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
Agree with both of you. You just won't find a Connery these days, he's a relic of a bygone era. Finding someone who embodies the Fleming model is incredibly difficult and I still think Connery was the only one to come close. I know there's a school that thinks Dalton nailed it, but even he fell short. I mean, he's just not in Connery's league whichever way you cut it.
This is part of the reason I admire Roger as much as I do, he was an agent of change. Not too much, but he shifted the goalposts enough that it helped the cinematic incarnation take on a life of its own. Throw of the shackles so to speak.
There are several shades of Bond and every fan and casual fan has a preference that lies somewhere on that spectrum.
I honestly don't think we'd be here talking about this if every iteration were to stick stringently to the Fleming archetype.
Going forward I think it's always about keeping Fleming right to the heart of it, but allowing a shift in character that's beneficial to the actor portraying him. That should always involve one foot in the past and one in the present. That's the balance they have to find for Bond to 'be' Bond, whilst also staying relevant.
Depending of course in which year he'll actually take over the role.
Craig might do another one or even two.
Sean Connery's Bond is a memory from the past. There won't be a Sean Connery version 2 and perhaps that's for the best. Each actor has to bring their own qualities to the role and if some fans don't like it, so be it! I have grown to be 'okay' with Craig as Bond and I suspect some fans will feel the same about the next bloke in the role.
you have a point there, the casting of Craig has proven that "any" guy could work being Bond if he is confident and masculine enough.
Which is sad really. I rather have someone that resembles Fleming's vision (Dalton) or that simply creates his own iconic version of Bond (Moore) or someone that combines the best of the predecessors (Brosnan).
I also Agree with this.
One of my big regrets was not seeing him live on Broadway in 2014 when he was doing an adaptation of A Raisin in the Sun. I had tickets and was all set for it, but unfortunately work priorities kept me in Canada and I couldn't make the trip. Fortunately, I got a refund from the Theatre.
If you've not seen Crimson Tide, I highly recommend it. Two legends (Washington and Hackman) square off in a submarine. Great stuff.
And an epic soundtrack and score.
I still cant work out who was right or wrong in what happened...I think you just have to say they were both right and both wrong.
I remember Gene Siskel commenting that Denzel would have been his choice for Bond during the Brosnan era.
I still need to see Devil In A Blue Dress, as that film would be right up my alley.
Another good film,but watch it on your own as it needs concentration.
So far in all the candidates for Bond #7 I don't see anyone with Craig's acting skills (bar Fassbender), or anyone who can ace the effortless factor like Connery.
I thought that Brosnan was good in GE & DAD. I personally prefer his more generic GE Bond. Having said that, he brings more of 'Brosnan' in DAD and it's a suitable interpretation (I actually prefer him in DAD to Craig in SP because I feel Brosnan is being more himself in DAD than Craig is himself in SP, if that makes any sense).
A Bond actor really needs to bring an extension of their personality to succeed imho. That's why I prefer Craig when he's the tough as nails character (QoS) or the cynical, jaded character (SF). I think both of those attributes are inherent to Craig's persona, and therefore it's quite natural when he accentuates that via his acting.
In TND and TWINE I thought he was finding his feet. He was more of the GE type character in the earlier half of TND, but once he hits Vietnam/Thailand, something changes, and not for the better. I can't put my finger on it. I think you know my opinion of his work in TWINE (not good).
I agree that they shouldn't have given him those dramatic scenes in his films. Not only was he not able to carry them (a tendency to overact imho), but they came across somewhat cheesy. If those sap scenes weren't in his films, I'd look on his overall tenure more positively, even though it was somewhat predictable and pastiche.
One of the reasons I like GE so much is because Brosnan underplays it, which for his tenure was very unusual. That's how Bond should be played imho. If he had been a little more confident/assertive I would easily rate it as a top 10 Bond performance.
Brosnan is best as an actor in my view when he can let his hair down (like in the Tailor of Panama or November Man). The problem with Bond is one must operate within a sort of straightjacket. The acting must be subtle. I'm not quite certain Brosnan could have done that, but he did show a lot of promise in DAD, which is why it's somewhat unfortunate that his tenure was cut short.