Sure, but at least in the case of Quantum of Solace, it meant taking pretty much all of the fun out of the premise, and I don't see that as a good thing.
Having just seen Skyfall, Craig has now gone waaay up in my estimation. But that's probably due more to film/script.
True, but Connery's Bond is different from the literary Bond, too. He was introduced in Dr. No as suave and super-competent, but he also had a sense of humor and could be light as well as serious, singing back to Honey on the beach for instance. One of the underlying themes of the original Bond movies was: The US may have become the world military superpower, but only the British had the sophistication and subtlety to really fight the crafty bad guys effectively in the covert Cold War. Bond was supposed to be comfortable and confident in every situation, from hand-to-hand combat to the drawing-rooms of highest society. Connery was the best at covering that whole range, I think. And he has to get bonus points for defining the role and bringing it brilliantly to life. Irrespective of how I like their movies: Connery Craig Brosnan Dalton Moore Lazenby
Connery/Craig--Connery is the coolest, and set the standard for all Bonds to follow...but Craig IS the James Bond of Flemming's original novels, charming and suave but gritty and internally bitter at the injustice in the world. Brosnan--suave, slick, smooth Moore--while he can get TOO lighthearted at times, I will always love The Spy Who Loved Me, especially his solemn speech to Anya about why he killed the man she loved...and his ticked-off reaction to Anya bringing up the late Mrs. Bond. Lazenby--his "serious" wasn't particularly charismatic or compelling, his "lighthearted" bordered on goofy (the less said about his interactions with the "allergy patients", the better) I haven't seen The Living Daylights yet, and only a little of License To Kill...so I haven't seen enough of Dalton to give much of a judgement. When I do, I'll get back to you.
1. Craig -- he's a terrific actor and I've liked the most recent take on the franchise. 2. Connery -- in many ways, the de facto screen Bond (and not simply because he was first), but his disengagement with the role manifested itself in his last two or three films to an unfortunate degree. 3. Dalton -- I liked his grittier take on the character, but he didn't last long enough in the role to place any higher on the list. 4. Brosnan -- he's an excellent actor and did very well in the role, but he was saddled with three scripts that were okay, and one that was awful. 5. Lazenby -- I've always disliked his lone entry into the series, but, to be fair, he didn't have long to make an impression. 6. Moore -- the nadir of the franchise, Moore never was able to grant the character the dark edge it needed, and he was too old for the part the first time he played it.
I love TSWLM as it's the first one I saw in the cinema, but that scene bugs me as an adult cos the correct answer would have been "Well I killed somebody there, but never saw his face, so I've no idea if it was him or not..."
1. Connery. No contest. 2. Dalton. 3. Brosnan and Craig (tied). 4. Lazenby. Not a particularly good actor (although he had his moments), but as he was in what is by far the best Bond movie he gets away with it. Moore is in an abyss somewhere. Unwatchably, awfully, atrociously bad.
Go read Fleming - Bond isn't dashing and funny. Bond doesn't enjoy himself. At best Bond extracts pleasure in an almost cruel way. He's dark and embittered as well as charming and sophisticated. Joy doesn't really come into it.
Don't care what the character is like in the books. Books and film are entirely different mediums. If they made a Bond TV show they could get away with the dourness and the angst and the bitterness and slowly develop the character in a way that won't turn us off of him. The Bond film franchise on the other hand is about watching a spy sashay through a party, kill an assassin, disarm a bomb and save the world all without spilling his watered down martini.
I've read Fleming. And while I agree, the literary Bond is more serious than most of the movies pre-Craig, I'm also getting a bit tired of Craig fans arguing, Fleming's Bond was as dark and gritty as Craig. Actually, Fleming had a sense of humour about Bond and his adventures. Why else would he give the girls names like Veper Lynd (a pub on West Berlin), Tiffany Case, Gala Brand or Pussy Galore? Why else would he have larger than life villains like Dr No or Auric Goldfinger? And why would he write Bond into quite fantastic plots like in 'Moonraker', 'Dr No', 'Thunderball' or 'On her Majesty's Secret Service'? Have you ever read 'From a View to a Kill'? It has a subterranean Russian secret hide-out accessed through a sliding rock. Granted, the dark and gritty outwheighs the more funny and fantastic in quantity in the novels, but that doesn't mean the dark and gritty Bond is the only valid one. Besides, I find Craig to be even more brooding than Fleming's Bond. When we talk actor's interpretation being close to the novels, I'd say Dalton was closer than Craig. And not barely, either. That said, as someone who prefers his Bond-movies not as dark and gritty, I've reached the state of mind that I'm content with the current movies just not being to my taste, because it doesn't mean they'll stay that way forever. There's been dark and gritty before (although to a lesser degree) and it passed, so this, I guess, won't be any different.
I would think the way that the film reboot is going, putting in place the new M, Q and Moneypenny, they will develop a slightly lighter touch and bring back a bit more humour in the next couple...
Sometimes it's good to get away from a franchise's comfort zone. The Wrath of Khan and The Search for Spock have a darkness and emotional brutality to them that differ sharply from what we normally think of as Star Trek, but are nonetheless the high point of the franchise. As Relayer1 says, the reintroduction of Moneypenny and the final line of dialog may be signs that they plan to return to a more traditional Bond after this.
To be fair, he does say that...at first. But Anya clearly doesn't buy it--all the facts pretty much lead to a "yes" answer.
I'm surprised Roger Moore is getting ranked so poorly. I realize most of his movies were campy and pretty terrible, but I've always found his smooth, debonair Bond to be fun as hell to watch. I always thought it was kind of badass how he could kill tons of people and be so utterly charming and polite about it. My list: Connery Moore Craig Brosnan Lazenby Dalton
If we're talking about them as actors then Connery would have to be pretty low on my list as he's capable of playing only one character. If we're talking about their acting as Bond then he'd be a little higher. Assuming we're talking about the latter: -Craig -Dalton -Connery -Brosnan -Moore -Lazenby