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
Brosnan's done alright. Lot of B movies lately but he's had some big films, Ghost Writer, Mama Mia. And I think he's done his best work as an actor post Bond (The Madator, The Foreigner). That western TV show he's in is still going as well (need to watch that at some point).
Dalton's done okay too. Nothing massive but he had that TV show recently and he's been in a couple of big films since Bond. He's brilliant in Hot Fuzz. There were rumours of him being Alfred in the Ben Affleck Batman films and I think it's a shame that didn't pan out because he deserves more exposure. I might have actually watched them if he was in them.
Worst is either Moore or Lazenby. I haven't seen much of either of the stuff they've done outside of Bond so can't really judge, I'm basing this purely off how little else they've done since.
Craig's a frustrating one for me because while he isn't my favourite Bond (not even top three some days), I think he's genuinely the best actual actor out of the lot of them, but he just seems to keep picking crap stuff to be in (judging solely on his films, I know he does theatre and is meant to be very good). He's so good in Our Friends In The North and Layer Cake. I hope after Bond 25 he does more film/TV work and reminds everyone of what a good actor he is.
Apologises to everyone for somehow turning this thread into their movies that they made in tandem with their Bond pictures when it's clearly about "post Bond" and not about the merits of North Sea Hijack or whether it's called Esther, Ruth and Jennifer or ffolkes.
More like Chow had Lee killed due to Lee leaving for Hwood or offers from Shaw Bros......Chow would rather kill his golden goose than let others profit on Lee , he wanted Lee for himself (yes , he did sign Jackie but that was around 7 yrs after Lee died and 1973-80 looked grim for Golden Harvest w/o a major star)
I did wonder about this. The thread was starting to incorporate pre-Bond years, and Bond tenure years as well.
Only because @bondsum was trashing films that were made during Moore's tenure as Bond. I stepped in to defend a few of those projects (and Moore's performances in them).
But yes, post-Bond, Moore didn't really do any films that are worth a look.
Or would they have fallen off anyway? (Most actors kinda do; it's not easy to have a long career in acting)
A downside that I see is that being Bond could mean spending 10-15 years of your career (in your prime) on the same role. Whereas most other actors, they make 1 hit film and then they have lots of other doors open up for them.
I agree with this list.
I expect Craig's post-career to be in the upper half of this list.
Even if Craig loses some of his looks and muscles as he enters his late 50's and 60's, he still has the acting ability to play a variety of roles.
And with how critically acclaimed and commercially successful Craig's Bond performances were, he will get offers.
2. Pierce Brosnan
3. Timothy Dalton
4. Roger Moore
5. George Lazenby
Classic literature movies and plays are a niche audience. He was never really focused on being a big-budget movie star.
His Bond tenure not being very successful commercially didn't help either.
Really it's only Connery who actually had a really decent career which went from strength to strength after Bond: the others all suffered diminishing returns of various kinds. Brosnan did better than most though.
We'll see how Craig gets on: obviously he's got his Knives Out films to make but he is also older than most Bonds when they stopped so it may be a trickier time for his career. I think he'll go into character parts quite well though.
I think Craig will have more flexibility post Bond, somehow. He might not make big blockbusters anymore, but he'll do the fun projects he wants.
I agree. He already has a lot of money, so money won't be the main motivating factor for what film he makes.
And he seems like a humble person, so I don't think he feels compelled to take on roles solely for the sake of improving his image or being immensely famous.
At this point, I expect him to do what he enjoys.
I don't really believe he was considered for NSNA. I doubt the film would've even been green-lit without Connery's name attached.
I actually really like Lazenby's work in The Man from Hong Kong, and Who Saw Her Die?, and he has a very brief but well-performed cameo in Gettysburg as well. He actually does a surprisingly convincing Southern accent in that latter film, too.
WHO SAW HER DIE? (aka Chi l’ha vista morire?) is a phenomenal giallo, one of the very best I’d say.
It stars George, also features Adolfo Celi and it has a stellar Ennio Morricone score.
Now I’m not arguing that Lazenby had a superb post-Bond career, but this fabulous little giallo might as well be my favourite non-Bond film with a Bond actor.
The other candidate would be The Lion in Winter.
I don't think so, as I said Bond allowed him to play his type of character in a time when he was getting out of the age range for it. Connery changed role types after Bond: William of Baskerville, Henry Jones, Malone.
Thanks, that sounds good; I’ll check it out.
And the time between films was quicker during his time. He was able to get out 5 classics in just 6 years.
I think mine is THE NAME OF THE ROSE.
Yes but it could have gone in the completely opposite direction and he could have turned into a has been after Bond. In fact if I'm not mistaken it took him a few years before he managed to do good projects. I think one of the advantages he had over Moore is that as he did was not known and/or typecast in his pre Bond career, he became more "flexible": he could play a medieval monk, a working class cop, an academic, etc. All he needed was gain the physical maturity. He no longer needed to play the role of the dashing romantic hero. People expected this from Moore because that's what he'd been playing all his life, until he was pushing 60. So he ended up narrating documentaries. But then again, without Bond Moore would have a much shorter career.
That’s a very fine choice as well.
Yeah, early/mid 70s he perhaps struggled slightly, although still got a couple of good movies in there. It was really the mid/late 80s and 90s where he was just a straight up superstar.
I was surprised how much the press coverage of his death focused on Bond, because I always felt he more than proved himself as a movie star beyond it and I thought he was famous in his own right, not just as an ex-Bond.
Aside maybe from his Oscar-winning role as Jimmy Malone in The Untouchables, Connery never really had a character who just stood out so much he was associated with it the way he was with Bond. He was always basically playing variations of himself in each of the roles, even as a Russian submarine captain, which was fine because he was so accepted as who he was and did it well. It just doesn't always make the character stand out since they are all basically Sean Connery being Sean Connery playing some guy.
Exactly though: he was famous as Sean Connery- it wasn't 'James Bond' playing all those characters. That's just what surprised me about the bond-heavy coverage.
And it seems like the way they cast Bond even now inevitably have this effect on an actor's career; they look for unknown actors so they can parade them around as "being" James Bond rather than "playing" James Bond, for marketing purposes, etc etc.
So the actor and the role do become inextricably linked in a way that is unique to this particular role.
Sorry if someone has already made similar points, I'm late to the party!