#08 choose between two options: CONNERY-DALTON-BROSNAN ...or... LAZENBY-MOORE-CRAIG

BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
edited August 2017 in Trivia & Games Posts: 9,020
CHOOSE one of two OPTIONS and explain your decision if you like.

This time: Choose between:

Option One:
Connery-Dalton-Brosnan (12 films)

Option Two:
Lazenby-Moore-Craig (12 films)

Imagine you could only watch one set of films and the other set never ever again.

Done so far:
#01 CR/SP...or...QOS/SF
#03 70s/80s/10s...or...60s/90s/00s
#04 GE/DAD...or...TND/TWINE
#05 TLD/LTK...or...OHMSS

Option One: GF - DAF - TMWTGG - TLD - TWINE - SP ...or
Option Two: TB - TSWLM - AVTAK - LTK - DAD - SF ...or
Option Three: FRWL - OHMSS - LALD - FYEO - GE - QOS ...or
Option Four: DN - YOLT - MR - OP - TND - CR


  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    Tough choice for me, as I regard them both as fantastic actors not just
    As Bond, but I'd have to give Connery the edge ..... Just. ;) as as far as
    Bond actors go, I regard him as " The origin of the species " :D
    I'm certain plenty will disagree. ;)
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited August 2015 Posts: 23,883
    The thing about these kinds of threads for me is they normally aren't even close, and this is one of those cases:

    Sean Connery - by far.

    No one combined the effortless humour/charm (although Moore matched him here I think) with the screen gravitas (again Moore matched him here), with indisputable credibility as an OHMSS agent (Craig/Dalton/Lazenby match him here) with good looks (arguably all the actors) and believable physical capabilities (Craig & Lazenby surpass him here, with Dalton probably on par) as Sean Connery.

    Craig is an excellent James Bond. Very credible in the role (except, from my perspective, in the womanizing/charm areas where he doesn't appear so) and a superb actor.....he's proven that in 3 films.

    However, there is only one king who sits on top of the heap, and that is Sir Sean. Irrefutably, imho. The original, and still the best. ^:)^
  • Sean Connery because his Bond was dangerous, smooth, charming, handsome, confident, intelligent, and also believable. Daniel Craig's Bond is almost as good as Connery but his Bond lacks the charm that Sean Connery had.
  • Posts: 11,189
    Connery because he did this:

  • Posts: 1,435
    Assuming time and year made are not issues and we're just talking persona here,
    is it conceivable that the newly minted, rough edged Bond (Craig) eventually becomes the Bond played by Connery. Again, persona, since the actual physical features of both actors are quite different.

    I like both actors. While their portrayals are different, they are both convincing.
    The reality is Connery is well-suited to those early films, whereas Craig is well-suited for the current Bond direction. Could they have been interchangeable? It doesn't matter, because their films are forty years apart. It didn't happen, it couldn't happen.

    The newer films are much better made. They don't have the gaffs and the sped up film
    that plague the early Bond films. But I give the razor thin edge to Connery as my favorite Bond actor, even though Casino Royale has moved into first place among my favorite Bond films.

  • Posts: 12,506
    This is a very difficult choice! :-?
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,517
    Can't compare, really; Sean Connery helped shape the character of James Bond for film alongside Ian Fleming, which all other actors portray.
    Having said that I prefer to watch Daniel Craig's films more often than not.
    I prefer Connery's Bond, and Craig's Bond films, I suppose.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited August 2015 Posts: 23,351
    There's a lot of those vs. threads

    Indeed, and given how pointless they are, we are constantly hoping that we don't see more of them.

    Plenty of threads where "your favourite Bond" can be discussed. Why single out this pair in a whole new thread?

    You can make about 20 pairs with all 6 Bond actors. Must we have 20 threads just for that? When in so many other threads we have already discussed our favourite Bond about a 100 times?

    Same as with the movie 1 vs movie 2 threads. I'm not even going to calculate how many pairs can be made out of 24 movies. We can litter the place with it. Again, so many existing threads, perfectly suited for the discussion. But because of all those spin-off threads which end up being the same thing over and over again, it becomes messy, no-one can find the right one because, well, there are too many, and so on.

    Please folks, given how many years the forum's been around, understand that almost every conceivable Bond related topic has somehow been given its own thread somewhere already. And if you have something personal to write or to share, reserve one thread for that. One thread for your essays. One thread for the Bond questions. One thread for the versus games, one thread for your fan art. ... That way we avoid two things:

    1) that threads have at most 10 posts in them before dying a slow death
    2) that we have too many threads so it becomes impossible to find the right one for your discussion

    Take the Bond vs Bond thing for example.
    Week 1: Connery vs Lazenby
    Week 2: Connery vs Moore

    and after the final week, everyone can respond freely. You new on this forum? Want to discuss Lazenby versus Dalton? Fine. Add a post and talk all you want. Just don't start a new thread for it.

    How about the "not so loved Bonds"? How many of these "Which is worse: DAD or QOS", "Why is QOS hated?", "Is DAD getting more praise now?", "TMWTGG, MR, AVTAK: which is Moore's worst Bond?" ... threads have we seen already? Be creative please. Instead, prepare one thread: "the lesser loved Bonds" and keep it open for all relevant discussions. Play with it:
    Week 1: name your bottom 5 Bonds
    Week 2: DAF vs TMWTGG
    Week 3: Has your opinion on DAD changed?

    At least then we have a go-to thread. Now we have 50 go-to threads. So people can't decide any more. So they just make ANOTHER one! Can we please avoid that. Just edit the title and stay within the same thread. Help us to organise this forum. We appreciate your input. Our forum has the richest content of all the Bond forums around and all because of your wonderful contributions. All we ask though, is to please help us organise things and keep them organised.

    Thank you.
    Still love you. :D
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    edited August 2015 Posts: 9,020
    I can understand your point to a point.

    So to discuss Craig vs Connery specifically is not possible unless one of the original poster of such thread edit their initial post.
  • SzonanaSzonana Mexico
    Posts: 1,130
    Sean Connery
    He is the perfect Bond : cool,sexy, threatening, great sense of humor and very belivable as a ladies man.
    He can be very fleming style but can also be the more cinematic Bond
  • AntiLocqueBrakesAntiLocqueBrakes The edge
    Posts: 538
    Thanks for the tip on sticking to existing threads if possible. Amazing how much has already been covered here. I've yet to make an original comment or ask an original question. But like NicNac, I'll get you yet. :D
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Szonana wrote: »
    Sean Connery
    He is the perfect Bond : cool,sexy, threatening, great sense of humor and very belivable as a ladies man.
    He can be very fleming style but can also be the more cinematic Bond

    That about sums it up perfectly.
  • royale65royale65 Caustic misanthrope reporting for duty.
    Posts: 4,414
    Well said @DarthDimi
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,640
    This versus That. Surely we can come up with better more substantive posts than that?
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    This versus That. Surely we can come up with better more substantive posts than that?

  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,640
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    This versus That. Surely we can come up with better more substantive posts than that?


    You never miss a trick, pal! :))
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,517
    Just have a "Compare and Contrast" thread for the actors, and a separate one for the films, and weekly or so update it with a new topic (like Daniel Craig vs. Sean Connery) as they do in the James Bond Debate thread, for example.
    Seems pretty simple
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    edited October 2016 Posts: 9,020
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,220
    Other threads like this most certainly got complaints. We've had many duplicate/unnecessary threads pop up over the last few weeks/months; not that I'm taking a dig at the thread you've created, it's just that we've had the same type of threads created numerous times over the years, and it gets out of hand. Just like @DarthDimi stated. You could make endless combinations of threads based on comparing films (we actually had a thread hosted by @00Beast a long while back that went on a simple voting system where we would vote for one of two films every couple of days, but it sizzled out, as well) or actors or directors or what have you, so it is better to maximize such a thing.

    Let me speak with some other mods to decide on whether or not we should do huge threads for these topics, or if we should just resort to the threads of old that have been created a few times over.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    edited August 2015 Posts: 9,020
    I've started 6 so far, the elimination game not counted.

    I like to contribute actively, I believe I have started some good threads.
    But I can see now that it is unwanted or maybe I have to be on this site a certain amount of time to "earn" the right to make new threads.
    I get the point that duplicate threads are an annoyance though.

    I'll restrain myself of opening new threads. It is enough fun to read all the fabulous stuff on this site and comment on that.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    edited October 2016 Posts: 9,020
    CHOOSE ONE OF TWO OPTIONS and explain your decision if you like.

    This time: Choose between keeping CR and SP or QOS and SF
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,586
    I couldn't pick.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2016 Posts: 23,883

    Sorry for the misunderstanding @BondJasonBond006 .

    I'll go with QoS and SF in this instance, and it was a very difficult choice to make.

    Although CR is a brilliant film, I'm not too keen on SP (to put it mildly). Moreover, I like both QoS and SF for different reasons. Both are absolutely stunning to look at (beautiful films). One is heavy on the action and a bit light on character development, and the other is completely the opposite, being very strong on character interaction. So they are a yin and yang as it were. Both films are incredibly well acted as well.

    Most importantly, I like to watch both these films quite often. They are both a breeze to get through. I'm not one who finds SF melodramatic in the slightest. Bardem's camp sees to that.

    So sadly, much as I love CR (and especially Mads, Eva, Caterina, Giancarlo and Jeffrey), I have to sacrifice it, because two is most definitely better than one, no matter how exceptional that 'one' is.

    With deep regret. Over and out.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    I altered the title and the post.
    It was unclear, my mistake.
    Maybe you will edit your post as well and choose anew :) Thank you.
  • Posts: 6,432
    Can I choose CR and QoS if that was the case would be a easy question to answer, though as I really don't like SF I'll choose CR and SP
  • Major_BoothroydMajor_Boothroyd Republic of Isthmus
    Posts: 2,721
    CR/SP -

    CR is my second favourite bond film of all time. I think objectively one could put forward the case that it is the most complete bond film. It is a successful origin story and love story. It has a good twist, is based on a fleming novel and takes important key ingredients for its source novel. Action wise and suspense wise it is brilliant. Overall it is as close to perfect as Bond gets for me.

    I'm not a SP hater - and while it is my least favourite of the Craig era - it wouldn't crack the bottom five of all Bond films for me.

    QoS is middle range bond, SF is top ten, SP is lower middle range Bond. My order for Craig is CR, SF, QoS, SP - therefore I'll happily sit through Spectre, just pardon me if I glaze over a little in the third act.

    But CR is so good, so vital to me - that you could pair it with Die Another Day and I'd still choose that duo - CR is that necessary for me.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423

    I could do without all the unnecessary melodrama in Skyfall, especially, or the unimportant direct sequel continuation of the CR story in Quantum of Solace (despite my like for the film). Spectre could easily follow up on Royale's story and develop from there. At the end of the first, we were promised a fully formed Bond, only to get damaged character dilemmas for two entries (and years of existence enduring it) more and more.

    So, here's my explanation. A James Bond adventure with less drama. The pack is CR and SP.
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,314
    Even though I would really miss Casino Royale, the choice is clear. It must be QoS and SF. Honestly, it just boils down to having two films that I can enjoy anytime versus only one. Simple as that.

    Plus, while both Quantum and Skyfall have a high rewatch value for me, I can't say the same about the other two. CR, as great as it is, is not one I find myself revisiting over and over again. And of course I still haven't seen SP since last November.

    But this is really about how much more I enjoy QoS and SF. An easy call, despite feeling CR's absence.
  • Wow this is hard. Speaking as objectively as possible, I think Casino is the highest quality film, perhaps of the whole series, and I am an avid Spectre fan too. However, I'm going with Quantum and Skyfall, purely on how much I enjoy every scene of both films.

    Before Spectre came out, there was a busy QOS vs SF thread, and it seemed there was almost no one who liked both without some big qualification. One of the ironies of Spectre's release is that now there seem to be many fans of both as these films are no longer the divisive newbie that Spectre now is. Maybe it's always the case with new movies.

    QOS + SF
  • Posts: 6,627
    A cruel choice as i am a usually a defender of QoS, but since i am not enamoured with SF, and CR is my favourite Craig Bond film, and I really like SP , it will have to be
    CR + SP
    Regarding SP, it has really been taken apart by posters here over the last few months, and it even has a thread unfairly comparing it to other Bond films, (and unsurprisingly its not doing too well). But its doing well in that other Film Poll, looks like its at least going to in the top 12!, so maybe it has more fans here than people are letting on!
Sign In or Register to comment.