|
|
|
|
#1
12-31-2004, 10:46 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I can't be the only one who thinks Pierce is the best Bond, can I?
Seriously, he's the epitome of the suave, unflappable British gentleman who still looks like he can kick ass and bed enemy agents at will. After having finally read Dr. No, I can see how Connery was a good choice, but seriously, if you're going to be making a sophisticated superspy why have a guy who would be better as an action hero?
|
| Advertisements | |
|
|
|
|
#3
12-31-2004, 11:01 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I still like Dalton.
How 'bout them apples? Moore, however, ranks a distant last, after Peter Sellers, David Niven, and Woody Allen as Jimmy Bond.
|
|
#4
12-31-2004, 11:30 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Chairman Pow, I find myself in the unaccustomed rhetorical position of being able to see someone else's point. I don't agree with you, but a hypothetical alternate universe in which I did agree with you would not be unrecognizably dissimilar from this one.
|
|
#5
12-31-2004, 12:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
It's true the books and the films are slightly different, but Bond is not the same English gentleman as Bertie Wooster.  Bond has a vicious streak, which Connery had too. [cultured upperclass twit voice ON] Look here, Goldfinger. Your uneducated thugs have damaged the lining of my suit. Really - it's simply not good enough! Now what were you saying - do you expect me to chat?[cultured upperclass twit voice OFF] No, Mr. Wooster, I expect you to die! (Jeeves suddenly appears and save the situation.)
|
|
#6
12-31-2004, 12:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Brosnan's the top Bond in my opinion too. Then Connery. Dalton and Moore? Eh.. they don't exist to me.
You know who would make a great Bond if he were British and darker? Matt Damon. Not that he should be even if he could though.. I like him too much and don't want him pigeonholed but he'd still be badass in the role.
|
|
#7
12-31-2004, 12:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I can see your point. Seems to me he fits the physical description in the book better, for a start. But for me the problem with Pierce being the best Bond is just...Connery got all the best books. I hate post-Fleming Bond.
|
|
#8
12-31-2004, 12:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
George Lazenby, goddamnit! George Lazenby!
Okay, although Connory is the uber-Bond, on one hand I sort of view Sean and Pierce as apples and oranges and almost like them equally, but in different ways and for different reasons. Still, if made to choose I gotta go with Sean.
|
|
#10
12-31-2004, 01:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I grew up with Moore, but I am with you on Pierce.
I think Christian Bale would make a good new bond. Assuming his other commitments don't get in the way. BTW they HAVE to bring bond into the 21st centry. Less 'judo-chop' style fighting. He needs to be more like Jason Bourne.
|
|
#12
12-31-2004, 01:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Here is how I see it.
Connery is the athletic Bond. Brosnan is the gadget Bond.
|
|
#13
12-31-2004, 01:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Another for Dalton
Mr. Dalton was the best Bond. He actually went and did his homework prior to the his first film. Not his fault that the producers chose an unplayable second film for him.
Mr. Brosnan is a fine actor, fine enough perhaps for his career to survive playing Bond. The next Bond shold be Adrian Paul. He's got the height, the looks, and he can access his inner psychopath when required. Colin Farell should not even be considered by un-stoned people.
|
|
#14
12-31-2004, 01:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Connery was okay, but he was too ... fuzzy-edged to fit my image of Bond. And Brosnan and Moore are/were too smooth and cultured.
Dalton is the man. (I have to admit I haven't seen Lazenby recently enough to judge.) Dalton was the only one of them to have the right hard, dangerous edge that Bond needs.
|
|
#15
12-31-2004, 02:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Oh, I forgot about Moore. I liked him, although he seemed too nice-unclish to be a stonecold killer.
Dalton? I only saw the first one (License to Kill?) once and remember staring at his eyebrows for the whole movie. It was quite unnerving to my 10 year-old self. If you want to get a dude to try to act entirely by furrowing his brows (and in the same manner for every emotion), I suggest you call either Richard Gere or WWF's Carlito Carribbean Cool. I don't think I've ever seen a Colin movie, but between him and Carlito, I'd have to go with Carlito. He's fake suave enough to get him out of most sticky situations and for everything else he could call his goomba cousin Jesus.
|
|
#16
12-31-2004, 03:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I liked Roger Moore, too, but it's hard to say why. (I had a favorable impression of The Spy Who Loved Me and The Man With the Golden Gun, if that helps.)
Brosnan definitely exudes the whole "suave" vibe, as does Connery, but Brosnan doesn't have the trauma-inducing chest hair, so he gets a slight edge. 
|
|
#17
12-31-2004, 07:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Brosnan has been the best, IMO. I invite those who think Connery was the best to try and think of the character without thinking of who played Bond first, then see if you still favor Connery. I honestly think Connery is people's favorite because he was the first, but Brosnan is damn perfect in the role.
Not to mention, Brosnan saved the franchise after a string of box office failures. All of his Bond movies have grossed over $100 million in the U.S.
|
|
#18
12-31-2004, 08:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I never thought I'd like Brosnan but I think he's been an exceptionally good 007. Just a shame how timing and circumstances will keep us from seeing him in the role again. I'm an old school Connery fan but Brosnan fills his handmade shoes admirably.
Moore was the suckiest bond. Too prissy and a caracature of what an American redneck think a refined Brit shold act like. I thought Dalton had the capability to be an excellent Bond but he came to the role at the wrong age. Looking back at his movies I can't keep my eyes of his damn hairline. Would it be wrong to play 007 in a toupe? Colin Farell? Meh. After seeing Ewan McGregor's Playboy lifestyle character in Down With Love I think he could do the job.
|
|
#19
01-02-2005, 10:39 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I remember hearing some talk a while back about Clive Owen as the next Bond. He's got the toughness, and the Connery CrueltyTM, but he might have a little of what I thought of as Dalton's major drawback: He's not as convincing as the suave seductive playboy.
I gather he didn't want the role, which seems too bad.
|
|
#20
01-02-2005, 02:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Does anyone have any good info about why Brosnan was dropped? He's done a few chat shows here in the UK that make it clear he was up for doing another one, and that negotiations were going smoothly until... suddenly... they weren't. And he doesn't know any more than that. Anyone have any good scoop? We'll settle for interesting but unsubstantiated rumour, speculation and quasi-slanderous made up stuff.
|
|
#21
01-02-2005, 04:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#22
01-02-2005, 04:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yep. Pierce Brosnan is the best Bond. Connery is a close second. Then I'd have to go with Dalton, Lazenby, then Moore.
Although, I think Moore suffered unfairly from being Bond during the era when everything was high camp. Many of those movies were just so incredibly silly (Moonraker, anyone?) that they came off almost as Zucker brothers productions. If Moore had been given darker, more serious films, he might have been a great Bond.
|
|
#23
01-02-2005, 04:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
After watching him on the Ellen Show right after the announcement was made, I got the impression that Brosnan thought that the role belonged to him. In the interview, which was amazingly dull, Brosnan said that the Fleming Family, who owns the Bond trademark (or whatever it is) decided to go in a new direction. That, IMO, was double speak for "They wouldn't pay me what I thought I deserved." I could be wrong, but that's the impression I got.
I do like Brosnan in the role, much more than I like Dalton or Moore. Brosnan is terribly handsome and dashing, but IMO he doesn't have the twinkle in his eye that Connery had. My ideal man, above all else, has a ripping good sense of humor. Brosnan, for all his great qualities, lacks the ability to laugh at himself. The next Bond? Hugh Grant. 
|
|
#25
01-02-2005, 05:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Brosnan could've been the best. But Connery still is. Lemme explain.
When I saw Brosnan in "Tailor of Panama", he blew me away. That's exactly the way I've always pictured Bond - a total asshole caring about himself as priority number one and his duties as a distant second - and then only because they let him continue live the way he does, in some shadowland between good and bad, right and wrong. The malice Brosnan projected, his carelessness combined with mischief for its own sake. I just loved it. And I could easily see him do that in a Bond movie. Problem is EON production is no longer interested in the character or the stories. They're into product placements, tie ins, VGs, soundtracks, shoes and glasses. So they don't want anything to disturb the anachronistic, cardboard character they've created. A shame. It could've been good. Any Bond fan should see ToP to check out what Brosnan could've brought to the part.
|
|
#26
01-02-2005, 06:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I am not a big Bond fan, I only watch the movies when they come on television. That said, I always thought Brosnan was best suited for the role. If they allowed Moore to play Bond until he was very old and wrinkley and completely unbelievable in the role then they should at least give Pierce another 10 years to play Bond, at least he's still sexy.
|
|
#28
01-02-2005, 06:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#29
01-02-2005, 06:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#30
01-02-2005, 09:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#31
01-02-2005, 09:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#32
01-02-2005, 09:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
George Lazenby, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton, and Pierce Brosnan:
Actors who have played James Bond. Some better than others. Sean Connery is James Bond.
|
|
#33
01-02-2005, 09:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Connery was the best Bond. Maybe my opinion is shaped by the fact that he was first. I don't care. I like Dalton and Brosnan about equally in the role, but the two Dalton movies were pretty weak except for the lead. On Her Majesty's Secret Service is sort of the opposite, the movie is good and sort of carries Lazenby along with it. My biggest issue with the James Bond franchise is that I would love to see the movies ditch the megaton explosions and uber-gadgets and just let Bond be Bond. When I think back on the best moments from the movies, it's Robert Shaw holding a gun on Sean Connery in a train compartment, or Gert Frobe gloating about his own cleverness. My favorite scene in Goldeneye is when Bond first meets Jack Wade in St. Petersburg. (Ex-KGB type. Tough mother. Big guy with a limp. Name's Zukovsky. Valentin Dmitrovitch Zukovsky? Yeah, you know him? I gave him the limp.) There's no tension in jumping a motorcycle over a helicopter. Hell, give me an invisible car and Bad Guy homing missiles and I could save the world myself.
|
|
#34
01-02-2005, 11:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Strangely, I've only seen one of his Bond movies...and I absolutely agree.
I'd seen most of the Connery Bonds before (movies a large group of people can agree on), and couldn't quite get into the whole thing. But there's a moment in Goldeneye with Pierce in a tank. And while watching it I thought "that's all I've ever wanted in my entire life." And the Bond thing made sense.
|
|
#35
01-03-2005, 12:07 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
David Niven!
(Seriously though ... Sean Connery. He's the only actor who's captured the BRUTISHNESS of the role. Bond isn't just suave sophistication. He needs to be a THUG at heart. What makes the character interesting is this constant tension between civilization and wildness. Connery is the only one who got it right.)
|
|
#36
01-03-2005, 12:15 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
As for being brutish... It's been a long time since I saw Dr. No, but wasn't there a scene where he threatens to torture a bad guy unless he told him what he wanted to know - in which case he'd kill him quickly. And he did go on to kill him. Can't see the new Bonds doing that.
|
|
#38
01-06-2005, 05:24 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Just my opinion; I do not claim to be objective:
1. Brosnan. Suave, sly, dangerous. I was devastated when he couldn't get out of his Remington Steele contract. 2. Moore. He had the role when I was going through puberty; that's when my impression of Bond was formed. 3. Connery. I can't get past the way the older films are slower and talkier, and therefore, so were his performances. 4. Lazenby. Kinda scary, but if he'd played it more than once, he might be remembered more favorably. 5. Dalton. Meh. Next up: Hugh Jackman? Pleeeeeeeze? Failing that, I could dig Ewan McGregor. Hugh Grant? Not even.
|
|
#39
01-06-2005, 05:50 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
As for Bourne - there's no real point in comparing the two characters. Bourn is the anti-Bond. While Bond is a superstar, Bourne is an anonymous killer, a face in the crowd. I have a feeling that if actual superspy assasins exist, they're grey men like him, rather than suave seducers. A real killer doesn't go gambling in Monte Carlo - he goes undercover as a dealer or a busboy.
|
|
#40
01-06-2005, 09:57 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
But James Bond is more. He's, essentially, a bastard. Casually ruthless and callous when he needs to be, and Connery was 100% convincing as a scrapper. He didn't need to overemote to sense a real ice-cold killer beneath the glamorous surface. PB (who's the next best Bond, IMHO) just can't capture that, and that's what prevents him from being the best. Well, that and his movies have been largely crap. I will concede that Connery benefits from being the first in that he had some of the best stories before the franchise became a virtual self-parody, mired in boring formula.
|
|
#41
01-06-2005, 10:46 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Furthermore, these are the only two true Bonds.
|
|
#42
01-06-2005, 11:41 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I disagree. IMHO Brosnan also managed to mix the suave with the baddass. But Connery had to do it without the high-tech effects. Dalton was more a thug in a nice tux and Moore was basically a fopish dork.
|
|
#43
01-06-2005, 12:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
A good James Bond needs to look not merely comfortable, but completely at home and even gleeful in certain disparate environments:
1: Gambling at Monte Carlo 2: Seducing a countessa 3: Driving a car at ridiculously high speed for the road/terrain, preferably while being chased 4: Getting into a no-holds-barred fistfight 5: Shooting everyone and everything in sight 6: Performing some incredibly contrived and idiotic but dangerous and cool looking stunt to either infiltrate or escape So let's compare the men against the situations. Sean Connery: 1,2,3,4,5 George Lazenby: 3,4 Roger Moore: 1,2,3 Timothy Dalton: 3,4,5,6 Pierce Brosnan: 1,2,3,4,5,6 So to my mind, while for most of the picture, Connery and Brosnan are equals, Brosnan's ability to many of his own stunts gives him a slight edge. Very slight, in that the most outrageous ones were done by stuntmen for both of these actors. Beyond that, it's just a matter of taste. That taste is, I suspect, strongly influenced by whether you saw Connery as Bond first.
|
|
#44
01-06-2005, 01:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I think Brosnan is great, but he's been saddled with some pretty bad movies. I just watched The World is Not Enough last night, and DAMN but that's a silly silly movie. Apart from the fact that it features Denise Richards as a nuclear physicist (and you could argue that that's plenty right there), I can remember at least three times off the top of my head where Bond outran an explosion that went off right behind him.
I think if Brosnan had done some of the earlier movies, he'd have a better reputation.
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
