Can you be objective with Bond?

mrbain007

Is it ever possible to NOT be biased about Bond?

Having looked around on a few other forums (which shall remain nameless ) I've seen some people refer to both "the best Bond" and "their favourite Bond". Can you really seperate the two? Surely, in your mind, your favourite IS the best?

It made me wonder whether it is possible to be completely objective about Bond, or if nostalga inevitably comes into play?

Thoughts...

Matt S

Sean Connery was the best, but Roger Moore is my favourite. It is possible to separate the two.

mrbain007

Matt S wrote:

Sean Connery was the best, but Roger Moore is my favourite. It is possible to separate the two.

But basically what your saying is that you prefer Moore to Connery so surely Moore is the best to you.

mrbain007

I'm probably just making it a little over-compicated

Le Samourai

I think a certain bit of bias enters into any sort of discussion involving one's opinion about movies, music, art, etc. Of course, sometimes I find I respect some sort of creative work more than I actually like it.

That being said, as something of a Flemingest, I tend to think Dalton was the best Bond. Yet Lazenby may be my favorite, depending on my mood. Sometimes it's Lazenby, sometimes Dalton, sometimes Craig.

Thunderpussy

No, like everyone else I think my Views are Right and everyone else is wrong. )

DangerMouse

Timothy Dalton is my favourite but I cannot deny that Pierce Brosnan is the best one out of all the Bonds.

Loeffelholz

If you're a 'fan' of something, you're not really objective; everything's filtered through a prism of fandom---which with Bond has many facets and tangents---actors, directors, films, et al., ad nauseam. See my signature; right now I happen to think that Craig is 'it,' but in time (based on events not yet occurred), I might well gravitate back to Connery {:)

7289

I consider myself a long standing "Bond fan", having been introduced to him in 1963. Over the years my interest has gone from intense to near zero. I always went to theatre to see each new Bond film until DAD came out and I skipped that one.

But the world of fandom has sure changed in the meantime. Years back a movie was released, stayed around for a couple months then disappeared - sometimes for years! In the doldrums, one had only the original novels or a couple magazines to read and re-read. I recall in the early 1970's the Bond's were re-released and my best friend and I ( drove all over the Central Valley of California to every obscure movie theatre and Drive-in for a 100 mile radius to see double bills of FRWL and DAF or DN and GF, it was alot of fun! But then we only had "Big Tam" to worry about as Bond. George Lazenby was a welcome change, but we didn't spend too much time worrying over "who was the best", we just enjoyed the films. We certainly noticed the growing disconnect between the books and film.

When Bond debuted on TV, I tape recorded all the films. I used to listen to them over and over. It was pretty cool to memorise and recite whole swaths of dialog. VHS tapes made it possible the slow down and stop the films, then it was "OMG that's not a Walther Bond's holding - it's a Colt!" or " He's not wearing a toupee!" and the world of Bond "nit picking" began in earnest. Now with HD discs, books, magazines and websites there is an endless supply of "Bondulation" about to fill the gaps between the films and ocassionally waste your valuable time.

Can one be objective - with all due respect to Loeff's - you bet! You see Bond has become a course of study. There is no course credit, just an certain "expertise" that comes with all the emmerson into the world of Bond literature, cinema and marketing. I can see the best and worst points of the Bond world and I believe can judge the elements as fairly as anyone. I do prefer some films over others and have favorite thrillers too, but as in all aspects of life - opinions will differ, sometimes violently and that's what keeps everything turning.