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
Well to be fair, we haven't got to the films of the other Bond actors just yet. But I'd be willing to bet that, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton, Brosnan and Craig share a similar chemistry on set with their co-stars.
they do seem to have a suave and charming style, although I haven't become very familiar with all of their movies yet.
He was super-gorgeous during the 90s, and he has totally always had that confident cool vibe about him.
And I’m a huge Dalton and Pierce fan. And I love Roger. But Connery is unsurpassable.
like he was the kind of man who was calm and in control, but always ready to beat someone up if that person turned out to be a threat.
There is something attractive about that, to be honest;
of course, it wouldn't work quite like that in real life, but the general idea that a man has a calm and civilised style, but also is very ready to take risks in order to protect someone, and wouldn't hesitate to get physical if this is necessary in order to subdue someone who is dangerous, is surely something special.
Whoever said Connery was like a panther was right.
Oh, absholutele ;)
I always say one of Connery’s strengths as Bond was his ability to make mundane things look cool. Eating a grape in TB is an example, as is him simply answering a phone or lighting a cigarette.
Craig is the only other Bond who was able to do this consistently throughout his run in my opinion. Both certainly moved very well as actors (interestingly both were cast in part on the strength of their walk).
Yes I agree; they’re the only two who are legitimately cool.
The way Connery threw a leg on a char whilst holding the phone, or the way he smirked at Largo in the shotgun scene. Craig wasn’t about that. And Connery could hold gently a woman in his arma while dancing, right after she got a bullet in her back, sit her down and make a remark on it without it seeming forced. No one can do that anymore without it feeling pastiche and cliché.
And little gestures, like the sunglasses in FRWL.
I too like Craig as Bond, but he was not Connery. He was probably the closest to Connery's hard edge, but, as you say, had to work at the qualities SC projected so naturally.
I'd disagree with that, I'd put him on the same level, and managed to portray a vaguely human character as well, which Connery didn't really do.
One does not need poorly (for the most part) written drama to convey a vaguely human character, as you put it. Connery felt human with a single glance of his eyes. He could convey inner conflict with subtle proxemical innuendo. He was a brilliant thespian and his charisma and mark upon the industry will long last and overshadow Craig’s. We only have a 60 year old franchise because of Connery’s first four films. Any other notion is fleeting nonesensical fanboyish delusion.
8-|
My dearest @mtm, virtuality, as ever, suits you so well.
But hey ,if that particular shoe fits... Also, cat got your tongue? Forums exist so that ideas can be discussed. If you want total agreement, why not a blog?
I say, the foundation of the series was the first four film set in the 60s Bond craze. I could say the same thing about the first Star Wars trilogy, or the Indy trilogy. Foundations that are so strong that even current films feel the need to revere and salute them. If one thinks Roger Moore films made this franchise what it is, they are delusional. All Bond actors have been a mean to perpetuate the foundation. And not one came close to it. And I'm saying this loving all Bond films, well, maybe except DAF, DAD and NTTD, but I wouldn't want them not to exist. Anyway, feel free to comment and not roll your sarcasm-filled eyes.
So, Craig's Bond was vaguely human whereas Connery's Bond didn't really do vaguely human. Alrighty then.
Yeah, Connery's Bond wasn't vaguely humane...
Also, the way he talks about it to M here is marvellously done.
I'd say miles ahead of that stupid banter about M being thirsty in NTTD.
To paraphrase Bond, "my dear, there are things that just aren't done", and Craig's Bond had so much cheesy soap opera drama thrown at him (just look again at him chocking Blofeld in prison, how ridiculous was that?). Time will tell, but I have the feeling one will not look to Craig's era in the same manner than Connery's. I know I don't. And I love them both. But please, saying that Connery couldn't convey humanity. Please...
I quite agree with that. CR and SF were the ones he put on his best thespian masks. But subtlety and finesse were not his thing. He always came on a bit thuggish. Now Connery could do everything. Take that scene in GF where he dines with M, a perfect gentleman. I the same film he made a slight tantrum about Masterson. Subtlety and finesse go a long way.
Neither had perfect runs (I do find a lot of Connery's acting in YOLT and TB a bit underwhelming, which is not an uncommon complaint, and of course Craig's films have their issues for me) but I'd say they're the two most popular Bonds on the whole.
Still don’t buy it. You can take the man out of the service but you can’t take the service out of the man. Bond would never lash out at M like that. It’s completely out of character. So is the “die Blofeld die” situation in that circumstance. I understand that they wanted to use the phrase from the book, but it didn’t sit well in that setting. Bond, in NTTD is Bond up until he arrives in London. From then on, I don’t know who he is.
Calling people deluded because they don’t agree with you is not discussion of ideas; discussion requires respect for others’ points of view and I’m not interested in talking to people who conduct themselves like that, thank you. I’m sure you’ll want the last word, I won’t be replying.
I don’t think so really. He remained pretty unruffled most of the time, didn’t really care about anyone (something like his palpable shock over Kerim Bey’s death was a real standout moment) and is often just pressing buttons to eliminate baddies, then striding to the next. He’s superb, don’t get me wrong: it takes real presence to make what is quite a thin character like that so good. Roger’s Bond is more human: it’s quite hard to imagine ConneryBond (even in the contemporary NSNA) doing a scene like the ‘one of a kind’ stuff in OP, slightly trite though that dialogue was! Bond grew over the years from being less of a superman cypher as he is in the 60s to a marginally more rounded character, I’d say. Do you see where I’m coming from? I’m interested in your point of view on it.
How is it out of character? We never saw Bond in a point of his life like this. Mallory isn’t the old man that Miles Messervy was, or even Dench’s M who held Bond’s loyalty. The movie does the work to show how and why Bond has changed since leaving the service. It’s probably the only film we’ll ever see Bond be expressive of the thoughts he used to bottle up inside.
If Bond had behaved this way in any other film it wouldn’t have worked, but I thought it did in NTTD.
Yeah, I’m not a huge fan of NTTD but I do like that scene: Bond is gloves off with M for the first time and it’s interesting and quite exciting to see.