Introducing my 007-part passion project: Battle of the Bonds

I’ve recently kicked off a passion project that’s bounced around my head for years. I’ve called it Battle of the Bonds and in it, I dive deep into each Bond actor, their films, and their legacies as the world’s favorite super spy.

By the end of this celebratory series, you’ll know who my favorite Bond is, who I believe the best Bond to be, and, more importantly, why each Bond has played a critical role in ensuring our beloved franchise is here to stay. I’m four parts deep already, and I hope you’ll all join me for the remainder of this ride. Cheers!

Battle of the Bonds // Part 000 // Mission Briefing

Part 001 // Sean Connery

Part 002 // George Lazenby

Part 003 // Roger Moore

Part 004 // Timothy Dalton

Part 005 // Pierce Brosnan

Part 006 // Daniel Craig

Part 007 // Mission Report

Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang wrote:

So you're intrigued? Or is that your version of a Roger Moore eyebrow raise by way of emoji?

Part 005 // Pierce Brosnan

I have a complicated relationship with Pierce Brosnan.

I'm a child of the 90s and Brosnan was the first Bond I saw in theaters, so you might think I look back on his era fondly...but I simply don't.

Pierce Brosnan is my least favorite Bond. Find out why in the latest Battle of the Bonds.

Battle of the Bonds // Part 006 // Daniel Craig

I grew up with Sean Connery, George Lazenby, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton, and Pierce Brosnan. I came of age with Daniel Craig.

Only time will tell how Daniel Craig’s legacy as James Bond will evolve as we get further and further from his run, but no matter how fondly or cruelly the passage of time looks back on Craig, the impact he’s had on my life will forever remain the same.

Daniel Craig wasn’t my first Bond and he won’t be my last, but he will always be my Bond.

Battle of the Bonds // Part 007 // Mission Report

We’ve come quite a long way since starting this journey together, haven’t we?

You’ve been so kind in allowing me to inundate you with my countless thoughts, opinions, and musings on this franchise, its actors, and its films. For that I thank you.

With the final entry in my Battle of the Bonds series, I leave you with rankings, reflections, and closing thoughts on the future of James Bond.

Why hasn’t he been banned yet? ^

Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang wrote:

Why hasn’t he been banned yet? ^

That seems a bit harsh, no?

Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang wrote:

Why hasn’t he been banned yet? ^

He knows how to persevere in the face of massive indifference, I'll give him that.

Blunt Instrument wrote:

Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang wrote:

Why hasn’t he been banned yet? ^

He knows how to persevere in the face of massive indifference, I'll give him that.

Well there’s that or pure delusion. I mean:

avl_bmb wrote:

We’ve come quite a long way since starting this journey together, haven’t we?

Indeed so. 'Mikey' over in 'Other Hobbies And Interests' seems to be a kindred spirit, with his thread about his Sixties spy movies book in which only he has posted.

It surely has been an interesting experiment seeing the differing levels of engagement within the many Bond boards in which I've shared my works. This is billed as the less censored forum of the pack, yes? I thought I had packed enough f-bombs to move the needle. Oh well. Maybe I'll hit up this Mikey fellow.

I don't know what is going on here. am I missing links or something?

Sarai wrote:

I don't know what is going on here.  am I missing links or something?

Links to all parts of my Battle of the Bonds series should appear in the first post on this thread.  Here's a link to a list containing each part:

Battle of the Bonds

Feel free to search Blake Matson Becker on Medium or avl_bmb on Instagram if the confusion persists. I'd love to hear what you think.

thank you!

I'm not sure why but the links wouldn't work for me the few times I checked this thread but all good to go now and just started reading.

Sarai wrote:

I don't know what is going on here.  am I missing links or something?

Someone’s missing a screw in this thread but it’s not you.

Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang wrote:

Sarai wrote:

I don't know what is going on here.  am I missing links or something?

Someone’s missing a screw in this thread but it’s not you.

Seems screwy to me that someone with 8,000+ posts on a James Bond message board would take such umbrage with another fan sharing their thoughts on the franchise.

"It’s no secret that James Bond is a sexual opportunist at best and a full-on misogynistic predator at worst, and Bond’s first film outing establishes that quite clearly. "

misogynistic predator? that might fit Richard Ramirez or the like but nothing in Bonds character even comes close

Sarai wrote:

"It’s no secret that James Bond is a sexual opportunist at best and a full-on misogynistic predator at worst, and Bond’s first film outing establishes that quite clearly. "

misogynistic predator? that might fit Richard Ramirez or the like but nothing in Bonds character even comes close

I understand the complexities of analyzing the past through the modern lens, and that sexuality is a tool that Bond utilizes to fulfill the mission, but I think it's pretty clear Bond fits the description, especially in his pre-Dalton days. You don't have to be a full-blown serial rapist and murderer to fit that bill.

the definition of the word says it refers to someone who despises or hates women and I can't find any examples of that in any of his portrayals or actions.

Sarai wrote:

the definition of the word says it refers to someone who despises or hates women and I can't find any examples of that in any of his portrayals or actions.

There's a reason the GoldenEye screenwriters used that very word to make a clear, concise, cutting commentary on the character. Hate, too, is a strong word, but I would most certainly say the way in which the Connery, Lazenby, and Moore Bonds, in particular, treat, interact with, and use women is proof that Bond, again, fits that bill.

We can like the character and still acknowledge the unfortunate realities of said character. He is the product of an entitled sexist, racist, and homophobe of a certain unenlightened era after all. This fact doesn't make the books or the movies inherently evil but it is something that should be acknowledged by fans.

To shy away from these unfortunate truths would be a disservice to progress.

What are you on about?

To begin with, the “umbrage” taken by MKKBB was not, per you, because you innocently wished to share your thoughts on the franchise but rather because you knowingly hawked yourself at us via some platform-building social site sans attempt at even the pretense of engaging the community. Twelve of your thirteen posts to this point are in this marketeering thread, while the one other one is in someone else’s (also belching into the ether) product thread, revealing your actual motive as not to generate discussion but clicks, and not join BaB so much as use it to network (better to try the local Starbucks next time).

I also have to tell you that I struggle relating to someone who would write an eight part essay series on a character that they feel truly hates women. “Facta non verba.” Common where theoretical anti-"ism" stances constitute cheap exhibitions of virtue. You want to have your cake and eat it too. Granted, I might not be as morally cognizant in my service towards progress, but very simply if I genuinely believed the character hated women I would not make it very far in watching. That you continue to watch in spite of your belief in Bond’s “misogyny” indicates to me that you have on the one hand reached an intellectual conclusion of what is going on but on the other hand a more intuitive grasp that it's not so simple (else you would simply “cancel” him).

Hence why reducing Fleming to the label of “entitled sexist, racist, and homophobe” is woefully inadequate and reductive in the face of your admitting you understand the “complexities of analyzing the past through the modern lens.” It seems not, since to label him as such implies he was somehow more “-ist” than others of his own time, which he was not. As in law there must be a statute of limitations on the retroactive bigotry. No end point otherwise.

I think it is fine if maybe at one time you enjoyed these films but life has since put you at ideological odds with them (I wouldn’t know — I didn’t give you a click to find out your history). But if so, just move on. The mental dance routine needed to keep the delusion in alignment would take so much out of me that I would not be able to process the even latest Shonda Rimes tv series.

avl_bomb wrote:

of a certain unenlightened era
...
To shy away from these unfortunate truths would be a disservice to progress.

This sounds so advanced. The history of the second half of the twentieth century (most of which Fleming spent dead) would laugh at the idea of progress outside science.

To take some other topic on par with the low stakes of James Bond commentary, let me point out that one of the most “racist” films I can think of (and this is using any contemporary definition of “racism”) was released just less than 18 months ago, achieved wide critical acclaim, was nominated for and won awards, and had the second highest streaming numbers of any film released that year. But the Borat sequel gets a pass because it “only” demeans the people of Kazakhstan, demonstrating that insults directed at some peoples but not others are fine, as insidious a form of “racism” as there ever was.

“Progress.” A faith that comes not so much from belief as from fear of what it might mean for its devotees to give it up.

I am embarrassed at having gone on at such length. I’ll hose off out back.

Brilliant, Somerset.

I concur with BI - wonderful post Somerset. Hit the nail on the head in every respect.