Wishful Thinking: Thomas Doherty as Bond in Retro Films Set Before Connery
So, I thought of this back when I saw a pic of Thomas Doherty, who looks more like a young Connery than even Connery's biological son does. With make up and lighting, he could be made to look more so, and at 30, he's two years younger than Connery was when he debuted.
I think it would be interesting to see some Bond films set in the 1950s to, say, 1961, before Dr. No, of course, ramping up to the Connery era. Doherty would play the younger version of our hero. If he stayed in the role long enough, they could even try for some adventures set between or immediately after the Connery films.
I don't expect this to happen, of course. Period films cost money, and arguably Doherty would have to tailor his performance to Connery, and he might not want that. Product placement would be near impossible. But it would be a direction to take they never have before. They wouldn't have to start over, per se, now that the Craig era is done, and yet it might give some life to the series. It would also dovetail nicely into the classic Bonds, in some ways, making them relevant again.
I'm not exactly thinking prequels, though the time setting would technically qualify as such. I'm thinking more like "lost" films of the era, done in as much the same style. For old timers like me, it would be something we've been waiting for for decades, and for younger audiences, it might even seem fresh.
Comments
I see your point, Gassy. To which I can only add
Hey, Barbel! I'm pretty sure the Bond series will stay contemporary, but how great would it be to see some Bond movies with the same fun, gloss, and color of those classic Connery ones?
Which of my body parts do I have to donate?
I think they’d pay You to keep them 🤭
A very interesting idea though, Gassy Man 🤔
If thos ever happens I believe it will be a mini-series.
Connery was a brilliant, charismatic actor: someone doesn’t automatically have that just because they look a bit like him.
Very true, but to quote @Gassy Man "how great would it be to see some Bond movies with the same fun, gloss and color of those classic Connery ones?"
Hey, Sir Miles! I would be excited if they did it, but I'm pretty sure they'll keep the Bond films contemporary, even if they hired someone who resembled Connery.
Well, Connery didn't have that when he debuted, either. My mother saw him in the theater when the Bond films debuted and said he looked like a rat and wasn't handsome like Cary Grant, Rock Hudson, or Gregory Peck. Not as good an actor either. But, she said, when Goldfinger blew up into a giant hit and his face was everywhere and people started to get used to him, that changed. Still, she didn't think he was remotely charismatic or good looking until he got old and gray. Oddly enough, a former girlfriend of mine said exactly the same thing about that. So, if Doherty is even a halfway decent actor, he can grow into the role.
You know, that's a possibility, N24 -- I wouldn't be surprised if Amazon produces prestige films and then splinters off into an animated series, a miniseries, related films, and so on to milk every dime, pence, yuan, and shekel they can.
Much as I enjoy the Bond movies, I can't say I've ever left the theater (my first in the theater was FYEO) feeling like I'd experienced all of that. Even with the mostly brilliant CR. But I feel that way any time I watch the Connery/Lazenby films, a few I've seen projected in classic film revivals.
I'm older than you, I think. I started watching the Bond movies in the 60s in cinemas so yes, I did experience all that.
I totally agree…Amazon will go contemporary…maybe if they get a couple of Bond films that make good money THEN they may decide to try period pieces…probably tv only though…
I think I’d respectfully disagree with that; Connery’s pretty great right from the start in Dr No. They hired him because he was really good, not because he was a lookalike of someone else.
I don’t really see the point in trying to make a film in the period/style of the originals as they can only ever be pastiche, and never the genuine thing. I love those early films but they’ll never be made again, especially with a lookalike (would we make him do a Scottish accent with a speech impediment?). I just enjoy those films and I’m happy to see new people give us their original creative take on the concept.
But that seems to defeat your thesis. We have yet to see Doherty as Bond (if ever). But you're saying Connery was great . . . when he debuted as Bond.
I don't think a film made in the style of others is necessarily a pastiche if it's part of a series. That would be like saying the Star Wars prequels and sequels are a pastiche. Instead, they create a continuity, visual and otherwise, that is less imitative than congruent to the world in which the stories take place. That's what further creates the illusion they related to one another, even though they were made decades apart and by a variety of filmmakers. If they were to make films meant to be directly related to the Connery films, they wouldn't be merely imitative but part of that worldbuilding.
The point, to me at least, would be to take the films in a direction, somewhat analogous to the way, say, the Indiana Jones movies capitalized on nostalgia, being set in the 1930s but looking more like films made in the 1960s than most in the 1980s, at least with the original three. For cinephiles, the joy of watching them went beyond just their stories but to the artistic choices for their look and feel. That would certainly be nostalgic for old school audiences but potentially fresh to audiences who are only familiar with newer iterations of Bond and their particular stylings.
We've seen this before, of course. The more recent miniseries of The IPCRESS File, for instance, tried to look more or less like films in 1965.
Now, all that said, I don't think they would go that direction even if they wanted to. It would be potentially much more expensive to do a period film, and the director and others would have to have to artistic chops to do it. I don't think very many people working today could. Maybe Spielberg in his prime. Though I think his stories are sometimes wanting, Guillermo del Toro has a visual style that sometimes looks like classic Bond movies in lighting and cinematography. I think he could do it. But Villeneuve is very much a contemporary director, with a cold color palette and a desire to make movies that, like those of Christopher Nolan, that feel much more subdued emotionally than movies in the 1960s do. It would be a pretty big change in style for him to do anything else except something closer to what Nolan or, say, Ridley Scott might do. I find all that less compelling for Bond -- the closer Bond's world gets to reality for me, the smaller and less impressive and therefore more ordinary it becomes. But my tastes certainly don't reflect most of today's moviegoers.
I was alive in the 1960s, but most of my childhood was in the 1970s. So, that meant I didn't get to see the movies in the theaters because my parents were concerned about any adult content. That probably sounds a little quaint given how much by the 1980s and 90s was being shown to children, but they used to make us kids turn and look the other way if a bedroom scene showed up on TV, even if nothing was shown, haha. So, it wasn't until my teen years I actually went to a Bond movie in the theaters versus TV, with FYEO being my first.
But that seems to defeat your thesis. We have yet to see Doherty as Bond (if ever). But you're saying Connery was great . . . when he debuted as Bond.
I don’t follow, how does that defeat my thesis?
I don't see it either.
Connery wasn't widely considered a brilliant, charismatic actor before he took on the role of Bond. You might think so, but that doesn't reflect the reality of the time. And in the U.S., he was virtually unknown.
He certainly wasn't a traditional leading man type yet, either. Through his efforts and those of Terence Young, he polished up and became 007, but even then, not every critic was impressed with him in Dr. No, and like my mother, not everyone in the audience who saw him was immediately impressed, either.
It wasn't until Goldfinger blew up that Bond and Connery achieved the superstar status the Bond films would more or less enjoy from that point on. When you say, "they hired him because he was really good," really good in what? He hadn't made a Bond film yet or anything like one. He wasn't a major star.
In this respect, Doherty, who has never played Bond nor had two Bond films to ramp up to major success in the role, would be in no different a position than Connery was when he debuted.
BTW, just for kicks, I did a quick online search for actual reviews for Dr. No in 1962. Some were quite positive, including about Connery. But not all. And whether positive or not, discussion on Connery as an actor is pretty minimal, with the implication the subject matter doesn't require much. He certainly wasn't being celebrated as "the next big thing" and I found no mention of words like "brilliant" to describe Connery even in the positive reviews I saw. Of course, it wasn't an exhaustive search, either, so maybe that's out there.
This is just a sampling of reviews from well-known sources. While none of them exactly pan Connery, they don't exactly sing his praises either (nor in some cases the film and FRWL).
The Times wrote of him: “Sherlock Holmes – not that he is Bond’s spiritual ancestor – has seldom looked right on the screen, but perhaps Mr. Sean Connery will, with practice, get the “feel” of the part a little more surely than he does here.”
The Guardian wrote: “In any case James Bond, in his transference from printed page to this particular length of celluloid, has undoubtedly suffered a loss. This is partly because Sean Connery, though he very nearly looks right, sounds all wrong (with his slightly Irish, slightly American accent) and partly because there seems to be no time on the screen for all those meticulous details of human routine which are so important a part of the Fleming formula.“
Time Magazine wrote about him in Dr. No: “As portrayed by Scotland’s Sean Connery, he moves with a tensile grace that excitingly suggests the violence that is bottled in Bond. But somehow the poor chap almost always manages to seem slightly silly – he can hardly help it in a story like this.”
In their review of From Russia in Love, they wrote about Dr. No: “Doctor No, the first of Fleming’s novels to be filmed, was shot as a straight thriller, but most spectators took it as a travesty and had a belly laugh.” The review on the second film makes no specific mention of Connery’s performance, but notes: “Sophisticated? Well, not really. But fast, smart, shrewdly directed, and capably performed.” Capably performed doesn’t exactly sound brilliant.
The New York Times, while giving Dr. No a good review, hardly spoke to Connery himself in the role, with this the only meaningful mention: “Of course, it’s nonsense – pure, escapist bunk, with Bond, an elegant fellow, played by Sean Connery, doing everything (and everybody) that an idle day-dreamer might do.”
Connery impressed them in the auditions and they picked him because they thought he had all of the qualities needed in their Bond. That’s why they picked him. The difference is you’re suggesting Doherty, not because he’s impressed you in any role, but because he looks a bit like someone else. For me, Broccoli & Saltzman’s reasons are a bit more compelling. Connery didn’t turn out to be good as Bond by sheer chance: they picked him because they saw the right qualities in his performances. You don’t just give the role to anyone and hope they’ll be good at it a couple of films later- that’s not what they did. You seem to be saying that Doherty stands just as much chance of being good as Connery because he’s at a similar point in his career, but that’s not really how casting works.
He was up and coming, had appeared in a number of films and TV plays, was getting leading man roles. It’s hard to get consensus on anything which is subjective, but I just don’t think you’re going to get many people around here to agree that Sean Connery isn’t much good as James Bond in Dr No and From Russia With Love. We tend to think he’s pretty great.
I'm not trying to pee on anyone's chips who likes to imagine a retro Bond film; I know it's just a bit of fun to imagine. I just kind of find issue with the idea that Connery wasn't much good and that just anyone could do it.
In DN and FRWL, Connery is absolutely phenomenal imo. GF can be considered as the most iconic Bond film ever, but I don't think his performance in this one is as impressive as in the previous two. He's cool and relaxed indeed, but I clearly prefer the way he embraces the character in DN and FRWL, with much more intensity and vitality.
Well, actually I did check out some of his acting, and he can act. So let me get this straight -- you're presuming because I didn't literally say that I would be suggesting someone be cast solely on looks? I should think anyone up for a major film role in a 50 year old franchise would by definition be expected to act, even George Lazenby. That strikes me as a prerequisite for the job. Are you truly that literal? I don't mean this in a provocative way, but are you neurodivergent? I ask because I have a godchild who is, and who does similarly. If so, I'll be happy to temper what I do and say accordingly for you. I truly mean that.
In terms of impressing the people who hired him, that's a different metric than impressing the people who buy tickets or critique. Perhaps the best measure of the difference is Lazenby, though as I've pointed out, Connery was not universally praised either out the gate.
So getting back to my original point and under the assumption any actor chosen can, indeed, act, I think it would be an interesting direction to take the films, even though the chances of it happening are nil.
Well, actually I did check out some of his acting, and he can act. So let me get this straight -- you're presuming because I didn't literally say that I would be suggesting someone be cast solely on looks?
I'm aware he's an actor and he's been mentioned in Bond conversations before because of his looks (and I've previously watched some clips of him in fairly second rate productions where he did nothing I'd regard as particularly special), but it's pretty clear from the first sentence you wrote that you're suggesting him because he "looks more like Connery than Connery's son does". If you're saying that you picked him because he's really wowed you in a Bond-like role or something he's delivered a powerful leading role in then fine, but if you did then you didn't really phrase it in a way that suggests that was your line of thought.
I even initially said that looking like Connery doesn't make someone as charismatic and brilliant as him, and your whole line of reply to that has been to try and frame it that Connery was in fact actually not very good, not to try and convince that Doherty is. Which doesn't suggest a huge amount of confidence! 😁
I don't mean this in a provocative way, but are you neurodivergent?
Mate, what are you doing. Just because someone disagrees with you, and I'd say in a very non-aggressive and non-confrontational manner - or at least that's completely how I've intended it so I apologise if I've upset you in any way- you don't start asking if there's something mentally different about them. It's just a difference of opinion, nothing more.
In terms of impressing the people who hired him, that's a different metric than impressing the people who buy tickets or critique. Perhaps the best measure of the difference is Lazenby, though as I've pointed out, Connery was not universally praised either out the gate.
Lazenby was hired primarily because he looked a bit like Connery, yes; and we know how that went.
To be honest I don't really get why you keep talking about contemporary reviews of Connery: no one's really mentioned that and just because some people at the time didn't get him, it doesn't mean that he wasn't really good, picked because the producers saw he was good, and hasn't been seen as being pretty great for the last 60 years. I know it's subjective, but I feel pretty confident in saying that Sean Connery was good at playing James Bond, and I don't think anyone on this forum is likely to argue with that! 😁
Anyway, I think I'll leave this now as, as I said, I didn't want to be pissing on anyone's chips about a nice fan flight of fancy, and you've taken this conversation to a really weird place which has made it no fun at all.
Right, I'm going to give my new Connery 4K set a go as it arrived today!
Oh, no, you haven't upset me. It's certainly not an insult to be neurodivergent but merely a different way of thinking than is typical. Rigid, literal, missing the big picture for the details, and so forth can be traits. I just wanted to know since you seem so focused on some points you seem to miss others. I should think anyone on this fan board suggesting any actor for the rol, for instance, has already taken into consideration they have chops for it. You seem to drill down to levels that are contrarian regardless of such implication, to the degree if someone further explains a point they would assume is implicit, you have yet another layer to peel.This is very similar to people I've known who are neurodivergent. Just checking so I can best understand.