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
maybe. But I also think the point made by @patb is a good one. SF did so well because its characters and themes appealed to older audiences.
"always wanted to leave" Why did Craig say this, even if he was tipsy?
I don't think he cares about this.
In which case it will be a new director, new bond and probably an new reboot.
Bond 25 will defiantly not be barbs last she's only 54 she's has plenty more years left before she retires
Here here and she promised Cubby not to let ouside powers mess it up.
I'm a huge Craig fan, but I don't want him to carry on after B25. We will have a Roger Moore scenario. B26 needs fresh blood.
You don't think he could pull off a Blofeld trilogy of sorts? Where the final film is accepting of his age, rather than oblivious as in AVTAK.
Hmm yes possibly. Shame they milked that idea as early as SF.
However, now we are prone to accepting the idea of several different Bond timelines then they could wind up Craig's time with an elderly Bond (if 52 is elderly of course) in B26.
I don't like the idea of a rookie Bond on his first mission being explored again but think slight reboots are no worse than the idea that Dalton was the same person as Moore.
If they did a two-parter, as originally intended for SP, then it would make a lot of sense in terms of cast and crew.
Definitely. We don't need the 'origin' story approach with every new Bond.
However a soft-reboot is more than likely.
I'm curious to see how Warner/DC handle the upcoming Supes/Bat movie and how that is received by fans.
That is similar to Bond because like the Bat post-Nolan, EON will have to follow up a massive financial and critical era (post-Craig), and they may take some cues either way from Warner (in terms of humour quotient, what demographic to appeal primarily to, how outlandish/realistic to be), depending on how the public accepts the new Bat.
Sadly, that means we are likely to have a longer than normal wait post-Craig before the new soft reboot Bond comes out. It won't be within 2 years of Craig's last, I'm quite certain.
Either way, I think EON will watch what happens with this movie very closely, and Affleck's interpretation vs. Bale's in particular.
He was excellent in his two directorial movies - The Town and Argo. I think the big knock he'd taken previously, and the apparent humbling process he went through, actually did him a lot of good. I think taking Batman was a bad choice, both for him and for the film.
Any way, I've always been a Michael Keaton fan when it comes to Batman. Great to see him win an Oscar the other day. I'd actually been wondering what had happened to him, as I think he's a really good actor, and then up he pops in Birdman. Great movie btw (stating the obvious), if any one has still not seen it.
A soft reboot meaning the next Bond will just start mid career like Connery did in DN, no origins. If they did this I'd be fine, going down the full on reboot that we got with Craig a young Bond (possibly younger than Craig) I think is unnecessary.
The only problem with even a soft reboot if we end Craig's time properly rather than replace him, do we then have to recast all the principal cast again? Or would Fiennes and co end up being just like Dench staying M even when we rebooted with Craig?
Reboots are just now lazy ways for studios to get themselves out of tight spots. Nolan situation was unique, I doubt any film maker will get the freedom he got with Batman.
When Batman Begins arrived we hadn't had the raft of comic book films and it hadn't developed into the juggernaut it now is. Even at the point of TDK Marvel was still in early days and it was only at the point we got to TDKR that DC might have regretted giving Nolan so much freedom due to the success of the Avengers. I'm sure they'd have loved to have had their start up with his film rather than Man of Steel but Nolan was never interested in being a part of the DC universe and wasn't keen on tying things in even with MOS. Imagine if Nolan had given the go ahead for Joseph Gordon Levitt's character to become the new Batman as was hinted at the end of TDKR and then DC used this to launch the DC Universe films.
It was never his game plan he wanted to make his trilogy and bow out and he denied that he even planned this many times and just took each film at a time. DC are probably quite happy he bowed out after MOS. One of the reasons I think you'll never see him direct a Bond, he'd want the same freedom and EON would never let him have that.
Whatever freedom EON may seem to give Mendes and other directors they call the shots and it will only be down to them if we get Craig playing out his time with a proper full stop it won't be down to any director however big they are.
Although I think it's only inevitable that EON will get influenced by the likes of Disney like with Marvel and Star Wars. No not spin offs but they will probably look to appealing to an even larger audience. I'm not expecting to like Bond forever, I'm sure it will go somewhere that I'm not willing to go and I think it's naive to think it will always be the series we all know and love. Maybe not for a few decades but at some point maybe when we are all many years old someone will make a decision that will seem like heresy to us Bond fans.
I've a feeling that what some have already been upset with in the Craig era will seem relatively mild in comparison to what's in store in the future for 007.
Not really. Lazenby, Moore and Dalton all made references to something from previous Bond movies, from different actors (mostly the death of Tracy).
I personally can't stand comic book movies, I liked the Nolan films and the odd one here and there but Marvel just bores me to death but I think it's only inevitable that they influence Bond and to think it won't is somewhat naive.
I'm not saying hugely significantly but they already have in subtle ways, this is biggest money making genre out there mores the pity. I just don't see it not effecting Bond in some way in the future @bondjames has already mentioned that the DC's reboot of Batman may well give an indication to whether audience will accept a more comic book version after the more real world version that Nolan presented.
Possibly if it does go down a storm Bond may well move into a more fantastical arena again with a lighter touch, SPECTRE's approach seems to be testing those waters already.
With the exception of Lazenby the actors the preceeded pretty much ignored what came before. A "Soft Reboot" if you will. The Star Trek reboot still mentioned stuff from it's past.
To be honest I enjoyed them so much is because they weren't like the comic book version, I'm expecting to not like Affleck's version but it will no doubt give allot of comic book fans great satisfaction.
Bale might not have been a Batman fan's idea of both Bruce Wayne and the caped crusader but I found it so much more rewarding than anyone else that played him.
Strangely enough a friend of mine who is a big comic book fan said he enjoyed Nolan's films very much but they weren't true to the source, he said they have more in common with the James Bond series than Batman.
I think I understand that even if you take away all the Bond nods in all 3 Nolan films, they have a feel of Bond film at times, TDKR explosive climax definitely reminded me of Bond.