91 replies to this topic

[tuttle300]

I understand his bitterness to a degree
And yet THANKS to the role he has the rare honor of being the template that all future Bond actors must face- which is to some degree a mean spirited thing to hang on an actor

In a similar vein ( speaking of iconic roles) lets look at, say, William Shatner, or even Leonard Nimoy as two examples
No matter what else they have done in their careers ( and yes, Nimoy seems to have given a bit more thought into what he chose to do post Spock then Shatner has) their legacy IS Captain Kirk and Spock
Forever


And while it may be an honor from our ( the fans) POV it can be considered a huge crutch to an actor trying to look diversified

While we may be absolutely loving what Daniel Craig is doing for us now as well as the next two films before he moves on..... there are no doubt going to be a couple of roles in the future that he will give his left arm to do- and he may very well be the best actor FOR the role and yet the studio ( the people with the money) will have the right to say privately that they cant take the risk because THEY would worry that the very people they want to attract to see the film will not go because Craig, for a good long while, is going to have the shadow of James Bond hanging over him

It happens all the time to many actors

And yes, it is an honor and the wealth and the attention is awful flattering and yet the poor guy has been quoted in interviews saying that he misses being able to hang out with buddies at the local pub to JUST have a quiet meal for a few hours and yet he cant because EVERYBODY, EVERYWHERE knows who he is now


Is it really worth the cash and the fame? IN the long term..... I'd say no.
I mean before you retire- the average actor probably would like to look back and privately smile at a handful of roles he was able to put his heart into-- even a few roles that may not have made a lot of money and yet that actor is very proud that it was at least made and given the chance

And yet a good portion of famous actors - I bet- have at least one role they tried for and really wanted and yet the studio turned them down- DESPITE the money they brought in from more notable films

And yeah, it is part of job and its the risk you take
Sometimes I think our love for the industry and the god-like pedestals we put these people on causes more than a few of them to sit down in their private moments with a glass of scotch and think of the few roles they would have done for free just to have the chance.
And yet they couldn't because the fame machine that's in place

Then again.... thats show biz

Finally..... Yeah it would be cool for the man to do a brief cameo. But I'm glad it wasn't in this film. It would have been distracting.

THIS film I dare say will be the new Goldfinger standard for all future Bond films

And I dare say that Connery is finally shaking the Best Bond mantle off his shoulders because, lets be honest, I doubt a bunch of this generation of twenty year olds.... while they love Craig in the role, are bothering to grab up the old Connery classics to see what the fuss is all about

The big Bond 50 collection is mostly for the die hard fans
MAYBE they force the grandson to sit and watch From Russia With Love or Gold Finger. But will they catch the same fever?

I doubt it

But anyway I was thinking in the next opening sequence,- speaking of possible Connery cameo opportunities-
M would have Bond be offon a mission and he needs to pick up a package in the field and meet the agent near a pub and as he approaches we see Connery raise his head and cock that eyebrow up in greeting
( This would be a really great close up of the man too)

And he and Bond will trade passwords
"Chilly day today?" Bond will ask

"Could be worse."

"Bond."

"Dobson"

"What do you have for me?"

Connery hands the package over. Bond tucks it under his arm.

"Drink?" Connery would ask, throwing a hand in the direction of the pub

"No thanks. Have to run."

"Hmmmmm." Connery would nod.

Bond would start to walk to walk away and then, as an afterthought, not wanting to offend the man, he'd ask, "Raincheck?" As he says this he would turn around but when he turns, Dobson is gone.

With a shrug, Bond would continue on his way

I think that'd be pretty cool and take, what, a half a day to film?

A nod to us, a nice little paycheck for The Man.......

But probably not meant to be. Oh well.

Edited by tuttle300, 10 November 2012 - 03:59 PM.

[Nick Bone]

Finney was great as Kincade and the 3rd act was a highlight of the film. I would´t change a thing in that movie. All and all, just superb stuff. I also think that Sir Sean would have been a distract. I´m glad they did it with Finney.

And mr. Connery won´t come back from his retirement. Never. He established himself as the original James Bond and became an cinematic icon. Amen to that!

[stromberg]

As many have said before, Connery as Kincade would have stolen the whole movie's thunder.

Here's my version of a cameo (if it had to be): as a neighbor or hunting pal of Kincades who noticed the unfamiliar car and that there was something going on at the mansion. Knocks at the door, asks if everything's okay, and Kincade tells him that young master Bond is not dead and has returned. Connery's reply could be a remark about the nice car, or that Bond always had the habit of surviving and that he reminds him of himself as a young lad. Catches a glimpse of Bond through he half opened door, gives him a nod and leaves. But even something like this would have felt very much shoehorned into the movie.

[Dustin]

No, better no Connery for Kincade

Edited by Dustin, 10 November 2012 - 08:19 PM.

[starschwar]

I honestly think the movie would have been better with Connery in the role. As he was, Kincade just felt out of place - superfluous, even. Having Sean as Bond's loyal caretaker - and care giver - would have been a tasteful tribute. Once they decided against his casting, I think their best option would have been to remove the character in his entirety.

[marktmurphy]

So it would have been a distraction, but the Aston Martin being the one from GF instead of the one from CR isn't? Get real guys.

It's not quite the same as a car having a different numberplate, no.

[Vauxhall]

I honestly think the movie would have been better with Connery in the role. As he was, Kincade just felt out of place - superfluous, even. Having Sean as Bond's loyal caretaker - and care giver - would have been a tasteful tribute. Once they decided against his casting, I think their best option would have been to remove the character in his entirety.

I still feel it would have been a terrible disservice for the actor behind the first James Bond to portray a largely unheroic figure in the 50th anniversary movie. It would have significantly tainted Connery's legacy in the franchise, in my opinion.

[THX-007]

@ Stamper
I did not think for a second about Bourne when Finney showed up. I forgot Finney was in the Bourne Ultimatum until it was mentioned here. All I thought was, "Holy crap! Its Albert Finney." Finney has had a long established career as an actor so he's beyond "Hey, he's that guy from that Bourne film."

[Shrublands]

As many have said before, Connery as Kincade would have stolen the whole movie's thunder.

Here's my version of a cameo (if it had to be): as a neighbor or hunting pal of Kincades who noticed the unfamiliar car and that there was something going on at the mansion. Knocks at the door, asks if everything's okay, and Kincade tells him that young master Bond is not dead and has returned. Connery's reply could be a remark about the nice car, or that Bond always had the habit of surviving and that he reminds him of himself as a young lad. Catches a glimpse of Bond through he half opened door, gives him a nod and leaves. But even something like this would have felt very much shoehorned into the movie.

Yes. Even something like that would disrupt the proceedings fatally.
Connery, in any shape or form, in a Bond film where he is not actually playing Bond, would be so distracting as to kill anything the film makers are attempting to do stone dead.

[Loomis]

Yes, Connery as Kincade would have been distracting (although isn't that kinda the whole point of celebrity cameos?), but it might also have been terrific stuff.

In any case, I still found Finney's Kincade distracting as all I could think about when watching him was how much the character seemed to have been written with Connery in mind. Even his quips seem Conneryesque ("Welcome to Scotland", "I was ready before you were born", etc.), but they have no resonance when they fall from Finney's lips.

If you're going to have a character that's perfect fodder for a Connery cameo, and indeed a character that actually appears to have been written for Connery, then follow through and.... cast Connery. Casting someone else won't stop people thinking about Connery if the character as written in the script looks like a Connery character, walks like a Connery character, quacks like a Connery character, etc. Finney doesn't pass the Connery duck test.

Personally, I'd have gone the whole Tamahori hog and had Bond and M, en route to the Skyfall Lodge, stop off somewhere in Scotland and consult the original 007, played by Connery.

Still, I'm not arguing for a Connery cameo so much as saying that if you're going to have a character that appears to have been created as a Connery cameo you ought to follow through on it.

[Shrublands]

Did he really not know what Bond did for a living when he asked?

Of course an elderly gamekeeper that Bond hasn’t seen for years doesn't know that he now works for the secret service.

[007jamesbond]

the code name theory might never end...

[THX-007]

Personally, I'd have gone the whole Tamahori hog and had Bond and M, en route to the Skyfall Lodge, stop off somewhere in Scotland and consult the original 007, played by Connery.

Then how would you explain the Skyfall manor and Bond's parent's tombstone. Its a coincidence that Craig 007 would have the same family name as Connery 007 and that Moore 007 and Dalton 007 remember Lazenby 007's wife.
And what would this "original 007" say to the "new 007"? "You're the man now dawg"?

[L4YRCAKE]

two thoughts

a) Glad they didn't head down the Connery road, given the way he's treated the series I don't think he deserves it. And it would have overshadowed everything else. the series is much better for having gotten past the baggage of the past (and i'm sick of hearing how EON 'mistreated' SC, they took a second rate actor and turned him into the biggest star in the world....and he still has issues...)

Albert Finney is a terrific actor with half a century of great work behind him, can you please stop referring to him as 'Bourne's creator' FFS......

Lastly, on the subject of 60s icons,,,,I'd LOVE to see Terence Stamp show up in a Bond movie.

Terence Stamp should DEFINITELY be in a Bond film.

[201050]

Connery in Skyfall would have broken the realism of the film. I most likely would have walked out.

[jsteed]

@ Stamper
I did not think for a second about Bourne when Finney showed up. I forgot Finney was in the Bourne Ultimatum until it was mentioned here. All I thought was, "Holy crap! Its Albert Finney." Finney has had a long established career as an actor so he's beyond "Hey, he's that guy from that Bourne film."

Completely agreed, he was also recently in Ocean's Twelve. He starred in many great films and appeared with Connery in Murder on the Orient Express. Loved him in SF.

[Matt_13]

Finney was definitely the right choice.

[Trevelyan 006]

There were definitely Connery undertones in there as I picked up on the aura immediately...
I think that in it self was enough.

The presence of Connery in a role such as that in a Bond movie, may have done more harm than enhancement.

Edited by Trevelyan 006, 13 November 2012 - 02:06 AM.

[Pushkin]

Back in the Brosnan era I always thought that they should have cast Connery as a villain and given the tone of the Brosnan films (with the exception of Goldeneye), I think it would have worked. I also seem to recall Connery intimating he would do it but it would have to be a good payday. I think in that era it would have worked and would have been a nice touch - especially if it had been in DAD, but that ship has sailed I think.

If they were to have done anything in SF, I think it would have had to have been quite brief and I doubt Connery would have done it.

While I am not a big Moore fan (though I loved FYEO), I think he almost certainly would have done a brief cameo. One that might have worked was if Moore was cast as one of the couple who make the quip about Bond being eager to catch the train when he jumps to the train. In fact, that might have worked if you had both Connery and Moore there but I just don't see Connery doing it.

I guess I am in the camp that thinks a lengthy Connery or Moore cameo in SkyFall would have been distracting but I do think its too bad that they have never done this.

[L4YRCAKE]

Oh come on, I think if Connery had played Kincaide our critical thinking parts of our brains would have gone by the wayside and we all would have loved it!

...but yeah, it would have been terribly distracting, and also I think Kincaide is an interesting character that could have a recurring role in future Bond films, clearly he has a past with Bond, apparently taught Bond his way around an armory, and knew his parents? Perhaps he will be Bond's new housekeeper and his confidant, after all Bond probably won't be there a whole lot, not to mention Kincaide probably won't be returning to the Skyfall estate...

What would have been great was for each previous Bond actor to have had at least a cameo to give Mr. Craig their blessing and a tip of the hat to the character's 50th anniversary in Skyfall. It saddens me that all the actors couldn't have at least made a public appearance together at the Royal Premiere, if nothing else.

I think Connery probably was the intractable one when it came to all this. Perhaps by Bond 25 he'll come around? Perhaps I'll also be sleeping on a bed full of money with many beautiful women by then as well... sigh.

[tonyvenhuizen]

Finney created Bourne (in Bourne 3), Sean created the movie James Bond. I think Finney in here is another unecessary nod to Jason Bourne. Sean would have made much more sense, this being the 50.

Do you not agree it would have been a disservice for the actor behind the first movie James Bond to portray an ultimately unheroic figure in the 50th anniversary movie though?

I've noticed a couple comments in this string make reference to this point. Am I missing something, or why are people calling Kincaid a "coward" and an "unheroic figure"? I didn't pick up on that at all. He helped Bond and M prepare for the attack, did his best to fight the attackers, showed M the way to safety, and basically carried her to the chapel once her injuries got the best of her. He failed to rescue her from her injuries or from Silva, but that was required by the story - it wouldn't have been the same if Bond walks in to find that Kincaid has captured Silva and patched up M for the escape!

So what didn't I see?

[L4YRCAKE]

I'll make a wild guess and interpret that as saying that they think it would feel wrong for Connery to play anyone other than the central figure of the film, especially one that failed in saving M's life? I thought Kincaid was pretty heroic, not to mention a helluva shot.

[seawolfnyy]

the code name theory might never end...

Nope, despite all the evidence to the contrary:

Lazenby: reminisces about Dr.No/FRWL/TB/YOLT
Connery: hunts Blofeld down in DAF after Tracy's death
Moore: flinches at mention of dead wife in TSWLM, places flowers on Tracy's grave in FYEO
Dalton: flinches at mention of dead wife in LTK
Brosnan: mentions killing Zorin in EoN
Craig:

Spoiler

visits childhood home and we see his parents' graves with the last name Bond

Edited by seawolfnyy, 14 November 2012 - 07:28 AM.

[Dustin]

I'll make a wild guess and interpret that as saying that they think it would feel wrong for Connery to play anyone other than the central figure of the film, especially one that failed in saving M's life? I thought Kincaid was pretty heroic, not to mention a helluva shot.

Indeed, Kincade held himself pretty well during the fight. Doubt that I would be able to perform the same when I'm closing in on 80 and carry considerable weight on top of my mileage. Also he's not a professional, the guy isn't used to having to fend off an army of mercenaries. Finally being confronted by their leader without having a weapon left - what was he supposed to do? Rip off Silva's head?

[S K Y F A L L]

Sam Mendes And Mr. Beaks Talk SKYFALL!

Beaks: I have to follow-up on the Sean Connery story that came out recently, that you considered Sean Connery for the Albert Finney role.

Mendes: That's a misquote. Someone asked me if I ever considered Sean Connery for the Albert Finney role, and I said, "Of course, his name was mentioned, but I immediately said there was no way that was going to work." He's James Bond. That would take you completely out of the movie. I never considered Connery for a cameo. I should just say "No" when I'm asked those questions because someone will just spin it into a story.

Beaks: It's getting traction.

Mendes: Well, it's not a story. "There's an older man. What about Sean Connery?" "Of course not. We can't cast Sean Connery. That would take you completely out of the movie." (Laughs) That was literally the conversation.

I wouldn't have minded if Kincade was played by Connery and I don't think it would have taken me out of the film.

[00617]

I'm glad that they didn't get Sean since it would have gotten people believing in that stupid code-name theory again.

[Guy Haines]

I think the right casting decision was made, even though Albert Finney's Scottish accent was a little curious to my ear. Connery worked as, say, Indiana Jones's dad because we had never seen him twenty years before playing Indiana Jones (Difficult since the character didn't exist until 1981!). It was a nice "in joke", as Spielberg had always said he would have liked to direct a Bond film but never did - and so the lost chance of a Bond film begat Jones.

But Connery as Kincade would have been a distraction. In the minds of some, especially older viewers, Connery is the only "proper" Bond. It's not hard to imagine some thinking "ah, the "real" Bond has turned up" when Kincade appears, had Sean Connery been cast. I think the same problem could occur should Roger Moore be cast in a non Bond cameo. The only Bond actor who might be able to get away with a return in another role is Timothy Dalton, and even then I have my serious doubts about that.

[L4YRCAKE]

I'm glad that they didn't get Sean since it would have gotten people believing in that stupid code-name theory again.

Okay, I know what Mendes said in the interview, but c'mon:

1) The dialogue seems clearly written for Connery.

2) Going back to Scotland was a nod to Connery that Fleming retconned into the books after seeing Connery in the role and being unexpectedly pleased.

3) I think there's sufficient argument that Mendes plausibly could have said what he did because it sounded better than, 'Yeah, we wrote it for Sean, we wanted to underscore the idea of going back in time in order to move forward for Craig's Bond on the 50th and he wouldn't even have a discussion about it so we went with someone else.' And I say again, plausibly. But Mendes does have a habit of denying things, albeit for obvious reasons.

4) I think the line 'What is it you do again?' said by Finney was written to deflect any thought of the 'code name theory', which I also abhor.

Bond is timeless and not set in the real world, explaining that with a codename simply isn't necessary.

[stamper]

I doubt a bunch of this generation of twenty year olds.... while they love Craig in the role, are bothering to grab up the old Connery classics to see what the fuss is all about

Bull. Youngsters EAT every movie they can, and they are all looking at the whole series before or after a new one if they haven't seen any.

I wonder why they didn't use Lazenby. As such, using Finney, who is the creator of Bourne in the movies, is a stupid choice.

[SecretAgentFan]

I'm glad that they didn't get Sean since it would have gotten people believing in that stupid code-name theory again.

Okay, I know what Mendes said in the interview, but c'mon:

1) The dialogue seems clearly written for Connery.

2) Going back to Scotland was a nod to Connery that Fleming retconned into the books after seeing Connery in the role and being unexpectedly pleased.

3) I think there's sufficient argument that Mendes plausibly could have said what he did because it sounded better than, 'Yeah, we wrote it for Sean, we wanted to underscore the idea of going back in time in order to move forward for Craig's Bond on the 50th and he wouldn't even have a discussion about it so we went with someone else.' And I say again, plausibly. But Mendes does have a habit of denying things, albeit for obvious reasons.

4) I think the line 'What is it you do again?' said by Finney was written to deflect any thought of the 'code name theory', which I also abhor.

1) Where do you see a valid reason for that?

2) Yes, it is common knowledge that Fleming used Connery´s heritage for the literary Bond after being impressed by him.

3) Mendes has a habit of denying things? Well, as much as anybody else has.

4) Why do you think that line deflects that theory?