Having no respect for people of a certain generation seems a bit incongruous and harks back to our parents wanting us to have their interests. The future of the franchise may well depend on the so called MTV crowd, and they've put their money into the coffers for CS and will no doubt be returning for QOS.
I'm not one for advocating forcing one's points of view on another BUT I just feel a 12 year old who is upto her eyes in cheap, disposable mtv garbage and disneyfied fluff doesn't come close to having any sort of opine authority regarding the complex and often diverse world of Bond. As for the mtv crowd contibuting to the success of CR, they were hardly a majority of the financial influence. A lot of the mtv generation aren't even interested in Bond, much less the so called "ugly" daniel craig starring in a film that lacks the tradional staples of yeasteryears past (moneypenny, Q and the insufferable OTT gadgets). Lets see how long the mtv generation cough up their dough once craig stops stirppin down to his underoos ; )
A 12 year old is inclined to be more frank than an adult. Having watched a Bond film starring SC, he did not click with her just as the other 5 actors may or have not clicked with us. Hand on heart can any of us honestly say we hold the same views now and had the knowledge then to make a qualified view after seeing our first Bond film.
I'm 23 and the first Bond film I ever watched was a Roger Moore flick. I never saw a Connery Bond flick until '99 and I'll tell you this, IMO no one comes close to Connery, not because he was the first but because he comes from a classical era that highlights the attributes and mannerisms that embody what Bond was always meant to be, an English gentleman and it just so happens that Connery was and is the only actor to convincingly pull it off. Him being the first is merely the icing on the cake.
I enjoy Connery's bond incarnation but I will not close myself off to the thought that he is the one and only benchmark that cannot be surpassed.
No one's asking you to that and there ae plenty of people who regard other actors as their number 1 Bond. The only difference is, they're not inexperienced 12 year old girls who have extremely little knowledge of the world of Bond, hence, their opinions are credible.
He had the advantage of starting off with a clean slate and was coached and moulded into the role.
True but it wasn't exactly a cakewalk for him either. Connery did face a lot of pressure even during production of the first movie and even faced initial criticism from Flemming himself. Connery doing a brilliant job in making things look so easy is a testament to his deserving dexterity and hard work, which in retrospect I and many ohers will forever appreciate.
The other actors that followed have had the harder task of trying to tweak and make their own distinct mark by not straying too far away from the template. The Blond Bond, no Q or Moneypenny was a shock to many a system.
Very true but it's not so much an issue. Generally speaking, people loved Moore, who appeared to be blond at times, they refused to acknowledge lazenby,Dalton was the closest to Flemming's concept hut was overlooked, Brosnan was a mixture of those that came before him and was loved and as for craig, his criticisms were primarily in full effect during production and pre-production and it was primarilly based on superficial stuff, which Craig ultimately blasted away to hell. In short, every actor will forever be compared to each other, a fan favourite at the moment being dalton/craig but the hard task if at all these days is usually during the press announcement of the new actor. Playing James Bond isn't hard, in fact it should be getting easier. All one has to do is look at a bunch of movies and tv shows that focus their plots on espionage stuff and a lot of it as quite good stuff. These days, the success of a Bond film is dependent on the traditional characteristics of Bond himself, hot girls and for the narrative to make some sort of sense, with decent action and you have a winner, which is preisely what CR is.
We all have our own ideas and definition of handsome, magnetism, Charisma and to some extent whether you like the actor, yes Sean is a good looking man, but I personally don't think he's the most handsome, as a female he doesn't do it for me either. Give me someone like DC or TD anyday.
Fair enough.
When I see him on screen I see Sean the superstar playing Sean hence why he's not my number one Bond.
But that's the thing, Connery wasn't a superstar until after GF or TB (leaning more towards TB, as GF introduced the traditional formula, it was TB that was the first real Bond blockbuster that catapaulted Connery into superstardom. Connery was making smaller films like Marnie and the hill during his tenure as Bond and he wasn't regarded as a superstar until the mid to late 60s, where he was being offered roles in films like the thomas crown affir, competing against real superstars like steve mcqueen. In short, The only time I see Connery the superstar in the role as Bond, stems from the bond film, YOLT, which came out in '67 by which time, his superstardom was too big and arguably too bored for the role.
