116 replies to this topic

[ChandlerBing]

Bondpurist, I don't want to get accused of spamming--I most likely probably have--I am not going to argue with you anymore, because it's a waste of time--time I will never get back. I will instead leave you to argue with yourself. Good bye.

[Bondpurist]

Fine. You're the one that sparked the whole argument off, and you were equally responsible for its continuation - just because I didn't capitulate and agree with you you get annoyed and accuse me of 'spamming' and being too opinionated. Takes one to know one.

[ThomasCrown76]

I'm going to do my part in getting this topic back on track. I grew up with Sean Connery as the Bond I watched the most. He's the guy I wanted to grow up and be. He's the guy who was so cool you couldn't help but want to be like him. Connery will always be the #1 Bond with the most mojo.

[Bondpurist]

You can't deny his charm, but is it appropriate for Bond to have it in that abundance?

[ThomasCrown76]

Yes, I believe Sean Connery is perfect for Bond. The combination of killer and ladykiller he did is unbeatable.

[Bondpurist]

He was good, but not dark or violent enough.

[JimmyBond]

While I agree Bond should have his shair of shadows, and be violent (when he needs to be). He shouldnt be Batman.

[ThomasCrown76]

Sean Connery was quite violent, thank you. ABC doesn't run those parental discretion advised taglines in front of the Bond movies for nothing, you know.

[Sir James]

Personally, I think u are all right. I have read this thread and first let me say that I have a great respect for Connery and his films. I think From Russia With Love, Goldfinger, and Thunderball are some of the series highlights. But I am not one of those Bond fans who think that Connery set the style and blah blah blah, he was the first and there is no possible way to be better than him. I think each Bond actor should not be jusged against Connery or Fleming. Becuase no one will be like either of them. Each Bond is different and has brought something unique to the role. I think how that thing is delievered is how they should be judged. I think Brosnan is the best Bond, he IMO has the perfect amount of all the past Bonds, Ian Fleming, and his own brand of sensitivity to give us a complete representaion of 007. But I also realize that Bond would be nothing without Connery because he has set the general style that the following Bonds have used as a benchmark. But I also believe that if Moore did not take the series into his direction of Bond 007 would not have survived past 1977. And I also recognize that Daltons serious turn was something audiences wanted (perhaps not so much in great amounts as he did) in the late eightes. So really, each Bond and there films are integral to Bonds continuing excellence, it then comes down to what kind of 007 you prefer. No Bond is the wrong choice, unless u say Peter Sellers. lol!

[Xenobia]

I think everyone knows where I stand in this regard, so I will keep my comments brief:

I think Sean Connery set the bar very well for the Bonds to come. He is definately the Bond of the sixities...he got his performance in key for that decade and for all time. However, in keeping with Fleming, he missed some of the sentimentality, some of softness, and the humour that is there too.

What is a bit unfair in Connery's case is because he was the first, there was no chance for him to be the synthesis of the literary and cinematic Bond, because the character of the cinematic Bond had not been established. By NSNA, Connery could have tried for that synthesis, but if he did, he failed at it.

Roger Moore was closer....bringing together the humour and and the harshness together. I also personally think that he looks more like Carmicheal (Fleming's vision of Bond) than SC did.

So sorry, in my book, Connery has lost his mojo.

-- Xenobia

[Carver]

I was told about this topic only yesterday, and it has to be a comedy, seeing Bondpurist losing arguements and going down the hole:p. Sir Sean is, was, and will always be the best. Violent, physically and sexually (apparantly, I wouldn't know), and handsome devil. Connery IS Bond. Only Brosnan has come close, and I rate them joint best. If I ever need a laugh, Ill check this thread, just to see BP go down the hole.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by ChandlerBing

Connery meant that Dalton was the emasculated Bond. A Bond without balls, a Bond who was way too vulnerable and in touch with his feelings. ... Yep, a Bond without balls, VERY in touch with his feelings, and who cries. Even George Lazenbt didn't cry. James Bond doesn't cry. He's too dead inside to cry!

I know that certain people were just trying to wind up Bondpurist, but if anyone deserves to be known as the soppy Bond it's Brosnan.

Look at THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH - now that film gives us "a Bond without balls, VERY in touch with his feelings". And Brosnan tries ever so painfully hard in his other films to give us a "sensitive", "emotional" 007. For instance, when Paris asks "Did I get too close?" in TOMORROW NEVER DIES, Brosnan seems about to burst into tears, and he also looks as though he's going to start blubbing after rescuing Jinx from the Ice Palace in DIE ANOTHER DAY.

[ChandlerBing]

Wow, talk about bringing in a thread from the dead thread graveyard. Although, it was nice to see my old friend Bondpurist's comments again...

[Tarl_Cabot]

Yep, a Bond without balls, VERY in touch with his feelings, and who cries. Even George Lazenbt didn't cry. James Bond doesn't cry. He's too dead inside to cry!"

Bond (Dalton) didn't cry in LTK! He was visibly upset, as anyone who had an ouce of humanity would be, but he didn't cry. Watch the movie again...

I like all the Bond actors-they're all good.Connery is the coolest Bond ever though; it helps to be in that early 60's atmosphere with colorful characters and rich stories...those films have a look and feel that will never be out done.... but I can certainly enjoy the later films and just enjoy Bond, the character and not be too hung up on the actor who plays him.I've been dissapointed with the recent films but I don't blame that on the star(except those 3 yr waits!).

[SamuelKevlar]

I don't like Connery. I don't like his attitude. I don't like the films he made. I don't like the 'qualities' he seemed to promote (be a man, treat your woman rough, violence is sexy). I don't even like his accent.

Timothy Dalton, on the other hand, is my favourite incarnation of Bond. Dark, brooding, but sometimes with good humour, strong without being macho.

And what's wrong with a hero that can cry?

[Triton]

Well didn't Dame Judi Dench say it best: "You are a sexist, masogynist, dinosaur, a relic of the cold war."

Sean Connery's James Bond embodies attitudes that would be considered offensive and sexist today. Thankfully, Eon Productions has tweaked the James Bond character over the years so he is more acceptable to the morals and opinions of the audiences of the era in which the film was made.

I agree with most of the posters saying that Timothy Dalton has tears in his eyes when he sees the dead Della Leiter and shouts "Della!". It is a pretty gruesome and upsetting to find your best friend's wife dead on a bed with fatal stab wounds. It's one of the reasons I really like Timothy Dalton as James Bond.

The other scene I like with Timothy is when he breaks the blue balloon with "Smiert Smionem" written on it in The Living Daylights. It was the first and only time that I can remember in the series in which Bond is clearly in a rage. He's so ANGRY! Better not get in Tim's way, you'll be sorry!

But back to the topic of this thread. When I watch Sean Connery's portrayal as James Bond, I always keep in mind that his performance and attitudes were a product of another era. I don't have to remind anyone in this forum that Connery's first James Bond picture Dr. No is forty-one years old and his last is thirty-two years old. The Connery Bonds are a lot of fun, but I don't think that movie audiences would accept the 1960s James Bond character in a recent James Bond film such as Die Another Day. The James Bond character must change with the times! Has the Pierce Brosnan character been emasculated? I wouldn't go that far. But I never thought of beating women, bottom slapping, or forcing yourself onto a woman until she submits to be admirable masculine traits. Connery's Bond would be condemned as a sexist pig today. We let Connery get away with it because we realize that the films are old.

[ChandlerBing]

Ugh, this thread is still going? Whose idea was it to go and dust this one off? Whose idea was it--?

Oh, yes, that was me.


Damn it.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by ChandlerBing

Ugh, this thread is still going?  Whose idea was it to go and dust this one off?  Whose idea was it--?

Oh, yes, that was me.  

No, I think the "credit" for resurrecting this thread is all mine.

[ChandlerBing]

Oh, so you're the one, Loomis. Geez, are the topics that bad you have to dust THIS one off?

Did you miss Bondpurist's comments that much?

[Loomis]

Originally posted by ChandlerBing

Did you miss Bondpurist's comments that much?  

I did, rather. He has excellent taste in Bond and makes his points very well.

Anyway, what's so bad about this thread? A number of people have made excellent posts, not just Bondpurist.

[ChandlerBing]

No need to be defensive, Mr. Loomis, I was just making a light-hearted comment about this thread being brought back from the dead after so long. If you want to post here, no one is saying you cannot.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by ChandlerBing

If you want to post here, no one is saying you cannot.  

I know.

[DLibrasnow]

Where is bondpurist anyway???

[Loomis]

I imagine he got tired of people relentlessly bashing Dalton.

[ChandlerBing]

Well, there seems to be a thread for bashing Dalton, there seems to be a thread for people bashing Brosnan. Something to keep everyone happy, I guess, huh?

[Jaelle]

Originally posted by ChandlerBing
Connery meant that Dalton was the emasculated Bond.  A Bond without balls, a Bond who was way too vulnerable and in touch with his feelings.

Stop putting words into Connery's mouth and fit his meaning into what you want. Connery initially said that Bond was in good hands with Dalton. Later he said about Dalton's choices, "it's not enough to be dangerous" and then goes on to say that the character has to have humor as well. There is also a quote in which Connery clearly scoffs at the notion that Dalton's Bond was NOT dangerous and tough, which I saw MBE cite recently on the ajb site, I just have to look for it. Connery's view of Dalton's Bond is that he didn't work hard enough at humor and charm, but that he was definitely a tough, dangerous Bond. He's never once said anything about Dalton's Bond being too vulnerable.

[Loomis]

Surely Brosnan is "the emasculated Bond". He goes all soppy over women, has a Moneypenny who gives as good as she gets, went without sex for 14 months in DIE ANOTHER DAY (at least one assumes he did - perhaps the wardens, uh, took advantage of him; now, no wonder we didn't see that onscreen), and when he finally got a woman into the sack it was she who went on top. He even has a mother figure to scold him (Dench's M). Connery's Bond would consider Brosnan's Bond a total and utter pansy!

[Jaelle]

I'm sitting here trying not to scold some of you little boys and tell you to grow the hell up. What is this thread's actual title anyway "My dick is bigger than yours, nyah, nyah, nyah!!" And no, I'm not referring to the obviously rational adult posters here, you know who you are. Yeah, I'm offending people, but this thread has deteriorated to a point where it deserves this kind of nonsense.

Anyone who looks clearly at Dalton's eyes in those scenes in LTK knows he is not teary, his eyes are *glistening* with anger and grief. Don't you know the difference between tears and your eyes getting slightly watery because you're so enraged and griefstricken? Not to mention full of guilt because that's exactly what Bond is feeling at that moment? If he hadn't left so soon he could've saved Della and Felix.

Oh and THANK you to the very adult Mr. Loomis for pointing out the Bond who is TRULY the one candidate to be accused of being "emasculated" -- an accusation I don't agree with, by the way but if one is going to use it, THERE IS NO OTHER BOND WHO IS THE MORE OBVIOUS CANDIDATE FOR THAT CRITICISM. It is only in the Bond fan community that I have discovered the utterly ludicrous and hilarious notion that Timothy Dalton is somehow unmasculine and that *PIERCE BROSNAN* of all guys is somehow more macho than him! Give me a break!

Coming from a very macho culture where men DO routinely dominate and quite often beat up their women and where women are far too easily submissive, the notion that Brosnan is a very macho male makes me laugh. I don't subscribe to these idiotic notions anyway (I adore Colin Firth and Ralph Fiennes, for example, but I would hardly call them particularly macho). My uncles and older male cousins in Brazil *laugh* at Brosnan's Bond, they love Sean. I don't know how many reviews I've not only read all over Latin America but also in the US that call Brosnan "prissy" and a "preening peacock." I've read four reviews in Brazil that used some very vulgar terms that I won't translate.

I don't agree with any of that nonsense, by the way. But to describe Brosnan's Bond (who gets told off and ordered around by women throughout his films, is terribly conscious of his health by not smoking, and is always in need of some female sidekick to help him save the world) as more macho than Dalton is the most idiotic thing I've ever heard on these boards.

Oh and as for Sean -- sorry Bondpurist, on that I thoroughly disagree. Sean Connery will always be the definitive James Bond to me, forever.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by Jaelle

Anyone who looks clearly at Dalton's eyes in those scenes in LTK knows he is not teary, his eyes are *glistening* with anger and grief.  Don't you know the difference between tears and your eyes getting slightly watery because you're so enraged and griefstricken?  Not to mention full of guilt because that's exactly what Bond is feeling at that moment?  If he hadn't left so soon he could've saved Della and Felix.

Why this moment in LICENCE TO KILL (which is entirely necessary to the story) is held against Dalton is absolutely beyond me. OTOH, I realize that certain people were simply trying to irritate Bondpurist (who as a Dalton fan apparently deserves to be irritated).

Originally posted by Jaelle

Oh and THANK you to the very adult Mr. Loomis for pointing out the Bond who is TRULY the one candidate to be accused of being "emasculated" -- an accusation I don't agree with, by the way....

I don't either; at least not with the deliberately overblown (indeed, ridiculous) accusation as made in my post immediately prior to this one. Yet Jaelle is correct: "if one is going to use it, THERE IS NO OTHER BOND (BUT BROSNAN) WHO IS THE MORE OBVIOUS CANDIDATE FOR THAT CRITICISM." I agree that "to describe Brosnan's Bond (who gets told off and ordered around by women throughout his films, is terribly conscious of his health by not smoking, and is always in need of some female sidekick to help him save the world) as more macho than Dalton" is very, very silly indeed.

That is not to say that Brosnan's Bond is a wimp, or that masculinity means smoking cigarettes, displaying sexist attitudes and only making love in the missionary position. Far from it. But if charges of unmanliness can be trumped up against Dalton's Bond, they can certainly be trumped up tenfold against Brosnan's, and be more easily made to stick.

Originally posted by Jaelle

Sean Connery will always be the definitive James Bond to me, forever.

And to me, although I love 'em all - yep, even Brosnan.

[Jaelle]

Ok, here's the Connery quote I alluded to. Finally found it with MBE's gracious help:

"Many have charged Dalton to be without charm or the requisite cool as Bond, or taking it seriously in the wrong way. But lacking menace? I don't get it. A critique of Moore maybe but Dalton?"