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
lol, not to be a contrarian, but I have always thought that an engaged Connery would have been great In TSWLM.
I think he would've been great in that film.
Edit: Watching TSWLM, I thought Moore was trying to imitate Connery's Bond, maybe the Producers thought that Moore's first two portrayals didn't worked (as proved by the B.O), so they've told Moore: "Maybe, you should try doing some Connery impression, your take on the first two films didn't worked, ah it's showed in the box office".
And for some reason, it worked, it's indeed a success from the previous two.
This is ironic, because it’s well known that they did try making him more like Connery in TMWTGG, and that TSWLM is known as a pivot away from that and more towards Moore’s strength as a more tongue in cheek character.
In terms of the dialogue, I felt that Moore was more into Connery's Bond in TSWLM, he's semi serious in that film.
Many people often say that because of how he treated Andrea Anders in the hotel, but apart from that, I don't see any Connery moments in his portrayal in that film, the Karate scenes, his dinner with Scaramanga, it's not Conneryesque.
With TSWLM, he's playing a bit like Connery's Bond, because of how serious he was in some scenes, especially his conversation with Stromberg, and also his conversation with Anya regarding the killing of his boyfriend, those scenes I can easily Connery's Bond saying.
However, if there really is a small percentage of chance, that it really is Nolan, who shall direct the next Bond, then we should account for two things. Firstly, he would most certainly have an input on the next actor and secondly, he would want to write or co-write the script, not just direct the movie (and as we know, he already said in an interview, that he has an angle on character, which is original, hasn't been done before and is in line with character as written by Fleming; that's why it would have to be reinvention.
In keeping with the above, I actually see a possibility or a way in which things would be moving in terms of pre-production right now. If Nolan met with producers and they have chosen him to direct, I think, he would most certainly put forward his interpretation of the character and story, which may impact the choice of the next actor. And while he is busy finishing Oppenheimer, a first draft or an outline may be written by Purvis & Wade (similar to Dark Knight, where Nolan collaborated with Goyer and didn't write the script himself), while producers are throwing a wide net in regard to looking for the next actor, which would fit the new vision and outline (and not necessarily a script). Given that Nolan worked with ATJ, that ATJ's wife is friends with Barbara, and that ATJ generally fits the bill as a character English actor of the right age, it makes sense that he would be considered or even, that he was among the first or maybe even the first actor, with whom they've met.
Furthermore, I don't think it will work in such a linear way; first script, then actor, then director, or script/director/actor. I think they would want to choose the actor based on their new vision and overall approach to the new era and probably an outline for the first movie. Once the actor is chosen, the choice by itself shall also feed into the interpretation of the character, which shall impact the script (his mannerisms, how he shall be played etc.).
So all things considered, I believe it is possible, that outline was created, maybe the first draft written based on Nolan's ideas by Purvis & Wade and after Nolan finishes Oppenheimer, an announcement on directing shall be made. After that, I think, the list of possible candidates for the role shall be down to two or three, and only then the actor shall be chosen in collaboration with producers and Nolan. Only after that, I think, Nolan shall do his rewrite of the script and finish it in a way that suits himself, his new vision, producers, and the actor that will be chosen.
As regards to the outline, it would also work ... Nolan announcement in August/September 2023, new actor announcement in November/December 2023, script rewrite and finishing from November to April/May 2024, shooting from May 2024, till July/August 2024 and a year of post-production for standard Nolan release in July 2025.
It's always about individual impression and perception. For me there's not one second in any RM film in which RM reminds me of Connery.
Does anyone know if the rumours from pre production of Bond 25 that Nolan had met with EON about directing are true? If so this could mean they discussed him directing in the future post Craig.
TSWLM is an interesting one. One the one hand one can argue that it's the film where Moore's Bond came into his own (I think he's certainly at his most confident in the role). On the other hand I can also see where the Connery comparisons come from, but I'd argue they're quite broad. Moore really hones the more 'tongue in cheek' element of the cinematic Bond in that film, while also bringing that extra splash of humanity to his performance. He also has his rather cold moments (ie. shooting Stromberg, his initial matter-of-fact reaction to Anya confronting him about her boyfriend's death). I'd argue all these qualities were essentially there with Connery. The film and Moore's performance were just more tailored to him as an actor, and I'd argue made his Bond more human and relatable than his previous ones did. I mean, I certainly can't imagine the same Bond of TSWLM tricking Solitare into helping him the same way he does in LALD. Or indeed berating Goodnight in the way he does in TMWTGG.
TSWLM is an important Bond film in that sense. I do think some fans really take it for granted and have a tendency to dismiss it as a silly 70s era Moore film. It showed that an actor could bring their own strengths to the role while maintaining the essential Bondian qualities of the film series/character.
Also, forgive me if this is wrong, didn’t Nolan say that Oppenheimer was FINISHED several months ago??
Post production started on Dec 16, and the film will be locked, pretty much on the doorstep of its premiere. He has months more work on it.
Which, playing devil's advocate, could be why EON does not appear to have a sense of urgency. IF he's their director, then nature has to take it's course and work will begin once Oppenheimer is completed and released.
The release date for Oppenheimer is July 21.
By that time, we could be in the midst of a full on writers strike (May 1is when the contract expires). The last strike lasted one hundred days.
If something isnt agreed upon by May 1, the prediction is this will be the longest and nastiest strike to date. Why? Because streaming has changed everything:
1/now more than ever, producers want content, content and more content, but writers are spread thin and writing rooms have been cut significantly, which means the writers are pumping out more episodes for less money.
2/because feature films have been going direct to streaming, producers have been hiring writers to create features but, have been paying them under the definition of “tv movie”— which is a difference to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars. Which means;
3/the reps for the writers and the reps for the producers are going to have to come together to properly define what is now a TV movie and what is a feature that went straight to streaming (kind of like the argument: I don’t know how to define porn, but I know it when I see it. See how this, alone, will create chaos), and;
4/they’ll have to agree on what the fees are for each.
IF these points and others, aren’t resolved by May 1, this is going to be long and ugly and will likely last far longer than the 100 days we saw back in ‘07 (which cost the industry 1.5 to 2 billion). This is not good.
Which is my long winded way of saying: I don’t think EoN is waiting for Nolan to at least get a script going.
There’s something bigger going on.
I’m assuming Forster isn’t a member of the WGA, and Craig certainly isn’t- giving them freedom to re-write parts of Quantum.
If a producer or director is caught speaking with a writer, or speaking with and hiring so-called “scabs” (writers not in the union), the financial penalties are harsh, but the professional penalties are worse: the producer is black-balled and the WGA will not lend their writers to projects that these producers are involved in (the point of this is to apply as much pressure as they can to get resolutions from the money ppl)
There’s parts of it I could see playing better with Connery. The scene in Bond’s hotel room, for example, or the ringside encounter with Scaramanga which I could imagine Connery playing similarly to the sumo scene in YOLT with a mix of tension and casual coolness.
As for the scenes mentioned, I can see the dinner scene playing better with Connery. The “There’s a useful four letter word,” line feels like something Connery’s Bond would say more than Moore (if you’ll pardon the expression). The final duel, too, for that matter but that could be from the similarities to the opening of FRWL.
Golden Gun is a weird one, though, as it’s caught in tone between two very different Bonds and their eras. It’s even odder because it’s a second outing and not a first.
Yes, I see said the blind man.
Was Eon punished by the WGA for pushing through with Craig and Forster on Quantum? Or was it more understanding because the project was already in the works?
So producers and directors and actors, DP, gaffers and anyone else can have a go at the script. Anyone but members of the WGA or so-called “scabs” (professional writers not yet in the union; terrible name, but it’s also given for a reason).
Aha. I wasn't sure if they'd get upset with anyone "scabbing" or just WGA members, and encourage folks not to work with them etc. But that makes more sense. I used to be part of a media union with WGA. They take it very seriously.
Streaming has changed the landscape; throughout the last agreement, writers really couldn’t do anything if a producer hired them to write a feature but only paid them a TV-movie fee, because, technically, that’s what these new features are, right? Direct to TV?
But they’re not.
And that’s where this war will get ugly: defining what’s a tv-movie and what’s a feature that’s direct to streaming (what separates them? How are they different, etc… Methinks it’ll revolve around budget floors and budget ceilings, but then again….
In the end it’s going to be a battle based on nuance, semantics and budgets).
Interesting to hear your background, Lucknfate… Are you still working in this field?
I'm an automotive journalist for a major U.S. mag and site, but it's not union. My previous website was unionized with U.S. WGA East. I used to work for the Gawker family of sites if you know it.. during the Hulk Hogan lawsuit. Was a great time to be union. Didn't save Gawker entirely but did save the rest of us.