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
This isn't the 007 origin, this is explaining the origins of James Bond...the man. You could do that as the final film in the series of you wished. We are just learning more of his background as a boy. CR to, arguably, Skyfall, gave us the origin of agent 007.
This makes sense to me.
It's 9 years now. Connery's run was 9 years.
A shame that they didn't do more than 4 movies? Yes. But many here have repeatedly defended EON and stated that it would be "normal" nowadays to have a Bond movie every three years tops.
A decade is enough. If they do Bond 25 in 2017 it's ok, but surely then it must be over.
A Craig after 50 is not desirable when he already looked aged in Skyfall and no, it wasn't because of his grayish beard. I just seen Skyfall and he doesn't look that great even in the PTS which is supposed to be before his "crash".
If EON really wants to have an actor again for a decade or possibly longer then they will have to go for an 32 year old next time.
Craig was 38 when he did CR. In retrospect it was a mistake, they should have taken someone in the early 30's, it would also have made more sense with the rookie 00 agent idea.
For the record, I don't believe Bond dies. Well, I bloody hope not.
Granted, @DM's source has been especially vague from what I've read in his posts about why DC can't return. Did he actually state the death of 007 (did I miss that post?) or is it just something that's been arrived at because of the cryptic nature of his reply?
I don't know, @DM just doesn't strike me as a provocateur. What's in it for him? Why keep coming back when it's much easier for him to simply walk away? He obviously believes what he's been told and fancies he's got a scoop from a credible source. Maybe it's important for him that people here believe him because he doesn't like to be called a liar?
Cool that you've read the Dec draft, @Jan1985. I wonder how different the third act is, especially as Jez Butterworth has now got a screen credit? It must be hugely significant otherwise the Writer's Union wouldn't allow it.
Now that would be great and make sure Spectre would bomb at the box office.
Not even BB has gotten that crazy yet.
I will sooner believe they have cast Chris Rock as the new James Bond.
Why bother if anybody believes him or not, since we all don't know each other.
Why come on board with a cryptic message (pun intended) when not capable to put in any proof.^
He could be right, but I don't think, there is a reason to believe him more then any other, who come here spreading rumors without proof.
Here is not a rumour but a fact that I'm going to tell you and it's not cryptic:
I know exactly when Daniel Craig is replaced by another actor:
read on your own risk:
Moreover, people who didn't read the leaks thread now only have a simplistic version of what he reported (it doesn't sound so phony at all, and well we have yet to have a scoop given here proven to be wrong about SPECTRE :) !)
I'm afraid it's really, really time for whose wishing to stay spoiler-free to leave the forum. The LEAKS thread was a success of containing major infos (lots of people could write "Right" or "Wrong" to many hypothesis about SPECTRE written here and there in the forum.. but they let others play and have fun...), but now more and more you'll have people wanting to "make their point" using the leaks I'm afraid.
Yeah, you know how it goes: Curiosity killed the Thepastykid :)
You have a point, but then after a decade people starting discussion the succession is kind of a normal development I think.
Lets see, what the 8th brings us.
I think the discussion is ongoing, everybody wonders 'who will be next', even after a debut movie. What I mean is that there's 'heavy' speculation right now on the eve of a new film. I don't think it's that relevant given everything we have and will have to discuss re. SP. It will become more relevant, but I don't think it warrants being such a hot topic on here (at points more so than the film it seems) until we have a few more facts in place. We have a rumour and a quote from DC taken out of context. For me personally I just want to enjoy the moment, enjoy the film and what will be will be. I don't think it's an issue right now.
That makes perfect sense.
What ramifications, though? Apart from the obvious fact that making a Bond movie is a long, no doubt exhausting process. He can still do smaller films in between if he chooses to. Between SF and SP he just chose not to.
You shouldn't be talking about leaks, you know :))
(I'm joking, obviously)
So, at the end of the day, I say, he never actually meant any of the "I wanted to leave from the beginning" because there are too many other comments, given in private even (posted by one of the members here, who knows a friend from LC days, who met him not long ago (during shooting at a party) and where he sounded quite differently.
DC often is his own enemy by being so little diplomatic in his interviews, so its no surprise, he often creates silly headlines himself.
Exactly...I said it lots of times and got ignored. :((
There are a lot of people who take these things literally. Perhaps they get lost in translation, but then again, people don't listen when it's explained to them either. It's almost like people want to perpetuate these things.
Better than what?
You know you are absolutely right. Rudeness is not appropriate.
I'm not what my response was trying to say ...that's what you get using a phone and watching three kids.
I am sorry I responded the way I did.
I agree 100% but I think it is again worth pointing out Dan did not say he was done.
I don’t know. I really don’t know. [...] Honestly. I’m not trying to be coy. At the moment I can’t even conceive it.
But would he like to be in another Bond movie?
At this moment, no. I have a life and I’ve got to get on with it a bit. But we’ll see.
This someone tired after filming dreading the global publicity part of his job being asked immediately after filming has ended if he wants to go again. He has merely said not right now. I read the under text as he would like a year off before going again and it is whether EON and the studio (which wont be Sony remember there is still all of that to be sorted out) waiting on him. For every joke Dan says after each film to indicate he "wants out" has always been in jest. He loves making Bond movies.
Barbs will wait on him. Put my mortgage on both Dan and Mendes doing the next one being confirmed before the end of next year and in to production 2017 for a late 2017 release.
I really think Craig will choose to return only if Mendes is back again. I can't see another option except maybe Campbell again (if he wants it) or even Forster. I can't see Craig rewriting the wheel with another director at this stage. He doesn't strike me as that kind of guy.
Agee 90% with you, but if it is a big director then I can't see Dan saying no. But I believe Mendes will complete his trilogy with Dan as Bond. After Skyfall Barbs said Dan was Bond and she hoped he still would be for many years to come, she has always said he is not going anywhere, that she would fight to keep him. Dan will be the best paid Bond, and probably one of the highest paid actors in Holywood come B25. Money talks.