I dunno, I've liked later Bonds. I've only read a few and in those 007 is pretty broken character in those instead of always happy charming chipper that he at times was. He doesn't need to be full on silly.

Main fault I have for Craig would be he doesn't fit the Suave Britishman image that I got of 007 (might be from older bond movies, I can't recall how books described him).

Damn, you got me on that one. Never even heard of him, let alone that early-early version of Casino Royale. We have the later David Niven-Bond spoofish version and it is perfectly horrible in a Benny Hill / Mel Brooks sort of way.

As a kid, I liked that movie a lot (the parodic one with Niven and all the actors ever). I have absolutely no idea why. I guess I liked Benny Hill/Mel Brooks sort of humour. Also it has an awesome theme song thing, which reminds me of The Brain, for some reason.

But I wasn't sure if you were mentioning Niven because of that film, or because of Ian Fleming having actually envisionned Niven as James Bond when they were looking for Dr No's casting. His judgement on Connery (as an overgrown stuntman or something like that) makes me wonder what he'd have thought of Daniel Craig today. I guess that his own point of view in these who-is-the-best-bond would have been surprising...

Anyway, the Barry Nelson tv movie is really fun to watch, for historical reasons. Short, cliché and deliciously boring. I recommend checking at least 5 min of it for the lulz.

Speaking of Ian Flemming's vision: I hope the next actor will be closer to Flemming's original illustration. He looks like a bulkier Peter Cushing. Too bad that it's too late to tell Cushing to put on some weight.

...who was actually on the lists of potential Bond actors, when they were thinking of replacing Lazenby/Connery.

But I guess that, if they had taken him, we would have missed on possibly the greatest Holmes ever.

Apparently, the actor Richard Johnson (The Haunting, Deadlier than the Male, Lara Croft: Tomb Raider) was originally offered the part of Bond back in the 60s, but declined, due to an existing contract.

I am perfectly happy with the way things turned out :)

As for an actor who is still alive and kicking, I think Richard Armitage is the best possible choice. He looks the part and he was really good in Strike Back.

Also, it might be just because I don't have much personal investment in the series, but I wish that the post-Casino Royal continuity might actually make the fan theory "James Bond is a codename" canon. I think that with Craig's bond age adressed the way it was in Skyfall they made the first step towards doing away with Bond's eternall youth. Let's have Craig be the first, "real" Bond, and let's have him die in his finall movie. Then, at the very end, a scene with M saying to Moneypenny "James Bond has become to valuable an asset to just let him die" and handing her a file on the new 007.

"Eternal youth"?! -- you obviously never watched Roger Moore in the role! :-D

Anyway, Craig's Bond is a total wipe of the slate anyway, so the previous ones don't even factor in.

I don't really see how it makes sense. How much of an asset a name can be ? Notoriety ? For a spy ? That's turning up to eleven the very most-famous-secret-agent aspect that was preventing Moore to ever take the role seriously. If anything, spies would have to lose their names, not to publicize them. Especially if the series wants to go towards more (pseudo) realism.

That said, with the last few movies having gone more warlike commando assault than spy infiltration, I guess that batman-ing the role would make sense. But, anyway, I'm fine with non-rationalized changes of actors. As far as I'm concerned, they're just separate films, and can have as many Bond faces as we have Holmes...

He does not need to introduce himself as Bond, James Bond when he wants his identity not to be known. He can use any alias then. I was thinking about "James Bond" being something like the names of knights of the Round Table in Kinsgsman.

Well there's... the MI6, and that would not be very nice for the other agents, especially the other 00.

I prefer to see Bond as just one operative amongst others (maybe less prone to dying), rather than a living myth in-world. He's not supposed to be perceived as superman. Heck, in the novels, he keeps being pushed around for failing missions (well, getting brainwashed and trying to murder M, that counts as failure) or being maniaco-depressive (after Tracy's death), or being out of shape, or clumsily dying at the end of every book (being retconned to "mostly dead" at the beginning of every next one).

It would push the genre too much outside spy movies into superhero mantle genre, I think, and the balance is already fragile. His job should be more ingrate. "James Bond" is already supposed to be a deliberately boring, common name. Well, so much for that...

Let's not pretend Bond movies have anything to do with actuall spy stuff in any realm of reality. Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy this stuff is not.

Anyway, I'm not going to defend the idea too much, I don't care for Bond quite enough for that. It's just a theory I always liked and would like to see made canon. Well either that, or he is a Time Lord.

Well, I happen to like spy movies/series (all of dubious realism of course), ranging from the Harry Palmer series to Danger Man, and whatnot. They kinda set the codes that I enjoy. And yeah, the Bond stories have veered a bit far, but still, at the roots (both Fleming's views of Bond as a boring civil servant and the first film plots à la "From Russia") they're supposed to fit these tropes.

I'd prefer they did. I so miss cold war plots.

Lol, I never heard of this guy but I've seen pics of him on the web, also as some GOGer's avatar. Now here comes the kicker: I always mistook him for a young Peter Cushing.