I mean, Connery was a more experienced actor in the 80s and had pretty much the lion’s share of creative control during Never Say Never Again (to the point where he had his own writers doing the script) and he still played Bond much the same as he always did, so I don’t really buy the argument that it was all on the writers and directors. I think a lot of it was his own view of the character shining through.
Connery had been acting on stage and I think he had directed some stage performances
before he was cast as Bond, so he was already experienced when he got the role , if we're talking about acting.
As far as The Bond films go , they weren't improved.
They were directed and written a certain way the same NSNA was directed and written a certain way.
The actors weren't free styling, and his scripts didn't call for a more vulnerable Bond.
It's not the type of fact you can agree or disagree on, that's the way it was then.
That's how most films in general and those films were made .
Peter Hunt changed up the game for OHMSS which followed the book pretty closely in terms of Bonds emotions. That's why the directors and writers make a difference.
So pointing to Connery's acting in the Bond films which weren't written for him to be vulnerable or to be like the Bond in the OHMSS book, don't strengthen your argument that he couldn't play vulnerable if called upon.
You may prefer that he wasn't the Bond of that film, which , if so, fair enough.
I can also understand thinking
his Bond wouldn't have been right for what Hunt was going for in OHMSS.
That's a
much stronger argument to make than to argue Connery
couldn't have played a more vulnerable Bond even if the script called for it or the director directed him to do it.
