49 replies to this topic

[Loomis]

While I greatly enjoy all the Bond films, and feel that all five Bond actors have done wonderful work, I have reached the conclusion that Connery was, is and always will be the one and only true James Bond 007 of the big screen.

A Bond film without Connery isn't a proper Bond film, just as (while I enjoy Amis, Gardner and Benson) a Bond novel not written by Ian Fleming isn't a proper Bond novel.

Yes, I adore THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN and THE SPY WHO LOVED ME. Moore's "fun-for-all-the-family" charm gets me every time. Yes, I love THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS and LICENCE TO KILL. DIE ANOTHER DAY is, for me, terrific escapist fare, while ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE is perhaps the most artistically accomplished film of the entire series.

But something's always missing. Or, rather, someone.

And that someone is the guy with more star quality, charisma and sex appeal than all four of the other Bond actors put together. The face of the "golden age" of 60s Bondmania, when England's superspy was a pop culture phenomenon even bigger than The Beatles. The classic James Bond: Connery.

Yes, all the Bond films are very nice (even the relatively poor ones), but perhaps the Connery Bond films are all one really needs.

[brendan007]

I could say the exact same thing about Brosnan

[Loomis]

Originally posted by brendan007

I could say the exact same thing about Brosnan

Tsk, you youngsters.

[ray t]

Originally posted by Loomis
Yes, all the Bond films are very nice (even the relatively poor ones), but perhaps the Connery Bond films are all one really needs.

hmm...my first cinematic bond was connery (YOLT re-release and 'Diamonds). i think the run Dr No - YOLT, that run of 5, is top notch...it could be match by brosnan, however...

if you really feel that way, loomis old boy, might as well pack it in..i mean. if thats all you "need"....

[Loomis]

Originally posted by ray t

if you really feel that way, loomis old boy, might as well pack it in..i mean. if thats all you "need"....  

Pack it in? Never!

DIE ANOTHER DAY did not disappoint, and I'm greatly looking forward to BOND 21. Sure, the current crop of Bond films is nowhere near as good as "the run Dr No - YOLT", but, hey, even "inferior" Bondage is better than no Bondage.

But, still, I can't help feeling that The Connery Era versus The Non-Connery Era(s) is a little like The Beatles versus Paul McCartney and Wings, or Led Zeppelin versus Jimmy Page and Robert Plant.

[007luvchild2]

I felt like that 10 years ago. What I admire about Connery is despite he was viewed as a jock, blue collar, body builder model, he performed a darn sexy, classy character in the spirit of Fleming Casino Royale or Dr. No. He was talented in doing that, If they have gotten any other actor who had an affluent background, it would probably turn out second nature to them. However Connery, just took it and made it his own, and was able to make Bond one of the most memorable characters of the pop culture. At one point in time, when reading those two novels mentioned, I often put Connery face with the literary Bond. (Not taking in consideration eye color, but the man does have a cruel mouth though.) However, then again I wonder, if the official series started with Moore instead of Connery, would individuals have those same sentiments?

[ray t]

Originally posted by Loomis


Pack it in? Never!

DIE ANOTHER DAY did not disappoint, and I'm greatly looking forward to BOND 21. Sure, the current crop of Bond films is nowhere near as good as "the run Dr No - YOLT", but, hey, even "inferior" Bondage is better than no Bondage.

But, still, I can't help feeling that The Connery Era versus The Non-Connery Era(s) is a little like The Beatles versus Paul McCartney and Wings, or Led Zeppelin versus Jimmy Page and Robert Plant.

i agree about DAD and bond 21

yea...that 1969-1979 Led Zep era....outstanding! they broke the mould after that one....still Pink Floyd without syd barret was infinitely superior, non?

[Loomis]

Originally posted by 007luvchild2

However, then again I wonder, if the official series started with Moore instead of Connery, would individuals have those same sentiments?  

Good question. What if Moore had done DR. NO - YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE and DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER, and Connery had done LIVE AND LET DIE - A VIEW TO A KILL? Would Moore, not Connery, be the yardstick by which all other Bonds are measured?

Still, as it is, Connery is the supreme overlord of Bond actors, in the eyes of many if not most.

[CommanderBond]

couldnt have said it any better. Connery is the best.If he wasnt they wouldnt compair all the other bonds to him.

[Moore Not Less]

The title of this thread is wrong. It should have been,

Let's face it: a Bond film WITH Connery isn't a proper Bond film.

I am referring of course to that atrocity of a Bond film called Never Say Never Again.

Octopussy rules!

[DLibrasnow]

Absolutely not Moore Not Less

I love Never Say Never Again...it is not only one of my favorite Bond movies but one of my favorite movies.

[Roebuck]

Originally posted by Loomis
I can't help feeling that The Connery Era versus The Non-Connery Era(s) is a little like The Beatles versus Paul McCartney and Wings, or Led Zeppelin versus Jimmy Page and Robert Plant.

At the risk of being branded an old foggie, I'm inclined to agree with you on this Loomis (though OHMSS is still a classic without Connery and NSNA is a bit below par even with him).
Yes, I've got all the DVDs, but it's the first six films I find myself watching again and again.
I grant you that the later movies had more action, bigger stunts, more elaborate effects;
It's just that I prefer the earlier scripts and the look and style of the original half dozen.

[Moore Not Less]

Originally posted by DLibrasnow
Absolutely not Moore Not Less

I love Never Say Never Again...it is not only one of my favorite Bond movies but one of my favorite movies.

I feel the same way about Never Say Never Again as you do about The World Is Not Enough. NSNA is so bad that I can't bear to watch it anymore. To each their own.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by Roebuck

Yes, I've got all the DVDs, but it's the first six films I find myself watching again and again.  
I grant you that the later movies had more action, bigger stunts, more elaborate effects;
It's just that I prefer the earlier scripts and the look and style of the original half dozen.  

I'm exactly the same, Roebuck. I'll sit down to any of the Bond films (even the ones I think are pretty poor, such as OCTOPUSSY and THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH) and be as happy as clam, but when I put any of the 1960s outings into my DVD player I think to myself: yep, now we're really talking James Bond!

At the same time, I've never felt that Connery would have improved ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE. As you say, it's a classic just the way it is, and Lazenby does a terrific job. And I don't think holding Connery up as the classic Bond, as number one, is a putdown of the other guys. I'm sure Lazenby, Moore, Dalton and Brosnan would all happily acknowledge that Connery was the greatest.

[007luvchild2]

I think Brosnan even acknowledge that Sean was the best in an interview.

[DLibrasnow]

Originally posted by Moore Not Less


I feel the same way about Never Say Never Again as you do about The World Is Not Enough. NSNA is so bad that I can't bear to watch it anymore. To each their own.

Yep....

[Derringer]

Connery should be the next Bond. Period.

[Triton]

Well like you said Loomis, the first six James Bond films were indeed the "Golden Age" of James Bond. Also don't forget that Sean Connery also had the best scripts, special effects, and stunt people assisting him between the years 1962-1967. Peter Hunt's new and innovative editing style, John Barry at the height of his abilities, and Ken Adam's sets also contributed to the success of the early Bonds.

But Diamonds Are Forever in 1971 and Never Say Never Again in 1983 proved that although Sean Connery was back as James Bond, the "Golden Age" of James Bond would not return.

Although Eon Productions could never recapture the magic of the early James Bond pictures, it doesn't mean that the other fourteen installments of the James Bond series aren't worthwhile. We can argue about the strengths and weaknesses of these films or debate who is the best of the Sean Connery successors. But in the end the only thing that really matters is that James Bond has continued for another twenty-two years since Connery gave up the role and it shows no signs of stopping.

[CommanderBond]

Originally posted by Derringer
Connery should be the next Bond.  Period.

hahaha:D if connery came back the whole series would be thrown off course plus that would mean he would be desperate for a movie role. I love connery and all but thats a lil too far feched

[Double-Oh-Zero]

Originally posted by Loomis
While I greatly enjoy all the Bond films, and feel that all five Bond actors have done wonderful work, I have reached the conclusion that Connery was, is and always will be the one and only true James Bond 007 of the big screen.

Amen, brother. The rest of the actors are, and I quote, "Naught but insubstantial shadows of the Man Who Will Always Be Bond."

Disagree with me all you like, but this is the one opinion of Bond I have that will never change.

[Blue Eyes]

Totally disagree with the notion that a Bond film isn't a proper one without Connery in it.

Connery was never the proper Bond to begin with. And just because he was the first and helped define the role doesn't mean he's the best.

Lazenby's lacklustre performance highlights that the actor playing Bond can actually be less important than the script. OHMSS is fantastically scripted, and no matter how bad you find Lazenby, it's still a great film.

Personally, I think that the only thing missing is youth, and that's the youth of the viewer. Why is it 90% of the young audience love Pierce and can't get what the fuss over Connery is? And why can't the older people get over Connery, or Moore? Because they grew up with them perhaps? Because now they've grown up, they're Bond's age (and possibly maturity), and it's the Bond of their youth, of yesteryear, that is the perfect Bond for them.

It brings it all back.

Anyone older, or Connery love, please don't be offended by that. Just my opinion.

[Bondian]

Hi Blue Eyes,

You've made some very valid points there.

Your right about the the 'Script' and the 'Actor'. And that is how I form my opinion about the films we're seeing now.

Although Pierce IS GOOD, we're not getting the 'overall' performance that he could be capible of.

I really strongly believe that it's down to the Script, Director and the way the Producers wish to get Bond onto the SIlver Screen.

There's something good and bad with all the Actors who have portrayed Bond, and they all have make James Bond what he is today.

Roger Moore was the only Bond who had the most 'likeness' of the Fleming Bond not in his character but in his 'sense of humour' and 'Englishness'.


Cheers,

Ian

Originally posted by Blue Eyes
Totally disagree with the notion that a Bond film isn't a proper one without Connery in it.

Connery was never the proper Bond to begin with. And just because he was the first and helped define the role doesn't mean he's the best.  

Lazenby's lacklustre performance highlights that the actor playing Bond can actually be less important than the script. OHMSS is fantastically scripted, and no matter how bad you find Lazenby, it's still a great film.

Personally, I think that the only thing missing is youth, and that's the youth of the viewer. Why is it 90% of the young audience love Pierce and can't get what the fuss over Connery is? And why can't the older people get over Connery, or Moore? Because they grew up with them perhaps? Because now they've grown up, they're Bond's age (and possibly maturity), and it's the Bond of their youth, of yesteryear, that is the perfect Bond for them.

It brings it all back.  

Anyone older, or Connery love, please don't be offended by that. Just my opinion.

[Jaelle]

Originally posted by Loomis
At the same time, I've never felt that Connery would have improved ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE. As you say, it's a classic just the way it is, and Lazenby does a terrific job. And I don't think holding Connery up as the classic Bond, as number one, is a putdown of the other guys. I'm sure Lazenby, Moore, Dalton and Brosnan would all happily acknowledge that Connery was the greatest.

Loomis, you're always starting these great in-your-face provocative threads where you throw down the gauntlet and sound like you're saying "ok, just TRY to convince me that I'm wrong!"

And guess what? I'm in complete agreement with your position.

While I agree that one's "definitive" Bond depends on what one grows up watching as a kid, I do think there's a case for arguing that there simply will never be another definitive, proper Bond like Connery.

That case has a lot to do with the fact that *no other actor* who has played James Bond went thru what Connery did to play the role. The distinction, imo, lies in the context of the time Connery started out as Bond and the training and work he went thru to arrive at the cinematic character of James Bond. He quite *literally* defined it, with Terrence Young.

All the actors who came after him made their acting decisions based on what he defined. Regardless of what those decisions were--go in a totally different direction as Roger quite rightly did, or try to recapture the spirit of the early films and base his interpretation on a close reading of the Fleming novels as Dalton quite rightly did or blend Connery and Moore in his interpretation as Brosnan rightly did--all their choices were based on what Connery/Young first defined with long, hard work. That creation is a very unique experience for an actor, and it's a very unique experience for a mass audience entirely unprepared for it.

When Connery worked on DN, and when it was released to the public, there simply was *no* James Bond extant in the mind of that public. The cultural icon, everything that Bond represented, the figure that Connery presented on the big screen, was *nonexistent* before DN. So the sheer impact of what Connery and DN threw at an innocent, unprepared audience at that time is something that's really quite mind-blowing, and can't ever be duplicated.

With Terrence Young's guidance, Connery essentially transformed himself into this new character, physically and mentally "married" himself to a character that he and Young (working from the Fleming material but adapting it to cinematic requirements and Connery's look) essentially created and defined. Tim Dalton often mentioned how he snuck into the theater to see DN when it was released because he was underage, and what a shock it was to see a film so bold and brassy at a time when drawing room comedies and domestic dramas were the sort of thing people were used to watching. He said he and his friends came out of the theater with an incredible rush, thinking about movies in a way they never had before.

I first saw DN around 1969 or so as a kid and subsequently saw all of Connery's other EON films on TV from the age of 9 to 12. No matter how much I may enjoy Roger, Tim, George and sometimes Pierce, whenever I hear the name "James Bond," I automatically think of Sean's face and body, and hear his voice. It's an automatic association for me, so he will always be the definitive Bond to me.

But there's more to it than that. It also has to do with his *films* and the time period in which they were released. For me, James Bond's proper context will always be the Cold War. For me, he simply doesn't belong in the post-Cold War era. And the 60s, Connery's era, was the period when the Cold War was at its most powerful stage. Even when the films did not directly deal with the Cold War, its symbols, references and "feel" were always there in the background. That's why I've always mentally and emotionally considered GE a kind of end-point to the James Bond saga, and unconsciously placed the films after it in a kind of "parallel universe."

Moreover, I don't think the series has ever quite matched the level of talent that existed in the production crew in Connery's films. There was an adult sophistication and style there that I just don't believe has ever been replicated in the series. (I am *not* trashing the people who worked on the other films so don't accuse me of that). I would include OHMSS here too, since it was essentially made by the same people who worked with Connery. And I agree that Connery would not have improved on it.

Now, having said that, both DAF and NSNA are, imo, low points for Connery and they show that the power of his films was *not* just about him, but also about the scripts, direction and crew surrounding him; and also about the social/political context in which they were released. Still, even with those two films, when I watch them, I feel like I'm watching the "real James Bond" in a bad movie. And it's not a conscious thing---it's something I don't even think about. It's just there, automatically, unconsciously.

Finally, Loomis, you're entirely correct that the other actors would agree that Connery was the definitive Bond, that he created it. To quote Dalton: "Sean *was* James Bond like no other actor can ever hope to be."

[Loomis]

Originally posted by Jaelle

No matter how much I may enjoy Roger, Tim, George and sometimes Pierce, whenever I hear the name "James Bond," I automatically think of Sean's face and body, and hear his voice.  It's an automatic association for me, so he will always be the definitive Bond to me.

Same here.

Originally posted by Jaelle

Moreover, I don't think the series has ever quite matched the level of talent that existed in the production crew in Connery's films.  

Agreed. People like John Barry and Ken Adam were every bit as crucial as Connery in creating the unique atmosphere of the Bond films. And I actually think that, notwithstanding the fact that Connery was the definitive, classic 007, the series' single biggest artistic loss was the departure of Barry.

Originally posted by Jaelle

Still, even with those two films, when I watch them, I feel like I'm watching the "real James Bond" in a bad movie.  And it's not a conscious thing---it's something I don't even think about.  It's just there, automatically, unconsciously.

Yes, and that was really brought home to me while watching NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN the other day. During the massage scene with Kim Basinger, I started imagining Brosnan in Connery's place, doing exactly the same things and delivering exactly the same lines - just wouldn't have been the real deal.

[Triton]

My reaction to your assertion "Let's face it: a Bond film without Connery isn't a proper Bond film" Loomis is: So what?

Most discerning James Bond fans eventially come to the realization that Sean Connery was the best James Bond and the Bond films before Diamonds Are Forever were the best in the series.

But I don't think that the series would have lasted over forty years and twenty films if the producers hadn't been flexible and willing to update and revise the Bond formula according to the tastes of movie goers at the time. Wouldn't Sean Connery playing his Dr. No James Bond persona in Diamonds Are Forever been rejected as pass

[Qwerty]

Originally posted by Triton


But I don't think that the series would have lasted over forty years and twenty films if the producers hadn't been flexible and willing to update and revise the Bond formula according to the tastes of movie goers at the time.

Yes, I agree. I think it all comes down to taste, and perhaps, it's the one you see first, or the one you just think is the best. Yes, Connery was the first, and he started the formula, but I think everyone else have done a great job of updating the movies through the years. If it's the time and acting of Connery that influenced the first films, well, yes, then all the others will be completely different.

[SeanValen00V]

Since Dalton's portrayal of Bond was closest to Ian Flemming's vision of the character, there's more evidence to say a Bond film without Dalton isn't a proper Bond film, in this case, Connery, Moore, Brosnan, Georgey should be discarded.

The Living Daylights and Licence to Kill are two of the best in the series for a reason.


But who I'm I kidding?

I like Connery, Moore, Dalton and Pierce, but Connery isn't the all and end of Bond, and this topic was asking for a fight. Every Bond should be respected, as they did film official Bond films and they have their fans, Bond is OPEN TO DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION, THERE IS NO INSTRUCTIONS TO SAY CONNERY's FILMs are proper Bond films. Total Rubbish.

Perhaps alot of fans, recent ones, wouldn't have gone back to watch Connery films, if Roger, Dalton, Pierce didn't make them watch a Bond film first, this will happen more often, since time is passing all the time since Connery was Bond, new generations grow up without knowing the shadow of Connery, some of his films feel dated, and some people don't like watching 60s movies etc, BOND MUST MOVE WITH THE TIMES AS WELL, some people will be sold on future actors as Bond. Some people will look to their Bond films being more new, recent actors, in line with current events etc, and like their Bond for being with them in these times just as Connery did for his fans in the 60s in a big way, but life goes on, it's a shame. But something to consider.

Dalton's reign still had a up to date feel about it, there's realism there, Pierce hasn't quite continued it as well, I blame the creative team, but it puts Dalton's film in better light.

Brosnan has his action movie goer fan base, not just Bond fans, since his films have alot of action, different types of Bond fans, more casual.

[Loomis]

What's actually wrong with citing Connery as number one, as the definitive, classic James Bond?

Would anyone dispute that Fleming was the definitive James Bond author? It would be ridiculous, surely, to bestow such status on John Gardner or Raymond Benson.

Let's give Connery his due. In particular, it would be doing younger fans a disservice to rewrite history and pretend that, say, Pierce Brosnan was the guy who perfected the big screen James Bond.

[Tarl_Cabot]

I do not concur Loomis but I certainly appreciate your elitist point of view! Sean Connery is the best Bond ever, yes but his Bond resume is not without a black eye. DAF is a dud and NSNA was a waste of time. *Irin Kirshener should have been directing 'Return of the Jedi' instead, sparing us of Darth Vader's humpty dumpty face and the cuddly Ewoks as he said he would have done had he had the chance...

A proper James Bond film sans Connery can exist if the producers had the will to make it happen again; OHMSS is a fine film, worthy of comparison to it's predecessors. They made a 'proper' Bond film with Roger Moore in FYEO and returned Bond to his 'proper' form again in The Living Daylights. I mention those two because I saw them both in theaters and am quite fond of them-and they don't star Mr. Connery.

A proper Bond film to me is an intriguing story of espionage, with a charismatic secret agent hero who has style, class, sophistication and is a cunning warrior... The locations are glamourous, the women are the stuff of dreams, the music enchants and the adventure fuels our fantasy-but in a reasonably realistic and or acceptable manner.Bond is pure fantasy and there has to be some willingness for the audience to suspend disbelief but there is a limit to how far things can go...The films that don't cross this line are Proper James Bond films to me.

[Blue Eyes]

Originally posted by Loomis
What's actually wrong with citing Connery as number one, as the definitive, classic James Bond?

For me, because it's always associated with negativity to the later films.

After the DAD premiere I heard a multitude of comments from the people who had been invited along.

One I heard was 'Bond died for me after Connery stepped down'. If that's the case, why the hell did you even accept your ticket? Surely someone who actually enjoys the Bond films could have gone along?

Then there were the thousand and one comments saying that Connery was the best, DAD has no chance of competing, crap, crap, crap.

Honestly, Connery is an old man with grey hair. He's not Bond, never will be again. And I personally can't stand it when people use Connery's performance as some so-called valid piece of criticism against the more recent films.