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
True, I believe B26 will be held back until Summer 2023. Going head to head with MI would be very risky, as they have all the momentum and buzz currently.
Yes, but Craig won't be in the picture this time, which will simplify things a great deal.
Or make it more difficult, as they'll have to cast the next Bond as well
SF go up against with very successful TDKR in 2012 with 50th anniversary after a film like QOS and the rest is history(earned more than TDKR) . MI isn't groundbreaking like TDK trilogy so I would say there isn't any risk but a lot depends on Bond25 and how it turned out and will Craig continue after that.
They probably already have a good idea who it is, they have been putting out feelers for the past few years now.
Don't forget there was a period where we didn't know whether Craig would be back.
@4EverBonded it would be an interesting thread: debate a Bond movie as if it had been released yesterday and social media existed.
This is an immensely surprising move – especially considering that McQuarrie seemed jaded of the series in interviews this year. I guess a little time, perspective and money can make heaps of difference.
McQuarrie did a fantastic job with Rogue Nation – that film is a criminally good time. I like Fallout, but was perhaps not as hot on it as everyone else. I’ll probably need to rewatch it.
Honestly, I hope this means the next to M:I films are more story-focussed. You could take the action from Fallout and spread it across two films whilst adding more dialogue and character stuff in between.
What’s most ironic is that Eon already considered this approach:
http://collider.com/daniel-craig-denies-james-bond-two-part-sequel/
It was widely considered that when John Logan pitched Spectre – he had envisaged a two-part film that would both be shot concurrently. However, Sam Mendes decided against it. Saying he wanted to make a one-off film that followed the story from SF and had a conclusion that could e picked up. I heard Mendes talking about it in an interview with Empire.
Personally, I really love the idea. It’s something they should consider with Bond 26 and 27.
They quite rightly want to capitalize on the success of Mi 6 so the back to back idea makes sense but also Cruise isn't getting any younger and despite his Peter Pan like ability he won't be playing the role for much longer after this.
MI will disappear unless they find another actor that will take on the franchise (very unlikely) the way Cruise can.
Bond will continue, it has bumps in the road and people fall out of favour with it but it comes back.
There is a contingent out there that is fans of this and Bond but they keep getting the 2 mixed up, one is nothing like the other, yes they are spy adventures and that is it.
One was TV show that became a movie franchise, has had now 6 films and seems in a very green period but it can't last forever. The other is a 50+ year film series quite like no other in the history of film that is having a bumpy patch.
Though the hyperbole seems to be the loudest and due to Cruise's franchise being put in the same breath as the Raid films by some, Bond is all of a sudden doomed and if it doesn't catch up it will be obsolete.
The biggest mistake would be to react to this and try to compete. Bond will be fine whereas although MI looks to be going great guns at this present time. It will be consigned to film history once the Scientologist is too old to pursue is literally psychotic passion to almost kill himself in order to top the last death defying stunt.
Craig shot down the idea of doing two back to back. Mendes really wouldn’t have that kind of clout to nix that sort of proposal.
Nothing to forgive and sorry for the late response.
Forgive me if I insist, but I really can't see any other interpretation of the SP finale than Bond choosing to seriously quit with his life as an assassin. I'm speaking just about SP storyline from a character arc standpoint without taking in consideration future development, which could be endless. But at the end of SP Bond is clearly convinced to STOP, not just goin away for a couple of weeks. It's not even the first time, he already did in CR in a way but then happened the Vesper betrayal. The thing that makes his choice so important and true it's not only linked to the strong symbolism on the bridge scene, but especially with the character of Madeleine. He's dealing with a woman who ran away from her father "and his sick life" and even left Bond once she understood that he would never stop (the Hildebran Print and Rarities scene). She even told him:
"James I can't. I can't go back to this life and I'm not going to ask you to change. This is who you are".
This is extremely important, because Bond choosing Madeleine over the Scooby Gang means he's embracing a change in his life. Because this is what SP is all about at the end. I can agree that everything feels rushed, given the size of this choice, but this is it. Of course it doesn't mean that he will never go back to work as a spy. In life things change, people die, but the emotional impact of this choice in SP is very true and strong.
Having said that, I perfectly agree that such a finale is clearly open ended, because left the filmmakers with endless further possibilities. We're not talking about a Logan type finale, this is pretty obvious. I'm super curious about the further development of Madeleine, because is the first time in the history of the franchise where a main Bond girl comes back again in a direct sequel.
I don't think anyone is saying Bond is doomed. The real danger though is acting like there isn't a problem, or that it will sort itself out. If they had just plowed on ahead with The Spy Who Loved Me, Goldeneye or Casino Royale then we would be in a much worse position today. The brand is not enough to insure continued success, every now and then you have to be able to self-reflect, identify issues and make adjustments. The truth is the franchuse is in dire need of a freshen up. Infact less of a freshen up, more of a hosing down. It feels like on some fundemental level we're still stuck in the mid 2000's, as that was the era in which gritty reboots and origin stories with more of a character study approach were at their height. Nowadays we've moved past that and Bond needs to quickly make up the ground. But I still can't shake the thought that we're in for another one like the other four and is that really still going to appeal like it has in the past?
My point is more that the ending, while providing some closure to his story, was still open ended (I perhaps shouldn't have written vague earlier). It therefore allowed for a seamless segueway into a new Bond actor, as I explained earlier. That's how I would like them to leave B25 as well. That was my initial point. I don't want explicit closure to this Bond's story as a self contained entity. Rather, I'd prefer something as open ended as SP was. I doubt that's what we'll get, but it's what I'd prefer. I am not a fan of creating self contained narratives within the Bond universe.
On the other hand I'm very happy he's back, because I don't see the SP finale as a satisfying end to his Bond story arc. Never liked the idea of leaving Craig's Bond in a situation where he drives away happy with a girl who made him quit the job in such a manner. Self contained narratives are tricky but are a reflection of our times filled with cinematic universes. We've been lucky that the continuity in this 4 movies arc is extremely loose.*
* Yes I know QoS takes place hours after CR, but the movie didn't feel like a classic sequel. QoS is a beast of his own.
Roger Moore was too old for his last two, but we should definitely have a Daniel Craig just as old, or even older, for two more movies. I do wish the fan base was more consistent.
Now, I don't know what we're going to get for B25, but if it's further explicit delving into the persona as defined since CR, then I'm likely to be unimpressed because I don't want to be reminded about it. SP killed it for me from a character continuation standpoint.
However, if it's a relative standalone, as we expected with Boyle, with just a few nods here and there to the past - then I'm likely to be absolutely fine with it, as I still am with SF.
EDIT: I'd prefer if the focus be on new characters or other characters rather than Bond, as was how I experienced and enjoyed SF.
Yep I loved SP. I understand your point of view. How much they will address the event of SP is a crucial nod for many inhere. I think they will a bit, but not that much to be honest. Especially because I think Madeleine will die in the pre-title sequence.
Absolutely.
I don't get the Craig worship either. I like the guy, but c'mon. Some of his fans would be okay with him still playing Bond from a nursing home.
I think the "SP mess" notion has been put really out of proportion inhere, but its just my opinion. But I don't want to re-start a discussion about SP in this topic.
In the final SP script the last word were "We have all the time in the world", so perhaps in Purvis and Wade minds Madeleine was meant as a kind of Tracy character. Since they're using their draft for 25, maybe this is a nod to her death in 25. I always felt that this particlar (cut) line as a kind of doom for her character and I'm pretty sure they had discussion about this back in 2014.
The same way I'd be okay with Dalton playing Bond today. Or Brosnan. But mostly Dalton.
Well, sure ... but that's Dalton. Different story!