› › ›

No Time To Die: Production Diary

1…11011102110411061107…2507

Comments

  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 12,837
    I like DAD better than TND. Breaking a landspeed record in a rocket sled to escape a space lazer then surfing a tsunami? It's stupid James Bond but it's still James Bond. Walking through a sea of explosions gunning down soldiers with a machine gun in each hand? That's a generic action film. DAD starts off a good James Bond film then turns into an OTT, terrible but still fun James Bond film. TND starts off a great James Bond film then turns into a generic action movie. So I like DAD more.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,358
    You bet.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    PanchitoPistoles wrote: »
    @ClarkDevlin Ok, let's stick to movies. Believeing that Skyfall is godawful is just as ridiculous as claiming that Plan 9 from Outer Space is a genuinely good movie.
    And finding GE a good film while TND a godawful film is a rather inflated contradiction that's akin to saying Citizen Kane is a great film but Casablanca is plain bland.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    I just wish someone could spell 'knickers' correctly.

    It's so irksome I'm starting to get my nickers (sic) in a twist.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,358
    You'll have to forgive me. I'm not English.
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    TheWizardOfIce wrote: »
    I just wish someone could spell 'knickers' correctly.

    It's so irksome I'm starting to get my nickers (sic) in a twist.

    I was just going to say that Wiz,you beat me to it.

  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Murdock wrote: »
    You'll have to forgive me. I'm not English.

    Not being English is indeed something to be truly sorry for!

  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,358
    TheWizardOfIce wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    You'll have to forgive me. I'm not English.

    Not being English is indeed something to be truly sorry for!

    It was just the cards I was given. Fate and all that jazz. But I'll make due. :))
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    edited October 2017 Posts: 2,138
    CASINOROYALE wrote: »
    Personally, Moore’s style fit the 70s but not the current years.. It would feel like a parody. I’m fine with them doing a 60s style Bond film copying the style of Connery’s films. Or better yet just mimick the style of Brosnan’s first 2-3 movies. Craig has his own unique style and it fits. They need to do something different though to stay fresh. Hopefully the next actor is good. I hope they don’t go the Netflix route or screw the franchise up by doing Spin offs like the reports a few months ago..

    Bonds evolves to fit it's audience of the time. The reboot in 2006 was to reclaim a more serious note with gauntlet laid down by Bourne. Perfect challenge for the franchise at the right time. Obtaining Casinos rights was also the perfect receipe. Dalton tried it in his tenure to match other action flicks with a serious edge. Brosnan admits himself beyond Goldeneye everything is a blur. He admitted himself he wished he had done things differently and had spoken up and had more input. Brosnan actually sounds jealous of what Craig has achieved but acknowedges the reasons why, that Craig demand it be done his way no pastiche, no invisible cars etc.

    But Brosnan was the victim of his time EON tried to mimic other popular films with technology at the forefront. Austin Powers also made things difficult. It was funnier to mock Bond elements than draw an audience to watch a spy thriller. This was 90's Brit pop age and like the 60's rock movement establishment was not cool. A government spy wasn't a cool thing. Very same reason why Lazenby quit. Lazenby got caught up with Rowan of radio Caroline which trapped George in a world of parties, drugs and free love. He convinced George to quit, cause playing a government killer was not groovy man!.

    If you want an indication of what comes after the Craig tenure look at what is going down well with the audience in the year prior. Because Bond will morph and reinvent to survive. Just like Madonna.

    Look at Babs comments. "Bond can't ever go back, it always has to move forward and evolve".

    So no retro reboot.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 12,837
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Whatever is going on in this argument, I'm on @Murdock 's side.

    I could pick a side, for a price. Unless of course one of you is a West Ham fan in which case I got your back no questions asked.

    But seriously @Panchito, I'm not a TND fan either (can't fault it until Bond leaves Hamburg but it falls apart so badly towards the end that I reckon it's Pierce's worst) but it's all subjective. Can someone liking a certain film really annoy you that much to the point where you decide any opinions they have from now on are meaningless? Making big grand right or wrong statements about something as subjective as movies (or anything, remember when you said Radiohead were 100% doing the theme song for SP?) is pointless, and insulting/devaluing others over their personal taste is even worse.
  • noSolaceleftnoSolaceleft
    Posts: 1,162
    PanchitoPistoles wrote: »
    @Murdock People certainly shouldn't care about ClarkDevlin's Bond related opinions from now on. For a Bond fan to say that Skyfall is godawful is like for an art historian to say that the Arnolfini Portrait is a bad painting.

    Really? Well, I say it as well, just as SP. Pretentious movies with no substance whatsoever. SF looks quite good though.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2017 Posts: 23,883
    I'm one who prefers DAD to TND as well. By some considerable margin. The latter film is outrageous, but at least it's not generically bland.
    SirHilaryBray wrote: »
    CASINOROYALE wrote: »
    Personally, Moore’s style fit the 70s but not the current years.. It would feel like a parody. I’m fine with them doing a 60s style Bond film copying the style of Connery’s films. Or better yet just mimick the style of Brosnan’s first 2-3 movies. Craig has his own unique style and it fits. They need to do something different though to stay fresh. Hopefully the next actor is good. I hope they don’t go the Netflix route or screw the franchise up by doing Spin offs like the reports a few months ago..

    Bonds evolves to fit it's audience of the time. The reboot in 2006 was to reclaim a more serious note with gauntlet laid down by Bourne. Perfect challenge for the franchise at the right time. Obtaining Casinos rights was also the perfect receipe. Dalton tried it in his tenure to match other action flicks with a serious edge. Brosnan admits himself beyond Goldeneye everything is a blur. He admitted himself he wished he had done things differently and had spoken up and had more input. Brosnan actually sounds jealous of what Craig has achieved but acknowedges the reasons why, that Craig demand it be done his way no pastiche, no invisible cars etc.

    But Brosnan was the victim of his time EON tried to mimic other popular films with technology at the forefront. Austin Powers also made things difficult. It was funnier to mock Bond elements than draw an audience to watch a spy thriller. This was 90's Brit pop age and like the 60's rock movement establishment was not cool. A government spy wasn't a cool thing. Very same reason why Lazenby quit. Lazenby got caught up with Rowan of radio Caroline which trapped George in a world of parties, drugs and free love. He convinced George to quit, cause playing a government killer was not groovy man!.

    If you want an indication of what comes after the Craig tenure look at what is going down well with the audience in the year prior. Because Bond will morph and reinvent to survive. Just like Madonna.

    Look at Babs comments. "Bond can't ever go back, it always has to move forward and evolve".

    So no retro reboot.
    I agree with much of your post. Bond does always evolve to meet the times at a broad level. It has to and that has always been the way. However, whenever there is an actor change, the tone changes to fit the sensibilities of such actor as well. If they cast someone who can properly capture that lighter tone going forward, then they can easily remind the audience of the more playful past while still embracing the complex realities of today. Conversely, if they don't, then we will continue on the ultra serious and somewhat dour path that has been set since 2006.
  • noSolaceleftnoSolaceleft
    Posts: 1,162
    SirHilaryBray wrote: »
    CASINOROYALE wrote: »
    Personally, Moore’s style fit the 70s but not the current years.. It would feel like a parody. I’m fine with them doing a 60s style Bond film copying the style of Connery’s films. Or better yet just mimick the style of Brosnan’s first 2-3 movies. Craig has his own unique style and it fits. They need to do something different though to stay fresh. Hopefully the next actor is good. I hope they don’t go the Netflix route or screw the franchise up by doing Spin offs like the reports a few months ago..

    Bonds evolves to fit it's audience of the time. The reboot in 2006 was to reclaim a more serious note with gauntlet laid down by Bourne. Perfect challenge for the franchise at the right time. Obtaining Casinos rights was also the perfect receipe. Dalton tried it in his tenure to match other action flicks with a serious edge. Brosnan admits himself beyond Goldeneye everything is a blur. He admitted himself he wished he had done things differently and had spoken up and had more input. Brosnan actually sounds jealous of what Craig has achieved but acknowedges the reasons why, that Craig demand it be done his way no pastiche, no invisible cars etc.

    But Brosnan was the victim of his time EON tried to mimic other popular films with technology at the forefront. Austin Powers also made things difficult. It was funnier to mock Bond elements than draw an audience to watch a spy thriller. This was 90's Brit pop age and like the 60's rock movement establishment was not cool. A government spy wasn't a cool thing. Very same reason why Lazenby quit. Lazenby got caught up with Rowan of radio Caroline which trapped George in a world of parties, drugs and free love. He convinced George to quit, cause playing a government killer was not groovy man!.

    If you want an indication of what comes after the Craig tenure look at what is going down well with the audience in the year prior. Because Bond will morph and reinvent to survive. Just like Madonna.

    Look at Babs comments. "Bond can't ever go back, it always has to move forward and evolve".

    So no retro reboot.

    The idea, that casino royale developed the way it did because Craig demanded it to me is completely ridiculous. They hired Craig because they wanted the way it developed.
    And they hired him because blonde heroes suddenly were all the rage. Personally I happen to think that it was not Bourne only, but especially the avent of 24 that forced them to react. Kiefer looked tough and menacing and what starring in an extremely thrilling show running on free TV every week. To me this is what really made them change direction. This and 9/11 of course.
    Also, Brosnan gave many interviews during the 90s in which he said that he hoped he could get the franchise in a more darker and realistic direction. He wasn't allowed but that's not his fault that's EON's fault.
  • noSolaceleftnoSolaceleft
    Posts: 1,162
    TheWizardOfIce wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    You'll have to forgive me. I'm not English.

    Not being English is indeed something to be truly sorry for!

    Only if you adhere to sunburn.
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    noSolaceleft wrote: »
    SirHilaryBray wrote: »
    CASINOROYALE wrote: »
    Personally, Moore’s style fit the 70s but not the current years.. It would feel like a parody. I’m fine with them doing a 60s style Bond film copying the style of Connery’s films. Or better yet just mimick the style of Brosnan’s first 2-3 movies. Craig has his own unique style and it fits. They need to do something different though to stay fresh. Hopefully the next actor is good. I hope they don’t go the Netflix route or screw the franchise up by doing Spin offs like the reports a few months ago..

    Bonds evolves to fit it's audience of the time. The reboot in 2006 was to reclaim a more serious note with gauntlet laid down by Bourne. Perfect challenge for the franchise at the right time. Obtaining Casinos rights was also the perfect receipe. Dalton tried it in his tenure to match other action flicks with a serious edge. Brosnan admits himself beyond Goldeneye everything is a blur. He admitted himself he wished he had done things differently and had spoken up and had more input. Brosnan actually sounds jealous of what Craig has achieved but acknowedges the reasons why, that Craig demand it be done his way no pastiche, no invisible cars etc.

    But Brosnan was the victim of his time EON tried to mimic other popular films with technology at the forefront. Austin Powers also made things difficult. It was funnier to mock Bond elements than draw an audience to watch a spy thriller. This was 90's Brit pop age and like the 60's rock movement establishment was not cool. A government spy wasn't a cool thing. Very same reason why Lazenby quit. Lazenby got caught up with Rowan of radio Caroline which trapped George in a world of parties, drugs and free love. He convinced George to quit, cause playing a government killer was not groovy man!.

    If you want an indication of what comes after the Craig tenure look at what is going down well with the audience in the year prior. Because Bond will morph and reinvent to survive. Just like Madonna.

    Look at Babs comments. "Bond can't ever go back, it always has to move forward and evolve".

    So no retro reboot.

    The idea, that casino royale developed the way it did because Craig demanded it to me is completely ridiculous. They hired Craig because they wanted the way it developed.
    And they hired him because blonde heroes suddenly were all the rage. Personally I happen to think that it was not Bourne only, but especially the avent of 24 that forced them to react. Kiefer looked tough and menacing and what starring in an extremely thrilling show running on free TV every week. To me this is what really made them change direction. This and 9/11 of course.
    Also, Brosnan gave many interviews during the 90s in which he said that he hoped he could get the franchise in a more darker and realistic direction. He wasn't allowed but that's not his fault that's EON's fault.

    I did a thread on that a while back re DAD & did 9/11 influence its direction.Its on here somewhere and got some good conversations.

  • GermanladyGermanlady
    Posts: 6,601
    I Wonder why anybody stracks Pistols for Not allowing other opinions, when Nobody does it worse then Solace.
  • noSolaceleftnoSolaceleft
    Posts: 1,162
    Germanlady wrote: »
    I Wonder why anybody stracks Pistols for Not allowing other opinions, when Nobody does it worse then Solace.

    I love you too.
  • noSolaceleftnoSolaceleft
    Posts: 1,162
    SirHilaryBray wrote: »
    If Waltz returns for Bond 25 what do you choose happens:

    A. Escape during transport to the CIA where they intend to give him the death penalty. (But you risk repeating what Nolan did with Bane)

    B. Steal the concept for how Lector escapes in Silence of the Lambs by taking the face off a prison guard and pretending to be the injured guard.

    C. Spectre have a company who hold private contracts with the prison, the staff simply facilitate his escape.

    D. leave him behind bars orchestrating what is happening.

    Quote with your choice and comment. Or add your own.

    I am still lobbying for making Oberhauser a busybody working for Spectre but only pretending to be Blofeld, just to impress his much hated step brother. This way we would get rid of the most embarrassing brothergate and could reinvent a real menacing and threatening Blofeld.
    Call me arrogant but none of the ideas and suggestions I have read here on the forum even comes close.
  • GermanladyGermanlady
    Posts: 6,601
    noSolaceleft wrote: »
    Germanlady wrote: »
    I Wonder why anybody stracks Pistols for Not allowing other opinions, when Nobody does it worse then Solace.

    I love you too.

    Thank you very much. Go Stick that Love where the Sun Never shines.
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    noSolaceleft wrote: »
    SirHilaryBray wrote: »
    If Waltz returns for Bond 25 what do you choose happens:

    A. Escape during transport to the CIA where they intend to give him the death penalty. (But you risk repeating what Nolan did with Bane)

    B. Steal the concept for how Lector escapes in Silence of the Lambs by taking the face off a prison guard and pretending to be the injured guard.

    C. Spectre have a company who hold private contracts with the prison, the staff simply facilitate his escape.

    D. leave him behind bars orchestrating what is happening.

    Quote with your choice and comment. Or add your own.

    I am still lobbying for making Oberhauser a busybody working for Spectre but only pretending to be Blofeld, just to impress his much hated step brother. This way we would get rid of the most embarrassing brothergate and could reinvent a real menacing and threatening Blofeld.
    Call me arrogant but none of the ideas and suggestions I have read here on the forum even comes close.

    Which just shows the task EON have ahead of them !
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2017 Posts: 23,883
    noSolaceleft wrote: »
    SirHilaryBray wrote: »
    If Waltz returns for Bond 25 what do you choose happens:

    A. Escape during transport to the CIA where they intend to give him the death penalty. (But you risk repeating what Nolan did with Bane)

    B. Steal the concept for how Lector escapes in Silence of the Lambs by taking the face off a prison guard and pretending to be the injured guard.

    C. Spectre have a company who hold private contracts with the prison, the staff simply facilitate his escape.

    D. leave him behind bars orchestrating what is happening.

    Quote with your choice and comment. Or add your own.

    I am still lobbying for making Oberhauser a busybody working for Spectre but only pretending to be Blofeld, just to impress his much hated step brother. This way we would get rid of the most embarrassing brothergate and could reinvent a real menacing and threatening Blofeld.
    Call me arrogant but none of the ideas and suggestions I have read here on the forum even comes close.
    It's an interesting idea. Waltz was quite unintimidating to me, and I could easily envisage him more as a #2 with a grudge (as they claimed Silva was with the retrofit) rather than a big bad. They've mangled and changed a character's backstory once before (with Silva) so they could do it again. Even better is just to have another actor play him. After all, Blofeld is known to disguise himself.

    I like B. and D. above as well. D. more than B. because I don't want them riffing off another iconic film in an obvious way in B25.
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    Posts: 2,138
    noSolaceleft wrote: »
    SirHilaryBray wrote: »
    CASINOROYALE wrote: »
    Personally, Moore’s style fit the 70s but not the current years.. It would feel like a parody. I’m fine with them doing a 60s style Bond film copying the style of Connery’s films. Or better yet just mimick the style of Brosnan’s first 2-3 movies. Craig has his own unique style and it fits. They need to do something different though to stay fresh. Hopefully the next actor is good. I hope they don’t go the Netflix route or screw the franchise up by doing Spin offs like the reports a few months ago..

    Bonds evolves to fit it's audience of the time. The reboot in 2006 was to reclaim a more serious note with gauntlet laid down by Bourne. Perfect challenge for the franchise at the right time. Obtaining Casinos rights was also the perfect receipe. Dalton tried it in his tenure to match other action flicks with a serious edge. Brosnan admits himself beyond Goldeneye everything is a blur. He admitted himself he wished he had done things differently and had spoken up and had more input. Brosnan actually sounds jealous of what Craig has achieved but acknowedges the reasons why, that Craig demand it be done his way no pastiche, no invisible cars etc.

    But Brosnan was the victim of his time EON tried to mimic other popular films with technology at the forefront. Austin Powers also made things difficult. It was funnier to mock Bond elements than draw an audience to watch a spy thriller. This was 90's Brit pop age and like the 60's rock movement establishment was not cool. A government spy wasn't a cool thing. Very same reason why Lazenby quit. Lazenby got caught up with Rowan of radio Caroline which trapped George in a world of parties, drugs and free love. He convinced George to quit, cause playing a government killer was not groovy man!.

    If you want an indication of what comes after the Craig tenure look at what is going down well with the audience in the year prior. Because Bond will morph and reinvent to survive. Just like Madonna.

    Look at Babs comments. "Bond can't ever go back, it always has to move forward and evolve".

    So no retro reboot.

    The idea, that casino royale developed the way it did because Craig demanded it to me is completely ridiculous. They hired Craig because they wanted the way it developed.
    And they hired him because blonde heroes suddenly were all the rage. Personally I happen to think that it was not Bourne only, but especially the avent of 24 that forced them to react. Kiefer looked tough and menacing and what starring in an extremely thrilling show running on free TV every week. To me this is what really made them change direction. This and 9/11 of course.
    Also, Brosnan gave many interviews during the 90s in which he said that he hoped he could get the franchise in a more darker and realistic direction. He wasn't allowed but that's not his fault that's EON's fault.

    It's well documented Craig only agreed to come on board if the silly stuff wasn't going to feature. He had just worked with Spielberg on Munich to critical acclaim. To say he was hired cause he is blond is both ludicrous and ill-informed.

    As for the comments on Brosnan
    He opted, in the end, to “go with the flow”, and to “enjoy the great experience of traveling the world and being this character”.

    http://www.denofgeek.com/uk/movies/pierce-brosnan/49217/pierce-brosnan-wished-his-bond-had-gone-darker
  • PanchitoPistolesPanchitoPistoles 2.0
    edited October 2017 Posts: 4,619
    noSolaceleft wrote: »
    PanchitoPistoles wrote: »
    @Murdock People certainly shouldn't care about ClarkDevlin's Bond related opinions from now on. For a Bond fan to say that Skyfall is godawful is like for an art historian to say that the Arnolfini Portrait is a bad painting.

    Really? Well, I say it as well, just as SP. Pretentious movies with no substance whatsoever. SF looks quite good though.
    No substance whatsoever? Is that seriously one of your main criticisms of Skyfall, when the majority of Bond films are completely without substance (not that there is necessarily anything wrong with that)?

    @Germanlady You are the voice of reason and sanity! I wish you posted more often in this thread.
    noSolaceleft wrote: »
    And they hired him because blonde heroes suddenly were all the rage.
    https://youtube.com/watch?v=pJOm2mRHDE0
  • noSolaceleftnoSolaceleft
    Posts: 1,162
    Germanlady wrote: »
    noSolaceleft wrote: »
    Germanlady wrote: »
    I Wonder why anybody stracks Pistols for Not allowing other opinions, when Nobody does it worse then Solace.

    I love you too.

    Thank you very much. Go Stick that Love where the Sun Never shines.

    You might be German, but you are certainly no lady.
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    Lets keep it nice peeps eh ?
  • royale65royale65 Caustic misanthrope reporting for duty.
    Posts: 4,423
    Think of the children!
  • PanchitoPistolesPanchitoPistoles 2.0
    edited October 2017 Posts: 4,619
    Just sent MGW an e-mail, I asked him when the director will be announced. Hopefully he hasn't changed his e-mail address since the Sony leaks. :)) If he won't respond in a week, I will write BB next. :))
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    Posts: 2,138
    PanchitoPistoles wrote: »
    Just sent MGW an e-mail, I asked him when the director will be announced. Hopefully he hasn't changed his e-mail address since the Sony leaks. :)) If he won't respond in a week, I will write BB next. :))

    LOL hahahahahaha that's amazing.
  • noSolaceleftnoSolaceleft
    edited October 2017 Posts: 1,162
    SirHilaryBray wrote: »
    noSolaceleft wrote: »
    SirHilaryBray wrote: »
    CASINOROYALE wrote: »
    Personally, Moore’s style fit the 70s but not the current years.. It would feel like a parody. I’m fine with them doing a 60s style Bond film copying the style of Connery’s films. Or better yet just mimick the style of Brosnan’s first 2-3 movies. Craig has his own unique style and it fits. They need to do something different though to stay fresh. Hopefully the next actor is good. I hope they don’t go the Netflix route or screw the franchise up by doing Spin offs like the reports a few months ago..

    Bonds evolves to fit it's audience of the time. The reboot in 2006 was to reclaim a more serious note with gauntlet laid down by Bourne. Perfect challenge for the franchise at the right time. Obtaining Casinos rights was also the perfect receipe. Dalton tried it in his tenure to match other action flicks with a serious edge. Brosnan admits himself beyond Goldeneye everything is a blur. He admitted himself he wished he had done things differently and had spoken up and had more input. Brosnan actually sounds jealous of what Craig has achieved but acknowedges the reasons why, that Craig demand it be done his way no pastiche, no invisible cars etc.

    But Brosnan was the victim of his time EON tried to mimic other popular films with technology at the forefront. Austin Powers also made things difficult. It was funnier to mock Bond elements than draw an audience to watch a spy thriller. This was 90's Brit pop age and like the 60's rock movement establishment was not cool. A government spy wasn't a cool thing. Very same reason why Lazenby quit. Lazenby got caught up with Rowan of radio Caroline which trapped George in a world of parties, drugs and free love. He convinced George to quit, cause playing a government killer was not groovy man!.

    If you want an indication of what comes after the Craig tenure look at what is going down well with the audience in the year prior. Because Bond will morph and reinvent to survive. Just like Madonna.

    Look at Babs comments. "Bond can't ever go back, it always has to move forward and evolve".

    So no retro reboot.

    The idea, that casino royale developed the way it did because Craig demanded it to me is completely ridiculous. They hired Craig because they wanted the way it developed.
    And they hired him because blonde heroes suddenly were all the rage. Personally I happen to think that it was not Bourne only, but especially the avent of 24 that forced them to react. Kiefer looked tough and menacing and what starring in an extremely thrilling show running on free TV every week. To me this is what really made them change direction. This and 9/11 of course.
    Also, Brosnan gave many interviews during the 90s in which he said that he hoped he could get the franchise in a more darker and realistic direction. He wasn't allowed but that's not his fault that's EON's fault.

    It's well documented Craig only agreed to come on board if the silly stuff wasn't going to feature. He had just worked with Spielberg on Munich to critical acclaim. To say he was hired cause he is blond is both ludicrous and ill-informed.

    As for the comments on Brosnan
    He opted, in the end, to “go with the flow”, and to “enjoy the great experience of traveling the world and being this character”.

    http://www.denofgeek.com/uk/movies/pierce-brosnan/49217/pierce-brosnan-wished-his-bond-had-gone-darker

    Do you really think they would have hired someone with his face if they had wanted to stay on the old track? If anything Craigs face screams "realism!" Not suave playboy the sixth
    Also, I remember an interview with him long before casino royale it was released where he was asked what he did when he got to the new James Bond. He said it was on the cell phone while he was on the go and the next thing he did was going to pop ordering a beer and thinking this might be the last time that he was able to do so. So if seems he was told they take him not that he told EON he was willing to do the job. Of course he wanted the job. He knew that it would make him rich beyond belief. Something he realistically couldn't expect otherwise from his career.
  • noSolaceleftnoSolaceleft
    Posts: 1,162
    barryt007 wrote: »
    noSolaceleft wrote: »
    SirHilaryBray wrote: »
    If Waltz returns for Bond 25 what do you choose happens:

    A. Escape during transport to the CIA where they intend to give him the death penalty. (But you risk repeating what Nolan did with Bane)

    B. Steal the concept for how Lector escapes in Silence of the Lambs by taking the face off a prison guard and pretending to be the injured guard.

    C. Spectre have a company who hold private contracts with the prison, the staff simply facilitate his escape.

    D. leave him behind bars orchestrating what is happening.

    Quote with your choice and comment. Or add your own.

    I am still lobbying for making Oberhauser a busybody working for Spectre but only pretending to be Blofeld, just to impress his much hated step brother. This way we would get rid of the most embarrassing brothergate and could reinvent a real menacing and threatening Blofeld.
    Call me arrogant but none of the ideas and suggestions I have read here on the forum even comes close.

    Which just shows the task EON have ahead of them !

    You know I'm right.
Sign In or Register to comment.