roger moore

Favorite Bond;

All of them really, they all brought something different to the role.
Sean Connery had a great mix of being suave, debonair and dangerous all at the same time.
Roger Moore brought more of a sense of humor to the role, as he put it, Bond was a not very secret, secret agent, known by bartenders the world over, Moore did not take himself too seriously.
Timothy Dalton, I never could get a handle on how he viewed Bond, to me he neither added to or detracted, he was just there.
Pierce Brosnan, I thought he would make a great Bond, has the look, is very believable as a suave ladies man and can be very flippant at times.
Daniel Craig, by far the darkest Bond yet, he even has a menacing look about him as if he is announcing, do not piss me off, I will hurt you, and I will forget you ever existed. Has a definite dark side, as we would expect one who regularly kills people to have.

I agree in most. Sean Connery is the scale since he was the first one. Roger Moore made it more humorous and less exciting, but it was good fun with lots of new gadgets in every move, trying to show the spearhead of technology. Dalton, a very good actor, but much too serious to fit in, I prefer him in Shakespeare and Jane Austen. Brosnan, really good fun, bringing back a lovely mixture of Connery and Moore, I quite enjoyed his movies. And so Craig. Uhm, not my cup of tea. I'm too old I realize, but I still think he looks and acts more as a Bond villain than a Bond. And the story is all mixed up. Is he old or new in the game and then some cars and gadgets from the Connery era is thrown in, making you wonder if he has had the earlier career as Connery, or if it's a complete reboot with only accidental similarities to the older movies. Why didn't they call it 005 or something instead? He could just have been another agent, as the movies are not much of Bond any longer.

Great point Glagila. Seems to me Craig is more of a villian than Bond. A wonderful looking man, more dangerous . Bond could handle him. Shaken not stirred. Regards.

Craig, especially in Casino Royale, is what the service needed him to be; a blunt instrument. He starts the film as a thug, but gradually changes a little. However the thug is alwats there under the surface. Bond is like that; ruthless, he has to be able to kill in cold blood if necessary.

Yes, that's true - but that isn't the Bond that has been there for the 40 years before him. To me it's as if the Triple-X movies had been a part of the Bond franchise.

Casino Royale completely rebooted the franchise. Nearly everything that had gone before no longer happened. Felix had his legs back and was now black. James had never been married. No Moneypenny, no Q. I didn't think I'd like it, but I actually loved it.

Yes, from what I understand it was a massive success, way more than the old movies. So I guess I belong to a whiny old minority who wants everything to be as it was. I have to admit that I'm a bit tired of re-boots. Worst is probably Spiderman and Star Trek. The new Trek movies are good, but was it really necessary to start them off with that the timeline changed so none of the ten previous movies or the probably ten thousand TV episodes ever happened, except for Old Spock. And Spiderman, well, I'm falling behind, not having seen one incarnation to the end before it has already been rebooted once more. And now it's being rebooted again and this time his gadgets apparently are not his inventions any longer, but handed to him by Stark. I feel that there has been a massive overuse of old movies. Why not just make new ones with new heroes instead for constantly changing and fiddling with the old ones?

The older Bond films were still successful, but Brosnan had gotten too old for the role, and the company was now being run by Cubby Broccoli's stepson and daughter, they also finally got the rights to Casino Royale, and to be honest if the franchise hadn't been rebooted it wouldn't have survived, it had become rather stale and formulaic, it wasn't the only kid on the action block anymore and hadn't been for quite some time.
The reason Hollywood make sequels and keep going back to the well for old ideas, is because they are essentially playing it safe. They often say they want something original, but they don't, what they want is something that they feel the public will pay to see, and that's something tried and tested.

Beside which, Casino Royale was the first James Bond novel written by Ian Fleming (1953), thus it was the obvious one to 'reboot' the motion picture franchise with.

If a Bond film viewer has to think about continuity at all, I'd venture that it's best to consider the situation as being similar to the 'rebooting' of the "Star Trek" franchise, thus that the four most recent Bond movies exist in a somewhat parallel reality to the earlier ones.

Back in the mid-1960s, when Sean Connery as Bond was a new motion picture hero, it was all such great fun...

--C.K.

Thanks for all the comments about Bond and for the Roger Moore spanking. My thoughts on Bond also seem to mirror most I thought Connery was the best and did not really like Moore as Bond esp. MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN as being among the worst in the francise and worst movie ever as well. Although i do have to say all the Bond women were spankable (even Judi Dench in her younger days was spankable) and that is part of the thrill of a Bond movie. I have to also say that i would have loved to have seen any Bond girl otk like in his Saint series that he did at least have 2 otk. Thanks and have a great day.
Jim