Exactly the same conversations that were being held in the 1960’s about Connery and replacements are being held today about Indiana Jones.
To date, we, the audience, have Not been so conditioned. In 2020, 40 years hence, the aforesaid conditioning has not permeated to all things Indiana. Yet.
To this end, it is less about world wide replacements and more about those who have yet ever to be replaced. The ‘Irreplaceable’ conversations stands to this day for those characters yet to be replaced.
[quote=“Vanya, post:60, topic:1560”]
Off the top of my head we’ve had 3 different Spider-Men, 2 Batmen (with a third on the way), 3 Jokers, and 2 Supermen (with a new actor actively being searched for). And Bond is really ground zero for that.[/quote]
Sure, but that also includes a high rate of turnover, with many actors appearing only in two to three films, along with several actors who were never really accepted in the roles (Leto’s Joker for example) or failed to win much support in them (losing Cavill probably would not harm Superman). The reboots are often made possible and frequent by the disposable nature of the actors. By contrast Craig has had the role since 2006 and enjoyed steady acclaim and audience loyalty. That stability has been very rare in modern genre films.
I certainly hope the next Bond will not be rejected by the public, but I am also relatively sure he will face a bit of uphill climb in following a very popular and long-tenured predecessor, the longest reigning “superhero” actor of our time. No matter how inevitable Craig’s replacement is, it doesn’t imply that his successor will be really welcomed in the role. And looking back at the past, Craig succeeded the popular Brosnan by actively subverting the tropes while Moore followed Connery by muting them. I suspect the film that introduces the new Bond will play partially against whatever type of Bond film NTTD turns out to be.
I think it was Lazenby that muted the Connery tropes; whether that was intentional, or because he was finding his feet as an actor is up for debate.
I think the production of DAF caricatured Connery’s Bond beyond that of YOLT; as opposed to Connery sending himself up, it was the movie that sent itself up, with Connery Bond reacting to this brave new camp world. The schism between the two makes for more dry wit, but less dramatic jeopardy. That tension between Bond and the world was set up here and continued until Dalton. Either bond would be the 1970s audience rational voice in the camp mayhem, or he’d be the one voicing a camp witticism at odds with the immediate real threat. Either way there was this tension: he became our detached tour guide through his surreal world, rather then Fleming’s dramatic character.
In this regard DAF is the first Moore bond movie. Then putting Moore into that kind of broader bond movie was the perfect fit.
One wonders if that was intentional - that they’d already agreed the casting with Moore while writing DAF, but then scored a one off deal with Connery which they couldn’t resist (i imagine they needed some guaranteed box office after OHMSS). So they put Moore on ice until LALD…
Very much doubt there’s any truth in my crack pot theory, but it’s another way of looking at how a new bond is intro’d: if they know it’s the current actor last bond, as they did with DAF and do with NTTD, do they start shaping the style to fit the next actor already? Could NTTD to some extent be styled to fit the kind of actor they want after Craig?
Unlikely, but never bet your savings against anything is show business.
Note: edited The italics to clarify my ramblings (probably made it worse!)
John Gavin had been signed to play the part of Bond, but David Picker, head of United Artists, said no–he wanted Sean Connery and Eon should do whatever it takes to get him back. What it took was more than one million pounds and a commitment by UA to make two films of Connery’s choice (THE OFFENSE was the first, but a planned “Macbeth” was dropped when Polanski started production on his own version). Gavin’s contract was paid in full, and Connery played Bond once more.
Picker was also responsible for Tom Mankiewicz being hired. He saw the musical “Georgy” (which ran for seven previews and four performances) for which Mankiewicz wrote the book. Since the majority of DAF is set in the United States, they wanted a writer who could do both American vernacular and British idiom, and Picker suggested Mankiewicz. Mankiewicz was engaged on spec; Hamilton and he hit it off; and Connery liked the first Mankiewicz script pages he read, which led to Mankiewicz being hired permanently.
Hamilton and Mankiewicz stayed on for LALD (though Hamilton at first did not want to do so. He had signed on to help with the new Bond of DAF, and stayed through the switch back to Connery. He was then prevailed upon to fulfill his promise to usher in the new Bond with LALD). Moore, now done with “The Persuaders,” was signed in the late summer of 1972.
Weren’t they trying for Connery to come back for LALD , and only when he said never again, they turned to what they felt was a safe pair of hands, Moore ?
Glad to see you are keeping ok in New York, I hope you and your husband are keeping safe.
I knew of Gavin and Connery’s deal (imo a great deal because it gave us The Offence), but not the rest. Fascinating stuff!
Wonder how Gavin might’ve turned out? The gruffness of Connery is nicely at odds it the high camp of DAF. On the other hand Moore’s comic timing and wink at the audience knowing screen presence make him the perfect host with the most to lead through the ‘James Bond gameshows’ of the 70s/80s. Gavin would’ve probably sat somewhere in the middle, as Brossa did.
No, Connery only came back for one, and that was clear from the start. He did not want to deal with the producers anyway, so they were not allowed to meet him on set. It was obvious they had to move on with someone else.
But at that point Bond films could have gone either way. Moore really revitalized the appeal for LALD, then TMWTGG seemed to indicate that people might have lost interest. It really needed TSWLM to put Bond back on the map.
I believe Dalton could have rebounded after LTK with a third film. But it would have taken a really broadly appealing spectacle, in a way it would have needed GE with Dalton agreeing to be a funnier and more charming Bond.
As for Craig - I get the feeling that he is now at the point of being Connery for the generation that grew up with him. But after NTTD people will be ready to move on with someone else, and the next guy will be embraced, I’m sure of it, if the film around him works.
I have often said: escapism and fun will be the antidote to the depression post-Corona. And the doom and gloom of the previous decades will not be on anybody’s wishlist anymore. So, another opening for a Moore-like persona is definitely in the cards.
Great film - with the outstanding presence of Ian Bannen, if I remember correctly. Without googling - many of the team from The Hill? (another outstanding SC performance).
It was a great on going collaboration between Connery and the wonderful director Sydney Lumet. Not all were top notch, but The Hill and The Offence are fantastic to this day.
In those 2 movies, as well as the subversive Anderson Tapes you can see how vital their relationship was in Connery’s eventual stellar success moving on from Bond. Lumet gave him the space and platform and most importantly the opportunities to develop his chops and become one of the best screen actors of all time.
Looking back at how easy Connery made playing Bond look, its having since become apparent what a tricky role Bond really is, it’s clear he was always one of the best screen actors around. But at the time Connery was just that James Bond actor - bankable for spy pics. Lumet saw past that and we’re all the richer for it.
Interestingly, Connery came almost directly into the role and achieved stardom through Bond, with the urge to branch out and do more challenging roles - while Craig came from challenging roles and then went into Bond.
What’s better for an actor? I guess Craig had it easier.
It’s relative. Producers seem keen on actors knowing their place - Connery should’ve stayed being Bond, Craig should’ve stayed being an indie critic darling
Yes, both ideas are stupid, but it does still happen.
Never thought I’d have seen this sentence. Connery into a brand new role vs Craig who had to put up with many successful actors before him, plus the vociferous internet crowd.
I know which person I’d have preferred to have been coming into Bond…
Easier to persuade the audience that he is a great Bond? Connery as the first one, of course.
But I was talking about the actor wishing to be considered as more than just Bond. And if you’re only known as Bond you cannot shake that perception off. Craig did not have this problem.
Indeed, in many roles Connery had to act against his Bond image, choosing repeatedly characters against the grain; it took him years until he could play with it in sprezzatura fashion, as he finally did in THE ROCK. By comparison, Craig is just accepted in whatever he plays, it appears.
Of course that’s also due to changing times, Bond is no longer the omnipresent craze it used to be in the 60s. Other actors have played the part; Moore even became his own icon during his time.
During his Goldeneye audio commentary (which I’m just wrapping up now), Brosnan said the obvious, that his portrayal was an amalgamation of Connery and Moore, and he didn’t fight any of those influences. I think a similar approach would be a good idea following Craig, with the new actor bringing their own flavour by default anyway.
I agree with Brosnan - we want something new but the ghosts of the past don’t have to be a hindrance. Rather they are an asset that allow the new man to comfortably occupy the role.
I think the Dynamite comics would be a good place to look, particularly Hammerhead and Kill Chain. There’s a lightness of touch but enough traces of darkness to satisfy the Fleming crowd.