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
Very good post. Especially the part in bold.
There are by far more dangerous and other sorts of threats in the world than surveillance problems or rogue agents trying to sell out MI6. What ever happened to the larger-than-life overseas menace? One would think a foreign intelligence agency like MI6 would go after them rather than constantly trying to be MI5.
I'm completely in agreement with you on this.
So pretty much the whole film?
But we literally just got a film with gadgets and a secret base and stuff that ended with Bond and Madeline driving off into the sunset. What would be the point in keeping her around for another film (don't see how you can do a "traditional" Bond film with her anyway since she made it clear it was her or the job), only to end it in the exact same way SP ended? You might not like the film but they already did Hunt's ending. It takes them long enough for them to make these films as it is so if they're going to do that storyline they need to do it now instead of dragging out that story arc for the sake of giving Craig a straightforward Bond on a mission film (SP had most of the tropes anyway and here's a thought, maybe he doesn't want one? He has some amount of creative input and seems to like the personal angle his films have taken).
If Craig comes back for Bond 25, it has to be a YOLT adaptation imo. Madeline dies in the PTS, after the titles it's months later and Bond is back at MI6 but it isn't really working out because he's depressed (I'd argue that he doesn't actually love Madeline but she was a way out for him, a chance at a normal life, he could be in bits about losing that). If Craig returns and they don't use YOLT at all, or if Craig returns and they stall it for a film as you suggested, giving him two more and delaying the next actor/fresh start by near enough another decade at the rate they make films now, then I'll be very disappointed.
I still think that SP felt like the end and there's no need for another, but one more Craig film that gives us a faithful adaptation of YOLT I can just about get on board with. I think the premise is pretty boring at this point but if they manage to make it really good then I can't really complain as that's actually my favourite Bond novel. But two more? He's going to be 51 when Bond 25 comes out and he looks his age. He's already been Bond for almost as long as Roger Moore and if he does two more films we'll be looking at the best part of ten years before we get a proper fresh start. I think he's great too but Bond thrives off change. If Craig does two more then by the time the next actor debuts it'll probably have been 20 years since CR. That's too long. He should have done at least one more film (there should have been a grounded but straightforward Bond on a mission film in between QoS and SF imo) but I think he's been Bond for that long now that the time for that is past. If they want to do YOLT for Bond 25 then okay. I can get behind that. But please let that be the last.
Thanks for elaborating. I agree with your criticism about the apparent need for an arc hanging like a dead weight around Craig's films, culminating in the bizarre retcon in SP. I don't mind a 'small scale' threat like in CR, which I think is by far Craig's best btw. Ironically I also thought CR was less weighed down by 'character drama' than his others.
Where did I say anything about the US box office being irrelevant?
I didn't even say US critics are irrelevant. What I objected to was the implication in your post that whatever US critics say can be taken as representative of the global response to a film. Increasingly this is not the case - actually, was it ever true?
As for box office, it's widely known that US BO, while still essential is less and less important to the overall success of a film. This is why films increasingly target Asian BO and Chinese and Indian finance is increasingly important even for what appear to be "old school" Hollywood blockbusters - fewer and fewer of which are of course actually made anywhere near Hollywood.
Yes LTK was a success outside of the US but was deemed a flop becuase it performed badly stateside. Yes Brosnan was cast primarily to satisfy the perceived tastes of the US market. Thankfully those days are long gone. Would someone like Craig have even have been cast as Bond if the US still dominated critical responses and BO in the way you suggest?
Films can tank or just perform moderatley well in the US and still go on to be very successful commercially. Film financiers have known this for years, even if this seismic shift in the globalisation of film finance and consumption seems to have passed you by.
UK BO for SP was $135m and U.S. BO was $200m. Given the relative size of the two markets (the U.S. is what, five times larger), UK BO is still obviously very important to Bond, out of all proportion to the size of the respective markets. Therefore why on earth would you insist that the response of UK critics is irrelevant?
Seems to me, regardless of what you personally thought of SP, that The rapturous UK critical response was actually central to SP's significant global commercial success.
Are you somehow suggesting that a poor UK critical reception would have boosted US BO?
I personally don't give a sh*t about critics or BO. It has no bearing on whether or not I like a film.
But the fact is that SP was given a massive critical thumbs up in one of its key markets and this helped drive hefty global BO, including in the US.
You seem to forget SP was still top 10 at the US BO in 2015 and beat what seems to be your favourite film of the year MI:RN.
I'm sure EON had hoped for better in the US and there may have been disappointment at its performance, but I don't think SP was either the critical or commerical flop people like you are claiming - not at least if you look outside the U.S. bubble.
As for exchange rates, which you've brought into the equation, SP's global BO take would have actually rivalled SF if the $ had still been at its 2012 level. All smoke and mirrors and fairly irrelevant to my appreciation of Bond, but nevertheless you are wrong.
Funny, that will be 10 years on from skyfall. I thought he looked too old in skyfall.
I think Queen Elizabeth looks old.
Sjee, since when is the casting for a new Bond film a new pageant show from Trump tower? Give Mr Craig a break man. There's one big important thing that separates him from The Rock, Tom Cruise or Eggsy: Acting!
Well they deliberately played up his age in SF and alllowed him to "look old" which you'd never normally do. He looked fine by the end of SF although the crewcut always makes him look older than he needs to.
Thats true
Perhaps it was his haricut and maybe his stuble too
Frankly, I don't think people are so pro-Craig since his said he would slash his wrists, only Craigites who think he can do no wrong.
The desperation is palpable.
There were days when age didn't matter and when we were praying for the return of a particular actor for many many times.
As fans would we really rather not have had DAF and OP just because Conners and Rog looked a bit past it? They're essential parts of the series. Even AVTAK is I'd argue worth having.
If Craig can still bring the crowds in he should keep at it. I'd say he has two more in him - IF they do B26 as a relatively rapid follow up.
Craig's replacement could be abysmal. We've seen dreadful casting decisions previously - you know his name.
Martin Campbell wanted to cast Henry Cavill FFS in CR!
There is a parallel universe where Bond films are still retarded Michael Bay-Esque dreck aimed at 8 year olds.
Enjoy and appreciate Craig - clearly one of the best Bonds - while we have him and stop the whinging!
I am conflicted with that example as it is a very poor Connery performance in a not-very-good film and to me it seems like it should have mattered with that one.
But on the other hand, we probably wouldn't have made it to 24 films without it.
I don't think the same scenario applies to Dan.
Was it a classic? No. But was it an unmitigated disaster that's brought the series to its knees? Also no.
I sincerely believe that if it weren't for Brofeld, there wouldn't be all this carping and criticism on here. It would be seen as the fairly solid middle ranking entry that it is. And I doubt the general movie going public care much about this any way - if they even remember it.
So really the question is why on earth wouldn't EON want to bring Craig back for another? The counter argument is yet to be made in anything other than rather muddled and emotional rants about how awful SP supposedly was.
I don't think DC has wanted out since he signed up. He's grown increasingly fond of 'being Bond' and at ease with the role from what I can tell.
Yes a proper Lazenby follow up to OHMSS would have been amazing. I'd have loved to have seen it. But as @Gustav_Graves said, would the series still be going now if Laz had continued in the role? OHMSS was widely regarded as an embarrassing turkey until relatively recently. Connery coming back probably saved Bond and set things up for Roger nicely. Frankly, DAF feels very similar to Roger's first two in tone. Plus, despite probably being Connery's worst entry, DAF is still full of enjoyable moments.
If any one can point to an obvious replacement for Craig right now then go ahead. Fassbender is the only one I'm convinced by, but does he even want it? It's all moot and pointless any way. EON want Craig back. The cinema going public are more than happy for Craig to come back. And there is every indication DC wants to come back as well. So there it is. All pretty straightforward really.
With DAF that was very different to me. The film still is very flawed, but as an actor Connery looked like he really had fun again. There was no crazy Japanese press 'killing' him. He had great on-set Chemistry with Jill St. John, whereas those Japanse actresses could barely speak a word English off set.
I love YOLT though. Bored or not, it's one of my favourites.
Both those options would be in the tradition of Bond, particularly the latter.
Until I get the sense that EON have the energy and ideas to do a proper re-imagining then I'd prefer to stick with Craig. The fact P+W are back doesn't fill me with much confidence that EON are going to do anything very different.
Ditching Craig would be pointless - even highly risky - in such circumstances.