The next Sean Connery???

Halcon

Watched FRWL again the other night...

I must say, Mr Connery was f**&#*@ awsome...

If he'd show up in a movie today at that age (34,35?) he'd make many an actor (jude law, george clooney, cough*d.craig*, etc) irrelevant.


just what would it take for an actor today to begin to be compared to old Sean? does anyone even come close?

thesecretagent

Nobody's got it. The first four Bonds are perfect, as is Connery. I'm not a huge fan of his other work, or his other Bond films but he owns the role hands down.

Napoleon Plural

Surely The Hill is right up your street, tsa? Or A Bridge Too Far?

Anyway, how are you ya fat nacker!

Napoleon Plural

Back on topic, however, Connery seemed to have a touch of the young Sinatra about him in his first two films and had work done to correct an overbite or something, he does seem different in GF.

Would Connery typify today's stars? They all seem in the Tom Cruise mould, short and youthful.

Blackleiter

No such thing as the next Sean Connery, and I feel sorry for the actor put in that spot. Sir Sean is one of a kind, and if I was an actor I think it would be better to try to create my own distinct identity than to be compared to him. If not, you're just asking to be disappointed.

Halcon

Blackleiter wrote:

No such thing as the next Sean Connery, and I feel sorry for the actor put in that spot. Sir Sean is one of a kind, and if I was an actor I think it would be better to try to create my own distinct identity than to be compared to him. If not, you're just asking to be disappointed.

was it the attitude?
he wasnt afraid to be a man, and he obviously felt at ease with his being a man, no apologies. there was very little sentimentality in him other than an abvious delight for the 'good things' (brandy, dom perignon, beautiful women, gambling, smoking, kicking a##).

its like he tried or cared, but only just enough.
actors like clooney, law and brosnan seem to care too much, while mel and d.craig , although both very cool, dont care enough.

then you've got your silly actors like depp and cruise who seem to be terrified of aging and thus seem even less interesting.

Blackleiter

I think you've hit on something. The attitude had a lot to do with it, as well as the unforced charm and the ever-present hint of menance and cruelty. And just the right touch of playfulness without seeming ridiculous. Combining all of those elements just seems to be incredibly difficult, and yet Connery made it look effortless. Lightning just doesn't strike like that very often.

Halcon wrote:

Blackleiter wrote:

No such thing as the next Sean Connery, and I feel sorry for the actor put in that spot. Sir Sean is one of a kind, and if I was an actor I think it would be better to try to create my own distinct identity than to be compared to him. If not, you're just asking to be disappointed.

was it the attitude?
he wasnt afraid to be a man, and he obviously felt at ease with his being a man, no apologies. there was very little sentimentality in him other than an abvious delight for the 'good things' (brandy, dom perignon, beautiful women, gambling, smoking, kicking a##).

its like he tried or cared, but only just enough.
actors like clooney, law and brosnan seem to care too much, while mel and d.craig , although both very cool, dont care enough.

then you've got your silly actors like depp and cruise who seem to be terrified of aging and thus seem even less interesting.

Sir Miles

Halcon wrote:

was it the attitude?
he wasnt afraid to be a man, and he obviously felt at ease with his being a man, no apologies. there was very little sentimentality in him other than an abvious delight for the 'good things' (brandy, dom perignon, beautiful women, gambling, smoking, kicking a##).

its like he tried or cared, but only just enough.
actors like clooney, law and brosnan seem to care too much, while mel and d.craig , although both very cool, dont care enough.

then you've got your silly actors like depp and cruise who seem to be terrified of aging and thus seem even less interesting.

Don't forget you are going back 50 years...different times and different values...plus the scripts were great too...

Halcon

Sir Miles wrote:

Halcon wrote:

was it the attitude?
he wasnt afraid to be a man, and he obviously felt at ease with his being a man, no apologies. there was very little sentimentality in him other than an abvious delight for the 'good things' (brandy, dom perignon, beautiful women, gambling, smoking, kicking a##).

its like he tried or cared, but only just enough.
actors like clooney, law and brosnan seem to care too much, while mel and d.craig , although both very cool, dont care enough.

then you've got your silly actors like depp and cruise who seem to be terrified of aging and thus seem even less interesting.

Don't forget you are going back 50 years...different times and different values...plus the scripts were great too...

all responses much appreciated,

Sir Miles, this is a good point, however Mr Sean Connery managed to have the same effect on screen throughout his entire career in my opinion. in fact his aura seemed to have become more evident as he aged. (recall his cameo in Prince of Thieves)

i loved how in his films he made other actors around him seem somewhat inferior, Harrison Ford , Alec Baldwin, Sam Neil, Kevin Costner (no pushovers ) all were just in awe of him as we were.
In The Rock Connery eliminated any pretentions that Nicolas Cage could pass as an action hero, this I thought was very funny (that Cage could be an action hero..)

thesecretagent

Napoleon Plural wrote:

Surely The Hill is right up your street, tsa? Or A Bridge Too Far?

Anyway, how are you ya fat nacker!

Just woke up morning and forgot to diet...

Sir Miles

Halcon wrote:

Sir Miles wrote:

Halcon wrote:

was it the attitude?
he wasnt afraid to be a man, and he obviously felt at ease with his being a man, no apologies. there was very little sentimentality in him other than an abvious delight for the 'good things' (brandy, dom perignon, beautiful women, gambling, smoking, kicking a##).

its like he tried or cared, but only just enough.
actors like clooney, law and brosnan seem to care too much, while mel and d.craig , although both very cool, dont care enough.

then you've got your silly actors like depp and cruise who seem to be terrified of aging and thus seem even less interesting.

Don't forget you are going back 50 years...different times and different values...plus the scripts were great too...

all responses much appreciated,

Sir Miles, this is a good point, however Mr Sean Connery managed to have the same effect on screen throughout his entire career in my opinion. in fact his aura seemed to have become more evident as he aged. (recall his cameo in Prince of Thieves)

i loved how in his films he made other actors around him seem somewhat inferior, Harrison Ford , Alec Baldwin, Sam Neil, Kevin Costner (no pushovers ) all were just in awe of him as we were.
In The Rock Connery eliminated any pretentions that Nicolas Cage could pass as an action hero, this I thought was very funny (that Cage could be an action hero..)

It's easier to carry a certain persona when you are only on screen for a limited time....he was also bloody awful in some films too....and he can't carry an accent at all...well, apart from a Scottish one... !!

Mr Beech

I think he is fantastic, but as Sir Miles mentioned, it was a different time. I don't think we have the ability to give fair comparison because Connery is from what we perceive as a Golden Age of sorts. It will take time before we can consider the comparison and look back on modern actors.

Connery is unique and amazing. In time, maybe another actor will seem just as great in their own way.

Thunderpussy

Connery as Bond was just one of those moments in cinema history, when all the planets moved into the right place and history was made. Harrison Ford as Indy is another. They may be replaced and others may come close but Connery set the bench mark. It will take mabey a couple of generations for it to happen again and then mabey for another company as perfect casting rarely happens.

Sir Miles

Thunderpussy wrote:

Connery as Bond was just one of those moments in cinema history, when all the planets moved into the right place and history was made. Harrison Ford as Indy is another. They may be replaced and others may come close but Connery set the bench mark. It will take mabey a couple of generations for it to happen again and then mabey for another company as perfect casting rarely happens.

Whilst I tend to agree with you...you will find millions of people out there who wouldn't....many prefer Roger's version of Bond...and Brosnan has a healthy loyal following too...I've enjoyed EVERY actors take on Bond to some degree, obviously some more than others...
It would be interesting to see what would have happened IF Roger had taken the role first...or if Cary Grant had...or Patrick McGoohan...

All in all...I'm happy with what we've had so far -{

Napoleon Plural

Among fans, there are many who prefer Moore, or Brosnan.

But it's true, Connery as Bond as a phenomanan. Or however you spell it.

zaphod

Sir Miles wrote:

Thunderpussy wrote:

Connery as Bond was just one of those moments in cinema history, when all the planets moved into the right place and history was made. Harrison Ford as Indy is another. They may be replaced and others may come close but Connery set the bench mark. It will take mabey a couple of generations for it to happen again and then mabey for another company as perfect casting rarely happens.

Whilst I tend to agree with you...you will find millions of people out there who wouldn't....many prefer Roger's version of Bond...and Brosnan has a healthy loyal following too...I've enjoyed EVERY actors take on Bond to some degree, obviously some more than others...
It would be interesting to see what would have happened IF Roger had taken the role first...or if Cary Grant had...or Patrick McGoohan...

All in all...I'm happy with what we've had so far -{

I believe that if Roger had taken the role first it's unlikely that it would have lasted more than two or three films. His supporters claim that 'he was the right Bond for the 70's ' i.e. Lighter/more frivolous. The success of the series in large part depends upon the momentum that Connery brought, that mixture of sophistication and menace propelled the first four films, and created a global phenomenon the like of which had not been seen before with the possible exception of Valentino. Bond/Connery were perfect fusion and generated something that was more than the sum of it's parts. For me he was/is not perfect as Bond ( a touch too brash) but as the first cinematic incarnation ( T.V. Notwithstanding ) he was the perfect choice to kick off the series. Niven would have been a disaster, and even though Carey Grant would have been interesting he would only commit to one film.

Sir Miles

zaphod wrote:

I believe that if Roger had taken the role first it's unlikely that it would have lasted more than two or three films. His supporters claim that 'he was the right Bond for the 70's ' i.e. Lighter/more frivolous. The success of the series in large part depends upon the momentum that Connery brought, that mixture of sophistication and menace propelled the first four films, and created a global phenomenon the like of which had not been seen before with the possible exception of Valentino. Bond/Connery were perfect fusion and generated something that was more than the sum of it's parts. For me he was/is not perfect as Bond ( a touch too brash) but as the first cinematic incarnation ( T.V. Notwithstanding ) he was the perfect choice to kick off the series. Niven would have been a disaster, and even though Carey Grant would have been interesting he would only commit to one film.

Whilst I tend to think you could be right about Roger....I did read that Terence Young fled the first screening of Dr No because people were laughing and he didn't think they should have been ! It was later explain to him that they were laughing because they enjoyed it and not because they thought it silly....so...it all could have ended after one Connery/Bond film !

Blackleiter

I co-sign on that view, Sir Miles!

zaphod wrote:

Sir Miles wrote:

Thunderpussy wrote:

Connery as Bond was just one of those moments in cinema history, when all the planets moved into the right place and history was made. Harrison Ford as Indy is another. They may be replaced and others may come close but Connery set the bench mark. It will take mabey a couple of generations for it to happen again and then mabey for another company as perfect casting rarely happens.

Whilst I tend to agree with you...you will find millions of people out there who wouldn't....many prefer Roger's version of Bond...and Brosnan has a healthy loyal following too...I've enjoyed EVERY actors take on Bond to some degree, obviously some more than others...
It would be interesting to see what would have happened IF Roger had taken the role first...or if Cary Grant had...or Patrick McGoohan...

All in all...I'm happy with what we've had so far -{

I believe that if Roger had taken the role first it's unlikely that it would have lasted more than two or three films. His supporters claim that 'he was the right Bond for the 70's ' i.e. Lighter/more frivolous. The success of the series in large part depends upon the momentum that Connery brought, that mixture of sophistication and menace propelled the first four films, and created a global phenomenon the like of which had not been seen before with the possible exception of Valentino. Bond/Connery were perfect fusion and generated something that was more than the sum of it's parts. For me he was/is not perfect as Bond ( a touch too brash) but as the first cinematic incarnation ( T.V. Notwithstanding ) he was the perfect choice to kick off the series. Niven would have been a disaster, and even though Carey Grant would have been interesting he would only commit to one film.

Halcon

I dont believe that Connery would have taken the role after Mr. Roger Moore.
And Cary Grant would have been terrible as Bond in my opinion, (and im a fan of Grant) too silly and zero threatening. (plus too old at that time).

As Zaphod wrote, the Bond universe would have turned out very different had the planets not aligned with Connery.

Thunderpussy

I thought I'd drop this one Here. :v as It's Connery related. Just found this Fan made trailer for DAF, which makes it seem
a lot less camp etc. I always find it amazing how with the right editing and Music how you can change the whole feel of a Trailer.
After watching this I wanted to watch DAF all over again. )

http://youtu.be/0KZN2GcpQMQ

Number24

I seem to remember an interview with Sylvester Stallone about the casting of his last Rambo movie. He wanted "the new Steve McQueen". He simply could not find a young actor who had the natural masculinity of "the cooler king". Is this a general trend? If so, why is this? Very few actors today have served in the military. Few actors today have done years of manual labour in their youth. On the other hand, dressing in a suit allmost daily is no longer common in this cassual day and age. Am I onto something?

zaphod

Thunderpussy wrote:

I thought I'd drop this one Here. :v as It's Connery related. Just found this Fan made trailer for DAF, which makes it seem
a lot less camp etc. I always find it amazing how with the right editing and Music how you can change the whole feel of a Trailer.
After watching this I wanted to watch DAF all over again. )

http://youtu.be/0KZN2GcpQMQ

DAF is at best a real 'guilty pleasure' and for me the first Roger Moore Bond movie.

Number24

Number24 wrote:

I seem to remember an interview with Sylvester Stallone about the casting of his last Rambo movie. He wanted "the new Steve McQueen". He simply could not find a young actor who had the natural masculinity of "the cooler king". Is this a general trend? If so, why is this? Very few actors today have served in the military. Few actors today have done years of manual labour in their youth. On the other hand, dressing in a suit allmost daily is no longer common in this cassual day and age. Am I onto something?

Come to think about it: what leading men under 40 do you know who has served in the military? The only one I can think of right now is Alexander Sarsgard. He was an NCO in a coastal ranger unit (Kustjegerna). I guess strictly speaking he isn`t even a leading man yet. Do you know of any?

Thunderpussy

I'm not saying he's the british Steve Mcqueen, But I like Jason Statham as he was a Barrow Boy before getting in to acting and could Image him as 007.

Bond enters M's office he's on the Phone to the PM.
"Leave it out you Slag! I'll talk to you later me old China!" Looking up "Don't even think about putting your arse on a chair, Bond" Here have a Butchers at this.
He slides a photo across his desk past a bowl of jelled eels. adding "what do you know about Hugo Drax"
"Ah, he's a proper gent, he is sir. Building a great rocket down on the south coast "
M leans back in his chair.
" Your having a laugh, He's a scum bag, Fu**ing cheats at cards, the tosser"
"well I never" Bond looks stunned as M comtinues.
"get your arse down there pronto, hav a sly butchers round. If he's trying one on. Give him a little slap."
Bond turns to leave " no probs Guv" as M adds.
"Before you go make sure to verbaley and sexually harrase That Piece of skirt Moneypenny, too stuk up for her own good that one "
"Right ho, sir. "
and with that the finnest servert in her Majesties secret service was gone.

Number24

A propper gent, yeah

Thunderpussy

I thought I'd throw in a Bit of Dick van Dyke, :v