Where does Bond go after Craig?

1480481483485486683

Comments

  • I’d say the only difference between now and back in 95 would be that people have a bit more faith towards EON these days to reinvent the series then they would’ve back in 95.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    I’d say the only difference between now and back in 95 would be that people have a bit more faith towards EON these days to reinvent the series then they would’ve back in 95.

    Yep, that’s about the difference. There’s faith in the EoN team, and likely why Amazon isn’t pushing them to speed things up— which is the smartest thing to do.
  • peter wrote: »
    I’d say the only difference between now and back in 95 would be that people have a bit more faith towards EON these days to reinvent the series then they would’ve back in 95.

    Yep, that’s about the difference. There’s faith in the EoN team, and likely why Amazon isn’t pushing them to speed things up— which is the smartest thing to do.

    Plus I think that Bond’s Pop Culture status has increased since 95 as well thanks to both Brosnan and Craig’s tenure. Simply put he’s in a much better spot compared to where he was back in 89 after LTK. EON have gone through more than enough “reinventions” to have a grasp on how the process should be done.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,306
    BMB007 wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    Nice piece of history that, in some ways, we’re re-living all over again:

    https://hmssweblog.wordpress.com/2024/02/27/ex-studio-exec-describes-how-goldeneye-defied-odds/

    Think a strong argument exists "GoldenEye" is the most important Bond film commercially speaking for the series continued existence. So much transition and doubt.

    Or TSWLM...or DAF...

    What's old is new again.
  • Posts: 4,172
    I don’t think Bond’s in quite the uncertain place that it was after OHMSS or TMWTGG. Obviously there’s a lot riding on the next film though, and much like GE I can see it being a ‘transition’ Bond film.
  • George_KaplanGeorge_Kaplan Being chauffeured by Tibbett
    edited February 27 Posts: 686
    007HallY wrote: »
    I don’t think Bond’s in quite the uncertain place that it was after OHMSS or TMWTGG. Obviously there’s a lot riding on the next film though, and much like GE I can see it being a ‘transition’ Bond film.

    Yes, I think in terms of reputation, Bond is in a similar place as after YOLT, where the major source of pressure is matching what came before, and finding an actor who will be able to follow someone who has become the defining image of the character for an entire generation.
  • 007HallY wrote: »
    I don’t think Bond’s in quite the uncertain place that it was after OHMSS or TMWTGG. Obviously there’s a lot riding on the next film though, and much like GE I can see it being a ‘transition’ Bond film.

    Yes, I think in terms of reputation, Bond is in a similar place as after YOLT, where the major source of pressure is matching what came before, and finding an actor who will be able to follow someone who has become the defining image of the character for an entire generation.

    I think that’s the challenge for anytime they recast Bond however. What’s more difficult for EON would be finding creative ways to set Bond #7’s era apart from not only Craig’s but the other actors as well. Not to mention finding different storytelling directions to go down.
  • Posts: 4,172
    007HallY wrote: »
    I don’t think Bond’s in quite the uncertain place that it was after OHMSS or TMWTGG. Obviously there’s a lot riding on the next film though, and much like GE I can see it being a ‘transition’ Bond film.

    Yes, I think in terms of reputation, Bond is in a similar place as after YOLT, where the major source of pressure is matching what came before, and finding an actor who will be able to follow someone who has become the defining image of the character for an entire generation.

    Yeah, I can see that. I think it'll be easier this time round though. Back then Sean Connery was James Bond, and the idea of anyone else in the role probably wasn't easy to imagine. As popular as Craig was as Bond, fans and the general public have had 60 years of seeing different actors take the role, and everyone has different favourites.
  • George_KaplanGeorge_Kaplan Being chauffeured by Tibbett
    Posts: 686
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I don’t think Bond’s in quite the uncertain place that it was after OHMSS or TMWTGG. Obviously there’s a lot riding on the next film though, and much like GE I can see it being a ‘transition’ Bond film.

    Yes, I think in terms of reputation, Bond is in a similar place as after YOLT, where the major source of pressure is matching what came before, and finding an actor who will be able to follow someone who has become the defining image of the character for an entire generation.

    Yeah, I can see that. I think it'll be easier this time round though. Back then Sean Connery was James Bond, and the idea of anyone else in the role probably wasn't easy to imagine. As popular as Craig was as Bond, fans and the general public have had 60 years of seeing different actors take the role, and everyone has different favourites.

    I agree it'll be easier, but I think it's a similar situation in the sense of it being about living up to recent success, as opposed to the TSWLM or GE, which were more about proving the character and the franchise could survive when many had written it off as outdated, or that its best years were behind it.

    I guess there's an element of that now with changing attitudes and whether Bond is too 'problematic' for the 21st century, but those types of criticism are nothing new, and the commercial and general critical success of NTTD prove that this isn't too much of an issue at the moment.
  • Posts: 1,999
    I think Bond's pop culture status depends on whom you're talking to.
  • edited February 28 Posts: 1,371
    BMB007 wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    Nice piece of history that, in some ways, we’re re-living all over again:

    https://hmssweblog.wordpress.com/2024/02/27/ex-studio-exec-describes-how-goldeneye-defied-odds/

    Think a strong argument exists "GoldenEye" is the most important Bond film commercially speaking for the series continued existence. So much transition and doubt.

    LALD or TSPWLM are more important.
  • George_KaplanGeorge_Kaplan Being chauffeured by Tibbett
    Posts: 686
    BMB007 wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    Nice piece of history that, in some ways, we’re re-living all over again:

    https://hmssweblog.wordpress.com/2024/02/27/ex-studio-exec-describes-how-goldeneye-defied-odds/

    Think a strong argument exists "GoldenEye" is the most important Bond film commercially speaking for the series continued existence. So much transition and doubt.

    LALD or TSPWLM are more important.

    Care to elaborate?
  • Posts: 1,371
    BMB007 wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    Nice piece of history that, in some ways, we’re re-living all over again:

    https://hmssweblog.wordpress.com/2024/02/27/ex-studio-exec-describes-how-goldeneye-defied-odds/

    Think a strong argument exists "GoldenEye" is the most important Bond film commercially speaking for the series continued existence. So much transition and doubt.

    LALD or TSPWLM are more important.

    Care to elaborate?

    The series could have disappeared without Connery.

    Now we have 6 Bonds and it's no longer a problem.

  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,187
    BMB007 wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    Nice piece of history that, in some ways, we’re re-living all over again:

    https://hmssweblog.wordpress.com/2024/02/27/ex-studio-exec-describes-how-goldeneye-defied-odds/

    Think a strong argument exists "GoldenEye" is the most important Bond film commercially speaking for the series continued existence. So much transition and doubt.

    LALD or TSPWLM are more important.

    Care to elaborate?

    No, @George_Kaplan, despite several requests, @DEKE_RIVERS chooses not understand that this forum asks its members to actually have a point rather than drop a one- or two-sentence statement without nuance or deeper explanation. He prefers to throw a bold statement in our face, hoping that we will then beg him for more wisdom. He will soon discover that even this community's patience is not endless. For now, we're just calling it spam.
  • Posts: 1,371
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    BMB007 wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    Nice piece of history that, in some ways, we’re re-living all over again:

    https://hmssweblog.wordpress.com/2024/02/27/ex-studio-exec-describes-how-goldeneye-defied-odds/

    Think a strong argument exists "GoldenEye" is the most important Bond film commercially speaking for the series continued existence. So much transition and doubt.

    LALD or TSPWLM are more important.

    Care to elaborate?

    No, @George_Kaplan, despite several requests, @DEKE_RIVERS chooses not understand that this forum asks its members to actually have a point rather than drop a one- or two-sentence statement without nuance or deeper explanation. He prefers to throw a bold statement in our face, hoping that we will then beg him for more wisdom. He will soon discover that even this community's patience is not endless. For now, we're just calling it spam.

    Deeper explanation? We all already know the importance of TSWLM.
  • Posts: 4,172
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I don’t think Bond’s in quite the uncertain place that it was after OHMSS or TMWTGG. Obviously there’s a lot riding on the next film though, and much like GE I can see it being a ‘transition’ Bond film.

    Yes, I think in terms of reputation, Bond is in a similar place as after YOLT, where the major source of pressure is matching what came before, and finding an actor who will be able to follow someone who has become the defining image of the character for an entire generation.

    Yeah, I can see that. I think it'll be easier this time round though. Back then Sean Connery was James Bond, and the idea of anyone else in the role probably wasn't easy to imagine. As popular as Craig was as Bond, fans and the general public have had 60 years of seeing different actors take the role, and everyone has different favourites.

    I agree it'll be easier, but I think it's a similar situation in the sense of it being about living up to recent success, as opposed to the TSWLM or GE, which were more about proving the character and the franchise could survive when many had written it off as outdated, or that its best years were behind it.

    I guess there's an element of that now with changing attitudes and whether Bond is too 'problematic' for the 21st century, but those types of criticism are nothing new, and the commercial and general critical success of NTTD prove that this isn't too much of an issue at the moment.

    I agree. They're coming off a relatively successful era with a popular Bond. But there is room to do something different and, for many, improve upon the previous films (subjective as that is).

    And yeah, as you said those criticisms are nothing new. I suppose the good thing about Bond as a character is that he's a bit of a b*stard at times anyway, so you can keep a lot of his 'problematic qualities' without having to soften the character too much. That's the route they seem to go usually anyway.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,218
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    BMB007 wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    Nice piece of history that, in some ways, we’re re-living all over again:

    https://hmssweblog.wordpress.com/2024/02/27/ex-studio-exec-describes-how-goldeneye-defied-odds/

    Think a strong argument exists "GoldenEye" is the most important Bond film commercially speaking for the series continued existence. So much transition and doubt.

    LALD or TSPWLM are more important.

    Care to elaborate?

    No, @George_Kaplan, despite several requests, @DEKE_RIVERS chooses not understand that this forum asks its members to actually have a point rather than drop a one- or two-sentence statement without nuance or deeper explanation. He prefers to throw a bold statement in our face, hoping that we will then beg him for more wisdom. He will soon discover that even this community's patience is not endless. For now, we're just calling it spam.

    Deeper explanation? We all already know the importance of TSWLM.

    ....and the importance of GoldenEye.
  • Posts: 1,371
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    BMB007 wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    Nice piece of history that, in some ways, we’re re-living all over again:

    https://hmssweblog.wordpress.com/2024/02/27/ex-studio-exec-describes-how-goldeneye-defied-odds/

    Think a strong argument exists "GoldenEye" is the most important Bond film commercially speaking for the series continued existence. So much transition and doubt.

    LALD or TSPWLM are more important.

    Care to elaborate?

    No, @George_Kaplan, despite several requests, @DEKE_RIVERS chooses not understand that this forum asks its members to actually have a point rather than drop a one- or two-sentence statement without nuance or deeper explanation. He prefers to throw a bold statement in our face, hoping that we will then beg him for more wisdom. He will soon discover that even this community's patience is not endless. For now, we're just calling it spam.

    Deeper explanation? We all already know the importance of TSWLM.

    ....and the importance of GoldenEye.

    We had 16 movies and 4 Bonds before GE.

  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,592
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    BMB007 wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    Nice piece of history that, in some ways, we’re re-living all over again:

    https://hmssweblog.wordpress.com/2024/02/27/ex-studio-exec-describes-how-goldeneye-defied-odds/

    Think a strong argument exists "GoldenEye" is the most important Bond film commercially speaking for the series continued existence. So much transition and doubt.

    LALD or TSPWLM are more important.

    Care to elaborate?

    No, @George_Kaplan, despite several requests, @DEKE_RIVERS chooses not understand that this forum asks its members to actually have a point rather than drop a one- or two-sentence statement without nuance or deeper explanation. He prefers to throw a bold statement in our face, hoping that we will then beg him for more wisdom. He will soon discover that even this community's patience is not endless. For now, we're just calling it spam.

    Deeper explanation? We all already know the importance of TSWLM.

    ....and the importance of GoldenEye.

    We had 16 movies and 4 Bonds before GE.

    The longest gap between films during that span was 2.5 years. 6.5 separated LTK and GE with the former underachieving from a financial perspective. Not to mention the issues that plagued EON and MGM in that span. They needed GE to be a hit
  • edited February 28 Posts: 1,371
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    BMB007 wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    Nice piece of history that, in some ways, we’re re-living all over again:

    https://hmssweblog.wordpress.com/2024/02/27/ex-studio-exec-describes-how-goldeneye-defied-odds/

    Think a strong argument exists "GoldenEye" is the most important Bond film commercially speaking for the series continued existence. So much transition and doubt.

    LALD or TSPWLM are more important.

    Care to elaborate?

    No, @George_Kaplan, despite several requests, @DEKE_RIVERS chooses not understand that this forum asks its members to actually have a point rather than drop a one- or two-sentence statement without nuance or deeper explanation. He prefers to throw a bold statement in our face, hoping that we will then beg him for more wisdom. He will soon discover that even this community's patience is not endless. For now, we're just calling it spam.

    Deeper explanation? We all already know the importance of TSWLM.

    ....and the importance of GoldenEye.

    We had 16 movies and 4 Bonds before GE.

    The longest gap between films during that span was 2.5 years. 6.5 separated LTK and GE with the former underachieving from a financial perspective. Not to mention the issues that plagued EON and MGM in that span. They needed GE to be a hit

    Yeah, the franchise was dead but it was already a 30 year old franchise.

    It doesn't matter now, we have Planet of the Apes movies that no one asked for. I guess Bond can't be dead forever
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited February 28 Posts: 3,154
    Having to follow Connery still means that, all these years later, Lazenby's probably had the hardest job in Bond cinema. Having said that, I do think it's fair to say that whoever follows Daniel Craig is going to have the biggest task since then. He might have an inadvertent advantage, though. I've always thought that Dalton would've fared better if he hadn't been slotted in so soon after the end of Sir Rog's long run, while general audiences still thought of Roger as Bond, were missing him in the role and were used to that style of film. So the long gap since NTTD might actually work in the new guy's favour, as the immediate pining for Dan's Bond will probably have abated somewhat by the time of Bond 26 and audiences will just be eager for more Bond, as they were with GE. I don't know if that forms any part of EON's thinking, obvs, but as frustrating as it can be for us at times, having a long interregnum might actually be for the best in the end. I'll try to remind myself of this the next time I'm getting itchy for news... ;)
  • DarthDimi wrote: »
    BMB007 wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    Nice piece of history that, in some ways, we’re re-living all over again:

    https://hmssweblog.wordpress.com/2024/02/27/ex-studio-exec-describes-how-goldeneye-defied-odds/

    Think a strong argument exists "GoldenEye" is the most important Bond film commercially speaking for the series continued existence. So much transition and doubt.

    LALD or TSPWLM are more important.

    Care to elaborate?

    No, @George_Kaplan, despite several requests, @DEKE_RIVERS chooses not understand that this forum asks its members to actually have a point rather than drop a one- or two-sentence statement without nuance or deeper explanation. He prefers to throw a bold statement in our face, hoping that we will then beg him for more wisdom. He will soon discover that even this community's patience is not endless. For now, we're just calling it spam.

    Deeper explanation? We all already know the importance of TSWLM.

    ....and the importance of GoldenEye.

    We had 16 movies and 4 Bonds before GE.

    The longest gap between films during that span was 2.5 years. 6.5 separated LTK and GE with the former underachieving from a financial perspective. Not to mention the issues that plagued EON and MGM in that span. They needed GE to be a hit

    Yeah, the franchise was dead but it was already a 30 year old franchise.

    It doesn't matter now, we have Planet of the Apes movies that no one asked for. I guess Bond can't be dead forever

    What?
  • Posts: 1,371
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    BMB007 wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    Nice piece of history that, in some ways, we’re re-living all over again:

    https://hmssweblog.wordpress.com/2024/02/27/ex-studio-exec-describes-how-goldeneye-defied-odds/

    Think a strong argument exists "GoldenEye" is the most important Bond film commercially speaking for the series continued existence. So much transition and doubt.

    LALD or TSPWLM are more important.

    Care to elaborate?

    No, @George_Kaplan, despite several requests, @DEKE_RIVERS chooses not understand that this forum asks its members to actually have a point rather than drop a one- or two-sentence statement without nuance or deeper explanation. He prefers to throw a bold statement in our face, hoping that we will then beg him for more wisdom. He will soon discover that even this community's patience is not endless. For now, we're just calling it spam.

    Deeper explanation? We all already know the importance of TSWLM.

    ....and the importance of GoldenEye.

    We had 16 movies and 4 Bonds before GE.

    The longest gap between films during that span was 2.5 years. 6.5 separated LTK and GE with the former underachieving from a financial perspective. Not to mention the issues that plagued EON and MGM in that span. They needed GE to be a hit

    Yeah, the franchise was dead but it was already a 30 year old franchise.

    It doesn't matter now, we have Planet of the Apes movies that no one asked for. I guess Bond can't be dead forever

    What?

    I mean, it's all about remakes and sequels now.
  • Posts: 1,999
    I suppose because we've seen this so many times before, I am not one of those wringing my hands over the departure of Craig. I don't view his leaving the same way as I did when Connery quit after YOLT. Craig was a good Bond, but not the definitive Bond. The idea that the long gap may help wean us away from Craig may be true for some, but not for me. The new guy will be the sixth Bond since Connery. We know how this works. No matter what length of time between the last Bond and the next, the grousing will be the same. It'll be love, hate, ambivalence, and, for some, eventually coming round. I am not one of those who sees the gap as portending great things, as if the longer the wait the better the film. Bond 26 will no doubt be a good film. There really are no bad Bond films. Since we're told over and over nothing is happening and that's true, if Bond 26 turns out to be a great film it won't really have anything to do with the gap.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    I think the gap will play a role, no matter how good the film is.

    It's the time the creatives need to tell the story they want to tell. That has value. If you rush that process, you'll be able to see it in the final production (examples: QOS and SP-- both needed more time to develop the "right" story, especially the latter film (and I say this as a fan of Quantum, and I'm now warming to Spectre)).

    Whether a gap is six months, or six years, they need the time to be happy with the direction they want to go in. So time, yes, has value and will play a role in the finished product...

    But once things are established, using time/gap, then the film will sink or swim on the execution.

    But never underestimate the importance of gaps between projects ...
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,978
    peter wrote: »
    I think the gap will play a role, no matter how good the film is.

    It's the time the creatives need to tell the story they want to tell. That has value. If you rush that process, you'll be able to see it in the final production (examples: QOS and SP-- both needed more time to develop the "right" story, especially the latter film (and I say this as a fan of Quantum, and I'm now warming to Spectre)).

    Whether a gap is six months, or six years, they need the time to be happy with the direction they want to go in. So time, yes, has value and will play a role in the finished product...

    But once things are established, using time/gap, then the film will sink or swim on the execution.

    But never underestimate the importance of gaps between projects ...

    Very well said. The last two gaps we had between eras resulted in some of the best installments of the series yet. If they take another few years to "course correct" or change directions or simply use the time to ensure they come up with exactly what audiences are after (whether we knew it or not), then I'm all for it.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,218
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    BMB007 wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    Nice piece of history that, in some ways, we’re re-living all over again:

    https://hmssweblog.wordpress.com/2024/02/27/ex-studio-exec-describes-how-goldeneye-defied-odds/

    Think a strong argument exists "GoldenEye" is the most important Bond film commercially speaking for the series continued existence. So much transition and doubt.

    LALD or TSPWLM are more important.

    Care to elaborate?

    No, @George_Kaplan, despite several requests, @DEKE_RIVERS chooses not understand that this forum asks its members to actually have a point rather than drop a one- or two-sentence statement without nuance or deeper explanation. He prefers to throw a bold statement in our face, hoping that we will then beg him for more wisdom. He will soon discover that even this community's patience is not endless. For now, we're just calling it spam.

    Deeper explanation? We all already know the importance of TSWLM.

    ....and the importance of GoldenEye.

    We had 16 movies and 4 Bonds before GE.

    Yes, I'm aware. I'm sure that has something to do with what you're saying, but I'm not sure what it is based on your follow-up comments either.
  • Posts: 1,371
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    BMB007 wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    Nice piece of history that, in some ways, we’re re-living all over again:

    https://hmssweblog.wordpress.com/2024/02/27/ex-studio-exec-describes-how-goldeneye-defied-odds/

    Think a strong argument exists "GoldenEye" is the most important Bond film commercially speaking for the series continued existence. So much transition and doubt.

    LALD or TSPWLM are more important.

    Care to elaborate?

    No, @George_Kaplan, despite several requests, @DEKE_RIVERS chooses not understand that this forum asks its members to actually have a point rather than drop a one- or two-sentence statement without nuance or deeper explanation. He prefers to throw a bold statement in our face, hoping that we will then beg him for more wisdom. He will soon discover that even this community's patience is not endless. For now, we're just calling it spam.

    Deeper explanation? We all already know the importance of TSWLM.

    ....and the importance of GoldenEye.

    We had 16 movies and 4 Bonds before GE.

    Yes, I'm aware. I'm sure that has something to do with what you're saying, but I'm not sure what it is based on your follow-up comments either.

    Without Moore's success, Bond would have been Connery's Dirty Harry or something like that.

    That's why I think LALD or TSWLM were more important than GE.

    But...They are going to make another Bullitt movie, so...who knows?

    They made Pink Panther movies without Peter Sellers too.

  • DarthDimi wrote: »
    BMB007 wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    Nice piece of history that, in some ways, we’re re-living all over again:

    https://hmssweblog.wordpress.com/2024/02/27/ex-studio-exec-describes-how-goldeneye-defied-odds/

    Think a strong argument exists "GoldenEye" is the most important Bond film commercially speaking for the series continued existence. So much transition and doubt.

    LALD or TSPWLM are more important.

    Care to elaborate?

    No, @George_Kaplan, despite several requests, @DEKE_RIVERS chooses not understand that this forum asks its members to actually have a point rather than drop a one- or two-sentence statement without nuance or deeper explanation. He prefers to throw a bold statement in our face, hoping that we will then beg him for more wisdom. He will soon discover that even this community's patience is not endless. For now, we're just calling it spam.

    Deeper explanation? We all already know the importance of TSWLM.

    ....and the importance of GoldenEye.

    We had 16 movies and 4 Bonds before GE.

    Yes, I'm aware. I'm sure that has something to do with what you're saying, but I'm not sure what it is based on your follow-up comments either.

    Without Moore's success, Bond would have been Connery's Dirty Harry or something like that.

    That's why I think LALD or TSWLM were more important than GE.

    But...They are going to make another Bullitt movie, so...who knows?

    They made Pink Panther movies without Peter Sellers too.

    I mean I understand that both LALD and TSWLM were huge watershed moments for the franchise, but in what way does that make those movies more “important” than GE?
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,306
    Venutius wrote: »
    Having to follow Connery still means that, all these years later, Lazenby's probably had the hardest job in Bond cinema. Having said that, I do think it's fair to say that whoever follows Daniel Craig is going to have the biggest task since then. He might have an inadvertent advantage, though. I've always thought that Dalton would've fared better if he hadn't been slotted in so soon after the end of Sir Rog's long run, while general audiences still thought of Roger as Bond, were missing him in the role and were used to that style of film. So the long gap since NTTD might actually work in the new guy's favour, as the immediate pining for Dan's Bond will probably have abated somewhat by the time of Bond 26 and audiences will just be eager for more Bond, as they were with GE. I don't know if that forms any part of EON's thinking, obvs, but as frustrating as it can be for us at times, having a long interregnum might actually be for the best in the end. I'll try to remind myself of this the next time I'm getting itchy for news... ;)

    Hell's bells, Lazenby probably had one of the hardest jobs in cinema, period.
Sign In or Register to comment.