Kaching999
Herald
I agree it is debatable between FRWL and Casino Royale. But FRWL is an exception in his entire run in the series. After FRWL and even before that his films increasingly lean into the suave, seemingly unflappable, and externally focused hero, sanding down some of the internal conflict and rougher edges of Fleming's literary creation. While Connery certainly embodied the vital elements of physical presence, confidence, and ruthlessness but the pervasive charm and reduction of visible inner turmoil did create a Bond who could feel a tad bit too perfect compared to the more complex and sometimes troubled character on the page.
Connery absolutely defined Bond's cinematic charisma, sophistication, and effortless cool. This became the dominant trait associated with his portrayal, sometimes overshadowing other aspects. The tailored suits, the witty remarks, the ease with women and luxury, these were amplified on screen.
This leaned towards the "super-spy" archetype rather than Fleming's more grounded. Fleming's novels frequently delve into Bond's internal state: his occasional melancholy, his self-doubt, and his reflections on the morality (or lack thereof) of his profession. The films with Connery largely externalized Bond. His conflicts were almost always with external villains and physical threats, not deep dives into his own psyche or moral quandaries. As the series progressed with Connery, especially after Goldfinger, the character often seemed increasingly infallible. He'd escape impossible situations with a quip, always seemed one step ahead, and the sense of genuine vulnerability or desperation seen in moments like the FRWL train fight became less common.
Where the conversation differs I think is where one sees Bond coming from, the movies or the books, if you look at the movies then Connery tops the charts but if you look the character on paper then Daniel Craig is better.
