Sorry I started with the last page so I saw his reply before your post. Good call. :D

Daniel Craig is the actor that portrays the character of JB most accurately from the books. JB was a bit of a thug.

However the scripts that Craig is in makes it hard to vote for him.

It would be nice if someone made some JB movies that followed the books (the original books)

Had no idea that most of the movies did not mesh with the books. Still, voted for Roger M.

Craig is not a good james bond.

Yes, he is a good action hero, but he is NOT james bond. He can be a good Jason bourn, but james bond.

He simply doesn't ooze "class" that Sean Connery does. Nor does he have the classic James Bond humor. I enjoy laughing at the double entenders that simply flew over my little brother's head.

Mind you, they got many people from the colonies (Australia) to play bond, so I'm waiting for an indian james bond, or a james bond of Hong Kong.

Wot, no Dalton?
 

Nobody's voted for my second-favourite Bond, Timothy Dalton?!

Grrrr... :nope:

Either I didnt click post earlier or my post got deleted. But

WHO VOTED FOR LAZENBY?

I dont like Moore, Dalton or Lazenby.


1. Connery
2. Craig
3. Brosnan

Some of you should be ashamed by your choices. :Kaleun_Sick:

Thank God for you that:
1) I'm not a stalker
2) I'm on anti-homicide pills

:haha: I didn't think Lazenby was that bad, certainly not bad enough to get all the stick he gets. His script was bad though, and that's what didn't help.
Moore I found a bit too cheesy, but again that was the generation the films were being produced in. Brosnan was good, very good in fact, I believe I rated him at number three, and I haven't seen any Craig from start to finish so I can't really judge him.

EDIT: Oh, and I think I should leave this here, brought to my attention by Hunter: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsV509xnOVM

QFT

I just finished reading You only live twice, and here are the things it has in common with the film:
Set in the same country
Same main characters

That's all!:D

Nor did James Bond.

And that's what ruins most of the movies for me. The books are nothing like that. Craig's 'thugishness' is more like the bond of the books than all those sophomorish jokes.

I like Craig and Connery as the Bond character, but Brosnan's movies were more fun to watch.

Exactly. :yeah:

In the books, JB was not this suave wise-cracking superhero.

He was a hired thug. It is not surprising that in the early books the baddies ended up dead. Only when Flemming decided to introduce Blofeld, did the books have a repeating baddie. He was a spy only in the context of using illegal means to an end. In Moonraker, Bond laments being assigned to a normal intelligence duty self-confessing that he really has no aptitude for that sort of work. This was confirmed rather humorously by Gala Brand, a character in the same book. BTW, Moonraker is one of the instances where Bond did NOT get the girl in the end. :D

There is a telling passage in "Goldfinger" where Bond, in an internal monologue, laments that he does not prefer really beautiful woman as they tend to be harder to get. He prefers women with flaws because they were easier.

It is only in the movies that the "Bond Women" were these striking beauties. Well there were some exceptions but they tended to be enemy agents. :D Most of the "Bond women" in the books were attractive but not stunning and they usually had either a physical, mental, or emotional "flaw".

Even Bond's snobbishness concerning "labels" was explained in the first book as being a result of Bond being a man who spends most of his time alone (but not lonely). He has time to take great pains on what he buys and by caring about the brand label helps with being alone.

I much prefer the Bond books to the movies. About every six months I get the yen and break out the series and re-read them. They are awesome reads. But if you have only seen the movies, you will be in for a surprise.

Bond was an anti-hero. He made mistakes. He does things in a rather crude and awkward manner. If you have any knowledge of Intelligence or Investigations, you will spend most of the books facepalming at the mistakes Bond makes.

Subtle he was not.

But they are fun books. I really stopped watching the movies during the Dalton Bronslin period. I watched them when they came on TV, but was not impressed with them.

Too much gadgetry. One of the nice things about the books is that Bond used very little gadgetry and the gadgets he did use were pretty basic stuff.

So that's why I feel that Craig's persona more accurately portrays the Bond from the books. Craig looks a bit thuggish. You can dress Craig up in a tux, but he still looks like he could rip your head off. This "dressed up animal" aspect is what Bond was in the books.

That being said, I find the Craig movies are crap. I actually paid money to watch Quantum in a theater. :/\\!!:/\\!!:/\\!!:/\\!! Never again.

So there is a big difference between

1. What actor portrays the character Bond best
2. Which actor played Bond in your favorite Bond movie.

I might just bust out my Bond books. Its been about six months. :D:D:D

I have to admit that I have only read one of the books. But what I have found after watching all the James Bond movies, is that James Bond is Batman.

You see, both James Bond and Batman are 1%er heroes,
Neither of them have superpowers (James Bond, like Batman relies on his technology)
Both of them are (were?) detectives

But most importantly, James Bond IS NOT GOOD at martial arts. I have enjoyed the fact that Connery's and Moor's Bond was not really good at Kung Fu. He usually gets hit in the back of the head, and passes out.

I actually like that plot device.

Now there is a theory, that James bond is not one guy, but a successive line of agents, and that James Bond and 007 are merely code names.

Like M and Q, when one 007 dies or quits, the next one comes up to replace him.

I like this theory, as it perfectly explains the difference in personality and appearance caused by changing the actors.

Here is a bit of almost interesting James Bond trivia:

Ian Flemming was not happy with his book "The spy who loved me". It was not well received and frankly is not one of the better books in the series.

When Flemming sold the movie rights, it was under the stipulation that no part of the book would appear in the movie. That is one of the reasons why the book and the movie have almost nothing in common other than character names.... that was the agreement by Flemming. :D

So now the tricky question: How many people held the 00 prefix?

And what were their numbers? :D

No, he's a Time-Lord, like the Doctor. :D

Looking at the poll it would appear that Connery has more votes than the rest added together so it would appear he is looking like the peoples choice.

I must concur with some here...the books are far better than the movies but the viewing figures will no doubt point to the fact that whichever you prefer, book or film, the films are extremely popular.

So are 99.9% of books. I understand it's hard to cram complex dialogue and backgrounds into 2 hours (or less!), but you'd think they'd try harder.

There are some though - http://www.shortlist.com/shortlists/...-than-the-book

Good to see Empire Of The Sun there...I wasn't overly impressed with the book.