Is SC considered the best Bond because its the easy thing to say that the original is the best?

edited May 2013 in Actors Posts: 63
What if SC came 2nd or 3rd. Would people just have/still liked the original best?


  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,121
    I think so. Sean looked like the Bond Fleming discribed and is a fantastic actor. Proof of that you'll find in his long....long career. But indeed, for many, because he was the first, he defined Bond. If it've been Roger to start, i think many would not have accepted Sean. For now though I think Craig and Connery are on par. Maybe Craig's even better....
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,353
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    007Skyfall wrote:
    What if SC came 2nd or 3rd. Would people just have/still liked the original best?

    I think there's a lot in this theory. Give Sean Brozzas scripts and how good would he be? Brozza always said he wanted harder FRWL style stories but was only given generic tick all the boxes scripts.

    Sean benefitted from an untapped pool of Fleming so had a significant advantage over the rest. In fairness DAF is really a Rog era script and Sean is still quality in it but he is playing Sean Connery not the Fleming Bond of DN and FRWL. Given an MR or a DAD I'm sure he would still have been excellent but his portrayal would have been a different animal to the Bond of DN and FRWL that he absolutely nailed.
  • DragonpolDragonpol
    edited May 2013 Posts: 18,006
    Well we have YOLT, in my opinion a MR or DAD script and film. DAF is also very poor. I think he had first bite at the cherry and as such, the original is seen by many as the best - though not by me, but then I'm contrary like that!
  • Posts: 63
    But @samuel001 he had nothing to be compared too. There was no Bond "formula" yet, whatever he did was the first so there was nothing to compare it to. If Roger was first everything would of fallen in love with the lighter Bond and that would of been the standard. Plus like @thewizardoffice said all Sean's movies came from Fleming's novels so there was already solid stories to begin each movie AND he didn't have any boxes to tick there weren't any things Bond absolutely HAD to say or do. The world would of fell in love with the first Bond whoever it was.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,353
    If Roger came first and then Sean, Sean would still be looked upon as the best. It was all down Terence Young. Because of him Sean had charisma, confidence and more. If Roger was first I doubt people would hold his lighter Bond in high regard at all. Just look and Tom Baker and Doctor Who.
  • Posts: 63
    Yeah but we don't know that. If people are used to a character being witty and funny
    alone and not as brute or serious as Connery he wouldn't be accepted. He would of been too "different from the original" . People want what they're used to and DC's intro in CR is the first time ever Bond fans accepted a radical change in actors. I don't think '60s fans would have just taken Sean in.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,353
    Each actor is different enough to the others and I don't think Casino Royale is "the first time ever Bond fans accepted a radical change in actors", just look at Roger Moore. Unless you mean blond hair.
  • Posts: 63
    No I mean a change in Style
    From one actor to the next. Moore to connerys a big change in style just like Brosnan to Craig was. RM-SC is light hearted and campy to brute and witty. PB-DC was campy and super suave to rough,emotional, and back to basics.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,838
    Samuel001 wrote:


This discussion has been closed.