47 replies to this topic

[Mr Teddy Bear]

Maybe you, but not Roger Moore. He and Sean Connery are really good friends. Besides, to most everyone--Moore included--Connery was the best 007, so why begrudge the man the opportunity (after a 12-year absence) to return to the role that made him famous and that he did so well? Also, it was only one film. It wasn't like Connery was going to compete against Moore year after year after year. It was a special one-off production, no more, no less.

I enjoy Connery as OO7 as much as anyone else, but during this whole ordeal I think Connery's behaviour really wasn't a credit to him. Perhaps had the movie turned out decent it would be easier to justify the existence of NSNA, but as it is NSNA is just a reminder that sometimes never should mean never.

[Sunny_on_SM]

Maybe you, but not Roger Moore. He and Sean Connery are really good friends. Besides, to most everyone--Moore included--Connery was the best 007, so why begrudge the man the opportunity (after a 12-year absence) to return to the role that made him famous and that he did so well? Also, it was only one film. It wasn't like Connery was going to compete against Moore year after year after year. It was a special one-off production, no more, no less.

What Roger said doesn't really mean all that much here, because Roger Moore has been known to say nice things about everyone, even Val Kilmer as The Saint. As for who's the best Bond it is a matter of personal taste and opinion. Roger and Sean are equal in my book, but to others it is either one or the other. Roger never told anyone that he was the best anything, Bond, Saint, Brett Sinclaire, etc. That's just his personality. He tends to sell himself short.

[Mister Asterix]

[mra]I don

[secret_007]

No because he a disgrace to bond because he quits in YOLT and comes back in DAF and quits again. Also because he was too old for bond and he should of never came back.

Edited by secret_007, 06 September 2006 - 08:51 PM.

[bernsmartin007]

No because he a disgrace to bond because he quits in YOLT and comes back in DAF and quits again. Also because he was too old for bond and he should of never came back.

I think calling Sean Connery a "disgrace to Bond" shows a very large lack of understanding, on your part, about just how much he gave the cinematic character and the simple fact that without Connery having played Bond originally we would more than likely have never had a franchise at all, let alone still going today.

It would have been a couple of films with James Mason or something and that would have been it. The whole 60's spy craze wouldn't have happened and we'd have no Man From UNCLE or other such famous shows. Actors like Pierce Brosnan would never have left their crummy TV careers, action films would have been slow in developing and probably not developed as they have done..in fact history would have been considerably changed and James Bond would have never been an influence in your life.

Edited by bernsmartin007, 06 September 2006 - 08:59 PM.

[avl]

No because he a disgrace to bond because he quits in YOLT and comes back in DAF and quits again. Also because he was too old for bond and he should of never came back.

I think calling Sean Connery a "disgrace to Bond" shows a very large lack of understanding on your part, about just how much he gave the cinematic character and the simple fact that without Connery having played Bond originally we would more than likely have never had a franchise at all, let along still going today.

It would have been a couple of films with James Mason or something and that would have been it. The whole 60's spy craze wouldn't have happened and we'd have no Man From UNCLE or other such famous shows. In fact history would have been considerably changed and James Bond would have never been an influence in your life.

Plus - he didnt kiss a man secret_007 [irony, folks]

[secret_007]

No because he a disgrace to bond because he quits in YOLT and comes back in DAF and quits again. Also because he was too old for bond and he should of never came back.

I think calling Sean Connery a "disgrace to Bond" shows a very large lack of understanding on your part, about just how much he gave the cinematic character and the simple fact that without Connery having played Bond originally we would more than likely have never had a franchise at all, let along still going today.

It would have been a couple of films with James Mason or something and that would have been it. The whole 60's spy craze wouldn't have happened and we'd have no Man From UNCLE or other such famous shows. In fact history would have been considerably changed and James Bond would have never been an influence in your life.

Plus - he didnt kiss a man secret_007 [irony, folks]

Connery quitted 2 times as bond and you expect me to like him as bond. He was a little bored in TB but in YOLT and DAF he was really bored. I cant believe he the most popular bond. How can people like a bond actor beign bored in a film?

Edited by secret_007, 06 September 2006 - 09:04 PM.

[avl]

Connery quitted 2 times as bond and you expect me to like him as bond. He was a little bored in TB but in YOLT and DAF he was really bored. I cant believe he the most popular bond. How can people like a bond actor beign bored in a film?

Who do you like as Bond? Your profile says no preference

[secret_007]

Connery quitted 2 times as bond and you expect me to like him as bond. He was a little bored in TB but in YOLT and DAF he was really bored. I cant believe he the most popular bond. How can people like a bond actor beign bored in a film?

Who do you like as Bond? Your profile says no preference

Pierce Brosnan is my favorite bond.

[RJJB]

As far as I'm concerned, NSNA was an enjoyable Bond movie, although far from perfect. Always glad to see Sean Connery in the role, even if he "quitted" it before. Without Connery establishing the movie persona, there would be no franchise today, as someone said earlier. He help put the spectacle in the series, especially his first four Bond movies. Anyone who follows Connery in the role, is merely playing a modernized version. Connery was the original, the essence of what the on screen Bond should be.

And whether he should have made NSNA or not is a moot point. He did make it. The movie is there.If you don't want to watch it, then don't. Too much analysis on something you can't change.

Edited by RJJB, 06 September 2006 - 10:20 PM.

[Sunny_on_SM]

And whether he should have made NSNA or not is a moot point. He did make it. The movie is there.If you don't want to watch it, then don't. Too much analysis on something you can't change.

I think you have made a very good point. I feel the same way when I read the many books that have come out about James Bond movies. Though it is fun to debate and discuss the flaws and attributes of each movie, it is really all someone's personal opinion. When you said the phrase "Too much analysis on something you can't change" is what I wish someone would say to the "experts" who write books on James Bond movies. I am yet to read one that praises other Bond actors besides Sean Connery. Instead, most of them make digs at every insignificant detail in other than Sean's Bond movies, especially Roger Moore's. (BTW, any suggestions on the book I can buy that gives facts about each James Bond movie without expressed personal opinions of the writer?)

[WhiteKnight2000]

Connery quitted 2 times as bond and you expect me to like him as bond. He was a little bored in TB but in YOLT and DAF he was really bored. I cant believe he the most popular bond. How can people like a bond actor beign bored in a film?

There's a great Connery line in The Rock, that goes something like "I think you're a...something...something."

I think it applies here.

[Thunderfinger]

Agree.
Something.
Stuff.

[YOLT]

Of course he should have made it. NSNA is better than half of the official series. I hope Brosnan does a new one in 2007. More 007 more fun

[Thunderfinger]

I

[WhiteKnight2000]

Of course he should have made it. NSNA is better than half of the official series. I hope Brosnan does a new one in 2007. More 007 more fun

I have to admit I always thought Connery gave a good 'older Bond' perfomance in NSNA. I've certainly come to enjoy the film a lot more after seeing the Special Edition EONised fanedit.

[arturtle]

[quote name='Thunderfinger' post='604275' date='11 September 2006 - 02:07']
I

[tambourineman]

I dont have a problem with him returning to the role, but its his reasons that I dislike. I just cant see there being any reason for him to do a Bond movie at that stage for a second rate production company, other then an "Up yours" to EON. Did he ever give the reasons why he did it?