Where does Bond go after Craig?

echo

007HallY wrote: »

echo wrote: »

007HallY wrote: »

From what I’ve seen of Gabel he was much more gentlemanly and polished than Connery, who was a lot more raw as a screen presence. I suppose it’s the same with Mason. I think by the 60s a film Bond was always going to be slightly grittier and more of an anti-hero (as much as Bond can be anyway) rather than the image of an English/Transatlantic gentleman. More a Sean Connery or Stanley Baker than a Cary Grant. To some extent that’s something that’s actually stayed, even in the portrayals of Moore and Brosnan.

And arguably, that's what gave Bond international appeal. And a certain sexual dynamism.

There's a bit of old-school stuffiness about Mason and Niven (and frankly, Fleming) that I don't think would have had worked on-screen, ultimately.

Yeah, I agree. The likes of Gabel, Niven, and Mason were aging even when Fleming was writing, and in the US stars like Brando and Dean were popping up (younger, more overtly sexual, more raw etc). Even the Bond comics from the later 50s started making the character more weathered looking. I think EON stumbled on that dynamic with Connery, and it’s a good thing they did. They could have played it safe and gone with an older, established, and even gentlemanly star, but where would Bond be now?

It’s probably a good lesson for this time round come to think of it.

Really insightful point about Brando and Dean and how the '50s film trends influenced Bond into the early '60s.

I also think it's very fortunate that they shot DN in color (to showcase Jamaica?), which was not a given in 1962.

Can you imagine a B/W GF? I can't.

mtm

Yes, the early Bond films basically are taking the tone of North By Northwest and giving it a spin (so much that they even rip off the most famous sequence from that) but as good as Cary Grant is, Connery is a more modern screen hero and is just sexier, as Deke says.