While Ian Fleming’s James Bond has been brought to life on-screen by six iconic actors, none of them look or act quite the way that the author described in his books. Since James Bond has famously been played by different actors, it is somewhat surprising to see that Fleming was consistent when it came to the particulars of the character’s appearance, demeanor, personality traits, and vices. However, Fleming’s Bond wasn’t the exact character who appeared in the franchise’s movie adaptations, as numerous screenwriters took creative liberties with 007 over the decades.

While there are technically eight actors who have played 007 in movies — and Bond 26’s eventual release will bring that number to nine — only six of these actors are considered official versions of James Bond. The franchise began in 1962 with Sean Connery starring as Bond, with each subsequent actor’s interpretation of the character diverging further from Fleming’s source material. By the time 2006’s Casino Royale rolled around, the press was in an uproar over Daniel Craig becoming the first blonde Bond. However, Fleming’s take on 007 had already been pretty thoroughly rewritten by that stage in the series.

Sean Connery's 007 Cleaned Up James Bond

Fleming’s Character Was A Lot More Problematic

While Connery’s early movies stuck pretty close to the Fleming novels they were adapted from, Connery was warmer and less sharp than the author’s take on the character. Fleming himself told Playboy Magazine that Bond had "very few perceptible virtues" outside of patriotism and courage, only for the author to then question whether these were even virtues. By contrast, Sean Connery’s influential take on Bond was every bit the matinée idol. Admittedly, much of Bond’s conduct in these early movies would now be considered problematic. However, the series itself uncritically presented Connery’s Bond as a hero, whereas Fleming’s literary character was always intended to be more morally ambiguous.

Connery’s Bond was also notable for shaving off some of the more objectionable elements of Fleming’s take on the character. While his conduct with women was questionable at best, and he could be a boorish brute at times, Connery’s take on 007 never challenged the prejudices that Fleming’s 007 vocalized throughout the novel series. As noted by one Time article, Fleming’s Bond held racist beliefs about Korean people, while his dalliance with Pussy Galore uncovered some terrible views on homosexuality. Fortunately, the timeless Bond movies didn’t hand Bond the chance to damn himself by letting the super-spy share these takes on-screen.

George Lazenby's James Bond Came Close to Fleming's Vision

This Darker Take On 007 Was Truer To The Source Material

Lazenby only lasted one movie in the role of Bond, but he couldn’t have had a better shot at the part. The tragic On Her Majesty’s Secret Service wouldn’t have worked without anyone else in the role, and journalist Ben McIntyre argued that the actor came closest to embodying Fleming’s take on Bond in his 2008 book For Your Eyes Only. It’s easy to see where McIntyre’s argument comes from, as Lazenby’s Bond took himself more seriously than Connery's did, much like Fleming’s version of the spy. Outside an infamous fourth-wall-breaking opening gag, his storyline was also more grounded, which allowed Lazenby to embody Bond’s troubled side.

Roger Moore's Comical Bond Effectively Abandoned Fleming's Bond

This Campy Take On 007 Was A Departure From The Books

Roger Moore’s take on Bond was infamously campy, with the screen veteran leaning into the character’s smarmy charm and all but abandoning his dark side. This was a significant departure from the Bond of Fleming’s novels, but as Moore’s movies sent Bond to space and on a Blaxploitation-inspired adventure, it became clear that the franchise was taking the lead character of the book series in a new direction. Fittingly, Moore also didn't look much like Fleming’s description of Bond. In the novels, Bond’s physical appearance was canonically compared to singer Hoagy Carmichael, a sharp-faced crooner whose severe brand of good looks didn't resemble Moore’s round-faced, smiley persona at all.

Timothy Dalton's 007 Returned To Fleming's Style of Bond

The Star's Cold Bond Was More In Line With Fleming's Antihero

Timothy Dalton won full marks for his resemblance to Hoagy Carmichael, and his similarities to Fleming’s take on Bond didn't end there. Dalton’s brief two-movie tenure saw the actor granting Bond a level of moral ambiguity that wasn’t seen in earlier franchise outings, as well as a mean, impersonal edge. Both of these qualities were taken directly from Fleming’s novels, where Bond was often called cruel and was notably capable of killing in cold blood without much of an emotional reaction. Craig’s Bond reinvented 007 as a tortured soul, but Dalton’s darker, colder take on the spy was arguably as close as the series came to Fleming’s vision.

Pierce Brosnan Blended Fleming's Bond With Moore's 007

His Super-Spy Was Campier, But Brosnan Still Captured Some Of Fleming's Ideas

From the sublime to the sublimely ridiculous, Pierce Brosnan’s deservedly acclaimed take on 007 repeated Moore’s gambit and moved further away from the character seen in the novels. The icy assassin of Fleming’s novels was replaced by a cheeky, self-aware charmer during Brosnan’s time in the role, though this wasn’t a total betrayal of the author’s 007. Writer Jeremy Black noted in The Politics of James Bond that this lighter take on the character was still closer to Fleming’s 007 than Moore’s Bond. Brosnan was a suave, sharp-faced killer with none of Moore’s bumbling physicality, and his self-aware charm didn’t make this take on the character any less ruthless.

Daniel Craig's Great Bond Strayed Far From Fleming's Character

The Actor's Humanity Saved The Series But Rewrote Fleming's Calculating Killer

Daniel Craig’s hair color might not have helped his case, but the star soon overcame this issue when viewers saw him in the role. Craig’s Bond movies set critical records for Bond, as reviewers lined up to praise the actor’s take on the role. His gritty, post-9/11 incarnation of 007 dropped the sly self-referentiality of Brosnan’s Bond in favor of anguish and internal torment. However, while this change was welcome according to critics and fans alike, Craig's 007 didn't align with Fleming’s take on Bond at all. For one thing, at 5 feet and 10 inches, Craig was a little too short to fulfill Bond’s six-foot frame.

More pertinently, Craig’s Bond was plagued by moral dilemmas that never seemed to trouble Fleming’s character. Much of what made Bond so beloved — and made Fleming’s novels so hotly contested decades later — was the ease with which he killed. While Craig’s worst Bond movie saw 007 struggling to cope with MI6 betraying him, Fleming’s Bond was never fazed by even his most intimate colleagues and friends turning out to be double agents. Fleming’s Bond was constantly canonically described as cold, aloof, uncaring, and all the better at his job for these qualities. Ironically, by humanizing James Bond, Craig couldn’t have strayed further from the character’s original incarnation.

Source: Playboy, Time, For Your Eyes Only, The Politics of James Bond