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 recently placed it as my number 1. So much in it I love. I must say, though, my number 1 is always one of the first four Connery Bonds.
Back on topic: I hear crickets chirping as far as BOND 25 news is concerned.
Of course, had we been on a 2 year schedule, the most recent film would just now be getting it's Blu-ray release and we wouldn't be hearing any substantial news regarding the next Bond film until early summer. So I'm not too worried. I expect summer it is before we get anything juicy.
There's been zero evidence that Eon is selling.
We're in a different era, and it's harder to tie actors to an extended contract, which means a longer time between films. Connery's contract and resulting issues gave us DN-TB, but also YOLT and DAF.
Moore and Brosnan were, by all accounts, model employees but were their strings of films any better?
Clearly Babs wants to hold onto Craig--he did after all rejuvenate the franchise with CR (one of the best reviewed Bonds ever)--so we are in for a longer wait.
That's really not true. They tie them down to a three of four year contract as is normal practice. Some of the Marvel actors as an example are on six film contracts.
I'm afraid I don't understand your point. What's being a model employee got to do with the films? Connery is the best of the lot and he was hardly a model employee. So there is no correlation and I don't think anyone has made such a connection.
Clearly. CR was 12 years and 3 films back though. Let's see what he gives us with the next one before we render judgment on his era for posterity.
Yes, because it had Sean Connery in it.
It's difficult, 35 years later, to be certain that was the only reason. I think it's reasonable to assume that the fact that it was a James Bond film based on a successful novel with a top notch cast and directed by a well known individual all had something to do with it as well.
I'm also reasonably certain that most members of the general public don't know who EON, Babs or Michael are and aren't really concerned about who makes the films. That's more for us geeks to obsess over.
This subject is being discussed because I used NSNA as an example to illustrate that Bond can survive EON. Heck, just cast Craig (or even Brosnan) in a non-EON production and I'm sure the punters will show up.
EDIT: I guess what it shows, anecdotally, is that the actor does matter and can be the primary draw. I hadn't considered that before.
I like the score for what it is, and understand why the majority hate it, but at the end of the day, NSNA is hell of a film. A lot better than some of the efforts delivered by the “official” film series.
Meh...
Everything related to McClory post-TB is either directly or indirectly connected to Fleming’s demise. I can’t watch it without feeling a seething resentment for both him and Connery (who simply wanted to stick it to the man who made his career). Connery is a monumental presence in Bond lore (unlike McClory) but this film is symbolic of the greed and bitterness that had by that point consumed both men. The fact it was beaten comfortably by a casual and effervescent Moore in OP is comforting.
But Bond 25 is being made by Eon ...
Totally agree.