Where does Bond go after Craig?

1344345347349350680

Comments

  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,183
    talos7 wrote: »
    He was paid a record amount and he showed up out of shape, bloated and poorly groomed. I am a huge Connery fan but not only was that unprofessional but it also it did a disservice to the character and fans of his films.

    It was something completely in his control. Just look at him, 9 years later, in "The Great Train Robbery; he came in lean , fit and looking impeccable. That is what he should have brought to the set of DAF.

    One thing about Daniel, he came in prepared for all of his films; hopefully the next actor will show the same consideration.

    This is unfair because he was literally brought back at the last minute, with only weeks until production began. Remember, Eon had already signed another actor in the part (John Gavin) and UA president David Picker, in a rare move, opted to pay off Connery to star in DAF rather than go with another unknown.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,208
    talos7 wrote: »
    He was paid a record amount and he showed up out of shape, bloated and poorly groomed. I am a huge Connery fan but not only was that unprofessional but it also it did a disservice to the character and fans of his films.

    It was something completely in his control. Just look at him, 9 years later, in "The Great Train Robbery; he came in lean , fit and looking impeccable. That is what he should have brought to the set of DAF.

    One thing about Daniel, he came in prepared for all of his films; hopefully the next actor will show the same consideration.

    This is unfair because he was literally brought back at the last minute, with only weeks until production began. Remember, Eon had already signed another actor in the part (John Gavin) and UA president David Picker, in a rare move, opted to pay off Connery to star in DAF rather than go with another unknown.

    No don’t negotiations were going on for some time prior to the “ last minute “ signing. He knew that he may be returning and should have prepared.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    edited September 2023 Posts: 8,216
    It's fascinating that Connery was merely months older in DAF than Brosnan was in GE, and yet he looks like he could have played his father.
    Venutius wrote: »
    Brosnan-era stock fools like Obruchev, too, tbh.

    I always like when people say things like this as if there weren't any moronic characters in the other eras, too.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,183
    talos7 wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    He was paid a record amount and he showed up out of shape, bloated and poorly groomed. I am a huge Connery fan but not only was that unprofessional but it also it did a disservice to the character and fans of his films.

    It was something completely in his control. Just look at him, 9 years later, in "The Great Train Robbery; he came in lean , fit and looking impeccable. That is what he should have brought to the set of DAF.

    One thing about Daniel, he came in prepared for all of his films; hopefully the next actor will show the same consideration.

    This is unfair because he was literally brought back at the last minute, with only weeks until production began. Remember, Eon had already signed another actor in the part (John Gavin) and UA president David Picker, in a rare move, opted to pay off Connery to star in DAF rather than go with another unknown.

    No don’t negotiations were going on for some time prior to the “ last minute “ signing. He knew that he may be returning and should have prepared.

    By all accounts Connery was complimented for being very professional with the production, as well as collaborating with Tom Mankiewicz over dialogue (Connery ad libbed the line “named after your father, perhaps”). So this fan narrative that Connery came into the film completely unengaged and phoning it in is just flat out false.
  • edited September 2023 Posts: 2,266

    I always like when people say things like this as if there weren't any moronic characters in the other eras, too.

    I know, I liked Obruchev. Felt nice having some genuine comic relief in the film midst all the tension and drama going on. He even gets a pretty cool death to thanks to Nomi!
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,208
    talos7 wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    He was paid a record amount and he showed up out of shape, bloated and poorly groomed. I am a huge Connery fan but not only was that unprofessional but it also it did a disservice to the character and fans of his films.

    It was something completely in his control. Just look at him, 9 years later, in "The Great Train Robbery; he came in lean , fit and looking impeccable. That is what he should have brought to the set of DAF.

    One thing about Daniel, he came in prepared for all of his films; hopefully the next actor will show the same consideration.

    This is unfair because he was literally brought back at the last minute, with only weeks until production began. Remember, Eon had already signed another actor in the part (John Gavin) and UA president David Picker, in a rare move, opted to pay off Connery to star in DAF rather than go with another unknown.

    No don’t negotiations were going on for some time prior to the “ last minute “ signing. He knew that he may be returning and should have prepared.

    By all accounts Connery was complimented for being very professional with the production, as well as collaborating with Tom Mankiewicz over dialogue (Connery ad libbed the line “named after your father, perhaps”). So this fan narrative that Connery came into the film completely unengaged and phoning it in is just flat out false.

    I don’t question any of that, only that he came in in sub par physical condition. That may not important to some but I think it’s an important aspect of the character. It’s particularly frustrating that nearly a decade later he looked in peak condition.
  • Eh his physical condition seemed fine to me. He could’ve done with a better hairpiece, and maybe trimmed eyebrows however. Those mushy things look like caterpillars!
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited September 2023 Posts: 3,152
    That's what i said earlier, the next Bond needs to achieve to balance the tone between the lighter and the grittier entries.
    Yes, I think that's probably what will happen. For myself, I'd prefer that the balance tipped back to the darker, more grounded elements - eg. Matera and Jamaica, rather than Cuba. But like you said, mate, it'll probably be a balance. I think that'll probably be the best way to get the approval of the broadest part of the fanbase too.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,183
    talos7 wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    He was paid a record amount and he showed up out of shape, bloated and poorly groomed. I am a huge Connery fan but not only was that unprofessional but it also it did a disservice to the character and fans of his films.

    It was something completely in his control. Just look at him, 9 years later, in "The Great Train Robbery; he came in lean , fit and looking impeccable. That is what he should have brought to the set of DAF.

    One thing about Daniel, he came in prepared for all of his films; hopefully the next actor will show the same consideration.

    This is unfair because he was literally brought back at the last minute, with only weeks until production began. Remember, Eon had already signed another actor in the part (John Gavin) and UA president David Picker, in a rare move, opted to pay off Connery to star in DAF rather than go with another unknown.

    No don’t negotiations were going on for some time prior to the “ last minute “ signing. He knew that he may be returning and should have prepared.

    By all accounts Connery was complimented for being very professional with the production, as well as collaborating with Tom Mankiewicz over dialogue (Connery ad libbed the line “named after your father, perhaps”). So this fan narrative that Connery came into the film completely unengaged and phoning it in is just flat out false.

    I don’t question any of that, only that he came in in sub par physical condition. That may not important to some but I think it’s an important aspect of the character. It’s particularly frustrating that nearly a decade later he looked in peak condition.

    Would it have been nicer if he was in better physical condition? Sure, but he’s charismatic enough in the part to help me overlook that.
  • Posts: 1,987
    Connery's physique is not the issue with DAF. It was 1971, a period of white shoes and belts, lots of maroon, plaids, pink ties, sideburns, and the worst design of first generation Mustangs. The script is the major problem.
  • CrabKey wrote: »
    Connery's physique is not the issue with DAF. It was 1971, a period of white shoes and belts, lots of maroon, plaids, pink ties, sideburns, and the worst design of first generation Mustangs. The script is the major problem.

    Bingo. It’s 70’s cheese, and I suppose that brings some charm.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited September 2023 Posts: 3,789
    I actually thought Connery came off energetic in DAF. I dunno where anyone gets “tired” from his performance in that.

    I actually prefer the film. A few sequences aside, the novel is kind of a slog.

    But the film had a disadvantage of making Tiffany Case such an airhead in the film (which is the main advantage of the book), then there's Blofeld in drag, the only parts where I prefer the film are in the henchman territory, as I think Wint and Kidd are so much better in the film.
    peter wrote: »
    I actually thought Connery came off energetic in DAF. I dunno where anyone gets “tired” from his performance in that.

    I actually prefer the film. A few sequences aside, the novel is kind of a slog.

    💯 on both counts.

    Connery may’ve looked a little heavier in his return, but the man was light on his toes.

    And DAF, the novel, is my least favourite. It IS a slog to get through, and I think the film was one of those rare times (like Goldfinger), where, warts and all, it’s better than the Fleming creation.

    I think, I can safely say that the majority of the early Bond films improved upon the books (DN, FRWL, GF, OHMSS) for example.

    I even actually prefer the characters of Moonraker film to the ones in the book, Hugo Drax in the film are much more colorful character, more fun, and had a great banter with Bond, I liked how we've got to know more of Hugo Drax's interests (like that of Bird Hunting) and his personality, more fleshed out than the one in the book.

    And Holly Goodhead was more interesting than Gala Brand (sure, there's that ending that defines Gala Brand, but other than that, I don't find her that interesting as a character, Holly Goodhead was more of a competent character).
  • SIS_HQ wrote: »
    I actually thought Connery came off energetic in DAF. I dunno where anyone gets “tired” from his performance in that.

    I actually prefer the film. A few sequences aside, the novel is kind of a slog.

    But the film had a disadvantage of making Tiffany Case such an airhead in the film (which is the main advantage of the book), then there's Blofeld in drag, the only parts where I prefer the film are in the henchman territory, as I think Wint and Kidd are so much better in the film.
    peter wrote: »
    I actually thought Connery came off energetic in DAF. I dunno where anyone gets “tired” from his performance in that.

    I actually prefer the film. A few sequences aside, the novel is kind of a slog.

    💯 on both counts.

    Connery may’ve looked a little heavier in his return, but the man was light on his toes.

    And DAF, the novel, is my least favourite. It IS a slog to get through, and I think the film was one of those rare times (like Goldfinger), where, warts and all, it’s better than the Fleming creation.

    I think, I can safely say that the majority of the early Bond films improved upon the books (DN, FRWL, GF, OHMSS) for example.

    There are a couple of scenes I wouldn't mind seeing adapted from the DAF novel. I always thought Kidd & Wint were a much nastier pair in the book, with the use of steaming mud in the baths, and also kicking Bond nearly to death with their football boots.

    Both these grisly scenes would work well in a grittier CR style movie.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,183
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    I actually thought Connery came off energetic in DAF. I dunno where anyone gets “tired” from his performance in that.

    I actually prefer the film. A few sequences aside, the novel is kind of a slog.

    But the film had a disadvantage of making Tiffany Case such an airhead in the film (which is the main advantage of the book), then there's Blofeld in drag, the only parts where I prefer the film are in the henchman territory, as I think Wint and Kidd are so much better in the film.

    I like Tiffany as presented BEFORE oil rig. That’s the point where they turned her into a airhead in a bikini, but the climax has always been the one thing I disliked in the film. As a big fan of DAF, I can’t defend that climax. The only good things out of that were some of Blofeld’s lines like the remark about Kansas and comparing the great powers of the world to impotent beach boys.
  • Posts: 1,859
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    I actually thought Connery came off energetic in DAF. I dunno where anyone gets “tired” from his performance in that.

    I actually prefer the film. A few sequences aside, the novel is kind of a slog.

    But the film had a disadvantage of making Tiffany Case such an airhead in the film (which is the main advantage of the book), then there's Blofeld in drag, the only parts where I prefer the film are in the henchman territory, as I think Wint and Kidd are so much better in the film.

    I like Tiffany as presented BEFORE oil rig. That’s the point where they turned her into a airhead in a bikini, but the climax has always been the one thing I disliked in the film. As a big fan of DAF, I can’t defend that climax. The only good things out of that were some of Blofeld’s lines like the remark about Kansas and comparing the great powers of the world to impotent beach boys.

    The original climax was truncated and rewritten at the last moment because Hamilton, the director, caught a cold while shooting in Oceanside Ca. and could not work the long hours on set. Other problems included the stunt man inside the silver ball getting sea sick and throwing up inside of it. Gross times.
  • George_KaplanGeorge_Kaplan Being chauffeured by Tibbett
    Posts: 682
    delfloria wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    I actually thought Connery came off energetic in DAF. I dunno where anyone gets “tired” from his performance in that.

    I actually prefer the film. A few sequences aside, the novel is kind of a slog.

    But the film had a disadvantage of making Tiffany Case such an airhead in the film (which is the main advantage of the book), then there's Blofeld in drag, the only parts where I prefer the film are in the henchman territory, as I think Wint and Kidd are so much better in the film.

    I like Tiffany as presented BEFORE oil rig. That’s the point where they turned her into a airhead in a bikini, but the climax has always been the one thing I disliked in the film. As a big fan of DAF, I can’t defend that climax. The only good things out of that were some of Blofeld’s lines like the remark about Kansas and comparing the great powers of the world to impotent beach boys.

    The original climax was truncated and rewritten at the last moment because Hamilton, the director, caught a cold while shooting in Oceanside Ca. and could not work the long hours on set. Other problems included the stunt man inside the silver ball getting sea sick and throwing up inside of it. Gross times.

    And the effects people set off all the explosions during a run-through.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,383
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    As for the books going into the public domain, honestly, EON should use a continuation novel or two for a film basis. There’s quite a decent amount of great stories that aren’t Fleming, that could be set in the present day. Are we really going to get excited about another Purvis and Wade screenplay?

    I actually can't think of any continuation novels which have stronger/more original stories than any of the P&W films for my money.
    Maybe the two most recent Horowitzs, but they're very specific to the period/Fleming series.
    talos7 wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    He was paid a record amount and he showed up out of shape, bloated and poorly groomed. I am a huge Connery fan but not only was that unprofessional but it also it did a disservice to the character and fans of his films.

    It was something completely in his control. Just look at him, 9 years later, in "The Great Train Robbery; he came in lean , fit and looking impeccable. That is what he should have brought to the set of DAF.

    One thing about Daniel, he came in prepared for all of his films; hopefully the next actor will show the same consideration.

    This is unfair because he was literally brought back at the last minute, with only weeks until production began. Remember, Eon had already signed another actor in the part (John Gavin) and UA president David Picker, in a rare move, opted to pay off Connery to star in DAF rather than go with another unknown.

    No don’t negotiations were going on for some time prior to the “ last minute “ signing. He knew that he may be returning and should have prepared.

    By all accounts Connery was complimented for being very professional with the production, as well as collaborating with Tom Mankiewicz over dialogue (Connery ad libbed the line “named after your father, perhaps”). So this fan narrative that Connery came into the film completely unengaged and phoning it in is just flat out false.

    I don’t question any of that, only that he came in in sub par physical condition. That may not important to some but I think it’s an important aspect of the character. It’s particularly frustrating that nearly a decade later he looked in peak condition.

    I'm still intrigued by the idea he was 'poorly groomed'; like he didn't comb his chest hair enough? :D
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,208
    Since you’re pressing the issue, unlike in his earlier films, his eyebrows are out of control; they are bushy and massive. Reflecting the era, his sideburns are also bushy and lower. His hairpiece is also not the best and is longer.
    Now you can counter with a snide reply why you think these things don’t matter. They might not to you and some others , but Connery’s sub par appearance is frequently mentioned when discussed; it was noticed by many.
  • Posts: 4,139
    mtm wrote: »
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    As for the books going into the public domain, honestly, EON should use a continuation novel or two for a film basis. There’s quite a decent amount of great stories that aren’t Fleming, that could be set in the present day. Are we really going to get excited about another Purvis and Wade screenplay?

    I actually can't think of any continuation novels which have stronger/more original stories than any of the P&W films for my money.
    Maybe the two most recent Horowitzs, but they're very specific to the period/Fleming series.

    I may well be in a minority, but I personally don't even think the last two Horrowitz novels are strong enough to make faithful film adaptations out of (even if adapted for contemporary times). I do, however, think we might see minor similarities crop up to these newer continuation novels in the next few films. I'm sure having an older, more world weary Bond girl in a similar mould to Madame 16 wouldn't be a stretch (it's a nice subversion anyway, especially if you have a younger James Bond). Or a plot about brainwashing in the vein of WAMTK (this arguably is simply an extension of Fleming's ideas anyway). Perhaps we'll even see similarities to OHiMSS make their way in.

    At the end of the day though, I don't see much point in adapting any of the continuation novels in that faithful way.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited September 2023 Posts: 16,383
    talos7 wrote: »
    Since you’re pressing the issue, unlike in his earlier films, his eyebrows are out of control; they are bushy and massive. Reflecting the era, his sideburns are also bushy and lower. His hairpiece is also not the best and is longer.
    Now you can counter with a snide reply why you think these things don’t matter. They might not to you and some others , but Connery’s sub par appearance is frequently mentioned when discussed; it was noticed by many.

    Well I'm glad you took it in such good grace, but I suspect those things are under the purview of the makeup artists rather than Connery himself. I doubt he was conspiring with them to make himself look as bad possible ("you make shure my wig is bad, I'll put on shome weight") so it might just be the times they're in.
    007HallY wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    As for the books going into the public domain, honestly, EON should use a continuation novel or two for a film basis. There’s quite a decent amount of great stories that aren’t Fleming, that could be set in the present day. Are we really going to get excited about another Purvis and Wade screenplay?

    I actually can't think of any continuation novels which have stronger/more original stories than any of the P&W films for my money.
    Maybe the two most recent Horowitzs, but they're very specific to the period/Fleming series.

    I may well be in a minority, but I personally don't even think the last two Horrowitz novels are strong enough to make faithful film adaptations out of (even if adapted for contemporary times). I do, however, think we might see minor similarities crop up to these newer continuation novels in the next few films. I'm sure having an older, more world weary Bond girl in a similar mould to Madame 16 wouldn't be a stretch (it's a nice subversion anyway, especially if you have a younger James Bond). Or a plot about brainwashing in the vein of WAMTK (this arguably is simply an extension of Fleming's ideas anyway). Perhaps we'll even see similarities to OHiMSS make their way in.

    At the end of the day though, I don't see much point in adapting any of the continuation novels in that faithful way.

    Yeah, I like Mind To Kill, but it only really works in the Fleming continuity as you say; outside of it it's not a strong, unique idea which demands to be adapted into a movie (which isn't a criticism- that's not what it's aiming to be). I'd argue that something like Skyfall or even Quantum has a stronger, more original plot than stuff like Trigger Mortis or Carte Blanche or Devil May Care etc. - especially more than any of the cookie cutter Bensons. If TWINE had been an original novel folks would be crying out for an adaptation: it's full of fresh ideas.
    I like OHiMSS, but I don't know if even that has anything which is unique and inventive that it cries out to be adapted. Sixtine though; sure I'd be happy to see a character like her, but we won't get specifically her.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,641
    One thing I hope they get right in Bond 26 is Bond's dry wit. I love CR and QOS's one liners, they are few and far between but they're so memorable.

    I'd rather they have less quips, but when they happen feel organic and intelligent
  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    Posts: 942
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    One thing I hope they get right in Bond 26 is Bond's dry wit. I love CR and QOS's one liners, they are few and far between but they're so memorable.

    I'd rather they have less quips, but when they happen feel organic and intelligent

    Yes, I agree - more wit, less cracker jokes.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,968
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    One thing I hope they get right in Bond 26 is Bond's dry wit. I love CR and QOS's one liners, they are few and far between but they're so memorable.

    I'd rather they have less quips, but when they happen feel organic and intelligent

    I'd enjoy this too. There are some quips and one-liners that Craig's Bond delivered that I did really like though, such as his line after killing Primo in NTTD.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    I feel like it’s now or never speaking about the possibility of Nolan helming a Bond film.
    EoN needs a huge event to kickstart a difficult new era after 15 years of Craig.
    Nolan is at a turning point as well with no attachment to any studio and Oppenheimer being a $950M 3 hour drama crowning achievement that will likely bring him an Academy Award.
    A Nolan Bond would become the biggest event in British cinema history.
  • Posts: 2,165
    matt_u wrote: »
    I feel like it’s now or never speaking about the possibility of Nolan helming a Bond film.
    EoN needs a huge event to kickstart a difficult new era after 15 years of Craig.
    Nolan is at a turning point as well with no attachment to any studio and Oppenheimer being a $950M 3 hour drama crowning achievement that will likely bring him an Academy Award.
    A Nolan Bond would become the biggest event in British cinema history.

    An aside, but I dont get the arguments that a Nolan Bond film would be too different from a normal Bond film. I have seen arguments that a Nolan Bond film wouldnt have the gunbarrel, main titles, theme song, Bond theme, use a non-linear narrative etc.

    If he loves the series so much, why would he remove these elements, even if EoN let him? Surely theyre the same things he finds so much attraction to with Bond?

  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,978
    talos7 wrote: »
    He was paid a record amount and he showed up out of shape, bloated and poorly groomed. I am a huge Connery fan but not only was that unprofessional but it also it did a disservice to the character and fans of his films.

    It was something completely in his control. Just look at him, 9 years later, in "The Great Train Robbery; he came in lean , fit and looking impeccable. That is what he should have brought to the set of DAF.

    One thing about Daniel, he came in prepared for all of his films; hopefully the next actor will show the same consideration.

    The worst thing about that was the total lack on enthusiasm he shows. He looks in better shape... somewhat, in NSNA. He looks redder than a radish, but otherwise better than he did in DAF.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,383
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    One thing I hope they get right in Bond 26 is Bond's dry wit. I love CR and QOS's one liners, they are few and far between but they're so memorable.

    I'd rather they have less quips, but when they happen feel organic and intelligent

    I'd enjoy this too. There are some quips and one-liners that Craig's Bond delivered that I did really like though, such as his line after killing Primo in NTTD.

    I quite enjoyed the full cheese of that one, yeah. Nothing wrong with embracing it from time to time, but I generally liked CraigBond's drier wit, as mentioned above.

    Funnily enough I thought that's something that OHiMSS had: Higson has said he isn't a fan of Craig's Bond, but his 007 felt like he had CraigBond's sense of humour to me.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,968
    mtm wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    One thing I hope they get right in Bond 26 is Bond's dry wit. I love CR and QOS's one liners, they are few and far between but they're so memorable.

    I'd rather they have less quips, but when they happen feel organic and intelligent

    I'd enjoy this too. There are some quips and one-liners that Craig's Bond delivered that I did really like though, such as his line after killing Primo in NTTD.

    I quite enjoyed the full cheese of that one, yeah. Nothing wrong with embracing it from time to time, but I generally liked CraigBond's drier wit, as mentioned above.

    Funnily enough I thought that's something that OHiMSS had: Higson has said he isn't a fan of Craig's Bond, but his 007 felt like he had CraigBond's sense of humour to me.

    You and I both. In the right film and the right atmosphere, he could nail it, but he did handle that dry wit even better.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited September 2023 Posts: 3,152
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    One thing I hope they get right in Bond 26 is Bond's dry wit. I love CR and QOS's one liners, they are few and far between but they're so memorable.

    I'd rather they have less quips, but when they happen feel organic and intelligent

    Absolutely. Deadpan dry wit rather than soup gags and 'funny foreigner' characters, every time.
  • Posts: 6,709
    Mallory wrote: »
    matt_u wrote: »
    I feel like it’s now or never speaking about the possibility of Nolan helming a Bond film.
    EoN needs a huge event to kickstart a difficult new era after 15 years of Craig.
    Nolan is at a turning point as well with no attachment to any studio and Oppenheimer being a $950M 3 hour drama crowning achievement that will likely bring him an Academy Award.
    A Nolan Bond would become the biggest event in British cinema history.

    An aside, but I dont get the arguments that a Nolan Bond film would be too different from a normal Bond film. I have seen arguments that a Nolan Bond film wouldnt have the gunbarrel, main titles, theme song, Bond theme, use a non-linear narrative etc.

    If he loves the series so much, why would he remove these elements, even if EoN let him? Surely theyre the same things he finds so much attraction to with Bond?

    Exactly. He understands and is knowledgeable of the series and Fleming. He is a fan, and one with the proper set of tastes. I’ll really feel cheated (by fate if you will, not by EON, of course) if Nolan doesn’t get the gig now.
Sign In or Register to comment.