› ›

Connery is not the only Bond actor

Aziz_FekkeshAziz_Fekkesh Royale-les-Eaux
edited January 2013 in Actors Posts: 403
A train of thought that I find is quite popular (especially in mainstream media) is that Connery was the only Bond there was and the rest of the actors merely followed him and must therefore be compared to how close they are to Connery's supposed "definite" portrayal. Besides completely ignoring the contributions of five actors, 17 movies, and 40+ years to the series, this basically equates the series to being centered around one actor and portrayal instead of the character himself. If Connery is one's favorite Bond, that's cool, but so say he's the only one that matters indicates that one is not a Bond fan at all. I for one appreciate all of the actors, realize that some may be better than others, but Sean is not the be all end all.
«1

Comments

  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Where are you getting your nonsense from?
  • LicenceRevokedLicenceRevoked
    edited January 2013 Posts: 204
    What you have to understand is, at the time, changing the actor playing James Bond was a radical move. Nowadays we look back or even forward and anticipate a new actor playing James Bond like it was normal. So when we see a new actor come to the role today we see it as a big deal, but back then it must have been a huge deal. So understandably alot of people from that era would be faithful to Sean Connery if it was their formative experience with Bond.

    For example, I grew up during the Brosnan years, to me he IS the image of James Bond I know, similarly a younger person today might in the future say Daniel Craig is Bond and that all the others don't count. It's just how it goes.

    Because SC was the first James Bond, understandably people are going to suggest he IS James Bond, after all anything that comes after him invariably will be based / compared to his portrayal of the character.

    Very few franchises are ever given a carte blanche to switch an actor for a lead role, Doctor Who has that capability, Batman and James Bond. Recently the new Star Trek by JJ Abrams MAY fall into that category. Like if they changed Tom Cruise in Mission Impossible and had him played by some other actor, I'd say Ethan Hunt IS Tom Cruise for every movie afterwards. It's just too obvious a move. That's probably why they went with Jeremy Renner for Bourne instead of replacing Bourne's actor.

    Hope that explains a little why some see Sean Connery as the definitive Bond.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,280
    Aziz_Fekkesh wrote:
    A train of thought that I find is quite popular (especially in mainstream media) is that Connery was the only Bond there was and the rest of the actors merely followed him and must therefore be compared to how close they are to Connery's supposed "definite" portrayal. Besides completely ignoring the contributions of five actors, 17 movies, and 40+ years to the series, this basically equates the series to being centered around one actor and portrayal instead of the character himself. If Connery is one's favorite Bond, that's cool, but so say he's the only one that matters indicates that one is not a Bond fan at all. I for one appreciate all of the actors, realize that some may be better than others, but Sean is not the be all end all.

    Well, I'd kind of agree with this sentiment, but I think we've moved on from those days by now...50 years of Bond films attest to the poularity of the other Bond actors, surely!
  • thelordflasheartthelordflasheart
    Posts: 1,370
    LicenceRevoked wrote:
    What you have to understand is, at the time, changing the actor playing James Bond was a radical move. Nowadays we look back or even forward and anticipate a new actor playing James Bond like it was normal.

    <snip>

    Because SC was the first James Bond, understandably people are going to suggest he IS James Bond, after all anything that comes after him invariably will be based / compared to his portrayal of the character.

    True, when I was a kid you had to be either a Connery fan or a Moore fan - you weren't allowed to like both! But now that there are six Bonds (so far) it doesn't have to be an either/or proposition.

    Because Connery was the first, a lot of the older people in the industry will consider him to be the template. But that keeps getting diluted with each new variation of the character.

  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,800
    LicenceRevoked wrote:
    I grew up during the Brosnan years, to me he IS the image of James Bond I know, similarly a younger person today might in the future say Daniel Craig is Bond and that all the others don't count. It's just how it goes.
    Well, Connery was my first Bond, Moore was not very much to my liking, Brosnan was my idea of the perfect Bond in the 90's, but after reading all the novels, I've settled on Dalton as the quintessential 007 for me. Still like the rest, though.
  • LeChiffreLeChiffre
    Posts: 1,548
    Dan's the man for me with Sean a close second.
  • SirHenryLeeChaChingSirHenryLeeChaChing
    Posts: 3,494
    You're just now figuring this out?

    I'll always be a Connery die-hard, no doubt.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited January 2013 Posts: 17,800
    SirHenryLeeChaChing wrote:
    I'll always be a Connery die-hard, no doubt.

    Tim & Sean, in that order.
  • EllisEllis
    Posts: 224
    Like Jane Seymour implied when she said her Bond (Roger Moore was the best), all who played Bond were just right for their era.
  • boldfingerboldfinger
    Posts: 5,767
    Ellis wrote:
    Like Jane Seymour implied when she said her Bond (Roger Moore was the best), all who played Bond were just right for their era.
    That´s exactly the point, only that some eras were much too short ;-).

    @Aziz_Fekkesh, I´ve seen many posts on these forums by people who grew up with Brosnan being Bond, and to them he was the quintessential Bond, and not Connery.
    I think it depends very much on which films people grew up with.
    Also, both Connery and Moore (who by the way nailed down the quintessential Bond portrayal) had the longest runs so far and at the same time their films were very much a league of their own by the time, having none of the Die Hard, Lethal Weapon, or Hong Kong competition, that started in the late 80s and went on through the 90s.

  • X3MSonicXX3MSonicX https://www.behance.net/gallery/86760163/Fa-Posteres-de-007-No-Time-To-Die
    Posts: 2,635
    boldfinger wrote:
    @Aziz_Fekkesh, I´ve seen many posts on these forums by people who grew up with Brosnan being Bond, and to them he was the quintessential Bond, and not Connery.
    I think it depends very much on which films people grew up with.
    Also, both Connery and Moore (who by the way nailed down the quintessential Bond portrayal) had the longest runs so far and at the same time their films were very much a league of their own by the time, having none of the Die Hard, Lethal Weapon, or Hong Kong competition, that started in the late 80s and went on through the 90s.

    Not really, friend. Yes, i've grew up with Brosnan, as i'm born 1994. He was my first Bond, blah blah. But that is not what almost always happens. I guess that many members here that grew up in Brosnan era, has Moore, Dalton, Connery, Lazemby or Craig as their favourites. It really depends on which films people had grew up, as you said, but i think that the factor is the movie that most fit on our profile, not actually the time we've grown up or born.
  • Jason19Jason19
    Posts: 90
    Did someone say the role of Bond had been diluted ? (thelordflasheart). Diluted is right-watered down to nothing would be accurate.These last three films are not Bonds at all but simply Die Hard,Vin Diesel mindless action movies with the Bond tag attached. They should be sued under the product description act. As for Monsieur LeChiffre , Dan Craig should be your fave Bond as he is obviously a Russian double agent, a flat headed serial killer with too many weapons. What a nasty little Goblin.
  • MrBondMrBond Station S
    Posts: 2,044
    Jason19 wrote:
    Did someone say the role of Bond had been diluted ? (thelordflasheart). Diluted is right-watered down to nothing would be accurate.These last three films are not Bonds at all but simply Die Hard,Vin Diesel mindless action movies with the Bond tag attached. They should be sued under the product description act. As for Monsieur LeChiffre , Dan Craig should be your fave Bond as he is obviously a Russian double agent, a flat headed serial killer with too many weapons. What a nasty little Goblin.

    And that comes from a guy who only has watched the trailers for the three last films? You can atleast give them a try before you say something like that!

    And to the original topic. Yes, from the audiences POV Connery is the most famous and probably the most remebered too. Just because he was the first one and he played the role 50 years ago. But that doesen't make him the best, that's a completely different question.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    edited January 2013 Posts: 12,837
    The other actors are compared to Connery for a reason. Him being the first and having great films to star in did help (say he was the 6th actor, he got one film and that was DAD, would he be thought of as the best then?), but there's another reason.

    Connery was the first but he could've easily been a terrible first Bond. His films could've arguably not have been as good without him. So yes him being the first Bond helped but what also helped massively was that he was bloody brilliant.

    He's not my favourite (I rate him 2nd along with Brosnan), but him (and Young, we should give him credit here), DID create the definitive take on the role, without Connery the cinematic Bond as we know it might not even exist.
  • TuuliaTuulia
    edited January 2013 Posts: 2,081
    boldfinger wrote:
    I think it depends very much on which films people grew up with.

    Not necessarily. For some people yes, but for many people - for instance me - no. I grew up with Moore being Bond, but for me he never was a definitive Bond. Nor was anyone else. Until 2006. I went to the cinema (as I had done for about a quarter of a century before that) to see the new Bond movie - and left with a huuuuge grin on my face. :D

  • SirHenryLeeChaChingSirHenryLeeChaChing
    edited January 2013 Posts: 3,494
    MrBond wrote:
    Jason19 wrote:
    Did someone say the role of Bond had been diluted ? (thelordflasheart). Diluted is right-watered down to nothing would be accurate.These last three films are not Bonds at all but simply Die Hard,Vin Diesel mindless action movies with the Bond tag attached. They should be sued under the product description act. As for Monsieur LeChiffre , Dan Craig should be your fave Bond as he is obviously a Russian double agent, a flat headed serial killer with too many weapons. What a nasty little Goblin.

    And that comes from a guy who only has watched the trailers for the three last films? You can at least give them a try before you say something like that!

    And to the original topic. Yes, from the audiences POV Connery is the most famous and probably the most remebered too. Just because he was the first one and he played the role 50 years ago. But that doesen't make him the best, that's a completely different question.

    Exactly what disqualifies Jason's opinion. When he actually watches the films, then maybe he'll have a leg to stand on in this respect, until then his opinion is no better than the "Craig Not Bond" crew who has boycotted two of the three best films in the series to date. But then, he thinks Octopussy was a Bollywood film ;)


  • Baltimore_007Baltimore_007
    Posts: 5,634
    Connery was the first and maybe the best, I say maybe, and where it all started and any subsequent actors would of had big shoes to fill, but I appreciate all the Bond actors for what they gave us. Maybe I didn't like one or two, but they still did well here and there and simply followed on after Sean in 1967. If I look back now, Moore was as relevant to the franchise as Connery was, or Dalton even. It's not just about one actor who played the part and made a few film releases, they all played their part in making Bond what it is today, and has been, in years past
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,800
    thelivingroyale wrote:
    him being the first Bond helped but what also helped massively was that he was bloody brilliant.
    After reading the novels and seeing Dalton & Craig, I have to say that it was less that Connery was bloody brilliant than it was bloody brilliant casting of a brash young soon-to-be star talent. His undeniable presence assisted by Young's personal direction was a powerhouse combo. Like Clint Eastwood, Connery is at best a pretty good actor, but also like Eastwood, he is a massive presence, with a commanding quality. Not 100% the Bond of the novels, but more than enough to drive cinema Bond to the top.
  • thelordflasheartthelordflasheart
    Posts: 1,370
    When I said "diluted" I meant that a very narrow definition of what Bond is - the Connery "template" - is changed over time. Do we really want each of the five actors who succeeded him doing their best (or worst) Connery impersonation? Only Connery could be Connery, just as only Moore could be Moore, Dalton could be Dalton, etc.

    The great thing is that all of the actors have still played James Bond. Some versions may be less to your liking, but as you aren't Ian Fleming (or the owner of EON) you don't get to dictate to us what "Bond" is.
  • Jason19Jason19
    Posts: 90
    I take exception to Mr.Bond's statement that I only watched the trailers to the last three films. I went to the Cinema and took some relatives to see ' Casino Royale ' in 2006. My sister thought the action was too vicious and nasty for her 8 year old daughter ( who she brought with her). And I also struggled to watch about thirty minutes of ' Quantum of Solace' when it was shown on TV ( I can't stand this crap even when it's free).In response to theLordFlasheart - it's a pity I can't dictate who should play Bond , we might get a decent film if I did. EON productions went to the dogs when Harry Saltzman left.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    thelivingroyale wrote:
    The other actors are compared to Connery for a reason. Him being the first and having great films to star in did help (say he was the 6th actor, he got one film and that was DAD, would he be thought of as the best then?), but there's another reason.

    Connery was the first but he could've easily been a terrible first Bond. His films could've arguably not have been as good without him. So yes him being the first Bond helped but what also helped massively was that he was bloody brilliant.

    He's not my favourite (I rate him 2nd along with Brosnan), but him (and Young, we should give him credit here), DID create the definitive take on the role, without Connery the cinematic Bond as we know it might not even exist.


    Well said and completely agree, except that for me, Connery is the undisputed best.
  • Baltimore_007Baltimore_007
    Posts: 5,634
    You won't a find a more definitive James Bond than Sean Connery for his first two appearances, and even then that's above the brilliant Dalton for his two appearances, and I always have such a task deciding who was closest to the original Fleming character. But Dalton has it, as both his appearances worked, and he left, after two features, immaculate and untarnished as James Bond - he was so impressive, but Connery simply gets black marks for what happened after 1963 (Thunderball aside), and I lose favor a bit, you understand. But both men were immense as 007
  • petergreenhill5petergreenhill5
    Posts: 824
    Connery was and is the best Bond. The others have been good but not even close.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,582
    Jason19 wrote:
    I take exception to Mr.Bond's statement that I only watched the trailers to the last three films. I went to the Cinema and took some relatives to see ' Casino Royale ' in 2006. My sister thought the action was too vicious and nasty for her 8 year old daughter ( who she brought with her). And I also struggled to watch about thirty minutes of ' Quantum of Solace' when it was shown on TV ( I can't stand this crap even when it's free).In response to theLordFlasheart - it's a pity I can't dictate who should play Bond , we might get a decent film if I did. EON productions went to the dogs when Harry Saltzman left.

    Oh absolutely. You chose the 'right' actor and the film will be great. Never mind the writer, director, editor etc, the actor is everything.
  • Jason19Jason19
    Posts: 90
    I didn't dismiss the role of writers, director and film editor . The writing has been abyssmal for a long time , editing has been dumbed down to a rampage of explosions and flashing images, an assumption that the viewer has the concentration span of a goldfish (3 seconds) and success is measured by how closely the Bond films resemble a cross between Transformers and Lara Croft. As Kim Novak said in a (Non - Bond ) Guy Hamilton film ' I could swallow a roll of film - and spew a better picture ! ' As for Directors - I feel sorry for the poor slobs , given the rubbish they have to work with these days.
  • Aziz_FekkeshAziz_Fekkesh Royale-les-Eaux
    edited January 2013 Posts: 403
    My main complaint in the OP was that while I concede that Connery set the template for film Bond, the mainstream is always comparing the rest of the series as kind of managing without Connery. I love all of the portrayals. No offense to Sean (who is brilliant), but the series has progressed since 1967. I think most users here agree as well.
  • fire_and_icefire_and_ice
    Posts: 6,432
    For me Sean Connery is the quintesential James Bond.
  • Aziz_FekkeshAziz_Fekkesh Royale-les-Eaux
    Posts: 403
    That's great and I'm glad you see how good he is! That's why I have no doubt that you accept the other actors as the character, otherwise you probably wouldn't be into the series like everyone here is. Personally, I can't rank the actors like I do the films because they're all uniquely great.
  • Jason19Jason19
    Posts: 90
    Despite my criticism of some Bond actors I feel the faults in the series really lie with the scripts. All the actors are capable of doing well given the right script - but often the script writers let them down.Particularly in the case of Roger Moore , who does have noticeable star charisma both on screen and in person , but has been dealt some particularly bad Bond scripts.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    As far as bad scripts go, Pierce by far got the most hammered.
Sign In or Register to comment.