10 replies to this topic

[gkgyver]

With Brosnan's era coming to an end within the next few years, I just wondered if the world still waits for a perfect Bond after Sean Connery.

I thought everybody seems to love Connery;
almost everyone seems to avoid Lazenby, the fans are separated into two parts concerning Moore; same thing with Dalton and many aren't too sure about Brosnan either.

So, that obviously leads to the question: are we still waiting for a Bond that could cause another Connery-like 007-hype?

Me, I'm one of the people who think that Brosnan is nearly perfect as Bond, but what about the others?

[SirMiles83]

I truly think that every Bond actor brought something great to their respective films. I do think Connery played the best Bond, but I wasn't dissapointed when Lazenby and then Moore took over. Lazenby, IMO, did a great job as Bond. I like Moore's films as a whole more than Connery's so Moore was a great Bond actor IMO. Dalton brought a good hard-edged version of the Film-Bond that I enjoyed. And finally Brosnan is doing great as well. To say that I would be waiting for a Bond that could cause a Conery-like hype, would say that I am stuck on Connery, and I'm not. I enjoyed all of the Bond actors and think that the series wouldn't have lasted 40 years without each of them.

[ChandlerBing]

I thought Brosnan already had brought the Connery type hype back to Bond. He even has almost the same problem Connery did back then: typecasting. He was so good at this one part, it's hard for audiences when he plays against type...Brosnan's Grey Owl, Tailor of Panama..the poor sob who takes over from Brosnan will have a tough time, a la Lazenby and Dalton. We'll see if they learned anything from the 1st two times of how to properly replace someone. If they throw another Dalton--ie, a complete 180 from what we had before--I'll be really pissed off.

[zencat]

Originally posted by gkgyver
So, that obviously leads to the question: are we still waiting for a Bond that could cause another Connery-like 007-hype?

Was it really Connery who caused Bondmaina in the '60s, or was it the character of James Bond? I have a feeling any actor who played Bond at that magic time would have been catapulted to super-stardom. The fact that the character of Bond has survived, and prospered, after Connery's departure tells me it's Bond the people love first, Connery second. And each of the big three (Connery, Moore, Brosnan) has caused a new level of Bondamaina in their day.

[YOLT]

For me the right formula is: FRWL type story+ Moores acting+ Brosnans action. I know that Connery made FRWL great, but for me a little bit of comedy and more action would have been wonderful.

[BONDFINESSE 007]

we have seen the chosen one grace us with his presence, brosnan has shown us his greatness, therefore he who comes after pierce will be sorely lacking

[gkgyver]

>>Was it really Connery who caused Bondmaina in the '60s, or was it the character of James Bond?<<


I have to disagree here. I can't tell you if it was James Bond or if it was Sean Connery, but it's a fact that James Bond is a novel-based character and therefore someone was needed to adapt him onto the big screen; and Connery just was perfect for that IMO.

It's a bit daring to claim that any actor could have played Bond.
The audience who knows Bond from the novels just had to say "That's James Bond!" ; you've got to have that certain "je ne sais quoi" and obviously not any actor has it.

[Killmaster]

Let's see if I can remember back that far....

Actually, at that time Connery was a "relative" unknown, certainly in the US. No one can deny that Bond made Connery an international star. It seems to me that it was the entire package that propelled the Bond films into cinematic history. Viewers were excited by the combination of sex and violence (today, Dr No seems tame... back then it was pretty damn racy), and I imagine that any number of strong leading men could have carried the film much the same as Connery did.

Interesting question... what other strong male actors of the time could have played Bond and made him their own the way Connery did?

[Simon]

To be honest, I believe that all the actors to have portrayed Bond during the series' history, have been chosen ones.

That might sound a little zen but at the end of the day, they have all contributed to keeping the series alive to this day. While we are comparing the efforts and results of all actors' contributions in the year 2003, these contributions came out at considerably different eras, so while I thoroughly enjoyed AVTAK in 1985, I can now see it in a slightly different light. I was 19 then, 36 now. I've changed since then so my view point has too.

I'm just saying that it is, if not redundant, then a very difficult task to perform accurately as one has to remember how a film was appreciated in its year of release compared to another film in its year of release.

[zencat]

Beautifully said, Simon. I agree with you 100%.

[BondNumber7]

Originally posted by zencat

Was it really Connery who caused Bondmaina in the '60s, or was it the character of James Bond? I have a feeling any actor who played Bond at that magic time would have been catapulted to super-stardom. The fact that the character of Bond has survived, and prospered, after Connery's departure tells me it's Bond the people love first, Connery second. And each of the big three (Connery, Moore, Brosnan) has caused a new level of Bondamaina in their day.

You know something Zencat, your absolutely 100% correct. I have been studying articles written in mainstream publications like Newsweek and Time during the 60's and 70's on Bond and I can tell you it was the character that created Bondmania in the mid-sixties, not Connery. Infact, none of the articles I found were on Connery. Many focused on the character himself, the making of the films, reviewing the pictures, and Ian Fleming. Bond was on the top of the world in 1964 with the U.S. release of FRWL and the making of the upcoming Bond picture "Goldfinger." Connery on the other hand, was ignored by magazine writers.