How long could connery have lasted as Bond?

Q and M

alot of people seem to forget that sean is 3years younger than roger, if he had not retired after daf, how many more bond films could he have done?

Andy007

No longer. At 41 he had aged a lot from his previous films. DAF was a one-off. The producers knew he wouldn't sign up for more, but they were desperate to get him in this film after the Lazenby situation.
Yes he did come back in NSNA but that was a rival film & Bond was meant to be semi-retired in that anyway. Connery was 52 then, but looked older.

mrbain007

He couldn't really have carried it off well after 1971 IMO. Yes he's 3 years younger than Moore (Moore was born in '27 whilst Connery was '30), but Moore aged a lot better than Connery and looked a lot more youthful (particularly in his first few films).

Q and M

true, he had looked a lot different in daf, and i suppose roger always did look younger then sean

Denzil2222

Poor Sean aged about 15-20 years in the 4 years between yolt and daf.

zaphod

I dont think it's just how the actor looks that determines this, but their enthusiam and energy for the role. By YOLT he was already fed up and more or less 'dialing it in' This finds itself reflected in the fact that he looked pudgy compared with past glories and very different from how he looked in TB. I'm pretty sure that had he of cared more he would have prepared better and got into proper shape. By DAF it's clear that he was beyond fed up and really really didn't care. Strangely he looked in better shape to me in NSNA as he had something to prove (didn't stop it being a truly terrible film though)

Blood_Stone

7 films at least had they done On Her Majesty's Secret Service after Thunderball instead of You Only Live Twice, which killed Connery's passion.

Jimmy Bond

Oddly enough, I agree. Connery aged less gracefully than Roger Moore, who was older than any Bond actor before or since when he was cast, even if at the same age in 1983, I'd argue he looked fitter and more worked out and all.

Ideally, he'd have stayed for Peter Hunt's OHMSS, and together they'd do a Bond-revenge story and that'd be the end of his run, in 1971.

Ideally.

superdaddy

But look how lean and fit he looked in 1977 at 47 in A Bridge To Far without the moustache he could have passed for 42-44 easily.

Jimmy Bond

Thats why I emphasized, ideally.

Napoleon Plural

Sure, and in the 1970s film The First Great Train Robbery he looks in good shape, just lose the beard. Shame that in Time Bandits he has the look of a man in his 40s and in good shape, but then by the time he got to NSNA only a few years later he could have been 70 really.

Gassy Man

Funny how people see things differently. Connery let his hair go gray and tried to get rid of the toupee and everyone somehow sees him as having aged so significantly more than Moore, but with the same amount of hairdye and make up attention to appearance, he would have been able to be Bond as long as Moore. He was certainly in better physical shape, and his rugged good looks give him more plausibility for the physical challenges Bond faced, liked jumping around the Eiffel Tower or fighting on top of the Golden Gate bridge.

thesecretagent

It's odd really that he looked younger and fitter in NSNA than he did ten years or so before in DAF. In DAF he looked fifty at least.

caseyjames

i think he stopped at the right time. He looked quite old in never say never again and i dont think another four years of production woud have gone well with him.

PPK 7.65mm

I think if circumstances were different and OHMSS was filmed before YOLT, or if Connery was better able to handle the constant media and fan attention he could gone on to make more, thought I would imagine he would still feel that six movies was enough.

Wint and Kidd far-out

From what I can remember of NSNA (it's been years since I've watched it) Sean was able to do a perfectly masterful job of reprising his Bond role.

And NSNA was made around the same time as Octopussy so I have no problems at all imagining him starring as James Bond all the way from Doctor No to Octopussy.

After that I'm not sure. He probably could have managed to make AVTAK, TLD and LTK but that would probably have been the conclusion of the series. After the six years before GE I expect he would really have been slowing down and looking too old to play the role any longer and in all honesty I bet he would have just wanted to retire.

chrisno1

Given he made NSNA in 1983, he could certainly have passed muster as 007 right through the 1969 - 1983 period. However, its worth bearing in mind that one of the reasons Bond movies have continued to be popular is that as audiences have changed so has the actor to play 007. The film goers who packed cinemas to see Sean in the 60s were in the main probably not in the cinemas to see Sir Rog in the '70s. i know my dad wasn't - too busy with his kids!
What made Sean great in the 60s would have dated him in the 70s.
Sir Rog on the other hand was a new debonair 007 for the rather glam early 70s, all those flares and cigars.
Had Sean carried the mantle, I think the films would be both dramaticaly very different and also, probably, less financially rewarding.