›

The James Bond Debate Thread - 336 Craig looks positively younger in SP than he does in SF.

1…4546485051…190

Comments

  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    The jet-pack was fully functional. Why is everyone yapping about it being silly?? It was a real life gadget for Fleming's sake!
  • DoubleOhhSevenDoubleOhhSeven
    Posts: 1,778
    Master_Dahark wrote:
    I think what you're referring to is dirt from the jet-pack landing.

    Wow. I'd never thought of that and it's bothered me for years lol.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,159
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 065</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>The plausibility of the scripts took one of the steepest declines from TB to YOLT.</b></font>
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    edited April 2012 Posts: 12,480
    well ... plausibility, not quality ... I have to think about this one. As if Goldfinger and Dr. No were plausible? Hmmm. Coming after TB ...oh it's too late for me to figure this one out. I'll case my vote as YES due to that one word: plausibility.
  • KerimKerim Istanbul Not Constantinople
    Posts: 2,629
    Disagree.

    IMO the plausibility between, OHMSS-DAF; TMWTGG-TSWLM-MR; TWINE-DAD were steeper.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,355
    Yes, this one is true but as stated some other films have been just as bad in this regard.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    I slightly agree, but like it has been said, it has been way steeper before.
  • VBM398VBM398
    Posts: 154
    yes. it is a little bit true.Pausibility, yes.
  • RogueAgentRogueAgent
    Posts: 12,526
    Hard to say as they are escapist movies. But they try to keep a certain realism? So its tricky but i am airing on the side of agreeing with the thesis.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,159
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 066</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>Sean Connery was most bored playing Bond in YOLT.</b></font>
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    edited April 2012 Posts: 12,480
    I have read that, but does it really show in his performance? I have to look again. I think I remember him looking a bit flat or bored at times in DAF, though ... I'll say disagree, for now.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    Hmm...I'd agree. I like YOLT but compared to his other performances Connery doesn't seem as interested here. Definitely a step down from his TB performance.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    The Connery Bond pazaz was definitely missing, but he was so much more bored in DAF. He was only there for the big check after all, so he could donate the $$$. Admirable act, but at the expense of his reputation as a Bond actor. Why Sean? Why?
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,713
    Of course not !! Connery was bloody awesome in YOLT !! The entire film is awesome !!
  • M_BaljeM_Balje Amsterdam, Netherlands
    Posts: 4,512
    Disagree. Sean whas with FRWL and DAF the best in Yolt.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,159
    One needs to sit through all the Connery Bonds over a span of no more than a few days. Connery's stamina, his facial work, his charisma - they were at their peak between FRWL and TB. In YOLT, Connery drops his lines rather than to deliver them. He runs with less energy than the average guy trying to catch a train. He's still good in the film, but he seems less bothered with being an impressive Bond. His performance comes off as lazy.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 12,837
    066 maybe he was bored, but I don't think he showed it. disagree.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    DarthDimi wrote:
    He runs with less energy than the average guy trying to catch a train.

    Thats pretty good. When he jogs through the middle of the battle across the volcano floor with Tiger and Aki hes hardly running for his life and the fact that World War 3 is minutes away isnt even enough to get Sean breaking sweat.

    And 'Exshplodah button'? This line always makes me laugh as its as if someones doing a bad impression of Connery.
  • 007RogerMoore007RogerMoore
    Posts: 1,082
    TheWizardOfIce wrote:
    DarthDimi wrote:
    He runs with less energy than the average guy trying to catch a train.

    Thats pretty good. When he jogs through the middle of the battle across the volcano floor with Tiger and Aki hes hardly running for his life and the fact that World War 3 is minutes away isnt even enough to get Sean breaking sweat.

    And 'Exshplodah button'? This line always makes me laugh as its as if someones doing a bad impression of Connery.

    Connery did a good job in YOLT. He was cool, proved among many scenes by what you said. The only line I think sounds bored is the "We´ll have to get down to those volcanoes".
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,355
    @DarthDimi makes some good points here. Connery is still doing well but he does come across as less bothered. Could this be because he announced he was stepping down during filming?
  • RogueAgentRogueAgent
    Posts: 12,526
    Bored i am not sure about? Tired of the role and fed up with all the press intrusions and attention? Definately! And although i know why he came back for DAF? It still amazes me that he did it! I have to say though that i enjoyed both of those movies.
  • DoubleOhhSevenDoubleOhhSeven
    edited April 2012 Posts: 1,778
    Agree. Im shocked as to how many people disagree. I lost some respect for Connery after he seemed to go out of his way in YOLT to show just how bored he was with the role and how much he wanted out. Almost as if he was trying to fail. But dammit even Connery's trying to suck he ends up being good. ^:)^
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,277
    Agreed. Some of his line readings were dull and uninspired. Perhaps they should have dubbed him as well!
  • 6of16of1
    Posts: 63
    Agree. Connery had lost all interest in the role by YOLT. His performance damages the entire film.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    6of1 wrote:
    Agree. Connery had lost all interest in the role by YOLT. His performance damages the entire film.

    Which is why whatever your feelings about Laz, an even more bored Connery cajoled into doing OHMSS for a big fat cheque, would have been a disaster.
  • DoubleOhhSevenDoubleOhhSeven
    edited April 2012 Posts: 1,778
    TheWizardOfIce wrote:
    6of1 wrote:
    Agree. Connery had lost all interest in the role by YOLT. His performance damages the entire film.

    Which is why whatever your feelings about Laz, an even more bored Connery cajoled into doing OHMSS for a big fat cheque, would have been a disaster.

    Very true. Whenever I hear people say "If Connery were in OHMSS it'd would've been the best Bond film ever" I know that person doesn't know what they're talking about. Maybe had Connery starred in it in 1963 or 1964 when he was still enthusiastic about the role it could've worked but then again Im not sure I could believably watch Connery's Bond fall in love. An ideal OHMSS would have starred niether Connery not Lazenby. Im just not sure with who. Dalton would've been too young and I don't think Moore could've pulled it off.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    Then again one reason Connery apparently quit was because there was an increasing reliance on spectacle rather than character. OHMSS tries to rectify that and (arguably) would have given Connery his wish.
  • bondbat007bondbat007
    Posts: 1,407
    DoubleOhhSeven wrote:
    TheWizardOfIce wrote:
    6of1 wrote:
    Agree. Connery had lost all interest in the role by YOLT. His performance damages the entire film.

    Which is why whatever your feelings about Laz, an even more bored Connery cajoled into doing OHMSS for a big fat cheque, would have been a disaster.

    Very true. Whenever I hear people say "If Connery were in OHMSS it'd would've been the best Bond film ever" I know that person doesn't know what they're talking about. Maybe had Connery starred in it in 1963 or 1964 when he was still enthusiastic about the role it could've worked but then again Im not sure I could believably watch Connery's Bond fall in love. An ideal OHMSS would have starred niether Connery not Lazenby. Im just not sure with who. Dalton would've been too young and I don't think Moore could've pulled it off.

    Its not that OHMSS would have been better its that it would be more popular. I don't think OHMSS would be better or worse with Sean (possibly a little better) but I think that because it was a different type of Bond film compared to YOLT maybe Connery would have been more excited about it. With actual character devolpment and exciting action. It's the ultimate "what if" question
  • 0iker00iker0
    Posts: 501
    Agree complitely
  • DoubleOhhSevenDoubleOhhSeven
    edited April 2012 Posts: 1,778
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Then again one reason Connery apparently quit was because there was an increasing reliance on spectacle rather than character. OHMSS tries to rectify that and (arguably) would have given Connery his wish.

    That's true but at the time the bigger reason was that Connery was sick and tired of all the publicity he had to put up with. It's well known that Connery is a very private man and has a resentful relationship with the press (in large part to them mocking him and his working class roots leading up to DN). Plus he was very afraid of being typecast as Bond and in many ways he was as his career didn't fully recover until 1987 with The Untouchables. He was just tired of the character. On top of that I think he would've looked to old by 1969. It's crazy to say that as he only would've been 39 but he was 41 in DAF and looked horrible.

    And yes it is a great "What If" question but the fact is it could've have existed. OHMSS exists as a grittier, more realistic, and more earth-bound Bond film only because of Connery's absense. EON realized they had lost their bread and butter so they had to pull out all the stops and put out a better film than they had in recent years. Why else do you think every actor's debut Bond film is always one of the best in the series? Because EON has to make sure the new actor has a good film as a platform for the rest of their run. Had Connery signed on I belive OHMSS would've been another case of "Bond on auto-pilot", kinda like AVTAK or TND. Conney's popularity would've been enough for EON and OHMSS as a film would've suffered. It's kinda like a paradox. OHMSS is both worse but at the same time much better because of Connery's absense.
Sign In or Register to comment.