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
No question they should've made Connery a partner and worked with him more. He seemed to have earned it. There was no way they could be prepared for the phenomenal attention the series would get. I'm sure it took it's toll on him, especially all that attention that went on in Japan.
I'd really like to see an in-depth bio of Saltzman because the guy did lead a fascinating life, though it seems like he really didn't seem to have a clue in many ways in some of the things I've read.
We've heard mostly good things about Cubby but I'm sure he had his ruthless, tough side as well that hasn't been publicized. Something I find cool is when NSNA was going on how many crew refused offers to work on that, saying they were loyal to Cubby and Eon.
yeah and knew they wouldn't work for eon again if they took the NSNA gig.
It sounds to me like Sean had justifiable cause for his long held grievance. he was a huge factor in creating the magic money tree that is bond but eon treated him like a schmuck and tried to basically Rob him blind. they showed little respect, poor business acumen (their miserly attitude to connery almost sunk the series) and on a human level sound like they treated Connery with almost contempt.
I'm sure Connery know he owes a great deal to Bond but did EON feel the same dept to him? doesn't seem like it.
I am one of those who thinks that with almost anyone else in the role and Bond would have finished after 3 or 4. without Connery eon would have been nothing.
No question they should've made Connery a partner...//
Broccoli already had one partner (Saltzman) he didn't really want in the first place. He was looking to buy out Saltzman's option but Saltzman wanted to go into business with Broccoli. Anyway, Broccoli -- despite being the calmer half of the Eon partnership -- wasn't looking to take on another partner in Bond.
Irving Allen had made Dean Martin a partner in the Matt Helm movies. (The copyright notices cite Meadway-Claude; Meadway was Allen's company, Claude was Martin's.)
But when Dean Martin was ready to move on, there really wasn't much Allen could do. Those movies were built around Dino's general entertainment persona. I suppose Allen could have tried to suddenly do serious, faithful adaptation of the novels but that would have been a shock to the audience.
Going back to Bond, what would have happened if they had made Connery a partner and then he eventually had enough? Buy him out? (There are cases of TV shows where something like that happened)
I don't know. But I think the whole thing was more complicated than any of us know.
If Connery wanted to be a partner may Be that was a bit much but they could have paid him a lot more.
The only logical alternative was obviously To have cast Dalton back in 69.
Then WHY do I have to adress certain matters? Are some people here having a carte blanche for bad behaviour then - all in the name of keeping it friendly?
Forget it. I deleted what I wrote. Its no use. Thank you very much.
If you wish to discuss this further, please DM either myself or another mod, but I ask that we don't derail the thread any further.
I can only give you an answer from my perspective. In my opinion, when he got the role he brought a certain natural intensity to it which had been missing since Dalton (so it was there before). A lethal quality. He was instantly credible as an assassin.
He also brought an acting gravitas which allowed him to play well off the supreme talent they hired for CR, most notably Eva Green (but also Mads Mikkelson and Giancarlo Giannini). There are few actors who can spar with her, and he did an admirable job.
He had a certain boyish roguishness (at the time) due to his (again at the time) relative youth. He was the first actor cast under his 40s since Lazzer, and that youth, combined with his butch physicality, was fresh. Both of these attributes existed during CR & QoS and for many, including myself, this was when he was at his peak as Bond.
In SF, he had aged notably (it wasn't just the haircut), and he traded that physicality & intensity for a certain wearied cynicism combined with a sarcastic sense of humour. I don't think I've seen those two qualities combined in such a manner before, and in that sense perhaps it's one of his better performances & quite unique.
The less said about his last appearance as OO7, which I have absolutely no time for, the better.
I think he also brings a certain run of the mill ordinariness to the character, and I think that's somewhat intentional on the part of the film makers. I don't necessarily mean that as a slight mind you. Growing up, Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton & even Brosnan had a certain special unattainable cinematic quality to them. I wanted to be like them, but I knew I couldn't quite get there. They were cinematic stars and they looked it. Craig on the other hand is more regular. He's more of an ordinary bloke, both on and off the screen. I think he's more relatable for some in a way as a result, and I believe that was the film maker's intent.
So that's my view on it.
---
Regarding Connery, I hold no ill will towards him. He did an astounding amount for the character and I firmly believe, like others have said, that the series wouldn't have survived without him as the lead in the beginning. I don't know all the facts about what went on behind the scenes, but the man deserves and has earned my utmost respect for what he has given to the series.
I'm trying to curb my expectations and not expect anything too wild or inventive, particularly if the "gold idea" truly is something like a female villain or Bond mentoring a younger, female agent.
Maybe if Dune gets started sooner rather than later, he can step in with the next actor and do B25 or 26. I'd be surprised if he doesn't get a shot at some point in the near future.
And this is what makes B25 so exciting to think about. I have absolutely no clue how he’s going to do this! Boyle is so inventive and kinetic, but also quite varied in execution, my mind draws a blank at what his Bond will look like.
My only prediction for me personally will be: whether I like the film or not, I know I won’t be bored. Outside of this?....
Thank you for taking the time for that lengthy answer, but I'm afraid you misunderstood me. My question was not about his take on the role or if I like it or not, not about his intensity nor any other acting-peculiarities of his. What I am about is that special investment some people claim he made for the role. I just don't understand that (apart from the bulking up). What I don't understand is what he did that none of the other actors before him did as part of preparing for the role.
Well, I'm not too up on all his efforts, but I know he read all the books ahead of making CR and I believe he does it again prior to every film. Then there is also his investment in trying to get talent involved in the films, including Forster, Mendes and now reportedly Boyle. From what I've read, he initiated those conversations and got them into the picture. EON didn't. I suppose the same goes for certain actors and actresses.
Now, I can't comment on whether other actors did or didn't do this, because honestly I don't care that much about their behind the scenes work. I really only am interested in what they do behind the camera. I'd imagine that if they had the opportunity, they too would have attempted to do the same. Brosnan, from what I understand, had conversations with Tarantino about doing CR prior to CR.
I'd imagine SF is a through and through Mendes film (at least in terms of characterizations), but is SP? What about QoS for Forster?
What I'm getting at is perhaps Boyle will surprise us with a film that doesn't meet his current M.O.
SF was beautifully structured... In my opinion, he didn't break-out of his comfort level and crafted a great Bond film, framed within a Mendes film;
re: Sp: yes, he was a part, it seems from the emails, of some choices we fans don't like. His DNA is all over brother-gate, for example. At the same time, I think he was maybe given a shambles of a script to shoot. And, yes, he was partly responsible.
I believe he went beyond a check-list of previous Bond films as he shot SP, and dug into his film encyclopedia to copy other filmmakers for scenes he didn't know what to do with-- and that's the pacing problem I see in the finished film (can't have Kubrick-like philosophy in a Bond film-- oil and water).
In SF, the filmmaking was confident.
In Sp he cut n pasted so many things into one.
Taking Forster's previous work-- which I quite liked-- I'd say that QoS was brand new for him and a test-run of how he would do bigger films (as seen after, stylistically in WORLD WAR Z)