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
Connery was great, but he did have the advantage of being first and having the 60s films. I always wonder that if Connery wasn't first, and got some worse films, would he still be thought of as the best? I really doubt it.
That's an issue I've had with Dalts and I've said it before on here. The bloke did well but just didn't really have the swagger. People may say what they like about Broz but he did have more swagger.
Recently I watched all the Moore films again for the expressed purpose of studying his acting. As Bond, he has a very limited bag of tricks. You see these same techniques in each of his films. What he intends as cool mostly comes off as smug and smarmy. Whether in action or still, he and Connery express something very different. A good way to evaluate their acting is to watch them listening. Or watch how each reacts to surprise or danger. But you have to watch the actor, not the scene. As I have said in previous posts, Connery inhabits the role, whereas Moore plays the role. It would be nice to do side by side shots of similar scenes to compare how each plays the role.
For me it's always Connery first.
2nd--Craig. (First Bond to not make me miss Connery. Similar techniques.)
3rd--Dalton. (A better Bond than given credit for.)
4th--Lazenby. (Terribly underrated.)
5th--Brosnan. (Closer to Moore than the others.)
6th--Moore.
But seriously, the argument that only Dalton played the role as Ian Fleming had intended it does not apply. Connery did play the book-Bondit as intended by Fleming in DN and FRWL, after that it was pretty much up to the directors what kind of personality they wanted Bond to be. So while Connery DEFINED the on-screen persona that Bond is, Dalton was in a way lucky that, after the completely over-the-top Moore era, the producers allowed him to rediscover the book-Bond.
Thats a good point. Connery and Dalton though both have very different acting styles. Connery, I often think, comes off as more "relaxed" and (dare I say) natural. Upon facing criticism he'll remain calm but you will see the emotions on his face (like when M repremands him after Jill Masterson's death). Dalton's style is more "theatrical". In LTK when M reprimands him at the Hemmingway House he tightens his face, breaths heavily and pulls an extremely angry expression. Try it - it's actually quite straining on the facial muscles. That would be very defferent to how Sean would approach it. Another good example is in TLD when M tells Bond off for failing to shoot Kara. We see the angry expression and the look down from the camera. I wonder how Sean Connery would approach that scene.
IAN FLEMING'S JAMES BOND 007
Sean Connery was the first. Most say he is the best. It's hard to argue, really. The guy has this cold brutality hidden inside that tuxedoed physical magnetism. He is the measuring stick for everything manly and awesome. But the point we are missing is Ian Fleming's James Bond. Sure, he got the suaveness. He got the charisma. But he owes it more to Cubby and Terence Young than Fleming. Fleming himself disliked Connery if I'm not mistaken, but thankfully his girlfriend pointed out that Connery may have the potential to dish out the role (which he did properly). It was only after he accepted Connery did he add a bit of humor to Bond. Still, it is hard for me to imagine the brow raising, ever-quipping, and seemingly unbeatable Connery as the same Bond in the novels who makes mistakes, gets madly furious, and gets hurt.
Dalton on the other hand, is more in tradition to Ian Fleming's James Bond in my opinion. Whenever I see Timothy Dalton in the role, I see him more fitting as the same James Bond who wrestled a giant squid at Crab Key, the one that beat Le Chiffre at Royale-de-Eaux, the one that married Tracy di Vicenzo and so brutally avenged her by killing Ernst Stavro Blofeld. Had Ian Fleming survived to see him, I'm sure he'd be so elated to see his James Bond. And as opposed to Sean Connery's Bruce Lee, who is unbeatable and un-killable, Timothy Dalton is Jackie Chan: just another guy anybody can beat. Just another professional spy anybody can take down. With two films he had propelled himself equally to the status Sean Connery achieved with six, Roger Moore with seven.
I kinda feel bad at Dalton's underrated status, and much worse when I heard Connery's comment that he underestimated the role. No offense to Sir Sean Connery, but didn't he also underestimate the role? Left the role at the peak of its popularity to "break out" from the shadow of James Bond?
I like them both, but when pitted against each other I'd go with Timothy Dalton. Sean Connery for me is second.
Not to denigrate Sean who did make a huge contribution to the series success but your argument is rather flawed. The 60s films were so good because by and large they were based mostly on Fleming.
Are you saying that if Sean had starred in DAD it would have been good? Because frankly thats b*llocks. Theres only so much the actor playing Bond can do. Brozza puts in a decent shift in DAD but he cant stop it being a shambles and nor could Sean, Rog, Dan, Tim or George.
Similarly DAF is pretty dismal but by your reasoning Seans presence alone shouldve salvaged it.
Quite a few people hate George but rate OHMSS highly proving that if all the elements are in place the actor isnt that important.
If you look at most of the best films - FRWL, OHMSS, TLD, CR - the actor in the role is fairly irrelevant. They are good because they have big chunks of Fleming and the actor is playing Flemings Bond and not movie Bond.
Sorry to pedantically pull you up but they only state that from TSWLM onwards due to the rights issue surrounding that film. Until that film it was 'XXXX as James Bond 007 in Ian Flemings XXXXX'.
(OK before someone says anything I know in the early Connery films they just say starring Sean but the point is that until TSWLM 'Ian Flemings' goes with the title not the character).
The rest of your post is fairly on the money though.
Which two? Even though I like Dalton better than Connery, I think he performed excellently in all of his movies except for You Only Live Twice. Even his performance in Goldfinger gets a mention from me, as hard as that is to believe.
Connery of 1964 is of Lazenby standards, good, but not great, real room for improvement
1967 is more Moore of 1983, a bit past it and not really suitable and 1971 was, and I'm too tired to elaborate.. something pretty poor is best I can describe it
1.) Brosnan
2.) Connery
3.) Craig
4.) Dalton
5.) Moore
6.) Lazenby
That could prove to be quite fun, dissecting well over/around 100 Bond films with 20 or so different Bond actors, trying to find who is the best. I'll most certainly be jealous of those getting to experience that, if it just so happens.
Speak for yourself mate. I hope to be still hanging on here in 50 years. Mind you a pretty pitiful sight I will be - an octogenarian with nothing better to do whilst he waits for the grave than come on here and try and convince young twentysomethings that Laz is still the king 16 Bonds into the series.
Thats quite an annoying thing about death. The thought that you'll miss out on loads of new Bond films. Not to mention the possiblity that England might one day win the world cup - I know it would take infinity for this to happen but if a room full of monkeys typing for infnity can produce the complete Shakespeare then maybe even the likes of Downing could score a hattrick against the Germans in the final. Well come to think of it that would take maybe two infinities to come to pass.
If I can see England win a world cup and a period faithful remake of all the Fleming novels before I go then I suppose I could live with dying (pun intended).
None of us are going to live long enough to see that happen again.
To the last response, England won the world title a few years ago and came close again this year apparently, so you guys keep your ambitions and be optimistic, maybe next time perhaps, it won't be long now. Oh, and Dalton better Bond over Connery, or more favorite even. It's like saying Netherlands better than Spain maybe on a soccer equivalent, or Portugal even. Bit fuzzy in this area in my defense
Goodnight (:|
Who had more Charm? Sean Connery
Who had more Swag? Sean Conney
Who was more Suave? Sean Connery
Who had the look of 007? Sir Timothy Dalton
Who had the best final Bond film? Sir Timothy Dalton
Pretty much a tie. But if I had to choose...I'm going with Sean Connery
Who had more Charm? Sean Connery
Who had more Swag? Sean Conney
Who was more Suave? Sean Connery
Who had the look of 007? Sir Timothy Dalton
Who had the best final Bond film? Sir Timothy Dalton
Who had the feel from the novels? Sir Timothy Dalton
Tim wins.
;)
It's not thay Dalton could not have pulled that off, it's that they were Bond in different times. Connery could not have gotten away with that line in 1987 or 1989, even if he was in his early 30's as he was in GF.
So, 2 "average" outings out of 6 isn't really a good average for me, even if the 4 previous were irreprochable. I may commit an unforgivable sin here but I must declare Connery a bit overrated. I honestly think that Timothy Dalton was the better Bond. No pedestrian performance from Tim, only first-rate, classic Bond moments.