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
I agree that it worked in GE for the most part, beach scene excepted. It's just that 1995 is when this approach of narrated peelback began, and while they were able to pull it off reasonably in that film, I think it's become progressively tiresome since. We've had over two decades of this sort of thing now and perhaps it's time for these folks to just go back to making decent plot focused films which Bond just participates in. Ironically, I think the closest to that recently has been SF, because that didn't focus too much on Bond. The childhood 'lair' and 'cave' were almost trivial in comparison to the fundamental M/Silva conflict which drove the film.
They did the character thing with Dalton but in his case we learned about it more through observing his behaviour rather than via exposition.
Craig obviously rebooted the series.
I would have preferred that the unnamed organization in CR that became Quantum and sort of got subsumed into Spectre be the "loose" antagonist, but SP completely botched that. I would prefer a Bond 25 that simplifies all this (somehow--perhaps the "young turks" idea from one of the TSWLM scripts) and sends Craig out on a high note.
Blofeld the character should have stayed in the '60s.
They kept Judi Dench because she was dearly loved by the Bond community and the filmmakers. She's the only actress who plays different Ms: Barbara Mawsdley in the Brosnan era, and Olivia Mansfield in the Craig era.
So just pointing out before certain people complain about EON concerning themselves with everything connecting, remember some of the comments above
I can't imagine them releasing a release date for the film without some confidence that the distribution situation will get sorted - it would be very embarassing to have to move it back. Be patient - Broccoli said we'd get some news early in the year, we're still only in January.
Totally agree that DN to DAD is a intended to be a single continuity era. Perhaps the only real wobble is OHMSS.
However we are now in the era of the reboot and audiences accept that. I can’t see a reason why the next actor would pick up where Craig left off
It's plausible to presume that Connery/Moore is the same continuity, given the Tracy references peppered throughout Moore's tenure. They certainly expected us to believe that Dalton was the same, given the Gogol and Tracy reference, and that's a valid assumption. However, despite those references, one could just as readily assume that it's a soft reboot given the timelines weren't so rigid. One could also think this because Dalton was so much younger, and it's possible because OHMSS (the film where Tracy appears) was a standalone after all (which was a great thing in my view, because several assumptions can sprout as a result). Brosnan seemed like a semi-reboot (Tracy and Felix weren't mentioned) and Craig is a hard reboot.
Given they have referenced origins so blatantly in the last 4 films, as well as his age and relationships (most notably the foster brother connection and Vesper, Mathis etc. etc.), it will be difficult to just carry on without a soft reboot. That's even more so because the Craig reboot run has been in effect for over a decade now. The question is do they go with a Dalton style which references the past after he is gone or a Brosnan version which ignores it.
Either way, I'd prefer if they get on with it because they've botched what was once a promising origin reboot, but which has run its course.
They can move the date. It happens all the time in the industry and as we've discussed, that was more of a placeholder. From what I can see, they aren't bothered by the date, but rather are taking their time to line up their ducks. I hope they continue with that approach. We don't want another rushed debacle.
Eon are always bothered about the date.
Par example?
Hmmm, only like literally 11 months to go. And I think there is a 50% chance that the title will be something like “Bond” or “007”
007 in New York?
To be fully honest before all is said and done with the bond franchise I firmly believe every useable title be it short story chapter or unused title will be used for a bond film at some point but to get 007 in New York before Risico The hildebrand Rarity or The Property of a Lady is almost as bad as getting a delicatessen not made of stainless steel
No Bond film will ever be called 007 in New York.
It has been the distributor (e.g. Sony) who has pushed them for a release over the years and not the other way around. They have resisted and Craig has even said that they have mispoke in the past. It's all on this thread.
I'm still wondering what makes you think they care about that date so much? I also don't understand why there would be any embarrassment regarding a pushback, given studios do it all the time, and that date was announced in July without a distributor in place. I'm not saying it will get pushed back, but I don't see where the shame comes in, particularly if a delay results in a better film.
I have said nothing to contradict what you have just written. All I mean is that once a date is set a date is set. That's the way Eon works, I wasn't referring to the gaps between films. That's a separate issue all together. Or the decision process before a date is set. The one time they've changed a release date was for TND, which was in exceptional circumstances - principal photography didn't begin until April 1997.
As an aside, on Wednesday it will have been six months since they announced that release date without the distributor issue settled.
Quantum of Solace was originally announced for May 2, 2008 (about 18 months after Casino Royale). It was later pushed back to the fall.
After Quantum changed, Paramount slated the first Iron Man movie in the May 2 date.
Here's the press release announcing the May 2, 2008 date. It was issued as production on Casino Royale was wrapping up.
https://www.sony.com/en_us/SCA/company-news/press-releases/columbia-pictures/2006/columbia-pictures-and-mgm-announce-may-2-2008-rele.html
Which is an important point of clarification. That date was set without a distributor or a director (since confirmed). So the idea was to work towards that date, which is different from how they've approached it in the past (where a distributor was known in advance and in agreement with the proposed release date). Additionally, as we've discussed, two mega releases have since moved within shooting distance of that date (WW-2 and SW9).
Apart from that, maaan I so hope that someone like Nolan will never direct a Bond film.
Given his penchant for 'timelines', things could get even more confusing! I can't even imagine what time travelling scenario he would come up with.