Action-Adventure The 26th James Bond Film

Very true, but it's fun to imagine at least. OHMSS could be top five Bond if it wasn't for Lazenby.

Also, that Sound of Bond documentary was cool. For a sliver they put Radiohead's Spectre against the titles and it works so much better! Amazing to see how much of a difference the song makes. It takes a pretty standard title sequence and turns it into a great one.

 

I think Connery could have done it.

I don't agree with the " Connery's Bond couldn't have been vulnerable" argument.
As an actor , he was certainly more than capable of pulling it off, even post YOLT.

He certainly would have done better than what we got with Lazenby, and that's from someone who isn't as down on him as others are.

In OHMSS case, it would really depend on when the film was made, who the director was, who the rest of the cast would have been, and how good the script would have been.

 

Connery vs Telly Savalas would’ve been fun to see.

 

Across the seven films Connery’s played Bond, at no point did he ever really approach the character from the point of view of him being a nuanced, conflicted human being. He played Bond as the epitome of swagger and coolness. And post-Thunderball he basically hated the character and the whole process, and it showed in his performances. His whole approach to the character didn’t allow for the kind of stuff that later actors really brought out.

As much as I love Connery, I don’t buy the argument that he could do anything with this character even at his worst. Something like Casino Royale for instance, certainly wouldn’t be improved by him the role.

 

Imagine if Connery's Bond filmography were:

1. Casino Royale
2. Dr No.
3. From Russia With Love
4 Goldfinger
5 Thunderball
6. On Her Majesty's Secret Service
7. You Only Live Twice

What a magnificent seven that would've been.

 

Total reboot.

James Bond - Jack Lowden
M - Mark Strong
Felix Leiter - Sam Worthington
Miss Moneypenny - Jodie Comer
Q - Donald Glover

 

He was acting to a script , and doing what the directors and script called for.

Had he been given the opportunity to play Bond more vulnerable, he could have done it.

In terms of CR, again, it would depend on the script, the director, the cast, the style they were going for, and when it was made.

If we're talking the Craig Casino Royale, he totally could have done it, but that version of the story wouldn't have been made in the 60s anyway.

It would have been a much different film to begin with.

So , I gotta disagree with your assessment on Connery and his abilities back in the 60s.

 

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.

 

I want a misanthropic, functioning alcoholic, chain smoking wakes up with a terrible hangover Bond.

 

I would've liked a 60s Casino Royale (and not the David Niven/ Peter Sellers version) but a Connery version. It feels like it should be a 60s film or from the 50s.

 

Goddamn I wish he wasn’t Batman now…

 

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.

 

I think to suggest that Connery didn’t improve as an actor over the course of a few decades is a bit strange. Do you think he peaked early?

And if he wanted to play the character in a more dramatic, emotional way he certainly could have. At the very least in Never Say Never Again where he was one of the primary movers and shakers and had direct input on the script.

 

In a perfect world, he would be both!

 

For real.

There’s going to be a lot of stress and analysis over the casting of the next guy, but I genuinely think if Pattinson were to be cast it would probably be the perfect fit for the post-Craig franchise.

 

Nahhhhh… he gets more freedom as Batman, let alone collaboration with Reeves.

 

Pattinson is the only actor I can think of right now who has the It factor for Bond and who can proceed Craig and make it his own. He's modern but still is true to the roots of the character.

 

Give us an Emo monologue for James Bond!


"June 15. I've been a 00 for two years. The weather in Jamaica's getting hotter. The nights all roll into one. I bed one woman after another. "007" isn't just a number. It's a tool.......

 

I'm with Nolan on this one. OHMSS is my number one... With Lazenby. I think he is great in it. He does a great job with the vulnerability.

 

I could easily see Pattinson being this generations Roger Moore in terms of how I see him playing Bond (a handsome British gentlemen who can charm the pants off any woman).

 

Why exactly did they decide to remake Thunderball in NSNA? I understand bringing Connery back, but why have him redo a movie he already did? Was he unhappy with the original or something?

 

Because NSNA was produced by Kevin McClory, not EON Productions, and Thunderball is the only thing he had the rights to. Here are a couple of links that tell the history surrounding Thunderball, NSNA, and the legal battles waged over the movie rights.

The Strange History Of ‘Never Say Never Again’ | Decider

The Battle of the James Bonds » Sean Connery v Roger Moore

 

Ah okay. Thanks!