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
How about "COME AND WATCH THE ENDING OF THE CRAIG ERA"? No Bond actor before got a proper ending. DAF was just another Bond film with Connery (in fact, it was more about his return than his retirement). OHMSS had a cliffhanger ending. AVTAK was just another Bond film with Moore. LTK was just another Bond film with Dalton. DAD was just another Bond film with Brosnan.
That's because batman isn't Bond and has nowhere near the circus type event that Bond goes through with each outing. It's a massive deal just to know who's singing the title song. The media goes into a frenzy if Bond doesn't order a vodka martini. The level of interest for various aspects of what goes into making a Bond movie are almost theatrical. How many movies and franchises put on the sort of press conferences the Bond movies have been doing consistently for 50 years? Hell, the new id4 movie tried and failed to copy the SF press announcement. Bond is just a different beast altogether and is it's own show, a quality no other movie has. When Bond number 7 is cast, that'll be the same day people will also be talking about who Bond number 8 should be. It's just one of many tricks of the Bond circus that can't be escaped so you're not entirely right to just assume nothing positive can come from it but it does all depend on how it's marketed.
I agree, although I think it's possible to pull it off. I remember reading somewhere that they did this for MR (i.e. promoted it as Moore's last since he was expected to leave after that) and that film was the worldwide #1 for 1979 (not even TB, SF, or any other Bond film can boast that feat). I know we like to denigrate MR, but its incredible box office success in 1979 should not be discounted.
I agree the two situations can't really be compared at all. It worked perfectly there - with a particular story arch of the main character over those 3 movies, in a particular universe created for that trilogy. The actor was done with the role only because the director was and the story was written accordingly, ending that story arch, and so he couldn't have possibly continued with it for that reason. The Bond situation is entirely different.
Ugh. I can only imagine.
In theory, yes. But they'd have to have Bond either retire or die, I suppose (otherwise how could it be a definite ending), and I can't really imagine that happening with Bond, it would be pretty weird.
Yup.
I'd love to see a full trilogy from Mendes and if Craig's 5th is his last, so be it. It will be a nice send off for a great bond. I hope he does 6 total, though, to match Connery. I think that's what he wants deep down, because he knows he's been on that level and he wants to be known as one of the Bond greats like Sean and Rog.
The one thing that bothers me about this situation is, if Swan gets a tragic ending in SP or in Bond 25, it's going to be a dicey situation for the actress that gets cast as the new Bond girl. I'm still salty at how QoS wasted both Arterton and Olga and I can just tell it's going to be a similar situation again. This is the problem when you put Bond in these types of romantic situations, he'll get all depressed again and the role of the next Bond girl will end up being a waste.
Let's face it, Broccoli/Wilson wasted Craig.
The 4 year gap between QOS and SF is inexcusable, the 3 year gap between SF and SP even more inexcusable.
There will be only 5 Craig movies within a whopping 12 years. That's a first and I very hope it will not happen again.
Never underestimate the aging process. Craig does not look that good anymore as most want to believe. It's still perfectly ok how he looks but in 2018?? Or even later???
The main reason some want Craig to make 6 movies is because then they have another argument to put him on the same level as Connery as if that would help make Craig anything like Connery, it's just ridiculous.
We should be thankful that Skyfall was such a success. Without the 50th anniversary and the most perfect marketing campaign SF may have just had the normal growth and made 750 million. How would people look upon the Craig era then?
The billion dollar box office single-handedly saved Craig from becoming just another Bond actor. Let's see how Spectre does. Success is everything in the short term.
If it does as good as SF everything is swell. If it does "only" 850 million the media will quickly write the obituary for Craig and he is done.
Really? Connery and Moore We're over 50 when they made their respective last Bond movies. Brosnan was 49 when DAD was released; he and many others expected and wanted him to return which would have made him at least 50 at the earliest by the time he would have filmed his scenes for his potential 5th Bond movie. Yet, Craig who has obviously aged since 2006 still looks good, is in better physical shape than his predecessors were when they were in their prime and hasn't changed much in his appearance. If Tom Cruise is making positive headlines for being 53 and doing these leading man action movies; it's not a problem for Craig to still be in the role at 50.
I agree that the producers have somewhat squandered time and that's mainly from the period between SF abd SP. They wasted time by waiting for Mendes and they wasted time by not checking Logan and allowing him to go unsupervised for months with his atrocious script.
As for QoS to SF, that couldn't be helped because MGM had filed for chapter 11 and then went under a restructuring so that was something unavoidable.
That is unfortunate but you have to remember 4 out of those 12 years were out of EoN's control but 5 movies is still a credible and amazing run for a Bond actor who simultaneously didn't ever give off the feeling of oversaturation.
The aging process from a certain perspective is what has helped Craig imo. Since CR people have said he looks old and as I said earlier he has obviously aged since 2006 but he more or less looks the same. His aged and burned out look for SF was intentional and if you saw him during his promo tours for SF he looked nothing like how he looked in the film. I was fortunate enough to attend the Royal Premiere of SF and stood a few feet away from him and he dud indeed looked years younger than he did in SF.
In SP Craig looks great, again looking younger than he did in SF and as he ages over the next 2 to 3 years it's not going to be as jarring compared to how Connery, Moore and Brosnan aged while still in the role of Bond.
Where are you getting your information from? I havnt seen anyone anywhere maje such claims. Doing 5 movies puts Craig on the same level as Connery? That's absurd. For starters, Connery made 7 Bond movies, 6 being with EoN so doing 5 movies would still leave Craig lacking in output. Secondly, quality over quantity, many people already regard Craig as the best ever and many were already saying that back in 2006. That's how much of an impact statement Craig made with his brilliant performance in an equally brilliant movie.
Nice reply, thanks. I don't agree with everything you say, but your points are valid of course.
Just a word to how Craig was perceived in general.
That's really depending on the point of view one has.
CR did well in 2006, the steady growth that Bond movies had at the box office was continued with CR. QOS did a bitter less good than CR.
Up to that point (QOS) Craig was by no means viewed in general as being as good as Connery or even being the best. Far from it.
But he was accepted by about anyone as a good successor to Brosnan who keeps the franchise going in a strong way.
Skyfall changed that quite a bit. A billion dollar is hard to beat with arguments. Now Craig is on a pedestal carried by box office success and very good critics.
Skyfall's weight in the public's perception is so much heavier than Casino Royale even if that one is viewed as better by critics and rankings on several websites like imdb for example.
That just shows how irrational things are viewed upon by many.
http://www.inquisitr.com/2192867/henry-cavill-as-james-bond-rumors-increase-as-daniel-craigs-departure-nears/
Just suggesting this...
What if Cavill could pull out of his Superman contract, risk some economic penalty by Warner (breach of contract) and sign up for (potentially) more money as Bond when Craig leaves the role?
I'd like to think there will be a few credible contenders when Craig leaves - it won't be just Cavill - but there is there the possibility Cavill could pull out of future Superman films (such as Justice League part 3 - he's contracted to parts 1 and 2), risk the studio's wrath and any financial penalty, and go with Bond after Craig leaves (assuming Eon want him!). I dunno if he's considered this but you never know...
If Craig quits after SPECTRE, Cavill could chance his luck and ditch Superman after the release of Justice League part 2 (release date 2019 - but likely to be filmed in 2018). A Cavill Bond film could be released in 2020.
Your wish is answered!
;))
a blonde Superman isn't more ridiculous than a blond James Bond
:-O
But if EON is dumb enough to to pick Smith for the title theme, than yes, they are more than capable of picking Cavill.