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
Anyway, I like his portayals, because these raw men are rare. Too many wanabees around, who never quite hit the ball out of the parc.
I think Sean loves the role. He just got angry because of both the series fall into over the top action and also the lack of money he was being given to play Bond. And, Sean can't act?! Have you seen The Hill or The Untouchables?
I have seen many films over the years, just don't know the english names of them to compare, what you mean.
I think, he sees Bond as a hinderniss to greater roles (some of which he got in the end) and blames the part for that. No, I don't think, he loves the role.
He got angry that his performance made for an iconic character and that Harry & Cubby reaped large profits of which he saw very little untill DAF. I do not believe he had any problem with the direction the movies went that is a modern excuse for folks who want that as an excuse for the modern direction which would not have done very well in the seventies/eighties.
Had Harry or Cubby made Connery the partnership offer he was seeking we would have had a few more 007 movies by Connery himself.
If you consider how much the later 007 performers did get for playing the part SC did indeed get a small salary. And what he did get as salary for DAF he gave to charity, so calling him a tight and cheap Scotsman is also not right.
If EON want SC at the Oscars they should make him an offer he cannot refuse. Otherwise I do not mind if he does not show his face. If however he does come out of some sort of loyalty I would be over the moon, and I am sure the audience would go nuts. He is after all the moviestar of all the 007 performers.
Which says little about his personal likes, I think he was then under stress for losing so much of his privacy due to his popularity.
And yes I think that if Connery shows his face at the oscars to honour 007, he will be the one they are most impressed with. After all he is a Hollywood legend...........And rightly so.
It's been largely documented how Connery always had a presence but in terms of pulling off the suave, sophistication and gentleman qualities, Terrence Young had to "school" and nurture Connery. In fact, cinematic Bond is really Terrence Young's creation. Look to the dvd extras of the early Connery movies. Young even made Connery go to sleep in his Saville Row suits. Connery may not have been the best actor in the world but he was still a fine actor in general and an incredible Bond who made the role look naturally easy and that there is a testament to the dedication and skill he applied to making the role so iconic.
Sean's been participating in Bond interviews all the way up to 2008! He did the interviews for the Special Editions - that was probably around 2000, maybe? He also voiced FRWL the game in 2006. So it seems strange that now he would be "snubbing" EON.
My theory is that Sean is NOT snubbing EON, contrary to the tabloids. He is simply in retirement and hasn't made ANY public appearances for the past 2 years, except for one Stock Exchange ceremony, so why would he make an exception for Bond? The press likes to blow these things up, but have we had any evidence that Sean is in fact still holding a grudge? It's all speculation. The only official word from his press agent is that he is retired and not doing and public events. End of story.
So it behooves me to think he's in any mood to come out of retirement for the Academy Awards. But you never know...
I don't care. People that think even legends don't age are sadly mistaken. But also, Sean may be getting up there, but he is still the mesmerizing and intimidating presence he has always been. I remember when he was immaculately honored by AFI a few years ago, and as he made his way on stage he danced to the sound of Scottish bagpipes. He still has the mobility, but anyone who expects a man of his age to be youthful needs to look at reality.
If by some miracle this Bond get together does happen, I will be so overwhelmed I won't know what to do with myself. As it has been said: This is likely, so very sadly the last occasion we could finally get all 6 Bond actors together on one stage. To think about Sean, George, Roger, Tim, Pierce and Dan all side by side on stage as the Bond theme plays is the very definition of legendary spectacle.
Sean never did interviews for the Special Edition DVDs. One of my film school professors produced the "Inside" documentaries for the DVDs. All of Sean's interviews are taken from a 1992 interview or a couple earlier ones. They BEGGED him to do a new interview but he refused. Then when the FRWL game came up, my professor said what they SHOULD have done was include a clause to do a new interview in addition to voicing the game. Would have been nice to have new interviews on the Ultimate Editions a year later
But again, it's still speculation that he is still holding a grudge. On the E.o.N. documentary, Barbara says Sean and Cubby had a phonecall before Cubby's passing.
Even with that said, he still did interviews in 92, so why would he all of sudden have a grudge post '92? Reminds me of the Nikki Van der Zyl issue.
I was just making the case that Sean is open to Bond interviews and can look back at the role fondly.
Watching him in this hurt me, because he was really weak (his voice and all). He was seen last year at a tournament or something like that and appeared to be better, but its known, that he has health problems for some time now. If I like somebody and obviously many here dolike him, I don't have fun watching that person being a shadow of his former self - even though this is what age does to us. But why would be put himself up to that? Let people remember him the weay he was.
@Brady - there was not much presence left in that South Bank interview.
Why is it so hard for some to believe that Sean could... *gasp* AGE?! Unbelievable, I know, but if I can accept it, everybody bloody well can too.
Remember him as he was? His former self? What is all this? Sean is and always has been Sean. He hasn't changed aside from his physical looks, something that we will all experience an aging of as our lives go on. And how can you ever be a former part of your own self when you are in fact, always you? This crap makes no sense to me, but if you want to go along with that ticket, so be it.
I stand by what I said and it makes perfect sense to me. It nothing against aging though. If you want to understand it that way, so be it.
You said your main problems were that you want to know him as he was, and you couldn't do that because he looks weaker, how he was a "shadow of his former self". How doesn't that have something to do with aging? I am just trying to make sense of whatever you are saying, but it is labyrinthine.
Not sure why seeing somebody aged would ruin your image of him forever.
So basically you don't want any of the others to show up incase they steal your precious Daniel Craigs spotlight? This is basically the last chance for this to happen, stop being so selfish :P
And how can he give it his own take on the character? It's not a film, he's attending an awards ceremony ffs.
I'm not taking sides here but I'd like to comvey that it's true: SC is a shadow of hiself but we learn as we age that happier poeple don't focus on their bodies bei g bent. At the same rate, if SC is resigned and retired as he has been, let's honor him by remembering his Bond days instead of dragging tge ill guy out like this. I kno it's hard for many to see the aging even for the self. Lets respect.
Just because he inevitably is this:
Doesn't change the fact that he was and always will be THIS to millions:
But, enough on the subject.