Home › Bond Movies › Actors
Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
Many people look at Sean Connery as their favorite Bond, but I guess I just don't see why ?
Alright, so many people look at Sean Connery as their favorite Bond, but I guess I just don't see why, other than the fact that he was the first Bond. But it's always kind of annoyed me when people like the original the best SIMPLY because it is the original.
I'm not saying Connery was a bad Bond at all, I liked him a good deal... but I still don't understand what would make him the best.
I'm not saying Connery was a bad Bond at all, I liked him a good deal... but I still don't understand what would make him the best.
^ 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
Laz was an excellent Fleming Bond and couldve been a legendary movie Bibd as well if he hadnt been cut down in his prime like Cobain, Lennon or Princess Diana.
Rog nailed the movie Bond as well as Sean ever did in TSWLM, MR and OP but only had fleeting moments of Fleming Bond.
Tim nailed Fleming Bond (possibly better than Sean) but was always uncomfortable as movie Bond.
Brozza attempted to strike the same balance as Sean but just wasn't as good.
And Dan has shown he can do Fleming Bond and with parts of SF movie Bond. The jury is still out on him as movie Bond until we see him in an epic TB/YOLT style romp but the signs are promising he can challenge Sean.
To sum up Sean succeeded in bringing the character to the screen as Fleming wrote but then evolved it into something that the cinema going public couldn't get enough of and thus laid the foundations for 50 years. This ability to mesh Flemings Bond with something a bit more fantastic to appeal to the average cinemagoer is the reason that his adulation is largely justified.
Of course there are parts of TB and then even more so in YOLT and DAF when he just played Sean Connery which was a bit lazy but his first 4 films are the strongest set if performances we have had back to back.
great post agree with you at 100%.
One of those people was/is my grandfather. He was (apparently) never that impressed with Comnery back in the 60s and even now doesnt get the hype surrounding Craig - describing him as "coarse".
Maybe you should watch his first 4 Bond movies at the very least and then you'll have your answer.
I believe Craig and Dalts do better Bonds. They read the script and adjust their performances accordingly. Sean did so for DN and FRWL but didn't for the others. Arguably he did the worst performance as Bond sleepwalking through YOLT and just marking time until he could get away.
But then the scripts he was given after 1963 didn't allow him to do anything else. Surprisingly one of my favourite Sean performances is Diamonds because he looks like he is enjoying himself. Bits of YOLT he truly looks in bondage to the Broccolis.
Waits for the brickbats to fly.. B-)
Director Terence Young, himself an erudite and sophisticated man, took Connery and knocked him into shape. The alliance of Young and Connery proved irresistible; Young turned the rough diamond Connery, into a ruthlessly elegant bon vivant, which embodied all the hallmarks of Fleming's 007; charming, yet very lethal.
Connery himself had a natural strength and aggression, which Cubby so admired, tempered with a calm authority, great grace and elegant poise. In addition to his smooth, sexual magnetism and wry charm, Connery's Bond was underpinned by a real sense of danger; his was a Bond, like the novels, that had earned his 00-prefix, and this was a key development in translating Bond to the masses.
Fleming infused Bond with his own views and opinions; Bond was his mouthpiece, thus Bond seemed rather snobbish, an upper-class man, born into wealth.
Incidentally the literary Bond, like Connery, had none of this. Connery was a blue collar man, and he had earned his opinions, something crucial to Bond appealing to the masses; the man on the street could identify with Connery's 007.
From Martins, Girls and Guns (Martin Sterling and Gary Morecambe, page 101);
Broccoli was even more illuminating;
"Sean had the balls for the part. Put a bit of veneer over that tough Scottish hide and you've got Fleming's Bond instead off all the mincing poofs we had applying for the job.
Sean's looks and explicit body language cast him irresistibly as 007. I was convinced he was the closest we could get to Fleming hero. The character was written as a semi-sadistic operator, well manicured but with a streak of mercilessness about him. The more I thought about Connery, the more he seemed to fit the image we had of James Bond"
Young later commented that three things made made Dr No so memorable; “Connery, Connery, Connery”. Although Connery commands the screen with his presence and charm, Young is being too modest. In fact it should read, “Connery, Connery and Young”.
That's why so many people regard Connery to be the best 007 yet. Not because he was the first one.
I would say Seans performances in FRWL are on a par with Dalts in TLD/LTK and Craig in CR/SF because he has something to work with in the script.
My favorite Bonds:
1: Daniel Craig
2: Pierce Brosnan
3: Roger Moore
4: Sean Connery
5: Tim dalton
6: George Lazenby
I love Roger Moore's Bond because he did away with the cold blooded hitman theme and made Bond more human and compassionate. I also loved the humour. Sure, this is not the Bond people wanted to see, but I thought it was a cool and different interpretation that still worked within the formula. With that said, I'm cool with Daniel Craig returning Bond to his old self, because he did it so incredibly well.
If Moore had been the first Bond to have played the role,he would NEVER have had people criticise him like they did after he took over.He only gets it because people hated to see Connery go and they wanted Moore to be just like him which is impossible,which Moore knew so he brought his own unique and cool style to the table.also Moore and conney are the two best Bonds to have ever played the role.any true james Bond fan knows that if you go to any james bond forum that it always comes down between moore and connery as to who was the best bond with connery usually always winning.
Not on this forum though, apparently, where DC is bizarrely hailed as the Second Coming.
I don't understand your rankings in the context of your other comments though. You say Connery is overrated but then later on that Connery and Moore are the best (I agree), but put DC and PB in first and second place...
Are you as confused as you sound?
Anyway, he's not my personal favourite but Connery made Bond what he is now. Fair enough he had lots of help, but if it wasn't for him the series might not even be around today. He's the original, the most iconic and lots of people see him as the best because he set the standard. Every Bond since him has been similar in some way or another.
I prefer Dalton but Connery is the definition of Bond.
Each to their own. Personally, give me any of Connery's first 5 over any of Craig's 3.
While I rate Dalton highly as Bond I find it hard to contrive an argument that could ever conceivably place him above Connery, or Moore for that matter.
I appreciate that there are fans on here who place a premium on the Fleming books. Having never read them I am in no position to judge who gives the most authentically Flemingesque turn. What I can say however, is that those who obsess about Fleming seem to become increasingly blind to the actual quality of the acting. 'Seriousness' and 'darkness' seem to be regarded as the over-riding qualities required of any Bond actor. And the almost perfectly pitched light and shade of Connery and Moore somehow becomes mere amateurism compared to the miserabilsm and charmless moping around of (say) Daniel Craig. One of the reasons I like Dalton so much more than DC is that (IMO) he retained the essential balance of the screen Bond. Even in LTK he is basically Bond in the traditional mould, but placed in a new and disturbing context.
It goes without saying that Brosnan never even approached any of his predecessors in the acting department. I still think Craig was decent casting but I don't think he's been well served by having to compete with Bourne and Batman. For me there's little to distinguish his Bond from a raft of other action characters on TV and film. Not particularly good scripts have also prevented him from delivering the truly great performance that I think he's capable of. Here's hoping Logan works some magic on Bond 24.
I'm still part of the minority that prefer Brosnan. He sits comfortably between the working class street fighters of Connery and Craig, and the stiff upper lip of Dalton and Moore.
Then again, I just watched Goldeneye on BluRay (again) this afternoon and it reminded me of the amount of potential Brosnan offered the part. A potential that I still think EON completely squandered trying to make him a new Moore.
Yes, it is unarguable.
I don't get the "he looked bored in YOLT" argument. I've always thought he was just as good in YOLT as in any of the others.
Actually I watched YOLT the other day and I really enjoyed it, I've put it above TB as my favourite Connery film now.
One of his best performances was (I think) in NSNA. He looked better than in DAF, he had fun and he did well showing a Bond that was older.
Totally agree. Give me a 'bored' Connery over a 'serious' Craig performance any day of the week.
Dalton is my favourite Bond but that's not because he's more serious, it's because he played the more serious Bond really well.
Craig was a more serious Bond in CR and QOS and I didn't think he was that great. I think his best performance was in SF, when he was more light hearted and a bit more of an all rounder. He should keep that angle going, leave the darker Bond to Dalts.
My view has always been that it comes down to the quality of the writing and this is one thing that EON have almost consistently got wrong over the past 25 years. Even Brosnan could have turned in a decent performance given a decent script and director. Purvis and Wade have wreaked havoc on the series. Craig's occasional comic moments have generally been well handled. I actually prefered the jokes in CR and QoS to SF, but I can see he can handle it perfectly well. The problem is that good comedy is one of the hardest things to achieve in cinema. Miersabilsm and faux existential crisis can be done by any old hack, but genuine, consistently intelligent wit requires high quality writing of a sort that the series has lacked for decades now.
I'm not sure Logan is the man to change this either. His dialogue is often meaty and entertaining but I haven't detected that much humour. The jokes in SF were of the weaker Roger-era sight-gag type I felt, more than cleverly crafted observation or dialogue. Still, you never know, he might turn up trumps in Bond24.
There really is no comeback to that is there?
Give them a try. They may change your own Bond world view.
Agreed, they're great. Beautifully written and put a lot of the films to shame - but don't be fooled that they are ultra realistic because they can get quite proposterous sometimes.
Actually give the audiobooks a try @Getafix. They really bring Fleming's work to life. I'm currently listening to FRWL narrated by Toby Stephens. He actually does a very good job and sounds nothing like he did in DAD.