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
Too bad about everything else about him I guess.
Yes, considerably
Joking aside, I actually kind of like Cavill's haircut here, but not for Bond. TBH I think Craig's Bond haircuts aren't aging well as the years pass. His CR haircut is looking dated to me, now.
Both Cavill and Turner just turned 40 and I think they're still viable contenders. I want a seasoned Bond rather than a novice.
https://www.express.co.uk/entertainment/films/1782162/next-james-bond-odds-aidan-turner-007/amp
Make of that what you will.
There must be a ton of unused scripts that EON are sat on. I know this because we often hear how an old idea they had for a previous film then gets revisited in a newer script.
If they literally have a blank canvas, no script whatsoever, no ideas of a script, no idea how to take the franchise forward with a new actor, then it does beg the question - what have they been doing since production ended on NTTD 4 years ago?
I find it hilarious they bring up Aidan turning 40 and how that will slash his 'odds', while following up with Tom Hardy as a contender who's 'ancient' and will turn 46 in a couple of months. All this odds bogus should stop as it's silly.
Derek Zoolander however is flattered by Cavill's hairdo:
Arnold Schwarzenegger in Red Heat:
Never heard of Kraven before. Not really a Bond type role - seems like Tarzan if he were a psycho! - so hard to gauge his Bond potential. He looks quite fit in the trailer so I'm guessing he'd do a lot of jumping around, leaping onto fast cars, if he were Bond.
;)
They had a film to release worldwide.
Then the 60th.
And it’s not as simple as dusting off an old script, and; writers still need to be hired to craft an old script into something relevant today (remember these old scripts or outlines didn’t make it to the finish line for a reason).
I’m on a project right now, an adaptation of a book. When my script was optioned by my producer, you’d think the script work was done. But….. I have, to date, done ten more drafts (the producer had ideas, then our director had more ideas). And this is for a small $15 million dollar psychological-thriller. Imagine the stakes on a $200 million plus film.
No, I’d rather they develop this properly than rushing it because fans are getting antsy.
James Bond will eventually return…
Thanks Peter, nice insight.
Still surprises me that Cruise manages to get so many MI's off the ground in recent years though. I'm guessing maybe they have bigger budgets to play with, or more control over script and production than EON do?
Oh the budgets for James Bond are greater than the ones for MI. I also suspect EON have more creative control over their own scripts and production compared to MI too.
Also I wouldn't say that the MI films are exactly churned out either. The gap between MI 4 and MI 5 was 4 years, then another 3 year gap to the sixth one, and now these last couple have come a whopping 5/6 years after that. To be honest it's about the same as the pace of Craig's Bond films, and that's with all the behind the scenes difficulties during his tenure.
Since 2011 there will have been 5 MI's (including the release next year), compared to Bond's 3 films. And still no sign of when the next Bond will even start production.
The last one was shot back to back and is being released in two parts. That's four productions from their point of view compared to Bond's three (and like I said Bond films are bigger productions with more creative freedom, and indeed some more difficulties behind the scenes).
The MI series has had pretty long gaps considering.
I doubt we'll ever return to the days of a Bond movie every 2 years, like in the 70's, 80's and 90's.
I doubt many big, long running franchises will do that in this day and age. Which is fine. I think the slightly longer gaps are needed (even in the old days of Bond I'd argue this was the case - TMWTGG likely would have benefitted being released a year later than it did, and similarly TSWLM benefitted from the extra year it took to get everything prepared).
Speaking strictly of him on a professional level, as a filmmaker, Cruise is a force to be reckoned with and his clout is considerable ; he is driven and it shows in every aspect of a film’s production. He immediately values the theater experience and creating films that are best seen in a movie theater. The bottom line is that he respects his audience and truly wants to entertain them to the best of his ability
Bringing this back on topic, finding the right actor for Bond is a big part of the battle. Despite criticisms of QOS and SP amongst general audiences there was always a sense that Craig was an immensely popular Bond.
No problem, @jetsetwilly … I actually don’t mind a pause like this between actors. I can now calmly explore all the other films and I’m enjoying re-experiencing them. As I’ve told @mtm , he made me really re-evaluate the Moore era again. Not that I had a negative opinion on these films, but mtm made me pause and really consider what Moore did with the character, beyond a raised eyebrow. So my re-exploration of ‘73-‘85 has so far been great fun.
My mind is happy knowing EoN will be delivering a new Bond actor and new films. That’s exciting. But, until that time, the 25 films before do, in various ways, deliver so much joy and excitement and fun…
I revisited OP again recently and that was the biggest surprise for me. I somehow dismissed it for years, due to Tarzan yells, etc. and always remembered it being another silly Moore flick.
However, I was pleasantly surprised to find a decent action flick, gripping in parts, with a feelgood factor, decent Barry soundtrack, and most surprising of all, a lot of Fleming material used throughout the script.
I agree. Both Brosnan and Craig started off on such highs in their debuts, that despite some solid follow ups, the filmmakers in both eras never quite surpassed their first films. Brosnan perhaps got the shorter end of the stick because he was stuck with some pretty poor material, but the stuff Craig was given all ranged from perfection, to some of the worst creative decisions made in this series, most of which is stemming from the interconnected nature of his era. I think the reason most fans might prefer Casino Royale (or even Skyfall) to the rest of Craig’s tenure is that on their own, both films work as standalone stories. Whereas the rest of Craig’s tenure hinders on whether or not you’ve seen the previous film in order to be caught up, and I think that’s what ultimately drags down the Craig era for me.
I’m sure I’ve talked about this on the forum before, but to put my cards on the table fully, I really enjoy Daniel Craig’s portrayal of Bond, but I really dislike the Daniel Craig era as a whole, and it’s probably the era I go back to and revisit the least, and a lot of it is down to the polarizing nature of the films. The fact is for me, as much as I would love to stand on a box and proclaim that both CR and Skyfall are masterpieces, I can’t bring myself to do that because both films feel retroactively “violated” by the revelations made in SP. The moment SP tried to convince me that Blofeld was Bond’s evil, long lost “step brother” who behind the events of all the previous Craig films, and that he was doing it out of revenge of Bond due to “daddy spending more time with you than he did with me” is the moment the Craig era broke for me. I’ve used the term “lazy” to describe that plot element before, but perhaps a better word to use would be “cheap”. Those revelations in SP were nothing else to me but a cheap illusion of continuity, a cheap attempt to jump on the shared continuity bandwagon that every single franchise was latching too back in 2015. To quote Eyebrow Cinema (one of my favorite YouTubers); “Why abandon episodic storytelling in a film franchise built upon just that?” And he’s right.
The reason Bond has survived and lasted for so long is that in addition to constant reinvention, people could always just dip in and out of any Bond film without needing to be caught up on continuity. Yeah it was nice seeing Roger Moore lay flowers at Tracy’s grave, and it gives me that little OHMSS sequel I crave, but it’s nothing than some small fan service, and that’s fine. Craig’s tenure abandoned all of that in favor of stretching a poorly planned arc across five films. That’s why I always say that if EON insists on another Multi-Film arc for Bond, then to actually plan with care ahead of time, and who knows, maybe that’s what they’re doing now.
I apologize if this seems a bit “fantastical” from my view, but it’s hard for me to appreciate Craig’s era as a whole when I take those points into consideration. Plus perhaps I am a bit biased in some ways, my favorite Bond is Brosnan, and seeing some fans tear down his portrayal/his era just to prop up Craig’s does irritate me to some extent, especially when some of those jabs are being posed as fact, and not opinion. But given NTTD’s reactions, I think that battlefield has been evened out.
If anything, Craig’s era just strengthened my love and respect for OTHER Bond films. Without Craig’s tenure, I certainly wouldn’t be singing the praises of OHMSS, FYEO, and LTK. I certainly wouldn’t be flying my Brosnan flag high and pride if it wasn’t for seeing how much people love and adore Craig. Heck my favorite film in the series probably wouldn’t be FRWL if it wasn’t for Craig’s era.
EDIT: As for Cavil’s haircut, that’s atrocious.