I watched an old interview with him from the 1960s on YouTube last week. Paraphrasing from memory: he spoke about meeting Fleming and saying there needed to be a humour injection. That’s one of the biggest changes from the books and I’m glad Connery, Young and the studio went there.
I think the humour is the finishing touch that separates Bond from the rest and makes him magical. Fleming’s YOLT has a reputation for being introspective (which it is), but the original literary Bond is perhaps at his most flippant during that story. The Connery films most definitely played a part.
Since I was introduced to Bond by Sir Roger‘s portrayal, Dalton was my first new Bond - and I immediately loved him for doing his thing. After him I was happy for Brosnan to step in since I had seen him in LIVE WIRE and REMINGTON STEELE and considered him my first choice for the next Bond. Only Craig was someone I had to warm to.
My fav will always be Rog and his acceptance of the absurd nature of his films but I have to agree that Connery is what made Bond more than just another 60s thriller. Pierce was always a touch try hard imo: being Bond should be effortless.
Craig - humanised the character and has a Brando quality about him, plus I love his clothes
Connery - amazing but he’s number 2 for his petulant non performance in YOLT. Though ask me again tomorrow and they may be flipped.
Dalton - such a jolt to my 11 year old self in the cinema, Bond was dangerous and energetic and like the books I was reading.
Moore - although for sure his are the movies I watch most…take from that what you will.
Lazenby - my favourite Bond film but he really should have been helped more to make the performance more than an impersonation of Connery