If Connery wasn't the first Bond...

2

Comments

  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,582
    The point about Connery was that he was the living example of the man that 'men want to be and women want in their beds'.

    Dalton may be some Bond fans perfect Fleming Bond (although I would even argue that point) but he doesn't appeal to women like Connery did, and I know as a man which one I would try to emulate
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    @Risico007, I never knew Peter Falk wasn t the first Columbo. I had to read up on it on Wikipedia. Very interesting. Thanks!
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    NicNac wrote: »
    The point about Connery was that he was the living example of the man that 'men want to be and women want in their beds'.

    Dalton may be some Bond fans perfect Fleming Bond (although I would even argue that point) but he doesn't appeal to women like Connery did, and I know as a man which one I would try to emulate
    I've been humiliating myself in this hopeless pursuit for years. I've resigned myself to emulating Moore, because Connery is impossible to duplicate as Bond. The perfect package.
  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    Posts: 1,243
    bondjames wrote: »
    NicNac wrote: »
    The point about Connery was that he was the living example of the man that 'men want to be and women want in their beds'.

    Dalton may be some Bond fans perfect Fleming Bond (although I would even argue that point) but he doesn't appeal to women like Connery did, and I know as a man which one I would try to emulate
    I've been humiliating myself in this hopeless pursuit for years. I've resigned myself to emulating Moore, because Connery is impossible to duplicate as Bond. The perfect package.

    All of them have their unique qualities. I prefer brunettes, which does not mean blondes are bad. We have to factor in personal taste.

  • edited January 2017 Posts: 463
    Having watched Doctor No last night, I can easily say that there is never been a roll casted better than Sean Connery as James Bond. I definitely don't think the film would have been a success without him in the leading role. His introduction in the casino was the birth of a legend.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    CrzChris4 wrote: »
    Having watched Doctor No last night, I can easily say that there is never been a roll casted better than Sean Connery as James Bond. I definitely don't think the film would have been a success without him in the leading role. His introduction in the casino was the birth of a legend.

    @CrzChris4, I whole-heartedly agree. Sean's performances in Dr. No and From Russia with Love represent some of the greatest in cinema, and are also probably the two best performances in the entire series.

    Sean was a master at telling us all the information we needed about Bond using just mannerisms, gestures and gazes. Popping in Dr. No is largely just about us watching a stage play where Sean is a very stoic, laconic spy who we get to know by how he acts, not by what he says. The way he booby traps his hotel room lets us know he's always looking for ways to counteract any threats that may be coming to him. His aggressive behavior with Taro masked as foreplay shows us he despises being played the fool or strung along, even by a pretty face. His wide eyes and flustered demeanor in front of Honey rising from the sea accurately depict him as a Greek man who has just watched a goddess descend from Olympus. His seething interior during his dinner with Dr. No tells us all we need to know about his thoughts on the man's actions and the deaths he arranged for Strangways and Quarrel.

    And of course From Russia with Love is just one knock-out moment after another. Watching Sean and Robert Shaw go at it, first verbally and then physically, is just as good as it gets. That entire section of the film on the Orient Express waters down to two A-class performers giving it their all and really going at it for the big screen, and it amounts to being what is probably the greatest part of any Bond film ever that feels the most like a classic spy thriller and a deep and engrossing stage play.

    Without Sean as a part of these films, acting out all these little moments that are immense and profound at their core to our understanding of the character of James Bond, I doubt the movies would've even made it to the 70s. Every time I watch a 60s film, especially one of Sean's early ones, I'm overwhelmed with how happy I am that they just exist. They've given so much to the culture of cinema and us fans, representing truly artful masterpieces of some of the greatest acting, directing, cinematography, writing, location shooting, choreography, music, production design and costume design of their era, and to this day, nothing has managed to top the 60s streak of classic films.
  • edited April 2017 Posts: 1,661
    During the making of Goldfinger Sean Connery was interviewed and attributed the success of James Bond to 'timing'. Bond came along after the end of rationing, (Casino Royale was published one year before rationing ended in 1954), people longed for escapism and Bond - the literary and cinematic version - provided it. Connery was blessed with the right timing - he was cast at the right moment in film history. He cemented the cinematic James Bond and the rest is history.

    Had Roger Moore had been cast as Bond in Dr. No - and he made several more films - my guess is many people would regard him as the definitive Bond, or the most influential Bond.
  • Posts: 2
    The first three Bond movies were close to the Fleming novel stories, no fancy gizmos, just great stories. Which help establish Connery as Bond, and he acted the part so well. Thunderball and You only Live Twice got silly, then a return to the basics with OHMSS with GL (one of the best Bond films). Diamonds are Forever was a mess. Moore saved Bond by being a campy , but sauve Bond. Dalton was a great actor, but was undercut by badly written films. Brosnan looked the part, and did a great job until the gizmo loaded Die another Day. And that brings us to Daniel Craig. not the pretty boy Bond. Great actor and Casino Royale went back to Fleming and it made him one of, if not the best Bond.
    Q of S nearly ruined him, but he made a return with Skyfall to save the legacy. Spectre was good, but not great. To much Fruedian drama.
    So, if Connery wa not the first who cares. I believe staying close to Fleming"s idea of Bond the spy is what is important, if makes a great actor better, and even makes a so,so actor good.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    w2bond wrote: »
    He oozes cool in his early movies but that is down to Terence Young. His performance is already different from Goldfinger onwards.

    If Hamilton had directed Dr No we most definitely would not have had such a refined first performance

    It may have been shit quite frankly. Hamilton toed the lone with GF and emulated what had gone before. DAF proves what a wanker he can be if given too much power.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    fanbond123 wrote: »
    During the making of Goldfinger Sean Connery was interviewed and attributed the success of James Bond to 'timing'. Bond came along after the end of rationing, (Casino Royale was published one year before rationing ended in 1954), people longed for escapism and Bond - the literary and cinematic version - provided it. Connery was blessed with the right timing - he was cast at the right moment in film history. He cemented the cinematic James Bond and the rest is history.

    Had Roger Moore had been cast as Bond in Dr. No - and he made several more films - my guess is many people would regard him as the definitive Bond, or the most influential Bond.

    True. But without Terence Young it may not have been as good/ class as it was.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    suavejmf wrote: »
    w2bond wrote: »
    He oozes cool in his early movies but that is down to Terence Young. His performance is already different from Goldfinger onwards.

    If Hamilton had directed Dr No we most definitely would not have had such a refined first performance

    It may have been shit quite frankly. Hamilton toed the lone with GF and emulated what had gone before. DAF proves what a wanker he can be if given too much power.

    Is it controversial that I find Hamilton to be on better form (or at least showing more aptitude for big blockbuster filmmaking) in DAF than GF?
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    DAF is a bigger production agreed. But the script and tone is wrong for Bond.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    suavejmf wrote: »
    DAF is a bigger production agreed. But the script and tone is wrong for Bond.

    I honestly have more tonal issues with GF than DAF. Maybe because I feel DAF is just a far better produced film, which makes me able to forgive some other things. The stunt work, darker moments of the script, action choreography, cinematography, location shooting and more just completely destroy GF for me in those very crucial areas. DAF versus GF is a perfect example of when a movie that feels real trumps a movie that feels artificial, no matter how iconic people say it is, and that counts for a lot in my mind.

    When I watch DAF I know I'm not watching a movie that is largely just shot on sets, and because of that the movie feels all the more lively and able to breathe. Add to that a Bond who is active, not passive, and I already feel DAF edging out GF. I even enjoy Wint and Kidd far more than I ever could Oddjob, as not that much is ever really done with him. He's got the hat gag, but what else is there to him? With Wint and Kidd you have their great dynamic, the dark comedy and sadism of their swapping barbs and proverbs, etc. They just feel so damn vile, but clearly enjoy their jobs, making them all the more scary.
  • Posts: 4,044
    suavejmf wrote: »
    w2bond wrote: »
    He oozes cool in his early movies but that is down to Terence Young. His performance is already different from Goldfinger onwards.

    If Hamilton had directed Dr No we most definitely would not have had such a refined first performance

    It may have been shit quite frankly. Hamilton toed the lone with GF and emulated what had gone before. DAF proves what a wanker he can be if given too much power.

    He did change the style by bringing in more humour.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    vzok wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    w2bond wrote: »
    He oozes cool in his early movies but that is down to Terence Young. His performance is already different from Goldfinger onwards.

    If Hamilton had directed Dr No we most definitely would not have had such a refined first performance

    It may have been shit quite frankly. Hamilton toed the lone with GF and emulated what had gone before. DAF proves what a wanker he can be if given too much power.

    He did change the style by bringing in more humour.

    Young brought the humor and wit, Hamilton brought silliness. A fine line, there.
  • edited April 2017 Posts: 2,264
    I absolutely think Connery was a nessacary ingredient in the success of Bond. Connery introduced a new kind of film hero to audiences, the early Bond films were so innovative in that regard. Audiences hadn't seen a hero like Connery as Bond before. Anybody else in the first films are hard to imagine.
  • Posts: 19,339
    Bond and Connery were in the right time and the right place ,with the right film crew and directors,producers behind them,and we all reap the benefit to this day.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Absolutely. As loved and popular in the role as Sean is, I seriously don't think it clicks even for some fans just how much he meant and still means. We're not talking about a regular man here, or a regular actor. I have never, and likely will never in my entire life witness a man who was able to be so effortlessly cool, cold, tough, sexy, witty, masculine, devil may care and confident as what he was in those movies, rolled into one package. He's the "coolest" performer of all time, the very definition of it that trademarked the title for generations.

    Moore may've done okay as the first Bond, as could a number of other actors. But would Bondmania have sparked a tenth of what it did, and would we still be here today discussing 24 Bond films? Thanks to Sean and the people supporting him, we never have to wonder.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,960
    Absolutely. As loved and popular in the role as Sean is, I seriously don't think it clicks even for some fans just how much he meant and still means. We're not talking about a regular man here, or a regular actor. I have never, and likely will never in my entire life witness a man who was able to be so effortlessly cool, cold, tough, sexy, witty, masculine, devil may care and confident as what he was in those movies, rolled into one package. He's the "coolest" performer of all time, the very definition of it that trademarked the title for generations.

    Moore may've done okay as the first Bond, as could a number of other actors. But would Bondmania have sparked a tenth of what it did, and would we still be here today discussing 24 Bond films? Thanks to Sean and the people supporting him, we never have to wonder.

    I think you meant to post this in the 'Creasy Appreciation Thread,' but it's fine.

    In all seriousness, I'm in total agreement - you simply cannot top Sean in the role, and "effortlessly cool" explains him tenfold. His introduction appearance in DN with the initial, iconic "Bond, James Bond" line uttered as he lights his cigarette? Does not get much cooler than that, or that man's performance.
  • edited April 2017 Posts: 19,339
    @Creasy47 you might be a mod,but i have been here a looooong time,and he meant the 'Barryt007 Appreciation Thread ' or 'Golden Oldie Members thread...

    OK,i'm lying to myself,go for it you young Bond fan you...he he..
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,960
    barryt007 wrote: »
    @Creasy47 you might be a mod,but i have been here a looooong time,and he meant the 'Barryt007 Appreciation Thread ' or 'Golden Oldie Members thread...

    OK,i'm lying to myself,go for it you young Bond fan you...he he..

    He just might've meant you, but let me keep the "cool" and "sexy" adjectives and I'm happy!
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    He's my only man crush for a reason.
  • Posts: 19,339
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    @Creasy47 you might be a mod,but i have been here a looooong time,and he meant the 'Barryt007 Appreciation Thread ' or 'Golden Oldie Members thread...

    OK,i'm lying to myself,go for it you young Bond fan you...he he..

    He just might've meant you, but let me keep the "cool" and "sexy" adjectives and I'm happy!

    Deal..you are one of the members i respect most on here ,so 'cool' and 'sexy' you can copyright under the Connery logo.

  • Posts: 19,339
    He's my only man crush for a reason.

    No comment...but i can see where you are coming from Brady hahaha.

  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    edited April 2017 Posts: 40,960
    @barryt007, I can work with that!

    Something else I've always loved about Connery's Bond is that he could convey so much while only saying one word.
  • Posts: 19,339
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    @barryt007, I can work with that!

    Something else I've always loved about Connery's Bond is that he could convey so much while only saying one word.
    Agreed,and no more so than the fear and 'almost losing it' he shows on the run and shot by SPECTRE during the Junkanoo in TB...
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    @barryt007, I can work with that!

    Something else I've always loved about Connery's Bond is that he could convey so much while only saying one word.

    Part of my near equal love for Dan is that he's been able to continue the tradition that Sean put into work like no other since.
  • Posts: 19,339
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    @barryt007, I can work with that!

    Something else I've always loved about Connery's Bond is that he could convey so much while only saying one word.

    Part of my near equal love for Dan is that he's been able to continue the tradition that Sean put into work like no other since.

    He can indeed,he can say more in a look than in a sentence,only something Connery could equal.

  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    barryt007 wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    @barryt007, I can work with that!

    Something else I've always loved about Connery's Bond is that he could convey so much while only saying one word.

    Part of my near equal love for Dan is that he's been able to continue the tradition that Sean put into work like no other since.

    He can indeed,he can say more in a look than in a sentence,only something Connery could equal.

    Good points.
  • Posts: 230
    I would say so, because A. None of the others have matched his screen presence and B. Connery laid the foundation for the role, if someone else had originated it that foundation would have been different and thus his performance would still be revolutionary within the context of the role.
Sign In or Register to comment.