No Time To Die: Production Diary

13383393413433442507

Comments

  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    It would be interesting to see an alternate version of history where Laz stays on and films his six or seven other Bond films beyond OHMSS as planned. Would he have soured by #3, or would his last movie have been met with sorrow and nervousness as the torch was passed to another?

    I personally don't mind Lazenby in OHMSS at all, but I do think he wouldn't have faired well as a leading man in other films beyond OHMSS, where such big character moments like Bond's romance were there to take the big focus off of his work. Who knows?
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,409
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    Personally I don't think Lazenby gets enough credit. The guy wasn't even an actor. He was a chancer that blagged his way into getting the most coveted role at the time; and all things considered did a fantastic job given his non existent acting experience.

    Fair enough, but it's a bit like giving credit to Jonathan Wilkes for scoring a wonder goal against a bunch of pros. Club singer and Robbie's best mate; might be good for a charity match, but would he last the season?

    NO! That's the point. He suited the film, despite not being an accomplished actor.

    Wilkes suited that game - luck was on his side. Doesn't mean he's a great player.

    It's not luck, at least in the case of Laz. You said it yourself - serendipity.

    Same thing. Fluke, luck... etc.

    No, it isn't the same thing.

    Chance, accident, luck, fluke, coincidence... I love his film and I don't dislike him, but if he was the superior actor some claim he'd have had some semblance of a career.

    He wasn't a brilliant actor, but you don't have to go to drama school to play one character well once.

    Not at all. I just feel he's overrated amongst fans on here. People would say the same about a footballer having one good game, I feel a bit like that with Laz.

    That's fair enough, I just happen to feel like Laz had it where it counts in this instance. He probably wouldn't have done well with a TSWLM or TND type Bond film, that's for sure.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    Personally I don't think Lazenby gets enough credit. The guy wasn't even an actor. He was a chancer that blagged his way into getting the most coveted role at the time; and all things considered did a fantastic job given his non existent acting experience.

    Fair enough, but it's a bit like giving credit to Jonathan Wilkes for scoring a wonder goal against a bunch of pros. Club singer and Robbie's best mate; might be good for a charity match, but would he last the season?

    NO! That's the point. He suited the film, despite not being an accomplished actor.

    Wilkes suited that game - luck was on his side. Doesn't mean he's a great player.

    It's not luck, at least in the case of Laz. You said it yourself - serendipity.

    Same thing. Fluke, luck... etc.

    No, it isn't the same thing.

    Chance, accident, luck, fluke, coincidence... I love his film and I don't dislike him, but if he was the superior actor some claim he'd have had some semblance of a career.

    He wasn't a brilliant actor, but you don't have to go to drama school to play one character well once.

    Not at all. I just feel he's overrated amongst fans on here. People would say the same about a footballer having one good game, I feel a bit like that with Laz.

    That's fair enough, I just happen to feel like Laz had it where it counts in this instance. He probably wouldn't have done well with a TSWLM or TND type Bond film, that's for sure.

    I agree with that.
  • dominicgreenedominicgreene The Eternal QOS Defender
    Posts: 1,756
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    Personally I don't think Lazenby gets enough credit. The guy wasn't even an actor. He was a chancer that blagged his way into getting the most coveted role at the time; and all things considered did a fantastic job given his non existent acting experience.

    Fair enough, but it's a bit like giving credit to Jonathan Wilkes for scoring a wonder goal against a bunch of pros. Club singer and Robbie's best mate; might be good for a charity match, but would he last the season?

    NO! That's the point. He suited the film, despite not being an accomplished actor.

    Wilkes suited that game - luck was on his side. Doesn't mean he's a great player.

    It's not luck, at least in the case of Laz. You said it yourself - serendipity.

    Same thing. Fluke, luck... etc.

    No, it isn't the same thing.

    Chance, accident, luck, fluke, coincidence... I love his film and I don't dislike him, but if he was the superior actor some claim he'd have had some semblance of a career.

    He wasn't a brilliant actor, but you don't have to go to drama school to play one character well once.

    Not at all. I just feel he's overrated amongst fans on here. People would say the same about a footballer having one good game, I feel a bit like that with Laz.

    Well you can't really use that comparison because Lazenby wasn't in the league. He wasn't a player. He jumped out from the stands in place of the best player and played a phenomenal game. Then he left, and no one ever knew what could have became of him if he stayed.
  • RC7RC7
    edited August 2016 Posts: 10,512
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    Personally I don't think Lazenby gets enough credit. The guy wasn't even an actor. He was a chancer that blagged his way into getting the most coveted role at the time; and all things considered did a fantastic job given his non existent acting experience.

    Fair enough, but it's a bit like giving credit to Jonathan Wilkes for scoring a wonder goal against a bunch of pros. Club singer and Robbie's best mate; might be good for a charity match, but would he last the season?

    NO! That's the point. He suited the film, despite not being an accomplished actor.

    Wilkes suited that game - luck was on his side. Doesn't mean he's a great player.

    It's not luck, at least in the case of Laz. You said it yourself - serendipity.

    Same thing. Fluke, luck... etc.

    No, it isn't the same thing.

    Chance, accident, luck, fluke, coincidence... I love his film and I don't dislike him, but if he was the superior actor some claim he'd have had some semblance of a career.

    He wasn't a brilliant actor, but you don't have to go to drama school to play one character well once.

    Not at all. I just feel he's overrated amongst fans on here. People would say the same about a footballer having one good game, I feel a bit like that with Laz.

    Well you can't really use that comparison because Lazenby wasn't in the league. He wasn't a player. He jumped out from the stands in place of the best player and played a phenomenal game. Then he left, and no one ever knew what could have became of him if he stayed.

    This just leads back to the idea that he is overrated. You use the word 'phenomenal', for me that is not a word you can attribute to Lazenby. Mixed bag is more apt imo.
  • edited August 2016 Posts: 3,333
    Lazenby is the only "actor" who was ever asked to play two different characters within the same movie that are distinctly different: Hilary Bray and Bond himself. Can anyone name another 007 movie in which an actor was asked to perform the same duty? Personally, I think this would've been a push too much for even Connery and Moore.

    PS. I've just remembered Connery's Japanese alter ego. How successful was that?
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    bondsum wrote: »
    Lazenby is the only "actor" who was ever asked to play two different characters within the same movie that are distinctly different: Hilary Bray and Bond himself. Can anyone name another 007 movie in which an actor was asked to perform the same duty? Personally, I think this would've been a push too much for even Connery and Moore.

    PS. I've just remembered Connery's Japanese alter ego. How successful was that?

    Are you referring to the Hilly role dubbed by George Baker? You realise that wasn't Laz?
  • Posts: 16,170
    Laz was not an actor. He expertly B.S.ed his way into meetings with Saltzman and Hunt. Fessed up that he wasn't an actor, but had the self confidence to make the audition work with very little experience. He was basically left to his own devices on the set and considering he hadn't been in any sort of acting environment (with the exception of Fry's Chocolate commercials), came across reasonably well. Brosnan, on the other hand, had been trained in drama school, and professionally acting since the late 70s.
    Interesting comparing the 2 casino scenes. OHMSS had the advantage of the Fleming material, Diana Rigg and Hunt. GE, came after a long break, and the casino scene is almost an afterthought to introduce new audiences to common elements in the series, hence why it's a bit pedestrian compared to the OHMSS sequence.
    Being on average that every other film, more or less features a casino sequence, we are due for one in BOND 25. Regardless of who plays Bond, I do hope the sequence has some relevance to the plot a'la OHMSS and isn't incorporated in some trite obligatory manner.

    I was trying to smoothly work BOND 25 back into the conversation here...........
  • edited August 2016 Posts: 3,333
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondsum wrote: »
    Lazenby is the only "actor" who was ever asked to play two different characters within the same movie that are distinctly different: Hilary Bray and Bond himself. Can anyone name another 007 movie in which an actor was asked to perform the same duty? Personally, I think this would've been a push too much for even Connery and Moore.

    PS. I've just remembered Connery's Japanese alter ego. How successful was that?

    Are you referring to the Hilly role dubbed by George Baker? You realise that wasn't Laz?
    Dubbing aside, Lazenby plays it differently; his body language is altered along with his mannerisms. It would be interesting to hear the undubbed soundtrack. I'm surprised this wasn't included as an extra on the Making Of OHMSS.

    But don't you think, @RC7, that it's curious that the filmmakers have never asked another Bond actor to switch characters and go about the story in disguise for a large chunk of the film, and the one and only true incident was with a first time non-actor?

    @ToTheRight, there's probably not enough screen time to shoehorn in a casino scene anymore in Bond 25 due to the MI6 crew muscling in on a large portion of the story. But I agree, it would be nice to see Bond gambling again.
  • Major_BoothroydMajor_Boothroyd Republic of Isthmus
    Posts: 2,722
    bondsum wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondsum wrote: »
    Lazenby is the only "actor" who was ever asked to play two different characters within the same movie that are distinctly different: Hilary Bray and Bond himself. Can anyone name another 007 movie in which an actor was asked to perform the same duty? Personally, I think this would've been a push too much for even Connery and Moore.

    PS. I've just remembered Connery's Japanese alter ego. How successful was that?

    Are you referring to the Hilly role dubbed by George Baker? You realise that wasn't Laz?
    Dubbing aside, Lazenby plays it differently; his body language is altered along with his mannerisms. It would be interesting to hear the undubbed soundtrack. I'm surprised this wasn't included as an extra on the Making Of OHMSS.

    But don't you think, @RC7, that it's curious that the filmmakers have never asked another Bond actor to switch characters and go about the story in disguise for a large chunk of the film, and the one and only true incident was with a first time non-actor?

    @ToTheRight, there's probably not enough screen time to shoehorn in a casino scene anymore in Bond 25 due to the MI6 crew muscling in on a large portion of the story. But I agree, it would be nice to see Bond gambling again.

    I'd also suggest Moore could have done the different personalities easily - see his dual performance in The Man Who Haunted Himself - shows more range in one film than in his entire 007 career. Also - the only reason the franchise did that with OHMSS is because it was adhering to Fleming's novel so strictly - which they never did as faithfully again - plus I don't remember Bond in the original novels ever playing another character (other than YOLT - when he's supposed to be a mute). It's actually something that I don't care for in general with Bond so I'm glad they haven't asked another 007 actor to do. In FRWL Smersh's intel file even state he specifically doesn't use disguises - guess they'd want to update that now!
  • Posts: 11,425
    Laz was awesome in OHMSS. One of the best and definitive performances.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    Personally I don't think Lazenby gets enough credit. The guy wasn't even an actor. He was a chancer that blagged his way into getting the most coveted role at the time; and all things considered did a fantastic job given his non existent acting experience.

    Fair enough, but it's a bit like giving credit to Jonathan Wilkes for scoring a wonder goal against a bunch of pros. Club singer and Robbie's best mate; might be good for a charity match, but would he last the season?

    NO! That's the point. He suited the film, despite not being an accomplished actor.

    Wilkes suited that game - luck was on his side. Doesn't mean he's a great player.

    It's not luck, at least in the case of Laz. You said it yourself - serendipity.

    Same thing. Fluke, luck... etc.

    No, it isn't the same thing.

    Chance, accident, luck, fluke, coincidence... I love his film and I don't dislike him, but if he was the superior actor some claim he'd have had some semblance of a career.

    He wasn't a brilliant actor, but you don't have to go to drama school to play one character well once.

    Not at all. I just feel he's overrated amongst fans on here. People would say the same about a footballer having one good game, I feel a bit like that with Laz.

    Well you can't really use that comparison because Lazenby wasn't in the league. He wasn't a player. He jumped out from the stands in place of the best player and played a phenomenal game. Then he left, and no one ever knew what could have became of him if he stayed.
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Laz was not an actor. He expertly B.S.ed his way into meetings with Saltzman and Hunt. Fessed up that he wasn't an actor, but had the self confidence to make the audition work with very little experience. He was basically left to his own devices on the set and considering he hadn't been in any sort of acting environment (with the exception of Fry's Chocolate commercials), came across reasonably well. Brosnan, on the other hand, had been trained in drama school, and professionally acting since the late 70s.
    Interesting comparing the 2 casino scenes. OHMSS had the advantage of the Fleming material, Diana Rigg and Hunt. GE, came after a long break, and the casino scene is almost an afterthought to introduce new audiences to common elements in the series, hence why it's a bit pedestrian compared to the OHMSS sequence.
    Being on average that every other film, more or less features a casino sequence, we are due for one in BOND 25. Regardless of who plays Bond, I do hope the sequence has some relevance to the plot a'la OHMSS and isn't incorporated in some trite obligatory manner.

    I was trying to smoothly work BOND 25 back into the conversation here...........

    Interesting points.

    Laz is Duncan Edwards to Brozza's Robbie Savage.
  • Posts: 3,333
    bondsum wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondsum wrote: »
    Lazenby is the only "actor" who was ever asked to play two different characters within the same movie that are distinctly different: Hilary Bray and Bond himself. Can anyone name another 007 movie in which an actor was asked to perform the same duty? Personally, I think this would've been a push too much for even Connery and Moore.

    PS. I've just remembered Connery's Japanese alter ego. How successful was that?

    Are you referring to the Hilly role dubbed by George Baker? You realise that wasn't Laz?
    Dubbing aside, Lazenby plays it differently; his body language is altered along with his mannerisms. It would be interesting to hear the undubbed soundtrack. I'm surprised this wasn't included as an extra on the Making Of OHMSS.

    But don't you think, @RC7, that it's curious that the filmmakers have never asked another Bond actor to switch characters and go about the story in disguise for a large chunk of the film, and the one and only true incident was with a first time non-actor?

    @ToTheRight, there's probably not enough screen time to shoehorn in a casino scene anymore in Bond 25 due to the MI6 crew muscling in on a large portion of the story. But I agree, it would be nice to see Bond gambling again.

    I'd also suggest Moore could have done the different personalities easily - see his dual performance in The Man Who Haunted Himself - shows more range in one film than in his entire 007 career. Also - the only reason the franchise did that with OHMSS is because it was adhering to Fleming's novel so strictly - which they never did as faithfully again - plus I don't remember Bond in the original novels ever playing another character (other than YOLT - when he's supposed to be a mute). It's actually something that I don't care for in general with Bond so I'm glad they haven't asked another 007 actor to do. In FRWL Smersh's intel file even state he specifically doesn't use disguises - guess they'd want to update that now!
    Indeed, @Major_Boothroyd, and yet the movies deviated greatly from their source material after OHMSS, plus the writers/producers have pretty much been regurgitating and plundering almost every idea from their own 60s Bond back catalogue (and DAF if we include the DAD homage) except of course Bond in disguise. I just thought with all these wonderfully experienced actors having taken the role since Lazenby, they'd have jumped at the chance of showing their acting chops and range, especially Brosnan who was particularly scathing about Lazenby's performance. I'm not advocating it, I just wondered why it had been shelved, especially as MIssion Impossible make such a point of it in their stories. Besides, it's all part of the subterfuge and espionage thing.

    It's a fair point you raise about Moore's duality in The Man Who Haunted Himself, though I've never particularly liked or seen the fascination with this movie myself. I haven't seen it for decades I'll admit, but all I seem to recall is a moustachioed bowler hat wearing, umbrella carrying clichéd Brit verses a rather sweaty disheveled moustachioed gent, and a lot of eye-bulging raised eyebrows. Though I agree it could be Moore's most complex performance on screen.
  • Posts: 1,314
    Lazenby is the worst part of a great film.

    His ADR stands out a mile

    "I'll leave you to clean up"
    " he's branched off"
    "Gatecrasher"
    "Now who was he?"

    The voice acting recorded on set is a far better performance. It's his rerecorded stuff that sinks his performance.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    I'm sorry but I'll take Lazenby's inexperience over Brosnan's version everytime.

    Brosnan is only underrated in fandom but outside of that he's considered one of the best of the series, I personally don't get it and never will.

    He always seems in awe of Bond and it's legacy, Craig's attitude of not giving a shit and getting on with the job was the reason he was so comfortable in the role and never looked out his depth.

    Laz might have been no actor but the emotional moments in OHMSS were for me far more memorable and the so called amatuer delivered these much better than transtlantic Bond ever could.

    Fassbender getting the job would see an irish man who actually would give us an all rounded portrayal.

    The reason I think he'll slip into the role because he's got all bases covered. He tremendously charming, suave my Wife convinces me no one will be calling him out on his looks.

    There is quite a bit of talk about Bond going back to being delivered a mission and the film playing around that.

    Now I'll agree that Craig's era took the background element too far especially in SPECTRE, Skyfall should have been a full stop for that kind of thing but I for one don't want shallow travelogues that leap from one location to another lacking depth and emotion.

    I just don't think Bond can be like Moore played him again not in this day and age and it's only fans that would wetting their pants over this.

    Some of you recall the Cubby Brocoli era as a guage but a good number of those films are remember so fondly purely on a nostalgia basis.

    The next Bond film needs to strike a balance between presenting Bond as a confident suave killer who gets the job done but robbing him of his concience and depth is not the way to go. I'm not suggesting making him all tortured but questioning himself is not a bad thing.

    It's telling that a good number of Brosnan fans loved SPECTRE and thought it Craig's best as it was Craig's most PB entry, just as jarring and everything but the kitchen sink like as TWINE, the only thing elevating it being Craig as Bond but then it was his least commited film of the series.

    Fassbender could deliver all of the attributes Craig has bought to the role but also give it some of the Connery swagger with possibly adding a touch of the Moore like charm.

    Though the humour definitely needs fine tuning, Craig when he was given the deadpan moments, his best is still either "Yes Considerably or "That last hand nearly killed me" but the material he got given in SP was not his forte.

    If Fassbender could arrive with a film like SWLM dialing up the darkness with the class of OHMSS and CR I'd be very happy. Established and hitting the ground running. No origin BS just a seasoned agent who already has a relationship with M, Q & MP already.

    Have PTS nothing to do with the main plot or maybe make it seem that way, MF all swagger and confidence, JB theme dialed up to 10, then open the film after the titles in the traditional manner. Have Bond meet MP, then M and maybe Q then into the film with very little input from team MI6.

    I'm not against a younger more unknown actor but the danger there is that EON might feel a need to start again, too many franchises (Spiderman I'm looking at you) reset and then go back to origin mode.

    Craig's era was a new beginning but it's probably best if he doesn't return that we start in a new timeline with next Bond and MF being older would be great for that.
  • Posts: 4,617
    There are plenty of movie stars that are not that great at acting, they have one central type of character combined with star quality. I personally dont care if the next Bond actor can take time out and do a rom com, greek tragedy or shakespeare etc etc. Laz did a great job (all things considered) at getting very close to a great Bond and he would have got better. That does not mean he ever would have made a great all round actor. But IMHO, that does not matter.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited August 2016 Posts: 23,883
    Shardlake wrote: »
    I just don't think Bond can be like Moore played him again not in this day and age and it's only fans that would wetting their pants over this.
    It's been a number of years since I've succumbed to this particular childhood faux pas thankfully, but I'm open to someone who can play Bond like Moore did in LALD, TMWTGG, TSWLM & FYEO. There's nothing wrong with that interpretation at all imho.
  • Posts: 7,507
    Considering he wasn't an actor, Lazenby did extremely well as Bond. The scenes where Hilary Brays accent was dubbed over him were unnecessary! Lazenby is usually lauded for the action, particularly the fight scenes, but I think he did really well in the dramatic scenes, the resignation scene with M, scenes with Blofeld, and all his scenes with Tracy, particularly the ending! I dont believe Connery would have handled that final scene as well as Lazenby!
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    edited August 2016 Posts: 4,116
    bondjames wrote: »
    Shardlake wrote: »
    I just don't think Bond can be like Moore played him again not in this day and age and it's only fans that would wetting their pants over this.
    It's been a number of years since I've succumbed to this particular childhood faux pas thankfully, but I'm open to someone who can play Bond like Moore did in LALD, TMWTGG, TSWLM & FYEO. There's nothing wrong with that interpretation at all imho.

    That would be nice. I miss that Bond escapism.

    If Craig is gone then it ends disappointingly for me. Just like the Brosnan and Dalton eras that never quite accomplished what they should have.

    Hate to be a downer.. I enjoyed all three and I love Bond but that's still my opinion.
  • Posts: 9,848
    Personally I would as controveriAl as it is I would prefer Craig do one more and have Fassbender start at 42
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Personally I would as controveriAl as it is I would prefer Craig do one more and have Fassbender start at 42

    I would like Craig to end on a high note.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Personally I would as controveriAl as it is I would prefer Craig do one more and have Fassbender start at 42

    I would like Craig to end on a high note.

    So would I but the way he was left with SP it has to be something that disregards the foster brother nonsense or just a film that is totally separate from all that went before but the way they've gone with DC's era that would seem weird.

    Just one more film to tie up his and ESB's film dialing back the backstory stuff, an adaptation of YOLT but please no P&W, be done with these clowns once and for all.

    Please make sure the next Bond gets more skilled writers than Craig has had to endure, Mark Gattis or Steven Knight, just not those 2 again please Babs.
  • DoctorNoDoctorNo USA-Maryland
    Posts: 755
    News for next MI is that Cruise and studio are arguing over $, but set to start filming in January. After Cruise has made three films in interim. Looking forward to it. Depressed by Bond inertia.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,409
    DoctorNo wrote: »
    News for next MI is that Cruise and studio are arguing over $, but set to start filming in January. After Cruise has made three films in interim. Looking forward to it. Depressed by Bond inertia.

    I think we're all depressed.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    SPECTRE barely been released a year I'm not expecting anything I think we've all got a little to greedy, Bond isn't Marvel and they don't announce the next film right after the current one finishes.

    I couldn't give a stuff about MI, I can't stand the Cruiser one bit so it's not going to fill the gap one bit.

    I'm resigned to the fact that Bond is every 3 years at the least, as much as it would be nice to get one every 2 years I just don't think it will happen, unless you get someone like Disney acquring them and throwing ridiculous money at EON to produce them more frequently.

    Bond is unlike any other franchise they don't have spin offs and they don't feel a need to rush them out, as a fan of the series for close to 40 years, it will be 40 for me next year when it's SWLM 40th anniversary and waiting is all part of it, yes they were every 2 years but that hasn't been the case for close to 20 years now.

    Yes I'd be lying if I said I wouldn't be pleased if BB announced they were appointing a new Bond and would be having a far more focused approach to the series involving go forward but they don't and I can't imagine it will change they just come out when they are good and ready, although a director and actor should never dictate this like Mendes and Craig have been able to, which is why him leaving wouldn't be such a bad thing.
  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    Posts: 3,157
    Shardlake wrote: »
    I couldn't give a stuff about MI, I can't stand the Cruiser one bit so it's not going to fill the gap one bit.

    Thanks God I'm not the only one.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    edited August 2016 Posts: 4,116
    Walecs wrote: »
    Shardlake wrote: »
    I couldn't give a stuff about MI, I can't stand the Cruiser one bit so it's not going to fill the gap one bit.

    Thanks God I'm not the only one.

    Dynamite's Bond comics have been very satisfying and a welcome tide over. I just read one, put on some Bond soundtrack, lay back and let the cinema of my mind run away.

    ...my imaginary cinema floor's still kinda sticky though :/
  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    Posts: 3,157
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    Walecs wrote: »
    Shardlake wrote: »
    I couldn't give a stuff about MI, I can't stand the Cruiser one bit so it's not going to fill the gap one bit.

    Thanks God I'm not the only one.

    Dynamite's Bond comics have been very satisfying and a welcome tide over. I just read one, put on some Bond soundtrack, lay back and let the cinema of my mind run away.

    ...my imaginary cinema floor's still kinda sticky though :/

    I'm going to buy them eventually, unfortunately I must buy them on the internet and shipping costs to my country are not cheap at all.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    Hasn't Tom Cruise got enough money?

    I know some of you love this guy but his control over his films and his annoying habit of infecting other series and films he shouldn't be anywhere near just makes me despise the pint sized grining ego maniac even more.

    No I don't like him!
  • edited August 2016 Posts: 2,115
    //SPECTRE barely been released a year I'm not expecting anything I think we've all got a little to greedy, Bond isn't Marvel and they don't announce the next film right after the current one finishes.//

    Skyfall was released in fall 2012. The writer for Bond 24 (and 25 at the time) was announced in November 2012. Bond 24 was announced in early July 2013.

    Now, two things should be noted:

    -- It was known that Daniel Craig was doing another.

    -- It was known that Sony would release it because it signed a two-picture deal to reald Bonds 23 and 24.

    Regardless, Bond 25 is not as advanced as Bond 24 (later SPECTRE) was at this point in the cycle.

Sign In or Register to comment.