I've noticed a lot lately, with the discussion of Brosnan's era in particular, a number of fans expressing their favored Bond as the one they first saw or who brought them to the series. They're often determined to defend their choice on that basis and don't always understand or accept the criticisms/views of other fans. And I've seen theories on forums where the thinking is your first Bond actor is your preferred or sentimental choice.
While I don't subscribe to that, I'd like to hear from all sides their views on this.
For instance, it's still common to see Connery labeled as the king. In reading a lot older reviewers, they will always favor Connery no matter what. Critic Roger Ebert, for example, called Craig "bloody damned good" but said he basically gave up on anybody ever topping Connery, while his late reviewing partner Gene Siskel was even more rigid in his Connery views. While a classic never really goes out of style, is this rigid or fair?
As far as Brosnan goes, he helped revive the series and along with the extra exposure from the GE game, so that's understandable in his popularity. Countless reviewers, writers and fans anointed him the best Bond since Connery. But with Craig's acceptance, there's been reevaluation and defense of Brosnan and his era, leading to a lot of stimulating discussion.
