Hi all! Back to the CBN community after a long time.
Very interesting question here. I personally prefer the pre-reboot era version of Bond. I love CR, and itās one of my favorite Bond films. And I like Bondās character development in that film, itās the perfect start for a new era. However everything after that are my least favorite films in the series, except perhaps for SP which is at least great fun in the first half. But I think the character has become so much less interesting post-CR, which is ironic because these films are often presented as having more depth and character to them.
I think Conneryās version of Bond, being the original and most iconic, is the most enigmatic version of the character. Itās not exactly clear what drives him, what his motivations are, what is behind the armour so to speak. He does show a strong sense for justice and does consider a lot of his colleagues friends. But overall his version of the character is the most stoic of all. Despite that though the character still feels like a very real man in his earlier films, especially DN and FRWL. GF and TB make him a bit more larger than life, but still retain that sense of realism to the character. The version we see in YOLT, and especially DAF seem quite different though. The character seems emotionally disconnected from whatās happening around him, just doing his job while the films overall go for a bit lighter, comedic and over the top style. But I feel this is mostly due to Conneryās performance rather than the writing for the character. He seemed disconnected with the role in both YOLT and DAF, and that is why Bond feels disconnected in-universe. As legendary as the man is, with his performances in DN, FRWL, GF and TB being absolutely legendary and probably the main reason why the franchise became what it is, I think Bondās character in YOLT and DAF are the two weakest versions weāve seen in the pre-reboot era (even though YOLT is a top 10 Bond film for me). But Bond being this larger than life character with all the fantasy around it as established so well in this era is exactly why I love this series, and what is lacking for me in the newer films.
Lazenby is very interesting. In fact I think his version of Bond is the most interesting in my personal opinion (OHMSS also being my favorite Bond film by the way). He starts the film off pretty much just being Conneryās James Bond. But the film gives that version of Bond fascinating character development not seen before, which we see in his relationship with Tracy, M and Draco. And by the time we get to the scene where Bond proposes to Tracy, the character has changed. And OHMSS manages to pull it off that this development feels natural, subtle and towards the end of course heartbreaking. I also think Lazenby feels more real, more relatable perhaps, yet he feels like the James Bond we all know and love from the previous movies (as does the film itself). I think a lot of this is because of Lazenby, who of course was not an experienced actor at the time. Like the fact that not every word comes out as smooth as it does with Connery or Moore, makes him feel more real in a way. Yet he still retains that classic Bond charm, which is probably because of Lazenbyās natural fit for the role. Heās arguably the closest to the character in real life as often pointed out.
Mooreās Bond is I think the most misunderstood of them all (especially by general audiences). I feel like when people think of Mooreās Bond they tend to think of all the outlandish moments in the films (the slide-whistle, double-taken pigeon, space lasers, California girls and stuff like that). Iāve even heard people calling Mooreās era the Batman 66 era of the Bond films, which is absurd. Yes, Mooreās Bond is the funniest. He is the best at the quips and puns. Heck Moore himself is the funniest guy to ever play Bond. But his portrayal of the character is actually very versatile with a lot of depth. And donāt get me wrong I love the emotionally distant, cool, collected Bond. And I love the fun and outlandishness in this era. Again, this is something that I really miss with the newer films. Mooreās version of Bond is mostly the smooth operator, but it seems that in each film his portrayal is just a little different to suit the tone of the film. In LALD heās extremely cool and laid back (not unlike Conneryās later performances). In TMWTGG heās harder-edged and has some moments where you can really see the character shine in deeper ways such as his disgust at Scaramanga when he states Bond and him are very much alike. In TSWLM we see hints of his struggles with his job shine through and we get this subtle but powerful emotional response when Tracy is mentioned. In MR he feels very much larger than life, but at the same time still feels very real around all the outlandishness, and it works perfectly for the film. In FYEO we see the second most down to earth version of the character up to that point (apart from OHMSS of course), with a mostly very serious portrayal. In OP there is this very interesting contrast between the first and the second half of the film. In the first half he seems to be having the time of his life on the mission, which is very entertaining and fun. And then in the second half he is all business, as the film gets more serious in tone as well. The clown scene is often wrongly framed as being campy, when in reality it is actually a pretty intense scene, especially regarding Bondās character. AVTAK does pretty much the same, in the first half itās Bond enjoying what he does (especially in the St. John Smythe scenes) and then in the second half he is all business and serious. I absolutely love Mooreās characterization of Bond. And I feel that if you watch Connery-Lazenby-Moore as one clear timeline you actually get a fascinating character development. Conneryās Bond starts off a bit more serious, though very enigmatic and emotionally completely shut off. Then we get to Lazenby where we see the character change and consider a different life, which obviously ends in tragedy. Then we get to Moore who goes back to being the emotionally shut off smooth operator again, but occasionally shows these subtle hints of struggle and past tragedy. And itās exactly that subtlety which makes these moments so interesting and powerful. For me, Bond is at his best when he feels like a fantasy character, mysterious, but with these occasional subtle deeper character momentsā¦and of course just doing his job as a selfless hero.
Dalton is kind of a soft reboot for the character, but I would say that it also continues what John Glen already did with FYEO-OP-AVTAK for the character. Daltonās Bond is a man doing his job, but there is more visible intensity and more struggle there. And obviously LTK takes this to the extreme. I think LTK goes too dark and lacks that classic Bond charm, but I think Bondās characterization here is on point. And at this point in the franchise Bond going rogue still was fresh, creative and interesting.
Brosnanās Bond as said many times combines a lot of what previous actors did, which is logical given the franchiseās already long history and this being a clear continuation of that. And in my opinion he does this perfectly, making his portrayal of Bond probably the most complete of all, while also giving it his own touch with his wonderful charm. Heās mostly the indestructible suave spy, but at the same time heās perhaps the most emotionally accessible. He does feel a bit more enigmatic in GE, and when you get to the more emotional moments such as when he finds out about Trevelyanās betrayal or the beach scene, itās very powerful. Then in the other films we get even more hints of Bond behind the armour, yet heās always that same smooth secret agent we all know and love. Heās still that ultimate male fantasy. What I love about the Brosnan era is that the emotion is done subtly. It doesnāt abandon the classic charm and the formula, but gives it an interesting new twist, while going even more over the top with the action (another thing I really enjoy about this era). Itās a lot of fun, and the more āāpersonalāā angles to the stories feel more natural and serve the story (except perhaps in TND with Paris, which feels a bit forced in my opinion, though still interesting). And Brosnanās Bond always seems to be a man that lives in the moment. There are some instances when you can really see what he feels, yet heās also able to quickly move on without it seeming to haunt him. And this to me is very crucial to Bondās character in my opinion. He shouldnāt get stuck in the past and be an emotional mess all the time, which of course leads me toā¦.
The Craig era. Again, CR is the perfect start. It has all the charm of a classic Bond film, though itās obviously something very different. Itās not unlike OHMSS, which at this point I really welcomed for the series. But here is the thing, I donāt want every Bond film to be a CR, just like I donāt want every Bond film to be an OHMSS. Bond doubting if he really should continue the life he has chosen as a 00 agent, seeing the consequences his job has on him physically, the whole development of the character throughout the film with that final scene being the moment where we can say āāheās now the James Bond we all know and loveāā. Itās really fascinating and very well done here in my opinion. But I think the producers learnt a lot of wrong lessons from this film. It essentially made every Bond film after that into another CR (but now instead of things becoming personal because of what happens in the film, itās always about the past coming back to haunt Bond). QOS, Bond is not at his best at the beginning, he is confused, conflicted, MI6 basically fires him, the film is all about his personal (psychological) problems and past, yet seems to develop into the Bond we all know and love towards the endā¦heās now really James Bond. SF, same thing basically, he is not at his best, confused, conflicted, he quits like a loser when he has just failed his mission, the film is about his personal (psychological) problems and past (as well as Mās), yet he seems to develop into the Bond we all know and love towards the endā¦heās now really James Bond. Then we get to SP, and this one is actually somewhat the exception to the rule as I would call it āāCR formula in reverseāā. Here he actually is the James Bond we all know and love from the beginning throughout most of the runtimeā¦until his evil step brother comes back to haunt him and he wants to quit (for the 3rd time in 4 movies!). Then NTTD goes back to doing another CR, but this time it ends with a very convoluted plot which makes no sense until the poor man is finally put out of his misery. The thing is, Bond is no longer a larger than life character here, heās no longer a man on the job, the films are no longer fun, itās no longer about going into some part of the world for an adventure, the films hold back on some of the seriesā signature aspects (such as the use of the Bond theme). Itās all about Bond himself and his personal emotional problems. Heās the center of the universe. We can see how miserable he is all the time, his emotions are on full display, he cries multiple times throughout the films (which used to be something shocking when it happened in OHMSS and also in CR), the villains are more obsessed about him rather than their goal and they try for him to be more like a regular human being instead of that larger than life enigmatic character. Itās exactly the opposite from what made me love this series in the first place.
So for me personally (and again this is just my personal opinion), for the future I do hope the producers understand what made Bond so appealing in the first place and go back to the pre-reboot era formula. I miss it.
And just for some context, I am from 1994. So Brosnan was Bond around the time I became a fan and introduced me to the series with GE. Though Craigās films are the only ones I have seen on the big screen. And I do hold some fond memories of going to the cinema for these films, even if the films didnāt always meet my expectations.
