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
I think that would have worked better than what was done.
I suggest you check out this interview:
http://www.grouchoreviews.com/interviews/401
Haggis talks about developing the psychological complexity of Bond that we saw in CR. The stuff with Bond suffering from his decisions and being emotionally bruised by the violence despite not showing it. He shows a very strong grasp of the character in my opinion. Which makes QOS even more infuriating.
The Vesper/sinking house stuff was all P&W - all Haggis did was move Vesper into the house. The other two had her die earlier in the script.
Haggis was hired by Martin Campbell to do a character rewrite of Bond in CR
Yes, good idea. If they needed the action climax, that would've been the way to do it.
I'll read the link now-- thanks for passing it along.
In the end, unless a writer is also a producer, or a director of a project, I find it amazing that anything a writer says about casting, especially in a tentpole film like CR, would only be met with deaf ears. Especially when the writer was a hired gun.
I'm going to have to dig into the 'net and find the earliest copies of CR-- since my recollection is there is a lot of P&W in the shooting script (but ten plus years, and too many vodka martinis can fog a memory), so for him to not even share credit with the original writers just baffles me.
He is known to have quite a big ego, and it shows in this interview (taking ALL credit, including the insinuation that he was a part of the DC casting decision and; stepping away from everything that QoS is. I have a gut feeling why he wasn't involved in B23, on any level).
Do people feel this is "obvious" just because Nolan and Hardy have worked together a few times? In that case, we may as well add Cillian Murphy to the list.
Sadly, by the time they get fired up on filming for B26, both of these chaps will be in their mid-40's. Given the rate they spit these movies out these days, we'd get maybe two or three installments with either of them before having to recast, so it won't happen.
Two words: Jack Lowden
I like the idea of a last Craig movie in the tone and fashion of CR (Campbell). I don't think Nolan would be the right director for that. But Nolan/Hardy for Bond 26 would be very interesting.
*Yes, Moore was 46 for LALD, but it only took 6 years for him to reach his 4th film with MR in 1979. At the current rate, Hardy would be 54/55 years old by the time he plays Bond for the 4th time.
The cut-off point for serious candidates for the next Bond actor is anyone born in 1984 (currently 33/34 years old).
Why is this Hardy guy too old for his fourth film when he'd be 54.
If EoN only produces films every four years now, a fact I actually am only aware since today, then they can't plan with the same actor for more than three or four films maximum anyway if you ask me.
Look how much Moore aged within 6 years between LALD and MR , now imagine he'd have taken almost twice as long to make LALD, TMWTGG, TSWLM and MR.
And if you think an actor doing 4 or more films isn't a given, I sure as hell don't want to sit around for 4 years wondering who will be cast as the new Bond, only for him to do 2 or 3 films over a 10 year period, only to sit through another 4 years for EON to cast his successor. I am looking at the current production rate of the franchise since 1999, and it's very clear if they don't accelerate the frequency of the releases, anyone above 34 years in 2018 is never going to be the next James Bond.
----
I mentioned him some time back on the Bond Actor thread. The lad has potential and presence.
Christ imagine the state of Rog in AVTAK if they'd had 4 year gaps between all his films back then:
LALD - 73
TMWTGG - 77
TSWLM - 81
MR - 85
FYEO - 89
OP - 93
AVTAK - 97
Rog bowing out gracefully at the age of 70 after a tenure of almost a quarter of a century.
And with Patrick Macnee clocking in at 75, Robert Brown 76, Desmond 83 and Lois 70 the Ascot scene would have looked more like an episode of Last of the Summer Wine.
Ehh Roger didn't look half bad in 1996s The Quest.
Of what?
Yeah, I've said this many times before but I'd rather have a 40 odd year old actor who owns the screen and actually looks like an experienced secret agent for only two or three films, than a baby faced hipster indie looking BBC/HBO drama type for five or six films that we have to wait to grow into the role.
I'd rather they just went on a film by film basis. Don't think "this actor is great, but he's too old for us to milk for ten sequels". If a 40-50 year old actor comes along and aces the audition then let him have a shot, even if it's just for one or two films.
I mean that's the ideal, but I just don't have faith in them getting the films out that quickly anymore. It does make me long for the 90s*. Okay they weren't as "prestigious" as the movies now, they didn't have the Oscar baiting names and the glossy cinematography, but it was simple and straightforward. It was just okay, here's a new James Bond film, nothing more nothing less. If you like it great, if not then give it two years and another will be along.
*Not saying this wasn't also true for the 60s/70s/80s but that's before my time, I have some vague memories of seeing TLD at the cinema but I can't really comment on how the releases felt in those days.
Agreed as well.