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
And yet after Skyfall it felt like we were on a high.
Part of me thinks that the respect for the formula left the series when Cubby passed away. If you think about it, TWINE was when the personal element really started to take over. Now I feel like the Craig era has it's own formula, and much more restrictive than the one from before. When you watch a Craig film you know an important character will be killed off (CR = Vesper, QoS = Mathis, SF = Dench, SP = Mr White), you know that BOND will go rogue and that the ending will always set up a return to classic Bond, which never comes...
It certainly did. Especially since at that time it was announced Craig would be back for 2 more.
If the next one continues to follow the Craig Formula maybe Tanner will be killed off in B25?
I prefer to remember him as the first Bond actor I saw and the one I grew up with.
Likewise.
That's how I remember it.
His contract was not renewed because of monetary issues. Had he not argued over money he would have made the fifth one.
He was not fired. That's myth his opponents like to put out into the world as fact.
You cannot fire someone who has no contract.
It was negotiations for a new one.
Some people seem to get off on the thought Brosnan was fired. As if. After DAD they wanted him back.
Then Brosnan seemed to ask for too much money, negotiations dragged on. Then the new situation with Casino Royale being available sealed it, BB + MGW made a decision to stop the negotiations.
Seems like history is about to repeat itself...
The similarities are staggering.
Opposite sides of the same coin.
This clip seems to suggest that his exit was firmly out of his hands.
That's pretty much "fired".
He was fired.
Will be interesting to see how Craig's departure will be labelled once history repeats itself :P
He will be painted as a hero who was being taken advantage of, and who had the guts to stand up and valiently take his leave of the franchise that no longer respected his immense and immeasurable talents.
:))
oh, you are good, that's priceless :))
He doesn't come across like a guy who wants it too badly anyway, and that's half the trick. 'Hard to get' and all that jazz.
But after 9/11 happened almost all franchises had to be rebooted. It made sense to start again, just as it does know.
Not really. They could have brought the films back down to earth, just like they had done a number of times before 9/11, but kept the momentum going forwards. And if all other films were going all dark and gritty, Bond could have been the ray of light (not too light though) in the darkness.
That certainly seemed to be Dalton's Achilles Heel and the main reason he is genuinely regarded as a less successful Bond even now, his fairly limp reception in the US.
@MajorDSmythe, I get your point but I do wonder whether Brosnan's age did at least play a small factor. After the likes of Bourne, Eon were presumably wanting an actor who could really sell the physical side of Bond and be a match for their new rival. Hence the actor had to be younger and in his physical prime. Brozza just didn't cut it anymore.
The story as depicted in the film could have easily made fit Brosnan as an established 00 agent.
As it is we got one of the best films with CR, but the things that could have been, especially the follow up to CR with Brosnan...
It was money that prevented Brosnan's fifth film, and what irony is that considering BB didn't seem to be able to take control of cost expenditure for QOS, SF and SP.
"Bond could have been the ray of light" - films back then were going dark and gritty to reflect real events. Even the last of the Star Wars prequels decided to go dark to keep up with the times, after two child friendly episodes. Another example is Harry Potter. They decided to take that series dark, after initially catering to children in the first two films. I'm not sure sticking to your guns when the whole industry is changing around you is the best bet. If you want a example of a series that stuck to its guns and was lighthearted during that period, look no further than the Fantastic Four franchise. Who the heck remembers those fondly now?