Gritty. And this is just personal opinion, but I think your pic should be Connery, Dalton or Craig versus Moore or Brosnan.

But don't let me tell you how to run your awesome polls.

Nitty Gritty Dirt Bond

I wouldn't say Dr. No, Goldfinger, You Only Live Twice, Thunderball and Diamonds are Forever as gritty, "realistic" James Bond.

BOTH.

True, but like I said it's my personal opinion. My favorite Connery is From Russia With Love so that's the one I associate with him. Goldfinger, YOLT and Diamonds are Forever definitely trump that though.

Bond with Larger-Than-Life Villains, Incredible Gadgets and Death-Defying Stunts (Goldfinger, Dr. No, Spy Who Loved Me,
Tomorrow Never Dies)

Which is why the new direction, and Craig, are disappointments

My favorite Connery, and favorite Bond overall, is From Russia as well. But since most of his films aren't that style, I can't consider him a gritty Bond.

And really, even with his toughness, would you say his personality was gritty or a bit over the top unflappable and cool under pressure?

And I would put Dr. No in the "gritty" category, there were no gadgets (save a geiger counter) and the villians only goal was to f*** up America's rocket tests. Hardly world domination.

Depends on the movie. His Bond, like Moore's, evolved over the course of his time in the role. He was definitely dark and gritty for Dr. No and FRWL, but I think he became over the top as soon as he showed he was wearing a tuxedo underneath his wetsuit. Or possibly before that when he had the duck on his head. I guess my reaction is more for the Connery-Bond that I prefer rather than the one he is associated with playing overall.

Although I'm not too sure if you'd call Moore's approach "evolution" or just "change" from Live and Let Die to A View to a Kill. Depends on what you like, I suppose.

Really? The secret island, owned by Dr. No? His robot hands? His part in the complex global organization SPECTRE?

You'd consider that gritty?

After all, even Fleming alternated the types of villains and threats that Bond faced. His third novel, MOONRAKER, changed the formula of the first two and drastically raised the stakes. I would love to see that book filmed as a period piece.

I suppose "realistic overall" would be a better description. There are some fantastic elements, just as there are fantastic elements in every Bond movie. FRWL has Rosa Klebb's poison-tipped dagger shoes and Red Grant's garrote watch as well as their part in the complex global organization SPECTRE, for instance.

Yeah, did they ever change the story to that one...

Both of those weapons seem like they're highly plausible, however.

I guess we just agree to disagree. I think Dr. No is the type of villain you'd find in a Captain America comic book.

Let me clarify: As a movie by itself, no, it is not realistic. When compared to most 007 flicks it is one of the more realistic ones. I'd put it below Casino Royale, the 2 Daltons and FRWL. It would be below For Your Eyes Only if it weren't for the over the top pre-credits sequence. It would be below OHMSS except, you know, mind control.

If you still don't agree with that, then we are at an impasse. But I still like you.

Movie nonwithstanding though, I would say that Dr. No Connery was definitely dark and gritty.

"That's a Smith and Wesson - and you've had your six."

Why are you trying to antagonize me?

I love you