Which Bond do you wish made more films?

ZorinIndustries

Pierce Brosnan, without a doubt.

His Bond should not have been limited to only four. He was SO good in the role and he definitely had enough gas to keep going after DAD. I feel like Pierce deserved more films.

sniperUK

Lazenby ,at least another three then he should have been replaced with Michael Billington then Dalton .

DEFIANT 74205

Timothy Dalton.

He could've done more films (perhaps up to two more) but for the long drawn out legal battle that EON were involved in. I find that his portrayal of Bond is the closest to the original Fleming character, and as a Fleming purist, I would've liked to see Dalton do more.

Rainier Wolfcastle

Sean Connery - just this one film in 1969 ... :007)

Roger Moore - two more films in 1987 and '89 would have been great. B-)

Pierce Brosnan - would have been nice to see him doing CR, QOS and finish with SF (which with its theme of an old, burnt-out Bond would have fitted Brosnan just as well as Craig who looks exactly the same age now)

zaphod

ZorinIndustries wrote:

Pierce Brosnan, without a doubt.

His Bond should not have been limited to only four. He was SO good in the role and he definitely had enough gas to keep going after DAD. I feel like Pierce deserved more films.

I think Pierce had at most one film left in him until we were in AVTAK territory assuming that it quickly followed DAD.

Silhouette Man

George Lazenby - he should have at least made one more - DAF. It would have been so different.
Timothy Dalton - two more in 1991 and 1993, maybe even GoldenEye in 1995.
Pierce Brosnan - another Bond film in 2004-2005, his last of 5. Interview about just this very subject in The Irish Mail on Sunday today, funny enough.

zaphod

Lazenby was young enough to have continued up until Dalton took over in theory. I would have liked Dalton to have started earlier and continued longer, say up to and including GE (without the lengthy wait) In my ideal Bondiverse it goes : Connerry , Lazenby, Dalton, Brosnan, Craig.

Thunderpussy

Lazenby and Dalton. -{

Dutchfinger

- I was never a Lazenby fan, I would have loved to see Connery do OHMSS. Apparantly he had said by the end of YOLT that there wasn't enough character development. This was going to fit the bill for him if he returned!
- Roger Moore did more than enough! :P

- Timothy Dalton is my main choice for this! He is closest to the Bond of the novells, I think he would have grown on to become one of the best and well-respected Bond's in history! Had Roger Moore only done the first two I think people wouldn't have such a high oppinion on him either. Nowadays people usually say the big Bonds were Connery, Moore, Brosnan and now Craig, oh and there were some minor one's: Lazenby and Dalton.... I don't mind callining Lazenby minor, as he kind of was... But Dalton! He's so overlooked! (Especially by casual Bond fans) Such a shame the MGM issues started in the early 90'ies. I would have loved to she what '91 s "'the property of a lady'" could have brought to the franchise!

I wouldn't have anything against seeing Brosnan do a fifth one either by the way...

Nick37

Dalton, without a doubt. Lazenby was good, but didn't wow me. Dalton didn't wow me either upon first viewing, I liked him enough, but he didn't supplant Connery as my #1 until after I went through the Fleming's and really appreciated what he was trying to do.

Dalton could have easily done five, and ended with Goldeneye, then they could have gone with Brosnan. It may have even helped Brosnan out. He's lamented as of late that he never got to play the role the way he wanted, and didn't like doing the one liners. If Dalton had done five, and the more serious Bond had been given a chance to find audiences, then Brosnan probably could have had a shot at a more serious Bond as well.

Kabraxal

Dalton easily... as good as Brosnan did in the role, I wouldn't mind Dalton at least getting Goldeneye. He was just the Bond to me and I enjoyed the more toned down stories less reliant on gadgets and more reliant on actual spy skills to just be the epitome of Bond films to me. I can't imagine the greatness of 2 or 3 more Dalton films. There would probably be no question or debate that he is the best Bond if he got a few more films.

I mean, after 20 years he is actually starting to rise up in the rankings finally and that's just with two entries.

Moore Than

Another vote for Timothy Dalton. I'd like to believe that had Dalton appeared in subsequent films he would have relaxed more into the role and lightened up a bit. He would have connected more with the general audience and been more appreciated as a result.

Thunderbird 2

None!

I say that because had any of them done more, the pattern of the films as we know them would not have come to pass. Lazenby passed on doing more, his choice. Dalton also said Thank You and Goodnight after waiting for the legal mess of MSM's financial woes to sort itself out. If Mr Brosnan had done another, then CR-06 would not have happened as it did, in the way it did. Would I have liked to see those actors mentioned above do more? Yes. But life (especially 007s!) is too short for "what iffing."

Firemass

I wish Dalton could have squeezed in a couple more in the early 90's.

Once was enough for Lazenby.

Brosnan should have gotten at least one more.

Thankfully the two best Bonds both did 7 films. -{

Muston

I would have liked Lazenby to have done DAF, LALD and TMWTGG. Then seen Dalton take over for TSWLM up until GE.

davidelliott101

Thunderpussy wrote:

Lazenby and Dalton. -{

AMEN!!!

Firemass

this guy?

Silhouette Man

davidelliott101 wrote:

Thunderpussy wrote:

Lazenby and Dalton. -{

AMEN!!!

Agreed, brothers in Bond.

James Suzuki

I would have to say Timothy Dalton as well. It isn't just about how many films he did, because if so, Lazenby would have got the honour but it was also just the type of character I want to see in another.
I think, I should do rank it...
1. Timothy Dalton
2. George Lazenby
3 Pierce Brosnan
4. Sean Connery
5. Roger Moore (No offensive old Rog, Your awesome, but I think you've made enough)

AlphaOmegaSin

Connery, I would like to have seen LALD with him in it.

Mr Beech

Connery, especially in OHMSS. I agree with speculation that had he, the Bond with the largest 'favorite Bond' votes, been the star in that unique and well-produced film, it would be considered one of the very best, if not the best Bond film of all.

I also thought Dalton was really great and engaging.

I think Brosnan could have handled one last great film, but who knows if Casino Royale would have been the same had Brosnan's tenure not ended as it did.

I would have been fine with more Lazenby, but I don't think he was the draw of OHMSS at all.

Moore is the only one I would say really had just what he should have. Not too many, since several are fantastic in his tenure, and not too few, since it lasted a while with a tolerable number of dud outings.

davidelliott101

I think if Connery was in OHMSS, it would NOT have been the same film... it would have been more fantasy than YOLT and would not have stuck to the novel the way the released version was.

Barbel

Timothy Dalton, obviously. And Pierce Brosnan had at least two more films left in him before entering AVTAK territory- provided the gaps between films were kept at a reasonable level (which they're not).

Theundeadkennedy

Dalton all day -{

Blackleiter

I agree 100% about Connery and Dalton.

Dutchfinger wrote:

- I was never a Lazenby fan, I would have loved to see Connery do OHMSS. Apparantly he had said by the end of YOLT that there wasn't enough character development. This was going to fit the bill for him if he returned!
- Roger Moore did more than enough! :P

- Timothy Dalton is my main choice for this! He is closest to the Bond of the novells, I think he would have grown on to become one of the best and well-respected Bond's in history! Had Roger Moore only done the first two I think people wouldn't have such a high oppinion on him either. Nowadays people usually say the big Bonds were Connery, Moore, Brosnan and now Craig, oh and there were some minor one's: Lazenby and Dalton.... I don't mind callining Lazenby minor, as he kind of was... But Dalton! He's so overlooked! (Especially by casual Bond fans) Such a shame the MGM issues started in the early 90'ies. I would have loved to she what '91 s "'the property of a lady'" could have brought to the franchise!

I wouldn't have anything against seeing Brosnan do a fifth one either by the way...

ZorinIndustries

davidelliott101 wrote:

I think if Connery was in OHMSS, it would NOT have been the same film... it would have been more fantasy than YOLT and would not have stuck to the novel the way the released version was.

I totally agree. I think Lazenby was better for this film and i have trouble seeing any other Bond in the role.

Blackleiter

We'll never know, but I think Connery could have pulled it off.

ZorinIndustries wrote:

davidelliott101 wrote:

I think if Connery was in OHMSS, it would NOT have been the same film... it would have been more fantasy than YOLT and would not have stuck to the novel the way the released version was.

I totally agree. I think Lazenby was better for this film and i have trouble seeing any other Bond in the role.

PPK 7.65mm

Timothy Dalton definatly since prior to Craig's casting he was the closet we got to James Bond as Fleming wrote him. He easily could done more I think if MGM had not all of those legal problems in the early 1990's.

DangerMouse

Lazenby - Should've done a darker and more revenge-driven DAF.
Dalton - Should've taken over starting with AVTAK and played Bond up until and including 1993.
Brosnan - Should've done one last film provided it came out in 2004 or 2005.
Craig - Can stay on for a sixth outing after these next two films provided age becomes kinder to him.

zaphod

Blackleiter wrote:

We'll never know, but I think Connery could have pulled it off.

ZorinIndustries wrote:

davidelliott101 wrote:

I think if Connery was in OHMSS, it would NOT have been the same film... it would have been more fantasy than YOLT and would not have stuck to the novel the way the released version was.

I totally agree. I think Lazenby was better for this film and i have trouble seeing any other Bond in the role.

Terribly sorry to disagree old man but...his performances either side of OHMSS were not his finest hour. At his best he could have done a fine job, but he was bored and jaded and the relationship with EON was strained.I doubt therefore that things would have improved after YOLT to the extent to allow him to be his best.

Blackleiter

No worries. I expect many will disagree, but I have always felt that Connery is a better actor than many give him credit for (Not you, Zap, as even you acknowledge that at his best Connery could do the job). And I don't believe his performances in YOLT and DAF are as lackluster as many others seem to believe. Also, I am willing entertain the thought that had he agreed to return to the role in OHMSS, he would have recognized the caliber of the script and risen to the occasion. Again, we'll never know, but I have that feeling.

zaphod wrote:

Blackleiter wrote:

We'll never know, but I think Connery could have pulled it off.

ZorinIndustries wrote:

I totally agree. I think Lazenby was better for this film and i have trouble seeing any other Bond in the role.

Terribly sorry to disagree old man but...his performances either side of OHMSS were not his finest hour. At his best he could have done a fine job, but he was bored and jaded and the relationship with EON was strained.I doubt therefore that things would have improved after YOLT to the extent to allow him to be his best.