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
Probably not anytime soon. MGM still has to sort out their distribution deal.
That said, it's probably something of a moot point anyway. There still isn't any real evidence that Hiddleston has the job.
LOOOOL oh why did I click on this. If he's trying to get the lead in Zoolander 3, then this should work for him. Come on, who didn't laugh just a little at this "sexy" photoshoot? His "please look at me" campaign is getting a little desperate now.
Ehh... that was not a good photo shoot of Hiddleston. In fact, photo shoots like that tend to be bad in general - also when they are of women, of course (and they mostly are of women). Trying hard to be sexy - and assuming lack of clothing or awkward poses is the way to achieve that - basically always fails, for the simple reason that it looks fake, unnatural and tacky. Very much the fault of the photographers/magazines too, of course - they should know better. Just my opinion, of course... maybe most people enjoy photo shoots like that and that's why magazines use them so much? I've certainly seen some guys here be all excited about such photo shoots when it's an actress in it instead. (I roll my eyes at those, too.)
It's not like I have anything against lack of clothing in itself. I'm all for increased male nudity in movies and all - when it's a natural part of the story that is being told. (The imbalance of female vs male nudity is what's sexist and unnatural.) British - and many other European - actors seem to be okay with it, and the audiences as well. But what, you can't even show a guy's butt in a tv series in the US? Seriously? (If Hiddleston's needed to be cut from the US version of The Night Manager.) That's beyond ridiculous.
Anyway, when it comes to photo shoots, it's a different situation entirely (even if it's underwear instead of nude... or shirtless instead of wearing a t-shirt); there is no character and story - it's the actor/actress, and it's all about selling themselves as "sexy" and it frequently ends up being just nnnngh and eye-roll-inducing.
http://www.thebookbond.com/
Okay, it's understandable when money is involved - competition, business...
I will say it again: occasionally, the media do get it right...
I have come close to giving up on the Bond movies and cease following all the news but then Eon always seem to redeem themselves and spark up my interest again, what with Casino Royale and then Skyfall. What interests me even more however, is who will be writing the next adult Bond book. Please let it be Horowitz again! Okay, back to the movies... :) In fact, Horowitz should be writing Bond 25.
I get where you're coming from, but as with 'bored' Connery in YOLT, I think Craig still gives a good performance.
Give me bored Craig over fully engaged Brosnan any day!
Craig should make at least one more IMO. With a pretty dark ending.
Some changes should be made in the fandom.
Since Fleming ;)
Not quite the way you put it, but Fleming did indeed allow Bond to become introspective, philosophical, self-questioning, and morose from time to time. In the right measures and in the hands of the right filmmakers, those aspects of the literary character could play out in a very satisfying way on film. Personally, I'm game for a more upbeat, more traditional, more adventurous, and more carefree type of Bond film following the navel-gazing of Skyfall and the line-straddling "let's rehash every Bond film that's gone before while still making everything dark as all fluff" approach of Spectre. But again, if it's done right, I'm fully behind the idea of a smartly morose dose of Fleming on film.
What the filmmakers absolutely should not do at this point is to try and have it both ways. Make a fun, adventurous film with a few dark elements if you want to. Or make a dark, somber, artistic film with a few fun elements. But please, please, please don't try to do everything at the same time. The film commits neither way and it just comes off a mess.
Other than that, despite never on par with the films, the Bond novels have always been about all those boyish enthusiasms and adventures that was the fantasy of every red-blooded male at the time, only made more realistic than the likes of Bulldog Drummond and The Saint. Of course Bond always was self-questioning, doubting his own more than once, because he was real. Not a superhero in a silver age absurdity. Fleming, most of the times, gave Bond happy endings, and just for the reasons some of the members here mentioned, in spite of them all, I do love the entity of The Man With The Golden Gun. Sure, there's always a struggle, there's always wrestle with difficulties, but it's the end that matters most where after efforts and a little bit of luck in hand, Bond comes out on top, being the last one to smile victoriously so to speak.
Probably Skyfall was a one-time 'okay', but if the Bond films are to adopt that template for every film, then it won't be a Bond film. And for that reason alone, I am very satisfied with Bond driving off with Madeleine into the sunset. Clobber me all you like, I'm always for the old formula.
Couldn't agree more. For many years, I've always said that this multi-faceted approach just doesn't work very well. It's why Spectre didn't really work. It's a pity that the film makers just don't realise this. If Spectre had have maintained the consistent tone of CR and SF, with a better story, it could have been a great film.
And I can say I have never disliked a candidate as much as I do Hiddleston, who does nothing for me and I also cannot stand his looks. So not Bond. So that would be by far most upsetting news. I did not care at all for Clive Owen either, but Hiddleston would be such a poor choice and would be very unwelcome news for me.
Not considering this a sure thing yet, though. We shall see.
Hello! Finally someone who has as much distaste for (cringe) "Hiddles" as I do. I seriously can't think of any other legit candidate I'd want less than him. I'm almost getting nostalgic for the "glory" days of when Idris Elba was supposedly in line.
but on Hiddles, it just looks cold - I can see no warmth in this man, no charme.
But since I am much more a DC fan then a Bond fan (what surprise), I wouldn't want anybody who, in my mind, has it all. I hope for am outcome, where people will say after the next film - But DC was much better.
Runs to hide under a large stone.
I actually have a visceral negative reaction to Hiddleston, which is quite rare for me. But yeah, a major turn off.
James Bond shouldn´t be too bulked up at all. Craig owns the role as far as acting goes, but his body building is just ridiculous. It´s the most artificial thing, yet people insist on it for reasons of supposed realism. That´s a joke, really. James Bond should be tough as coffin nails, not an edematose balloon.
I certainly think the rumors of Dan turning down the role because he couldn't get creative control is bogus. He's always been an influential part of the filmmaking process before SP without needing a credit or title, so why would that bug him now? It just doesn't strike me as an action Dan would take, especially since he, Barbara and MGW have always been so pleasant with one another. It seems like an out of character moment for all concerned, and that's why I find it false.
Not certain about the validity of all this Hiddleston stuff either. I like the guy as a person (witty, sophisticated, intellectual) and his acting work, but I still don't know if I'd be okay with him as Bond. To be fair, no matter who the next Bond will be, whether it's soon or in a couple of years, they will be rather unfairly judged by me, simply because Dan has set such a high mark of quality with his films. As I've said before, when Dan's tenure ends, so too does a lot of my investment in the franchise. I don't see myself ever being this into Bond again, aside from writing about Connery's films, because the last four films have been everything I've ever wanted, and thinking about not getting any more is depressing.
And as a Craig fan, it truly is troubling and nauseating to hear some reports vilifying him or making him seem pompous or greedy and cantankerous, etc. Anyone who bothers to know his true character could spot the false reports in a second, but our modern societies aren't known for being informed or observant, so I guess it's just a sign of the times more than anything. And, because we are so quick to police anyone who dares to jokingly be un-PC or *gasp* have a sense of humor, comments of Dan's with an obviousl and humorous frivolity to their delivery are taken as truth by those either too stupid to understand human communication and body/speech language, or manipulative enough to use the words to spin a click-bait story.
The matter at hand...
Is Dan done? I'm not sure, and that big elephant mystery in the room still bugs me. It sucks to hear all these conflicting things, or to see reports writing him as dead in the dust rather unceremoniously while we're all still in the dark over here, with nothing resembling an official announcement in sight. I will say that I am less optimistic about a return from him than I was a month or so ago, but that is only because of the more recent reliable sources that've come out from those who solely report on 007 news and have proven right in the past. Of course I would want nothing more than for Dan to return for one more ride in a film that deals with Bond hanging up his holster and dealing with a quiet life before Blofeld butts his head in again in an adaptation of YOLT with the Garden of Death included. SP didn't do it for me, conclusion wise, as we got no real confirmation of anything, part of why it was a false resolution. Is Bond done? Did he say his goodbyes? All too many questions, with Blofeld still able to cause a raucous from behind bars.
If Dan truly opts out, I'd appreciate it if EON made the announcement and gave it to us straight up, whether he decides this week or next year. The moment he makes a final decision to stay or go, I feel we should know, because if we have to wait in the wings until a script for Bond 25 is ready or a distributor is chosen-which will be many, many excruciating months from now-just to hear that Dan is in for one last ride or done for good, all that time in between full of painful mystery and tense speculation will just be beyond horrid.
If Dan is done, I'd like to know already so the mourning process can begin. If he isn't done and wants to do Bond 25, let us know so 1) those of us who like him don't need to worry and sweat bullets anymore, 2) writers can quit slinging stories vilify him and replacing him with a flavor of the week actor and 3) we can all share a sigh of relief that at least we know what to expect from the next film, regardless of when it may be coming. All this questioning of if Dan's in or out and who may step in to fill the role for the seventh go around is just nauseating, uncomfortable and headache inducing.
I don't really have much else to say, beyond stating that "In Craig and EON I trust."
But what would take him so long? They must have mapped out some sort of idea,which he can take into consideration. I don't see this.
I wish I could read Dan's mind; then I could be put at ease, whichever way his thoughts were leaning in regards to out the door or ready for more.