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
The helicopter acquisition is just weird though - especially if it's not for flight. My first thought was usage for scouting trips, but I'm sure it's more convenient to lease in whatever countries they want to explore.
I agree with you. I'm lukewarm now about a Craig return except none of the names mentioned as possible replacement excite too terribly much.
I'm 88% sure now Craig is returning.
My fear is I really do not want Mendes to return. And if the rumor that Mendes has reconsidered returning because of a story idea I am indeed concerned.
Wasting money on an classic helicopter sounds just like the waste of money rampant in SP.
I don't know ...just remember reading somewhere a rumor that Mendes had a story idea.
He also said, following Skyfall, that the thought of returning made him "physically ill." We all know how that turned out.
Some of us can relate to that
Indeed.
https://hmssweblog.wordpress.com/2016/11/24/why-sam-mendes-directing-bond-25-isnt-a-good-idea/
I most certainly can relate to that.
May be they all need to lighten up a bit. Craig needs to let the stunt guys do the running and jumping and focus on the acting stuff. There's no need for him to be regualarly getting injured on set. It's not like the stunt work or action has been that amazing in his films any way.
In Quantum, there's a shot early in the movie where Craig jumps onto the top of a bus or other vehicle. But the way the shot was framed, you couldn't really get a good look at his face to see it was actually him.
I think Craig has been a very good Bond and was an inspired choice. But -
- he's earned his stripes, fallen in love, had his heart broken (CR)
- his soul has gone to hell and back again, intact (QoS)
- he's been washed-up and devoid of confidence (SF)
- he's faced off with his nemesis and beaten him (SP)
Here's the thing - Bond movies are no longer about Fleming (we know this already) or even the overall canon.
The canon was "broken" with Casino Royale. It was the first reboot. It ignored Bond's adult history. Bond movies are now about the dramatic arc taken by whoever is acting the role.
We had Connery tangling with SPECTRE until he was finally able to bring Blofeld down in DAF.
We had Lazenby falling in love for the first time and giving his heart away in OHMSS.
We had Moore going up against a gallery of one-off villains and cold war Russia in an era notable for its standalone characterization. This was the most "stable" the canon has ever been.
We had Dalton indulge his inner rage in LTK, a compelling arc that he never got to explore further.
Craig ushered in a daring new era - where a new actor "resets" Bond, like they do with Batman, etc. For this reason, Craig is finished. He has nothing left to say as Bond. If he returns with Mendes, BB is simply playing the numbers and ignoring the creative redundancy.
With a new actor we get a completely new slate, with licence to reset the canon.
I agree with this, good points.
While I agree with you, money talks. Personally, I don't know how Craig would live it down if he returns for B25 and it's mediocre. So the pressure will be quite high on him to deliver something special if he chooses to return, given his arc was essentially complete with SP. We can either look at that positively (it will be special) or negatively (chances are it will be more of the same).
LOL, probably explained myself poorly.
What I'm trying to say is that with Casino Royale the film makers showed a willingness to mess with Bond's back story for the first time.
Daniel Craig got his own arc within the canon. Only Lazenby among previous Bonds really got that. And that was within one movie!
Connery got a very loose arc to do with SPECTRE. Moore was like Groundhog Day. Same world, same problems, neatly packaged at the end of each.
There was a scowl in TSWLM when Bach mentions his marriage, and then in FYEO when Moore visits Tracey's grave.
Dalts had LTK, but things were halted off-screen just when he was getting stuck into some dramatic meat.
Craig has had a fully-fledged career over four movies.
It'll be the same with the next actor. Vesper, Quantum, the whole lot will be erased.
yeah, I agree.
the only way they can really bring Craig back, in a narrative sense, is to give him a joyous, standalone crack against a colorful megalomaniac.
In short, give him a Roger Moore film. Hopefully more like TSWLM than MR.
In essence, Craig needs a decent plot.
SCRIPT has been the thing that's let him down repeatedly in his tenure.
Bring back Campbell and Arnold please.
The greatest chance we have of seeing a third Campbell film is with a new actor playing 007. I really want to see Campbell direct Bond again. For me he is the perfect modern Bond director like Young is for the classic period.
If you think that Goldeneye has a little bit too much action, and Casino has a little bit too much emotion, a third one by Campbell might be the perfect Bond film. 2019 does mark the 25 anniversary of his GoldenEye press conference. Could it all come full circle?