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 think this is self-evident. Dalton hanging out with Q in LTK is a little jarring, I highly doubt he supported the idea.
The Hildebrand Rarity (bond 25) 2018: Spectre kidnap Swann and force Bond into a sucide mission break Blofeld out of prison and find the Hildebrand virus. M tells bond mi6 want the virus too and sends Gala Brand 007 (played by I don't know some really hot British girl who if she were male could be 007 like someone who has all the points sex appeal intelligence you get the idea) to assist Bond. After two hours of cool action sequences (and bond sleeping wih Gala and one of the Spectre agents that is assigned by Spectre to work with him) and pulse pounding plot (the whole film time wise covers say 72 hours) bond stops Spectre and is about to save Swann when tragedy strikes she dies...
Directed by Pierre Morrell
Written by Luc Besson David Koepp (with his mission impossible hat on not his kingdom of the crystal school hat on) and Jez Butterworth
Blofeld (bond 26) 2020: the final film with Daniel Craig and boy is it a tight action packed revenge driven film basically a two hour version of the diamonds are forever pre-title sequence. Ending with the most brutual sword fight between Blofeld and Bond (taken straight from the pages of Fleming) ending with bond killing Blofeld once and for all.
Quick side note. I know many will complain about using Blofeld as a title but honestly it's such an Iconic name that yeah I really think casual movie goers and fans will be very happy with the title. And hey I split up the titles a bit too so we have a longer title the Hildebrand rarity and then another shorter one.
Risico (bond 27) 2022: basically the original plot of Spectre with bond going after a African war lord and killing him. This would in my opinion be either Hardy or Hiddleston or Fassbenders first film as bond sorry I can't make up my mind between the three as they all appeal to me in different ways... I might be leaning a hair more toward Hiddleston as for franchise wise I would see if this marvel/ DC extended universe is still going strong if it is then I would create/introduce a new organization to connect the Hiddleston bond universe (my opinion Smersh but Spangled Mob would be fine especially if Deniro or Pachino are still alive and acting I mean come on Al Pachino as Jack Spang and DeNiro as Steffiamo Spang seriously how could any bond can not want that!)
And move on from there the issue of the stories being connected is well honestly eon reacting to the Nolan trilogy, Marvel Cinematic universe and now the DC cinematic universe. Once those start going away and more stand alone films win at the box office bond will adjust accordingly but for now yeah.
What I love about it is he didn't act wimpy/emotional about it, but got the job done quickly and saved her. I wish Ouromov had a better sendoff though.
Btw, I find the very idea of producers or marketing department coaching and training grown-up actors what to say/not say weird and distasteful. I wouldn't want actors to be some sort of trained parrots. I think normal human beings are by far preferable. So some comment can look bad when taken out of context. Happens. But middle-aged professional actors with plenty experience shouldn't, IMO, be "trained" specifically how to do interviews. It's normal human communication, they should be fine as they are, and if some mistakes occasionally happen, that's okay, really. I'm sure doing hundreds of interviews, sometimes a few minutes at a time with different interviewers, for hours is enough - without having to try and imagine what might get taken out of context or misunderstood. Okay, so he shouldn't have said a couple of things, and he could have worded things differently, I agree on that, but why are people still complaining about it all these months later? Wasn't it all discussed for weeks and weeks already last year? It wasn't that big of a deal, really - the media made it that, but do we need to keep going over it over and over again? What's the point?
I would personally have a publicist who makes a statement to clarify anything quickly before it gets out of hand. Then it gets shut down and everyone moves on. EON did that with the Hiddleston rumour a few weeks back, which leads me to conclude that there is more to it than everyone is letting on. They wanted that shut down for some reason.
What I was wondering about was not why media do it, but why people here are still discussing it so much in the way some are. We know the timing and the context and what he meant, surely, and that he shouldn't have said it in that manner, but he did and oh well... Why is it still an issue here. It's like the same discussion we had for a long time months ago. I mean, even if the media are still at it and will be forever, do we have to do that, too?
I agree that stuff like that should be handled immediately. That may not necessarily help much, but still. Statements by a publicist or even directly by the actor (or whoever the famous person might be) don't necessarily shut anything down, but it's good to make an immediate effort in that direction. In some cases refusing to comment on something in any way - including to defend oneself or clarify anything - can work surprisingly well, too. (This wasn't one of those type of cases.) Craig did of course clarify, as did Mended on his behalf, but it made no difference. I'm not convinced a statement from a publicist would have worked, either, but it might have been worth a try.
Some see his out of context remarks as ok, and defend it. He's human after all, and an actor first and foremost (a bloody good one too) and not a marketer. Others don't and disagree. Either way, as you say, the comments should have been clarified quickly, and they weren't.
The discussion over the past few weeks had moved onto the 'money' thing anyway. That's an unsubstantiated rumour, but was not properly 'shut down' by EON or Craig. So it will continue to be discussed here and elsewhere, which is how it always is when one has no clarity and the rumour mill about 'new Bond' actors continues to heat up in the vacuum.
Some seem not to want such discussions & speculation to occur on this thread without clear facts. Others (I'm one of them) don't see the harm, until we get concrete news.
Who the hell knows anything either way anyway. None of us here, that's for sure. We're all just discussing and passing the time away until the news comes our way.
No harm done imho.
The money thing... yeah, it's somewhat connected to the other - I see that, of course - since Craig mentioned money, too. Maybe that's why the wrists get brought up here, still, as well.
Carry on then. ;)
These discussions go in ebbs and flows however. Sometimes it dies down, then there's a new piece of rumour quoting cash and wrists and so on, and the discussion flares up here again.
This is the price we pay for no news and so much uncertainty and rumour. If we knew Craig was definitely back, who the distributor was, and when the next Bond film was coming out, all discussions would move to other things.
Outstanding statement, to bring to the fore. The curse of "self harming" ;)
Yes, isn't it.
Anyhow, I hope the news about Bond 25 is due course.
Let's agree to disagree. We live in a world where authenticity is a rarity and Craig, the man, delivers that. I couldn't give a shit about how he's 'supposed' to handle himself. He does what matters most and that's delivering the work.
The two aren't mutually exclusive. You can be genuine and measured at the same time. Although I do agree that, in the absence of one, genuine is the way to go.
I too don't care how Daniel handles himself, ....... I'm sure it must get lonely
On set some nights ! :D he's only human.
I didn't say they were.
The way they have been interpreted, spun and played is not appealing though, and that is the overall impression that many who are not following his career or interested in him personally are left with.
He doesn't care what people think about it evidently, and as @Germanlady has said, he is the one who actually has taken the brunt of the hits for it - not Bond. The franchise itself is stronger than ever. So it's all good.
was funny ) but doesn't have the comedic skill of Sir Roger, and I'm sure
Immediately regretted it, as he knew it would be the one bit of the interview
That would make the headlines.
Better?
It may have been posted by The Riddler ? ;)
If Hiddlestone is in the running to replace DC? I am ok with that!