31 replies to this topic

[LadySylvia]

Fans' Opinion on Sean Connery as Bond

[Turn]

[quote name='LadySylvia' post='741813' date='24 May 2007 - 22:42']He never really came close to the literary Bond penned by Ian Fleming. Both Dalton and Craig deserve that honor. Not that being close to the literary Bond mean much to me. Frankly, I could not care less how an actor portrays the 00 agent, as long as he gives a good performance, deal adequately with the action sequences and create his own style as Bond. Connery had created his own style

[Mamadou]

[quote name='LadySylvia' post='741813' date='24 May 2007 - 17:42']But why do fans insist upon declaring Connery as the best Bond, as if it were a matter of fact? Some might point out that most Bond fans prefer Connery. I admit that it does seem to be the case that Connery is the most popular Bond actor. But I am the type of person who does not believe in the old term

[Mamadou]

Thanks Mamadou, you seem to have covered the pertinent points there, mais non?

... Dr Blockbuster will be able to have a lie in now ... many thanks

Merci beaucoup et de rien!

[freemo]

[quote name='LadySylvia' post='741813' date='25 May 2007 - 08:42']Fans' Opinion on Sean Connery as Bond

[Skudor]

Connery is the best. But that's just my opinion. It's a pretty widely held opinion, but certainly not universal. He normally wins the polls, but not always.

[RazorBlade]

LadySylvia-
I still want to know where you get off comparing Connery fans to Americans enslaving Africans in the mid-19th century? WTF???? No, I don't take you seriously anymore. I'm sorry that what happened 170 years ago in one place in the wide world upsets you to this day. Get over it. Seriously.

Do you eat candy bars? There are whole bunches of African children who are enslaved on coco farms in West Africa. Where's your compassion for them while you eat that Hersey's or Snickers? Are you aware that conservative Evangelicals are banding together to end all slavery in the world? Have you joined Promise Keepers yet? What about the slavery in contemporary USA- the biggest slave market in the world (again)? Have you written a letter to Dubya and thanked him for that, one of the most dubious achievements of his adminstration? When you do, kindly refrain from comparing his admin to Sean Connery fans. I was only half kidding when I wrote that.

The point is since you feel strongly about something, and it's good that you do, why not broaden your focus, and find positive things to do about it? I'm not talking about chewing out Connery's fans here. There really are anti-slavery campaigns going on both locally and globally. Find one and get involved. You will do a world of good in that. Then instead of griping and putting on a show at inappropriate places like CBn, you might find a human trafficing victim who thanks you for their life. You might see a Burmese girl released from a brothal due to your efforts. Maybe one of those little African kids will be able to freely kiss you on the cheek with thanks. I know. I work with victims of domestic violence and there is nothing like genuinely helping someone who's in a rough spot. But it's wearing work too. Like Bond I wonder how many missions I have left in me. To get away from it I come here. And that's the good that we fans, regardless of our favorite actor, have this forum. Hobbies are good.

Oh, and learn some gorram history.

[Mamadou]

[quote name='Mamadou' post='741887' date='24 May 2007 - 22:32'][quote name='LadySylvia' post='741813' date='24 May 2007 - 17:42']But I am the type of person who does not believe in the old term

[Santa]

And she's done it again. Poor old Lady S can't seem to get anything right.

[dodge]

[quote name='Mamadou' post='741996' date='25 May 2007 - 13:15'][quote name='Mamadou' post='741887' date='24 May 2007 - 22:32'][quote name='LadySylvia' post='741813' date='24 May 2007 - 17:42']But I am the type of person who does not believe in the old term

[MHazard]

I have always been tempted to post my observations of the strengths and weaknesses, in my opinion, of the actors who portrayed Bond. I wasn't really sure that anybody would be interested, so I haven't. But, in light of the topic heading, I would like to briefly address my "Hazardous" opinions of the strengths and weaknesses of Connery's portrayal of Bond.

Strengths: Reasonably resembles Fleming's Bond physically and has Scottish burr. Portrays potential scary cruelty well. Killing of Professor Dent similar to Craig's Bond's PTS killing of Creighton in CR. Exudes suave sense of irony and sex appeal. Absolutely convincing that he could beat you up or kill you. Biggest plus: incredibly charismatic almost impossible not to watch when he's on screen (a trait he continues to have in non-Bond movies).

Weaknesses: Plays Bond as Superman. Gets way to campy in later movies and begins to mail it in from YOLT onward. Not in convincing Bond physicial shape for DAF (actually looks more in shape in NSNA) and, of course, receding hairline becomes more apparent.

Overall, Connery's charisma, projecting suave coolness, sex appeal and danger, make him my favorite Bond, a pleasure to watch in action scenes and non-action scenes. My biggest problem with his portrayal is that his Bond becomes Superman and he can perhaps be criticized for not attempting to stretch the boundaries of his portrayal, but I can't imagine that he was encouraged to do so, I suspect he was discouraged.

Let me conclude that these are my personal observations. You can have a view on these things but you can't win an argument on this, because it is a matter of taste. To argue otherwise would be hazardous, but not "Hazardous".

[Stephenson]

Very well put MHazard. You should try the other actors. LadyS has posted somewhere her insights into this very topic.

I would only add that as the original actor in the role, he set a high standard, if for no other reason than his ability to take a new character and make him immensely popular with the general movie going audience almost immediately. Obviously, there are many other people who were involved in the creation of the Bond phenomena, but as the actor at the heart of it all, Connery carried an immense burden and more than rose to the challenge. I think this is one of the reasons other actors in the role are compared to Connery: no other actor has actually done what he did with the role, make it a success without precedent. Other actors have had the opportunity to play Bond only because of the work Connery did at the start.

I can imagine that the feelings in the late sixties when Connery decided to leave would have been very similar to what we would feel today should someone suggest that another actor could play Indiana Jones or Rocky.

Edited by Stephenson, 25 May 2007 - 02:50 PM.

[jaguar007]

I can imagine that the feelings in the late sixties when Connery decided to leave would have been very similar to what we would feel today should someone suggest that another actor could play Indiana Jones or Rocky.

Spot on.

To many people, Connery was the first and created the screen character of BOnd, therefore he set the standard. I have also found many people who grew up in the Moore or Brosnan generation also prefer Connery in the role. Why? Connery is a screen icon unlike any other actor who has played Bond. He commands the screen and has great charisma. He is the opitomy of masculine. He is in a class with Clark Gable and Gary Cooper. His performancs in FRWL and GF are (imo)the two most defining performances in the Bond series.

It is obvious that the early Connery movies are my favorite, but I will also give time to the other actors. I grew up in the Roger Moore era and Moore ws my first Bond. I will always have a weakness for Moore (I really like him in The Saint). OHMSS is one of my favorite movies and often wonder how Laz would have developed in the role. I am a huge Dalton fan. Was for almost 20 years my 2nd favorite Bond. I always liked Brosnan in the role, but he never seemed man enough. While I enjoyed him, he was never my favorite, all his movies were very middle of the road or worse. Now comes Craig, the first actor who can rival the young Connery. He has the chops and the masculinity that has been missing since the Connery days. Only time will tell.

[LadySylvia]

I can imagine that the feelings in the late sixties when Connery decided to leave would have been very similar to what we would feel today should someone suggest that another actor could play Indiana Jones or Rocky.

Actually, three other actors have portrayed Indiana Jones - River Phoenix, Corey Carrier and Sean Patrick Flannery. And they have all been pretty good - especially Flannery.

I would only add that as the original actor in the role, he set a high standard, if for no other reason than his ability to take a new character and make him immensely popular with the general movie going audience almost immediately. Obviously, there are many other people who were involved in the creation of the Bond phenomena, but as the actor at the heart of it all, Connery carried an immense burden and more than rose to the challenge. I think this is one of the reasons other actors in the role are compared to Connery: no other actor has actually done what he did with the role, make it a success without precedent. Other actors have had the opportunity to play Bond only because of the work Connery did at the start.

Yes, I do agree that Connery did a great job in making the Bond role a success without precedent. And I do believe that he made a great Bond. It's just that I feel that the other five actors who have portrayed Bond also did a great job. Even better, they managed to bring their own touch or style to the role without having to copy Connery. In the end, I think that EON Productions have been lucky in finding six actors who have done a marvelous job with the role. Heck, Barry Nelson and David Niven were also good . . . in their odd ways.

[Stephenson]

Well, all the actors you mentioned played Indiana Jones in his youth, which is different than different actors playing the same character at the same stage of life. Also, these younger actors were all playing the character of Indiana Jones as if he would grow up to be the character the way Harrison Ford played him. I still think it is valid to state that no actor has replaced Ford as Indiana Jones.

I agree that Eon has been very fortunate (and smart) in its selection of actors. But I don't think that any of them have strayed too far from the template created by Flemming, Connery, Cubby and Young (sounds like a law firm). Sure, Laz was a little more sensitive than Connery, Roger was a little more jokey, Dalton a little more serious, and Brosnan a little more suave, but those different facets were all part of the character in the first three films. So while I don't think any actor has tried to copy Connery, I do think they have all based at least part of their performances on what Connery did with the character first, or at least in reaction to it (Moore not wearing a tux in his first film, because of the association with Connery for example).

I also don't think that recognizing Connery as a personal favorite and appreciation for the talent of the other actors is mutually exclusive. Out of a great bunch, I just like Connery the most. But I still think the others are great.

Edited by Stephenson, 28 May 2007 - 10:51 PM.

[LadySylvia]

I agree that Eon has been very fortunate (and smart) in its selection of actors. But I don't think that any of them have strayed too far from the template created by Flemming, Connery, Cubby and Young (sounds like a law firm).

Actually, I think they have. Which is why I believe that all of them made good Bonds. And I believe it was Fleming who created the literary Bond, which both Dalton and Craig came close to re-creating. And I believe it was Broccoli, Saltzman and Young who created the template of the cinematic Bond, which Connery, Moore and Brosnan had more or less followed.

I also don't think that recognizing Connery as a personal favorite and appreciation for the talent of the other actors is mutually exclusive. Out of a great bunch, I just like Connery the most. But I still think the others are great.

I have nothing against people naming Connery's Bond as their favorite (an opinion I don't particularly share). But it just seem to me that instead of simply naming Connery as their favorite, many fans and a great deal of the media tend to name him as the "best Bond" as if it were a matter of fact, instead of an opinion. I realize that I cannot stop them from doing this. But I cannot help but feel irritated whenever someone does this. I just found it irritating . . . and I simply expressed my feeling in the first post.

So while I don't think any actor has tried to copy Connery, I do think they have all based at least part of their performances on what Connery did with the character first, or at least in reaction to it (Moore not wearing a tux in his first film, because of the association with Connery for example).

I don't know if I really agree with this statement. Aside from Lazenby and Brosnan, I don't think that any of the other actors ever really made an attempt to base their performances on Connery's Bond. I think that Lazenby had made a brief attempt, but from what I've seen in OHMSS, he seemed to have quickly abandoned this and did it his own way. I think that Brosnan was the one who really tried tap into both Connery and Moore's style. I just don't think that it worked. Too much of Pierce Brosnan ended up shining through. Roger Moore had made it clear that he deliberately established a different style from Connery's. Dalton seemed to have gone out of his way to recapture the Bond from the novels . . . without the literary Bond's least attractive qualities. Some might cite Daniel Craig's ruggedness as trying to capture Connery's style. But I think that Craig is simply too good an actor to even bother. Also, he seemed to have his own style of ruggedness that he had established in some of his earlier films. And I have read a few articles in which he has expressed a great deal of admiration toward Dalton's gritty take on the character.

Edited by LadySylvia, 29 May 2007 - 03:19 AM.

[Stephenson]

I agree that Eon has been very fortunate (and smart) in its selection of actors. But I don't think that any of them have strayed too far from the template created by Flemming, Connery, Cubby and Young (sounds like a law firm).

Actually, I think they have. Which is why I believe that all of them made good Bonds. And I believe it was Fleming who created the literary Bond, which both Dalton and Craig came close to re-creating. And I believe it was Broccoli, Saltzman and Young who created the template of the cinematic Bond, which Connery, Moore and Brosnan had more or less followed.

But this ignores the fact that Fleming was there at the beginning of the film series, in some ways guiding his creation's transition to the screen. Connery's Bond was a reflection of Fleming's literary Bond because of the author's involvement. Dalton and (now) Craig are often referenced as the actors who most closely personify Fleming's character, but Connery had not only the input of the producers and the director, but also Fleming himself. There may be many contradictory stories concerning Fleming's actual level of involvement, but the fact is he was involved, and so it may be argued that Connery's Bond is the ideal blend of literary and cinematic Bond, at least from the point of view of the producers and the author.

I also don't think that recognizing Connery as a personal favorite and appreciation for the talent of the other actors is mutually exclusive. Out of a great bunch, I just like Connery the most. But I still think the others are great.

I have nothing against people naming Connery's Bond as their favorite (an opinion I don't particularly share). But it just seem to me that instead of simply naming Connery as their favorite, many fans and a great deal of the media tend to name him as the "best Bond" as if it were a matter of fact, instead of an opinion. I realize that I cannot stop them from doing this. But I cannot help but feel irritated whenever someone does this. I just found it irritating . . . and I simply expressed my feeling in the first post.

Okay.

So while I don't think any actor has tried to copy Connery, I do think they have all based at least part of their performances on what Connery did with the character first, or at least in reaction to it (Moore not wearing a tux in his first film, because of the association with Connery for example).

I don't know if I really agree with this statement. Aside from Lazenby and Brosnan, I don't think that any of the other actors ever really made an attempt to base their performances on Connery's Bond. I think that Lazenby had made a brief attempt, but from what I've seen in OHMSS, he seemed to have quickly abandoned this and did it his own way. I think that Brosnan was the one who really tried tap into both Connery and Moore's style. I just don't think that it worked. Too much of Pierce Brosnan ended up shining through. Roger Moore had made it clear that he deliberately established a different style from Connery's. Dalton seemed to have gone out of his way to recapture the Bond from the novels . . . without the literary Bond's least attractive qualities. Some might cite Daniel Craig's ruggedness as trying to capture Connery's style. But I think that Craig is simply too good an actor to even bother. Also, he seemed to have his own style of ruggedness that he had established in some of his earlier films. And I have read a few articles in which he has expressed a great deal of admiration toward Dalton's gritty take on the character.

I think that Moore tried to establish a different style (as you said) only because Connery's Bond cast such a long shadow; as I said before, he shaped his Bond (at least in the beginning) as a reaction to Connery's take on the character. I do think (and this is only my opinion) that Dalton's Bond was based more on an attempt to distance himself from Moore's Bond than anything else. I like his take on the role a great deal (always have) but you can definitely see in his films the way that the producers try to shoehorn in the "clever quips" which Connery made an essential part of the character.

As for Craig, I think he's also great. Let's see what he does next!

[LadySylvia]

But this ignores the fact that Fleming was there at the beginning of the film series, in some ways guiding his creation's transition to the screen. Connery's Bond was a reflection of Fleming's literary Bond because of the author's involvement.

I have read many articles on Fleming. As far as I know, the only impact he had on the Bond films were suggestions on which actors should portray Bond. I do know that he had visited the sets of DR. NO and FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE. But from what I have read, it was director Terrence Young who served as the true guide in creating the cinematic Bond. And from what I have read of the Fleming novels, Connery has never really struck me as the personification of the literary Bond - except for a mild version of the character's sexism.

[MHazard]

John Pearson in his biography of Fleming, which I just finished reading, claims Fleming had no involvement with the movies at all, after his miserable experience with Thunderball. Which makes it amazing that the first four films resembled the books at all in my opinion.

As far as opinions go, I recognize that you can't debate matters of taste. Nonetheless, personally, I see a big difference in quality between the different actors who played Bond. Many of the movies don't work for me at all, and I have to strain to find positive qualities in one of the actors who played Bond. There's another who I think is an excellent actor, except when he plays Bond. I can certainly see how others who are less attached to the novels and didn't grow up with Sean Connery as the only movie Bond (and the thought of him leaving the series was incredibly traumatic, how could anyone replace him?) could take each movie on its own entertainment merits. But, I really can't accept that all the Bond actors were equally great and all the movies were equally good. It's true that you can't debate matters of taste, except that Mohawk and Cossack vodkas really aren't as good as Belvedere or Chopin or Grey Goose and it would be weird if someone felt otherwise. For me, Sean and Craig are head and shoulders above the rest and I'll just leave it there for now.

[Stephenson]

I stand corrected on Fleming's involvement. I was of the understanding that Fleming, while not deeply involved in Dr. No, did have some input and talked with Young about film version of his character. I thought it was after Dr. No that his involvement ceased, due to the condition of his health.

[LadySylvia]

Many of the movies don't work for me at all, and I have to strain to find positive qualities in one of the actors who played Bond. There's another who I think is an excellent actor, except when he plays Bond. I can certainly see how others who are less attached to the novels and didn't grow up with Sean Connery as the only movie Bond (and the thought of him leaving the series was incredibly traumatic, how could anyone replace him?) could take each movie on its own entertainment merits. But, I really can't accept that all the Bond actors were equally great and all the movies were equally good.

I grew up with Connery as Bond on TV and Moore as Bond in the movie theaters. I thought both were great, but different. I just never viewd one as better than the other. It's okay that you don't accept all of the Bond actors as equally great. It's jsut that I do. So, in the end, we have a difference of opinion.

But . . . they are opinions. I don't think that our opinions should be viewed as facts. And the problem I have is that I have encountered too many comments about Connery's tenure as Bond, stated as if they were matters of fact, instead of opinions.

Edited by LadySylvia, 29 May 2007 - 06:41 PM.

[Mamadou]

But . . . they are opinions. I don't think that our opinions should be viewed as facts. And the problem I have is that I have encountered too many comments about Connery's tenure as Bond, stated as if they were matters of fact, instead of opinions.

Which you've said before. And if you'd left it at that, that would've been okay.

Why didn't you write it this way earlier, instead of including that, frankly, stupid analogy that antagonized people who would otherwise have agreed with you?

[MHazard]

Many of the movies don't work for me at all, and I have to strain to find positive qualities in one of the actors who played Bond. There's another who I think is an excellent actor, except when he plays Bond. I can certainly see how others who are less attached to the novels and didn't grow up with Sean Connery as the only movie Bond (and the thought of him leaving the series was incredibly traumatic, how could anyone replace him?) could take each movie on its own entertainment merits. But, I really can't accept that all the Bond actors were equally great and all the movies were equally good.

I grew up with Connery as Bond on TV and Moore as Bond in the movie theaters. I thought both were great, but different. I just never viewd one as better than the other. It's okay that you don't accept all of the Bond actors as equally great. It's jsut that I do. So, in the end, we have a difference of opinion.

But . . . they are opinions. I don't think that our opinions should be viewed as facts. And the problem I have is that I have encountered too many comments about Connery's tenure as Bond, stated as if they were matters of fact, instead of opinions.

Fair enough. I think we can both agree that the question "who was the best Bond" is really "who do you (whosever replying) like best as Bond" which is a matter of taste. There may be objective criteria like who is a more skilled actor or who is most like Fleming's Bond or who has the most realistic fight scenes or who is the funniest (although even these are more than a bit subjective). Beyond that, though it's sort of like arguing whether lima beans taste good (I can't understand that either).

I think some of the stridency that may come to this, particularly when it's my man Sean at issue is that for some of us, Sean was more than just an actor playing James Bond, for those of us who grew up with him, he was a hero figure for us, while we were still kids, just like a sports star (some, including unfortunately, my current girlfriend and my ex-wife, might wonder if I've really passed that stage). So, it probably pushes some of our buttons when our hero (and I know there are some very questionable issues regarding Sean rather than Bond's treatment of women)is criticized. By this I simply mean that we start defending our hero, just like we would on the schoolyard.

All of that having been said, in my opinion, Sean and Craig are head and shoulders above the rest.

[SeanDalton77]

And look what happens when somebody new takes over the role somebody always gives the line best since Connery

[LadySylvia]

But . . . they are opinions. I don't think that our opinions should be viewed as facts. And the problem I have is that I have encountered too many comments about Connery's tenure as Bond, stated as if they were matters of fact, instead of opinions.

Which you've said before. And if you'd left it at that, that would've been okay.

Why didn't you write it this way earlier, instead of including that, frankly, stupid analogy that antagonized people who would otherwise have agreed with you?

After reading this question, I don't think I want to bother answering it.

I think some of the stridency that may come to this, particularly when it's my man Sean at issue is that for some of us, Sean was more than just an actor playing James Bond, for those of us who grew up with him, he was a hero figure for us, while we were still kids, just like a sports star (some, including unfortunately, my current girlfriend and my ex-wife, might wonder if I've really passed that stage). So, it probably pushes some of our buttons when our hero (and I know there are some very questionable issues regarding Sean rather than Bond's treatment of women)is criticized. By this I simply mean that we start defending our hero, just like we would on the schoolyard.

I never had any fictional characters as heroes when I was a kid. I just enjoyed the stories and the characters. And I must confess to sometimes falling asleep in front of the TV while watching Connery's Bond films.

Edited by LadySylvia, 07 June 2007 - 09:21 PM.

[Bondian]

Somewhere in the vaults of CBn. I made a remark that it was Roger Moore who made me understand the character of James Bond, and made me admire Sean.

When I was in Senior School from 1971-1975 (yes, there were School's in those days ). I was fortunate enough to see several Connery Bonds at the end of every term. The film was projected onto a large screen in the gymnasium.

As I didn't really understand the character at this point, or had read the novels. I thought James Bond was a Spanish looking self assured old git. A pompous sexually starved idiot who killed innocent people (for no apparent reason), and seduced the girls just so he could have his way with them. Bond to me was someone who should get killed as he caused me more offence than the baddie who only wanted to blow up the world. But this British tosser was hell bent into shagging anything and sneakily blowing up the poor baddies lair before he'd had a chance to prove that his ideas would even get off the ground. Surely with all the power that Dr. No was using (probably without paying his bill. He couldn't work because of no hands), surely the electricity company would of cut him off before he could complete his mission. Or, his workers would have gone on strike because he couldn't sign their pay packet slips.

After watching The Man with the Golden Gun. I could see that James Bond was not quite the tosser that I thought he was. Okay. He slapped women around. Made love to them under false pretences. But he made me understand that Bond is not as bad as I thought. He could talk to the baddies. Even pacified them with a sense of humour. But, still stopped them from carrying out their mission.

After a few Moore films (pun intended . I went back to the Connery's. Then I realised that his portrayal was more toward how Bond should be. A vicious and arrogant spy (assassin), and maybe this is how a person in his position would be. However. Moore was just as dangerous. But he made me understand the part by relaxed and carefree manner.

In my mind. Moore used his eyes as a spy would. He could show emotion, love, humour and disbelief without using and facial expressions. Surely a man who's killed many people, and who's witnessed death many times (even with passed love ones), Bonds face would be emotionless. But his eyes would display inner feelings. I'm sure any actor would say that acting with the eyes requires a good actor. His Bond was an obvious professional. To be able to square up to a protaganist and show no nervousness or mercy, displays a person who's experienced. A man of the world. A man who's had vast experience with nutters. (this IMHO was Dalton's and Brosnans problem. They showed too much feeling. A professional person would not). A Dentist wouldn't be too worried if he/she needed a filling because they would know the procedures. A none Dentist would usually be scared.

So. Who's the best out of Sean and Rog. Neither. They're both each side of one coin. Laz, Tim, Pee and Danny are other monitory amounts. They each rub against the Sean/Rog coin, but they could never spend it on their own merits.

To answer your question, however long winded I've made it . I'd say that Sean was the curator, Rog is the purveyor.

All the best.


Michael G. Babs.

P.S. If you think this post is financially viable. Please send a donation to...

I'm Skint and Need Money (ISaNM)
22, Chelsea Park Close
Upper Respiratory
London
W12 DICK

[VisualStatic]

Well, this maybe one of the times I offend someone here(on purpose), but people here need to start to realize that everyone has an opinion. Opinions are based on a person's perspective, which is based on said person's life experiences, which are never the same as the next person.

An opinion is neither right nor is it wrong, you may not agree with it, but you have no right to tell someone they are wrong because of it. And if people are going to let a differing opinion affect them, well, I guess that's their problem.

There will be people who think Connery is the best, there are those who think Brosnan is the best and there are those who think someone else is. Odds are they are not going to change their opinion or how they express it and people will just have to learn to deal with and go about their merry way.

Peace.

[Bond James Bond 007]

[quote name='LadySylvia' post='741813' date='24 May 2007 - 17:42']Fans' Opinion on Sean Connery as Bond

[mrsbonds_ppk]

Well, I think Sean Connery was a great 007. His delivery of lines is what I like most about him in the role. Very masculine and just really good.

[Santa]

Connery is the best Bond because he was able to capture both the General Public,Ian Fleming himself came around to Connery's Bond and even wrote scottish detail about bonds parents in later books...........are you calling Ian Fleming the creator of Bond wrong

Er, kind of stepping on your own point there, aren't you? How do we know what Ian Fleming thought about the other Bonds when he didn't live to see them? Engage brain before writing...