It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
I mean, he was Roger Moore. Ridiculously handsome and charming.
And that's probably his biggest contribution to the films. He really represented Bond's lifestyle.
Didn't he get abused by one of his wives? May well have cheated too (don't know regardless, and we all have our sins as they say).
But yes, I think like all the actors there was an aspect of his self that he really honed and played up for Bond. As all the actors did I guess. A bit of themselves went into the character.
Correct! Both Doorn Van Steyn and Dorothy Squires apparently used to beat up on Roger; he’s been attacked with a Teapot and had a guitar smashed on his head.
I mean I do think in part that sometimes you are kind of watching his life at times in the Bond films moreso than with any of the other actors because his Bond is so often just swanning about having an effortlessly nice time; I think on the AVTAK commentary, he mentions that he had been to that chateau before, when he went to a party there hosted by his friend the Aga Khan(!). So I kind of think, when it's all that stuff in the garden party there and everyone staying in luxurious rooms etc., we really are watching Roger Moore's life at that point! :D
(He was probably even wearing some of his Bond costumes as I believe he often pilfered them!)
Ooof. Yeah, looked it up. Awful that he had to go through that. Suspect at that time especially the concept of a woman beating up a man in that way wouldn't have been as readily accepted as... well quite as abusive (or seen as domestic abuse in the way we might do today).
Is this project an April Fool's joke I'm not getting?
He may fly under the radar of producers.
Yes, but it's different to play James Bond than a son-in-law.
If they hadn't gone with an actor as unique as Connery - both in terms of appearance and charisma - I don't think Bond would have made the impact it did and it may not have lasted.
Yes. I agree @007HallY It also explains why Fleming didn't understand why he was chosen, but later saw it...because he didn't look like Gregory Peck, Stewart Granger, David Niven, Robert Taylor, etc. In other words, Connery was handsome, but not in the traditional leading man way.
I see what you mean. Although he wore a wig as Bond, so thinning hair isn't really a part of his Bond image. So, rather than embrace this individual quality, they chose to conceal it to make him fit into a certain mould.
True. I always imagine what Broccoli and Saltzman's impression would have been of him based on first seeing him (it would have been harder to see his potential as apparently he was wearing scruffy clothes too). But they seemed drawn to his confidence and the walk.
I think so too. It negates the fact that you can't just generate an Action Man type actor (I suppose the closest they could do is get Henry Cavill, but I think there are legitimate downsides to him as an actor which would mean he's not the best fit potentially). They have to pick from options available.
I mean that's really how you cast most roles. Does Downey Jr look like the big buff Tony Stark in the comics? I would say he does enough. Was he great?
That Connery was so good -and the original screen version- he sort of redefined the looks of Bond the character to some extent, which is fine but as we've seen with Roger or Daniel, he doesn't need to be in that exact mould to be successful. Being caught up in looks primarily just seems like a route to disappointment.
Nah, he was like a new Clark Gable. That's what they saw and that's why they hired him.
;)
He wasn't very British and that was a good thing.
There's that famous story of The Daily Express launching a 'find the first Bond' contest in '61. They ended up with a male model who looked like a young Gregory Peck. The producers actually ended up screen-testing him, but found he had absolutely no acting talent or screen presence so dropped him from consideration.
It's the nature of casting I guess. You can't guarantee a good candidate will fit a very specific look 100%, and you can't discount an actor who might not be that full image, but embodies the role much better.
One of the reasons Craig works as Bond is because he looks like what he is - a killer. One of the reasons for Brosnan's success was that he looked like people's idea of a traditionally handsome leading man. I feel all the Bonds have at least one of these traits and some have elements of both. When I look at potential Bonds I look for candidates within this spectrum. There may be potential to go a bit further left field but I think there are limits.
Ian Fleming wanted David Niven, I believe. On paper it's an obvious choice: established British actors, already famous, etc. He would have turned Dr No into a somewhat more serious Pink Panther and a minor movie in his filmography.
I do wonder if they ever contemplated giving Connery the thin scar on his face, and the one of his hand. I’d argue that these would have helped to cement a visual identity for Bond.
No, they’re real. Mended and Sony announced they were doing them last February.https://deadline.com/2024/02/beatles-movies-sam-mendes-paul-mccartney-john-lennon-george-harrison-ringo-starr-1235831317/
I know Fleming at one point wanted James Stewart for the role, which is a weird choice. Makes sense financially though, at least in theory. Richard Burton was another one and would have been more plausible. Ultimately I don't think anyone would argue Connery wasn't the best choice.