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
With Craig back, I'd rather they finish his character arc off (even if it doesn't involve Brofeld) and then give us something classic for the 60th anniversary.
Well, I hope --perhaps naively-- it doesn't result in narrative consistency, only because I hope there is no overarching narrative! It allows you to do interesting things story-wise (which admittedly they didn't quite succeed with in the Craig era) but it's also a bit of a straightjacket. Surely they can go back to it with Bond #8.
That's definitely why they blew their load so quickly imo. Mendes said it was made with the possibility of it being Craig's last, there's all the nods to the past suggesting it's a finale, and the leaks suggest it was written with that in mind (the "hook" was apparently Bond's last mission, and in one draft he actually killed Blofeld on the bridge before driving off into the sunset with Madeline). They didn't know if Craig was sticking around or not but someone must have really wanted to do Blofeld/Spectre right away, so we got the retcon. They didn't know if they had time to do a Spectre arc, so they tried to turn the last three films into one instead.
Indeed. Cubby was all about just getting on with the next film, with or without Sean and Roger. Had Connery not decided to do DAF, we still would have had the film out in 1971 regardless. Same with OP, and all the others.
This is all apples-oranges comparisons.
The Connery films (and much of Moore's), as well as the Marvel films, have source material to use as a foundation. Imagine if, in 2004/5, EON announced they were going back to the Fleming books and re-filming each, starting with CR. It would have been 100x easier to lock down DC, for film releases in 2006, 2008, 2010, 2012, and 2014.
And apologies in advance, @ToTheRight : I am not responding directly to your post, but the whole of the conversation that led to it.
Hilarious! For those who haven't seen it:
People have been asking for a GF/TSWLM type Craig Bond movie since 2008. It never happened, and I don't see any reason why it would now. It just doesn't fit the shape of his era. Admittedly they tried to do some fun, lighthearted stuff in SP, but they couldn't seem to shake all the usual Craig stuff (going rogue, arguing with M, internal politics at MI6, personal connection to villain, family drama, etc).
If that's the case, I've lost a lot of respect for Craig for not having a future vision for his Bond. But it seems like everyone can point fingers.
A somewhat flawed argument since the amount of Fleming material from TMWTGG onwards was little more than 10-15% in any film and often less.
ah, thats an awesome idea, Im bang up for that, who should play irma?
I hear Tilda Swinton was considered. I think I got her name right.
imdb.com/name/nm2692312/mediaviewer/rm3107185152
I know what you're saying @bondjames, but they've strangled themselves so much with the narrative thus far that a 'showdown' with Blofeld can only represent further diminishing returns.
Looking back through the canon, there is absolutely no obligation to 'finish' the story. Besides, the audience won't give a toss, they just want to be entertained.
I would go so far as to say that the only way we can get genuine inspiration and artistic flair happening with B25 is to jettison all of the Craig baggage and just let him strut.
Brolin in Octopussy???
There would be no Dalton, no Brosnan, no Craig...
Face it fellas, as much as you kick the shit out of Babs, Cubby made some seriously stupid decisions-- thank Dog that people walked him back off the ledge...
I just don't find him credible trying to do smooth insouciant care free Bond, which is what he will have to do if they go down the TB/TSWLM route. It falls so flat for me when he tries it and takes me right out of the film. This is not a function of script because I felt that way when he tried to do it in SF as well. It's just not his shtick as far as I'm concerned. His 'strut' fails to impress this viewer.
So even though I completely agree with you that this act has gotten quite tired, Babs has decided to keep him employed. So I think they should stick to what he's good at this time out. Even if it's not a continuation story, I'd prefer if they go gritty & fierce rather than light hearted.
In all honesty, my biggest concern for B25 at this moment is that he is given excessive creative control to deliver his 'high'.
I agree that Craig is more of a brooder, but I think you can build TSWLM around him.
Remember Moore in that same movie. His performance was quite serious but the two seemingly disparate elements gelled very well.
re: Gavin, that was definitively David Picker, then at United Artists. There's a fan narrative that UA just signed checks and OK'd everything Broccoli & Saltzman did. But with Diamonds, UA got a lot more involved. Picker wanted Connery back and he got him.
re: Brolin. You got me. I have no explanation on that one.
Roger Moore he most certainly is not, and vice versa.
Moore was indeed close to perfect in TSWLM. If Craig can deliver a performance even 2/3 as good as that (or Connery's in TB) in a B25 that emulates that tone, I'll be quite happy. Sadly, the evidence to date suggests I won't be impressed.
Craig looks like Steve McQueen, and has a onscreen sense of humor that is reminiscent of McQueen's.
Don't even try Connery in TB or DAF. It will only result in failure imho. Connery could scale up and down the curve with considerable ease. Unbeatable.
Of course if the writing is 'genius' and the scenes competently directed then anyone can pull off anything. My humble advice though is just don't try to channel Connery or Moore and reject any writing that veers too closely or reminds the viewer of those two. That is where failure will occur. They are untouchable at what they did because they did it naturally. It was them as much as it was the script.