What to keep and what to get rid of from the Craig era.

14567810»

Comments

  • Posts: 1,515
    @ mtm: Not a fan of the term 'evolving' to describe Bond's character, as if he is evolving into something better (which you did not say.) The character has changed over the years which I think has more to do with the actor playing the role than writing Bond as more human or more rounded. I actually don't see Moore's Bond as more human and more rounded because I've never been able to take his portrayal seriously. He didn't project the intensity and believability that Connery brought to the role. For me, Bond became Roger Moore rather than the actor becoming Bond. But, he was a smashing success. And series probably survived because of him. I prefer the portrayals of Lazenby, Dalton, and Craig (more than anyone else), who were certainly closer to the original Bond than Moore or Brosnan. It's hard for me to imagine Connery playing Bond in any Moore film as written, but then imagining Moore in the first six Bond films is also impossible. As much as I missed Connery when GL took over, I also can't see him playing Bond in that last scene they way GL did. Hard to imagine the tears, but I can imagine the devastation in his expression and eyes.



  • I thought Moore was given some great scenes that stretched his acting chops in the role. A lot of those moments came during his work with John Glen, but I’ll always remember the confrontation between Bond and Orlov in Octopussy, or Bond kicking the car over the edge in FYEO. Moore’s Bond was a lot more down to earth than people give him credit for.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited June 2023 Posts: 2,925
    I'm one of those who actually can see Connery playing the last scene in OHMSS, tbh. See the climax of The Hill for his ability to convey emotion or parts of The Offence for flashes of vulnerability contrasting with the brutality. And after all, when a meat-eating, testosterone-driven killing machine shows hitherto unexpected raw emotion the effect can be even greater. Imagine the lasting impact in 1969 and beyond of tears in the eyes of Connery's Bond if that'd been the last scene of his last Bond movie.
    I can also see Lazenby playing Bond in lighter, funnier movies in the '70s. George has a great sense of humour and I've no doubt he could've put that across. Ok, true, the world at large maybe wouldn't have adopted him as a global treasure the way they did Sir Rog, but I do think that George could've made similar films and done them well. He'd've had to have stopped being his own worst enemy first, though, obvs...
  • Posts: 15,801
    Venutius wrote: »
    I'm one of those who actually can see Connery playing the last scene in OHMSS, tbh. See the climax of The Hill for his ability to convey emotion or parts of The Offence for flashes of vulnerability contrasting with the brutality. And after all, when a meat-eating, testosterone-driven killing machine shows hitherto unexpected raw emotion the effect can be even greater. Imagine the lasting impact in 1969 and beyond of tears in the eyes of Connery's Bond if that'd been the last scene of his last Bond movie.
    I can also see Lazenby playing Bond in lighter, funnier movies in the '70s. George has a great sense of humour and I've no doubt he could've put that across. Ok, true, the world at large maybe wouldn't have adopted him as a global treasure the way they did Sir Rog, but I do think that George could've made similar films and done them well. He'd've had to have stopped being his own worst enemy first, though, obvs...

    I pretty much feel the same.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    Posts: 3,390
    Not just that but Lazenby would be more convincing to play Bond in the 70's:

    1. He's a lot more younger, thus, more convincing with his leading ladies, more comfortable to watch, than Moore who's already old with his leading ladies and some of them looked like his daughters, it's uncomfortable to watch because of that, with Lazenby, it would've been more better.

    2. Lazenby would've been more believable in fighting scenes, considering that he did all of the stunts by himself, Moore was (I admit) a bit silly in fighting scenes and wasn't that convincing, he's not that believable even as a spy.

    3. And I'd liked a second season of The Persuaders!, give me that! I think Moore fits in that TV show better, he had an amazing chemistry with Tony Curtis, it's still heartbreaking for me that it's not followed.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,023
    I think Connery would have absolutely salivated for what OHMSS offered as an actor. Not only that, but I think there would have been enough audience goodwill from the last five films to be open to see this larger than life figure they’ve seen adventures or be shown vulnerable.

    I have never been convinced by the line of thought that no one would accept a film where Connery Bond marries. That’s not giving any credit to audiences.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited June 2023 Posts: 3,390
    I think Connery would have absolutely salivated for what OHMSS offered as an actor. Not only that, but I think there would have been enough audience goodwill from the last five films to be open to see this larger than life figure they’ve seen adventures or be shown vulnerable.

    I have never been convinced by the line of thought that no one would accept a film where Connery Bond marries. That’s not giving any credit to audiences.

    The problem if it would be different or not, I don't think the Producers would add some effort into the film, had Connery been in it, for sure it would differ a lot from the film that we've got, because of Lazenby, the Producers took some effort to carry its new lead, with Connery they would probably made the film depending on Connery's status as an established star.

    And especially that there's a tension between Connery and the Producers, I don't think that the Producers would've likely to put some effort, they would've likely to leave it on the staffs and crews.

    I've observed this in You Only Live Twice, with the Producers letting Connery carry the film, because at the time, especially that there's an ongoing feud between Connery and the Producers, that there's almost a demand from Connery that while on shooting, he doesn't want to see the Producers.

    Probably there's a possibility that Lewis Gilbert would be back to direct the film, there's even some early drafts where Bond would've saved Tracy with an Aston Martin turning Submarine (think of the wet nellie in TSWLM)

    And the supporting cast would be a lot different for sure, Bardot would've probably been Tracy instead of Diana Rigg, and I'm not sure if it would've worked, their romance in Shalako, as I felt they had no chemistry, so I don't know how it would've fare well here either.

    And I'm not sure if the marriage thing would've been filmed, it's Peter Hunt who had a say that he wanted it to be filmed close to book, but what if Lewis Gilbert?

    We would've gotten a different OHMSS for sure.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    edited June 2023 Posts: 8,023
    Peter Hunt was always going to be attached to OHMSS because that was part of the deal he made with Eon when he agreed to do second unit and supervising editing for YOLT. With Hunt’s persistence in making a faithful adaptation of OHMSS, and Connery wanting more character work, I see no reason why Cubby and Harry would have been against making a faithful adaptation just because Connery was there.

    Would there be differences? Sure, but nothing convinces me it would be detrimental.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited June 2023 Posts: 3,390
    Peter Hunt was always going to be attached to OHMSS because that was part of the deal he made with Eon when he agreed to do second unit and supervising editing for YOLT. With Hunt’s persistence in making a faithful adaptation of OHMSS, and Connery wanting more character work, I see no reason why Cubby and Harry would have been against making a faithful adaptation just because Connery was there.

    Would there be differences? Sure, but nothing convinces me it would be detrimental.

    I disagree, YOLT was still a success after all, so with Connery still staying, Lewis Gilbert would've likely to returned.

    It's possible, they've even brought him back for Moonraker, after the success of TSWLM.

    Peter Hunt was promoted as the director when Connery left.

    Or if not OHMSS, probably it's TMWTGG which the other film that the Producers had in mind at the time, and it's meant to follow the events of YOLT.

    It's not a bad thing, I'm now imagining a Lewis Gilbert directed OHMSS.

    And Bardot playing Tracy would be detrimental, acting wise, she's no Diana Rigg.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,023
    No, what I mean is that Hunt worked on YOLT with the stipulation that he would get to direct the 6th Bond production, which became OHMSS. Hunt was still going to direct whether with or without Connery.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited June 2023 Posts: 3,390
    No, what I mean is that Hunt worked on YOLT with the stipulation that he would get to direct the 6th Bond production, which became OHMSS. Hunt was still going to direct whether with or without Connery.

    It's after Sean Connery and Lewis Gilbert quitted, and before the Peter Hunt promotion, the Producers already had TMWTGG as the next Bond film starring Roger Moore set in Cambodia, since it didn't made the cut because Moore had contractual obligations with Lew Grade (The Saint) and also the Political issues in Cambodia (Uprising?), that's when they've decided to promote Peter Hunt to become a director, now when they've made Hunt the director, the Producers let him pick a Fleming Book whom he would liked to make, and he picked OHMSS because he thought it's a good book.

    I'm going to read some Behind The Scenes again, I've been doing some research on them since.

    And like what I've said, having Lewis Gilbert back was possible because YOLT was a success, maybe there's a Peter Hunt stipulation, but had Connery stayed (again, because YOLT succeed in the box office), there's a chance that the Producers would also call for Lewis Gilbert to direct another Bond film considering that they've did that when TSWLM was a success and got him back for Moonraker.

    But again, it's not a bad thing, Lewis Gilbert was a fine director, he could've make it great.

    All of Lewis Gilbert Bond films were all iconic, YOLT, TSWLM, and MR, he had made those three iconic moreso than what Hamilton did with Goldfinger, Hamilton started it with Goldfinger, but Gilbert elevated it with his three iconic Bond films.

    Maybe, he could've made OHMSS iconic as his other three, who knows?
  • George_KaplanGeorge_Kaplan Not a red herring
    Posts: 561
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    No, what I mean is that Hunt worked on YOLT with the stipulation that he would get to direct the 6th Bond production, which became OHMSS. Hunt was still going to direct whether with or without Connery.

    It's after Sean Connery and Lewis Gilbert quitted, reading some behind the scenes there, the Producers decided to promote Peter Hunt to become a director and choose a Fleming book that he would've likely to direct and he chose OHMSS because he thought the book was good.

    I'm going to read some Behind The Scenes again, I've been doing some research on them since.

    Like what I've said, having Lewis Gilbert back was possible because YOLT was a success, maybe there's a Peter Hunt stipulation, but had Connery stayed (again, because YOLT succeed in the box office), there's a chance that the Producers would also call for Lewis Gilbert to direct another Bond film considering that they've did that when TSWLM was a success and got him back for Moonraker.

    But again, it's not a bad thing, Lewis Gilbert was a fine director, he could've make it great.

    All of Lewis Gilbert Bond films were all iconic, YOLT, TSWLM, and MR, he had made those three iconic moreso than what Hamilton did with Goldfinger, Hamilton started it with Goldfinger, but Gilbert elevated it with his three iconic Bond films.

    Maybe, he could've made OHMSS iconic as his other three, who knows?

    Apparently Gilbert was offered OHMSS but declined.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited June 2023 Posts: 3,390
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    No, what I mean is that Hunt worked on YOLT with the stipulation that he would get to direct the 6th Bond production, which became OHMSS. Hunt was still going to direct whether with or without Connery.

    It's after Sean Connery and Lewis Gilbert quitted, reading some behind the scenes there, the Producers decided to promote Peter Hunt to become a director and choose a Fleming book that he would've likely to direct and he chose OHMSS because he thought the book was good.

    I'm going to read some Behind The Scenes again, I've been doing some research on them since.

    Like what I've said, having Lewis Gilbert back was possible because YOLT was a success, maybe there's a Peter Hunt stipulation, but had Connery stayed (again, because YOLT succeed in the box office), there's a chance that the Producers would also call for Lewis Gilbert to direct another Bond film considering that they've did that when TSWLM was a success and got him back for Moonraker.

    But again, it's not a bad thing, Lewis Gilbert was a fine director, he could've make it great.

    All of Lewis Gilbert Bond films were all iconic, YOLT, TSWLM, and MR, he had made those three iconic moreso than what Hamilton did with Goldfinger, Hamilton started it with Goldfinger, but Gilbert elevated it with his three iconic Bond films.

    Maybe, he could've made OHMSS iconic as his other three, who knows?

    Apparently Gilbert was offered OHMSS but declined.

    Yes, and it's interesting what would he made of it, I mean, he made YOLT, MR and TSWLM such an iconic films, maybe he could've done the same with OHMSS?

    It's a shame, I would've liked to see his take on it.

    No against Peter Hunt, but I'm wondering, because all of Lewis Gilbert's female characters were all strong agents, would he have done the same with Tracy? Plus Diana Rigg playing the role? Would have give me some Emma Peel vibes in there.

    A more iconic lair for Blofeld? He'd made that Atlantis, Volcano Lair, and the Space Shuttle, and those were iconic and impressive architectures, how would his Piz Gloria would've looked like?
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited June 2023 Posts: 14,936
    CrabKey wrote: »
    @ mtm: Not a fan of the term 'evolving' to describe Bond's character, as if he is evolving into something better (which you did not say.)

    Yes indeed, I’m not saying one is better than the other or there’s anything wrong with anyone for having a preference, just observing the difference.
    CrabKey wrote: »
    The character has changed over the years which I think has more to do with the actor playing the role than writing Bond as more human or more rounded. I actually don't see Moore's Bond as more human and more rounded because I've never been able to take his portrayal seriously.

    Okay, but do you not think there’s a more caring, warmer and romantic side to his version? Like how he is with Lisl, and then walking hand in hand with her on the beach? That’s something you’d never see Connery’s Bond do as he’s more about the wisecracks and the womanising. He’s superb at that and I love his films as much as the next guy, but there’s no depth there.
    CrabKey wrote: »
    He didn't project the intensity and believability that Connery brought to the role. For me, Bond became Roger Moore rather than the actor becoming Bond. But, he was a smashing success. And series probably survived because of him. I prefer the portrayals of Lazenby, Dalton, and Craig (more than anyone else), who were certainly closer to the original Bond than Moore or Brosnan. It's hard for me to imagine Connery playing Bond in any Moore film as written, but then imagining Moore in the first six Bond films is also impossible.

    I agree he wouldn’t have been as good in those films as all of them were tailored for the talents of the lead actor, as you say; but I don’t see Moore as having any trouble with anything in those films particularly. Often the criticism of TMWTGG is that it’s written more as Connery than Moore, but he manages it perfectly well.
    CrabKey wrote: »
    As much as I missed Connery when GL took over, I also can't see him playing Bond in that last scene they way GL did. Hard to imagine the tears, but I can imagine the devastation in his expression and eyes.

    Yeah, as you say, it’s hard to picture. Connery the actor would obviously have no trouble with that because he was a great actor, but his Bond portrayal never went anything near that. It would have been fascinating to see.
    It’s why I often say Moore would have been better suited to OHMSS: his warmer, more human version of Bond would have worked for that film, I think.
    Venutius wrote: »
    I can also see Lazenby playing Bond in lighter, funnier movies in the '70s. George has a great sense of humour and I've no doubt he could've put that across. Ok, true, the world at large maybe wouldn't have adopted him as a global treasure the way they did Sir Rog, but I do think that George could've made similar films and done them well. He'd've had to have stopped being his own worst enemy first, though, obvs...

    I was watching LALD the other day and it suddenly struck me just how great Moore is in that, straight out of the box. He steps off that plane in NYC and he’s just in control. I was thinking that during his first scene with Rosie, in the hotel room, Lazenby would have been a disaster. Moore is playing it so delicately, mocking her, flirting with her, actually losing part of the battle at one point, whilst tensing likeable and keeping the audience onside… I genuinely don’t think George had the skill for scenes like that, he’d have disappeared.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited June 2023 Posts: 3,390
    Moore's biggest enemies are his age and his lack of physicality, something where Lazenby might have an advantage.

    Had his Bond Girls maybe a bit more matured enough to counterpart his age, no problem, it's just it's comfortable watching him flirting with girls who were obviously younger than him.

    And had Roger Moore had a better fighting skills, no problem, of all the Bond actors, he's the least believable in the fighting scenes, even Brosnan handled his fight scenes better than Moore.

    Think of that night cable car scene in OHMSS, the bobsled fight with Blofeld, the beach fight, Moore would've been a disaster in those scenes.

    The train scene with Red Grant? Impossible to see him believably performing there.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited June 2023 Posts: 14,936
    Sure, but I guess I don’t see the fights as being the most important side of the character: I want him playing scenes well, reacting to stuff, being suave and cool, delivering the gags etc.
    The irony is that with The Saint, Persuaders etc. Roger Moore probably had more screen fights than the other Bonds added together, and yet still wasn’t that great at them! :)
  • edited June 2023 Posts: 2,880
    Not going to lie, I can't help but feel bad for Moore whenever people critique his physicality as Bond. I don't think he was naturally as athletic as the others anyway, and he certainly seemed to suffer from the most health problems of the bunch (particularly kidney stones).

    To be entirely fair to him, I'd say he had some good fight scenes and much of it is about how the fights were filmed. The strip club brawl in TMWTGG always stands out for me, and there's something about just how 'real' it feels at certain points. Same for when he beats up the Russian against outside the pyramids in TSWLM.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited June 2023 Posts: 3,390
    007HallY wrote: »
    Not going to lie, I can't help but feel bad for Moore whenever people critique his physicality as Bond. I don't think he was naturally as athletic as the others anyway, and he certainly seemed to suffer from the most health problems of the bunch (particularly kidney stones).

    To be entirely fair to him, I'd say he had some good fight scenes and much of it is about how the fights were filmed. The strip club brawl in TMWTGG always stands out for me, and there's something about just how 'real' it feels at certain points. Same for when he beats up the Russian against outside the pyramids in TSWLM.

    Yes, not just his physicality, but also (like what I've said), his age, but although it's seemed to be a bit unfair, they've always cast actresses who were too much young enough for him.

    His age was also the one that also reduced the believability of his physicality.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,936
    007HallY wrote: »
    Not going to lie, I can't help but feel bad for Moore whenever people critique his physicality as Bond. I don't think he was naturally as athletic as the others anyway, and he certainly seemed to suffer from the most health problems of the bunch (particularly kidney stones).

    To be entirely fair to him, I'd say he had some good fight scenes and much of it is about how the fights were filmed. The strip club brawl in TMWTGG always stands out for me, and there's something about just how 'real' it feels at certain points. Same for when he beats up the Russian against outside the pyramids in TSWLM.

    Yeah that's always stood out as one of his better ones to me too; there's a bit more going on there and it feels like more of the hits are connecting. There's always something satisfying about the combos. I think the brawl in Octopussy's bedroom is one of his better ones too.
    I do think that, despite the fight at the end of GE with Sean Bean being one of the better fights in the whole series, Brosnan wasn't terribly convincing as a tough guy either- I'm not sure I totally believed he was beating those guys up. Sean, George and Dan are the top tough guys for my money.
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 13,913
    Bond's physicality and how realistic his fighting style is, isn't that important to me either. The fight in Saida's room is a stand out for me as there was a certain flow in the choreography; using everything as a weapon; a slight sloppiness to it all; blood on Moore's lip. Connery's fights in the GF/TB PTSs for example, were entertaining because of this back-and-forth choreography and improvising with objects, not so much about how skilled they were at hand-to-hand combat.
  • edited June 2023 Posts: 2,880
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Not going to lie, I can't help but feel bad for Moore whenever people critique his physicality as Bond. I don't think he was naturally as athletic as the others anyway, and he certainly seemed to suffer from the most health problems of the bunch (particularly kidney stones).

    To be entirely fair to him, I'd say he had some good fight scenes and much of it is about how the fights were filmed. The strip club brawl in TMWTGG always stands out for me, and there's something about just how 'real' it feels at certain points. Same for when he beats up the Russian against outside the pyramids in TSWLM.

    Yes, not just his physicality, but also (like what I've said), his age, but although it's seemed to be a bit unfair, they've always cast actresses who were too much young enough for him.

    His age was also the one that also reduced the believability of his physicality.

    I suppose it's worth saying that when it comes to film you have to be willing to work with your lead actor's limitations. They obviously wanted Moore for his charisma, screen presence and star power, so one could make the argument a better job should have been done of working around his physical limitations. The obvious stunt men in his later films certainly don't help matters, but that's more an issue with the production (if I'm honest despite how technically accomplished the stunt work was during that period, it took them a while to learn how to blend this seamlessly with the films themselves, and this was even a problem during the Connery era too - ie. that clumsy insert shot being added to make the car turn the right way during the alleyway scene in DAF).

    It's the same for the Bond girls that were cast. If they were too young and this was a problem they should have done a better job of casting actresses who could play off their lead more appropriately for their films. To be even fairer to Moore I actually don't think this was as much a problem as some have pointed out. He played his scenes with Melina in FYEO very well, more warm/affectionate, which certainly helps make things comfortable to watch and shows good instincts as an actor (and keep in mind this is not a film I like). His scenes with Bibi... well, I don't think any Bond could come out of those looking good just given the bizarre concept. I think he played off of Adams very well in OP, and he even defaults to that same warmness with Tracy in AVTAK (although I feel this is where the age difference between him/the Bond girl comes into focus much more).
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Not going to lie, I can't help but feel bad for Moore whenever people critique his physicality as Bond. I don't think he was naturally as athletic as the others anyway, and he certainly seemed to suffer from the most health problems of the bunch (particularly kidney stones).

    To be entirely fair to him, I'd say he had some good fight scenes and much of it is about how the fights were filmed. The strip club brawl in TMWTGG always stands out for me, and there's something about just how 'real' it feels at certain points. Same for when he beats up the Russian against outside the pyramids in TSWLM.

    Yeah that's always stood out as one of his better ones to me too; there's a bit more going on there and it feels like more of the hits are connecting. There's always something satisfying about the combos. I think the brawl in Octopussy's bedroom is one of his better ones too.
    I do think that, despite the fight at the end of GE with Sean Bean being one of the better fights in the whole series, Brosnan wasn't terribly convincing as a tough guy either- I'm not sure I totally believed he was beating those guys up. Sean, George and Dan are the top tough guys for my money.

    That fight scene in GE is a good example of what I mean about the filmmaking doing much of the work. The choreography and cinematography make it feel more 'realistic' and this usually plays better with actors like Moore or Brosnan (ie. you can show them struggling and not have it make them look weak or the fight unbelievable). I certainly found it more convincing than any of his other fight scenes.

    For what it's worth too, much of how 'tough' these Bonds appear is due to the actor's screen presence rather than purely their physicality. Honestly, I never bought Lazenby's Bond as being particularly tough or cold just from his performance, but he was clearly very athletic and could throw a punch in real life. I highly doubt Daniel Craig would last in a bar room brawl, and it's doubtful whether Connery even could have faired quite as well as we'd think. And yet their Bonds are the most convincingly tough because of the actor's performances and how the filmmakers were able to use their physicality in the context of a film production.
  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    Posts: 721
    Though it can be jarring, I think it’s worth remembering that the actor playing Bond may be in his fifties, but Bond the character isn’t - he’s in his prime, unless it’s one of the few instances where the film makes it a plot-point that he isn’t.
  • BennyBenny In the shadowsAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,870
    According to IMDb trivia about Roger Moore :

    Although critics often accused him of not looking tough enough to play superspy James Bond, he once beat up legendary American hellraiser Lee Marvin while they were filming Shout at the Devil (1976). Marvin recalled, "The guy is built like granite. Nobody will ever underestimate him again.".

  • Posts: 2,880
    Benny wrote: »
    According to IMDb trivia about Roger Moore :

    Although critics often accused him of not looking tough enough to play superspy James Bond, he once beat up legendary American hellraiser Lee Marvin while they were filming Shout at the Devil (1976). Marvin recalled, "The guy is built like granite. Nobody will ever underestimate him again.".

    Never knew that. Interesting. I suppose Moore did have quite a big build in his prime which people don't take into account.

    Sometimes it's also a case where these 'Hellraiser' types aren't as tough as they appear.
  • edited June 2023 Posts: 3,279
    Univex wrote: »
    But Connery had this nonechalant attitude and swagger and humor that no one, and I mean no one could emulate. That scene in TB when he says: “I don’t know, could it be the front door bell?” is one of so many examples of this. Or “his wife must’ve lost her dog”, or the way he eats that grape or puts the flowers on top of a dead Jacques Bouvard. He is the man, always will be.

    And I’m a huge Dalton and Pierce fan. And I love Roger. But Connery is unsurpassable.

    The more I hear about Connery in real life, the more I realise the swagger and toughness he portrayed wasn't him acting. He embodied all of this in his everyday living. Other than Lazenby, none of the other actors can really claim this, regardless of how good their performance was as Bond.

    Connery beating up the Valdor Gang of thugs in Edinburgh - https://www.edinburghlive.co.uk/news/history/sean-connery-beat-up-six-25082352

    Connery punching a mobster in the face - https://www.denofgeek.com/movies/the-time-sean-connery-punched-a-real-mobster-in-the-face/

    Here is a funny tale about Connery. Watch it from 4.50.

  • edited June 2023 Posts: 3,279
    Univex wrote: »
    People knock Bond in M’s office during NTTD, but you have to consider that Bond is outspoken not only because he sees M having made a mistake but also because he’s been five years out of the service. All that restraint he used to put on himself as an agent was no longer there, and he was free to speak his mind.

    Still don’t buy it. You can take the man out of the service but you can’t take the service out of the man. Bond would never lash out at M like that. It’s completely out of character. So is the “die Blofeld die” situation in that circumstance. I understand that they wanted to use the phrase from the book, but it didn’t sit well in that setting. Bond, in NTTD is Bond up until he arrives in London. From then on, I don’t know who he is.

    Yes I agree with this. The M and Blofeld confrontations are probably the worst acting I have seen throughout the entire history of the franchise. Both those scenes took me right out of the movie. I felt like I was watching Craig playing Craig, not 007.

    I don't recall any other moment as low as this in terms of performance from any other actor. Lazenby's occasional wooden style, or Brozza's hammy `knew about my shoulder, where to hurt me' look positively Lawrence Olivier thespian, compared to those 2 scenes in NTTD.
    007HallY wrote: »
    Benny wrote: »
    According to IMDb trivia about Roger Moore :

    Although critics often accused him of not looking tough enough to play superspy James Bond, he once beat up legendary American hellraiser Lee Marvin while they were filming Shout at the Devil (1976). Marvin recalled, "The guy is built like granite. Nobody will ever underestimate him again.".

    Never knew that. Interesting. I suppose Moore did have quite a big build in his prime which people don't take into account.

    Sometimes it's also a case where these 'Hellraiser' types aren't as tough as they appear.

    The story was debunked by Moore - https://www.express.co.uk/entertainment/films/1682925/Roger-Moore-James-Bond-Shout-at-the-Devil-Lee-Marvin
  • Posts: 2,880

    Fair enough. Not that it matters anyway. Like I said, I doubt many of the Bond actors would have fared consistently well in real fights anyway, with the exception of Lazenby (again, whose real life physicality didn't always translate to a tough screen Bond).
  • Posts: 3,279
    007HallY wrote: »

    Fair enough. Not that it matters anyway. Like I said, I doubt many of the Bond actors would have fared consistently well in real fights anyway, with the exception of Lazenby (again, whose real life physicality didn't always translate to a tough screen Bond).

    Did you not read my 2 links I posted earlier? Connery was the toughest of them all, even Lazenby...

    Connery beating up the Valdor Gang of thugs in Edinburgh - https://www.edinburghlive.co.uk/news/history/sean-connery-beat-up-six-25082352

    Connery punching a mobster in the face - https://www.denofgeek.com/movies/the-time-sean-connery-punched-a-real-mobster-in-the-face/
  • Posts: 2,880
    007HallY wrote: »

    Fair enough. Not that it matters anyway. Like I said, I doubt many of the Bond actors would have fared consistently well in real fights anyway, with the exception of Lazenby (again, whose real life physicality didn't always translate to a tough screen Bond).

    Did you not read my 2 links I posted earlier? Connery was the toughest of them all, even Lazenby...

    Connery beating up the Valdor Gang of thugs in Edinburgh - https://www.edinburghlive.co.uk/news/history/sean-connery-beat-up-six-25082352

    Connery punching a mobster in the face - https://www.denofgeek.com/movies/the-time-sean-connery-punched-a-real-mobster-in-the-face/

    Oh fair enough. I didn't see them in your other post if I'm honest. Interesting stuff.

    But again, it really doesn't matter when it comes to playing Bond how tough the actor is offscreen.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,936
    007HallY wrote: »

    Fair enough. Not that it matters anyway. Like I said, I doubt many of the Bond actors would have fared consistently well in real fights anyway, with the exception of Lazenby (again, whose real life physicality didn't always translate to a tough screen Bond).

    Did you not read my 2 links I posted earlier? Connery was the toughest of them all, even Lazenby...

    Connery beating up the Valdor Gang of thugs in Edinburgh - https://www.edinburghlive.co.uk/news/history/sean-connery-beat-up-six-25082352

    Connery punching a mobster in the face - https://www.denofgeek.com/movies/the-time-sean-connery-punched-a-real-mobster-in-the-face/

    Plus his wives of course ;)
Sign In or Register to comment.