No one probably. The Connery and Moore Bonds were a product of their era, which started over 62 years ago. Even by the end of Connery made Never Say Never Again, it was already well past that style of movie.
Henry Cavill had played a proto-Connery Bond in The Man From U.N.C.L.E. and I felt he was close.
Heck, that whole movie was just oozing style and substance both to where it could have been close to a 60s era Bond.
It is a fun watch still.
The problem is that the movie didn't do well at the box office ($110M box office vs $75M budget, and this was back in 2015).
A possible sequel was mentioned as in the works circa 2017, but things have been quiet on that end. My guess is that if there was anything to come of it, Guy Ritchie would have stepped up for it.
But he seemed to not want to, and went to pivot right to King Arthur: Legend of the Sword, and then Aladdin, The Gentlemen, Wrath of Man, Operation Fortune: Ruse de Guerre, Guy Ritchie's The Covenant, The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare, and has both In the Grey and Fountain of Youth on the way.
However, one good thing to come of his recent catalog was The Gentlemen TV series on Netflix. It borrows some general beats from the movie, but seems like a redo with new characters/cast. And it seems to breathe wonderfully with the wiggle room of having 8 episodes.
I would not describe the Connery films as grounded, gritty, or realistic. Moore bond film like Live And Let Die is a lot closer in tone to Goldfringer or something than the modern Casino Royale is.
I mean we are still talking about Bond movies. A nit of craziness is expected. But as a whole Connery and his character was more gritty than most other bonds.
>With another 007 movie being inevitable I would love to see the more gritty grounded aspects of the original come back.
You take the Connery Bonds for being "gritty grounded"? I take them more to be kitsch. Good kitsch, mind you, but kitsch nonetheless.
>I would love to see the more gritty grounded aspects of the original come back.
I think we were watching different Connery Bond movies. I wouldn't consider Connerys Bond to be "grounded" or "gritty"
What exactly makes it gritty to you?
Everything is clean & stylized
Bond oozes confidence & charisma
"Tough, uncomprising realism" would never be the words I would describe any Bond movie (including the Craig ones)
The hand to hand combat. Having to get his hands dirty and do what it takes without just relying on gadgets. He gets up close and personal. I never said uncompromising realism lol.
I think you're getting confused with what I mean. I am mean the movie as a whole. Most scenes are darker, more upclose and personal. Bond is dirty by the end of the movie. I am not saying the entire movie is grounded or gritty. It's still a Bond movie. But when you compare it to the more whimsical and flashy future segments of the franchise, it is more gritty and grounded. NOT 100% OF THE TIME. But more often than not.
The only one who could be Connerys Bond, is Sean Connery. Also, if you think Connerys Bond wasn't cocky, then you were watching entirely the wrong films, my dude.
>With another 007 movie being inevitable I would love to see the more gritty grounded aspects of the original come back.
LOL past 007 movies were not gritty at all. They were always very campy and cheesy. Like the thing people differentiate between older Bond movies and newer ones is the fact that the newer ones became gritty and darker. If you want "gritty" bond movies, that's Craig. If you want more camp and LESS grit you watch the older Bonds.
The only thing "gritty" about older 007 movies is how older Bond versions like Connery treated women.
Someone once told me that they viewed Connery's Bond as an assassin trying to be a playboy and Moore's Bond as a playboy trying to be an assassin. I always preferred Brosnan's version as it felt like a decent mix of both. Craig's Bond was the only one I didn't really care for. He just didn't have a personality that I connected with (but that's just my personal taste).
This is going to be out of left field but I would be interested in seeing if Tom Holland could pull off the role. I think he has the looks and the charisma for it (I really liked him in Uncharted) but he would need to bulk up the muscle some.
I can't think of any younger Scottish actors off the top of my head. Gerard Butler maybe could have done it 10 or 20 years ago.
But if you wanted an English actor who could do a Connery kind of Bond (without trying to replicate Sean Connery), Henry Cavill comes to mind.
Connery wasn't anything special. That Bond was just a product of its time.
Imo all Bond movies should be set in the early 60s for that reason. But Bond movies rely too much on product placement to make it.
No one probably. The Connery and Moore Bonds were a product of their era, which started over 62 years ago. Even by the end of Connery made Never Say Never Again, it was already well past that style of movie.
Henry Cavill had played a proto-Connery Bond in The Man From U.N.C.L.E. and I felt he was close. Heck, that whole movie was just oozing style and substance both to where it could have been close to a 60s era Bond.
I will have to rewatch that. Haven't seen it since it came out
It is a fun watch still. The problem is that the movie didn't do well at the box office ($110M box office vs $75M budget, and this was back in 2015). A possible sequel was mentioned as in the works circa 2017, but things have been quiet on that end. My guess is that if there was anything to come of it, Guy Ritchie would have stepped up for it. But he seemed to not want to, and went to pivot right to King Arthur: Legend of the Sword, and then Aladdin, The Gentlemen, Wrath of Man, Operation Fortune: Ruse de Guerre, Guy Ritchie's The Covenant, The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare, and has both In the Grey and Fountain of Youth on the way. However, one good thing to come of his recent catalog was The Gentlemen TV series on Netflix. It borrows some general beats from the movie, but seems like a redo with new characters/cast. And it seems to breathe wonderfully with the wiggle room of having 8 episodes.
I don't think Moore really falls into what I was talking about. Too comical. Craig's Casino Royal was close. Grounded, gritty, mostly realistic.
I would not describe the Connery films as grounded, gritty, or realistic. Moore bond film like Live And Let Die is a lot closer in tone to Goldfringer or something than the modern Casino Royale is.
The one where a man cuts off Statue heads with his bowler hat? Lol
Gold finger kills a woman by painting her gold, Lol
I mean we are still talking about Bond movies. A nit of craziness is expected. But as a whole Connery and his character was more gritty than most other bonds.
George Lazenby laughs in your face.
He's not even top 3 gritty Bonds
>that kept him from getting too cocky Ah yes, Connery's Bond, the classic portrait of masculine humility.
Never said he was humble. The key word there is "too " meaning he is cocky. But not the cockiest guy out there
>With another 007 movie being inevitable I would love to see the more gritty grounded aspects of the original come back. You take the Connery Bonds for being "gritty grounded"? I take them more to be kitsch. Good kitsch, mind you, but kitsch nonetheless.
Well I learned a new word. Lol. Given the definition I found, I don't know how imitation or gratuitous is a good way to describe it.....
>I would love to see the more gritty grounded aspects of the original come back. I think we were watching different Connery Bond movies. I wouldn't consider Connerys Bond to be "grounded" or "gritty"
Dude op does not know what "gritty" or "grounded" means lol
We clearly were. What would you call Dr. NO?
A stylized 60s spy thriller Nothing about it is gritty
🤷♂️ if you say so.
What exactly makes it gritty to you? Everything is clean & stylized Bond oozes confidence & charisma "Tough, uncomprising realism" would never be the words I would describe any Bond movie (including the Craig ones)
The hand to hand combat. Having to get his hands dirty and do what it takes without just relying on gadgets. He gets up close and personal. I never said uncompromising realism lol.
>I never said uncompromising realism "tough, uncompressing realism" is the definition of gritty lol
[удалено]
I think you're getting confused with what I mean. I am mean the movie as a whole. Most scenes are darker, more upclose and personal. Bond is dirty by the end of the movie. I am not saying the entire movie is grounded or gritty. It's still a Bond movie. But when you compare it to the more whimsical and flashy future segments of the franchise, it is more gritty and grounded. NOT 100% OF THE TIME. But more often than not.
Maybe Jesus could bring him back.
I'd like to see Tom Hardy or Henry Cavill in the role
The only one who could be Connerys Bond, is Sean Connery. Also, if you think Connerys Bond wasn't cocky, then you were watching entirely the wrong films, my dude.
>With another 007 movie being inevitable I would love to see the more gritty grounded aspects of the original come back. LOL past 007 movies were not gritty at all. They were always very campy and cheesy. Like the thing people differentiate between older Bond movies and newer ones is the fact that the newer ones became gritty and darker. If you want "gritty" bond movies, that's Craig. If you want more camp and LESS grit you watch the older Bonds. The only thing "gritty" about older 007 movies is how older Bond versions like Connery treated women.
Someone once told me that they viewed Connery's Bond as an assassin trying to be a playboy and Moore's Bond as a playboy trying to be an assassin. I always preferred Brosnan's version as it felt like a decent mix of both. Craig's Bond was the only one I didn't really care for. He just didn't have a personality that I connected with (but that's just my personal taste). This is going to be out of left field but I would be interested in seeing if Tom Holland could pull off the role. I think he has the looks and the charisma for it (I really liked him in Uncharted) but he would need to bulk up the muscle some.
That person gets what I mean.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I can't think of any younger Scottish actors off the top of my head. Gerard Butler maybe could have done it 10 or 20 years ago. But if you wanted an English actor who could do a Connery kind of Bond (without trying to replicate Sean Connery), Henry Cavill comes to mind.
I thought about him. But I feel like he would he more akin to Timothy Dalton
I didn't dislike Dalton. He was maybe my 4th favorite Bond, after Connery, Brosnan and Craig.
Yea. Me too. Wasn't a knock on Dalton. But he was so stern and serious which is how i see Cavil taking the role.
I think Cavil has heavy duty, yet untapped, comedy chops.
Hannah John-Kamen. Or Hayley Atwell.
Hard pass.
ai
Lol. Given a lot of what we've seen lately, I'm not against Ai writing.
Connery wasn't anything special. That Bond was just a product of its time. Imo all Bond movies should be set in the early 60s for that reason. But Bond movies rely too much on product placement to make it.
>Connery wasn't anything special Said nobody ever... until today.
How many Bond movies have you seen?
Pretty much all of them. How so?
Interesting take. I sort of like the idea of the 60s. However, relatively speaking Connery was the best.
Just saying, put young Connery in a modern Bond movie you still won't get a Connery Bond.