49 replies to this topic

[Genrewriter]

I agree, Daniel. All the actors who have played bond, with the possible exception of George Lazenby, were the right men for the time in which they were hired. Connery was great, but things change.

[Blue Eyes]

I spoke with a close friend of Fleming's on the topic, and he thought that Brosnan was the right man for the job.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by Blue Eyes

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?

Clearly, there will never be any pleasing the ultra-hardcore Connery diehards, but I do think it's possible to enjoy the non-Connery films, admire the other four actors and continue to support the series while at the same time acknowledging that Connery was number one and the yardstick by which all others are to be judged.

Even though there is a strong case to be made that the best James Bond films don't feature Connery (ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE, THE SPY WHO LOVED ME, THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS and LICENCE TO KILL), it is undeniable that Connery is the classic James Bond, the face of the series' artistic and commercial golden age. And everything has only one golden age, one heyday. There is nothing wrong with giving the man his due (why not give it to him?). Should we refrain from holding up Fleming as the definitive James Bond author, lest such an attitude foster "negativity" towards John Gardner and Raymond Benson?

Originally posted by Blue Eyes

I spoke with a close friend of Fleming's on the topic, and he thought that Brosnan was the right man for the job.

Does that mean anything? Are we to take it that Fleming would have held exactly the same opinion?

[Blue Eyes]

Though the man was Fleming's close friend and his step-son, I only submitted that to be taken at face value. It's just to highlight that even people of Fleming's day, with similair traits, support the latter.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by Blue Eyes

It's just to highlight that even people of Fleming's day, with similair traits, support the latter.  

Do you mean he expressed the view that Brosnan was a better Bond than Connery, or that he felt that Brosnan was also a great Bond? (Both of which are perfectly valid views, of course.)

[Blox]

Some here seem to think that favoring Connery means (gasp) going negative against later pictures, etc. Comparisons and preferences are inevitable, particularly when a studio bundles DVDs from different vintages into sets. There is nothing unholy about having a preference for heavens sakes.

As for my good friend Loomi's premise that started this thread, I agree that Sean Connery had a "presence" on screen that even the best of actors haven't managed to evince as successfully. Connery had magnetism, machismo, sensuality, sardonic sense of humor, and an inherent star quality. With these skills, he was able to carry and drive even the slimmest of pictures. As frustrating as it may be for some, 21 years after he last played the part, Connery is still a benchmark. Dalton and Brosnan, for example, both indicated that their Bonds were more like Sean's in interviews, etc. Quoting Brosnan: "I grew up idolizing Sean. He'll always be Bond to me."

Blox

[Onyx2626]

Sean was Bond during the Sixties. That's an advantage in my book. That's why I can't get into Austin Powers. How can you mock something that had an element of camp to begin with?
I think people forget how hip and popular Bond was in the 1960's. My parents had a couple of the albums and we played the music during dinner, though I wasn't allowed to watch the movies on TV [mature audiences..]
Also the Brits were unarguably at the cutting edge of pop culture then.

[Blox]

Genrewriter: All the actors who have played bond, with the possible exception of George Lazenby, were the right men for the time in which they were hired. Connery was great, but things change.


...Really? Flip through a copy of Maxim or Marie Claire magazine sometime. Todays young men and women are still focused on sex and still seething with vital hormonal secretions. The producers have tried to make Bond more PC, and are imo out of step. The fundamental things still apply...

Blox

[Genrewriter]

I meant my statement in terms of people being reluctant to accept a new actor as Bond.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by Blox
 
Some here seem to think that favoring Connery means (gasp) going negative against later pictures, etc. Comparisons and preferences are inevitable, particularly when a studio bundles DVDs from different vintages into sets. There is nothing unholy about having a preference for heavens sakes. ... As frustrating as it may be for some, 21 years after he last played the part, Connery is still a benchmark. Dalton and Brosnan, for example, both indicated that their Bonds were more like Sean's in interviews, etc.  Quoting Brosnan:  "I grew up idolizing Sean. He'll always be Bond to me."  

Precisely, Blox.

If one holds Connery up as number one, it does not necessarily follow that one is an "elitist", a "purist", an "embittered old man mourning his lost youth", a "Connery diehard", "living in the past", a "Brosnan-basher" (although it's alarming that many here seem to believe that the Bond series only really got going in 1995 with Brosnan), and so on and so forth. Neither does it necessarily follow that one does not enjoy non-Connery Bond films, thinks that all the other actors are rubbish, no longer has any interest in the series, etc. etc.

[Rolex]

I doubt we would have a Bond franchise without Connery pure and simple; sure production values were to the highest standard but it

[DLibrasnow]

Originally posted by mattbowyer
TREASURE!!!

A little too obvious isn't that matt??

[Genrewriter]

Originally posted by Loomis


If one holds Connery up as number one, it does not necessarily follow that one is an "elitist", a "purist", an "embittered old man mourning his lost youth", a "Connery diehard", "living in the past", a "Brosnan-basher" (although it's alarming that many here seem to believe that the Bond series only really got going in 1995 with Brosnan), and so on and so forth. Neither does it necessarily follow that one does not enjoy non-Connery Bond films, thinks that all the other actors are rubbish, no longer has any interest in the series, etc. etc.

True Loomis, very true.

[Blox]

Genrewriter: I meant my statement in terms of people being reluctant to accept a new actor as Bond.

....I see. Well that's one way of looking at it. That's never been a problem for me. Watching the films, its a matter of what 'works" -- not a rigid attachment, etc. Connery managed to carry the part off covering a number of bases successfully enough to create an expectation of more-of-the-same from other actors in future outings. This doesn't mean Connery-or-bust, or that one should copy Connery as Lazenby tried to do. It means managing to be believable, interesting and amusing enough to sustain interest in what Fleming called his "cardboard booby."

Like Loomis, I have felt the recent entries wanting in a number of respects, though imo this has more to do with the vision of the brass than the skills of an actor, etc.

Blox

[Bondian]

I would say that if Moore played Bond in 1962 ( if he wasn't under contract to play The Saint ) he would of be classed as the 'definative' Bond. Instead I feel taht Moore WAS Bond in The Saint and we could go on forever who's the best Bond.

I feel the best Bond isn't the Actor, it's the film that means the most to you. All the Actors have made great and bad Bond films so it doesn't matter who's the best and worst. It's all a matter of opinion.

Cheers,

Ian

[Blox]

Bondian: I would say that if Moore played Bond in 1962 ( if he wasn't under contract to play The Saint ) he would of be classed as the 'definative' Bond. Instead I feel taht Moore WAS Bond in The Saint and we could go on forever who's the best Bond.

I feel the best Bond isn't the Actor, it's the film that means the most to you. All the Actors have made great and bad Bond films so it doesn't matter who's the best and worst. It's all a matter of opinion.

--------------

Ian, your citation of one of the funniest bits in Fawlty Towers demonstrates that you possess unerring taste and judgment in realms of comedy. Buhht...I couldn't disagree more with your warm fuzzy on actors & fave films etc. Roger Moore was a superb Simon Templar but imo (catch that friends - imo) was too pretty, soft, & wooden to ever pass as the sort of 007 who could beat the cheeze wiz out of Red Grant or Largo. Nor did he impress as the sort who would have appealed to Pussy Galore's maternal instinct, or have his way with Ms. Fearing. Moore's Bond wanted to turn the bad guy over to the Greek Police. Fleming's Bond buried Dr. No under a pile of Bird dung. Moore's heart was never in the "ruthless" trappings of Bond's persona, shutting his eyes as he fired his PPK, whereas someone like Connery looked quite convincing, nostrils flaring, scowl blazing as he ripped into some fracas. Granting that there are no right answers in the taste dept -- but actors _do_ matter.

[Bondian]

Hi Blox,

Thanks very much for your post. The problem is that your damn right.

I watched TMWTGG tonight and wonder why Rog was told to play Bond with a hint of Connery. Problem is Rog cannot and couldn't play Bond as we really like him. I mean trying to be tough with Maud Adams!. Ok, it was done with a tongue in cheek was but it didn't suit Rog. Bond overall didn't suit him but he got a way with it with his sense of humour.

Sincerely I love Connery/Dalton as Bond but I like my Rog in The Saint, and I like him as a person. But I do not necessary like Connery/Dalton as people. Bond is tough but Roger isn't. ( like me really ).

If you've noticed I like to spark a post then respond with indifference. I just like a natural reaction and you have given it.

Cheers,

All the best,

Ian

Originally posted by Blox
Bondian: I would say that if Moore played Bond in 1962 ( if he wasn't under contract to play The Saint ) he would of be classed as the 'definative' Bond. Instead I feel taht Moore WAS Bond in The Saint and we could go on forever who's the best Bond.  

I feel the best Bond isn't the Actor, it's the film that means the most to you. All the Actors have made great and bad Bond films so it doesn't matter who's the best and worst. It's all a matter of opinion.

--------------

Ian, your citation of one of the funniest bits in Fawlty Towers demonstrates that you possess unerring taste and judgment in realms of comedy. Buhht...I couldn't disagree more with your warm fuzzy on actors & fave films etc.  Roger Moore was a superb Simon Templar but imo (catch that friends - imo) was too pretty, soft, & wooden to ever pass as the sort of 007 who could beat the cheeze wiz out of Red Grant or Largo. Nor did he impress as the sort who would have appealed to Pussy Galore's maternal instinct, or have his way with Ms. Fearing.  Moore's Bond wanted to turn the bad guy over to the Greek Police.  Fleming's Bond buried Dr. No under a pile of Bird dung.  Moore's heart was never in the "ruthless" trappings of Bond's persona, shutting his eyes as he fired his PPK, whereas someone like Connery looked quite convincing, nostrils flaring, scowl blazing as he ripped into some fracas.  Granting that there are no right answers in the taste dept -- but actors _do_ matter.

[Blox]

Bondian: I watched TMWTGG tonight and wonder why Rog was told to play Bond with a hint of Connery. Problem is Rog cannot and couldn't play Bond as we really like him. I mean trying to be tough with Maud Adams!. Ok, it was done with a tongue in cheek was but it didn't suit Rog. Bond overall didn't suit him but he got a way with it with his sense of humour.

Sincerely I love Connery/Dalton as Bond but I like my Rog in The Saint, and I like him as a person. But I do not necessary like Connery/Dalton as people.

...Ian, thank you for your candor. I agree that MWTGG was written as a Sean Bond, and your comments about the scene with Maude brought to mind this bit from an old "BondAge" Tom Mankewicz interview:

B: Anyway, about comedy: Even without Roger Moore's "darlings" and all the other Mooreisms that were done because they knew they had a hot property in Moore as Moore, it still is just less serious...

M: Yes, definitely. I think the pictures very intentionally took that tack at the time. It started from the studio, Cubby, and Harry, and filtered on down, because the audience was starting to expect the kind of production, and the kind of, to use a bad cliche word, romp that seemed to work. I mean, the audience seemed to like it. The more unsure they were, in the case of Live and Let Die, of having a new Bond, the more one wanted to balance it on the other side. I think David Picker said to me, though I'm not quoting him exactly, I want to have enough stuff in this picture so that no matter who plays Bond, it is a terriffic, entertaining, evening in the movies, for anybody. There was no guarantee that whoever the new Bond was was going to be accepted by the audience at all. Especially... it wasn't a question that George Lazenby had done it and now there was going to be another Bond; Sean had come back, and Diamonds did very, very well, principally I think, because Sean returned. I was in theatres many times when in the beginning of the film he said My name is Bond, James Bond and audiences cheered because he was back. That's a terrible burden to lay on another actor. So Roger was going to be, in the beginning, for lack of a better word, protected as much as possible. Also, Roger's strong points as an actor are in exactly opposite spheres as Sean. I used to use the analogy that Sean could sit at a dinner table with a beautiful girl and he could either lean over and kiss her, or he could stick a knife in her under the table, and turn around and say something funny to the waiter, and the audience would laugh at either one. Roger can lean across the table and kiss the girl, but if he sticks a knife in a girl he looks nasty, somehow. Sean looks like a bastard; Roger doesn't look like a bastard, Roger looks like a nice man." etc etc.

So as the actor changed, the way the part was written changed to suit the actor. At the end of the day, I think they have to recover the original character of Bond, and not copy Connery per se, but find someone who can cover the bases as Sean did, and sustain the balance between believability and farce, tension and humor. If they have an actor with magnetism and star power, then he can be fully relied upon to carry a 2 hr thriller instead of being sustained by externals -- big sets, endless noisy chases, etc. All imo...

Blox

[Blox]

Thinking outside the, er, "blox":

http://www.nytimes.c...artner=MOREOVER

[RJJB]

I agree the best Bond movies were the Broccoli produced movies with Sean Connery. But since I can't go back to being a teenager, any more than Sean Connery can be young enough to be Bond again, I am still content watching the new movies. I just wish the movies would get back to a solid storyline and away from stunts, explosions, and car chases being strung together.