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 wouldn't worry about Disney. Bond doesn't fit into their portfolio which is more broad and child friendly. Additionally, it could possibly negatively impact their Marvel roster.
EDIT: Moreover, as Disney showed with Black Panther, they can just whip up a $1bn + hit out of nowhere. Bond is a joke for them.
MGM and Universal had some history in the past so it'll be a good fit
They are a safe pair of hands so i would be fine with that.
Just for the record, it's all began with me asking what exactly defines those 'heavy investments' he made into the role? Why not just answer my question instead of going into attack mode? Sure, for you that would be a completely new MO, but hey, why not try something new on your old days?
But there's one amongst us who really enjoys poking and poking. He agrees with all contrarian view-points (which is fair enough), but that's his only bag; everything else written just seems to try and provoke. It's eye-rollingly predictable.
I hope DC will become a great ambassador for Bond once he leaves the role behind - the best one in that sense was for sure the late Roger Moore.
Im not convinced he will but we will see...indeed,Sir Roger did so much for Bond,on and off screen,he really cared for the character and the fans.
I know this from personal experience with him,hence he is my favourite 007.
Same here..i still think about him a lot which proves how much he meant to me.
It was a smidge more complicated.
1. Turner Broadcasting bought MGM, mostly with borrowed money.
2. Turner decides it can't handle the debt load. Sells MGM back to Kirk Kerkorian. But Turner keeps the MGM film library (up until point). That library initially was used to launch a new channel, TNT in 1988. Later (1994), it's used to launch TCM (Turner Classic Movies).
3. Time Warner (Warner Bros. parent) buys Turner.
I wished Connery, my favourite Bond, would‘ve been more like this. I feel sad to read he has not many good things to say about the role - never without some sort of complaint after he may have said something positive in interviews.
Roger Moore was so much different - and it was and is a delight hearing him talk about the role in interviews.
That was a mistake and DAF was his deserved payoff for it. In the 70s he could‘ve put that grudge aside but he aparently did not until late in the 2000s which is when I heard him say something nice about the role.
Daniel Craig has been somewhere in between this so far - he complained after SP but often said how much he thinks the role is a blessing and a great honor playing it. I hope he will come off B25 and move in a Moore-like spot for it.
yes definitely feels like Connery knows how to hold a grudge. but we don't know the ins and outs of what happened. sounds like he was not treated with the sensitivity or respect he probably required and deserved. eon don't come out of it that well. they seem to have seen him as their creation and therefore that he owed them everything, failing to appreciate what he'd done for them.
film bond could very easily have died after daf. they were very lucky with roger
Exactly,but there is holding a grudge and then HOLDING A GRUDGE,and im pretty sure it would have been Saltzman more then Cubby who 'let down' Connery,i dont think it was in Cubby's nature,but who knows.
And yes,if they went with Gavin then that would have been the end of Bond...getting Roger was an inspired choice and,due to his brilliant Saint/Persuaders performances,they had a ready made Bond,bless him.
Spot on CD,he would never act at anytime he saw Saltzman,he would just stop and stare at him IIRC.
Nobody could get him to carry on.
It‘s (to me) a sad part of the Bond history - right up there with that whole Thunderball soap opera. In some ways it‘s a shame Connery made NSNA with McClory
I wouldn't want to screw with Connery.
I think that was/is disgusting...he was prepared to damage the whole series ,damage peoples jobs,damage Roger Moore.
If he had a grudge then fair enough but dont try to damage the series that made you who you are...thats another reason i dont really like Connery.
He is disgusting! Shame on him and his tribe.
Enough now eh ?
My original question was 'what exactly apart from the bulking up he invested into the role'. Frankly, none of the stunts he could have made himself are that impressing.
Mind you, I wasn't talking about his take on the role and if I think it's a good or bad one. Each and everyone of the actors has brought his take to the role, exactly what is expected of you when you're an actor. I was asking what he brought, that no one else was willing to bring before him.
But obviously an answer it's hard to get.