What if no Connery as Bond?

[Capt. Sir Dominic Flandry]

If Sean Connery had not been cast as James Bond would the series have been such a success?

Connery had a big impact on James Bond. The popular image of Bond was based on Connery. Fleming even said Bond had a Scottish mother (or was it father, I cannot recall) because of Connery.

Or, was Bond a phenomenon which would have been a success with another actor playing Bond in the first few movies of the series?

I feel that it may not have been such a success as Connery has given so much to the series. We have had four other Bonds (five if you include the counterfeit James Bond - Daniel Craig ), and Connery is still universally regarded as the best.

[Captain Nash]

Answer : No

[Gary Seven]

It probably would have been as big a success, but only with another unknown actor who looked similar to Connery.

As the Capt said, Connery had a huge influence on he series and I cannot imagine the series without him.

[katied]

The Bond films-the initial few anyways- would not have been as iconic without Seannery .

[Omega]

Same story and production and cast? Maybe if the star was charismatic. Cary Grant for instance then yes it would have been the same success. A wooden actor like Lazenby then no.

[Kristatos]

No way to tell of course, but my feeling is that the early Bonds brought together exactly the right combination of creative people: Sean Connery, Terence Young, Cubby Broccoli, Peter Hunt, John Barry, Ken Adam, Maurice Binder, Richard Maibaum...take any one of those out of the equation and I think the whole house of cards would have collapsed.

[Omega]

Kismet you mean. Yeah I can see that. It was a perfect storm with just the right people with just the right amount of input and influence. Too bad one of those involved stay on too long. The Broccoli family was important in keeping that standard but they are the weakest link now.

[Dr. No]

I happen to think Connery made James Bond, without him I doubt Bond would have received much notice. Connery was a special actor a dynamo of his time and he grabbed the public's attention once they had a chance to see him because there was something special about him . I do think Bond help to polish him up and certainly helped get him noticed but nobody was going to forget Sean Connery with or without Bond. I think that is what cubby looked for when casting a new Bond, the certain special something Connery embodied. I think that is way a lot of actors never got the chance. Of the Bond actors Connery and Pierce have a special somthing that does make them memoarble and synonymous with the roles they play and ever in the public mind never mind what they are actually doing at the moment.

Dalton, Lazenby and Moore are decent but lacked that spark to make them somthing else, maybe they never got the chance to show it I don't know.

[commander0077again]

Rebooting an older topic! Dr. No could've been titled You'll Never No ... if there had been no Connery, who knows? Perhaps an unknown or an established actor could've run with the role. I just finished a book The Drunkard's Walk about the mathematics of probability and how chance plays into our lives. Among its examples are two that stand out: 1/ Bruce Willis. If he had not been in the right place at the right time, he wouldn't have been offered the role in his first TV series, which launched his star; 2/ Bill Gates. A similar story, if had grown up somewhere else or happened not to read about this or that operating system, and other 'coincidences' perhaps we would not have heard of him, and another computer guy would've founded 'Microsoft.' The author, btw, concludes that while chance is important it seems that never giving up plays a great part in the game of life. If C. K. Rowlings or Stephen King had given up after the first half a dozen rejection slips, 'you'll never No.' Lots of famous authors have received dozens of rejections. Returning to topic, if Connery had not been chosen but all the other elements were in place, it's possible Bond would've become an icon in that alternate universe. The direction, the screenplay, the music, blah blah created a unique cinematic universe and a different actor could possibly have been a great Bond. On a sub-subject, Connery certainly had much to do with Bond's success; but it was the filmmakers who took the financial risks.

[Dr. No]

I've grown a little on this subject I appreciate that Connery was a large part of making Bond a icon. But also see more of how the director and others helped establish the Bond world for Connery to make his mark on. I'm also seeing the actors I thought were not as good like Moore might have had one hand tied behind their back when the producers and directors were not trying their hardest.

For me Connery and Brosnan are my favorites. Still what if is an interesting question, in a way 1962-3 were the prefect storm they had the right people making Bond happen, Cubby and Saltzman deserved credit for making it happen I don't think they were saints. If they hadn't happened along I'm sure somebody else would have made it a movie series I'm no so sure it would be what it is today, (but then Bond isn't what it was in 1962-2002 either). IMO CR 2006 as the very first movie without Bond being a household name would not have launched a series either.