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
Sir, you're going to make me avoid the forums if I have to worry about Pennywise staring at me for the next few weeks. ;-)
Connery seems to have this mythic status as the perfect embodiment of Bond with critics, the public and fans that is unshakeable despite a tenure which is mixed to say the least.
DN and FRWL he pretty much smashes it out of the park as Ian Fleming's James Bond but from there on its an increasingly slippery slope.
In GF he starts the trick he perfected for the rest of his career of just playing Sean Connery and this got more pronounced with every Bond film that went on. It's fair to say that this portrayal was what the public wanted and went some way to helping the series survive but at the same time it set out the cliched 'movie Bond' template which went on until 2006.
I certainly think that if Craig reaches the heights of CR and SF in his last two films then he should ursurp Connery's untouchable crown as best Bond ever.
However I'm not really answering the question here more criticising Connery's portrayal.
I don't think there are many flaws in DN and FRWL (back projection, the hand waving goodbye to the reel of film) when compared to the Rog or Brozza eras so they can't be accused 'of getting away with it' but from GF on flaws do creep in that, were they in someone else's tenure, would be seized upon.
GF - Iconic moments about but a lot of it is very silly. I find the whole putting the town to sleep scene excruciatingly embarrassing the way everyone just topples over. If this had been in a Brosnan film it would get hammered.
TB - Extremely shoddy editing and continuity and, Fiona apart, some pretty feeble acting all layered lovingly on top of an over bloated snooze fest of a plot. Yet it is heralded by many as a classic because it was made in the 60's. I'll take 5 of Moore's films and 3 of Brosnan's over it to be honest.
YOLT & DAF - Where to start with these? Turning Japanese, total disregard of the physics of spacecraft design (which its ok to shit on MR for), Blofeld in drag, elephants winning on slot machines, moon buggies etc
It should also be noted that it is these two films which Austin Powers borrows heaviest from not the Moore era.
The Connery era is remembered as some sort of Harold Macmillan 'youve never had it so good' salad days when overall to my mind only half of it really deserves to go down as classic. But other actor's reigns seem to be pulled apart for every tiny error.
<font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 254</b></font>
<font color=blue size=7><b>SF has A) more plot flaws than QOS, B) despite a better overall story.</b></font>
Really great post, as usual, Wizard. I especially like your observation that by GF, Connery was just playing "Connery." I think he was better directed in DN and FRWL.
Obviously they had to film TB for '65 in order to defuse McClory, but I wonder if Young would rather have tackled one of the other novels.
Agree with A) simply because Silva's plan is so diffuse. Not sure which has the better story: I definitely think SF has better set pieces (Bond off a step, everything in Asia) but the M/revenge story does at times feel like "been there, done that" (even though TWINE is a weaker film than SF). QoS meanders and I never really bought why everyone ended up in the desert but the eco-storyline feels fresher, if undercooked.
On balance, agree with A) and disagree with B).
Skyfall, although not without it's nonsense either, at least seems more plausible, as a former MI6 agent wants revenge on those he sees fit in doing him wrong. Skyfall is by far the better of the two releases and has a more coherent plot with it, so going against thesis on this one
Regarding thesis B- what constitutes a better overall story? I respect QoS for having a more worldly plot with the water control and destabilizing governments, but I tend to find it boring when compared to SF's (or any other Bond film, for that matter). We've got 007 getting shot/rising up again and M's demise around a typical story of a stolen macguffin and a villain's revenge, which just seems more Bondian to me- and a hell of a lot more engaging. Thesis B also gets my vote.
Agree with ''A'', disagree with ''B''
Not all at. His three favourite novels were Thunderball, then From Russia With Love and thirdly Dr. No. The three he filmed but in reverse order.
Thesis A- disagree and mostly because there's a big difference for me between flaws and gaping holes. Aside from how poorly plotted the sequence between Silva's escape and Bond's pursuit was done, I didn't have a whole lot of problems with the film that the crowd who watches those "things that were wrong" features (my daughter hates those even worse since her precious Hunger Games was found to be even more flawed than Skyfall) loves to hang their hat on.
Thesis B- Agree. The plot of Skyfall is much more entertaining than that of QOS. Greene's water plot doesn't carry nearly the sense of menace and danger than Silva's plan to humiliate MI6 and then kill M does.
<font color=blue size=7><b>Moore had better comic timing than Connery but less funny lines to work with.</b></font>
"Keeping the British end up sir"
"That'll keep you in curry for a few weeks"
"I'm now aiming precisely at your groin, so speak now, or forever hold your piece"
"Fill her up please"
"I didn't recognise you with your clothes on"
I feel the same way. Agree that Moore's comedic timing was just as good if not a little bit better than Sir Sean's, and disagree in that Sir Roger had more funny lines to say than any other Bond in series history.
I agree with this, while i think that QoS is the bane of 007-verse, it is one with a scary plot that says something about the power of cooperations. And yes it takes place in a 3rd world country but it can happen in our world too as it has happened already. Great plot idea, poor execution of a movie by a 2nd rate direcor when it comes to actioners.
And Thunderball was the one he wanted to film first, I believe.
Undecided on this one for some reason? Don't know why though?
Disagree. I found both of them very humerous but in different ways.
<font color=blue size=7><b>George Lazenby physically resembled Connery's Bond more in '69 than did Brosnan in '95.</b></font>