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?
I’m sorry. I really am. Pierce is one of the coolest, suavest, most stylish men ever, there’s no doubt.
But Sean Connery is Bond. There’s no other way it can be.
Pierce comes in close second. 
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.
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.
I agree.
It’s true the books and the films are slightly different, but Bond is not the same English gentleman as Bertie Wooster. :eek:
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.)
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.
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.
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.
My favorite is Connery.
Ian Fleming’s first choice for the movie role, however, was Roger Moore (according to IMDB.)
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.
Hrm. I wasn’t even thinking of Bourne when I composed my previous post but now that you mention him, I’m wondering if it might’ve been subconscious.
So, no Damon as Bond then. More Bourne. (Well, one more. Still don’t want him typecast.)
Here is how I see it.
Connery is the athletic Bond.
Brosnan is the gadget Bond.
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.
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.
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.
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. 
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.
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.
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.
Well said. I agree with all of this. I think Brosnan was perfect casting, and did wonders with the role. Connery was a good choice too, but I agree many people just give him top ranking because he was first.
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.