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
-1
Since I'm loyal to the franchise first, I really do prefer if an actor closes out his tenure with a weak entry, in order to set the stage for a rebirth with the new man.
In this case it's a very important one symbolically, being Bond #007.
Feels as if @mendes is sulking just a little.
Nah, Craig's staying will just give Turner time to mature a bit, insuring he gets the role for Bond 26 :D
There has definitely been a phoenix pattern at work from one Bond actor to the next, and that has definitely made it easier for them to "sell" each new Bond.
YOLT > OHMSS (a tough sell, but they compensated by excelling in every department)
OHMSS > DAF (Connery's back!)
DAF > L&LD (obvious phoenix)
AVTAK > TLD (obvious phoenix)
LTK > GE (6 yr gap resulting in obvious phoenix)
DAD > CR (obvious phoenix)
SP > ?
Connery was bored with the role and despised his producers, especially Saltzman;
Moore was 57, and very long in the tooth.
DC is athletic, a great actor with a ton of screen presence who has an excellent working relationship with his producers. He's not coming back to embarrass Babs, or himself!
Financially, yes, DAD was a success, but it seems to be generally held that Connery, Moore, Brosnan, and Craig (should SP be his last) departed with their creatively weakest outings—conceding that DAF, AVTAK, DAD, and SP each have their own individual supporters among the fanbase.
To play devils advocate you can never really know if your not film will be your weakest. A lot of these actors always try to one up the one before.
Everyone says this, but believe it or not, it's not that simple. If it was, every film would be fucking great.
A problem is, and I've been guilty of it, when viewers, especially fans, are hypercritical in their judgment of a film and how it's elements compare to previous films both within and outside of the series.
In short, can a Bond film be made that isn't accused of recycling the past?
Bottom line: I think making films is more art than science. Sometimes it comes together beautifully when you least expect it and resonates.
I do believe though that steps can be taken to maximize the chances of magic happening, and enough time to get it together in the preparation phase is one of those steps.
Originality is not really the objective, imo. It's authenticity. You may tread over old ground, unexpectedly, but if it's a done in an authentic way it's palatable. An audience is savvy enough to understand when it's getting something fresh, or something stale (box ticking).
I absolutely love OHMSS. Top-rate flick. however, a lot of my friends disagree and trash it. I'm glad that it was left out just for the fact that I don't have to hear that they were "redoing" OHMSS. Besides, there's no way that Madeline deserve that line.
This is what happens when you create a thread that is utterly speculative.
Alright, I'll make an attempt. So some have suggested that B25 will be like SP. Despite my problems with SP, I'd rather that than another "gritty," "serious," "Oh, look at me! I'm so brooding and emotional," standard Craig entry.
And to me there actually isn't much time given for brooding Bond. He's confronted with events to react to at times, but he doesn't wear much anything on his sleeve. It's about the mission.
Agree. Originality is not what's kept Bond alive on screen for getting on for 60 years. It's inventive rehashing of a well established formula. Okay from time to time the films push the boundaries a little but there's not been much genuine originality in a Bond film since the days of Connery. Even then Bond was happily copying other films - FRWL 'borrowing' merrily from Hitchcock.
It's always a bit of a tightrope between box ticking and loving craftsmanship.
You can eat a great meal again and again if it's cooked with passion and genuine commitment. But when it's just churned out for the sake of putting food on the table it can become a bit stale.
I do think this is where the importance of good quality writing is so important. It really can make the difference between something that feels utterly rehashed and dull, and something that just has the little twist and freshness to lift the film.
His agent calls and offers him a script with all the usual stuff in it, but he declines, rather watches TV.
And now DONT go into - "This will happen with his Bond" Just don't.
http://www.horizont.net/marketing/nachrichten/Vodafone-Giga-TV-Warum-Daniel-Craig-lieber-bingewatcht-als-Verbrecher-jagt-146355
Agreed, @RichardTheBruce. As you will find here, many don't seem to get what the intent and message of these films has been, or how Bond has functioned inside of them.
Quite so Brady quite so.
In breaking news...