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
This to me is also very Fleming.
No, It was solid, they wrote off 5 of them during filming they said, the one I saw is apparently the one use for when the car is first seen in the movie in the Q "It's for 008" moment.
PS Bond on Twitter have a Retweet competition on today to win the Skull kane prop that Dan held in PTS.
[/quote]
@fanbond123, @ThighsOfXenia, @Perilagu_Khan, here's my piece on all this:
In my original post, I should have stressed that Dan's Bond doesn't do happy endings. Because we were all discussing his films and his films alone, I forgot that not being specific could lead to misinterpretation.
[/quote]
as for my own analysis this is why Craig needs to do 2 more honestly...
Casrino Royale like the book introduces us to his world to quantum to everything we need to know
Quantum of Solace really covers the following books thematically Live and Let Die From Russia with Love and Dr. No showing the threat evolving and building
Skyfall thematically fits with really Moonraker Diamonds are Forever and Goldfinger taking bond away from the main threat but dealing with this side threat that works in tangent with main one ( still say Silva is his own man and Spectre/Quantum just supplied him with men and that's it)
Spectre Brings us full circle and thematically with thunderball (in the books wasn't Blofeld even a former smersh operative its been a while) and On Her majesties Secret service showing us a new threat that has risen out of the ashes but also that Bond can Find solace from the wounds of Vesper and Fall in love again (Novel it's tracy in the film Spectre it's Madeline Swann)
So we in my opinion need two more from craig
Bond 25 showing Bond lose the second love of his life and take down the organization once and for all (his You only live twice)
Bond 26 to showcase no matter how many orgnizations Bond stops there will always be work for 007 to do (his Man with the golden Gun)
and then we can bring in Tom Hiddleston as 007 at 42 and keep him around for a decade or so (sorry the more I watch the night manger trailers the more I want him as 007 next..)
Don't tempt me, @Zekidk! Knowing me, before hitting OHMSS I'd already have enough pages to fill a book! ;)
@Germanlady, what's this "point of no return" you speak of, and what's Dan coming so close to? If you mean the Bond role, that's pants, because EON are never going to tell him to walk; when he goes, it'll be on his own terms.
If it's the industry in general, again, that's total pants. Dan is a fine and respected man and character actor; there'll always be work for him. If Mel Gibson is still working, I think Dan's sense of humor, largely lost on this attention deficit planet, won't be enough to sink his career. He's a rare kind of talent too, because while some in his field refuse to do films where they can't be the lead and get the most cash, Dan is happy to take a small part on if it means he can still play and bring to life an interesting character. He does art for its own sake, not for money, not for fame, not for exposure. He's very Wildean in that regard.
I hear people say all the time that post Bond Dan isn't going to get any major big money work again, and that his career has already peaked. If that happens, so what? As I said, Dan isn't worried about getting massive roles; he pursues roles and projects that interest him and that he feels he can add something to through his acting. If the film happens to make money, that's just a bonus. Obviously he likes making money, we all need it to stabilize our lives and live comfortably, but it's never a pressing issue when the excitement of the role overtakes him. Trust me, post Bond, if Dan doesn't get blockbuster roles, I don't think he'll mind one bit. Bond has given his name a lot of weight, its provided him with a steady income that's allowed him to relax and enjoy his life, and many of the greatest opportunities he's had have come as a result of it all, and that won't just stop. At the end of the day, all of it is his choice and he owes us nothing.
Great analysis, although I do disagree somewhat about the way the Craig films view the series through a "real life prism" as all of them (even the first two) are very much pure fantasy in many ways. They attempt to deal with more human themes and gravitas (with various degrees of success, I might add) which is admirable, but there are still boat loads of absurdity.
I love the old films too because I think authorial intent is irrelevant. Despite what the filmmakers' intentions may have been, there's a lot to look at and analyze in terms of character etc in the older films as well. Now, the range and breadth of themes in the original 20 film run is less than Craig's, but that's because the filmmakers made conscious decisions to aim for this sort of thing, as well as be more diverse.
That said, I think many of the better Bond films do a great job (while still functioning as wonderful escapist fantasy entertainment) of looking at world weariness and what Bond's tragic past / sense of loss have turned him into. One of the things I admire most about some of the older entries (even Moore's) is that, unlike Craig's, they refuse to spell anything out in the text (and indeed, I'll concede that in many instances I'm sure thematic heft was very far down on their list of priorities). Everything about the first run Bond films (GoldenEye one exception) is focused wholly on the surface, which I think (as I said, regardless of intent) is actually a more effective way of investigating Bond's character.
It goes back to the "style vs. substance" argument that many critics trip up on. What critics fail to understand is that style often is substance. The style of the Bond films perfectly mimics the "cool, kept up, aesthetically perfect" facade that Bond puts on. Connery is best at being perfectly put together and panther-like but always keeping us aware that there is something underneath. We're talking about the cinematic character of Bond here, which has various levels of Fleming's in him, just to be clear. Even the deadpan quips etc can all be read as means of deflection - to keep everything on the surface and prevent anything from burrowing deeper. These Bond films are ALL gloss and sheen, and that's the whole point. We in the audience can make of them what we want, which I appreciate, while they also function as popcorn munching spy romps.
I love the Craig run too, and I understand why you value it higher, just arguing why I value the older films equally (obviously some I don't love as much as others). The thematic aspirations of this run are much less subtextual and much more blatantly in the text of the films. Which is one thing that does bother me occasionally - Craig is such an excellent, excellent actor that I hate when the filmmakers disrespect the audience's intelligence and spell out his inner thoughts (and subsequently the themes of the films) via some pretty clumsy dialogue sequences. Craig's performance is much more in tune with Bond's inner thoughts than other actors, bringing it more to the surface where I read the older performances as burying it all much, much deeper which is intersting in its own way.
Sorry for rambling. Totally respect you for holding the Craig films up higher, as they do have more artistic merit (on first glance as I attempt to argue). Not that "artistic merit" necessarily means higher quality of filmmaking in my book etc.
I will let you know how much it went for when I get back !.
Be the highest bidder, @Mrcoggins, then you can let all of MI6's members borrow it for a week each. We should do it alphabetically by username so that I get a chance to go behind wheel before @Creasy47 wrecks it. He already has a history of destroying the Lotus, the DB5 and the Vantage, all driven straight into trees, posts, buildings and rivers. And, I had to be in the damn back seat while all this way going on. The nerve of some people...
Great discussion, @ThighsOfXenia. There's definitely a lot to analyze in the older films, namely Connery's, OHMSS and Dalton's two for me, but more so on the character level than big sweeping themes, as you said. I didn't mean to fully discount any of the previous films (well, most of them) in my analysis, it's just that for me, going from the Craig era films to another era's movies, like Moore's for example, doesn't provide me with the same jolt or exciting stimulation of the mind. But again, to each their own. All the eras have something to admire, whether it's the straight up Cold War spy thrillers of the Connery era, the breathtaking stuntwork and location shooting of the Moore era, or the dark and straight-faced Bond of Dalton. Lots to love, lots to discuss. :)
I guess what I'm saying is I'm always in defense of what is considered "low art," as I think, for example, that despite its more sweeping and intentional "stimulation of the mind" I don't think QoS is half the film of, say, Goldfinger, which doesn't immediately attempt to make any broad statements about the nature of espionage, Bond as a character, etc - that said, I think it's crafted so well that it does allow analysis of Connery's portrayal of Bond etc etc.
I do really respect what the Craig era has done for the character though. Much of what they've done has helped inform the way I look back at the older ones, and enriches almost all of them. For that I'm grateful.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/tvshowbiz/video-1262775/Associate-producer-Spectre-Daniel-Craig-Bond.html
As far as we're all concerned right now, Daniel is still Bond, until the producers announce the otherwise.
Personally I am more interested in what kind of Director Craig would want to work weith as I have no doubt Mendes is out (he likes to do family relationships he already did mother father and brother unless we get a sisterly relationship to pique his interest I doubt that mendes will come back and I doubt the prodcuers will go for it)
What has me slightly nervous is we are almost done with February and MGM is still kind of in between partner studios. My Hope is it will be WB and to be bluntly honest yes I want a Nolan 007 trilogy (even after the disappointment that is The Dark Knight rises) after two more from Craig...
in terms of directors with gravitas that could interest Craig really I can only think of four choices
Steven Spielberg (who after bridge of spies at least from the trailers would be really cool)
David Fincher (who I would honestly prefer and given the darkness of the story that Craig and company are going for showing bond happy and then lose that happiness and go for revenge yeah Fincher would be Ideal)
Tom Holland (who is a huge bond fan and I believe is an Oscar winner and I would put money on as being the next director)
Edward Zwick (my second choice and the second most likely if I was a gambling man)
I also am really curious who will be writing the script Logan is long gone
though to be vaguely realistic my guess for the script is
Neal Purvis Robert Wade and Jez Butterworth
or perhaps just Jez and a new writer?
My hope would be Jez Butterworth Christopher Mcquarrie and David Goyer (who I only want there because he is a stickler for source material so he would push for Fleming Characters story lines and a title...)
but like I said my hope is within 3 months we will know the studio the writers and maybe the release date (which I am ok with 2018 and even bond 26 coming out 2021 3 year gaps being the norm I am honestly ok with because it avoids over exposure and allows for writers to develop the films a bit better)
and while this is off topic my hopes for the future
All the Time in the World (2018) Dealing with the love and loss of Swann and the final battle between Bond and Blofeld
The Hildebrand Rarity (2021) Dealing with Bond being brought back into service and having to deal with a new threat from M's past (I think the brainwashed elements from TMWGG could work here but I almost want them to use a different 00 agent then bond this being the final Craig film)
Death to Spies (2023) bond dealing with a resurgence of Smersh (Directed by Nolan staring Hiddleston)
The Property of a Lady (2026) Bond Dealing with Smersh's top hitmen the Spang Brothers and the mysterious Liz Krest
The Rough with the Smooth (2029) Bond Destroying the resurged Smersh and killing Colonel Von Hammerstien head of the reformed Smersh. (end of the Nolan trilogy)
I think that would make me very happy unsure about everyone else lmao but for me I would be VERY happy!
Ed Zwick, IMO, is too old and has sorta lost it. Sadly it showed already in DC's Defiance.
I love Samurei and even though that film was very cheesy at times, it was still glorious.
Please new writers all the way or Paul Haggis. There must be many out there, willing to give their all for Bond. They need new and fresh ideas.
Get a great script first. THAT should be their first and foremost concern. As for the rest - those MANY directors will be standing in line.
As CR is one of the finest action movies ever made, it would be quite difficult to do that. Im hoping they can get Campbell back for one more and soon as he's getting quite old.
Firstly, just writing a great script isn't easy. Far from it. Add to that the fact there will be many cooks further down the line from an executive perspective; plus a director who will want to take the story down different paths and you're still in the typical Hollywood mire. Someone needs to bring a concept to the table that is exciting and that can be the focal point of the screenwriting and pre-production process. The script can then operate in appropriate flux (there will be no stopping that) with the key driver still intact. Again, though, this is still far from easy, especially if all parties on on board.
Naturally. Unlikely to happen imo. One can always hope.
Technically no one is Bond ....if there's a contractual option and Craig takes it then yeah contractually Craig is Bond.