Who should/could be a Bond actor?

19849859879899901178

Comments

  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,449
    mtm wrote: »
    I actually don't like him in Dr No: he's being way too abrasive and is actually quite unlikeable at several points. It's amazing how much he smoothed that off in time for FRWL.

    I wonder how much of that is Hitchcock's doing. ;-)

    Sure, DN Connery is -- how did Ken Adam put it? -- a rough diamond. At the same time, his actions were brisk and fast, which I like. When he tricks Miss Taro, confronts Dent, introduces himself to Sylvia, gets arrogant with No, and meets Honey, he is at the top of his game, IMO. I'm very satisfied with Connery's acting in DN, but I agree that there was room for improvement.

    This is also why I wish that Lazenby had done a few more. He too, I reckon, could have improved his acting fast.
  • edited November 2022 Posts: 784
    I don't see a single fault in his first outing. I even think he is at his best here. Considering the script is slower and more tedious, he more than makes up for it.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    Yeah I don't think he's doing anything wrong in terms of talent or ability; I'm not even sure you could call him a rough diamond- he's already excellent. I just think that he or the director made the wrong decision in terms of making Bond quite so distant and unlikeable in that first one (relatively speaking to what he became of course). He didn't need to improve his acting, just alter the performance.

    Lazenby on the other hand just wasn't very good on a pure talent level.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,518
    I feel like people think mostly of the Jump Up scene with Freelance with regards to Connery's abrasiveness. Leiter is a lot more cool, calm, and collected in that scene and Bond feels angry with everyone and everything. But I agree with the above, I don't really see a ton of uncharacteristic abrasiveness in other scenes.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    Oh I don't know, I think it's there most of the way through. Last time I watched it I remember him being very cold and distant with everyone on the local government staff in particular.
  • Posts: 14,800
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    IMO, Craig was a much more even Bond than Connery. The latter hit a few unfortunate lows in his days as an actor, particularly in YOLT and DAF. But when Connery was on fire in FRWL and GF for example, he was the Bond Supreme, in my opinion. Still, what I want from the next guy is precisely that: a constant fixation on giving us his best, never phoning it in. We know why Connery stopped acting in YOLT, but offscreen issues aside, we're stuck with poor Connery Bond in addition to awesome Connery Bond. That said, I'm a Daltonite and I think the world of Craig, but Connery on a good day is still the quintessential Bond for me. From DN to TB, I'm hearing the angels sing.

    That's pretty much how I see Connery: he was the best Bond in his first four films, bit the worst Bond in DAF. I would also say that he was in DAF the worst looking Bond.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited November 2022 Posts: 7,518
    mtm wrote: »
    Oh I don't know, I think it's there most of the way through. Last time I watched it I remember him being very cold and distant with everyone on the local government staff in particular.

    You might be right; I thought I remembered him being fairly chummy with Pleydell Smith, but I could be misremembering things.

    Maybe I’m just abrasive. :))
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,882
    Oh oh oh... I see a mention of Seagal, you know what that means?

    seagal-steven-seagal.gif

    Seagal needs to be in Bond films, not Bollywood films.

    "I will snatch every motherfornicator martini."

    And every time a new Bond film premieres (forget Leicester Square, it'll be Red Square), he'll bust some moves on stage to hype the crowd.

    fe2320bda0a7f7186345940a2615ca8d_w200.gif

    You have to hand it to him, he moves good for a 90 year old.
  • Posts: 2,753
    mtm wrote: »
    Oh I don't know, I think it's there most of the way through. Last time I watched it I remember him being very cold and distant with everyone on the local government staff in particular.

    You might be right; I thought I remembered him being fairly chummy with Pleydell Smith, but I could be misremembering things.

    Maybe I’m just abrasive. :))

    I suppose he's pretty much in 'detective' mode for most of that film, so it makes sense he comes off as more cold. DN is a good film - one I like rewatching at least - but Bond really doesn't have all that much depth to him in that particular instalment. Heck, in FRWL there's at least that 'cat and mouse' element in which Bond doesn't know what to expect, not to mention him having to process the death of Kerim Bay, so I can see why people would say Connery comes off as more relatable in that adventure.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited November 2022 Posts: 3,382
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    I actually don't like him in Dr No: he's being way too abrasive and is actually quite unlikeable at several points. It's amazing how much he smoothed that off in time for FRWL.

    I wonder how much of that is Hitchcock's doing. ;-)

    Sure, DN Connery is -- how did Ken Adam put it? -- a rough diamond. At the same time, his actions were brisk and fast, which I like. When he tricks Miss Taro, confronts Dent, introduces himself to Sylvia, gets arrogant with No, and meets Honey, he is at the top of his game, IMO. I'm very satisfied with Connery's acting in DN, but I agree that there was room for improvement.

    This is also why I wish that Lazenby had done a few more. He too, I reckon, could have improved his acting fast.

    I think there's no room for improvement on Connery, he cemented that style the way he did.

    Meanwhile, it's Lazenby and to the lesser extent, Dalton who are needed some improvements as they didn't cemented their status on the role.
    mtm wrote: »
    Yeah I don't think he's doing anything wrong in terms of talent or ability; I'm not even sure you could call him a rough diamond- he's already excellent. I just think that he or the director made the wrong decision in terms of making Bond quite so distant and unlikeable in that first one (relatively speaking to what he became of course). He didn't need to improve his acting, just alter the performance.

    Lazenby on the other hand just wasn't very good on a pure talent level.

    I kinda see Lazenby's acting natural or organic, not too polished, it's raw, and I believe there's a room for improvement had he done more.

    That's said acting skills wise, there's a potential but left hinged (if you know what I mean), he could have been much better had he done more.
    His 70's Asian Films like The Man From Hong Kong showcased him with his fully fledged acting, and it's a shame he didn't done more (he's great in that said film, by the way).

    I'm not totally knocking on Moore, he's a great actor, but he veered Bond far away from how he's supposed to be, and what he should be, and he played the character no different from his past portrayals.

    I really wished Lazenby done a lot more (specifically continuing through 70's, he could be successful granted that he could also incorporate some of Connery's manners), then Dalton to take over in the 80's.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited November 2022 Posts: 14,861
    007HallY wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Oh I don't know, I think it's there most of the way through. Last time I watched it I remember him being very cold and distant with everyone on the local government staff in particular.

    You might be right; I thought I remembered him being fairly chummy with Pleydell Smith, but I could be misremembering things.

    Maybe I’m just abrasive. :))

    I suppose he's pretty much in 'detective' mode for most of that film, so it makes sense he comes off as more cold. DN is a good film - one I like rewatching at least - but Bond really doesn't have all that much depth to him in that particular instalment. Heck, in FRWL there's at least that 'cat and mouse' element in which Bond doesn't know what to expect, not to mention him having to process the death of Kerim Bay, so I can see why people would say Connery comes off as more relatable in that adventure.

    Well Quarrel dies, in a way that Bond seems very much responsible for, and he doesn’t appear to give a toss.
  • edited November 2022 Posts: 2,753
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Oh I don't know, I think it's there most of the way through. Last time I watched it I remember him being very cold and distant with everyone on the local government staff in particular.

    You might be right; I thought I remembered him being fairly chummy with Pleydell Smith, but I could be misremembering things.

    Maybe I’m just abrasive. :))

    I suppose he's pretty much in 'detective' mode for most of that film, so it makes sense he comes off as more cold. DN is a good film - one I like rewatching at least - but Bond really doesn't have all that much depth to him in that particular instalment. Heck, in FRWL there's at least that 'cat and mouse' element in which Bond doesn't know what to expect, not to mention him having to process the death of Kerim Bay, so I can see why people would say Connery comes off as more relatable in that adventure.

    Well Quarrel dies, in a way that Bond seems very much responsible for, and he doesn’t appear to give a toss.

    I disagree to an extent, but I can definitely see where you're coming from. Personally I'd say it's Connery's acting that gives me the sense that Bond is remorseful over Quarrel's death, and the film itself doesn't do much to help the moment. Connery's expressions, his body language as he tries to walk towards Quarrel's body, did that for me anyway.

    I don't know whether they wanted to keep the film tight so took out the part in the novel where Bond says to the goons "I'm going to look at the body of the man you killed" and actually goes to Quarrel's body. The way the scene is played out is a bit lacklustre - there's no music, the editing doesn't quite pace out Connery's performance as effectively as it could do, and the lighting is a wee bit too dark. Perhaps the idea of Bond going to the body was deemed a bit gruesome, even if much is left to the imagination. Still, I think that moment could have had a bit more pathos to it, but I believe the fault is more with the direction (DN isn't the best Bond film in regards to filmmaking in this sense, enjoyable as it is).
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    edited November 2022 Posts: 1,282
    I have to agree that Connery was in sleuth mode in DN. Even Dr.No called him a policeman. Also, the film really delivered and made people hungry for more Bond. I think John Barry said Terence Young took the film very, very seriously.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    I have to agree that Connery was in sleuth mode in DN. Even Dr.No called him a policeman. Also, the film really delivered and made people hungry for more Bond. I think John Barry said Terence Young took the film very, very seriously.

    And I believe it was popular because people didn't take it seriously! I'm sure I've heard reports that the makers were surprised that audiences were laughing in the cinemas, so Young perhaps got it a bit wrong :)
    From there on it became a little more tongue-in-cheek (Blofeld in FRWL is fairly silly) and self-aware, and it didn't look back.

    I'm not a massive fan of Dr No and haven't watched it much. It's an important film obviously and I don't think they did a bad job or anything, I just prefer where the series went after that.
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 1,282
    mtm wrote: »
    I have to agree that Connery was in sleuth mode in DN. Even Dr.No called him a policeman. Also, the film really delivered and made people hungry for more Bond. I think John Barry said Terence Young took the film very, very seriously.

    And I believe it was popular because people didn't take it seriously! I'm sure I've heard reports that the makers were surprised that audiences were laughing in the cinemas, so Young perhaps got it a bit wrong :)
    From there on it became a little more tongue-in-cheek (Blofeld in FRWL is fairly silly) and self-aware, and it didn't look back.

    I'm not a massive fan of Dr No and haven't watched it much. It's an important film obviously and I don't think they did a bad job or anything, I just prefer where the series went after that.

    Yeah, I see your point...and for sure, DN is such an important Bond film. Of course, the films that followed were undoubtedly better. But one could say DN was almost the perfect way to launch the franchise.
  • LucknFateLucknFate 007 In New York
    edited November 2022 Posts: 1,420
    mtm wrote: »
    I have to agree that Connery was in sleuth mode in DN. Even Dr.No called him a policeman. Also, the film really delivered and made people hungry for more Bond. I think John Barry said Terence Young took the film very, very seriously.

    And I believe it was popular because people didn't take it seriously! I'm sure I've heard reports that the makers were surprised that audiences were laughing in the cinemas, so Young perhaps got it a bit wrong :)
    From there on it became a little more tongue-in-cheek (Blofeld in FRWL is fairly silly) and self-aware, and it didn't look back.

    I'm not a massive fan of Dr No and haven't watched it much. It's an important film obviously and I don't think they did a bad job or anything, I just prefer where the series went after that.

    Yeah, I see your point...and for sure, DN is such an important Bond film. Of course, the films that followed were undoubtedly better. But one could say DN was almost the perfect way to launch the franchise.

    Also interesting how much influence it may have had over the tone/impression of NTTD, since they harkened back to it so much in the styling and marketing. NTTD is perhaps the coldest Bond film, despite trying to be the warmest.

    Edit: sorry to go off topic a bit. Connery is great. We'll never have another. I would wager Connery is one "Great" Bond for me, and all the rest rank just below. Roger comes close on icon status, I'd wager he made an impression on just as many people as Connery in his time. I respect both over all the others, but each has a lot to appreciate and offer. I hope the next Bond is dramatically different in an intriguing way, just so they bring their own new thing to the table.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,834
    After rewatching Tenet, I do feel Robert Pattinson will be a looming Michael Fassbender figure in terms of James Bond. He's a brilliant Batman and I'm glad he's gone with that because that part fits him like a glove, but it's sometimes interesting to imagine what he could've done in terms of Bond, especially after someone like Craig.

    10221389.jpg
  • LucknFateLucknFate 007 In New York
    Posts: 1,420
    He's my #1 personal pick at the moment if they go for "tradition."
  • Posts: 2,753
    I'm sure there's an alternate universe somewhere where Pattinson didn't become Batman, or perhaps even wasn't in Twilight, but became Bond...

    Honestly, the guy's a great and unique actor. His performance in The Batman is actually very subtle and well crafted rewatching that film. I'd love to have seen his version of Bond, but obviously it's not to be.
  • LucknFateLucknFate 007 In New York
    Posts: 1,420
    007HallY wrote: »
    I'm sure there's an alternate universe somewhere where Pattinson didn't become Batman, or perhaps even wasn't in Twilight, but became Bond...

    Honestly, the guy's a great and unique actor. His performance in The Batman is actually very subtle and well crafted rewatching that film. I'd love to have seen his version of Bond, but obviously it's not to be.

    There's zero guarantee they'll do the next Batman. There's zero guarantee the Bond producers planned hiatus is only two years.... I wouldn't write him off.
  • Posts: 2,753
    LucknFate wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I'm sure there's an alternate universe somewhere where Pattinson didn't become Batman, or perhaps even wasn't in Twilight, but became Bond...

    Honestly, the guy's a great and unique actor. His performance in The Batman is actually very subtle and well crafted rewatching that film. I'd love to have seen his version of Bond, but obviously it's not to be.

    There's zero guarantee they'll do the next Batman. There's zero guarantee the Bond producers planned hiatus is only two years.... I wouldn't write him off.

    There's more than zero guarantee. Pattinson's committed to another: https://www.nme.com/features/film-features/the-batman-2-release-date-cast-plot-trailer-3341153

    I suppose with a release date three years away it's possible, but I think he's too famous to fit the precedent of Bond actors, and he'll be in a competing franchise which is a no-no. Oh well, at least we have a great Batman.
  • LucknFateLucknFate 007 In New York
    edited November 2022 Posts: 1,420
    007HallY wrote: »
    LucknFate wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I'm sure there's an alternate universe somewhere where Pattinson didn't become Batman, or perhaps even wasn't in Twilight, but became Bond...

    Honestly, the guy's a great and unique actor. His performance in The Batman is actually very subtle and well crafted rewatching that film. I'd love to have seen his version of Bond, but obviously it's not to be.

    There's zero guarantee they'll do the next Batman. There's zero guarantee the Bond producers planned hiatus is only two years.... I wouldn't write him off.

    There's more than zero guarantee. Pattinson's committed to another: https://www.nme.com/features/film-features/the-batman-2-release-date-cast-plot-trailer-3341153

    I suppose with a release date three years away it's possible, but I think he's too famous to fit the precedent of Bond actors, and he'll be in a competing franchise which is a no-no. Oh well, at least we have a great Batman.

    I say zero guarantee about the next Batman because the studio just shelved an entire Batgirl movie and hired James Gunn to head up its DC division, who may not like Pattinson's Batman regardless of any pre-existing contracts. But you're right, I don't have high hopes for Pattison's Bond odds given everything.
  • Posts: 2,753
    LucknFate wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    LucknFate wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I'm sure there's an alternate universe somewhere where Pattinson didn't become Batman, or perhaps even wasn't in Twilight, but became Bond...

    Honestly, the guy's a great and unique actor. His performance in The Batman is actually very subtle and well crafted rewatching that film. I'd love to have seen his version of Bond, but obviously it's not to be.

    There's zero guarantee they'll do the next Batman. There's zero guarantee the Bond producers planned hiatus is only two years.... I wouldn't write him off.

    There's more than zero guarantee. Pattinson's committed to another: https://www.nme.com/features/film-features/the-batman-2-release-date-cast-plot-trailer-3341153

    I suppose with a release date three years away it's possible, but I think he's too famous to fit the precedent of Bond actors, and he'll be in a competing franchise which is a no-no. Oh well, at least we have a great Batman.

    I say zero guarantee about the next Batman because the studio just shelved an entire Batgirl movie and hired James Gunn to head up its DC division, who may not like Pattinson's Batman regardless of any pre-existing contracts. But you're right, I don't have high hopes for Pattison's Bond odds given everything.

    I think it's too much of a likely moneymaker and critical hit to shelve, going from the success of the last one. Even if James Gunn doesn't like The Batman - which we don't know - I don't think he'd pass on any more Reeves/Pattinson films. Those who hired him certainly wouldn't.

    Batgirl was a funny situation, but I don't think it's applicable to this Batman sequel. If anything DC are now prioritising, as they said, 'big theatrical event' films for cinemas, and a future Batman I think fits this criteria.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,834
    I mean never say never, but I think Gunn has already hinted quite a few times on social media that Reeves’ The Batman universe is safe at the moment. Reeves was apparently one of the first calls Gunn made.
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 1,282
    LucknFate wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    I have to agree that Connery was in sleuth mode in DN. Even Dr.No called him a policeman. Also, the film really delivered and made people hungry for more Bond. I think John Barry said Terence Young took the film very, very seriously.

    And I believe it was popular because people didn't take it seriously! I'm sure I've heard reports that the makers were surprised that audiences were laughing in the cinemas, so Young perhaps got it a bit wrong :)
    From there on it became a little more tongue-in-cheek (Blofeld in FRWL is fairly silly) and self-aware, and it didn't look back.

    I'm not a massive fan of Dr No and haven't watched it much. It's an important film obviously and I don't think they did a bad job or anything, I just prefer where the series went after that.

    Yeah, I see your point...and for sure, DN is such an important Bond film. Of course, the films that followed were undoubtedly better. But one could say DN was almost the perfect way to launch the franchise.

    Also interesting how much influence it may have had over the tone/impression of NTTD, since they harkened back to it so much in the styling and marketing. NTTD is perhaps the coldest Bond film, despite trying to be the warmest.

    Edit: sorry to go off topic a bit. Connery is great. We'll never have another. I would wager Connery is one "Great" Bond for me, and all the rest rank just below. Roger comes close on icon status, I'd wager he made an impression on just as many people as Connery in his time. I respect both over all the others, but each has a lot to appreciate and offer. I hope the next Bond is dramatically different in an intriguing way, just so they bring their own new thing to the table.

    Yeah, we hope Bond 7 brings something unique to the table. Maybe Bond 7 should have an Achilles' heel....like battling alcoholism, but still succeeds in having successful missions? I don't know. Lots of other better and unique ways...I'm sure.
  • Posts: 2,753
    LucknFate wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    I have to agree that Connery was in sleuth mode in DN. Even Dr.No called him a policeman. Also, the film really delivered and made people hungry for more Bond. I think John Barry said Terence Young took the film very, very seriously.

    And I believe it was popular because people didn't take it seriously! I'm sure I've heard reports that the makers were surprised that audiences were laughing in the cinemas, so Young perhaps got it a bit wrong :)
    From there on it became a little more tongue-in-cheek (Blofeld in FRWL is fairly silly) and self-aware, and it didn't look back.

    I'm not a massive fan of Dr No and haven't watched it much. It's an important film obviously and I don't think they did a bad job or anything, I just prefer where the series went after that.

    Yeah, I see your point...and for sure, DN is such an important Bond film. Of course, the films that followed were undoubtedly better. But one could say DN was almost the perfect way to launch the franchise.

    Also interesting how much influence it may have had over the tone/impression of NTTD, since they harkened back to it so much in the styling and marketing. NTTD is perhaps the coldest Bond film, despite trying to be the warmest.

    Edit: sorry to go off topic a bit. Connery is great. We'll never have another. I would wager Connery is one "Great" Bond for me, and all the rest rank just below. Roger comes close on icon status, I'd wager he made an impression on just as many people as Connery in his time. I respect both over all the others, but each has a lot to appreciate and offer. I hope the next Bond is dramatically different in an intriguing way, just so they bring their own new thing to the table.

    Yeah, we hope Bond 7 brings something unique to the table. Maybe Bond 7 should have an Achilles' heel....like battling alcoholism, but still succeeds in having successful missions? I don't know. Lots of other better and unique ways...I'm sure.

    You could have a Bond who starts out more hedonistic - drinking a bit too much, gambling all night, taking risks when he's in the field and paying for it with the scars on his body, but essentially prone to boredom and dissatified. Think Fleming's Bond at the start of TB - still a reliable agent, often humorous, but his lifestyle is ultimately to his detriment. You could have a little arc where throughout the film Bond takes what are essentially rather arrogant risks, maybe using gadgets too much, and this leads to him getting captured at the end by the villain. He then has to use his wits, not relying on gadgets and rash decisions, to save the day. By the end he comes out a more experienced and world weary agent.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    That sounds fun, sort of leaning on the old Bond of the 60s/70s and showing how he'd fail in the real world.
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 1,282
    007HallY wrote: »
    LucknFate wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    I have to agree that Connery was in sleuth mode in DN. Even Dr.No called him a policeman. Also, the film really delivered and made people hungry for more Bond. I think John Barry said Terence Young took the film very, very seriously.

    And I believe it was popular because people didn't take it seriously! I'm sure I've heard reports that the makers were surprised that audiences were laughing in the cinemas, so Young perhaps got it a bit wrong :)
    From there on it became a little more tongue-in-cheek (Blofeld in FRWL is fairly silly) and self-aware, and it didn't look back.

    I'm not a massive fan of Dr No and haven't watched it much. It's an important film obviously and I don't think they did a bad job or anything, I just prefer where the series went after that.

    Yeah, I see your point...and for sure, DN is such an important Bond film. Of course, the films that followed were undoubtedly better. But one could say DN was almost the perfect way to launch the franchise.

    Also interesting how much influence it may have had over the tone/impression of NTTD, since they harkened back to it so much in the styling and marketing. NTTD is perhaps the coldest Bond film, despite trying to be the warmest.

    Edit: sorry to go off topic a bit. Connery is great. We'll never have another. I would wager Connery is one "Great" Bond for me, and all the rest rank just below. Roger comes close on icon status, I'd wager he made an impression on just as many people as Connery in his time. I respect both over all the others, but each has a lot to appreciate and offer. I hope the next Bond is dramatically different in an intriguing way, just so they bring their own new thing to the table.

    Yeah, we hope Bond 7 brings something unique to the table. Maybe Bond 7 should have an Achilles' heel....like battling alcoholism, but still succeeds in having successful missions? I don't know. Lots of other better and unique ways...I'm sure.

    You could have a Bond who starts out more hedonistic - drinking a bit too much, gambling all night, taking risks when he's in the field and paying for it with the scars on his body, but essentially prone to boredom and dissatified. Think Fleming's Bond at the start of TB - still a reliable agent, often humorous, but his lifestyle is ultimately to his detriment. You could have a little arc where throughout the film Bond takes what are essentially rather arrogant risks, maybe using gadgets too much, and this leads to him getting captured at the end by the villain. He then has to use his wits, not relying on gadgets and rash decisions, to save the day. By the end he comes out a more experienced and world weary agent.

    Yeah. I imagined this. A Bond consumed by hedonism could work, since Craig's Bond finished as a family man Bond.
  • edited November 2022 Posts: 2,753
    mtm wrote: »
    That sounds fun, sort of leaning on the old Bond of the 60s/70s and showing how he'd fail in the real world.

    Yeah, that's an interesting way of putting it. I mean, we've seen a self-destructive and vulnerable Bond in SF who drinks too much, but in that he's older, more cynical and compromised physically. It'd be interesting to see a Bond who does get scars on his body, indulges more than he should and even fails who's younger, at his peak physically, and more idealistic. So it'd be a story about James Bond learning to become 007 (or at least more simply a better agent).
    007HallY wrote: »
    LucknFate wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    I have to agree that Connery was in sleuth mode in DN. Even Dr.No called him a policeman. Also, the film really delivered and made people hungry for more Bond. I think John Barry said Terence Young took the film very, very seriously.

    And I believe it was popular because people didn't take it seriously! I'm sure I've heard reports that the makers were surprised that audiences were laughing in the cinemas, so Young perhaps got it a bit wrong :)
    From there on it became a little more tongue-in-cheek (Blofeld in FRWL is fairly silly) and self-aware, and it didn't look back.

    I'm not a massive fan of Dr No and haven't watched it much. It's an important film obviously and I don't think they did a bad job or anything, I just prefer where the series went after that.

    Yeah, I see your point...and for sure, DN is such an important Bond film. Of course, the films that followed were undoubtedly better. But one could say DN was almost the perfect way to launch the franchise.

    Also interesting how much influence it may have had over the tone/impression of NTTD, since they harkened back to it so much in the styling and marketing. NTTD is perhaps the coldest Bond film, despite trying to be the warmest.

    Edit: sorry to go off topic a bit. Connery is great. We'll never have another. I would wager Connery is one "Great" Bond for me, and all the rest rank just below. Roger comes close on icon status, I'd wager he made an impression on just as many people as Connery in his time. I respect both over all the others, but each has a lot to appreciate and offer. I hope the next Bond is dramatically different in an intriguing way, just so they bring their own new thing to the table.

    Yeah, we hope Bond 7 brings something unique to the table. Maybe Bond 7 should have an Achilles' heel....like battling alcoholism, but still succeeds in having successful missions? I don't know. Lots of other better and unique ways...I'm sure.

    You could have a Bond who starts out more hedonistic - drinking a bit too much, gambling all night, taking risks when he's in the field and paying for it with the scars on his body, but essentially prone to boredom and dissatified. Think Fleming's Bond at the start of TB - still a reliable agent, often humorous, but his lifestyle is ultimately to his detriment. You could have a little arc where throughout the film Bond takes what are essentially rather arrogant risks, maybe using gadgets too much, and this leads to him getting captured at the end by the villain. He then has to use his wits, not relying on gadgets and rash decisions, to save the day. By the end he comes out a more experienced and world weary agent.

    Yeah. I imagined this. A Bond consumed by hedonism could work, since Craig's Bond finished as a family man Bond.

    It'd certainly be a contrast compared to where Craig's Bond ended. And in-keeping broadly with aspects of Fleming's Bond while giving the character more of an arc in a future story. With a younger actor too they could really lean into it.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited November 2022 Posts: 14,861
    I like it. Pop it in the 'where does Bond go after Craig' thread!

    It makes sense to do it the other way around to Craig: start with him as the fully fledged cinematic Bond and then show how that doesn't work out, and make him something slightly new. Kill Moneypenny or something, go for it.
Sign In or Register to comment.