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
Yeah, they can go do one.
Absolutely laughable.
Ha ha. Absa-bloody-lutely.
:D
3900 € + VAT Red Carpet
5139 € + VAT Red Carpet+Party
I bet more than one is really thinking about it.
Not me. Sadly.
I mean, that GAP commercial where Craig is posing for turtleneck jumpers can't possibly be the final one?
...or does Craig apply for the live action movie version of Archer? "Hey looky, I am Archer, Sterling Archer, can't ya see it?"
Well in the videos Antovolk posted I found zero evidence of what I was told, but if I'm right there is not a single frame with the CG Island, the example I was told about, so let's say the jury is still a bit out for it.. but indeed they did full IMAX frame CG shots in many cases for sure (the digger scene, the MI6 explosion, etc)
On the other hand, wow, IMAX framing really does "destroy" the original framing ! But this is a matter of taste I guess.
Because that would be incredible and nostalgic and would make sense.
And it may look too much like taking inspiration from the possibly old school drawn poster of some mega-blockbuster released soon after SPECTRE ? :)
I don't think, not in today's marketing climate anyway, we'll get such a poster from Sony unless it's a special/limited IMAX edition like that BW Bond & DB5 one for Skyfall. Some really awesome art has been done for IMAX posters before, and I won't be surprised if the usual people like Mondo or Poster Posse do officially licensed arty SP posters as well.
As for the official poster, probably sometime September. Hoping we get character posters later this month.
Also @Suivez_ce_parachute remember this is not 'full' IMAX framing...this is just digital IMAX framing :))
Do people tend to forget what Daniel Craig said when he was interviewed on the set of "SPECTRE" in Mexico-City?
And you know what I dislike, EVER since Daniel Craig became James Bond there was criticism attached to his casting. And it seems that the "no blond Bond" criticism has not changed into "who's stepping in Craig's shoes when he quits?".
I'm angry about it. Daniel Craig is THE Bond actor of this generation. He drew in a complete new set of fans with "Skyfall" that usually weren't watching Bond films. So the most stupid idea is to cast another actor after "SPECTRE", especially since we're just starting by bringing back this crime syndicate S.P.E.C.T.R.E. and possibly Blofeld.
Dumping Daniel Craig after "SPECTRE" feels like a lackluster, bad creative decision with this masterfully skilled reboot that started with "Casino Royale". As opposed to getting rid of Pierce Brosnan after "Die Another Day", which felt way more logical.
Daniel Craig needs to stay. I love his films. I adore him. And he needs to do at least 1 or 2 more Bond films to finish his reign in the new Bond continuity/universe. After that? In all honesty, NO reboot please. A '2nd' actor should be casted for the franchise, similar to the casting of George Lazenby/Roger Moore a few decades back. Craig is our 'Connery'.
And IF Craig leaves after "SPECTRE", then the media is partially to blame for that. Why else would you think Craig would be annoyed last time when he was asked that nasty question again:
[/quote]
^^^This
Every actor that stepped into this role had to do thousands of interviews with the always similar questions.
And if Craig is repeatedly asked who should succeed him, then it's probably something in the subconsciousness of the public and media that triggers those questions.
For me it doesn't matter how many films he has made as Bond. My opinion stays firm:
A Bond actor should be around for 10 years and not a day longer.
That worked well for Connery and Brosnan and Dalton would not have been around for more than 8 years max too.
The Moore situation was very different as it was planned to replace him after FYEO but they couldn't find anyone.
Craig is in his 9th year. That's enough. If he does the fifth one in 2017 it's ok too, but they should definitely announce Bond 25 as his last movie or the media will start to bash on Craig as being way too old. Nobody wants that, certainly no one who calls himself a Craig fan.
It's unfortunate the Craig era has been hit by the writer's strike and the MGM restructuring which ended compromising the quality of QoS and delaying what would have been an earlier 3rd entry for Craig.
As it is, Craig is the only actor who at 47 is fitter and in better shape than his predecessors, is valued by EoN on a collaborative creative level, which again is a relationship dynamic his predecessors never had and quite frankly Craig could be in the role up to the age of 55 and he'd still slightly more or less look the same as he does now.
Colin Firth is 54 and people want him to return for tge Kingsman sequel, Tom Cruise is 53 and will be in MI6, Jack Reacher 2 and edge of tomorrow sequel, Frank Grilo the lead from the purge anarchy and agent Rumlo/Crossbones from Captain America winter soldier and next year's captain America civil war is 50 and Brosnan who was 49 at the release of DAD would have been 50/51 at the earliest had he done a 5th movie. At 47 Moore, playing a man of action is regarded by many fans as one of the most ridiculous con jobs in cinematic history had just done his 2nd Bond movie and although he looked younger than he was, physically he's never been able to match 47 year old Craig.
Who the next Bond will be is always a talked about point of discussion and it's part of the Bond circus and I personally feel the media at large aren't competent enough to tackle Bond press maturely; just listen to some of the ridiculous questions asked at the SF press release nevermind actual interviews.
Obviously Craig can't be in the role forever and casting Bond actor no.7 is going to be a big deal so EoN really have to get it right but for the time being, as much as people may not like it, Craig is going to be here for a while longer and rightfully so.
A Bond actor should be around for 10 years and not a day longer.
The only thing I said about Craig's age, was that the media will address that issue latest when Bond 25 is going to happen.
I wonder why some get so touchy when Craig's age is addressed.
Again the comparisons that don't work....
MI is not James Bond, and to even bring up Kingsman is ridiculous.
Why not bring up Taken as well then. Huh...that Liam Neeson is much older than Craig.
And by the way: Even if Brosnan had made a fifth movie, his run would have been 9 years the most.
Secondly, you seem to be the one getting touchy about Craig's age which is why you've come up with this absurd notion an actor should only be in the role for 10 years but you're not thinking about the bigger picture of the logistics of making Bond movies today. This isn't the 60s or the 70s. These movies are taking longer to make. From QoS to SF was a whopping 4 year gap due to circumstances out of EoN's control; and who cares if the media brings up his age? They did that already when he was cast in the first place, SF shon a light on Bond's age (kind of) and the media brought up Brosnan's age during the promos for DAD about how he was turning 50 soon and not once were they calling for his removal or saying he's too old for the part. The problem with some Bond fans is they project their own issues and misgivings on to others with no real justifiable reason other than to worry about nothing.
Craig is only 47 and I mentioned his age and the age of others to put things into perspective and to highlight how silly it is to make a sweeping statement with no real thought behind it to just say oh, "an actor only has 10 years". Rubbish. Had Cavill, who you champion been cast in CR as he almost was, would you be calling for his removal too even though he's only 32?
Comparisons to taken is ridiculous which is why I didnt make them. If I had I would have mentioned the cast of the expendables but I'm aware Liam Neeson and the cast of expendable are different types of action protagonists.
Seriously, who are you to say an actor can only be in the role for 10 years? These films are being produced on average every three years these days which would give an actor only 3 movies and even then who knows what unforseen mess the studio could find themselves in. Like I said, I don't expect and nor do I want Craig in the role forever. He's 47, hell, we have a 50 year old Bond girl and it's not unealistic to have Craig remain in the role up to his early to mid 50s max.
I champion Dan Stevens. He is my favourite, by far.
Or the Harry Potter movies?
Or the Twilight movies?
Or the upcoming Batman/Superman/JusticeLeague movies???
The 3 year gap between SF and SP is inexcusable. And if they make us wait another 3 years for Bond 25 then they really should get replaced by people who are capable to plan and execute within a certain time-frame.
All I would say is that B24 originally was going to have a 2014 release, but because EON were so keen to get Sam Mendes on board, then delayed to 2015. Although I think it was a mistake on EON's part to be so narrow-minded that they had no alternative director, it shows that they had so much faith in him to produce a fantastic film that a three-year gap was enough. Remember, this is the 1st director since John Glen to be given back-to-back helming of the film.
And they will wait another 3 years for Mendes if Spectre does another billion. They have gotten themselves into a one-way-street and can't find any way to get out of it.
With the Avengers they have the luxury of being proactively forward thinking and have already planned ahead upto 2019. They have a much clearer direction as Marvel have different teams in place working on concepts and scripts for different and much later releases. EoN don't operate that way and they dont have the financial backing of a giant like Disney either.
Time was wasted between SF and SP and a 2 year turn around is possible as that was hoing to be the case originally for Bond 24 but there are other factors to consider too. Bond films can end up being 7 month shoots, it can be exhausting and it's not like Bond movies are ensemble pieces where there are other co-lead characters to dedicate focus on. The lead actor is on screen for about 95% of the time, getting the whole crew aligned tigether and other logistical issues isn't always easy and I think you trivialise the huge undertaking it is to make these Bond movies.
However, you're right EON do need to make certain changes to increase efficiency and make decisions that aren't anchored by the weight of past traditions. I always found it ridiculous that EoN would hire American writers but not a director who didn't come from the Commonwealth, with the exception if Forster.
The cinematic landscape has really changed and with this rebirth of the spyfi genre, more franchise movies coming out, newly open markets to make money from, competition is beyond stiff. Kingsman is getting a sequel, Tom Hardy is getting his own spy franchise, Damon's coming back as Bourne, Cruise shoots MI6 next year, where does that leave Bond? I'm convinced Craig will be back for Bond 25 and if it's his last I can live with that being released 2 or 3 years from now BUT Bond actor no.7 needs EoN to approach his movies with a clearer process and a better managed time frame.
Now that is a splendid and sensible post. Hopefully answers @BondJasonBond006's many issues?
Everything can be explained to death.
My opinion stays firm: EON is wasting time unnecessarily. 10 years is enough for a Bond-era, no matter how good it is.
But of course I accept your opinions as well.
Enough said (from me).
Well every rule has to be adjusted to the current situation of course. (Except the Presidency of course :)) )I meant it more like a guideline than a rule if I think about it.
Of course it would be stupid to get rid of Craig now, only because he can't do a fifth one within the 10 years.
Maybe the guideline should be 5 movies then change the actor. Even EON should be able to do 5 movies within 12 years if no more legal/financial problems occur.
Thanks for your insight.