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
He randomly places the gunbarrel in middle of the film.
Honestly, I am surprised it's taken them this long to launch an official web presence.
Spot on. Announcements will come when they come.
Yeah, good point.
While Moore and Connery could be lured back by simple means, Craig is looking for something specific.
My guess is if Craig comes back Bond 25 will be a standalone mission, bit in "Logan" style, perhaps telling the story of Bond's last mission.
That would not be my cup of tea at all, but I could see it keeping all parties happy, and I think that's tough enough at the moment before worrying about what the fans think.
Maybe this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-5181621/Heart-throb-Harry-film-factor.html
If they did that, the rest of us will just have to wait for the next one in order to get excited.
I can't see Nolan doing that though. If he's involved it will be something quite different conceptually and not a Logan closeout.
Ah, thanks for that. At least this solves that particular mystery.
I only half-agree. If’d be amazing to get a new GF or FRWL, but really how likely is that compared to a new one with innovation? SP tried to make it more classic again, but failed in several ways; I fear if they tried again that’s how it would end up.
Anyway, although I want the camp factor back, if Craig returns for one more it's probably for the best that they hold off for now. I don't want another tonal mess again.
Connery’s tone was established as mostly serious but still with a fair amount of humor. Same for Lazenby. Moore’s was decidedly more comedic, but still had enough seriousness. Dalton a little more serious, Brosnan a little more silly. Craig obviously more serious. They need to stick with the general tone of the actor and not change it up 4 films in or it feels awkward. Same thing happened to Connery getting too silly in DAF. Moore’s more serious entry, FYEO, still had its fair share of silliness so it worked.
What I think needs to return is that whimsical sense of fun. The light hearted spirit which used to characterize this series for so long. Yes of course, some films were more serious than others, but ultimately they always had that larger than life otherwordly mystery to them.
That's gone these days. That also was gone during Dalton's era.
It's difficult to make a Bond film which embraces reality and also combines it seamlessly with that larger than life (and I don't mean budget or sets) quality. That requires real skill and a deft touch. It's not about tropes. It's about attitude.
Craig has limitations, and most of us realize that (and did from the moment he was cast). It was masked for a while but now it has been exposed. They will have to deal with that for his last one. If they make a film that is well written, with the kind of humour that was injected in the middle section of CR, then it will work even with him on board.
Having said that, my biggest problem with where we are right now is that we will soon have had 13+ years of a direct continuity Bond. A character that has, due to the narrative, become synonymous with the actor in a way that was never the case before. I still contend that this was a mistake, and will make it more difficult to proceed going forward without a substantial shift. In some ways, Bond has now fallen into the trap which other major series have, where everything is 'self contained' and inherent, necessitating reboots each time. I think they should have avoided that, because the series had a timeless quality to it without that.
That's what I think as well. Stand alone but an ending. Bond might start off retired but Blofeld and Madeline won't get more than a vague reference, it'll be a new villain that makes him come back for one last mission. That doesn't sound very exciting to me personally. I thought SP worked well as an ending, but if Craig has to return I would have rather them go the YOLT route. But on the other hand, the gaps between films have gotten so long that at the end of the day I'm just happy to get any sort of Bond movie.
Perhaps it was important back than in the context of studio or distribution deals that Daniel Craig would be playing James Bond again if wanted despite his "slash my wrist" remarks.
Why does he announced it and not EON?
Well it came as a shock to him...
I know for a lot of people Bond = camp, but that is due to the awful tenure of Roger Moore. I love Sir Roger as a person, but his films were so far removed from what Bond is and should be, that they are unrecognisable from what Ian Fleming wrote, and far from what made Bond popular in the first place.
I know many hold Sir Rog's Bond close to their hearts, as they are the Bond films from their childhood (as they were mine), but those films are not Bond. Connery's are, Lazenby's was, Dalton's were and Craig's definitely are.
More of that please.
RE: why he made the announcement, I think it was for him to go and clean up his wrist cutter remarks which had sucked up all the air for nearly two years. They addressed that on the Colbert interview.