Many people look at Sean Connery as their favorite Bond, but I guess I just don't see why ?

145791012

Comments

  • Posts: 11,189
    I always remember my granddad telling me he was never all that impressed with Connery as an actor back in the 60s...and he would have been in his 40s by '62.

    He always felt Connery was better as an older actor.
  • dominicgreenedominicgreene The Eternal QOS Defender
    Posts: 1,756
    bondjames wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    For me, Sean Connery is objectively an amazing actor to watch play James Bond. He really owned the part, but I'd rather watch any other Bond film over any of Connery's outings, which are only worth watching to see Connery and his interactions with other people, though I can appreciate them as good movies. Maybe because I'm part of Generation Z, but I find that every other Bond was much more enjoyable to watch. Even AVTAK and DAD.

    Wow.

    Maybe Goldfinger. Like I said I've watched and appreciated them, simply for enjoyment I prefer other Bond films.

    It's probably an 'age' thing. You're from a different generation and Connery's Bonds can seem dated. Having said that, watch TB again.. that's the one that does not date for me, because it's set in the Caribbean, which looks very much the same today.

    I'll give it another go.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    edited July 2015 Posts: 11,139
    All one has to do is look at Connery do the simplest of things and you realise how monumentally cool he makes it and how hard it is to emulate; the obvious example being introducing himself to Sylvia while lighting his cigarette. Everything about that scene is ridiculously on point and supremely effortless.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited July 2015 Posts: 15,713
    James Bond is my favorite fictional character, so I may be biased, but for me, Sean Connery and Roger Moore are, bar none, the biggest, most charismatic movie stars the world has ever seen. They are in a league of their own, so far above anyone else that it's not even funny. There isn't even a comparison with them and actors like De Niro, Pacino and Brando. Those 3 are far better actors, and their level of commitment to 'become' a character is beyond amazing, but Connery/Moore wipes the floor with them in terms of charisma. Connery and Moore never became a character, because they actually are movie characters by themselves. They don't even try, on and off the screen, and they just light up the screen by simply being there. Connery in FRWL and DN, and imo TB, is so god damn cool and legendary, and it seems like he isn't making any effort yet 50 years later he still appears to be the manliest/most charismatic actor in history to teenagers living in 2015. What puts them above the rest is that off the screen, they have the same, if not more magnetic presence than most actors in their best roles. Moore is 88 years old now, and he can still own an interview so frigging well, that it's like watching an Oscar winning movie performance.

    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.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    giphy.gif

    That is all.
  • edited July 2015 Posts: 158
    Summed up beautifully @DaltonCraig007
  • edited July 2015 Posts: 533
    moore45 wrote:
    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.


    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.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    @DaltonCraig007

    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.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited July 2015 Posts: 15,713
    I did not compare Connery/Moore and De Niro/Pacino/Brando in terms of acting talents, where the latter 3 beat the former 2, but in terms of charisma and star power, where Sean and Roger wipe the floor with absolutely everyone. As I said, the commitment from guys like De Niro and Brando to become a character is beyond doubt unequalled in the movie business. My point is, Sean and Roger are movie characters by themselves, they don't seem to try at all in their movies (DN, FRWL, TB, TSWLM, FYEO, North Sea Hijack, The Rock, Wild Geese, The Saint, Marnie, Red October, Finding Forrester, Name of the Rose), but they make it look effortless to make these characters believable, and all of these diverse on-screen characters seem like extension of their normal self.

    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'.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Paragraphs, cot dammit! ;)
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,713
    doubleoego wrote: »
    Paragraphs, cot dammit! ;)

    Edited @doubleoego ;)

  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    That's better :-bd
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited July 2015 Posts: 15,713
    The bottom line is, De Niro, Pacino and Brando are probably the greatest actors of all time, but I believe that for the new generations of kids/teens, who many of them think anything pre-dating their birth year is 'pre-historic', they will far more be entertained by 'easy-access films' like GF, TB, TSWLM, than any other movies made pre 1980.

    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.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I generally try not to fawn over actors on the basis of their star power, but I will make an exception in the case of both Connery and Moore. Cinematic giants, in terms of their sheer star power and charisma at their peak - even today if someone young saw their older movies, they may comment on the films themselves being dated, but I'm quite certain they will be taken by both Connery (as I was when I saw his movies after Moore's) and Moore. I agree fully with @DaltonCraig007.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited July 2015 Posts: 15,713
    You can go on and on for hours at teens about The Godfather, Apocalypse Now, Dog Day Afternoon, etc. But show any kid one of following 2 scenes (or both): Connery's introduction in the casino in DN, and the ski jump in TSWLM (including the shot of Moore's face right before the opening credits), there is no doubt that the latter 2 scenes will leave a far, far greater mark on the minds of millions of kids today than any other exemple of classic cinema. And I believe in 50 years time, these 2 scenes will still resonate in the minds of future generations, and this when DN and TWLM will then have been made 90 years prior.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,159
    I have to agree with @DaltonCraig007. Comparing it to music, Bryan Adams is no Beethoven but the first notes of The Summer Of '69 get everyone from 6 to 60 going wild. Connery practically performed genetic engineering: even if you were born decades after DN, you see his monumental introduction and it all clicks and fits. Material like The Godfather is brilliant, don't get me wrong, but it's the kind of arthouse brilliance the Bond films have the "luxury" not to be.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    Personally I think that is bollocks and if those scenes resonate more than the scenes from The Godfather or Goodfellas or Street Car Named Desire I think that will be very sad considering those films you think are going to amaze teenagers now couldn't hold a candle cinematically to the first 3.

    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.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited July 2015 Posts: 15,713
    The PTS of GF and TB, and DN's introduction in the casino by themselves still resonates far, far more to a huge majority of kids today than any scene in Godfather or Goodfellas. That cannot be denied. The only other movies made pre 1990 that can claim this level of popularity amongst teens today are the 3 original Star Wars films and the original Indiana Jones trilogy.

    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.
  • Posts: 553
    Jaws, Back to the Future, Ghostbusters, Batman, Lethal Weapon, Robocop...that's just off the top of my head. With you on Connery, but Roger Moore's style of Bond and "action" is currently very out of vogue...though these things are cyclical. The first four Bond films will endure forever though.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,159
    Exactly, @DaltonCraig007! I wasn't giving the Godfather the finger - I wouldn't dare to! But as I tried to explain with my music analogy, there are actors and there are stars. In a minor few cases people can be both.

    I'm not sure this happened to the cast of Goodfellas:
    goldfinger_premiere1.jpg
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited July 2015 Posts: 15,713
    @Thepastykid I agree that the Moore film are 'out of vogue' with the current style of action films. But the fact remains, kids today can name more stuff from these films than any all time classics. And we're 40 years after Moore started as Bond. Talk to every teen in the world about a girl name Pussy Galore, a villain with a hat that can cut statues, a naked woman painted in gold, a hero escaping in a jetpack, an aston martin with machine guns and ejector seat, a base in a volcano, a car jumping over a river, a ski jump with the Union Jack as a parachute, a villain with metal teeth, a villain with a golden gun, a fight on top the golden gate bridge, etc. Every kid knows these things, and even if the've seen the film once they will immediatly associate these elements with the Bond franchise.

    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.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    You guys have taken Moore & Connery worship to a new level.

    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.

  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited July 2015 Posts: 15,713
    There is a very known page on facebook (where a lot of teens can be found), with 10 million fans. Everytime they share old stuff to compare with new, there are thousands of comments that say 'old stuff is rubbish'. They shared a few weeks ago a video of the scene where Sean Connery gives Fiona Volpe a pair of shoes with she asked for clothes. Can you guess what happened? Well, you didn't have thousands of comment saying the Connery Bond is so old, so dated, etc. But you had litteraly thousands of comments from teens saying that 'Connery is a legend', 'that guy is the ultimate man', etc. If you deny stuff like these, where a simple 30 seconds video evokes more admiration from young people than any other movies of that time, then it's not the Moore/Connery fans who are in the wrong here.

    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'.
  • Posts: 3,327
    I agree about the charisma levels that Moore and Connery had, which wiped the floor with most Hollywood A list actors such as Brando and DeNiro. I'd throw Steve McQueen into the mix too, who had screen presence and charisma to match Connery and Moore.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited July 2015 Posts: 15,713
    What differentiates the Bond franchise for any other, is not only that are the new films are very popular and millions of people everywhere are very excited to see the latest Bond film, but that the old outings from 40+ years ago are are still massively popular, and kids born decades after these films were made can know tons of stuff about them.

    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.
  • edited July 2015 Posts: 11,189
    Personally I suspect that when Connery and Moore pass away there will be a greater sense of sadness for them than there was/would be with Brando and DeNiro. I'm not saying that they are better actors but they did have a widespread popularity with the public that I'm not sure Barando and DeNiro had beyond a few set films. People grew up with Connery as Bond and Moore as Templer/Sinclair/007. They were a regular feature in the lives of whole generations. Moore in particular was a regular face in home entertainment long before he became Bond.

    I suppose, for a lot of people of the 60s and 70s, they almost feel like old chums.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited July 2015 Posts: 15,713
    I agree @BAIN123. It is sad, but for a big portion of new generations of movie goers born since 1990, De Niro is mainly known for the films he made in the past 15 years. So for adult comedies mostly. When he will die, there will be a lot of sadness, but a lot of young people will not understand right away what it means.

    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.
  • edited July 2015 Posts: 11,189
    They're like Michael Caine and Christopher Lee in that regard. Not necessarily the greatest actors ever but familiar faces who many people grew up with.

    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.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    I always remember my granddad telling me he was never all that impressed with Connery as an actor back in the 60s...and he would have been in his 40s by '62.

    He always felt Connery was better as an older actor.

    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.
  • edited July 2015 Posts: 11,189
    suavejmf wrote: »
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    I always remember my granddad telling me he was never all that impressed with Connery as an actor back in the 60s...and he would have been in his 40s by '62.

    He always felt Connery was better as an older actor.

    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".
Sign In or Register to comment.