James Bond 007: Showdown Extrordinaire

After recently beginning to restore my James Bond movie collection which was destroyed a few years ago, I was inspired to get some opinions and see who enjoyed what out of the Bond series. Thus the Showdown Extrordinaire was spawned.

Which actor(s) do you think made the best James Bond?

Sean Connery
George Lazenby
Roger Moore
Timothy Dalton
Pierce Brosnan
Daniel Craig

Pick an actor, and explain.

Personally, I would choose Sean Connery. Not only was he the original, but it seems like he naturaly had the Bond attitude... The urge to make people mad... The charm for the ladies... The ability to keep cool in tight spots... Besides that, I thought the Sean Connery movies were better than the others. Though I haven't seen the two newest yet...

What do you think?

Daniel Craig. He kicks a lot of butt and makes the other bonds look like women. I mean, half the stuff he did in the movies was just too damn manly. Yeah, i'll wait for others to say what they want and then let the debate happen.

I really liked Daniel Craig in Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace (better in Royale). But even though he was really good (so far haha), I have to vote for Sean Connery.

I voted for Daniel Craig only because I knew Sean Connery will win no matter what I do (and he should). OP should know that any best Bond poll is pointless; only the second best.
1. Sean Connery
2. Daniel Craig - a very pleasant surprise
3. Roger Moore
4. Timothy Dalton
5. Pierce Brosnan - probably what one would expect Bond to look like, but he's a crappy actor and appeared in some of the worst Bond movies (luckily).
6. George Lazenby - where did Bond go?

3pleT, good point, but I've actually ran into people who enjoyed Roger Moore as Bond the most. (For shame.) While Sean Connery probably will win, I have heard great things about Daniel Craig and his ability to truely bring back the spirit of the true 007.

I think Daniel Craig is a pretty cool guy. eh kills people and doesn't afraid of anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by International 4-8818

Daniel Craig. He kicks a lot of butt and makes the other bonds look like women. I mean, half the stuff he did in the movies was just too damn manly. Yeah, i'll wait for others to say what they want and then let the debate happen.

---

Agreed with this comment.
Those girls can't compare to Daniel Craig.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 3pleT

5. Pierce Brosnan - probably what one would expect Bond to look like, but he's a crappy actor and appeared in some of the worst Bond movies (luckily).

---

This.
Lets take a loot at Brosnan's movies.

Goldeneye.
Pretty damned good. In fact if someone only saw Goldeneye out of Brosnan's films they'd probably think he was a pretty damn good Bond.
Not to mention the N64 game was born as a result of this movie.

Tommorrow Never Dies.
Then we go into this movie with high expectations because Goldeneye was all kinds of win. Only to be met with massive disapointment.
It feels like they stuck a dozen monkeys in a room with a typewriter and printed the results.

The World Is Not Enough
It can't possibly get any worse than the last one right?
In the words of Kevin Spacey.
WRONG!
This movie was horrid. The main villians concept wasn't all that bad, but the excecution was piss.
Oh, one more thing.
"Christmas comes but once a year"
Really? Stop it. That line is bad and the writers should feel bad.

Die Another Day
The last of Bronson's movies. Will this return to Goldeneyes roots? Or will we get another crapfest.
I think you know the answer.
Really. Your villian is a man who can never sleep because of some plastic surgery that makes him look white instead of asian? that's your villian?
What was good about this movie? Nothing except the following.
-It was the last Bronson Bond.
-The end credits.

I can't blame Bronson completly. After all he was shown to do a pretty good job. It's more so the writers fault than anything.
What I can blame him for is that while he may not be that bad of an actor, his taste in movies is bad so he keeps signing on to crappy films that cause him to sink deeper and deeper into actor hell.

But don't get me wrong, I'm not going to give Daniel Craig any props either.
Why?
I'll tell you.
Casino Royale was an awesome Bond movie. One of the best in my opinion. Then again most of the Bond movies based on Ian Flemmings novels are good.
Not to mention the director was Martin Campbell, the man who made Bronson look good in Goldeneye. So I had high hopes going in and wasn't disapointed.
However Quantum of Solace, while not a terrible movie, was a gigantic step down.
So I'm not going to give him and props, but I'm not going to pass judgement either untill the 23rd bond movie in 2011.

One thing to keep in mind with Actors, especially Bond actors.
If they're in a failure of a movie. The failure is only about half them. Maybe less.
The other half comes from the writers and directors.
After all, you can't give someone a lime and tell them to make lemonade with it.

And my choice is, of course, Connery, If only because he's a natural at it, and the the closest to Ian Flemmings original vision of bond.

In order of preference:
Sean Connery - The genuine article.
Roger Moore
George Lazenby
Timothy Dalton - Egh.
Pierce Brosnan - Ugh. He should go back to being Remington Steele. He was good at that. As bond, he's still playing Steele, except, he has no Stephanie Zimbalist.

Not acknowledged as actually playing Bond because I'm backwards and hate change:
Daniel Craig

In general, the tendency is to drift farther and farther away from the original Bond the more time passes. At this point, it's no longer Bond, it's some other, generic spy.

Whenever I would watch the Bond marathons on cable I liked the Roger Moore movies best. My favorite being, Moonraker.

Most unfortunately, Eris is right, but I think it seems that way because Bond (Connery) set the standard for what a spy should be. Perhaps spies just aren't popular anymore... And I guess the politically correct term is "Secret Agent".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alias-Revolution

Most unfortunately, Eris is right, but I think it seems that way because Bond (Connery) set the standard for what a spy should be. Perhaps spies just aren't popular anymore... And I guess the politically correct term is "Secret Agent".

---

The problem is that it's a '60s franchise. If you take Bond out of the '60s, it won't be Bond any more.

Bond is the product of the cold war, a jet set lifestyle, technological optimism: The whole social and political climate of the '50s and the '60s. The farther away we get from the climate, the less he will be plausible.

Should they, then, revert to gadgets and technology that makes today's tech look like equipment of the future? Perhaps a bit of grain in the film? Lower the sound quality? It would make hardcore fans happy, but in the big picture would make virtually no money. That's what it's all about these days, unfortunately.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alias-Revolution

Should they, then, revert to gadgets and technology that makes today's tech look like equipment of the future? Perhaps a bit of grain in the film? Lower the sound quality? It would make hardcore fans happy, but in the big picture would make virtually no money. That's what it's all about these days, unfortunately.

---

James Bond in 2009 is an anachronism. His job makes no sense. His lifestyle makes no sense. His mannerisms make no sense.

James Bond in the '00s makes about as much sense a film with Tom Sawyer or Napoleon Bonaparte and setting it in the '00s. If you make a film about Napoleon, you set it in the the late 1700s to early 1800s. If you make a film about James Bond, you set it in the 1960s.

Sadly, so many people are captivated by today's graphics and technology that seating them in a theatre playing a movie based in the 1960's just seems like a re-run. If it's not based in the present, future, or completely fictional past the majority doesn't want it. Anything based in a semi-fictional 1960's setting is bound to fail in the box office. I do agree, though. Put 007 in a Vegas casino today and he won't know which lever spins the slots and which lever dispenses the mocha.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alias-Revolution

Sadly, so many people are captivated by today's graphics and technology that seating them in a theatre playing a movie based in the 1960's just seems like a re-run. If it's not based in the present, future, or completely fictional past the majority doesn't want it. Anything based in a semi-fictional 1960's setting is bound to fail in the box office. I do agree, though. Put 007 in a Vegas casino today and he won't know which lever spins the slots and which lever dispenses the mocha.

---

Not exactly true; all everyone seems to want today (what they wanted for the past 10 years) is flashiness; almost every movie with noir elements, for instance, is bound to fail (that's why Matrix was so popular, yet it seems that nobody ever heard of Dark City, upon which Matrix is based). However, there's also a huge amount of prejudice towards space operas, so it's not just directed at the past. The problem is that everyone seems to watch something they can relate with, and today it's all about technology, but space operas are usually considered both nerdy and "so last century", so people don't really like to see those. Luckily, because of this, we now have more sci-fi movies based on verisimilitude instead of pure action, but this is about the only potentially good thing that came out of this.

This new Star Trek movie and all the hype surrounding it, on the other hand, may be exactly what these people need to open their minds; I know some people who have liked the movie and decided to watch the original series because of it. Still, there are those who didn't want to see the movie in the first place only because it's Star Trek, so the change may not come as quickly as we may have hoped. The only thing I fear is that when it comes, it won't be the newfound open-mindedness, but conversion to some new, flashy brand of the old genres.

Connery was always overrated, I think Craig gives the best performance out of any of them, he gives Bond depth, I also loved Dalton for what he tried to do.