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
MI6 cant keep THEMSELVES safe haha.
She would be better staying with Felix and the Americans,as Bond instructed.
100% agree, dont get me wrong, I would dump everything from SP ASAP if given the choice, Im just trying to salvage something IF we go down the SP timeline/route.
I dont think there is anything wrong with Spectre as an organisation being the bad guys. It was the execution that was poor, not the concept.
The difference is that QoS gave SF the opportunity to start afresh with little or no baggage and it reaped rewards. SP has left Bond with so much bagage, he needs a roof rack for the Aston!
Its not rhetoric, its an opinion. When unconfirmed reports emerge, EVERYONE has a say. Some choose to disregard it outright, others give their thoughts. Some of those thoughts will be positive, and some will be, you guessed it, negative. It's really basic stuff. This "at this juncture we know nothing" business goes out the window for you as soon as it comes to laying praise at EON's feet, at which point you're more than happy for people to draw any conclusion they wish.
Not at all. But having said that what would be wrong with that, are we not welcoming to people who don't like Daniel Craig as Bond? There may well be people who support the views of that website who are on here - surely they are most welcome here?
I was reading it earlier, do you have a problem with that? What's the problem with me talking about that website? I'm so confused ... so much for the wonders of free speech ...
And he's correct.
Coming from the guy who spent a year forcing us to watch him perform a metaphorical reach-around on Aiden Turner at every possible and impossible opportunity. Give us a break, mate. There's opinion and there's flogging a dead horse and you're a Grand Master at the latter.
I can't say for people from DCINB.
But I know for a fact that people here who are not in love with DC or even dare to criticise him have it very hard on this forum with a few very loud and sometimes aggressive regulars. Same is true for criticising Skyfall.
To be a fan of Spectre at the same time produces even short circuits with some here.
It's all quite deplorable but you can only accept it and try to make ends meet or go away.
Those people are at this moment turning against you by the way, so better be careful.
Still waiting for your specific views on what you want to see in B25. I personally would much rather read that than your opinions about what other members are thinking here.
I'm a massive Daniel Craig fan - for me he's the best Bond. I quite enjoyed Spectre, yes it has it's flaws. But people should be allowed to have their opinion. Surely people who don't like DC and his films are still welcome here?
I would like the aforementioned cross between OHMSS and YOLT novels.
We are all supposed to be on the same side here,and any other website member popping in here and seeing this will be loving it,watching members squabbling .
Quite.
By the vast silent majority they are. By the others they are at best tolerated if barely so.
People who don't like Craig are of course still welcome here. Some of them have even become mods. ;-) There are a couple of obsessive DC fans here, and when they can't take any criticism of Craig, that's their problem.
Normal DC fans, like myself, will of course defend Craig and others will then criticise him again. That's the type of debate one has in a forum like this.
What stops making sense to me is when people get extremely worked up over it, as if their lives depended on it. It's never about Craig, it's about being told by someone else that they disagree, sometimes using fairly harsh phrasings. That's the thing a lot of the fuss is about, not the actual issue about Craig.
This is how it typically goes:
- Statement 1 about Craig.
- Statement 2 about Craig, to the contrary of statement 1.
- Statement about IQ of other member.
- Statement about IQ of first member.
- I'm entitled to my opinion. Oh, and yours is wrong.
- By the way, I'm entitled to my opinion too and mine is correct.
- You [censored] ! And why don't you go [censored] !
- Is that all you got? Huh? See if I care.
- Flag 1, 2, 3.
- Flag 4, 5, 6.
- I'm leaving! This place is sooooo pro-Craig.
- No, I'm leaving! I can't handle any negative criticism about Craig any more!
And the other members shrug and think to themselves: maybe an internet forum is not for you guys and good luck in real life participating in a debate...
Great find, @NSGW!
That about sums it up,DD.
Well said,Sir .
Great find @NSGW! This could definitely explain why we are still waiting on a distribution deal. Seems like a lot more could potentially be at stake than first thought.
With the amount of 'players' vying for Bond,all chasing WB tail,its going to be very interesting,as long as it doesn't slow down production.
And yes,well done in finding that info @NSGW .
Question for people regard this - where do you stand? With EON's more traditional stance, or a more exploitative business model? On the one hand - a film released every few years, on the other - the potential for ancillary channels to deliver more Bond related media.
With the current model of every 3 or 4 years, I stand with the more exploitative business model.
As far as I'm concerned, the way they approach it now is quite different from the more mechanized approach they followed under the Cubby regime (with a more predictable outcome), which is what I preferred.
I completely agree. Man, the current internet era has turned most Bond fans on here into hurricane Irma. The movie hasn't even premiered yet, is not even in pre-production, and these so called 'story leaks' already seem to destroy any objective and more positive-spirited debate and discussion. Sad really.
I'm not sure if it'll ever return to two, but I agree that four is a stretch. I'm certainly not averse to more consistency - if that guarantees a three yearly cycle max.
Bond is a strange one because in terms of brand it is on a par with Marvel and SW as outlined in the article, but a lot of that is down to heritage and to some extent reliability. I don't think the world is crying out for any more Bond than we currently get and in terms of a young fan base, which is what you need to facilitate a constant flow of product, it doesn't exist on the same level.
But therein lies the problem. Is the appetite there for a Bond universe? Personally, I don't think so. I'm of the opinion that people see these movies as landmarks, rather than windows on a larger world. They're still those flicks people go to with their parents every few years, films that for the wider populace are a couple of hours of a British bloke being a bad ass. We're in an echo chamber here - we all have ideas and thoughts that go way beyond the films themselves but making them commercially viable is a whole different ball game.
Traditional,2 year gap will suit me.
The only worry I have with Apple and Amazon ,is the mentions of Bond being on TV in some shape or form.
I don't like the sound of that.
I just can't imagine there's any way to expand the Bond universe. People just don't care enough about Felix Leiter, MP and such. I mean they can certainly try but they will just as certainly fail. Big time!