Where does Bond go after Craig?

1427428430432433674

Comments

  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 1,979
    peter wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    Whatever flaws he has, Nolan is already a huge, huge, huge name...and has possibly joined the pantheon of great directors. If best directors of all time are mentioned, his name would surely pop up. Memento, Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, Inception, etc. already put his name on that list, regardless of the type of films he makes today.

    Scorsese is on that list, De Palma, Coppola…. Should they have been considered to direct a Bond film as well? Should they now?

    Best Lists don’t mean a lot when it comes to directors and James Bond, do they?

    I’m just curious, with the films Nolan has made, especially his recent output, specifically Oppenheimer, what does one see that screams Bond?

    Oh, I think his previous films showed that. I also think Scorsese, De Palma and Coppola were more famous for their crime movies, so naturally, they didn't seem like good fits, even if they are great directors.

    His previous films showed what? I’m sorry I think I missed a point there.

    And Scorsee and Eastwood certainly do more and have made more than crime films. Coppola did great drama in the 70s and one helluva war film in the latter part of that decade, so similar to a younger Nolan….

    Yeah, I know Coppola's Apocalypse Now is a great war film. But most people associate him more with The Godfather. Yeah, Eastwood is a great director too....known for his dramas and the westerns he directed. But I get it, you don't consider Nolan a Bond fit :)

    I know I don't, @SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ , I'm not belittling that you do. I'm genuinely asking what you saw in Oppenheimer that screams Bond. I don't understand it, really.

    I agree with @mtm and his sentiment when he says Nolan took a fun little pts from LTK, and he made it more dull; I've seen holes in his directing skills that have grown bigger over time, but a lot of his issues rests at the script development phase.

    The studios are cashing in on his name as fast as they can, and he has shown a lack of depth both in story and character.

    I'm truly interested.

    I'm not a fan of the M: I films, but I lurk on that thread whenever someone posts something.

    I haven't watched Dr Who since I was a kid, but I read most of the posts there as well.

    I'm not Brosnan's biggest fan, but I always stop by his Appreciation Thread.

    So when I ask about Nolan, it really is because I'm curious. What are you seeing that I may be blind to? You've heard my criticism(s), but I want to hear the positive spin. When you saw Oppenheimer, you saw something that you thinks clicks with Bond. What was it?

    And as an add on/EDIT: @SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ , remember, I'm the guy who loves and adores NTTD-- which can sometimes be the equivalent of devil worshipping on this site. The heart loves what it loves, so please keep in mind, I'm not judging and I am asking for your feedback out of curiosity
    peter wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    Whatever flaws he has, Nolan is already a huge, huge, huge name...and has possibly joined the pantheon of great directors. If best directors of all time are mentioned, his name would surely pop up. Memento, Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, Inception, etc. already put his name on that list, regardless of the type of films he makes today.

    Scorsese is on that list, De Palma, Coppola…. Should they have been considered to direct a Bond film as well? Should they now?

    Best Lists don’t mean a lot when it comes to directors and James Bond, do they?

    I’m just curious, with the films Nolan has made, especially his recent output, specifically Oppenheimer, what does one see that screams Bond?

    Oh, I think his previous films showed that. I also think Scorsese, De Palma and Coppola were more famous for their crime movies, so naturally, they didn't seem like good fits, even if they are great directors.

    His previous films showed what? I’m sorry I think I missed a point there.

    And Scorsee and Eastwood certainly do more and have made more than crime films. Coppola did great drama in the 70s and one helluva war film in the latter part of that decade, so similar to a younger Nolan….

    Yeah, I know Coppola's Apocalypse Now is a great war film. But most people associate him more with The Godfather. Yeah, Eastwood is a great director too....known for his dramas and the westerns he directed. But I get it, you don't consider Nolan a Bond fit :)

    I know I don't, @SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ , I'm not belittling that you do. I'm genuinely asking what you saw in Oppenheimer that screams Bond. I don't understand it, really.

    I agree with @mtm and his sentiment when he says Nolan took a fun little pts from LTK, and he made it more dull; I've seen holes in his directing skills that have grown bigger over time, but a lot of his issues rests at the script development phase.

    The studios are cashing in on his name as fast as they can, and he has shown a lack of depth both in story and character.

    I'm truly interested.

    I'm not a fan of the M: I films, but I lurk on that thread whenever someone posts something.

    I haven't watched Dr Who since I was a kid, but I read most of the posts there as well.

    I'm not Brosnan's biggest fan, but I always stop by his Appreciation Thread.

    So when I ask about Nolan, it really is because I'm curious. What are you seeing that I may be blind to? You've heard my criticism(s), but I want to hear the positive spin. When you saw Oppenheimer, you saw something that you thinks clicks with Bond. What was it?

    And as an add on/EDIT: @SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ , remember, I'm the guy who loves and adores NTTD-- which can sometimes be the equivalent of devil worshipping on this site. The heart loves what it loves, so please keep in mind, I'm not judging and I am asking for your feedback out of curiosity
    peter wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    Whatever flaws he has, Nolan is already a huge, huge, huge name...and has possibly joined the pantheon of great directors. If best directors of all time are mentioned, his name would surely pop up. Memento, Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, Inception, etc. already put his name on that list, regardless of the type of films he makes today.

    Scorsese is on that list, De Palma, Coppola…. Should they have been considered to direct a Bond film as well? Should they now?

    Best Lists don’t mean a lot when it comes to directors and James Bond, do they?

    I’m just curious, with the films Nolan has made, especially his recent output, specifically Oppenheimer, what does one see that screams Bond?

    Oh, I think his previous films showed that. I also think Scorsese, De Palma and Coppola were more famous for their crime movies, so naturally, they didn't seem like good fits, even if they are great directors.

    His previous films showed what? I’m sorry I think I missed a point there.

    And Scorsee and Eastwood certainly do more and have made more than crime films. Coppola did great drama in the 70s and one helluva war film in the latter part of that decade, so similar to a younger Nolan….

    Yeah, I know Coppola's Apocalypse Now is a great war film. But most people associate him more with The Godfather. Yeah, Eastwood is a great director too....known for his dramas and the westerns he directed. But I get it, you don't consider Nolan a Bond fit :)

    I know I don't, @SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ , I'm not belittling that you do. I'm genuinely asking what you saw in Oppenheimer that screams Bond. I don't understand it, really.

    I agree with @mtm and his sentiment when he says Nolan took a fun little pts from LTK, and he made it more dull; I've seen holes in his directing skills that have grown bigger over time, but a lot of his issues rests at the script development phase.

    The studios are cashing in on his name as fast as they can, and he has shown a lack of depth both in story and character.

    I'm truly interested.

    I'm not a fan of the M: I films, but I lurk on that thread whenever someone posts something.

    I haven't watched Dr Who since I was a kid, but I read most of the posts there as well.

    I'm not Brosnan's biggest fan, but I always stop by his Appreciation Thread.

    So when I ask about Nolan, it really is because I'm curious. What are you seeing that I may be blind to? You've heard my criticism(s), but I want to hear the positive spin. When you saw Oppenheimer, you saw something that you thinks clicks with Bond. What was it?

    And as an add on/EDIT: @SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ , remember, I'm the guy who loves and adores NTTD-- which can sometimes be the equivalent of devil worshipping on this site. The heart loves what it loves, so please keep in mind, I'm not judging and I am asking for your feedback out of curiosity

    I know @peter You're not one to stir the pot :)

    Sometimes I am. Just ask my wife and my kids, 😂.
    🤣

  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited December 2023 Posts: 24,145
    I am a Nolan fan and I will not apologize for that, not even to @peter, for whom I have massive respect. (I know he wouldn't want me to, either.) However, what I don't get is why some project Nolan as the only one -- the ONLY one -- who can spearhead the next Bond film, as if it's a religious devotion we are seeing at play here.

    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.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    I am a Nolan fan and I will not apologize for that, not even to @peter, for whom I have massive respect. (I know he wouldn't want me to, either.) However, what I don't get is why some project Nolan as the only one -- the ONLY one -- who can spearhead the next Bond film, as if it's a religious devotion we are seeing at play here.

    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!
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,574
    delfloria wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    delfloria wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    I don't think there needs to be these major changes over at EoN HQ... If we can just take a step out of our collective fandom and look at the big picture:

    Barbara Broccoli and MGW have basically run the ship for almost thirty years. And in that time, they not only relaunched two different Bond eras, but they relaunched one of them when the popular belief was that James Bond was no longer relevant.

    In these thirty years, and two different eras, they made films that were not only hugely, wildly, successful at the box office, but they were able to pull in millions of brand new fans.

    And in these thirty years, we've witnessed the death of many film franchises-- all of them in their infancy, compared to 007.

    No, no big changes need to happen at EoN. They will find the man and the stories they want to tell. It'll happen soon enough.

    But seriously, take a step out of our little tunnel-vision here and look at what they've done over the last 30 years. And look at all the franchises we've seen come and go.

    Were there mistakes on the way? Of course, but Saltzman and Broccoli also made mistakes. All ventures make mistakes! But the successful ones accumulate far more wins than losses, and build on their positive achievements.

    EoN, and those in charge, are just fine. When changes are needed they'll make their shifts and pivots... When they find the right perspective for the new era, it'll likely follow the same pattern of the past 30 (and 60) years: more success...

    On this one I'll say we agree to disagree.

    From a fan's POV I'm interested in the authenticity of Bond over box office success. Perhaps the character of Bond is able to transcend the mistakes made by Eon over the past 60 years which is why it has lasted so long. I'd just like to minimize the mistakes.

    I don't know if Bond films have ever been inauthentic, though? That no matter the year, or the star, they made the best attempts at putting out the best Bond adventure they could at that time. And as you know, as someone who works in the industry, no one ever sets out to make a poor film, and, no film can please all audiences...

    I do understand the importance each Bond fan feels for the character and the films, but if EoN tried to please us all, they'd end up pleasing none of us. They're in the business of collecting more fans to put butts in seats, and although I'm not happy with all of their choices, I do realize that, in the scheme of things, they're doing their best, and my feelings in the matter mean absolutely nothing at all.

    As hard as films are to make, there are times when producers need to make hard choices in order to capture the magic a series can offer. Barbara manged to do it with CR but since then something seems to be off. I just hope we don't get more of the same mistakes like the Brofeld disaster in the future.

    True, No one sets out to make a poor or bad film but sometimes the writing is on the wall {pun intended}. Having read the shooting scripts to DAF, LALD and MWTGG, there was no way the end result was going to get out from under just how badly structured they were. It was pretty obvious that they were going to end up with a poor piece of entertainment from the get go. I would image that you yourself have had to slog through scripts that within the first 10 pages you knew were headed for disaster.

    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.
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    @delfloria , I have read through some bad scripts, and it's true that within the first few pages you do see a story falling off the rails, and Act I is the "easiest" part to writing a script (Act II is usually the place where many scripts come to die).

    But unlike you, I didn't feel anything "off" about the films after CR. I didn't think they were perfect films either, but I'm okay with that, because I've never watched a film that is perfect (I could go through my favourites of all time and see things that are glaring, and that includes such greats as Godfather I and II, Raging Bull, hell, Casino Royale has got a few things in it I'd love to correct, lol!).

    But when I look at the big picture, and what EoN has done over the past thirty years, I think it's amazing-- and I wasn't a big fan of one of their eras. But no matter if I was a fan, or not, I could see the hugely successful series they were building around their actor, and each of these films really did have enough for me to enjoy to keep coming back.

    Meanwhile, in that same time, we saw new film series being born, then burning out a few years later.

    But Bond kept going, finding ways to bring in the older fans and picking up millions of new ones on the way.

    Nothing is perfect, and every venture make mistakes and while we witnessed the rise and fall of MCU, of the new STAR WARS era, of FAST and FURIOUS, XXX, BOURNE, and DC, and older series sputter and die, like DIE HARD, ALIENS under Scott, LETHAL WEAPON unable to find it's footing in a crowded marketplace, BOND kept moving, pivoting, adapting. And this IS thanks to the stewards and the team they bring onto their productions.

    In an ever-changing and volatile environment, I'm in awe that EoN has been this successful (the odds weren't in their favor, not the way the industry is run today. EoN is this "creaky, old" entity with only one main character in its stable, and this character was created in the 50s(gasp!), and the film series itself started in the 60s (which in this day and age in the film industry, might as well be a few hundred years ago)).

    I wouldn't want anyone getting their hands on James Bond. They'd over saturate him and kill him inside of 10-15 years. This family knows what they are doing to make unique films with class and style and action and thrills, that separate it from the others. For such an "old" character, he does still feel and look fresh as a daisy compared to the ugly series coming out today.

    And with this new era about to begin, James Bond will look like the most energized as well.

    Great look at things @peter we are truly one of the luckiest fandoms in the world. Sometimes I think that the MCU fans are a bit blind to the series' too much, too fast, with no breathing room. Star Wars, there's no pleasing. If you aren't the original trilogy, (minus ewoks), one half hates you for being too similar, or hates you for being too different to it. DC went wrong with studio interference, and a leader (Zack Snyder) who was known to be too controversial. With down right cultists who think he could do no wrong. And the other half who hates him no matter what he does. James Gunn isn't much different. I can't comment on the other series you mention. I know that I criticize EON (and IFP) a bit to much, but, they know what to do to keep people coming back.

    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.
    peter wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    Whatever flaws he has, Nolan is already a huge, huge, huge name...and has possibly joined the pantheon of great directors. If best directors of all time are mentioned, his name would surely pop up. Memento, Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, Inception, etc. already put his name on that list, regardless of the type of films he makes today.

    Scorsese is on that list, De Palma, Coppola…. Should they have been considered to direct a Bond film as well? Should they now?

    Best Lists don’t mean a lot when it comes to directors and James Bond, do they?

    I’m just curious, with the films Nolan has made, especially his recent output, specifically Oppenheimer, what does one see that screams Bond?

    Oh, I think his previous films showed that. I also think Scorsese, De Palma and Coppola were more famous for their crime movies, so naturally, they didn't seem like good fits, even if they are great directors.

    His previous films showed what? I’m sorry I think I missed a point there.

    And Scorsee and Eastwood certainly do more and have made more than crime films. Coppola did great drama in the 70s and one helluva war film in the latter part of that decade, so similar to a younger Nolan….

    Yeah, I know Coppola's Apocalypse Now is a great war film. But most people associate him more with The Godfather. Yeah, Eastwood is a great director too....known for his dramas and the westerns he directed. But I get it, you don't consider Nolan a Bond fit :)

    I know I don't, @SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ , I'm not belittling that you do. I'm genuinely asking what you saw in Oppenheimer that screams Bond. I don't understand it, really.

    I agree with @mtm and his sentiment when he says Nolan took a fun little pts from LTK, and he made it more dull; I've seen holes in his directing skills that have grown bigger over time, but a lot of his issues rests at the script development phase.

    The studios are cashing in on his name as fast as they can, and he has shown a lack of depth both in story and character.

    I'm truly interested.

    I'm not a fan of the M: I films, but I lurk on that thread whenever someone posts something.

    I haven't watched Dr Who since I was a kid, but I read most of the posts there as well.

    I'm not Brosnan's biggest fan, but I always stop by his Appreciation Thread.

    So when I ask about Nolan, it really is because I'm curious. What are you seeing that I may be blind to? You've heard my criticism(s), but I want to hear the positive spin. When you saw Oppenheimer, you saw something that you thinks clicks with Bond. What was it?

    And as an add on/EDIT: @SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ , remember, I'm the guy who loves and adores NTTD-- which can sometimes be the equivalent of devil worshipping on this site. The heart loves what it loves, so please keep in mind, I'm not judging and I am asking for your feedback out of curiosity

    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.
    So far, there are 4 ways to continue the Bond franchise (according to fans) that i'm aware of:
    • Bring Bond back to the 1950's.
    • Return to the original continuity.
    • Make film adaptations of the continuation novels.
    • Bring Christopher Nolan as the director.
    To be honest, i'd prefer the second ;).

    I'd prefer the second, over another original screenplay that Purvis and Wade wrote. As for Christopher Nolan, I could go either way.
  • Posts: 1,959
    CrabKey wrote: »
    I don't think the new films need to recreated the Connery era, but it would be nice to have a Bond once again who plays the role as effortlessly as Connery did. No Bond since SC has been as engaging in the role as he was. Doesn't mean other Bonds weren't good; they just weren't as good as SC. [/quote
    --today's masculinity standards differ very much from then.

    I've read something similar here before. No question some of Connery's onscreen actions couldn't be done today, but those were behaviors not standards. Could you elaborate on those differing standards?
  • TheSkyfallen06TheSkyfallen06 Buenos Aires, Argentina.
    edited January 1 Posts: 1,089
    CrabKey wrote: »
    I've read something similar here before. No question some of Connery's onscreen actions couldn't be done today, but those were behaviors not standards. Could you elaborate on those differing standards?
    What i mean is that Bond is supposed to be elegant, sophisticated, charming, and most of all, masculine.
    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.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,145
    CrabKey wrote: »
    I've read something similar here before. No question some of Connery's onscreen actions couldn't be done today, but those were behaviors not standards. Could you elaborate on those differing standards?
    What i mean is that Bond is supposed to be elegant, sophisticated, charming, and most of all, masculine.
    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.
  • DarthDimi wrote: »
    CrabKey wrote: »
    I've read something similar here before. No question some of Connery's onscreen actions couldn't be done today, but those were behaviors not standards. Could you elaborate on those differing standards?
    What i mean is that Bond is supposed to be elegant, sophisticated, charming, and most of all, masculine.
    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.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,291
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    I am a Nolan fan and I will not apologize for that, not even to @peter, for whom I have massive respect. (I know he wouldn't want me to, either.) However, what I don't get is why some project Nolan as the only one -- the ONLY one -- who can spearhead the next Bond film, as if it's a religious devotion we are seeing at play here.

    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.
  • mtm wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    I am a Nolan fan and I will not apologize for that, not even to @peter, for whom I have massive respect. (I know he wouldn't want me to, either.) However, what I don't get is why some project Nolan as the only one -- the ONLY one -- who can spearhead the next Bond film, as if it's a religious devotion we are seeing at play here.

    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.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,145
    mtm wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    I am a Nolan fan and I will not apologize for that, not even to @peter, for whom I have massive respect. (I know he wouldn't want me to, either.) However, what I don't get is why some project Nolan as the only one -- the ONLY one -- who can spearhead the next Bond film, as if it's a religious devotion we are seeing at play here.

    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 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.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited January 1 Posts: 3,147
    I always thought that CraigBond projected a sort of early 1960s masculinity in a lot of ways - the sort you often saw in black and white British films of that period. Not a '40s tough guy or a '50s white hat, nor the amorality of a lot of '70s characters and not an impervious '80s killing machine. I thought Dan gauged it just right. Having established that and it having worked so well, I do think it matters that the next guy retains much of it rather than taking a sharp turn into lighter territory. S*pe would be the best man for that job (IMO, obvs). However, I suspect that what's likely to happen is that NewBond will have elements of both grit and light and that EON will see how audiences respond before deciding which aspect to dial up or down for the second film.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,169
    Murdock wrote: »
    I agree. I've never wanted Nolan anywhere near Bond. He's all style, no substance.

    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.
  • Posts: 1,959
    @Venutius - I like Craig's Bond, but he doesn't wear the role with the ease and charm that Connery did. In fact when Vesper tells Bond he has a chip on his shoulder and a disdain for the Oxford suit he Is wearing, that's how I see Craig's interpretation of the role. Not completely comfortable, but effective. What I hope we don't get a repeat of is a Moore Bond.
  • edited January 1 Posts: 2,263
    CrabKey wrote: »
    @Venutius - I like Craig's Bond, but he doesn't wear the role with the ease and charm that Connery did. In fact when Vesper tells Bond he has a chip on his shoulder and a disdain for the Oxford suit he Is wearing, that's how I see Craig's interpretation of the role. Not completely comfortable, but effective. What I hope we don't get a repeat of is a Moore Bond.

    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.

  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited January 1 Posts: 3,147
    CrabKey wrote: »
    @Venutius - I like Craig's Bond, but he doesn't wear the role with the ease and charm that Connery did. In fact when Vesper tells Bond he has a chip on his shoulder and a disdain for the Oxford suit he Is wearing, that's how I see Craig's interpretation of the role. Not completely comfortable, but effective. What I hope we don't get a repeat of is a Moore Bond.
    Yes, agreed. Although it's not just Dan - no one has (and quite probably can't) match the ease and charm of Connery's Bond. As was noted, above, Sean Connery was Bond - and, to an extent, everyone else just plays Bond. Having said that, while Craig's portrayal was of quite a different Bond, I do think that Dan actually inhabited the character he was playing in a way that only Connery had before him.
  • edited January 1 Posts: 4,067
    I think Connery will always get points for being the first Bond. He was the one who honed and first did a lot of what we associate with the cinematic Bond and continues with each interpretation to this day (a lot of it came from the producers and Young anyway). I think for many people he was their first Bond anyway (as in the first one they watched) so nostalgia’s a big factor here. I know many people whose first Bond film was CR who would say for them Craig is Bond. Heck, I’ve even met people who’ve watched many Bond films who don’t even rate Connery or his Bond films highly.

    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.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,383
    We've cleared the 27 month barrier between bond films and there still doesn't appear to be the first hints of a new film on the horizon yet, I think many of us are praying a trailer drops for the game in 2024, that would at least lift the spirits in the community.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,291
    007HallY wrote: »
    I know many people whose first Bond film was CR who would say for them Craig is Bond. Heck, I’ve even met people who’ve watched many Bond films who don’t even rate Connery or his Bond films highly.

    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.
  • edited January 1 Posts: 4,067
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I know many people whose first Bond film was CR who would say for them Craig is Bond. Heck, I’ve even met people who’ve watched many Bond films who don’t even rate Connery or his Bond films highly.

    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.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,291
    It's amazing really, and it makes me a little sad about Indiana Jones in a way. Because I think Ford's Indy is up there as being as iconic as Connery's Bond was, but with Bond they started to change actor relatively quickly and have proven that the role can be reinterpreted just as successfully. But Indy stayed Ford, and although he's clearly amazing in the role, it can never be anyone else. I much prefer having Moore and Craig etc. as Bond because they were just as good and successful in my eyes, and the alternative is not having anything at all.

    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.
  • Posts: 4,067
    mtm wrote: »
    It's amazing really, and it makes me a little sad about Indiana Jones in a way. Because I think Ford's Indy is up there as being as iconic as Connery's Bond was, but with Bond they started to change actor relatively quickly and have proven that the role can be reinterpreted just as successfully. But Indy stayed Ford, and although he's clearly amazing in the role, it can never be anyone else. I much prefer having Moore and Craig etc. as Bond because they were just as good and successful in my eyes, and the alternative is not having anything at all.

    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).
  • edited January 1 Posts: 1,301
    mtm wrote: »
    It's amazing really, and it makes me a little sad about Indiana Jones in a way. Because I think Ford's Indy is up there as being as iconic as Connery's Bond was, but with Bond they started to change actor relatively quickly and have proven that the role can be reinterpreted just as successfully. But Indy stayed Ford, and although he's clearly amazing in the role, it can never be anyone else. I much prefer having Moore and Craig etc. as Bond because they were just as good and successful in my eyes, and the alternative is not having anything at all.

    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 don't think so. Bond in NSNA looks like a real person. Roger's Bond was a superhero.
  • Posts: 1,959
    How we see each Bond is a matter of preference. The definition of cartoonish is characteristic of or resembling a cartoon, especially in being unrealistically simplified and involving humorous exaggeration. Connery's portrayal of Bond was not that. That Moore took the character in a different direction always seemed to me a reflection of Moore's persona. I've always thought that offscreen Moore was far more affable than Connery. Those qualities, warmth and being more human, imbue Moore's portrayal of the character. But, in my opinion, they did not make for a better Bond, irrespective of the success the series saw during Moore's tenure. If anything, the series during Moore's years became cartoon-like. Jaws surviving a fall into a circus tent, the slide whistle, the pigeon double-take, and all the rest of the often cited examples. For me the best Moore film remains his first. Moore and the series had yet to fully develop what would define his Bond and the series. That the series flourished during Moore's years I agree. For me he was not a better or more convincing Bond.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,145
    mtm wrote: »
    It's amazing really, and it makes me a little sad about Indiana Jones in a way. Because I think Ford's Indy is up there as being as iconic as Connery's Bond was, but with Bond they started to change actor relatively quickly and have proven that the role can be reinterpreted just as successfully. But Indy stayed Ford, and although he's clearly amazing in the role, it can never be anyone else. I much prefer having Moore and Craig etc. as Bond because they were just as good and successful in my eyes, and the alternative is not having anything at all.

    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 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.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited January 1 Posts: 16,291
    007HallY wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    It's amazing really, and it makes me a little sad about Indiana Jones in a way. Because I think Ford's Indy is up there as being as iconic as Connery's Bond was, but with Bond they started to change actor relatively quickly and have proven that the role can be reinterpreted just as successfully. But Indy stayed Ford, and although he's clearly amazing in the role, it can never be anyone else. I much prefer having Moore and Craig etc. as Bond because they were just as good and successful in my eyes, and the alternative is not having anything at all.

    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.

    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? :)


    CrabKey wrote: »
    How we see each Bond is a matter of preference. The definition of cartoonish is characteristic of or resembling a cartoon, especially in being unrealistically simplified and involving humorous exaggeration. Connery's portrayal of Bond was not that.

    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.

    DarthDimi wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    It's amazing really, and it makes me a little sad about Indiana Jones in a way. Because I think Ford's Indy is up there as being as iconic as Connery's Bond was, but with Bond they started to change actor relatively quickly and have proven that the role can be reinterpreted just as successfully. But Indy stayed Ford, and although he's clearly amazing in the role, it can never be anyone else. I much prefer having Moore and Craig etc. as Bond because they were just as good and successful in my eyes, and the alternative is not having anything at all.

    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 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.

    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.
  • edited January 1 Posts: 1,301

    DarthDimi wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    It's amazing really, and it makes me a little sad about Indiana Jones in a way. Because I think Ford's Indy is up there as being as iconic as Connery's Bond was, but with Bond they started to change actor relatively quickly and have proven that the role can be reinterpreted just as successfully. But Indy stayed Ford, and although he's clearly amazing in the role, it can never be anyone else. I much prefer having Moore and Craig etc. as Bond because they were just as good and successful in my eyes, and the alternative is not having anything at all.

    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 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.

    Again, Connery's Bond looks real. Moore was doing the Tarzan's yell (or his stunt man).
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,145
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    It's amazing really, and it makes me a little sad about Indiana Jones in a way. Because I think Ford's Indy is up there as being as iconic as Connery's Bond was, but with Bond they started to change actor relatively quickly and have proven that the role can be reinterpreted just as successfully. But Indy stayed Ford, and although he's clearly amazing in the role, it can never be anyone else. I much prefer having Moore and Craig etc. as Bond because they were just as good and successful in my eyes, and the alternative is not having anything at all.

    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 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 don't think so. Con
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    It's amazing really, and it makes me a little sad about Indiana Jones in a way. Because I think Ford's Indy is up there as being as iconic as Connery's Bond was, but with Bond they started to change actor relatively quickly and have proven that the role can be reinterpreted just as successfully. But Indy stayed Ford, and although he's clearly amazing in the role, it can never be anyone else. I much prefer having Moore and Craig etc. as Bond because they were just as good and successful in my eyes, and the alternative is not having anything at all.

    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 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.

    Again, Connery's Bond looks real. Moore was doing the Tarzan 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.
  • Posts: 1,301
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    It's amazing really, and it makes me a little sad about Indiana Jones in a way. Because I think Ford's Indy is up there as being as iconic as Connery's Bond was, but with Bond they started to change actor relatively quickly and have proven that the role can be reinterpreted just as successfully. But Indy stayed Ford, and although he's clearly amazing in the role, it can never be anyone else. I much prefer having Moore and Craig etc. as Bond because they were just as good and successful in my eyes, and the alternative is not having anything at all.

    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 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 don't think so. Con
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    It's amazing really, and it makes me a little sad about Indiana Jones in a way. Because I think Ford's Indy is up there as being as iconic as Connery's Bond was, but with Bond they started to change actor relatively quickly and have proven that the role can be reinterpreted just as successfully. But Indy stayed Ford, and although he's clearly amazing in the role, it can never be anyone else. I much prefer having Moore and Craig etc. as Bond because they were just as good and successful in my eyes, and the alternative is not having anything at all.

    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 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.

    Again, Connery's Bond looks real. Moore was doing the Tarzan 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.
  • edited January 1 Posts: 4,067
    CrabKey wrote: »
    How we see each Bond is a matter of preference. The definition of cartoonish is characteristic of or resembling a cartoon, especially in being unrealistically simplified and involving humorous exaggeration. Connery's portrayal of Bond was not that. That Moore took the character in a different direction always seemed to me a reflection of Moore's persona. I've always thought that offscreen Moore was far more affable than Connery. Those qualities, warmth and being more human, imbue Moore's portrayal of the character. But, in my opinion, they did not make for a better Bond, irrespective of the success the series saw during Moore's tenure. If anything, the series during Moore's years became cartoon-like. Jaws surviving a fall into a circus tent, the slide whistle, the pigeon double-take, and all the rest of the often cited examples. For me the best Moore film remains his first. Moore and the series had yet to fully develop what would define his Bond and the series. That the series flourished during Moore's years I agree. For me he was not a better or more convincing Bond.

    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.