There are certain traits that make Bond the superspy that he is. However, they have been changing with every other Bond that came to the screen. I have to admit that each Actor brough something extra to teh role of Bond and it was also attributed to the time and setting that they payed in.
Sean Connery had Russains as the bad guy and his held the basic of Bond very truely. According to me Bond is supposed to be sophisticated, dangerous,and ruthless. Bond was all that when Sean Connery was at the helm.
I see George Lazenby as a good Bond and I truely enjoyed his only outing. I admit that his acting talents left something to be desired but honestly, Roger Moore did not act at his best in half of the movies he did. Lazenby's Bond could have been even greater had his wife been killed in the first half and he turned into an emotionless and ruthless man. Lazenby could act emotionless man with ease and there is no pun intented.
Roger Moore was the Bond for the Hippie era. He was overindulgent as most of the western world was at that time and he was kind of disinterested in Politics. For him the job of 007 was just that - a job. I think want he lacked was decent villains. Most of the Moore Villains were forgettable.
Sean Connery had Russains as the bad guy and his held the basic of Bond very truely. According to me Bond is supposed to be sophisticated, dangerous,and ruthless. Bond was all that when Sean Connery was at the helm. I see George Lazenby as a good Bond and I truely enjoyed his only outing. I admit that his acting talents left something to be desired but honestly, Roger Moore did not act at his best in half of the movies he did. Lazenby's Bond could have been even greater had his wife been killed in the first half and he turned into an emotionless and ruthless man. Lazenby could act emotionless man with ease and there is no pun intented.Roger Moore was the Bond for the Hippie era. He was overindulgent as most of the western world was at that time and he was kind of disinterested in Politics. For him the job of 007 was just that - a job. I think want he lacked was decent villains. Most of the Moore Villains were forgettable.Timothy to most was the perfect Bond. The fact is - he was in the perfect era for Bond. Actually, if you look at it, Bond's charater really belongs in the 80s. An era where the distrust is under the stream and everybody is trying to get along on the face of it. A spy like James Bond finds to many red tapes and takes matter out the different way. His Villains are not maglomaniacs like those of other Bonds.
Pierce to me was the Bond that could have been. He was a serious student of James Bond unlike all the other actors, he actually believed in James Bond. At this time, the producers faltered. They gave Bond the best reboot possible by producing GoldenEye and foillwing it up with TND and TWINE. The mistake was DAD.. The first half of the movie till Bond gets reassigned and gets that wreched car is the greatest in the history of Bond. It is phenomenal. The rest of the Movie was a washout and we all know it.
Craig is young in the role and he seems to be adjusting well, provided the producers do not go overboard with this "Normal" Bond just as they did with "Larger-then-life" Bond.
