Craig aren't really Bond. The films with them in it may or may not be good movies (haven't seen em, so I can't make a personal opinion), but are probably not real Bond movies. I mean, unless Craig is boning spies then shooting em in the head, and I kinda don't think that's happening.

[Tatsujin]

honestly, who really gives anything about what Ian Flemming had in mind of who would be predestined as the best bond actor? he was a book autor and a man who not even could be a witness of his own 3rd book adaption and all the following ones.

bond in mind of all us people is what bond did in the past 46 years of bond movie history.

[mobiusclimber]

So the person who created the character shouldn't have any say in which actor embodied the traits of his character the best?

[Tatsujin]

of course it is, resp. was, allowed to him to give his input of what he thinks a bond actor should look and act like, but now 44 years after his dead and about a two dozens more screen adaptions, i just think it's not so relevant any more.
therefore, bond in mind of all us people is what bond did in the past 46 years of movie history and not much of what his creator thinked of how he should be like when he wrote those books.

[nat]

The author, who's name escapes me at the moment, has gone on record as saying that Sean Connor best embodies what he had in mind for Bond

That's because he, uh, died before the second Bond movie was even released. He never witnessed anyone else play the role.

But, like I mentioned earlier, the "screen" Bond was written as a role for Roger Moore and only after Moore had to turn it down was Connery considered.

[ceti alpha]

I just can't buy Craig as Bond with that weird lip thing he has goin' on.  Decent action star yes, Bond no.

I bet Will Smith will be the next Bond.  Bond's new catchphrase will be "Awwww hell no!"

Don't even joke about it. Seriously, even the thought...

Daniel Craig ftw. Pretty much for the same reasons as Sin stated. Dalton was OK, Moore had a few OK movies, as did Connery, but James Bond became cliché and I couldn't take it even remotely seriously anymore. Craig gets my vote.

[Tatsujin]

very first they also considered gary grant for the role as well few other no-names fellows. i'm glad they didn't choose gary, not because he's a bad actor, but he wouldn't have fit into the role after all the other movies he already did before. imo it is better to choose a bond actor who wasn't malculated with a lots of other movies before step into the double-0 status. good example was lazenby, which not even was an actor at that time. but i have to admit, he did his job very well. and he could play in one of the greatest bond in history.

[rag-time4]

My vote was for Connery. I haven't seen any of the new Bond movies... the most recent was Tomorrow Never Dies... which to me had a very boring villain.

The new guy has a few recommendations so I'll check him out, but I think that Connery wins on personality!

[Sinistron]

The author, who's name escapes me at the moment, has gone on record as saying that Sean Connor best embodies what he had in mind for Bond, that is a man who straddles a fine line between being refined and being an animal, the kind of guy who's a misogynist and uses women for sex, and looks cool doing it. Bond is meant to be an anti-hero. It's why Brosnan and Craig aren't really Bond. The films with them in it may or may not be good movies (haven't seen em, so I can't make a personal opinion), but are probably not real Bond movies. I mean, unless Craig is boning spies then shooting em in the head, and I kinda don't think that's happening.

Well the point of the Craig movies is to see how he becomes that character.  In Casino Royale he starts out as a rough around the edges superspy/killer- yet is capable of walking away from it all and falling in love- from this he turns into a uncontrollable psychopath (Quantum of Solace) with only revenge guiding him- and from there it will turn him into cold blooded murderer- yet one who can take orders.  The first three movies of Craig's four movie package are meant to be a trilogy marking the arc of his development- with the fourth film as a stand alone movie.  That's another thing that makes me love Craig's portrayal- he's not some instant preconceived cartoon- he's a real character with a solid development.

[Necromancer]

Too bad that Barry Nelson isn't an option; I might've picked him for being the first screen Bond, for being in Battle Star Galactica, and for being a Yank!  Probably not though, considering I'd never heard of the dude before reading up on Bond in a magazine last night.  I haven't seen his Casino Royale, but has anyone here?

[ceti alpha]

The author, who's name escapes me at the moment, has gone on record as saying that Sean Connor best embodies what he had in mind for Bond, that is a man who straddles a fine line between being refined and being an animal, the kind of guy who's a misogynist and uses women for sex, and looks cool doing it. Bond is meant to be an anti-hero. It's why Brosnan and Craig aren't really Bond. The films with them in it may or may not be good movies (haven't seen em, so I can't make a personal opinion), but are probably not real Bond movies. I mean, unless Craig is boning spies then shooting em in the head, and I kinda don't think that's happening.

Well the point of the Craig movies is to see how he becomes that character.  In Casino Royale he starts out as a rough around the edges superspy/killer- yet is capable of walking away from it all and falling in love- from this he turns into a uncontrollable psychopath (Quantum of Solace) with only revenge guiding him- and from there it will turn him into cold blooded murderer- yet one who can take orders.  The first three movies of Craig's four movie package are meant to be a trilogy marking the arc of his development- with the fourth film as a stand alone movie.  That's another thing that makes me love Craig's portrayal- he's not some instant preconceived cartoon- he's a real character with a solid development.

I did not know this. I should be able to vote for "Craig" twice because of this. heh

[Lord Thag]

I like Moore and Connery of course, but Craig is the best. I love his intensity, and the way he sort of walks around with this barely contained violence. I like how we're seeing him become Bond, but in a much more believeable fashion. I love how it' all about the physicality. No gadgets, no cars with lasers. In a way, it's like they combine dthe old Bond premise with something like the Bourne identity.

Good stuff. Can't wait for #3

[blueraven]

Sean Connery, and if you don't think so, you have the manners of a goat. And you smell like a dung-heap. 

Agreed