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
Rumour has it Craig will be hiding until the movie starts, and will leave before the lights turn back on.
I'm pretty sure Mission Impossible still does it to a large extent, happy to be corrected.
It's sad, as I love the traditional Bond formula. 'Re-setting' the world for each film is something the DC era clearly needs, but I doubt it'll happen.
I'm not even sure the next era will adopt the old template. I think the audience you need to reach the magic billion dollar mark is one that favours 'episodic' content.
Villeneuve would be perfect.
The concept of "fun" is dying too. Everything has to be so serious and emotional these days. What was wrong with some shallow entertainment?
I don't think thick continuity is necessarily required or demanded by audiences, but perhaps loose continuity is nowadays based on what everyone else is doing (I certainly don't need it).
If a viewer is predisposed to be sensitive to an occurrence of those things, that's a recipe for disliking the next film from the first teaser trailer. Present company excepted, I've heard complaints about homages/call-backs to the previous films. To me that's a dismissal of fun and a denial of reality--Bond films can't play a conscious elimination game of material on the one hand, and on the other shouldn't absolutely avoid opportunities to honor the past. Or they do it at their own peril. Clichés in Bond films? Well, yeah.
After Craig, I do expect the films to be less serious and drama-driven. In the meantime, the filmmakers are using this opportunity to do other than that. Future shallow--but still quality of course--content will play fine with me.
Excellent take all the way around. The entertainment media bashed DC, then loved him for nine years, and now wants to take him down. Why? I guess because they can -- or think they can. They all like to get out their torches and pitchforks. Ask Tom Cruise, who took it on the chin for a long time because of a couch-jumping incident and a mindless dig at Brooke Shields (for which he apologized). Other than that, TC has always been kind and professional.
Same thing here. Nobody has ever had a bad word to say about DC's professionalism. He makes one dumb and misunderstood comment during an interview (one the interviewer didn't even think was worth discussing further) and now he's public enemy #1.
Good lord.
Thanks for that bondjames, good to know.
I agree, at least a loose continuity seems to be the order of the day. In fact, I think the "resets" of the past might jolt younger audiences used to a certain narrative flow.
You can say what you like about him here as I honestly don't think a few Bond nerds remarks will make the slightest bit of difference to him. That's the beauty of these forums, it's a place where we come to bitch and gripe about all things Bond. I think the lack of official news is the real reason why some of us here are feeling a bit wobbly of late, and nothing at all to do with Craig.
Couldn't agree more, it reminds me of why I took a sabatical from here for such a long time. It just goes round, and round, and round...
My sentiments exactly.
That's exactly what I was going to comment, I'm glad I read a few more comments before hitting the Post button.
Did you not see Spectre?
I agree. For me, even with some unforgivable plot misses, and very cringey scenes with the whitehall brigade ("I think you have a secret...", "I owe you an apology, you are on to something", etc...), the movie really moves, and there is a lot to love. I've never wanted to write my own version of a Bond film more than with Spectre.
I don't think @TripAces was commenting negatively on Craig's persona or how he is perceived by the public though. From what I know he's a huge proponent of Craig's. Neither was I (although I'm indifferent to him, and wouldn't mind if he moves on after 10+ years). We both independently saw him on stage in Betrayal in NYC, so we're big enough fans.
The social media reaction to Logan Lucky's trailer suggests he has a lot of fans among the public, as he should.
Rather, we are both commenting on the media narrative which has been allowed to build over the past two years (at least in terms of him and Bond) and which has taken on a life of its own. He has inadvertently fallen into that unfortunately with his crass remarks over the years. They still have the knives out for him, and my point in particular is that this is possibly going to taint B25 marketing (on the margin), just as it did SP's (inevitably some box office was shaved off on account of some of the negative press and moreover some of the public were put off by some of the remarks which got a lot of 'play' - I know specific people who were, and I didn't like it myself). I don't think they're done with him yet. Some of this may be due to SF's huge success which took a lot of the media by surprise. They tend not to like things which they can't control. The attention to Bond is only going to grow over the next few years, now that the release date has been announced.
There's a lot of conflation of this specific discussion with love for Craig on this thread. Understandable given it's a Bond forum, but that's missing the point.
Examples?
I think most Bond films have lines here and there that are a bit 'off', sometimes nevertheless saved by a good delivery. If you're referring to some of Blofeld's lines, well, I might not disagree with you. But then most times when a film tries to raise symbolism or metaphors, it comes off as a failed attempt at artistic self-indulgence IMO. All that stuff about the meteor and how James ruined Blofie's youth and whatnot, didn't sit well with me. The lines and the delivery both.
//one the interviewer didn't even think was worth discussing further)//
Well, the interview did ask one follow up question (to try to establish some context). But yes, the original outlet did not play up "slash my wrists." That really did take on a life of its own.
What I'm curious about: Was there a PR person watching the interview and taking notes? That's standard operating procedure for executive interviews (sometimes more than one PR person is there).
The reason I ask: Craig did more than one interview (I think Rolling Stone also did one) where the interview took place in July but wasn't published until October. If a PR representative was present, Eon, MGM and Sony all should have had a summary and been ready in case they needed to respond once the interviews were published.
Well, hopefully not just that! ;)
http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2017/08/09/bond-talk-after-dark-lawsuits-tabloids-and-clowns
Tidbit from one of his items. Totally presented here for entertainment value only.
//On the completely unverfiable, I am not saying this is true, you-didn't-get-it-from-me front: that source I mentioned a while back, who I believe is part of the Bond production machine, is out there saying Daniel Craig was partially lured back for Bond 25 by the prospect of an actor initialed "TH" (apparently not the one we all had heard) replacing him. This other fella initialed TH was apparently ready to go, and the idea of being replaced by this gentleman was enough to spur Craig to action. Anyone buy that? This source is also saying Craig has agreed to back-to-back Bond films, when he'd previously mentioned hearing that Eon was going to sell off the franchise after Bond 25, so who knows which way is up at this point. I will say I'd believe this guy more than any tabloid. Sooo...anyone got any weird on-set gossip from Layer Cake...? ///
Of course, we heard about two THs: Toms Hiddleston and Hardy. Not sure if this is a third TH he's talking about.
I don't think Hiddleston was even in the frame. Didn't Babs allegedly write him off last year as being wimpy or something (not sure if that was on account of "I love TS")? Frederick Forsythe also said that Babs wasn't going to cast him last year.
Hardy is Nolan's boy. He will only have a shot if the maestro gets Bond, and that's not happening this time around at least.
That was via Page Six, the New York Post gossip operation.
http://pagesix.com/2017/04/03/daniel-craig-ready-for-more-007-after-slash-my-wrist-diss/
First paragraph:
After saying he’d rather “slash my wrists” than do a final Bond movie, sources say Daniel Craig is ready to sign on to return as 007 after Bond bosses decided Tom Hiddleston is “too smug and not tough enough” for the role.