NEW PRODUCT: BIG CHIEF STUDIOS: Dr. No Collection 1:6 Scale Figures Limited Edition: 800 (& individual figures)

Apparently Ian Flemming stated that Roger Moore was the most appropriate casting for Bond.

Actually, David Niven did get to play James Bond, he, amongst others, was in the original Casino Royale along with Woody Allen and Peter Sellers.

Anyhow, back to the figures, and, before anyone gets too excited, let's not forget which company we're dealing with here. As good as any prototypes can look, the production figures have all been somewhat below par by comparison. Definitely a case of wait and see....

Rogerbee wrote:
Actually, David Niven did get to play James Bond, he, amongst others, was in the original Casino Royale along with Woody Allen and Peter Sellers.

Anyhow, back to the figures, and, before anyone gets too excited, let's not forget which company we're dealing with here. As good as any prototypes can look, the production figures have all been somewhat below par by comparison. Definitely a case of wait and see....

I was about to sat the same about Niven. Incidentally, David Niven was my grandad's platoon commander in the Phantoms in WW2!

I talked to Big Chief last summer at Birmingham Comicon and they said that for these new Bond's they have new sculptors and team in, as they recognised issues previously...but sadly, the cost of these is still way too high for me.

Great bit of history about your Grandad, I thought David may have served but I didn't know he was that high ranking. Definitely qualified for Bond.

As for the BCS figures, well, we will see...

Rogerbee wrote:
Great bit of history about your Grandad, I thought David may have served but I didn't know he was that high ranking. Definitely qualified for Bond.

As for the BCS figures, well, we will see...

Yeah, can't remember his actual rank - possibly Lt...will need to check! Yes, he definitely qualified haha.

Yup...price me out anyhow, but quite glad after I've seen previous quality

I'll just jump into the battle to defend my James Bond as well! I don't know which is the "best" and if there is a "best" in the end, I would say they all have qualities and flaws, and they all relate to a specific era, both real and in hollywood's system, action, humor, plots, every part is treated very differently between the 60's and today...

In the end, while I appreciate Craig as Bond, I don't think he is a "good" Bond, his movies rely mostly on the visual aspect of action and combat sequences, out of them his lack of emotion and humor is a big let down for me...
On the contrary I find that Moore actually portrayed very well some aspects of James Bond, his dandy fashionable style, his humor, his inflated self esteem, and his mysogynist side. Connery was also very good at that, much more than all other Bonds (I understand this couldn't transpire in the recent movies or feminists would burn the theaters, but from the books JB is a quite a piece of manly mysoginy and can be very vulgar at some moments, which is lightly present in Moore's era)

Now I totally agree some movies are epic fails, the 70's esthaetic hurts a little, Moonraker being one of the worst, but "a view to kill", "live and let die" or "the spy who loved me " are legend!!!

Judi Dench's M did call Brosnan's Bond a sexist misogynist dinosaur and a relic of the cold war, and I guess she nailed it, but, would we want Bond any other way!?

Rogerbee wrote:
Judi Dench's M did call Brosnan's Bond a sexist misogynist dinosaur and a relic of the cold war, and I guess she nailed it, but, would we want Bond any other way!?

Nope.

If I was running the Bond franchise, I never would have brought him into the modern era — he would have stayed in the 50s-60s where his style works.

For what it’s worth, I like that idea a lot, Stryker! It would be awesome if they’d do a ‘period drama’ Bond movie, set in 50s or 60s. I really appreciated how Mad Men portrayed that era, and now thinking how great it would be to have that sort of aesthetic but in a more action-y spy thriller context. :’)

Stryker2011 wrote:

Rogerbee wrote:
Judi Dench's M did call Brosnan's Bond a sexist misogynist dinosaur and a relic of the cold war, and I guess she nailed it, but, would we want Bond any other way!?

Nope.

If I was running the Bond franchise, I never would have brought him into the modern era — he would have stayed in the 50s-60s where his style works.

Agreed completely. If they want a modern Bond, then there are plenty of other action hero spies on the screen. Kingsman is a classic example. James Bond should have stayed in the Cold War era where he belongs.

I think the problem there would have been that it would have been too niche and may not have survived. It has only kept going as long as it has thanks to adapting and moving with the times. In the literary world, the Fleming novels now only make up a small portion of what has followed and the later books have moved with the times also.