Literally a James Bond film

Hi, how's it going? You're still posting wonderful material to read . . . I always enjoy them, no matter who's being discussed . . .

---

Its going well, thank you for asking, and I hope all is well with you.

---

He did have it, however, he still needed Bond to become a superstar . . . that wasn't the case with Grant, Stewart, many others . . .

---

Fair enough. Grant noted that to become a star, a new actor needs to make a lot of movies very quickly so that the audience becomes familiar with him, his face, his name, etc -- "like a brand of ketchup." Connery perhaps got to skip all that "build-up" by becoming a star almost instantaneously as Bond. (He'd been in movies for about five years prior, I think, most notably in Disney's "Darby McGill and the Little People.")

---

true, he clearly was upwardly mobile, yes, but not yet superstar status . . . and he got stuck with that persona forever . . . none of his films that follow equal Bond

---

In support of your case, Connery himself said late in his career "I never could beat James Bond at the box office. I tried hard, but he always beat me."

---

. . . don't get me wrong . . . he is a good actor, I actually think he's the best thing in Marnie--he gave Hitchcock what he wanted, and helps carry the film . . .

---

Of some interest is that Connery -- with Dr. No and From Russia With Love behind him, but the blockbuster Goldfinger just ahead of him -- wasn't considered a "full fledged superstar" when he MADE "Marnie." Established star Rock Hudson had turned down the male lead in Marnie; Hitchocck was rather casting "a promising personality" in Connery. What a difference a few months would make -- "Marnie" was in summer, "Goldfinger" at Christmas was a "Titanic-like" blockbuster at the b.o. Connery WAS a star, now.

---
what's even sadder is that Connery could've been used by Hitchcock again, in future films . . . but, no, only that lone work . . .

--

Absolutely. Hitchcock tried to sign Connery to a long-term multi-film contract after "Marnie." Hitchcock knew Connery had "the goods" and would be a perfect, perhaps more macho replacement for the aging and soon-to-retire Cary Grant. but Connery said no to the contract.

Hitchcock came at Connery with some "individual" projects: "The Three Hostages" from a Buchan novel and with Connery as Richard Hannay (never made); "Topaz" (I saw storyboards with Sean Connery as Andre at the Hitchcock Centennial display at the AMPAS museum); and his final unmade project, "The Short Night." Only "Topaz" was made, with unknown Frederick Stafford, in for Connery but looking a great deal like John Gavin. Connery would have been wrong for "The Short Night" -- he was to play an amateur recruited to BECOME a spy. James Bond? Hitchcock also tried to offer Clint Eastwood that role, but ultimately Hitchcock was too old and sick to make "The Short Night" and he retired.

--

---





if only he had been a major star before Bond . . . then his career would've been more varied (a la Grant, Stewart, others) . . .

---

Perhaps. I think Connery had a slump in the seventies where the "hotter" British macho guy was..Robert Shaw(Jaws.) Shaw's roles in "Black Sunday" and "The Deep" might have gone to Connery. Then Shaw died young and in the 80's Connery's career picked up again. Very helpful to that was 1983's "Never Say Never Again," where Connery played...James Bond!(For producers other than those he had quit on and fought with.)

---

I agree that the three films mentioned could be the base for a Bond persona . . . and, yes, Grant would've been fabulous . . . but for only one film . . . no more after that . . . something Connery couldn't do . . .

---

Yes, Connery was "new" enough to commit to five Bond films in a row(Dr. No, From Russia With Love, Goldfinger, Thunderball, You Only Live Twice) and they burned him out. He came back famously for 1971's "Diamonds Are Forever"(John Gavin of Psycho fame had been hired as Bond and had to be paid off), but only that once and for spectacular pay. "Never Say Never Again" was a separate project...actually it was a remake of "Thunderball" because that Bond book was owned by someone other than the main Bond producers.

--

Pleasure reading you and chatting with you here hisgrandmogul...and I thank you for entertaining my contra opinions for polite debate!