TheSufferingVilla Posted April 1, 2008 Share Posted April 1, 2008 It depends on how you define a good Bond. If it's based on Connery setting up the character then every following Bond will be judged in comparison however based on the books, Moore was probably closest to the original character. Dalton was by far the best actor in the role but many people thought he was far too serious and Brosnan had no problems letting people know that he hated the Bond they made him play. If you watch the Tailor of Panama his charater is the type he believe Bond should be ruthless, selfish and slimy not Superman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted April 1, 2008 Moderator Share Posted April 1, 2008 Craig has only done one Bond so far, though he's good, I think Connery still shades it for me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRL Posted April 1, 2008 Share Posted April 1, 2008 Watched one of them with Brosnan a couple of days ago. Brosnan really was quite good IMO. FWIW the new movie with Craig is a good movie, but its not a Bond movie. It lacks the comments and the style. It might be one of the better movies and Craig does a good part, but the movie itself is more modern every day action then the brilliant idea of James Bond. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villafan1985 Posted April 1, 2008 Share Posted April 1, 2008 I'm still convinced that Lazenby is very underrated as Bond. I've got the Bond boxset. (Dr. No through to the worst Bond ever Die Another Day). On Her Majestys Secret Service is very close to the Flemming books. It's got the best theme song to a Bond film, and some of the most stunning locations. Roger Moore on the other hand started well but outstayed his welcome. Same with Brosnan, no excuse for Die Another Day ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pelle Posted April 1, 2008 Share Posted April 1, 2008 Watched one of them with Brosnan a couple of days ago. Brosnan really was quite good IMO. FWIW the new movie with Craig is a good movie, but its not a Bond movie. It lacks the comments and the style. It might be one of the better movies and Craig does a good part, but the movie itself is more modern every day action then the brilliant idea of James Bond. To me it's quite the opposite. When I saw Casino Royale I thought that was at least the first real Bond-movie in a long time, and sometimes I feel it's the only real Bond-movie ever, actually. Just the feeling I got when I saw it. Didn't have high hopes for it at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rsjg80 Posted April 1, 2008 Share Posted April 1, 2008 I agree with TRL above - Casino Royale is a great film but it's just NOT a Bond film, it's missing too much to make it a Bond film, no humour, no quips, no gadgets etc - it might be close to the books (which I haven't read) but it's not a Bond FILM (which I own all of). Possibly controversially I'd list the Bonds: Brosnan (he looked like he actually could kill and mixed the best of Moore and Connery into the perfect Bond) Moore (you've just got to love his humour and slickness) Connery (everyone always boringly says the original is the best - it's not! Great but not the best) Craig (not convinced as he doesn't seem like Bond yet) Dalton (completely wrong feel to the Bond character - just didn't fit) Lazenby (not a great actor and followed Connery which was always going to be hard) Oh, and bit worried about Harry Potter and er I mean James Bond and the Quantum of Solace.....! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pelle Posted April 1, 2008 Share Posted April 1, 2008 ^^^ An advice, read the books, mate. I thought like you before, not anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sam100 Posted April 1, 2008 Share Posted April 1, 2008 Sean Connery for me although Goldeneyes my favourite bond film Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KAZZAM Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 sean connery clear winner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nrogers Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 Basildon Bond, so slick, prevents smudges and everything Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leviramsey Posted April 2, 2008 VT Supporter Share Posted April 2, 2008 I'm still convinced that Lazenby is very underrated as Bond. I've got the Bond boxset. (Dr. No through to the worst Bond ever Die Another Day). On Her Majestys Secret Service is very close to the Flemming books. It's got the best theme song to a Bond film, and some of the most stunning locations. OHMSS is doomed. It's overlong and drags in the midsection, though you can't really cut anything out. It's crying out to be 10-20 minutes shorter, but it couldn't really be any shorter without totally wrecking the film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leviramsey Posted April 2, 2008 VT Supporter Share Posted April 2, 2008 In fact I'd love to see many of the Fleming novels re-filmed (anything not by Fleming doesn't count for me) with Craig, sticking closer to the books - You Only Live Twice in particular cries out for it as the original film was NOTHING like the book. YOLT can't be done fully and faithfully without wrecking the series, IMO. It's tragic, but YOLT has to based around Bond avenging Tracy, which means either: a) trying to shoehorn Craig into 1970 or thereabouts having another film end with Bond's wife (who obviously can't be Tracy) getting killed. Sounds great except that it makes Tracy less important to the series, which is absolutely a travesty (I'll never forgive John Gardner, even though he did some fairly good Bond novels, for the whole Flicka von Grusse trilogy that he ended his tenure with). Saltzman and Broccoli were all set to have Connery do OHMSS and then do YOLT after Thunderball (the proper sequence, not counting The Spy Who Loved Me, which Fleming prohibited them from adapting), but they decided after Connery decided to only do one more after Thunderball that the Japanese locations of YOLT were more promising... then they realized that they'd basically need an all-new plot for YOLT and brought in Roald Dahl... About the only way I can think of is to perhaps have Bond avenging the second most important woman in the series, Vesper, which is to some extent the plotline of Quantum of Solace... that said, though, the only thing that I can really complain about with CR is the way that they offed Vesper... it doesn't do the importance of the character any justice (especially given the myriad ways that Vesper and Tracy are linked). Dr. Shatterhand's garden of death could make an appearance, I suppose, in such a context (and one of those normally rumored titles for the next Bond film is Shatterhand...), much like how Die Another Day and Goldeneye both draw heavily on the literary Moonraker or how various parts of Live and Let Die yields a major scene in For Your Eyes Only and the basis of Licence to Kill (which in many other respects borrows heavily from The Man From the Golden Gun). Indeed, there aren't many bits of Fleming that haven't been mined: the pirate treasure plot of LALD, most/all of YOLT, the entirety of The Spy Who Loved Me... that's about it... oh I forgot the giant squid from Dr. No... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted April 2, 2008 VT Supporter Share Posted April 2, 2008 That's it, Levi on Mastermind, special subject James Bond. Two minutes starting from NOW.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 Basildon Bond, so slick, prevents smudges and everything Premium Bond, as he's always in the money. Brooke Bond was good too, although he was forever downing tools for a cuppa. Nigel Bond deserves a mention too, as he was always on cue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted April 2, 2008 VT Supporter Share Posted April 2, 2008 Unibond is in a league of its own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 In fact I'd love to see many of the Fleming novels re-filmed (anything not by Fleming doesn't count for me) with Craig, sticking closer to the books - You Only Live Twice in particular cries out for it as the original film was NOTHING like the book. YOLT can't be done fully and faithfully without wrecking the series, IMO. It's tragic, but YOLT has to based around Bond avenging Tracy, which means either: quite clearly Lev you are an expert but surely with Casino Royale they effectivtly went back to the begginning and thus all the possibilities are open again close call between Craig and Connery but the first three films were fantastic with Connery and if Craig continbues he will over take but not yet How anyone can vote for Moore who made it far too camp is beyond me, Moonraker is just an awful film and whilst Brosnan himself was fine the films went way too OTT and unbelievable, disappeariing cars FFS. After the Bourne trilogy Bond looked dated, camp and frankly shit, Craig has revived that, got rid of the gadgets and concentrated ont he story, to some extent this is far removed from the series and long may this continue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted April 2, 2008 VT Supporter Share Posted April 2, 2008 In fact I'd love to see many of the Fleming novels re-filmed (anything not by Fleming doesn't count for me) with Craig, sticking closer to the books - You Only Live Twice in particular cries out for it as the original film was NOTHING like the book. YOLT can't be done fully and faithfully without wrecking the series, IMO. It's tragic, but YOLT has to based around Bond avenging Tracy, which means either: quite clearly Lev you are an expert but surely with Casino Royale they effectivtly went back to the begginning and thus all the possibilities are open again Exactly. Which is also why I just wish they'd gone the whole hog and set it in the 50s, 4½ litre supercharged Bentley and all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hev Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 Brosnan for me (but I can't find where to post my vote) - purely because he was sooo good looking in those films - particularly the one where he had x-ray spex on - made me go all hot ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 I find it faintly bemusing that Dodge Moore can be polling the same amount of votes as Daniel Craig. Moore made Bond look almost Austin Powers-esque, whcih is just not the way Fleming created his Bond. Craig added the gritty realism back in. Far, far superior acting IMO, and far closer to what Fleming had envisaged in his books. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocafella Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 Being Bond is not all about looks, it's about character and the charisma as well (but of course..) 1) Sean Connery is the right thing to say, and anyone who doesn't know the films that well will claim he is the best. Was the first one, but the movies were so and so really. This was the early 60's 2) Roger Moore is my favorite, because of his very own style. Quick replies as well bringing the ski-scenes to the Bond world. Lasted the longest as well, 7 movies 3) George Lazenby - horrible 4) Timothy Dalton - worked better but didn't quite have the looks or the charisma, plus his films were to inspired of the 80's and Miami Vice drug world 5) Pierce Brosnan - the ultimate gentleman who makes suits look marvelous and he is a womanizer to the bone. Wish I look like that when I'm 50! 6) Daniel Craig - The new Bond and I like him, although he doesn't look any good. But he has the fighting skills and dresses the role with ease. It's like comparing modern footballers with Maradona and Pele you know, the former always wins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts