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
It must really only be one person's hope because I can't see it ever happening, to the point of not understanding why anyone would ask that question. At least EON still want Craig, that gives me hope for more than four with him.
I'm hoping for the best, but preparing for the worst. So maybe SF will surprise me.
And I guess you didn't understand that I meant by 'colourless'. I was talking about CR's lack of colourful secondary characters, something that makes DAF much closer to Fleming than CR. DAF's maccabre atmosphere and benign bizarre also makes it much closer to Fleming. And I happen to not like CR's overly-saturated cinematography, which is appalling in many scenes. So no, IMO, it isn't the most colourful film since the 1960's, as the bizarre choice of colour saturation really makes me want to gouge my eyes out. I find QOS, in all it's faults, much more colourful than CR.
I believe there are good serious action films (Batman Begins) and good not so serious action films (Mission : Impossible - Ghost Protocol) just as there are bad serious action films (First Blood - I mean it's serious because it's not fun or light hearted) and bad not so serious action films (Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen).
For me it doesn't matter whether Skyfall is as serious as QOS or fun as Goldfinger. I just want a really great movie.
But SkyFall would score major points, IMO, if David Arnold didn't score the film.
Realistically, 8 movies does sound quite excessive but I'd be satisfied with Craig to do a total of 5 or 6.
IF THEY DO SO, PLEASE MAKE THEM HOW THE MOORE FILMS APPEARED, with the next movie title released in at the end of the credits AND not so much of a waiting period between films.
so YES.
Michael Giacchino: an obvious choice, wouldn't you say? ;-)
Giacchino has been the obvious choice for me ever since I played the first 'Medal of Honor' game back in 1999. :-c
This could well happen, but it's a long way away, so I suppose we just need to sit tight and see what the future holds.
It looks like Craig's rumoured five films from 2006 - 2016 could still hold, if he is indeed contracted for a fifth and if Craig looks good at 54, why not leave then? Of course, still best to take it one film at a time for now.
Exactly. I want them to liven things up and make it more of a bond film, but don't go over the top.
I doubt he'll do 8. There were romours of him leaving after QOS. I think skyfall could be his last one, and he'll do 4 or 5 at most.
DC wil make 4th one for 2014, mabey a 5th for 2017 and then he is gone.
DAD having a big boxoffice, but we know that not be inportent. If the media don't like Skyfall and fans believe it he is gone after Bond 24. Eon only make then Bond 24 with him because there promes there did in Cr/QOS. We expect White and Camile return. Also it wil help to explain from his previous movies.
One thing we're all assuming is that they'll complete 8-10 with Craig following the same timeline they've worked with so far, about a film every two years.
I wouldn't be suprised if they plan out two to be shot back to back after Skyfall. Not necessarily tie-ins with one another, just a quick shooting schedule if everything is set. I mean, why not?
I'd rather them use, for example, Mendes, Deakins, and Logan for a straight year and produce two great films than use them for one and have to replace them a year later for a next installment.
That could happen with a right team. With a right team I have a realistic vision they could shoot Bond 24 and 25 as a follow up.
The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo is Craig's biggest role since getting Bond. Let's say Girl With The Dragon Tattoo flops or underperforms big time, this will kill of Craig's leading man credentials when not playing James Bond. What if he said to himself "my best chance of box office gold is sticking with Bond for the next decade."
I'm not saying Tattoo will flop but Craig hasn't had a true box office hit outside of the Bond films - not with him as the star. If Tattoo does underperform it makes sense for Craig to stick with Bond. He'd be crazy to jump the Bond ship!
However, the opposite scenario is possible - if Tattoo is huge then Craig doesn't need Bond after Skyfall. He did his three, made millions, got to appear in other films so "thanks, Eon, but I'm quitting for other opportunities."
Be interesting to see how well The Girl with The Dragon Tattoo does. It's getting good reviews but that doesn't translate to box office gold. Not sure it's really a Christmas film - seems a bit dark for this time of the year! People like uplifting stuff at Christmas. Cliff Richard, the Queen's speech and Top of the Pops Christmas special. :P
Problem: Craig is an honest actor. That should be quite obvious to anybody who has read more than 2 of his interviews. He will not stay with a franchise just to fatten his wallet. He's already loaded, and whether or not TGWTDT is successful or not will not effect him or his career. He's a great actor, his acting is great in TGWTDT and everything else, and he's A-list property.
He has nothing to worry about. I feel like Bond is some he's passionate about, and he'll only drop it once that passion leaves him.
You could argue MG Wilson's comments are dumb. How can anyone predict so far ahead. Craig may not even do a 4th Bond film, let alone 8! It does sound like a very silly comment to make. He must have got carried away. Nobody can predict so far ahead. Five more films is at least a decade or more into the future! Indeed, predicting so far ahead is not a good thing for anyone to do. Never predict your life so far ahead. A year, perhaps, but 10 years, nah, that's crazy.
But it's obvious MG loves Craig and thinks he's the best Bond. Why mention 8 if he doesn't rate him the best. 8 Bond films for Craig would mean he's made the most of any actor which suggest Wilson has, to quote a character from the film Speed, and pardon my language... a "hard on" for Craig! : :))
As for the topic at hand, if you asked Craig "so you're doing 8 Bonds?" he'd most likely reply "If I can do another after this one, that'd be great but I can only take and think about these one at a time".
That's a scary thought! I can't imagine Craig thinking any different.
As Sameul001 says, Craig will take Bond one film at a time. But it's possible he may consider the long term box office potential of Bond and consider it's worth staying on. Better the devil you know.... :)
Actually, at the rate held by Moore, it probably would have been a decade, but I don't argue 7 films was too much. I would have countered with 5 and stuck with it. Honestly, I don't want someone who isn't devoted, say Lazenby, to sign up for more than 1.
In Craig's defense, Crusie is 49 or 50 ish and still looks and plays Hunt's role great in Mission Impossible. I could see him staying.
Interesting point to look at my friend.