It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
I bet there are dozens of filmmakers out there, some known and some as of yet still unknown, who could pull it off. It's only a matter of finding them.
For me, John Glen has an 80% success rate with his Bonds. His other films have underwhelmed me, though. I worship at the altar of Campbell because of GE and CR, but I am much less impressed with most of his other work. My point is that I would never have considered these guys qualified for Bond based solely on their output outside the series. The Bond films have a curious effect on directors; their Bond and non-Bond work can be very different. A Nolan Bond could bring us what we want, but it could also just not work at all. Let's also not forget that no one ever works on a Bond in isolation. It's a team effort, no matter how big a name the producers hire for the job.
So am I against a Nolan Bond? Far from it. Am I rooting for Nolan doing Bond, not really. All I can do is hope that whoever gets hired next doesn't screw up. Even some of the hottest names of the moment cannot guarantee that they won't.
Very true, @DarthDimi … you can hire Nolan, Scorsese, Glenn, Wright… nothing guarantees a successful film. Being a Bond film, the odds are good you’ll get decent box office, or better. But what about the quality of film? Well, it takes a literal army of talent, in front of, and behind the camera, and even then, a film may still fall flat (using one of the directors I had named earlier: look no further than Coppola and his highly anticipated Godfather III).
It’s always a crap shoot, and we are very lucky to have this collection of films over 60 plus years (they’re generally always good, entertaining and special in their own ways).
And yes, @DarthDimi , I wouldn’t want you to apologize for anything (even when you break my heart, 😂).
Happy New Year to all!
One of the reasons that I think Tom Mankiewicz was a hypocrite. Those three scripts were just too campy, and then he called out the original Superman script for being too campy. He was one of the people who could have killed James Bond. Guy Hamilton was no better. We really dodged a bullet (pun intended) with him not directing both TSWLM and Superman.
One last thing about the MCU: plus the cringe-worthy humor. It's getting worse and worse. The writing is getting weaker in humor, and confusing with everything going on at once, and using other dimensions and timelines.
Another series that I want to relate to Bond is one of its direct spiritual successors: Indiana Jones. Lucasfilm could have easily made Indy as relevant as Bond, but some things could have been avoided to make Indy succeed long term. It's a shame that Young Indy got cancelled too soon, it had a lot of potential, to make more great stories. Budgets matter. Another reason was the long development hell of Indy 4. George Lucas just couldn't drop the aliens, and he had to insist because his name was the production company. Ford and Spielberg warned him and begged him to do better. He doesn't listen to anyone but himself (for better or worse). Spielberg didn't want to direct until Frank Darabont gave him a script that Spielberg said was on par with Raiders. Lucas of course said no. Then, we got the Indy 4 that we got. I like the movie, but I do feel that Indy should have had more cinematic adventures. When Disney brought Lucasfilm, Star Wars came first, in every way possible. It's a shame. Then Disney got involved for Indy 5, and proved that Indy could survive without Lucas and Spielberg, at least creatively. It's a shame it underperformed financially, a lot of people enjoyed it, me included. So in the end, George Lucas is the one to blame for Indiana Jones for spinning out from true longevity.
It's ok to like NTTD. There are Bond continuation novels I love (namely Carte Blanche, Trigger Mortis and Forever and a Day), and a lot of people question my decisions. The fun of being a Bond fan is hearing different opinions.
I'd prefer the second, over another original screenplay that Purvis and Wade wrote. As for Christopher Nolan, I could go either way.
Most actors nowadays aren't what was considered to be "masculine" back then. The concept of masculinity is now different than it was in the 60's.
I am not entirely convinced of that. Some films perhaps choose to present male hero types who are less Heston muscled or Sinatra confident or Conney charming, but then we have types like Hardy, Bale and Craig who, in more recent times, combined all three of those characteristics if you ask me. Depending on how one defines "masculinity", I can see it still being a thing without being everywhere. But then, it never was everywhere. If Bogart, McQueen, Russell and Willis all fit the description, surely we can agree that they were different brands of it. And were the likes of Chris Lee, Peter Cushing, Peter Lorre, Karloff, Chaney, Basil Rathbone, and David Niven any more or less masculine than, say, Sam Claflin, Chris Helmsworth, Pattinson, or Rayn Reynolds? I think there's always been a wide range of actor types to choose from, none more or less popular today than they were then. But I could be wrong, of course.
I agree. I think dismissing actors because they aren’t “masculine” enough is a huge disservice to their abilities and skills. It’s called “acting” after all; it’s literally playing make believe.
The other day on Twitter I saw a post which quoted Nolan praising Zan Snyder, and beneath it (and I think we all know the state twitter/x is descending to) were an absolute avalanche of blue tick men saying 'king recognises king' and how they're both great, and I must admit I found it fascinating that this particular slice of people who choose to pay Musk's twitter love the two of them so.
That side of Twitter/X is something I’ve always tried to avoid to the best of my ability, even as somebody who does admire some of the films both men have done.
That made me laugh, @mtm. 😄 Indeed, I can imagine some tribalist attitude on Twitter when it comes to Snyder and Nolan.
I can appreciate both very much -- yes, I am a Snyder fan -- but I rarely worship filmmakers (Kubrick and Spielberg and that's perhaps it?) to the point where I would write things like "king recognises king". What Snyder allegedly said about his ideas for Bond doesn't make me particularly confident.
Sometimes the style is the substance, especially in the case of Bond. If Nolan went a lighter tone and made a modern version of a Lewis Gilbert film, that would be a heck of a stylistic film.
I wouldn’t want a repeat of any of the Bonds, including Connery. Each Bond actor brought something unique to the role imo, and I’d like for the next actor to carry forward in that tradition.
Doesn’t mean that Craig (or arguably Moore for instance) was any less a great Bond. Connery certainly was a great Bond as well. Personally, I think Craig looked more natural throughout his run than Connery did from TB to DAF. It’s just about what each actor contributes to the role.
Yes I've got similar friends in their 30s who say the same thing and I can totally see why- Craig is superb. I guess Connery is just too long ago for his films to appeal, and the version of the character he played was more cartoonish and thinly-drawn to connect as well.
I know people in their 20’s who say their Bond is either Craig or Brosnan. I know people of the same age who’d say Connery is their guy. Hell, I even have a friend who says Dalton is the best Bond.
That’s the beauty of this series. It’s adapted to the times with each iteration, and each actor brings something slightly different each time. Even non-fans have different favourite Bonds. Honestly, I can’t imagine how depressing it would be thinking that the series peaked 60 years ago and it never again gave us an actor or film that in any way lived up to a handful of films.
I always think 1983 is an interesting one as we get to compare pretty much directly and, for my money, Connery's Bond in NSNA was actually less interesting and more 2D than Moore's in Octopussy. The character had moved on; only very slightly, but it's there. Connery is obviously still great as he's Connery and was never bad in anything, but OP's Bond was warmer, more capable of fear and just a touch more human.
I guess some characters in certain series just have that ability to adapt more (although a big part of it may well be circumstance as you hinted). Dr. Who is obviously another example where, much like Bond, the actor was recast relatively early but the character moved on.
And yeah, ‘83 is an interesting one. Even with the ‘original’ Bond and an adaptation of a film like TB (the most successful film in the franchise at that point) it couldn’t top the ‘current’ Bond’s efforts. I do agree that Moore’s Bond in that film comes across as more human, and those changes in the films/character were there arguably from TSWLM, if not earlier (in fact it was arguably deviating from material that was more associated with Connery’s Bond that led to Moore coming into his own and the films becoming more successful).
I don't think so. Bond in NSNA looks like a real person. Roger's Bond was a superhero.
I agree with @mtm. The way I see it, Connery's efforts deserve little blame. NSNA just wasn't the proper film for his big comeback as 007. Without Connery, the film would be unbearable for me. Connery, at least, elevates every scene he's in. That said, he wasn't a miracle worker either and the Bond of NSNA falls very flat for me. Moore, on the other hand, played charming, serious and comedic in a film that, in my opinion, played to his strengths. I like both actors in the role. The problem, for me, is how each film allowed its star to shine. OP did it better, IMO.
I tend to think there's no character which couldn't be recast. I get that some actors can be a massive success in a role, but they would have been auditioned alongside others, it's not as if they were the only possible choice in all of time. In Indy's case I guess the character himself was developed by Ford to some extent, so I suppose that makes it harder to separate, but I still think that if someone like Connery can be replaced so well then anyone can. And where would we be if they'd decided that the original Hamlet could never be bettered? :)
Oh I think it is. He never has any sense of actual romantic connection, of attachment to others, of being in any danger even. Connery's Bond unflappably glides through everything with a twinkle in his eye and a glib comment after he's despatched a baddie; there's little sense of effort. He's not supposedly to be a real person: it's a very simple and somewhat one-note character, especially by the end of Connery's run. And although Moore's Bond isn't massively different, he is a touch more romantic, he has moments of peril and fear and desperation even- you can see Bond developing into a more rounded character in his films.
Yes I think Connery is great at playing that part and you can't take your eyes off him in the film, he delivers all of the gags wonderfully; but perhaps Bond had actually moved on a little in the time since he had previously played it.
Again, Connery's Bond looks real. Moore was doing the Tarzan's yell (or his stunt man).
If the Tarzan yell is a problem, then we might as well talk about the OOOOOH! yell in NSNA, when Bond rides a horse from a cliff as if he's Wile E. Coyote. OP is the film in which Bond tells a tiger to sit; NSNA is the film in which he defeats a thug with his apparently corrosive urine sample. When it comes to avoiding silly stuff, I don't think there are many winners in this era of the series.
NSNA was more grounded. That's all.
Bond looks like a real person in this one.
Moore was a superhero.
Well, I suppose you can argue that even if the humour in Moore's films became more absurd and self aware (Jaws falling into a tent, the slide whistles and Tarzan yells etc) if Moore himself hadn't played the character 'straight' to some extent it would have fallen apart to the point it would have been unsuccessful, financially or creatively. Moore certainly had Connery's wryness/tongue in cheek humour (that 'eyebrow raising' dynamic of his Bond I suppose) but like Connery I think he committed to those dramatic moments, and the scripts certainly contained some very consciously humane moments when it came to Bond as a character during his tenure - him revealing to Anya he killed her boyfriend in TSWLM, him looking hurt at the little quip about Tracy, him looking rather horrified at Orlov's plan in OP, to name only a few. I can't see Connery's Bond donning a clown suit and trying to dismantle a bomb convincingly, all while looking genuinely fearful about what will happen. The kind of Bond that Moore was - that's not to say only more humorous, but a Bond who was allowed to show vulnerability on slightly more occasions - I think allowed for that kind of Hitchcockian moment. It's a great scene in my opinion.
I think Moore and Connery's Bond are a lot closer than many fans think. I think both understood that nailing that balance between humour and darkness was necessary for a cinematic Bond portrayal, and while both din't always put in great performances in my opinion (then again both had very long tenures), both actors were able to be James Bond while bring much of their own 'personalities' as actors to the character. I mean, it's impossible not to see Connery's performances as 'Connery's Bond', and it's the same dynamic with any of the actors for me. They're still ultimately James Bond though.