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
He did apparently do it after flying back from the US during 'The Invasion' shooting and was apparently exhausted at the time, so maybe it comes from that.
I found it quite interesting how involved he is with choosing what Bond wears, as well as the other things. It's a good listen.
I just listened to this driving home from work, that might be my favourite Daniel Craig interview. He seems so calm and relaxed, he sounds like he really enjoyed it. Thanks for sharing @mtm mate
I tried a few of the guy's other recent podcasts on the strength of it but all he seems to do is ask them about parenting, it's really weird (!).
I do like the touch of 'License Revoked' on his profile.
Even Graves himself must recognise that as a nice touch.
Being a troll. I suspect we've seen him in many different guises here before. The giveaway was the pidgin English posts, the nut allergy detail and the constant "among friends here" catchphrase. It's like he wanted to be banned.
That's standard practice for every member that gets banned here now.
I suppose you could say that it has its origins in the speculations that have existed since the very beginning of time, on some (at least) superficial level. More specifically, the issue of succession being the main theme, from firstly kings and popes in the age of patronage to premiers in the age of politics to, in this modern celebrity-obsessed age that we currently inhabit, James Bond actors and styles.
It is at a deeper psychological level no doubt bound up with our inherent human desire to know what comes next in a pattern, what succeeds that which went before and in which ways it will be different to behold from the preceding era. Whether it be kings, popes, premiers or our current throwaway celebrity culture it all boils down to the same curiosity about succession and the future. Our projected hopes and fears, our wishes and desires about the future being thus broadcast in classic message board form. We try to divine all of this with (hopefully) evidence-based reasoned thought and debate and without the aid of dowsing rods, psychic mediumship or crystal balls.
This specific discussion focuses on who will play said Mr Bond after the incumbent, Daniel Craig, steps down from the role, whenever that may be. It also focuses on the direction the producers, writers and directors of the future will take the Bond series after the Craig era Bond reboot project has concluded.
Don't get me wrong, I love the man's work, but he is very much about a certain place and that is the center of North America.
Exactly. Bond just goes on. The world needs him to. I like your style, sir. :)
Thank you! I just finished Forever and a Day. I greatly enjoyed it, and I still feel even stronger now that it would be a great reboot movie for the series, post Daniel Craig. Some of the casting I would have are Felicity Jones for Sixtine, Vincent D’Onofrio as Jean-Paul Scipio and Ralph Fiennes returning as M. I was thinking of using Ana de Armas as Sixtine, and saw her in the part, but NTTD ended that! Overall, I view Anthony Horowitz as the Martin Campbell of Bond authors: a great Midqueal (GE’s opening, TM) and a great origin story CR, FAAD. Ian Fleming would approve. As for Alec Trevelyan, if they don’t use him going forward, just call his appearance a Easter Egg for the fans.
It makes a brutal sort of sense. Nothing geopolitically important ever happens there.
I don't think there's any real evidence to suggest this. Bond is popular in Europe, UK and US markets just as always. Its franchises like Terminator and transformers which have seen a shift in that respect.
@Peirce2Craig is correct that some recent trailer have taken a dark turn, ignoring that Marvel has taken a break since Endgame, but even the new Pattinson Batman, as brooding as it looks, is still way more stylised and 'comic book' than the Nolan films (I love Nolan, no hate).
In the mid-late 2000's there was an obsession to make everything as hard-hitting and realistic as possible. I think overtime this has changed except for Bond which, as long as Craig is around kind of stuck in the same pattern. They can't drastically reinvent the world Bond lives in when they are trying to tell an ongoing story, but it means we are still stuck in a 2008 mindset of taking everything seriously and poe-faced.
My hope is that once we get a new Bond they will completely redo everything so that we can get more variety of stories in future. Bond is at his best when he not trying to capture reality, but living in domain of his own, where he can ski off a cliff in a banana suit and pop open a union jack parachute like its nothing.
Which is not to say I want 70's Bond back with nothing changed, that's what we had it SPECTRE and it was very dated and almost self-pardoy. Bond should of course embrace a new aesthetic for the 2020's but all cards should be on the table in creating that vision. The new Batman got me excited because it feels completely original like non of the other movies we've seen, like a new era for the character. Bond needs his own new era, IMO.
Timothy Dalton managed it just fine in my opinion.
Give this man a beer. Spot on! ^:)^
He didn't really do anything of those things, though. Also, his films made less money.
He didn't need to, and yet he still got closer to the Fleming character than any previous actor. As for the BO draw, that's a different argument. Maybe audiences were not ready for that kind of Bond back in 1987, yet in 2005 they were. Tastes change over time.
But you just said he managed it fine..?
It depends on the definition of 'managing it fine' I think; it is also relevant to Since62's question of whether many people would want to see it.
Personally I think Craig got what Bond needs to be on screen more than Dalton (or, to be fair to him, perhaps Glen) did. Serious is fine, but without swagger there's much less for the audience to enjoy in the character.
Personally I don't see the point of period adaptations of the novels: they won't capture the period any better than the actual Bond films made at that time, they'd be horribly expensive, judged against the movie versions which are, in some cases classics, and with plots that don't really work as well on screen as the movie ones. Why watch some guy on a table with a buzzsaw travelling up between his legs when I could be watching Connery with a laser beam, in a Ken Adam set with John Barry's music playing?
Just enjoy them as the -terrific- books they are.