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
Goldfinger and Trevelyan should comeback as villains. Trevelyan should have a multi story arc about going evil. He could start out good even as one of the MI6 regulars, and slowly turn evil over a film or two. There are too many real life Goldfingers not to bring the villain back.
May and Charmian Bond need to be introduced into the film series too make it feel different from before. Blofeld should always be a possible threat. Just no code names. EON should adapt some of the continuation novels. Some of their stories could work better than Fleming’s now.
Ralph Fiennes deserves to come back as M in a reboot. Judi Dench got to do it, and was poorly written.
No actor should ever again get the amount of creative control that Craig had. He was like a spoiled brat at times. It always seemed Barbara Broccoli bowed down to him. If her dad could have given Connery even half of that, he might have played Bond longer.
Give the non-action/artsy directors and award-winning writers a break. It has been too much of a mixed bag for too long in the Craig era.
It's arguably time for Michael G. Wilson to retire. It feels like only Barbara wants to run the show now.
Charmian actually appeared on SP, well, at least her name.
Forgive the overused phrase, but everyone's entitled to their opinion. Wanting people to be disappointed seems a bit over the top.
With a fifth film, the actor can get bored with the role, or perhaps has too much sway in the way things are done. With a three-film run, they get to become their own Bond, but by adding a fourth they can really go out on a high, as well as likely by truly accepted in the role.
Clearly that's not a guarantee, but it might help the films feeling stale.
It sounded better in my head, than it reads.
I love the Craig era, but I do wish he would have done 1 more film in his 15 year run.
Similar to the first Connery and Moore films.
The gap between DAD and CR lasted for 4.
I guess both are plausible.
No way! That's just as bad.
A fantasy Bond is a double-edged sword.
It can work well (TSWLM)
Or it can just be plain awful (DAD)
But with a successful Bond, the transition to a new Bond may be tougher with the public than we think. Certainly Connery to Lazenby was rough, but Moore to Dalton may have been as well, because people were accustomed to Moore after so long.
What this means for Craig's successor is anyone's guess. Yet I'd argue that the Bond brand, and the changing of the actors, are much more established now.
If Eon had let go of Brosnan immediately after DAD and we got Craig cast for a 2004 release, I think it would have been even harder to sell him. But because enough time had passed between 2002 and 2006 the public were able to easily transition and embrace new Bond, despite how popular Brosnan was up to 2002. The only folks that were upset were the CraigNotBond folk, with a significant portion of them being Brosnan fans.
That's not much of a gap- I think it's more that Brosnan wasn't quite on a par with Connery, Moore and Craig. He was good, but folks were perhaps not massively attached to him.
One thing I think will help is that Craig's Bond had a final end- if it were left on Spectre I think audiences would still, even now, be feeling like there's unfinished business. But after NTTD I think even his greatest fans feel that he got a good crack of the whip and his time has passed, which should help his successor. A big bit of that CraigNotBond thing was that they thought Brosnan still had more in him.
Audiences were incredibly attached to Pierce’s Bond, to the point where each of his films (TND withstanding) earned more than the predecessor. So I’d say he’s every bit on par with Connery and Moore as Craig is, perhaps even more so because his portrayal hasn’t really divided anyone the way Craig’s has.
I don’t think Laz would’ve fared any better with a gap after YOLT, and I say that as a fan of his portrayal of Bond. The cinematic landscape changed the year YOLT was released, and I think if they waited for 1970-71 to release OHMSS, then audiences probably would’ve have been even less invested in it. I’d argue Dalton could’ve benefited from a gap like that though. The only issue with that is Pierce most likely wouldn’t have become Bond, and he’s the Bond actor to really reinvigorate the franchise with Goldeneye.
It doesn't feel like Barbara wants to run the show either.
This franchise is her families legacy. I doubt she actually feels that way.
She has now been in charge of the series longer than her dad was and has only put out 9 films in 28 years. Her dad put out 16 films in 27 years. IMO she doesn't have the drive to make these movies as fast as her dad did.
A part of me agrees, but you also have to take into account that film making is a much longer process these days than it was back in the 60’s-80’s, and we as an audience demand much more from the filmmakers now. Not to mention a lot of the delays in the Craig era were down to circumstances out of EON’s control. Personally I think the next era will have more consistent release dates now that Amazon owns MGM, but only time will tell.
Which is why this is the time to just let Nolan do his job. Barbara and EON can sit back and relax, and a first rate Bond film will be delivered to their doorsteps.