› ›

Connery voted best Bond in Vanity Fair poll. Journalist opinion differs.

slyfoxslyfox
edited February 2012 in Actors Posts: 940
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/shocker-sean-connery-voted-best-james-bond-60-minutes-vanity-fair-poll-article-1.1030234

This article shows Connery predictably came out on top of a '60 minutes'/Vanity Fair poll by American readers, well ahead of Pierce, Roger and the rest...

However, perhaps more interestingly, this journalist offers much praise to Lazenby and Craig's performances and controversially, is openly critical of Connery and the others.

«1

Comments

  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    edited February 2012 Posts: 13,350
    Odd results there, what were those people on? The age and range of people would be interesting to know and may show us why the results are that way.
  • Jones_The_BondJones_The_Bond
    Posts: 344
    Hmmm......every opinion is valid, but perhaps I could give more credence to this particular journalist's anti-Connery comments, if he could get his facts straight. Roger Moore's SIX outings as Bond? Has one of them been erased from existence? (insert your least favourite Rog outing, here).

    Connery is King. I don't think Lazenby or Craig (at this stage) can touch the great man's Bond.
  • GermanladyGermanlady
    Posts: 6,601
    I really don't give a 60 minutes poll much credit. This must be one of the few polls, where Pierce is ahead of DC or DC as low as this...and there have been many, as you know..so... :O
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,894
    "Timothy Dalton’s pair of ’80s films deserve their weak spot in the poll..."


    It was a that point I stopped reading.
  • SaintMarkSaintMark
    Posts: 7,653
    The funny thing is that every time a poll is taken and the result doesn't suit some people it is a bad poll or the ones who took part in the poll don't know sh*t.

    I do not mind the polls, most funny is how after so many years Connery does always play a large part in such polls. It means that his person still means something big when we talk about 007.

    The journalist who wrote the piece is a mediocre person for finding his own taste more important than actually looking at what this result might mean in the light it has been taken.

    Dalton and Craig have yet to achieve the strenght that a Connery & Moore have added toi the franchise.
  • 6of16of1
    Posts: 63
    SaintMark wrote:

    The journalist who wrote the piece is a mediocre person for finding his own taste more important than actually looking at what this result might mean in the light it has been taken.

    Well, in all fairness it has to be said that it was most likely done as a bit of a filler, without much passion or any other relevance other than a Bond production currently in the works. Minimal research and a mix of facts - the poll - and opinion - the guy's bias. Not a highlight of the trade.

  • DoubleOhhSevenDoubleOhhSeven
    Posts: 1,778
    MajorDSmythe wrote:
    "Timothy Dalton’s pair of ’80s films deserve their weak spot in the poll..."


    It was a that point I stopped reading.

    I second that. Dalton deserves alittle more respect than that.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 12,837
    Good to see there are still brosnan fans, I thought I might've been one of the last ones.

    But "daltons films deserved their weak spot"....... The best bond ever does not deserve a weak spot. He deserves the top spot.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 12,837
    SaintMark wrote:
    The funny thing is that every time a poll is taken and the result doesn't suit some people it is a bad poll or the ones who took part in the poll don't know sh*t.

    I do not mind the polls, most funny is how after so many years Connery does always play a large part in such polls. It means that his person still means something big when we talk about 007.

    The journalist who wrote the piece is a mediocre person for finding his own taste more important than actually looking at what this result might mean in the light it has been taken.

    Dalton and Craig have yet to achieve the strenght that a Connery & Moore have added toi the franchise.

    When I was a kid in the late 80s timothy dalton and bruce willis were the coolest people on the planet. I think dalton added alot of strength to the franchise.
  • licensetoforumlicensetoforum
    Posts: 371
    I'm glad I am not alone in my defense of Dalton. I know if production wasn't held up for six years after LTK, and he had one atleast one more movie he get a little more respect.
  • 6of16of1
    Posts: 63
    Dalton should have seen at least two more films. A shame the moneymen didn't support him.
  • The_ReaperThe_Reaper
    Posts: 1,092
    I'd like to see the whole poll.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    edited March 2012 Posts: 28,694
    Bow to Sean like the good little boys and girls you are. Do it now!
    ^:)^ ^:)^ ^:)^ ^:)^ ^:)^ ^:)^ ^:)^ ^:)^ ^:)^ ^:)^ ^:)^ ^:)^ ^:)^ ^:)^ ^:)^
  • Baltimore_007Baltimore_007
    Posts: 5,634
    Connery was a very good Bond but I won't bow to the man

    If I look at it now you could say hand on heart that maybe ALL the Bonds could ideally be the best, Lazenby included if you stop to think about it for a while

    Moore, for all his nonsense and antics later on, did give us a very good Bond at times and it's easy to see why some have him down as a personal favorite

    Brosnan, same again, grease monkey and too americanized sometimes, but then again every now and again an almost epitome of Bond greatness, but in short supply, he was up there with Dalton and Connery for a short time

    Craig, bit of a hot head and roughneck sometimes, but it's clearly visible why some may have him down as Best Bond ever, at times in Royale and, QOS to a lesser extent, he showed some real Fleming qualities and seemed the very essence of 007 now and again

    Dalton, well no need to elaborate, easily visible Bond characteristics, could be the best ever

    Lazenby, OK only did the one picture, George gets the shittiest end of the stick from most people and probably the least Bond like of the lot but some may see him as a possible top candidate and who actually really enjoyed his one appearance

    Connery, once again, no need to say anything really, between 1962-65 he was easily a most super James Bond, even if Goldfinger was disappointing. You watch Doctor No and From Russia With Love and the man seems the very epitome of the Fleming character, he only went by the wayside in later releases


    All said, I feel as always, Dalton first and Connery on his coat tails, i.e. Best Bond

  • 007RogerMoore007RogerMoore
    Posts: 1,082
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:
    Bow to Roger like the good little boys and girls you are. Do it now!
    ^:)^ ^:)^ ^:)^ ^:)^ ^:)^ ^:)^ ^:)^ ^:)^ ^:)^ ^:)^ ^:)^ ^:)^ ^:)^ ^:)^ ^:)^

    You mixed the names of Roger and Sean, 0BradyM0Bondfanatic7. I fixed it for you.
  • doubleohdaddoubleohdad
    Posts: 1,146
    Roger Moore at 9%.

    Sounds about right.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,034
    It's controversial, but at least it's not the same old story. Nice to see some love for Lazenby in the article, and support for Brosnan in the poll itself. The comments about Dalton are out of order though, both of his films were great.
  • FromCanadaWithLoveFromCanadaWithLove Canada
    Posts: 612
    I think people like Connery because he was first. If he was the third or fourth Bond, I don't think people would like him nearly as much. The vast majority of viewers haven't read the Books, so Connery's original impression lasted.
  • identigraphidentigraph
    Posts: 1,052
    These polls and features always come out with the same cliche's, GF best Bond film, Dalton's films were rubbish, who is George Lazenby etc etc, none of it matters, I wonder if some of these people have ever even watched a Timbo entry?
  • jaguar007jaguar007
    Posts: 638
    FromCanadaWithLove wrote:
    I think people like Connery because he was first. If he was the third or fourth Bond, I don't think people would like him nearly as much. The vast majority of viewers haven't read the Books, so Connery's original impression lasted.

    I disagree. I think the fact that Connery is Connery has something to do with it. There is no deneying that Connery has a charisma and star power that none of the other actors that have portrayed Bond really have. Even apart from Bond, he is one of the most memorable and charsimatic actors who have ever graced the silver screen.
  • Lancaster007Lancaster007 Shrublands Health Clinic, England
    edited August 2012 Posts: 1,874
    identigraph wrote:
    These polls and features always come out with the same cliche's, GF best Bond film, Dalton's films were rubbish, who is George Lazenby etc etc, none of it matters, I wonder if some of these people have ever even watched a Timbo entry?

    Before I joined in on these forums I thought I was the only one who thought Dalton was a great (best in my opinion) Bond. Glad to see that among real Bond fans the man has a lot of respect and followers. I remember driving back from Plymouth's Drake cinema after having seen TLD and thinking 'we've got Bond back.'

    p.s. Connery will always have a high spot in Bond, because he was the first.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 12,837
    identigraph wrote:
    These polls and features always come out with the same cliche's, GF best Bond film, Dalton's films were rubbish, who is George Lazenby etc etc, none of it matters, I wonder if some of these people have ever even watched a Timbo entry?

    People today who probably haven't even seen his films just assume Dalton was crap because he only fif two films. Shame, because he was pretty popular when he was Bond.
  • SaintMarkSaintMark
    Posts: 7,653
    thelivingroyale wrote:
    identigraph wrote:
    These polls and features always come out with the same cliche's, GF best Bond film, Dalton's films were rubbish, who is George Lazenby etc etc, none of it matters, I wonder if some of these people have ever even watched a Timbo entry?

    People today who probably haven't even seen his films just assume Dalton was crap because he only fif two films. Shame, because he was pretty popular when he was Bond.

    NO he was NOT.

  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 12,837
    SaintMark wrote:
    thelivingroyale wrote:
    identigraph wrote:
    These polls and features always come out with the same cliche's, GF best Bond film, Dalton's films were rubbish, who is George Lazenby etc etc, none of it matters, I wonder if some of these people have ever even watched a Timbo entry?

    People today who probably haven't even seen his films just assume Dalton was crap because he only fif two films. Shame, because he was pretty popular when he was Bond.

    NO he was NOT.

    Not sure when you live but where I lived lots of people liked him as Bond, even in the 90s with the gap between films. And his films didn't do too bad box office wise and critics liked him, so yeah, I think he was pretty popular.
  • Baltimore_007Baltimore_007
    Posts: 5,634
    Dalton's two releases took nearly 350,000,000 worldwide at the box office, not a bad little return, but his second release was always up against it, such with the other blockbuster events of that summer, there really was some tough competition that year

    I don't care who berates Dalton, he was always my favorite of the six actors. Maybe Connery between 1962-63 was better, but it's hard sometimes to seperate these two as closest to the original Fleming character. Said it before and will say it again, but such a pity that Dalton didn't get another opportunity to play Bond again, while Moore and Connery towards the end of their tenures embarrassed themselves or participated in some awful entries when they were evidently too old for the part, legal issues prevented another Dalton release (or two) when he was still capable and able to do a fine job as Bond, but it's no good crying over spilt milk
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    FromCanadaWithLove wrote:
    I think people like Connery because he was first. If he was the third or fourth Bond, I don't think people would like him nearly as much. The vast majority of viewers haven't read the Books, so Connery's original impression lasted.

    That makes literally no sense. A person's position in the timeline of the character lends no credence to how good they are or how they are favored by the public. Sean is remembered as the hands down best because he was. Nobody can be as suave, as ruthlessly cold and calculating like him. You saw a rough history in his eyes and how he went about his work, and why he is the blueprint for all that follow in his magnificent footsteps.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 12,837
    Baltimore_007 wrote:
    Dalton's two releases took nearly 350,000,000 worldwide at the box office, not a bad little return, but his second release was always up against it, such with the other blockbuster events of that summer, there really was some tough competition that year

    Exactly. But then you get people on here who just ignore that argument and say "so what, it's Bond, it should've done well anyway", etc.

    But lets look at it this way. LTK was up against Indiana Jones and Batman. The latest Bond film was QOS. If QOS had gone up against The Dark Knight, or Indiana Jones 4, then that would've had some serious competition and not made as much money.

    Plus, LTK didn't do too badly. It was just America where it underperformed.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:
    FromCanadaWithLove wrote:
    I think people like Connery because he was first. If he was the third or fourth Bond, I don't think people would like him nearly as much. The vast majority of viewers haven't read the Books, so Connery's original impression lasted.

    That makes literally no sense. A person's position in the timeline of the character lends no credence to how good they are or how they are favored by the public. Sean is remembered as the hands down best because he was. Nobody can be as suave, as ruthlessly cold and calculating like him. You saw a rough history in his eyes and how he went about his work, and why he is the blueprint for all that follow in his magnificent footsteps.

    Not sure this argument is so cut and dried. Of course the timeline doesnt alter your ability in the role but swap Sean and Broz around and would there be such a gulf in class?

    Pierce would now benefit from having no one to be compared to, the early scripts which were largely faithful to Fleming and would have Cubby and Harry to guide him whereas Sean would have to spout P&Ws inept dialogue, have the publics expectations after Pierce, Laz, Rog and Tim to contend with and survive poor decisions in casting and directors by Babs and MGW.

    I would say put any of the actors in DAD and it would still be a disaster. Even Rog would struggle to make you suspend your disbelief as you are happy to do in MR.

    If you swap Broz's and Sean's tenures around I think it conceivable that the gap between them in terms of who is best would be significantly closer. Its even possible Pierce would be regarded as the best. The quality of films in an actors reign helps to determine how he is generally regarded over history hence:

    Sean: 3 great films, 3 decent and 1 rubbish - 1st
    Laz: Only 1 film but a great one so he is held in higher regard than if that one had been TMWTGG or DAD irrelevant of his performance.
    Rog: 2 (almost) great, 2 decent, 2 average and 1 rubbish - someone who did a solid job but not everyones cup of tea.
    Tim: 1 great and 1 decent - tragically cut down in his prime.
    Broz: 1 (almost) great, 2 average 1 abortion - probably bottom.
    Dan: 1 great and 1 average - promises a lot but if SF is another DAD then how will he be remembered?

    At the end of the day after GE Pierce was pretty badly served for scripts but I think if anything his performances got stronger as he went on but no one really remembers that and like a football manager he carries the can for his films being less than brilliant.
  • EllipsisEllipsis
    Posts: 20
    Maybe Sean is classed as the best is because he had more of the raw material to use from Fleming. Dr No, From Russia With Love, Goldfinger and Thunderball were more or less like the books. Laz had On Her Majesty's Secret Service, again so close to the book. Craig's Casino Royale was a superb modern update on the original. Dalton was lucky that License To Kill could draw on some of Live and Let Die. I feel neither Moore or Brosnan's films had much to with Fleming and because of this, apart from Live and Let Die and Goldeneye (both their first outings) most of their films were poor.

    In my opinion it would be:

    Daniel Craig
    Timothy Dalton
    Sean Connery
    George Lazenby
    Roger Moore = Pierce Brosnan
  • SirHenryLeeChaChingSirHenryLeeChaChing
    Posts: 3,494
    SaintMark wrote:
    thelivingroyale wrote:
    identigraph wrote:
    These polls and features always come out with the same cliche's, GF best Bond film, Dalton's films were rubbish, who is George Lazenby etc etc, none of it matters, I wonder if some of these people have ever even watched a Timbo entry?

    People today who probably haven't even seen his films just assume Dalton was crap because he only fif two films. Shame, because he was pretty popular when he was Bond.

    NO he was NOT.

    I agree with SM's statement regarding Dalton. I was 25 when TLD was released and remember how not popular he was. I didn't understand it nor did my father and brother, except to say that from what I saw, people were TOO used to how Sir Roger had played the role and his many fans didn't welcome the change, especially in the direction of the character. The people who knew the classic Connery films like we did felt very differently, they got it and welcomed kick ass versus sight and sound gags and an actor who clearly was too long in the tooth to be believable with the women they wanted to cast and even more clearly could no longer handle (and some people have fairly questioned that Moore could ever handle) the physicality the role demanded.

Sign In or Register to comment.