It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
I think on here Craig may be the favorite but if you scroll over to the James Bond Reddit page you’ll find a rather large number of users who are Pro Brosnan/Anti Craig - it’s unfortunate because while I may prefer Pierce I can still see the value of Craig’s portrayal and what he brought. On the Reddit forums however you’ll tend to see a lot of generalizations about the Craig era as a whole and his portrayal in general.
I don’t think Brosnan has gone down in estimation with casual fans as much as he has with the hardcore fandom. Yeah some will whine and moan about him here but he’s still held up in high regard in general - it’s not an uncommon take to think that he rivals or even surpasses Connery - if anything it just goes to show how different everyone’s opinions are. I’m happy Pierce is getting the recognition he deserves - he’s been thrown under the bus by fans for things out of his control for far too long now and now that Craig’s era is behind us it’s allowed some fans to go back and revisit the Brosnan era with a fresh set of eyes in the way that Dalton’s films have undergone a renaissance.
Interesting shout.
TLD, for me.
Oh, I see a lot of generalisations about the Craig era’s tone here too. No idea about Reddit (and I’m not going down that wormhole, haha) but as you implied it’s probably a minority of hardcore fans.
I think in general Brosnan’s films are looked on a bit more fondly than they perhaps used to. That generally happens when you get fans who grew up watching him as Bond. There’s also that element of nostalgia. For some who don’t like the darker elements of the Craig films they might gravitate towards some of Brosnan’s. To some extent it happens with all Bonds - we get fatigued with the current one at some point and look on past ones more fondly.
But on the whole, I suspect Craig’s Bond is probably viewed more favourably with the average viewer. I’ve often heard a spin on the phrase ‘Brosnan wasn’t a bad Bond but some of his films really test you’ when talking about Bond with people in real life. I think DAD still leaves a bad taste with a lot of them especially - rightly or wrongly.
I’m not really too sure about that - at least from what I’ve gathered seeing people compare the two of them. You raise a great point about a lot of this being driven largely by nostalgia for that era and yeah people will make the claims that some of Brosnan’s films weren’t up to par but in the same sentence they’ll still say that Brosnan did a damn fine job with the character. Yeah DAD was pretty poor - but that wasn’t enough to make Brosnan look bad in audiences eyes going by the extreme backlash to him leaving the role. With Craig you’ll tend to see very sweeping generalizations where they call him mopey, not fun enough, and that he’s more Jason Bourne than James Bond. I don’t agree with these takes - but I see them everywhere. In YouTube comments, Reddit, real life conversations, wherever. People will praise the quality of his films (or at least some of his films) but I think Craig’s portrayal is a bit more polarizing than what you may think. I can’t tell you the amount of times I’ve seen the take “Craig had the better films - Brosnan was the better Bond” when comparing the two actors.
That’s why I think a lot of the backlash to Brosnan and his era is really just confined to the hardcore fandom. His detractors will bring up the critical scores to his films - they’ll call him “greatest hits Bond”, criticize his acting or say that he wasn’t tough enough like Connery and Craig - but you won’t hear that elsewhere. I’ve never heard people outside this forum really nitpick at Brosnan’s portrayal like that. For many he was (and still is) the man they most identify as James Bond and that’s a huge testament to what Pierce was able to do with the character despite not having the best material to work with.
I think overly strong opinions about Bond in general are more a thing among fans/people writing here. Or indeed Reddit, or on YouTube comments. The sort of vocal minority who are actually bothered to take time out of their day and write about this. It depends on the person at the end of the day and their preference in Bond though. And ultimately every actor is someone's favourite Bond.
I suspect in most polls ranking Bonds on various film sites or outlets (not always Bond ones) it’s generally Connery and Craig at the top. Brosnan’s probably not far off incidentally. Probably third or fourth a lot of the time. I think he’d actually beat Moore for many nowadays. To be honest that’s the sense I get in real life generally speaking, but there are caveats too (I actually know people who’d say they find Connery’s Bond a bit creepy based on some of the stuff he does in his films…. yeah, I can see that. It might be a minority opinion but it’s not an uncommon one either. I believe the same people were more Craig fans FWIW).
But honestly, there are shades to all this, and everyone has their own opinions. But I think Craig’s impact on Bond and what he’s perceived to have brought to the role for the general moviegoing public shouldn’t be underestimated either. I understand more dedicated fans will point out that, say, Dalton first did the darker, even harder edged Bond prior to 2006, and even Brosnan had a bit of that in his films. Maybe, but it ignores the impact Craig's Bond movies - CR and SF especially - had on the franchise. For better or for worse the way they depicted the cinematic Bond felt different than what'd come before, and it left much more of an impact with Craig in the role/how he approached the part. Look at how many of the Craig era directors or actors specifically signed on because Craig was Bond and how high they perceived the quality of these films. That's a very significant impact on the franchise that not all the actors will have.
As good as Brosnan was he just doesn't have that same legacy of reinventing the character the same way Craig does. Or defining it as Connery did. In fact I think many would say his appeal as Bond was steadying the ship in order to bring Bond into the 90s (the mixture of Connery and Moore he pitched himself as. And as you said what his detractors often mention. I certainly don’t think it’s a bad thing and it's a major reason he was so good in the role - his confidence and ability to come across as James Bond. You needed someone like that I think, especially for GE. He's comparable to Roger Moore in that way).
Connery was the first, and for his time the films were violent (yes, really) and sexy. Just what the doctor ordered for a (Western) society still re-building from WW2. Flower power came along and (through Lazenby and then Connery) Moore made Bond the epitomy of cool in a more hopefull, positive world. Moore himself said you can't take Bond as a character too seriously. And for that time, he was right. But with the eighties came financial crisis, and austerity. Dalton was the one to pick up the baton exactly in that period, stearing back to a more gritty cinematic universe that fitted better with the outside world.
With Brosnan came more optimism, but 2002's DAD came on the heels of the dotcom bubble. It missed the right tone for a world suddenly far more serious.
Craig's tenures have walked with the times as well, albeit a bit.. .swervy. I feel that the plots became too chaotic, but perhaps that, as well, was a proper reflection of the times.
Now, in a world where democracy and freedom are again in the line of fire, litterally, I'd be very thankful for a straight mission without any complications. Just straight out good guy (Bond) - badguy (preferrably Putin, I'd even be happy if they made it VERY rrealistic).
but tat's just my personal preference.
As far as polling is concerned, it depends on the website doing the polling. I know the Guardian did a poll a few years ago where Connery came on top to nobodies surprise but then Dalton and Brosnan weren’t too far behind. The Daily express also had a poll where it was Connery and Dalton in the top two positions with Craig sneaking in at third- Collider had Connery and Craig in the top two for one poll - and CBS News did a poll that had Connery and Brosnan as in the top two positions - mind you those were the only ones that I could find without using Reddit, YouTube, or random message boards so the results from each poll varied slightly.
Reddit skewed heavily in favor of Connery/Brosnan when I did a quick glimpse at the polls they had - one of their users actually pointed out that Pierce was inches away from actually knocking Connery off that top spot in their last poll which I found interesting and somewhat validating haha. I also tried looking for polls that were around the time of NTTD to get a complete idea of where people stood but after all the searches I did the results weren’t unanimously Connery and Craig on top so much as they were Connery and ______ following after. This just proves that 60+ years later, Connery is still the gold standard haha.
To your point about Dalton, it’s not inaccurate to say that his portrayal and those two films would pave the way for what Craig would do with the character but at the same time we can all see of the phenomenal successes of CR and SF - the two observations aren’t really mutually exclusive. I’d also say that the successes of those two films (and therefore Craig’s era overall) were built off of the foundations left by the previous Bond actors and the previous Bond films. You can really see this in SF, SP, and NTTD where there are tons of callbacks to the earlier films.
On a whole, I’d put forth that the reason CR and SF in particular were highly successful as they were is not strictly down to the talents of Daniel Craig. Yes he was very much instrumental in bringing in Sam Mendes and other key creative members - but one great actor a film does not make - let alone an entire era of Bond! Martin Campbell deserves a huge amount of credit for the work he did on CR - Paul Haggis is an unsung hero of the Craig era - I’d say he’s probably the one most responsible for the new creative vision of Bond that they had - Amy Pascal as well and of course Barbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson. Don’t get me wrong, Craig played an integral part - but it helped him having a really solid creative team behind him - and therein lies the success of his tenure. You also have to account for the fact that Craig had the benefit of having his creative suggestions actually listened too - that’s why he was able to reinvent the character in the way he was. He was afforded the opportunity to do so but yet people will ignore that the other actors didn’t have that opportunity and therefore they’ll reach a conclusion that the other Bond actors are somehow not as good as Craig was as if it’s some objective fact - and really that’s not fair to the other Bond actors and the people who do prefer the other Bond’s.
I disagree - I’d say Brosnan has quite the impressive legacy with the character - arguably more than Craig. His legacy was more than just steadying the ship into the 90’s - it was the resurrection of the character and the series in general. Brosnan literally brought Bond back from the dead (with the help of EON, Martin Campbell, Michael France and Bruce Fierstein in the interest of giving credit where it’s due.) If Goldeneye failed, that would’ve been the end of Cinematic Bond. Maybe a reboot would’ve happened 10 years down the line but the 007 Brand wouldn’t have been as strong as it is today without the enormous success of Goldeneye - which really is the backbone of the entire Michael Wilson and Barbara Broccoli era of Bond. All of the subsequent films that they made (even going into the Craig era) were all built off of themes, ideas, concepts, and the overall foundation left by Goldeneye (in the same way that GE largely builds off of it’s predecessors!)
All of the Bond actors have radically altered the character as we know him. Connery took Ian Fleming’s literary character - added humor and a suave layer of sophistication that concealed his deadly thuggishness/ cold blooded nature and the result was the birth of the Cinematic Bond. Lazenby may have done one film, but in that one film he introduced a humane element that wasn’t seen before in the series - and in his final moment on screen he brought out an emotional vulnerability unmatched by any of the other actors with the death of Tracy. Moore proved the series could survive without Connery and updated the character for the 70’s and the era of second wave feminism. Dalton introduced the world to Bond as envisioned by Ian Fleming and while audiences weren’t ready for it at the time, his legacy only continues to grow as more and more people discover his two films for the first time. Craig redefined the role of Bond for a post 911 world and was present during the series highest achievements. I’ll say this - he’s the first and so far the only Billion Dollar Bond.
Brosnan’s legacy is the resurrection of the character from the dead and making him commercially viable again in spite of all the doubt/skepticism surrounding the concept of a post Cold War Bond - that’s a pretty damn impressive feature on his behalf and a damn impressive legacy in my book.
Really I just wish that some of the more ardent Craig fans would stop dragging down the other Bond’s to prop him up. I never see fans of Moore dragging down Connery or vice versa. I never see Dalton and Brosnan fans tearing down one or the other but I do notice this with Craig’s fans on here and Reddit - they’ll tend to state something they admire about his performance then in the same sentence will bash another Bond actor (usually Pierce) out of some insecurity. I think it’s weird when people do that - just talk about what you like about Craig and his era - there has to be plenty to enjoy without ruining the fun for other people and trying to place some sort of objective marker for the series that’s never going to hold up. In turn that’s why I think some people (on this forum especially) are so Anti-Craig and vocal against him. It’s created this weird cycle that I don’t see ending until the arrival of the next Bond. Maybe it’s just a byproduct of fandom and being super obsessed with something - but I just wish people would adopt the approach that every Bond brought something to the role - and that one isn’t greater than the other because of what they’ve accomplished. It makes for going through the series as a whole incredibly interesting - and seeing all the different interpretations along the way and how they influence one or another. But that’s enough for me, time to get off my soapbox!
Sure, it depends and even within the majority there are different opinions. Generally in most polls I've ever seen Craig tends to edge out Brosnan, often coming in second (occasionally even first) but generally it's Connery who gets the top spot, yes.
I understand that. And yes, you can say those Bond actors and films paved the way for Craig (that's the nature of taking over a film character roughly 50 years into its lifespan). But that's not the point I was making.
No film's success is simply down to one individual. It wasn't the case with Connery's films either. Without Broccoli, Saltzman, Maibaum, Hunt, and Young they wouldn't exist as we know them and may not have been as successful without all of them. It's true of Craig's films as well, I agree.
But again, that's not the point. Like Connery, Craig was the face of the franchise under what you could argue is something of a golden era for the franchise, or at least a conscious reinvention of Bond. I don't see your point that he was afforded the creative opportunities to do what his predecessors perhaps didn't (although I'd argue that's not entirely fair to someone like Dalton who was given a lot of freedom to do something different with the role, and his films leaned into this). To viewers all that matters is how impactful the films were. The background here doesn't matter. At any rate Craig was picked specifically because EON thought he was the best actor to helm this new direction and was willing to do something different. If the casting of Bond wasn't right I don't think these films would have been as successful. Similar to how Connery helmed those first Bond films that caught the zeitgeist of the 60s and was the face of Bond. They're not inconsequential people who lucked out, but components of Bond's success at these times. It's the same for Brosnan during his tenure.
It's a bit hypothetical, but of course GE needed to be a success to ensure Bond's cinematic future (although I don't think there was any reason to doubt a new Bond film wouldn't have been successful to some degree as far as I know. But it needed to be a film that could prove Bond was still relevant and maximise its success).
I understand that, I really do. I'd argue all this myself.
But my point is the average viewer doesn't think that deeply about Bond. They're not going to look through posts here, or check those Reddit pages. To be completely honest, many don't even like some of those older films that may have developed the character in the ways you pointed out.
I remember the years after CR came out. I certainly wasn't as big into Bond, but I think people underestimate just how much of a changing point that film and Craig's Bond was for many people. Yes, Bond had fallen in love and lost someone tragically at the end of a film before. Yes, Bond had been roughed up in previous films, and had been more harder edged/serious too. But as an anecdotal take on this I remember my Dad - who wasn't, and isn't a big Bond fan incidentally - came away from CR saying that while he'd been skeptical of Craig before going in, it really felt different to any other Bond film he'd ever seen, and he'd been very impressed with it. I remember first watching it too and finding it quite striking that Bond chugged whiskey and cleaned himself up after a fight. Or that he could get tortured and end up in hospital (for me, my conception of Bond was more through Brosnan, someone who'd just walk away with a wry smile after each scuffle, barely a hair out of place. The idea that Bond could get hurt was genuinely quite impactful. It was like there was genuine danger in the film that hadn't quite been there before). Same for him falling for Vesper and losing her (yes, we'd had OHMSS but that was decades prior! Again, I assumed Bond was meant to be like Brosnan's version, someone who had short flings and moved on to the next after each film). I also remember finding Craig's performance very different to any other Bond I'd seen. He still had that Bondian swagger and charm, but it really felt distinct. Unique.
I don't think that kind of course correction can be underestimated, neither can his performance in that film. It was something I felt at the time, and even today when I discuss Bond with friends I've never met anyone that doesn't acknowledge how much of a course correction Craig's debut and performance were. And it endured far longer than Lazenby and Dalton's eras did. No, I don't think Brosnan, as great as he was, was a Bond who reinvented the franchise with such a sharp a creative turn, even if we're talking about his performance alone. It probably comes down to an element of luck on Craig's part as you implied - right Bond at the right time. He got to do what many of his predecessors couldn't. I acknowledge that. But again, had the lead actor not worked, that film and era wouldn't have been as successful, or at least I'd argue.
Any Bond actor who helms the franchise for a long term period has an impressive legacy, not least because many people grow up associating Bond with them. I'm not taking anything away from Brosnan. He brought Bond into the 90s and kept its popularity going.
My personal opinion is he never quite had the consistency of Craig in terms of his performances, at least past TND. I think he struggled quite a bit with some of the material he was given, and to some extent I don't think he was suited to it. I don't think Bond would have been as successful as it was had he stayed on for another film despite his charisma, charm, and strong screen presence. But that's just me. I'd say he's different to Connery, whose name and association with the role resulted in financial success for Bond even if it was NSNA (I do not think, for example, and Old Man Bond film starring Brosnan would have the same inherent level of success even if Brosnan is very much associated with Bond). I don't think he's quite like Craig either, whose performance and era were such a turning point for the franchise that there's something inherently noteworthy about it (even if Brosnan's films may have developed the character in more minor, and not always as successful ways). Again, I'd compare him to Moore. A charismatic movie star of a lead with a good bit of steel and plenty of presence. They needed someone who could comfortably be James Bond, who could slip into the role and own it. That's what he brought to Bond after the long gap. As much as I like Dalton, that kind of big personality was needed for this new era and to help make GE a success.
I do think GE is one of the best Bond performances of all time incidentally. I'd even rate GE higher than CR as a film incidentally. And I really like GE and TND. Just because he's not perceived to have defined the character (as many would say about Connery) or reinvented him in such a stark way (as per Craig) doesn't invalidate his Bond anymore than it does Moore's. But I think it is a difference that is felt by many general moviegoers. Perhaps more than it is for people on Reddit or post on these forums.
I don't really get your point there: it doesn't have to be 'fair'- we don't give some actors bonus points for whether or not they were listened to: the only thing that matters to a cinema goer is whether it's good or not and how much they like the bloke onscreen. It's not like he was cheating because he wanted to try and make sure he was in good movies. You're not asked to weigh up the creative limitations behind the scenes when you're chucking your popcorn bucket away: the only metric that matters is how well it worked on the big screen and what your reaction to it was.
But you just said it's not fair that Craig gets credit for something the others weren't allowed to do: is that not 'dragging him down' in order to prop the others up?
I think if you're comparing Bonds then it's perfectly fine to, y'know, actually compare the way they each approach bits of Bond's character. Sean Connery is really good at acting, and I don't think George Lazenby is as good. Is that a bad thing to say? I think Roger Moore is probably better at delivering the cheesy gags than Dan Craig is. Is that dragging Craig down?
Yeah I think the 'x is coming back to play Bond' thing is quite interesting in a way. There obviously was a massive desire to see Connery back as 007 in NSNA because it was basically seen at that point that there were only two Bonds, and everyone had a favourite of the two, and Connery was, and by some still is, seen as the king. Although Roger's films were hugely successful (and he even won that battle in '83!), I somehow can't imagine the public being as invested to see him make a one off comeback in, what, 1992 or so; whereas I think there would have been excitement if Connery had said he would do another Bond in, I dunno, 1999 or so. And same with Brosnan now to be honest, he's well-remembered by fans, but as you say, I'm not convinced it would create as much of a stir if he returned. As you say, he's remembered as being Bond, but I'm not sure Bond is remembered as being him. Craig kind of did do his comeback with NTTD, and there was excitement to have him back: I think there even would have been hunger to have him do a comeback now if we hadn't had NTTD- not because he died but because I think a fifth film sort of was enough for everyone.
I did try searching for more polls but those were just the ones I found without involving Reddit or including a poll that’s over 10 years old. If you can find me more I’d be glad to take a look at them but I’ve seen mixed results.
I wouldn’t say that Craig’s era was exactly a “golden era” for the franchise - the high point is still the 1960’s where Bond was not only leading the charge in the spy genre but action/adventure films as a whole. The series has never gotten back to the point in the decades since and that isn’t a bad thing! I get what you’re saying about Craig being the face of these films that were pushing the boundaries - but I can say the same of Roger Moore and yes - Pierce Brosnan.
Sadly I don’t think Dalton was given any creative freedom in the way you describe. Yes he was allowed to channel a more Flemingesque Bond and perhaps they did tailor the script to suit Dalton’s personality and tastes - but from what I can tell he never had a say in the choice of director, screenwriters, certain plot developments - e.g. everything Craig had. In fact wasn’t there a story about an argument between Dalton and John Glen towards the end of production on LTK?
I didn’t say nor imply that they were though. I simply said that they had the benefit of a really great creative team supporting them - and that the successes of their era’s shouldn’t be viewed as primarily down to one actor. I said the same of Pierce earlier.
There were plenty of reasons to doubt a new Bond film back then.
A. The Box Office Decline of the 80’s films resulting in LTK being one of the lowest grossing entries in the entire series.
B. The Collapse of the Soviet Union and by extension the end of the Cold War.
C. The failure of Dalton’s portrayal to catch on with audiences at the time (a damn shame but unfortunately that’s what happened.)
D. The rise of other action heroes and rival films like your “Die Hards” - “True Lies” and the classic Batman movies of the early 90’s. Those were the films defining the action genre - not Bond.
E. Michael Wilson pointing out that Forbes magazine called Goldeneye a “$350 Million Dollar gamble that was not worth taking.”
All of these seem to suggest that GE was as every bit a “make or break” moment for the series as TSWLM, perhaps even more so!
Again the whole point I’m trying to make is not to take away from what Craig was trying to do or what he brought to the role. I was there back in 2006, I very much remember the reactions to Casino Royale - heck I can remember my very own reaction seeing the film in theaters for the first time - my first Bond on the big screen - and walking away feeling like I just witnessed some thing I’ve never seen before. I’m not trying to present some sort of revisionist history for the Craig era. But I’m also not about to start downplaying the achievements of the other Bond actors just to make Craig look better. That’s the point I’m making is that you can admire what Craig did without tearing down the others as inferior which was the whole point of my initial post - which was a response to a rather bold assertion made by someone else. This was what I originally posted;
“I don't think Craig's portrayal put his predecessors in his shadow - especially considering his era was every bit as let down by poor writing as Brosnan's was save for two films. It stands nicely alongside the other portrayals over the years - and yeah for a particular generation he is their Bond much like Moore and Brosnan before him - but the notion that his portrayal has become so definitive that others seem lightweight in comparison is a bit unfair and takes away from what the others have done with the role. “
There’s nothing else to my point beyond that.
Okay but that’s your opinion though. I think when you’re taking a character who was originally conceived during the 50’s and modernizing it for the times you live in - then yes you are reinventing the character and by extension the series with an incredibly sharp creative turn - the fact that Brosnan has as large a fanbase as he does proves he succeeded in reinventing things just as much as Craig’s success proves he did as well.
Look I’m not here to argue over your opinions - I respect that’s your own take. But I’m also not about to agree with you - I think he’s one of the more consistent Bond actors in terms of his portrayals. He wasn’t given the best material but that never stopped him from being a standout element in some of those films. I know you’re not too big on his performance in TWINE - but others think he’s great in that film and DAD as well. Personally I think the only other Bond actor who was as consistently good with the material was Dalton. Connery checked out around YOLT, everyone knows the flaws with Lazenby, it took Moore 3 films to find his footing, and people will cite Craig’s performances in SP and NTTD as not being consistent. No one is right or wrong in this scenario. But I still maintain that a 5th Brosnan film would’ve been successful - perhaps continuing the upward trajectory of his era. The audience demand was there as Pierce was the only Bond where his films continued to gross more than the previous entry (TND withstanding because of Titanic) - not even Connery and Craig had that upward trajectory for their films and I think that’s a valid point worth considering when discussing the popularity of Brosnan’s Bond.
I would never want Old Man Brosnan Bond either. One of my biggest critiques of both Moore and Craig’s tenures were the visible aging both actors had towards the end of their tenures. I sure as hell don’t want seventy something year old Pierce Brosnan running around with the PPK one last time.
It’s not “fairness” I’m asking for - hell I’m not asking anyone to change their mind about anything. This is just my opinion and you don’t have to read too deeply into it, but yes I do consider an actor who has had personal input in the creation of these films to have a bit of an unfair advantage when he’s constantly being compared to other actors who have not really been afforded that opportunity and praised as being “better” because he has more character development. Everyone talks about how lightweight they find Pierce’s era as if that’s Brosnan’s own fault - when he had that desire to go darker with the role and didn’t get it. You yourself made a claim that you found Brosnan as being “lightweight and fey” when compared to Craig and I disagree. Nothing more too it. I agree the only thing that matters is our reaction to the films and performances at the end of the day - but if we’re having a talk about Craig versus the other Bonds then I think it’s important to admit he had an advantage none of the other actors had. I don’t expect that of the general audiences - but for the Bond fandom who usually is a bit more privy to these bits of info? Yes I do expect a little more. We all recognize Connery had the advantage of being the first Bond - and that’s why he’s still popular to this day. Why shouldn’t it be any different when talking about Craig? If anything it’s a good thing that after 40+ years EON was willing to take an approach like that. They should’ve really done it during the Connery era - then that way his falling out with the producers might not have happened and he could’ve remained Bond longer.
How exactly did you reach that conclusion? That’s not dragging down Craig at all - that’s simply observing that he had an advantage as opposed to the other actors. Much like my point about Connery above.
Yes that actually is dragging down the other actors lmao. Dismissing George Lazenby’s acting skills is a critique against the man is it not? People take pot shots at Craig for his perceived “lack of humor” and looking “mopey” - that’s definitely dragging down Craig. My point is if you really enjoy something yet you can’t help but critique something (or someone) else to prop up the thing you love - then you’re coming from a place of insecurity and generally that’s the reason for so many fan debates - because nobody likes being told that the thing they love sucks and is inferior. It’s like DC vs Marvel fans - an endless flame war over which one is better when really you can enjoy both and not feel the need to shite all over the other. That’s really the point I’m trying to make here - I’m guilty of doing it at times and I’m trying to correct that - everyone on the website is guilty of it! Of course you’re welcome to your opinions - but when you phrase them in a certain way that alienates others - then you’d better expect and be prepared for push-back.
You're not asking for fairness but you think it's unfair?
To be honest I don't really get what you're saying: do you think we should mark him down in some way to make it fair? When we're talking about Craig, as you say. Although of course you're not asking for fairness...? I'm a bit lost! :)
They all have advantages the others didn't have in some way; be it physical, natural talent, having attended RADA, being friends with the producers, making more films than the others, whatever you like. If you're going to try and level these 'advantages' out you'll go mad with spreadsheets and algorithms or whatever! :D And it's a pointless exercise anyway.
But you're trying to level him down so you can compare him with the others: take away this 'advantage' to make it somehow fairer. That's dragging down, surely.
I get what you're saying, and there's nothing I hate more than when someone bluntly says 'that's a load of shite' to someone they know really likes the thing in question, because it's usually coming from a place of trying to wound that person; it's an aggressive act rather than just a critique of the subject. But I think you're moving beyond that slightly into a place where no comment which isn't praise is allowed at all, which is silly. Saying that Roger Moore is better at jokes than Dan Craig is not an aggressive act; it's even phrased in a positive rather than negative manner, and I think rather than the person doing it being insecure, then the person reeling from it is perhaps a little oversensitive.
You're talking about this situation where we have to level down Craig to be mindful of his unfair advantage, which suggests you want to compare the actors, but now you seem to be saying we can't compare them in a way which finds any of them to be lacking, which kind of makes comparison impossible. Y'know, do we have to take a couple of inches off Dalton so he's not got a height advantage over Moore? :D
Okay I’ll give you that. “Fairness” was the wrong word - but being open minded certainly. Or at least being more aware.
As I said earlier, maybe I should’ve used “open mindedness”instead of “fairness.” Though now that you suggested it, maybe I should make that spreadsheet and that’ll convey my point more ;). But really I do think Craig’s role as a producer should be taken into consideration. It’s not so much knocking down Craig so that he’s on equal footing with the others so much as it’s acknowledging that he had a bit more control than the others in the end and giving context for why his films may have worked while others didn’t.
I haven’t leveled Craig down at all - I’m still giving him credit where it’s due. I’m sorry but I fail to see how stating advantages one has is some sort of way to tear somebody down.
Good on Craig for being creatively involved! We all hear the stories about how Connery and Brosnan weren’t happy about not having creative say - I think it’s actually great that EON decided to trust their leading man and let him be involved in these decisions. I should’ve mentioned that earlier but it’s hard remembering all of this while typing this out on an iPhone.
I’m not trying to imply that comments that aren’t praise aren’t allowed at all - when have I ever suggested that in this discussion let alone all of my years on this website? I’m extremely passionate about this series - I take into account everyone else’s view and respect them - but I don’t need to put a disclaimer that what I say isn’t some sort of objective truth. I don’t expect everyone to listen to me and follow my advice - I’m not that full of myself haha. These are just my opinions - backed up by sources and observations I’ve had in all my years as a Bond fan.
I’m just embracing a larger view of the series that all Bond actors are great in their own ways and you shouldn’t have to tear one or the other down. Heck this whole discussion was in response to someone saying that the other Bond’s are now stuck in Craig’s shadow. That’s a big assertion to make - and I’m stating why I disagree. One Bond actors era just doesn’t invalidate everything that came before and after my latest runthrough of the entire series - I’ve come away thinking they’ve all done something great with the role. Even Laz!
You could be right but this is the Internet we’re talking about here. It’s hard to gauge subtleties through text form. But from what I’ve seen of various fandoms - most criticism usually comes from place of insecurity. Look at the backlash to the recent Star Wars films and how much they compare those films to the Lucas films - you can’t tell me those people aren’t insecure. I mentioned the Marvel and DC flamewar which is very much the same thing. The backlash to NTTD on here is certainly driven by insecurity I’d say if we’re going by the same usual suspects who constantly attack the film…dare I say so too is the backlash to Brosnan’s tenure from his most vocal critics - as if we aren’t 23 years removed from the last time he was in the role on screen.
If that’s what you took from the points I was making then I’m sorry but that wasn’t what I was trying to convey. Perhaps I could’ve been a bit clearer with my messaging - that’s on me. But largely speaking my whole point is that I’m tired over these kinds of debates. It makes coming here less fun than it once was - I’m tired of seeing people engage in endless flame wars over something as silly as film opinions - I’m tired of seeing people refer to NTTD as “B25” because of some immature reaction to the film’s decisions. I’m tired of seeing my favorite Bond dismissed as being inferior as if it’s some objective fact and I’m tired of negative/unflattering comparisons being made between the Bond actors in bad faith. That’s really all I’m trying to convey here. That messaging will inevitably be lost on some people and if that’s the case then maybe it’s time that I step away from this forum and go elsewhere.
Ok. Here's one from YouGov in 2021 that put Connery and Craig on top, with Moore third and Brosnan fourth https://yougov.co.uk/entertainment/articles/38461-best-james-bond-films-according-007-fans
Here's one from Spyscape from 2021 that put Connery first and Craig narrowly behind https://spyscape.com/article/sean-connery-the-best-007#:~:text=Sean Connery edged out current,race at the last hour.
I even had a look at Reddit (despite my best efforts not to). It seems to be a bit of a mixed bag honestly. Craig appears on quite a few top and second spots on this page. Frankly I think he might beat out Brosnan if you take all the rankings, but I'm not sure. https://www.reddit.com/r/JamesBond/comments/1c78l40/who_is_your_favourite_bond/
The coverage for this Radio Times poll is a bit confusing but I guess it gave Connery and then Craig the top spots? https://www.lincolnshirelive.co.uk/whats-on/whats-on-news/best-ever-james-bond-actor-4409295
Here's a small poll but Craig wins https://www.homecinemachoice.com/node/121051/results
None of these polls are definitive either way, and it's easy to get bogged down in them. Although this was a pretty quick search and I think it's clear it's not just polls from 10 years ago. Generally speaking, Connery and Craig being the more highly regarded isn't an uncommon opinion. Brosnan's had a bit of a re-evaluation which I think is great, and he actually comes out pretty good in many of these.
But again, it's easy to get bogged down, and you can get some polls which have very different results depending on the type of fans/people voting.
I think the Craig era stands out in comparison to Moore and Brosnan's eras though. Bond started attracting much more A-List talent both in front of the camera and behind it. It also gained noticeably more critical prestige than it had done in those former eras. Frankly, I think the filmmaking quality was noticeably raised by SF and this endured throughout Craig's last three. Whatever one thinks of the films I think there was a noticeable shift in this franchise under the Craig era. And as you say the actor is the face of that, and not insignificant in any era's popularity.
Dalton has said Cubby accommodated him and encouraged him to go a different direction with the character. But yes, he didn't get those things that Craig did by his later tenure (I mean, the obvious difference here is Craig was in the role longer, and his films were more successful).
But again, so what? This really doesn't matter when it comes to general audiences.
Ok... I agree. But again, I don't see your point here.
Obviously the legal issues halted the franchise. And of course Cubby's health was failing and his successors needed to step up. It's a turning point film that needed to modernise Bond and bring the franchise back on track, no doubt. I do agree it was a film that needed to surpass LTK as well. I don't know if the film itself was quite a LALD or TSWLM type situation, or if GE's relative lack of success (ie. if it didn't make as much as it did) in an alternative universe would have meant the Bond franchise having to go on ice for ten years as you said (it's worth saying Bond had been around quite a while by GE even with the hiatus, and after the legal issues it was firmly with EON. But I agree it was an important Bond film).
That said I've always been sceptical about this idea that the end of the Cold War brought Bond's relevancy into serious doubt. I understand some people probably said this, but I get the sense it was more like the minority of people today who claim Bond isn't relevant because he's not PC enough or whatever. Bond hadn't taken on the Russians directly as foes in LTK and the films downplayed this aspect of Fleming anyway. But I don't know. It'd be interesting to hear from people who were actually around at the time.
I don't think anyone in this conversation is downplaying the other Bonds or their achievements. I'm just saying the stuff you and I think about and are currently discussing don't matter to a lot of people.
I'll give you an example from a conversation I've had in real life about Bond. This person likes Craig and said something along the lines of Craig was the only Bond that actually felt human because we saw him struggle, referencing SF. I actually pointed out that much of SF was done in TWINE, including Bond's injury. This guy's response - "Well, some of Brosnan's films were s*it so it doesn't matter".
As I said, I get it. Honestly, I do. But that can kind of be the reaction you get with casual viewers. They don't all care that Dalton made a conscious effort to be Fleming-esque before Craig, or that Bond became more 'human' as early as Moore's films. It's like what I was saying about your point that Craig supposedly had more creative opportunities - so what? All the majority of viewers care about is the film itself.
Ok, fine. Then can I ask in what particular way do you think Brosnan reinvented Bond for the 90s? Anything specific in his performance or approach to the character that really felt different from the others? Because I'm just not getting any sense of that from what you've written and I'm genuinely interested (I think he did have his own approach to be fair to him, but whether it was quite as re-inventive as Craig's in CR is another matter).
Hmm, I'd say there's a bit of spin with that one on your part. Each of Brosnan's Bond films did make slightly more as they went on (although they never quite got the boost a film like SF did, or did the numbers Craig's films did at the box office on the whole). There was, unfortunately, a critical decline in his films alongside rising production costs. I don't think that can be ignored, and they certainly didn't at the time. That's not Brosnan's fault incidentally.
Other than that, yeah. No one's right or wrong as you said in terms of those opinions. But make no mistake, many people, fans and casual viewers, do have differing opinions on Brosnan's films, or any of the other things you wrote about.
I think NTTD did the idea best, and I think there's only so old Bond can be before it gets a bit sad (ie. a 52 year old Bond still running around is fine in my opinion. But one in his 70s doesn't quite feel right).
I mean, for what it's worth I sympathise. Sometimes it can be frustrating engaging with people who have strong opinions, especially if you get the sense they're not wanting to see your point of view (or you don't feel they want to). But I will say having strong opinions is kinda the nature of a fan site.
And again, for what it's worth, I'm not trying to say Brosnan's inherently inferior to Craig or whatever. That's completely opinion one way or the other, and I really like him as Bond. What I'm saying is in my experience I think the majority of viewers would view Craig more favourably in the role for various reasons. In the same way I'm sure a majority would view Connery more favourably than, say, Moore. Doesn't mean one is more superior than the other. Hell, I'd put many of Moore's performances over Connery's.
At the risk of looking like a bit of a wiseguy - thank you for posting these and I mean that sincerely. I tried my damn best find other polls but something with my search engine prevented these ones from popping up in my feed. Instead I was given results from Reddit, other message boards, and polls done from over 10 years ago. Not to keep this particular topic going further, but this is just an example of why I think that Reddit board tends to skew heavily in favor of Brosnan.
https://www.reddit.com/r/JamesBond/comments/18iwjr7/why_pierce_brosnan_was_the_best_bond/
https://www.reddit.com/r/JamesBond/comments/1fyclpn/who_heres_favourite_bond_is_pierce_brosnan/
https://www.reddit.com/r/JamesBond/comments/1h0q0o6/why_do_so_many_people_hate_on_brosnan_and_why_do/
https://www.reddit.com/r/JamesBond/comments/1jafxrq/unpopular_opinion_brosnan_is_the_best_007_ever_so/
https://www.reddit.com/r/JamesBond/comments/173k58p/hot_take_brosnan_is_the_best_007/
And for the sake of fairness, here are a few posts where users claim why they aren’t Brosnan fans - to what appears to be mixed reactions.
https://www.reddit.com/r/JamesBond/comments/174zmeb/brosnan_is_the_worst_bond/
https://www.reddit.com/r/JamesBond/comments/14tybvi/unpopular_opinion_pierce_brosnan_is_the_worst_bond/
This is largely why I’m not sure what the unanimous consensus is behind ranking the actors with the exception of Connery. It’s just going to be different wherever you look - I don’t think polls offered by Film sites or Reddit offer any sort of definitive ranking - at the end of the day it really doesn’t mean much in the grand scheme of things.
Look I think Casino Royale, and Skyfall do standout more when compared to other Bond films - they’re the most critically acclaimed Bond films outside the early 60’s run. But I also don’t people suddenly began to ignore the flaws of those three other films - and I don’t necessarily think the series had trouble attracting A-List talent before - if it did it certainly wasn’t down to any perceived issues on part of the main actor but more so EON’s reluctance to give more creative control to the directors working for them. If Steven Spielberg and Quentin Tarantino got turned down by EON - then that kind of proves it. This is a hypothetical but if Hitchcock approached Cubby and Harry saying that he wanted to make a Bond film - they probably would’ve turned him down once they figured out his demands.
I think what Craig’s era did was give EON the confidence to put more faith/trust in the directors, screenwriters, and everyone else involved including their leading man - it no longer felt like it was UA/MGM/EON calling all the shots but a true genuine collaborative effort - that’s what I think the true legacy of Craig’s era is.
You don’t see my point but you agree?…I’m not trying to be rude I’m genuinely curious what I’m not conveying so that I can try and rephrase it for better understanding.
In a way I agree and I disagree. I think it’s less to do with Bond actually taking on Russians as direct foes and more the extreme political climates behind the films. It’s been said that James Bond movies were banned in Russia for the longest time because they were viewed by the Russians are propaganda. Plus you have the implied themes of British Colonialism which have been present in every Bond film even to this day. I can see why some may have thought of Bond as being outdated by the time the 90’s rolled around - he was and still very much a product of the Cold War.
This was the original post that I was replying too;
“And Brosnan WAS very popular as Bond. It's just in hintsight a lot less impressive because we've seen how Daniel Craig managed to put almost all predecessors in his shadow, and probably Brosnan the most as he was his immediate predecessor.”
If that’s not downplaying the other actors then I don’t know what is.
Yes I understand that but I'm not talking about general audience though - I'm talking about other hardcore fans.
This may be a simplified way of explaining things (perhaps over-simplified) but I also thing it depends largely on where you live. Please correct me but if I'm not mistaken you and I live in two different countries with very different attitudes towards Bond. Growing up in America - the Bond films just simply aren't as big here when compared to other franchises. Each film still makes a ton of money here in the US but that cultural significance just isn't present here as much as it is in the UK and other places worldwide. But from conversations I've had in the real world (be it with co-workers, bar conversations, etc) Brosnan is still viewed in high regard by the people who grew up with those films or played the Goldeneye game or any of the other games - and some of these people haven't seen any of the Craig films or if they have it was just Casino Royale or Skyfall. I don't get the sense of enthusiasm for Craig's Bond from the conversations I've had. But I do get the strong sense of nostalgia people have for Brosnan's time as Bond. Even when talking about Brosnan's other roles - they always seem to make a point how much they loved and enjoyed his Bond. I've had real life conversations with people who will completely and utterly dismantle his singing skills in the Mama Mia films but then will say "he was great as Bond though." I remember talking to an old co-worker around the release of NTTD - she very much remembered the Brosnan films and his portrayal but when discussion came around to NTTD she point blank asked me if "Craig Nelson" was still playing Bond - to which my response was "Who the f_ck is Craig Nelson?" That's all experiences that I've had with general audiences who care little or don't care about Bond at all here in America. I'm sure Craig's Bond had a huge significant impact elsewhere - but I didn't see it at all here in America; not from where I lived and the people who I've had talks with. Fair enough on that regard - I'm sure that had I lived the UK or elsewhere during the Craig era then I'd see the hype for his portrayal in real time and would be more inclined to agree with you - but I can't claim to see the enthusiasm for Craig's Bond outside of the fandom.
Gladly! Brosnan was the first modern Bond - dropping a lot of the inherent sexism and misogyny present within the character while still keeping the core elements of the character in check. Brosnan’s Bond didn’t look down on his female partners in the way that perhaps Moore’s Bond did with Goodnight or Goodhead or how Connery’s Bond viewed Honey, Tiffany, or even Pussy Galore - and for how much I love and adore Dalton’s Bond - he’s still saddled with moments like “Don’t think - just let it happen” or “We’re south of the border - it’s a man’s world.” Brosnan was really the first Bond to drop all of that - yes you have the infamous “Sexist, Misogynistic Dinosaur scene” with Dench’s M but that’s more lip service to the way the films used to portray Bond, and in Goldeneye you also have moments like the scene where he knocks out Xenia in the car at the Statue Park but it's not like you'd ever see something like that in a Bond film again. By comparison, Brosnan’s Bond is a lot more forward thinking than that. His affection for women is still present - but he’s the first Bond to truly view his female contemporaries as equals and that element would be carried over into Craig’s tenure.
He’s also a fish out of water - trying to navigate his way in a world that is constantly changing around him. We see this reflected in the introductory scenes of Judi Dench’s M, Samantha Bond’s Moneypenny, and Valentine Zukovsky. It’s also reflected in the villains he was up against - a renegade MI6 agent with a personal vendetta using computer systems to hack into the Bank of England before setting off an EMP. A media mogul trying looking to increase world tensions and start World War III just so that he can increase his own ratings and gain an additional branch in China. A billionaire with Stockholm syndrome trying to sabotage her fathers own legacy while expanding her own dominance. A North Korean general whose disguise as a British Globalist allowed him to create a deadly satellite to use against rival countries. Yes there have been plenty of World Domination plots in Bond before - but previously most if not all of the villains were presented as over the top Megalomaniacs trying to take advantage of the political spectrum of the time - but Brosnan’s Bond highlighted how the threats were changing as the new Millennium was approaching - and highlighted the change from the older, more traditional spyfare to something more modern and fresh (for that time.) Brosnan’s Bond actually had his own sufficient resources as well. In previous portrayals - Bond would usually gain intel from MI6 or various contacts in the field connected through MI6. Whereas Brosnan’s Bond had contacts in the underworld (like Zukovsky) or other intelligence agencies (like Mr. Chang from DAD) - in many ways that sets up Brosnan’s Bond as being the most “independent” out of all the Bonds - using his own resources that he gathered from his years in the field as opposed to those provided by MI6.
It’s also important to note that Brosnan had a sense of balance not seen in many of the other Bonds. I don’t mean that in the “Jack of All Trades - King of None” sense; though it is funny that people tend to misquote that line when the full sentence is “A Jack of all trades is a master of none - but often times better than a master of one!” No instead what I mean by balance is that Brosnan’s Bond had his fair amount of obstacles facing him but never did he let those trials drag him down to depression. The betrayal of Alec in Goldeneye, the death of Paris in TND, the manipulations of Elektra in TWINE, and his 14 month prison sentence (including torture) at the beginning of DAD are all scenarios that would take a toll on any man - yet despite all of this Brosnan’s Bond never let any of those circumstances stop him from getting the job done and getting it done with style and panache. His Bond was never weighed down by the trials that he was facing - the trauma he suffered - or the pain he had to endure. He was still quite affable until the end of his tenure and to the young 7-8 year old that I was discovering these films for the first time - that was inspiring. That’s what Brosnan brought the role and that’s why I think there is more to his portrayal than people will give him credit for.
What spin though? Where did I spin some sort of narrative? The fact is that even in despite of critical decline and rising production costs - each film in the Brosnan era (for the most part) outgrossed the previous entries. It’s actually quite an anomaly when compared to Connery, Moore, and Craig’s tenures which all started to see dips in box office towards the end of their time as Bond.
Yeah Skyfall did big business - but there is also the added benefit of being released during the 50th anniversary. Plus how many films before 2008 have you seen earning over $1 Billion dollars at the box office - there’s Titanic, LOTR Return of the King, Jurassic Park, Pirates of the Caribbean Dead Man’s Chest, Star Wars Episode 1 and finally The Dark Knight. It wasn’t until the 2010’s that films began to really start hitting those kinds of numbers and even then most of them are the sort of spectacles offered by Disney and Marvel. I think Craig’s Bond certainly benefited from having his films released during this time period and I’d say that’s probably why his films enjoyed more of a boost financially speaking as opposed to Brosnan and the others. Films from around that time were just doing better at the box office thanks to having large publicity campaigns and benefiting from social media/word of mouth. Now it is interesting to note that NTTD did see an increase in Box Office revenue from Spectre - probably because of word of mouth and the fact that it was Craig’s final Bond film. From what I understand NTTD did slightly underperform at the box office - but the film was constantly delayed because of the pandemic so I'm not about to hold that against the movie - had the world not entered a state of panic and emergency then I have no doubt the film would've been more profitable - but you can't ignore the fact that the final 5-6 years of Craig’s tenure was filled with endless speculation by the press, fans, and the general audience over who the next Bond would be. I think it at least points to a general idea that maybe people were starting to feel a bit fatigued by the Craig era towards the end. I mean how many times have we seen the likes of Idris Elba, Tom Hiddleston, and Henry Cavill being touted by the press and certain casual fans since 2016? I've legitimately lost count. I’m sure people felt fatigued towards the end of Brosnan’s era as well but I don’t think audiences were as ready to move on from Pierce in that specific regard. I could be wrong though and I'd be happy to be proven wrong.
Well yeah of course - everyone is going to have differing opinions. It is the nature of the Internet after all haha. But in no way is Brosnan viewed in the way that some on here and in the fandom overall view him. He's still one of the most popular interpretations of the character - and still the man that many of a particular generation view as Bond when they think of the character.
Oh I completely agree with you. I love the way NTTD handled the idea of an older Bond. One of my big issues with AVTAK is that the filmmakers didn’t really lean into the fact that Moore was quite obviously aging - I think they tried to imply that within the film at several points - I do find Moore’s Bond oddly paternal to Stacey Sutton in different scenes when compared to his chemistry with his other leading ladies - but I just wished the filmmakers leaned into that more. NTTD on the other hand handled it brilliantly - I loved the “Bond Family” and Craig’s chemistry with Lea Seydoux and that little girl - I enjoyed how NTTD wrapped up various plot points and ideas found throughout Craig’s entire tenure while giving Craig and everyone involved a proper send off. After that I struggle to see what an Old Man Bond with either Brosnan or Dalton would add - and largely I think after seeing such characters as Indiana Jones and the Michael Keaton Batman return (and how they were handled) - I’d rather leave Brosnan and Dalton’s Bond’s where they were left as opposed to bringing them back for some cheap nostalgia baiting and potentially tarnishing the legacy they had with their tenures as Bond.
Oh yeah I'm aware of the nature of fan sites - this isn't my first go around. That doesn't make it any less annoying to see inaccurate generalizations being made. That's why I push back against some of these narratives people like to push on here. People have done that to me before and yes it's frustrating to be corrected sometimes but at the end of the day - these are all opinions on a James Bond fansite. I'm no more right than you are wrong - to quote the great Alec Guinness; "You'll find that many of the truths that we cling to depend greatly upon our own point of view."
Oh I know - you’re one of the most knowledgeable members on this forum and I very much enjoy our conversations whenever we have them. My points aren’t aimed exclusively towards you, nor anyone else who may disagree. I just found one take that I had an issue with and I wanted to point that out. At the end of the day - this is just me rambling and getting my views and opinions off my chest after careful deliberation. We aren't going to agree on this nor will we agree on everything but nonetheless I very much respect and enjoy reading your thoughts as always.
In scientific polls of the public Connery and Craig are way ahead any of the others as of now. Never met a big Bros fan in real life, some people like the classics and obviously the Craig ones as they were coming out but Brosnan's era seems a bit forgotten possibly because he didn't really have a signature element like the other ones did. Connery was first, Moore was the funny one, Dalton was the serious one, Craig was the emotional one with an arc. The GoldenEye N64 game is the lasting cultural artifact from his era more than any of the movies I think, still regularly called one of the greatest games of all time.
When I've left from that, it's overrun by the Dalton Fans to the point it became a Dalton Bond subreddit 😅 (seriously, it was back then), never thought it's run now by the Brosnan fans, haven't visited it since, interesting.
It's not that Brosnan is forgotten, he's no forgotten than say Lazenby (and undeservingly so), it's that people often doesn't have any high opinions regarding his Bond era, Die Another Day was notorious for being one of the worst Bond films of all time, and many people makes fun of Denise Richards as a Nuclear Physicist from The World Is Not Enough and been known as the worst Bond Girl (which I would argue, is not), I think those things are what people remember from Brosnan Era.
He's known as the 'Techy Bond' due to high level of technology present in his Bond films, and his over reliance on gadgets.
I don't really get it to be honest, it just seems to be people posting pictures from the Bond films and saying 'I like this Bond girl' or 'I like this Bond actor'. There's not much interesting going on.
That's why we're HERE and not THERE, aren't we?