›

The James Bond Debate Thread - 336 Craig looks positively younger in SP than he does in SF.

1…106107109111112…190

Comments

  • SaintMarkSaintMark
    Posts: 7,653
    thesis 166 - agree
  • Baltimore_007Baltimore_007
    Posts: 5,634
    Maybe I read the thesis wrongly but I thought straight away it would of been Connery in From Russia With Love?

    Therefore I will disagree with thesis #166
  • 00130013
    Posts: 1,817
    I think Connery in DR and FRWL is as closest to the novels as you can get. But Lazenby was very close, except for the "humorous" one-liners.
    So I disagree...
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,635
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 167</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>It was easier for Moore to replace Connery than it would have been for Connery to replace Moore in 1973.</b></font>
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Disagree. IT'S SEAN FREAKING CONNERY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE. THE BEST. THE END ALL, BE ALL. THE MASTER UNDER WHICH WE ARE ALL ABLE TO SURVIVE. THE LEADER OF A BROOTHERHOOD I AM PROUD TO BE A MEMBER OF. THE MAN WHO MADE DEATH WET HIMSELF. THE MAN THAT BROKE BANE'S BACK. THE MAN THAT MADE IT THROUGH BATMAN AND ROBIN 10 TIMES IN A ROW ON LOOP. THE MAN THAT FOUGHT 5 DRAGONS, THREE HYDRA, 8 LIONS, AND 3 RHINOS WITH ONLY TOENAIL CLIPPERS AND HIS BAGPIPES, THEN AFTERWARDS SAID: "WHAT? IS THAT IT?" AND THE MAN THAT IS WITH YOUR MOTHER RIGHT THIS MINUTE! And then you have Roger Moore...
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 12,837
    Agree. It's not the DN to YOLT Connery we'd be getting. We'd be getting DAF Connery.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    This is sort of a flawed thesis in a way. We know the outcome of one variable, but who knows if Moore's Bond films could have been ever worse in the 60s! X_X
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,635
    But we would be getting this Connery:

    zardoz05.jpg

    rather than this Moore.
    ;-)
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    edited September 2012 Posts: 12,837
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:
    This is sort of a flawed thesis in a way. We know the outcome of one variable, but who knows if Moore's Bond films could have been ever worse in the 60s! X_X

    Moore would've still had Terrance Young and everybody Connery had helping him.

    The films would've still had Moore's usual one liners and comedy, but I think it's unfair to put the quality of the 60s films all on Connery. He had lots of help and Moore would've gotten the same.

    I doubt there would have been any stupid sound and sight gags in the 60s films even if Moore was in them.
  • marymossmarymoss
    Posts: 176
    DarthDimi wrote:
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 167</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>It was easier for Moore to replace Connery than it would have been for Connery to replace Moore in 1973.</b></font>

    Disagree. People know love Craig because he's so differnt than Brosnan so I'm sure the same would have occured if Connery replaced Moore.

  • RogueAgentRogueAgent
    Posts: 12,506
    DarthDimi wrote:
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 167</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>It was easier for Moore to replace Connery than it would have been for Connery to replace Moore in 1973.</b></font>

    See how Connery aged? I agree with the thesis. I magine the toupee's connery would have had to wear! X_X ;))
  • Master_DaharkMaster_Dahark
    edited September 2012 Posts: 4,813
    Now these are the kind of debates I like!

    THESIS 167- This one is super tricky because realistically, if Roger played Bond first, then Sean would likely never have been Bond at all. Sean was an actor in the early 60's sure, but his getting noticed at the time he did was a twist of fate. If he hadn't gotten the role when he did, he likely would have become an actor very distant from Bond.

    However, lets assume for the debates sake that when Connery didn't get the role in 1962, he still kept trying (like Pierce Brosnan)

    *BTW- In this argument, are we pretending George Lazenby still played Bond in 1969, or does Roger play Bond consecutively from 1962-1971?
    When Roger leaves the role, Connery would surely have had the same excitement as he did in his earlier Bond films (awesome) and wouldn't have been the same chubby, bored man that he was in DAF. Would have been pretty cool indeed, but I still doubt he would have hung around till 1985 like Moore did (but you never know- he is younger)

    But as for the transition between the two actors, I will agree- it was easier for Moore to replace Connery, than the other way around. The way Connery aged is the key factor in my decision
  • KerimKerim Istanbul Not Constantinople
    Posts: 2,629
    I agree. Roger Moore wasn't fat and bald in 1973.
  • Baltimore_007Baltimore_007
    Posts: 5,634
    In the simplest terms, thesis is quite correct
  • SaintMarkSaintMark
    Posts: 7,653
    Indeed SC was lean and mean early on and changed into fat uncle Waldo. Roger Moore looked always as smart as he did.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,635
    I agree.

    Connery is an awesome man and by all means I love his Bond from DN to DAF and I must admit even his NSNA Bond.

    Connery even aged well IMO, but he aged 'away' from his Bond. The Sean Connery of The Rock, Indy³, even League OEG... looked fantastic, but he was no longer James Bond.

    Despite Moore being allegedly 'too' old for Bond, I think he still looked the part even in the later instalments (one might argue about AVTAK though). He may not have looked 'awesome' in the end, but neither did he look inappropriate. Had younger Moore been replaced by Connery after 1973, the transition would have been fierce and hard to get used to. Things worked out just fine with Moore because while his age could be attacked, his looks or his acting skills couldn't IMO.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 12,837
    I prefer Connery in NSNA to DAF.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,635
    thelivingroyale wrote:
    I prefer Connery in NSNA to DAF.

    Me too. It feels like he was trying harder in NSNA to make his much needed comeback move, whereas in DAF he knew they wanted / needed him badly so no-one was going to tell him then to do better. :)
  • Master_DaharkMaster_Dahark
    edited September 2012 Posts: 4,813
    thelivingroyale wrote:
    I prefer Connery in NSNA to DAF.
    True but DN-TB Connery is infinitely better than NSNA Connery, so it's still better that we got him first

    You know, just for this debate, I googled for any Connery images from 1973-1981 and I'll be damned if I could find one lousy shot of him without a beard or at least a mustache. But he still looked better than he did in DAF-- thinner I mean.

    For example- here he is in 1977 (imagine him in The Spy Who Loved Me)

    connery_career9.jpg

    He looks like one tough hombre- but as @DarthDimi pointed out, he just doesn't look like Bond anymore

  • SJK91SJK91
    edited September 2012 Posts: 1,310
    thelivingroyale wrote:
    I prefer Connery in NSNA to DAF.
    Agreed, and I even think that Connery looked better in NSNA when compared to DAF. Not younger, but perhaps healthier. Connery just looked terrible in DAF.

    Never Say Never Again

    Diamonds Are Forever
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,635
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 168</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>Hamilton's Bonds feel the most formulaic.</b></font>
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,350
    With Goldfinger, he was adding his own, annoying, twist but apart from that, on the whole, it was very formulaic and tired by his final film.
  • ThepastykidThepastykid
    Posts: 553
    Agreed - to a point, all Terence Young films feel different. John Glen has variety amongst his, and Martin Campbell produced two quite different films. Lewis Gilbert's films were all larger than life and had strong plot similarities though.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Agreed. The whole "you have beaten the main villain, but a last surprise attack from their henchme/an is made to kill you" gets old.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 12,837
    Agree, but he invented the formula (with GF) so I'll let him off :)
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:
    The whole "you have beaten the main villain, but a last surprise attack from their henchme/an is made to kill you" gets old.

    I always liked that. I think it could be cool to bring it back for SF, they haven't done it for a very long time.
  • royale65royale65 Caustic misanthrope reporting for duty.
    Posts: 4,422
    Agree
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    thelivingroyale wrote:
    Agree, but he invented the formula (with GF) so I'll let him off :)
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:
    The whole "you have beaten the main villain, but a last surprise attack from their henchme/an is made to kill you" gets old.

    I always liked that. I think it could be cool to bring it back for SF, they haven't done it for a very long time.
    Skyfall will be brilliant enough to make its own trend, not copy a tired one from the past.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    edited September 2012 Posts: 12,837
    Is it really tired if they haven't used it for almost 40 years? I think it would be a nice little tribute, and they keep saying they want SF to feel like a 60s film.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    thelivingroyale wrote:
    Is it really tired if they haven't used it for almost 40 years? I think it would be a nice little tribute, and they keep saying they want SF to feel like a 60s film.

    GF is the only film he directed in the 60s, so it doesn't make a difference really. But we have the DB5 back, so there's something.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    edited September 2012 Posts: 12,837
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:
    thelivingroyale wrote:
    Is it really tired if they haven't used it for almost 40 years? I think it would be a nice little tribute, and they keep saying they want SF to feel like a 60s film.

    GF is the only film he directed in the 60s, so it doesn't make a difference really. But we have the DB5 back, so there's something.

    I'm against the DB5 being bought back again. I think it was Connery's car and there's no need to keep bringing it back. People say it's "Bonds car", but he's always switching cars and it wasn't featured from TB right up until GE, why keep bringing it back now?

    They should give Bond a cool new car.
Sign In or Register to comment.