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 said he despises SP and the Brosnan era, but, as is evident, he's still a fan of the character and the films.
You blatantly disregarded the fact that Shardlake does not fit where you wanted to pigeon-hole him (as someone who accepts any tripe from EoN), and then dismissed him altogether.
C'mon. Do better, mate. Honestly.
Hi. No, I was just using hyperbole to show how he had misrepresented my position. I don't think he thinks that. Hence why I said it would be unfair if I accused him of such a position.
@FatherValentine -- you've lost me completely.
How did @Shardlake misrepresent you?
"Once again some people just want Bond frozen in time, they want the same films as they were before the Craig era.
Lighthearted with no real stakes, just a fluff piece to while the hours away. There are plenty of these already previously out there.
If anyone thinks they are going back to these frivolous sticking to a formula type ways are going to be disappointed.
I'm throwing my toys out of the pram because this isn't my James Bond, BB & MGW aren't delivering the film I have in my head, therefore they must sell up and give it to someone who will make my wildest wet dream a reality."
That is a complete misrepresentation of the argument myself and several others have been making.
While I very much understood the point you were making, tone sometimes is lost amidst text. It looks like that is what has happened here.
@FatherValentine -- I never once read that @Shardlake referenced you specifically! So how can he "misrepresent" your argument?
That assumption shows why assumptions in this world are deadly.
And then @Shardlake actually responds to a question of yours (as not accepting all of EoN's tripe) and you dismiss and you insult (with your "straw man" comment, which made no sense, btw))!
In the end, whatever you like is what you like. There will be films in this series, or changes into the modern era, that will rub you wrong way.
I'm mid-40s, but I love the Connery Era and think it's the best. It took me years to warm up to Moore; aways loved OHMSS (much to the chagrin of my father (GL could never be SC)); welcomed Dalton with open arms; was cold to Brosnan and tried to like him as Bond (needed a hot shower after each film), and; I have a bias to Craig. I fell in love with him inside of frame one. He was my Bond-- finally I got a sense of what Dad felt when he first met Connery-Bond at that casino in DN....
And like Connery (as my father did as an original fan and I did as his offspring), I would follow the Craig Bond through the peaks and valleys of each film (some would be better than others, but I wouldn't waver, 'cause, I love THIS Bond (thankfully I also genuinely love CR, QoS and SF).
So, Valentine-- each to his own. And as a lover of this interpretation of Bond, I fully embrace the idea that Craig-Bond may have a child that he may not know about (it's been 5 yrs since he last saw Swann; Swann tosses in his face that she soon met a man who TRUSTED her and now they have a child together... But...
If, at a pivotal point in the film, Bond is down and close to surrendering, Maddy tells him the truth: she was hiding something from him five years ago (not the betrayal at Vesper's grave, that he assumed, but....)..., she was pregnant. With his child).
I think this would be a wonderful way of kicking James Bond into the Third Act Climax of NTTD. And to a beautiful end to his era.
Lies!
I agree, and start taking things from Fleming and other books that haven’t been done. Also, don’t have Purvis and Wade write anymore! Also cut back on the Arthouse directors and get some legitimate action directors!
This is basically exactly what I hope for / expect to happen, including Fiennes and Wishaw. I'd be happy to keep Harris as well.
I am perfectly happy with Villeneuve or Nolan directing the next Bond.
That's the way I see it as well.
I think they already part ways in Matera at the beginning, it seems unlikely they will use that twice in the film.
Nolan is not art house. The guy hasn't directed a small budgeted movie since Memento.
I get the sentiment though. I think MaxCasino is more referring to how the Bond films nowadays try too hard to be excessively deep and layered, and making Bond out to be this edgy, 'damaged goods' antihero. Personally, I also want to see a return to action and less on this trying to understand Bond's psyche trope that's been going around this Craig era.
With this in mind, Casino Royale could still have worked, and at the end of Skyfall, as I said before, the office, M, Moneypenny, Q etc were all in place and we all got the feeling of 'back to the classic era' with the panelled office, which I don't think we;d seen for years. When was the last time? The Moore years?
But with this rumour (and I realise it is a rumour), that they may kill Bond off, this has created a debate about if the re-boot should go as far as to stretch the re-boot concept so far as to have him die, then come back as a 're-booted' Bond.
I've been trying to think of other long-term cinematic characters that have been played by different actors, if they were ever killed off yet the series carried on. The trouble is, a lot of the characters (Tarzan, Sherlock Holmes etc) were made by different companies, with different spins put on them. Bond has always been from the same team, so much so that even when the original actor made a perfectly legal Bond film, many don't consider it 'true Bond'.
If I'm honest, I don't like the idea of every different actor being a 're-boot Bond', with their own separate origins and death. To me, it's a dis-service to the original book Bond, and as long as it says 'as Ian Fleming's James Bond' at the start of the films, they should try and honour that. Which they've actually done very well with the Craig era so far.
For the sake of the thread I think we should stop this now. You're right, I'm wrong, I'm thick.
You win!
It would be EVEN dafter for them to try and carry on the continuity of Craig’s run with a younger guy.
Also apologies to those who are sick of seeing my name pop up haha :)
Bond will perhaps be a different man by the end of this film (a la YOLT), wrapping up what they started in CR (whatever the character was seeking in that film, he will finally find by the end of NTTD).
James Bond will return in a few years time. It would be foolish to hire a younger actor as a continued Daniel Craig Bond— since all threads will have been cleaned up.
There needs to be a reboot, but it can be done without any link to the Craig Era. And a reboot doesn’t mean Bond Begins... Again.
After all: it’s James Bond the audience wants to see. Collectively audiences will realize this is a new depiction without having any connection to what came before— other than this is agent James Bond 007 and this is his new adventure.
I don’t see a problem of re-booting, without explanation (even if there is some kind of figurative “death” in NTTD; the only info that audiences need moving forth is that a new James Bond film is being released and he is still working for Her Majesty’s Secret Service).
I have it...Basically they describe a scene where Felix asks for Bond to extract a 'package' from Cuba as it's a place to politically sensitive for the CIA to be seen. The only reason that Bond takes the mission is when Felix mentions the 'S' word: Spectre.
Bond decides the take the mission and when there sees that he is attending Blofeld's birthday party. Bond has no clue that at this stage the 'package' is actually a man.
Also, I believe it is Bond and Paloma flying off in the seaplane. There was a leak that Bond and a female agent are trying to escape in a sea plane but they can't take off. Meanwhile, the police and Spectre are catching up with them. The woman is screaming "Get it up! Get it up!" and Bond is said to reply "I don't usually have this problem."
I think the story came from the journalist who broke the news on Phobe Waller-Bridge's involvement. This joke has Waller-Bridge written all over it.
@Pierce2Daniel Thanks. I have the PDF somewhere but can't find the damn thing now.
Re: seaplane: I have never heard of that leak, Bond and Paloma trying to flee in the seaplane. Do you have the source?
There's presents and candles and cake and everything.