The BOND we deserve?

Mystery writer P.D. James once admitted that she had watched actor Roy Marsden play her most famous creation, Adam Dalgliesh, so many times - five different TV miniseries had featured the actor as the poetic ...

[Christine Jones]

It's not often that I read an article about the different James Bond's that I agree with the author, but I totally agree with every comment you have made on each one of the actors.
But to answer your question, without doubt, Ian Fleming would have said Pierce was his favourite and I don't care what the fanboys say! Daniel Craig is good, but Pierce he ain't - and I'm not sure he is Bond either.

[Red Wood]

As it happens, Fleming always said he wanted David Niven to play the role, and in "You Only Live Twice" even has Kissy Suzuki tell Bond that Niven was the only person in her brief Hollywood tenure who was nice to her.

A Niven version of Bond would certainly have been interesting, but would have lacked the overwhelming sex appeal of Sean Connery -- and sex appeal is critical to the part.

While Daniel Craig's exploration of Bond's colder and heartless side is fascinating, there is a huge change in the audience I find disturbing. There is a scene in "Dr. No" in which Bond kills a man in cold blood once his usefulness is over. Audiences were appalled, and Bond never killed anyone unnecessarily again -- until "Casino Royale," in which we hear of some demented directive that it takes two kills to earn a 00.

As far as I know no one, including the British government, seemed to take umbrage at the thought of murder being thought of as a solid career move. I find that dangerous and disquieting. It seems that society, as a whole, has come to accept homicide as a day-to-day fact of life. We are not better off for it.

[Drew Brown Bundini]

niven was more suited to do a Simom Templar Saint than a Bond. Niven had the sauve down but could really picture him fighting ninja's in 'You only Live Twice' or wrestling P.Galore in the barn in 'Goldfinger'? Connery was the best. It may have been because most of his movies were based on the original books. By the time Brosnan came along, they were just writing Bond-esque screenplays like the 'World is not enough''. So did Carole Bouquet used to be a man or not?

[John Q Public]

Not an expert by any means but I've seen them all and while Daniel Craig may not be exactly what Ian Fleming had in mind, I think he is an excellent fit for the role and certainly makes a credible attempt. Additionally, I think given all the years Bond has been out there, Craig is held to a "higher standard", not only being compared against what we think Flemming wanted but also all the other Bonds before him, not an easy task.

[Jason]

I can only wonder if the author of this article ever read a Ian Fleming Bond novel. Bond was cold. Bond was sexist. Bond was racist.

So far Craig really shows the cold side. None of the others come close. Finally the new franchise is embracing the character Fleming introduced to us.

[License2Chill]

I know many will disagree but I'll always put Moore above Brosnan. It's a generational thing...

I don't love the new Bond as much as the old Bond but I don't think I'm supposed to. In order for the series to keep going Bond needs to constantly change. In 20 years people will probably be saying the same thing about their new Bond. Point being, Bond is still around in 20 years.

[Bond reality]

A man who kills at the direction of the state. A man who survives only by his willingness to kill first is going to be a cold brute of a man. This is the nature of the work that James Bond does. It is also the nature of the actual work done in espionage. From the begining it is about deceit, and winning at all costs. This is the best, most realistic Bond to date.

[Busey]

wow... you guys are losers....

get a life.

[Bondfan]

The proof is in the box office and the public likes Mr. Craig's version of James Bond. This guy has that "it" quality!

[Nassau Nell]

The problem for the film's producers is that Matt Damon's Jason Bourne is a better Bond than Bond!

I now look forward to the next Bourne movie than the next Bond.

[oh boy]

Red Wood wrote:

As it happens, Fleming always said he wanted David Niven to play the role, and in "You Only Live Twice" even has Kissy Suzuki tell Bond that Niven was the only person in her brief Hollywood tenure who was nice to her.
A Niven version of Bond would certainly have been interesting, but would have lacked the overwhelming sex appeal of Sean Connery -- and sex appeal is critical to the part.
While Daniel Craig's exploration of Bond's colder and heartless side is fascinating, there is a huge change in the audience I find disturbing. There is a scene in "Dr. No" in which Bond kills a man in cold blood once his usefulness is over. Audiences were appalled, and Bond never killed anyone unnecessarily again -- until "Casino Royale," in which we hear of some demented directive that it takes two kills to earn a 00.
As far as I know no one, including the British government, seemed to take umbrage at the thought of murder being thought of as a solid career move. I find that dangerous and disquieting. It seems that society, as a whole, has come to accept homicide as a day-to-day fact of life. We are not better off for it.

Get over yourself, your opinion reads as if James Bond is real and the Brits should be ashamed ... dolt!

[moses]

he's an ugly turd

[Chaz]

Ah. I appreciate your opinion, Author....but I beg to differ.

Roger Moore was simply dissipated, like an aged uncle trying The Twist at Studio 54.

Daniel Craig far surpasses prior Bonds...with Pierce Brosnan second, Timothy Dalton third, George Lazenby fourth, and the self-parodying Sean Connery a distant last.

James Bond was a lot of things, but an incestuous child- rapist he was not, so let's not discuss the current paramour of Soon-Yi Previn.

[Teddy R]

Bond reality wrote:

A man who kills at the direction of the state. A man who survives only by his willingness to kill first is going to be a cold brute of a man. This is the nature of the work that James Bond does. It is also the nature of the actual work done in espionage. From the begining it is about deceit, and winning at all costs. This is the best, most realistic Bond to date.

Quite right, as is Jason from Hicksville a few posts earlier.

This reviewer has clearly never read the Bond novels, and has no real grip at all in the Bond character as Fleming drew him.

The man is a professional killer - a "double 0" - in the employ of the Crown, first, foremost, and always. All else follows from that. Bond's suave and debonair manner is simply a mask, a tool - like his Walther PPK, with which he is equally skilled - that he uses for the same purpose; to liquidate his target and survive the encounter.

The Bond films have been an embarrassing parody of themselves for decades; the effeminate Moores and Brosnans marking the nadir.

What a relief it has been to see Daniel Craig's Bond redeem Her Majesty's Secret Service at long last.

[Fat Black Oprah]

James Bond is a picalo smuggler!

[Buseylovesthecoc k]

Busey wrote:

wow... you guys are losers....
get a life.

And yet here you are, commenting on their posts. Which pretty much makes you as big a loser as they are, you pole-smoker.

[Coolio]

It true Daniel Craig is the Bond we deserve. Including Sean Connery,Roger Moore, Pierce Brosnan & Timothy Dalton except George Lazenby

[LORDV8R]

The writer seems to have done a lot of searching for this article but is by no means a true "Bond ophile".
While initially not considered a good choice, true long time Bond fans around the world feel that Timothy Dalton was much better than originally thought. The scripts for him were not the strongest and the quality of the production was so poor.(Does anyone remember they used what appeared to be Monopoly Money and showed it as US Currency in License to Kill ?) I would rank Bonds in the following order Connery, Craig, Dalton, Moore, Brosnan, Lezenby. Brosnan was overrated as a Bond and his acting was very much over the top.

[Thomas the Tank Engine]

LORDV8R wrote:

The writer seems to have done a lot of searching for this article but is by no means a true "Bond ophile".
While initially not considered a good choice, true long time Bond fans around the world feel that Timothy Dalton was much better than originally thought. The scripts for him were not the strongest and the quality of the production was so poor.(Does anyone remember they used what appeared to be Monopoly Money and showed it as US Currency in License to Kill ?) I would rank Bonds in the following order Connery, Craig, Dalton, Moore, Brosnan, Lezenby. Brosnan was overrated as a Bond and his acting was very much over the top.

Yep, I pretty much agree. Dalton was a much better Bond than he is generally given credit for.

I don't feel I can fairly rank either Connery and Craig over the other - they portray different interpretations of Bond for very different times. Between them, they're the best.

At least we don't have to listen to Bond speaking like a Yank or a pretty-boy stage actor any more!

[Lil Jimmy]

John Anderson writing that Daniel Craig isn't cool is the best endorsement Craig can get.

What would Anderson know about cool?
Was this column really necessary?