Who is your favorite James Bond?

[Ralif Redhammer]

Roger Moore, hands-down. These days it feels like all the superspies are brooding action heroes. Give me the suave, quippy Bond of Moore any day.

Timothy Dalton probably looks most like what Ian Fleming described in his books, if I recall correctly. Handsome, but somewhat cruel-looking.

And secondarily, why did Ian Fleming think that martinis should be shaken, when bartenders seem to universally say that stirred is the way to go?

There are plenty of theories about not "bruising" the gin, or the amount of dilution it provides, but they're all pretty much hogwash. My feeling is that it's just a personal preference thing. Generally speaking, there's nothing that says you can't shake a cocktail without juices, only that it isn't necessary.

And there are some bars that do neither, pouring from bottles kept in the freezer in lieu of ice.

 

[payn]

I think that there are different ways to look at it. The thing is ... the movie Bond is based on the book, but the various Bonds in the movie are also different than the book's Bond. Arguably, Connery captures the book's Bond the best (so well that Fleming retconned Bond to be Scottish in later books, IIRC).

Personally, I would tier them as follows:

Tier 1 (The Bond Bonds): Connery, Craig
Connery is Bond. Period. But Craig brought Bond back. Both present a grounded Bond (Connery for his era). I get the haters on both (early Bond movies can feel stilted to a modern viewer, Craig movies feel too dark for a Bond fan, etc.). But they are both the Bonds of their times.

Pretty much.

Tier 2 (The Suave Bonds): Moore, Brosnan
Moore's overall work, especially his earlier stuff, means that he was a much better Bond that Brosnan. IMO. But ... I put them in the same tier because Brosnan was a good Bond- he just had bad timing (Remington Steele contract) and bad writing. But while a lot of Moore's work has aged poorly to modern eyes, his take on escapism and the fact that he pretty much saved the franchise in many ways ... and is "THE BOND" for a generation of viewers is something.

If Moore saved Bond, then Id say Brosnan resurrected Bond. Goldeneye was just an all around fun movie. Pierce was suave as you say, the film was larger than life, but also had a pretty good post cold war story to it. What followed wasnt all that great (the writing as you say) but Goldeneye wouldnt surprise me to rank high on a lot of Best bond movie lists.

Tier 3 (The Underrated Bond): Dalton
Dalton is criminally underrated. He read the books and tried to bring Fleming's tone to the movies. He has the pathos. He tried to bring it all to the screen. And yet ... I'd argue that he will always be underrated for a good reason. He was great, but his Bond movies weren't.

I think they wanted to take Bond in a more serious direction, but just didnt fully grasp how to do it. How do you make it more dramatic and less campy with all the iconic "I grew up with Moore" expectations? Too sharp a left turn I believe for folks to really get on board. You can see the over-correction in the Brosnan era with the return of gadgets and girls, yet the stories were generally serious but inconsistent in their writing. Craig was the get Bond serious right route that finally took. They were able to keep the crazy over the top stunts, but also keep a serious Bond with dramatic stories that were interesting (generally).

Tier Incomplete (The Hipster's Bond): Lazenby
Anyone who chooses Lazenby as the best Bond is just wrong. Look, this was his first acting job, and there are times when you know it. And yet ... he not only hits an almost modern take, he has a physical presence as Bond that is thrilling. He coulda been a contendah .... but he's not.

Agreed. This seems more like the flex my Bond knowledge move than a serious argument.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

There are plenty of theories about not "bruising" the gin, or the amount of dilution it provides, but they're all pretty much hogwash. My feeling is that it's just a personal preference thing. Generally speaking, there's nothing that says you can't shake a cocktail without juices, only that it isn't necessary.

Hard disagree on this one, based on facts and science.

Shaken v. stirred-

Let's start with the basics- if you shake, you are going to dilute it more. Period. You are also going to cool it down much faster. Finally, for those into aesthetics, if you are serving a "clear" drink (martini, negroni), it will make it cloudy from the ice crystals.* If this is unclear, remember that when you shake, you are aerating the cocktail as well as quickly introducing small ice particles into it. Which is what you want for some drinks, and certainly not for others.

Now, can you "bruise" gin? Eh, it's complicated. The short answer is no, in the way that you can't injure an alcohol. The long answer is yes, because aerating and quickly diluting the gin by shaking (rapidly agitating it) you are changing the flavor profile of the drink- because you aerated and diluted it. Which for many people makes the botanicals of the gin and vermouth become lessened.**

Now, if you like cloudy, aerated, and diluted martinis ... that's okay! But the "correct" way to serve them is to stir them to avoid aeration and dilution, and because you don't like cloudy drinks when you order a martini.



*Bonus fun fact- the "shaken" martinis in the Bond films are always shown clear, which wouldn't happen.
**And if you have the palate for a vodka cocktail, you probably don't care much about the taste.

 

[Deset Gled]

but I prefer Craig’s grittier, less campy version.

When Casino Royale came out, I was also enjoying the idea of a grittier, less campy version of Bond. However, a couple of years ago I rewatched Skyfall in preparation for watching Spectre, and I have since given up on that opinion.

Some spoilers ahead, if that's an issue

Skyfall is patently ridiculous. The way that Silva magically becomes a master of all things electronics is effectively the same as all the random kung fu in Man with the Golden Gun. Does it make any sense? Does it follow any sort of logic (internally or externally)? No. But the outside zeitgeist suddenly found hacking/kung fu to be the cool thing that villains did, so the over-the-top Bond villian does it. Does it make any sense for Bond to go make booby traps with the gardener at his childhood home that will be as effective at taking out bad guys that trashed all of MI6? No, but backstories are the cool thing all the movies are doing these days, so now we have to visit Bond's childhood home... for... reasons.

But Spectre really took things to the next level. Blofeld has been controlling everything we've seen the entire time. And his motivation is that he is actually...

Bond's brother! I defy you to write a background to Blofeld that is more camp than that.

We view old Bond as camp and today's as gritty because of the veneer on both. But it's all surface level. 40 years from now, your grandkids will laugh at our modern Bond the way we laugh at the bad CGI surfing scene in Die Another Day or all of Moonraker. And all the while they'll be thinking about how how cool, modern, and realistic their version of Bond is.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

When Casino Royale came out, I was also enjoying the idea of a grittier, less campy version of Bond. However, a couple of years ago I rewatched Skyfall in preparation for watching Spectre, and I have since given up on that opinion.

Possibly unpopular opinion-
I think that Craig's first three movies (yes, including Quantum of Solace) are really good, and Casino Royale is, if not the greatest Bond film, on a shortlist.

And if he had retired after that, I would have been okay. Actually, watching the last two Craig outings, I'm pretty sure he did retire after Skyfall, and just didn't tell anyone.

 

[numtini]

why did Ian Fleming think that martinis should be shaken

It's not about martinis, it's about Bond's reaction to danger. He can be physically shaken, but never emotionally stirred.

 

[payn]

When Casino Royale came out, I was also enjoying the idea of a grittier, less campy version of Bond. However, a couple of years ago I rewatched Skyfall in preparation for watching Spectre, and I have since given up on that opinion.

Some spoilers ahead, if that's an issue

Skyfall is patently ridiculous. The way that Silva magically becomes a master of all things electronics is effectively the same as all the random kung fu in Man with the Golden Gun. Does it make any sense? Does it follow any sort of logic (internally or externally)? No. But the outside zeitgeist suddenly found hacking/kung fu to be the cool thing that villains did, so the over-the-top Bond villian does it. Does it make any sense for Bond to go make booby traps with the gardener at his childhood home that will be as effective at taking out bad guys that trashed all of MI6? No, but backstories are the cool thing all the movies are doing these days, so now we have to visit Bond's childhood home... for... reasons.

But Spectre really took things to the next level. Blofeld has been controlling everything we've seen the entire time. And his motivation is that he is actually...

Bond's brother! I defy you to write a background to Blofeld that is more camp than that.

We view old Bond as camp and today's as gritty because of the veneer on both. But it's all surface level. 40 years from now, your grandkids will laugh at our modern Bond the way we laugh at the bad CGI surfing scene in Die Another Day or all of Moonraker. And all the while they'll be thinking about how how cool, modern, and realistic their version of Bond is.

There is a bit of twisting to make a point here. I agree, the Blofield is actually Bond's brother is a terrible trope, but I wouldn't consider it camp. At least not in typical Bond fashion of bad guys who throw hats and have metal teeth and Bond one liners to swooned women such as, "I thought Christmas only came once a year..." On top of that, leading into what is culturally relevant plot wise and with special effects from past to modern Bond film's is a different subject altogether.

In short, the Bond is the same now as then argument math doesn't really add up with the premise provided here.

 

[billd91]

I always feel like folks who vote Lazenby are just taking the p*ss.

I think not. Much of which Bond is anyone's favorite is going to associate with the movie(s) the actor is in. Moore suffers for me because the movies got far too cheesy, even compared to Lazenby's OHMSS. Brosnan's movies are, to me, utterly forgettable - they're, in fact, the only Bond movies I can never tell apart in my memory other than Goldeneye. So Moore and Brosnan have become my lowest rated, or at best "Meh", Bonds.
Lazenby is never going to rate as best Bond on many people's list - but he will on a small minority even without shenanigans.

 

[roger semerad]

I picked Craig, Connery, and Lazenby. Craig and Connery are the standouts that really nailed the character, everyone else is below them. My third pick was between Lazenby and Brosnan and I had a hard time picking between them. Lazenby only got one film, but it's one to the best in the series and had a lot more dramatic material than most. Brosnan nailed the balance between the camp and serious and is my pick for "fun Bond". I picked Lazenby just because his film is under rated and he deserves more praise. I do prefer the more serious takes on Bond overall, so that does color my picks. For anyone who's not seen most of these films and wonders what films are worth watching here's my personal picks in order of release. From Russia with Love, Goldfinger, On her Majesty's Secret Service, The Man with the Golden Gun, The Living Daylights, Goldeneye, The World is not Enough, Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace, and Skyfall. From Russia with Love and Casino Royale being my two favorites of the series. There are a few others that are okay, not everything I left out is bad, but I'd stay away from the rest of Moore's run, unless you love the camp side of the series without any balance.

 

[jian]

Really? All I can really remember about his two films is that one of them featured a Bond girl who started out on equal footing but ended up a simpering swooning damsel by the end of it. That and his version of Felix Lighter gets eaten by a shark, right?

Yes about Leiter - that’s from the novels (Live and Let Die, not included in the Moore film). He survives.

I wouldn’t say Pam Bouvier is any less of a simpering damsel than any other Bond girl at any point, and certainly not because of anything Bond does.