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
He always felt Connery was better as an older actor.
I'll give it another go.
Even when Connery was in his 60's, he didn't even need to try in 'The Rock' to appear a better, more badass action hero than guys half his age at the time. Even in serious roles, Connery didn't need to put any effort to act like a russian submarine commander, or an italian monk, or an irish immigrant, he didn't need to bother changing his accent, he gives astonishing performances in these films, and won awards for it. The scottish accent in 'Red October' doesn't bother me at all, Connery still totally owned the film. Look at Roger Moore in 'North Sea Hijack', a fantastic film that is a shame it didn't kickstart an another franchise for Moore. Moore is an absolute legend in it, and his anti-feminist one liners works so damn well. You actually believe Moore can act so masculine in real life, as the line between his characters and real-life-self is as thin as a piece of paper. For all the complaints I've seen about Moore ( and to an extent, Connery in his lesser films), I have never seen someone argue that their delivery of questionable lines is not impeccable, or that they were unable to elevate a rubbish script, or that they are not among the best aspects of the movies they appear in.
Moore and Conner are from a past era, they were IMO the best from that time, and I honestly do not expect to see another movie star and human being of their caliber appear in movies in years to come, if ever.
That is all.
If you don't think Connery was the best Bond, then he wasn't in your eyes. There is nothing wrong with that. Personally, I don't think there ever was a "best Bond". Different strokes for different folks.
I've read all of Fleming's novels. I can honestly say that I liked at least two or three of them. That's it.
There is biased and there is biased but saying that Brando, DeNiro & Pacino can't hold a candle to Connery (charismatic but not a truly great actor) or Moore (very charming but seriously limited) is laughable.
You've just compared them to three actors who at their peak were unbeatable, those rose tinted specs are clearly not coming off are they?
You can have your opinion but expecting someone not to say something, yeah I can see where you'd say both are better than maybe Clint Eastwood (although that is a stretch) but 3 of the greatest actors of all time that is just blind worship!
If I'm the only one bringing this into question then this thread clearly full of people so wrapped up in Bond they'll convince themselves of anything, especially when neither actor you mention has done anything outside of Bond that earth shattering or a particularly diverse in their craft, especially Moore.
I understand you may prefer true acting skills and have actors 'become' characters, but I have a preference for these 2 cinematic giants, who millions of women dreamed to be with, and millions of men dreamed to be, and all that without a single effort. Connery is still seen by millions of young boys as the manliest, most macho star ever, and Moore is still seen by millions as the perfect gentleman and an amazing human being, more than 50 years later. Yes, De Niro's and Brando's filmography is very impressive, but Sean and Roger trenscended the big screen, and their off-screen selves are movie characters of their own.
I firmy believe that if I were to introduce 'old' movies to teens today, there is nothing better than a Connery Bond or a Moore Bond. Say what you will about their movies, that they are too campy, too rubbish, too dated, too slow, etc, but the sheer magnetic force of Connery and Moore will mesmerise even the most stubborn kid who thinks anything pre-dating 1995 is 'has been' and 'pre-historic'.
Edited @doubleoego ;)
Connery's and Moore's sheer magnetic presence and charisma by the bucket load will astonish millions of kids who hate 'old' stuff. Yes, I believe even more than Pacino and Brando in 'The Godfather'. We're not talking acting talents here, but pure entertainement, which is what is needed to captivate young kids of the modern age. Sean and Roger are unique, I don't see anyone to their level.
Great quality cinema will always endure and despite the enduring quality of the character I think grossly overestimate the appeal of those actors. Your own opinion is fine but people will be waxing lyrical about Brando, DeNiro & Pacino long after Connery & Moore.
They've played a character that will endure but them themselves in years to come will not be held up in the way some here are saying, they've just not done enough outside of Bond to merit it.
And let's stop saying which films are the best cinematography or which actors are the most talented. This is totally not the issue here. We are talking star power and Sean Connery and Roger Moore wipe the floor with the entire Hollywood industry from any decade. Let's not hide our faces here, Pacino and De Niro our now way past their primes, and it's easy to notice that kids today don't care much for the newest movies they do today. De Niro is often regarded as a grumpy old man now.
But show a picture of Connery or Moore as Bond, or a mashup of their best scenes, and suddenly there is no more mockery from today's kids, but total admiration. Every single teenage boy today who sees the famous scene of Connery giving Fiona Volpe her shoes will far more impressed by that scene alone than the entire movies of Godfather, Goodfellas or Street Car Named Desire or any other Hollywood classic.
I don't mean to sound rude but the only people who are hiding their faces from the truth is those who deny that Sean Connery and Roger Moore are infinitely more highly regarded from the new generations of kids and the general public than anyone else from the past era, and they still rival the 'popular' actors of current decade.
Trenscending eras and time is not an exact science, and it is certainly not cinematic greatness that equals popularity amongst movie goers 50 years on. It is a very complex mixture of elements. The James Bond films are amongst the very rare breed of films that the siple evocation of the name of the main character and the actor portraying him triggers admiration and excitement in people. That gif that @doubleoego posted a few message back has a far, far bigger resonnance by itself than anything else. In 50 years time, that gif will still make young boys want to be like Sean Connery.
The old Bond films are still remembered and extremely popular today for one reason only: the star power of Sean Connery and Roger Moore. Godfather is still remember today (by the younger geneation) but to a lesser degree, and it's popularity among 2015 teens is nowhere near to the level of the old James Bond films. That's the main point that can't be denied, no 'old' films are as popular to young generations as the Connery and Moore Bond films, save for Indiana Jones and Star Wars. The simple proof is the amount of iconic scenes, stunts, the gadgets, even the names of Bond girls and villains from the Sean and Roger films that young kids can still know 50 years on.
I'm not sure this happened to the cast of Goodfellas:
The Moore and Connery Bond, if we forget about quality, have so many iconic elements that still resonates with kids 50 years on. That's the whole point here. I am sure a lot of young guys today know Godfather is 'a great film', but they won't know much about it, apart the name Michael Corleone and 'I'll make him and offer he can't refuse'. Mention old Bond however, and their face will light up like they were in a candy shop, and they'll go 'I remember that villain with the metal teeth! He was awesome!', or whatever element they know.
We are just going to have to agree to disagree but you wouldn't find such hyperbole about any of these 2 actors anywhere else than on a Bond forum.
I'm leaving this thread because you convinced yourself and others of it and that one about Connery and Moore being a popular now as current stars is just ludicrous. Just because you live in a Bond bubble doesn't mean everyone else does.
If you think kids from 2015 can't name dozens of elements from the Connery and Moore films,much more than they can about Godfather or Goodfellas or Patton or Dog Day Afternoon or Apocalypse Now, maybe it is not us who are 'living in a bubble'.
This is not a negative thing about Daniel Craig, but his movies alone can't keep the franchise highly popular without the old outings being also popular and remembered. I love Dalton as Bond, but his films did not 'click' with the audience, and the young generations today don't know/remember much about his films. If the entire series pre-Pierce Brosnan was in the same state, James Bond would not be one of, if not the most iconic and popular fictional characters to kids in 2015.
Sean Connery created the damn thing. He did it so well that in 1962, everyone around the world were sold by his performance from the moment he utters Bond, James Bond'. And, that's not the whole argument: 50 years later, any kid who sees DN will love Connery with this scene alone. No other actor in history can pretend to immediately click with generations of people across 50 years. Name one actor who can will immediately become a legend for everyone by saying 1 sentence. And by 1 sentence I mean giving his name while lighting a cigarette. Connery became a legend within 5 seconds. No one can come close to this achievement. It took him 5 seconds to create and sell the most iconic character in cinematic history . Every other Connery moment after this scene is the cherry on the cake.
I suppose, for a lot of people of the 60s and 70s, they almost feel like old chums.
With James Bond, every kid today love the character thanks to the old films being iconic and popular, and to Daniel Craig for bringing in tons of new fans. So they know there were others Bond's than Craig, and that they are all still alive. When one of the James Bond will die, it will be a massive shock to every generation of people living today. And the shock of James Bond passing away will be even bigger for Moore's and Connery's death than for Lazenby's or Dalton's. Sad, but that's how it is.
I suppose the interesting question (at least regarding Connery) would be whether he'd be half as worshipped as an actor had he NOT become Bond? I suspect not, but that's besides the point.
Connery was 33 in DN. I think Bond was his most impressive role. Later films showed his limitations as an actor. I think the opposite to your Grandad if I'm honest (think Russian general with a Scottish accent). My Grandpa preferred Moore as Bond because he preferred the 'gentleman' aspect and Englishness of his portrayal.
In fairness my granddad wasn't as keen on Bond as I was and it did take quite a lot to please him in general (he always thought DC was miscast and also thought that the likes of Moore and Brosnan had that more "gentlemanly" demeanour).
I think he just felt Connery was an average, working class jobbing actor back in the 60s who happened to get lucky.
As much as I love both think he had a point about Connery and Craig and their "working class-ness".