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
My only excuse is that it's been decades since I've read all those books about the Bond movies from which I have most of my knowledge of the franchise. I especially referred to "call me bawana " since it was also quite a flop just like the movie that forced HS to sell his parts of the franchise.
Apparently he will open a London theatre production mid next year focused on Lehman Brothers starring Simon Russell Beale. He will also take a play called The Ferryman (written by none other than Jez Butterworth) to Broadway next October.
So rest easy folks, Mendes seems to be out of contention.
I'm still awaiting that official SP track you promised would be attached to the film, though...
Skyfall playing home alone in the middle of no where on a farm?
Spectre shooting Blofelds helicopter down?
Look at the ending of previous Bond films. Were any of them that bad?
Hell QOS had a better ending then Skyfall and Spectre!
While that could make logical sense, there's the risk it could undermine Spectre (the film). Knowing Oberhauser, the big bad of the movie, is just a decoy, could retroactively make the scenes with him feel less consequential, even pointless. It's the same as with the often-touted idea (in certain circles) of retroactively turning the events of the film Alien 3 into a dream. It could be done but it could negatively affect (even destroy) the experience of watching the movie.
Remember when Simon Russell Beale was rumored to be a villain in Skyfall? Ah, those were the days... (not really, they weren't any different)
It was also Broccoli who arranged the 1957 lunch with his then-partner Irving Allen and Ian Fleming. Broccoli was keen on the novels but Allen insulted Fleming.
SKYFALL was so terrible that audiences stayed away in DROVES when Spectre released, making it the lowest grossing Bond film of ALL TIME (including '67 Casino Royale). People have since been re-evaluating the works of Ed Wood as "actually not that bad, if compared to SKYFALL"
I already admitted my mistake one or two pages ago.
I agree.
Plus they gave him the cat and the scar. For them to turn round now and say no folks we were just messing with your heads and here's the real Blofeld risks verging into Kingsman 2 territory where being shot in the head at point blank range no longer carries any heft.
The hamfisted retcon itself was bad enough. For them to then retcon the retcon would be David-Brent-begging-for-his-job-back levels of cringeworthiness.
There comes a time to stop digging.
At this point I think I'd rather they just issued the following statement:
'EON productions wishes to apologise profusely for our mishandling of the Blofeld and SPECTRE properties in the 2015 motion picture SPECTRE. We realise that we monumentally cocked things up and for that we are very sorry.
It's clear to us that SP has left the Craig era stuck at the bottom of a narrative cul de sac and none of the options to reverse it out again are at all desirable.
Thus we have decided to abandon entirely any semblance of continuing the story arc we hamfistedly forced on everyone in SP and are just going to give Craig a balls to the wall epic send off along the lines of TB or MR.
We stand chastened in the shadow of our (well Mendes') hubris and promise to get things back on track with a storming entry and a new actor for the 60th in 2022.
Kind regards from all at EON productions'
Just admit you dropped the ball and are sorry and then we can all just move on.
I like what you have to say
https://www.cinemablend.com/news/1714839/does-james-bond-need-christopher-nolan-lets-discuss
Mendes' words in a podcast on this particular plot point never made sense to me either, with him cutting most of the still unlikely explanation of the traces of metal because at that point, either the audience accepts the villains are connected or it doesn't, and the explanation makes little difference. I don't know... such blatant disregard for plot coherence.
Or Bond wakes up from a nap and shudders. "That was a terrible dream."
It's like they were making this up as they went along.
Wait a minute...
You might be on to something here...
It's why I'd love for Craig's exit to be something much more standalone.
It's seeming like they have no intention of following on from SP, and I just can't get on board with a stand alone movie with Craig right after they tried to make out that his movies were one big connected story. Plus SP worked as an ending. He got the evil mastermind behind all he'd been through in the other films and finally decided to walk away from killing, driving off into the sunset, something he never thought he'd be able to do after Vesper died. The end.
I really like Craig don't get me wrong. He's a brilliant James Bond. But the story of that James Bond, the Bond Begins continuity heavy one that actually aged and developed, felt done at the end of the last movie. And they're just going to have to recast after Bond 25 anyway so why put it off for another few years, why not just get it out the way with now. A fresh start would be an exciting change imo. It has been over 10 years after all.
The obvious answer is that they're making it up as they go along and getting the proven draw back instead of a new face is the safer option. But I think his films are going to suffer on rewatch because of their flip flopping. It's going to feel really messy watching the Craig movies in the future imo because unlike the others, there's sort of an attempt at an over arcing story, but they keep getting cold feet and not committing to it.
CR-QoS: Directly tied together
SF: Stand alone kind of
SP: Okay so SF isn't a stand alone and also relates to CR/QoS as well as this movie?
Bond 25: Sorry about that guys have a stand alone film instead
I think it was @Gustav who started a thread comparing the Craig era to the Dark Knight trilogy but that's an actual trilogy. The Craig era is just a messy inconsistent set of films and if after all that he's back and they're not going to properly follow on from SP at all, I can't wait for it to be over so they can clean the slate and do better with the next actor.
MGM has to nail down a one picture distribution deal. They probably need the revenue from a successful Bond film release to ramp up for an IPO or sale. Once that's out of the way and they either have a new distribution arm post-IPO or a solid partnership with someone (including Chinese investors) then they can think about a new fresh start for B26. It doesn't make sense to recast now while they don't know what the future after B25 will hold.
So messy as it is, they appear to be going down the standalone one film route with Craig in tow just to get something out there.
There are two other possibilities however.
1. B25 will be a continuation of sorts, but just not with Blofeld. I can live with that.
2. Something else happens along the way. Something big and transformative. This, however unlikely as it may be this time around, is my preference.
Hopefully CR, SF and Bond 25 will form a perfect trilogy.
Or more likely a new director just doesn't want to take on any of Mendes's baggage, which is what I assumed some time ago. Where I got it wrong was whether a new director would want Craig along either (given the baggage is all his).