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 also think that one could take his performance in SP as a sign he's tiring of the role. After a couple of tremendous performances to start his tenure, he sure seemed bored with it all in SP.
As for his performance, I thought he was beyond stellar, truly Bondian 100%. I've heard some people say the same thing you have, @dalton, but I just don't see it. He seems the most relaxed in the role in SP to me, almost effortlessly so. Perhaps to some that comes off as disregard.
Agreed and I want Craig to do one or two more.
As for Hiddleston well to each his or her own for me a few shots in the night manager scream bond and I am watching the night manager for two reasons
1. To see an amazing looking spy thriller
2. To honestly see if Hiddleston could be a good 007
I don't think purity has any impact on Craig returning to 007 or not
It's up to him. He's at a fork in the road career wise. He's at an age when he can still break free of this and make a few good films which could also be very successful at the box office if he wants given his current star power, or do some inspiring tv or theatre.
Age does catch up with you pretty fast when you hit the 50 or so range, and Hollywood lead roles start to diminish, especially given he hasn't been a big draw outside of Bond to date.
Born in 87, I was too young to follow the early 90's hiatus and for those that did, the amount of information was limited in the pre-internet era.
During the Brosnan years, there was never any doubt that he would continue in the role as he loved playing Bond and the films were doing well financially. However, the years after DAD was the low-point for me as a Bond fan and I missed out on the development leading up to Brosnan's exit and Craig's start with CR. So this is a rather new experience for me. After SF's success, it was pretty well assumed Craig would do another. This is the first time there is some serious doubt and while I'm glad Craig is getting other opportunities to increase his acting legacy, I want him back in the Bond role at least one more time!
When Craig does depart, EON will need to go in a different direction and I don't think fans are ready for that yet which could set the next actor up for failure.
I think it makes more business sense to move forward now and forge a new direction and a new vision. Moreover, they can probably get a new film out sooner if it's a new team (because a new actor will want to get on with it rather than have a 3 yr break to rest from it etc.).
Whatever they end up doing, I have one major wish, and that is they lock the director for the new actor in for at least two films. I am sick and tired of Campbell saving this franchise twice for the sophomore director to take it in a completely different direction tonally, no matter how much I like QoS, and even TND.
There's no mention of tentative dates as to when filming could possibly start let alone the series being released. For all we know this could end up shooting in the summer of 2017 or in 2020.
I would agree with this sentiment, although I don't necessarily think that it's paramount to have the same director for both films, not that I would mind if they went out and got somebody really good. As long as EON committed to a particular vision for the first couple of films (if not the entire tenure), then I think they could get by with different directors.
What I think they need when Bond #7 is brought on board is a clear vision of where they're going to take his tenure. If it's just going to be a series of standalone films, then fine. Decide on that and stick with it. If it's going to be connected, even if in only the slightest of fashion, then there needs to be at least a basic roadmap of where they're going with the films, rather than doing what they've done with Craig and make it all up as they go, forcing a horrible retcon at the end of it all that only serves to damage what came before.
The Blofeld connection seemed so forced and obviously wasn't the plan all along given they didn't have the rights to Blofeld when it all started.
I wish they went back to standalone films with only minor minor tidbits of continuity (example: Dalton or Moore Bond's referencing Tracy). Continuity can greatly jeopardize the strength of the franchise over time. However, if they do go with a continuous storyline, it has to be agreed upon on the start with one consistent vision, regardless of the director.
I know many here abhor the idea of Disney, but whatever one may think of them, they have shown an ability to manage and execute relatively well on the Marvel franchise, and look to be doing the same thing with SW as well. There is a vision there, whatever one may think of it.
It's such a simple point when one is dealing with a $1bn (try to let that number sink in everyone. It's rather large) revenue entity. Have a blooming plan for pete's sake.
Many of these Marvel films have betrayed their source material, jettisoning most of the old fans that are left drown in its Earth 616 universe. Courtesy of Disney having power over swinging everything for their preferences.
If we do hand over Bond to them, then it's no longer going to be the same. It will subvert, yes, but in the most negative way you could imagine. Not commercially, but rather critically.
We always have EON as the block to prevent any misuse of creative elements. It depends on how the deal is structured in my view. I've seen my share of corporate mergers and if creative autonomy is retained as part of the deal, Disney and EON could have a win win. There is also the prospect of distribution via the Touchstone subsidiary.
I was amazed to read recently about how Disney cajoled some theatre chains to have SW running throughout the holiday season on all major screens. Even Tarantino was crying about it because Hateful Eight got affected. Sometimes it's good to have friends in high (or is that low) places.
I get your point though.
Though in light of how lame SPECTRE was I'm actually quite keen on the idea of them recasting Bond and Craig committing to this series.
Bond has afforded Craig fame and fortune but as far as being taken series as a dramatic actor outside his fan base I don't think anyone else thinks he has much range outside of that.
I'm more encouraged seeing Craig get a role that has some real weight and allow him to do something other than play a damaged super spy.
The problem with his success and playing Bond is that some think that's it for him and are totally unaware that until CR Craig was well respected versatile character actor.
I was a Craig fan before Bond and supported him getting the role but I think sometime playing Bond has robbed him of a far more interesting career.
If they said they were pressing the reset button and a new Bond would be in 25 as long as at least Fiennes and Wishaw were retained I'd be fine with that. I
n fact I'd be more excited about another entry than I am about them following up one of the most disappointing and wasted opportunities of the entire series. I've come to the conclusion I prefer QOS to SPECTRE, it's now for me the worst Craig film.
Your evidence?
Can't say I agree. Some of the source material simply won't translate well onto film and many if the creative ideas are simply down to what the writers and Feige. Disney have done extremely very little in adversely nterfering with how Marvel Studios are bringing their properties to life and in the directions they're going.
Disney/Marvel have done a by and large excellent job at world building, attracting top talent and better still, hiring left field directors that contribute to all the success they're getting. Say what you will but Winter Soldier bests the last 3 Bond films and it does make one wonder, the Bond rights moving over to Disney may not be anywhere as bad as some people assume.
I only hope that in ten year's time we don't get such a bad new Bond tenure that you all start begging for Dan to return. Then we're all doomed.
I seem to remember EoN/Sony doing something similar during SF's run. It's nothing new or surprising with these studio execs.
You say that now but the reality is, there's actually a much stronger chance that Bond could benefit immensely over at Disney. It's not as though Mickey Mouse is going to show up and break into some family fun time musical.
That said, I loved The Winter Soldier and it is by far the best installment in the Marvel Cinematic Universe film series. I also expect Civil War to be an outstanding film, but I could only guess how far will they go to alter the original history of Marvel and erase some elements to fulfill their own agendas (Yes, the X-Men and Mutants are being erased from the comics, long story. Very long story.) to liquidate their rivals, namely the Fox Studios. As far as I'm concerned, the source material of every iconic Marvel character is ignored and avoided. Save for Deadpool.
Like dalton said above, I will stop supporting the franchise if it's handed over to Disney. Because they will customize it the way they like, restraining EON's authority to an extent. Thanks but no thanks.
I say it now and I'd say it then as well. Disney is the worst thing that could happen to Bond. They'll turn the franchise into something that caters to the lowest common denominator rather than something with any kind of artistic merit or something that is in any way close to the source material.
The franchise will benefit very well in a financial sense at Disney, but it'll lose its soul in the process.
With Craig possibly leaving, and Babs aging out at some point, EON is already entering a critical stage. One only has to read the Sony leaks to see how getting a Bond made requires an endless fight with studios, and Sony and MGM are weak studios. Disney is a monster. It will win every war with EON and ultimately destroy Bond. If EON goes with Disney, it will be for the money, period, and they will be selling Bond out. Can't believe they'd do it. It will be Warners.
I haven't seen what you posted but whatever you did say, you may need to check where you're getting your information from because Disney aren't micromanaging or dictating developments for characters and storylines. Like I said, Feige, Marvel and the writers and directors they amass are steering the ship and operating freely from Dusney's authority. If Disney do end up distributing Bond then farewell to you but as is often the case, some people balk at an idea or supposition without fully understanding or confusing the facts or not waiting to see the end product before passing judgement or making a decision simply because emotion took over reason.
Even if that were true, how is it any different from the forgettable and rather underwhelming last few outings we've recieved. Like I said in my previous post, in a situation like this Disney won't be adversely interfering. What you should be concerned with is the state of mind the producers are in as of now because wuth the last 3 films, especially the last 2, EON pretty much gave up the ghost trying to chase a dollar.
Distribution deal. Did you read the Sony leaks? Sony was totally involved with everything, scripts, locations, casting, budget, everything. Any studio can distribute the damn films. Sure, if all you care about is the BO, Disney has the money and power to squeeze out more profit. If you care about the quality of the films, Disney sucks.