No Time To Die: Production Diary

12132142162182192507

Comments

  • Posts: 1,631
    Right? Every day there's somebody saying (usually the same people), "Oh boy, I can smell Bond 25 coming!" or, "Just a matter of time now, things are really moving," and "A 2018 release date is totally assured!"

    I'm a realist and base predictions on empirical data, so I don't see where all these clues pointing to massive gears moving in the EON machine are coming from. It is amusing, however, to watch people react who think there are.

    People think going forward without Dan will keep things moving quick, release wise, but I'd say it's the opposite. Without Dan, EON would have to figure out if they are going to keep the continuity going with another actor (bad idea, IMO) or restart entirely, in which case even more time has to be spent planning what that future will be like, and what vision will drive it, as they did with Craig pre-CR, and to do that they'll actually have to decide on an actor. That process will take a long time all on its own.

    Until we hear things about a distribution deal officially secured, there's no point in discussing anything else. No matter how much EON wants to make a move, they can't until MGM sort things out on their end, and they seem to be in no rush to get things done, either. I'm not surprised Dan is keeping himself busy; if he didn't it'd be like sitting in the waiting room of the doctor's office after you know he's called in sick.

    Couldn't agree more. :-bd

    Like you, I don't see the "clues pointing to massive gears moving in the EON machine". Mainly, that's because they probably aren't moving. As you said, not much can happen until MGM settles their distributor negotiations.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited June 2016 Posts: 4,399
    Susanna Bier in talks to direct next Bond film?

    http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2016-05-31/night-manager-director-in-the-frame-to-take-over-james-bond-films-from-sam-mendes

    GettyImages-521441726.0.jpg

    I hope I'm not the only person who was underwhelmed by The Night Manager. It was pedestrianly executed and a totally middling and uninspired piece of Sunday night tripe. It was the most passé and routine spy drama I'd seen in years. Bier's job was merely adequate.

    before Martin Campbell helmed GE, he directed a handful of below average films, and a bunch of TV minseries, and TV shows..

    before Roger Spottiswoode helmed TND, he directed Stop Or My Mom Will Shoot, Air America, and Turner & Hooch..

    before Marc Forster helmed QOS, he directed Finding Neverland, Stranger Than Fiction, Monster's Ball, and The Kite Runner..

    what they've done is the past or not-so-past doesn't necessarily mean a thing when it comes helming a James Bond movie.
  • edited June 2016 Posts: 6,432
    Not forgetting Spottiswoode helmed Deadly Pursuit, now that was a good film.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    The elevator fight and the Slate fight from QOS is for me Craig Bond at his most badass. Yes the SF PTS is impressive but it's very vanilla, IMO. The fight on top of the train at the end is a big load of nothing compared to the 2 fights I mentioned, or the stairwell fight in CR. Craig was extremely rugged in his first 2 films, it's simply not there in SF's and SP's action scenes.

    i would also add the brief fisticuffs with Patrice in the Shanghai skyscraper was great as well.... sometimes, action in order to be good, doesn't have to big or complex.. the fight itself was rather simple by comparisons to others in the Craig era, but it was beautifully choreographed and filmed - one of the many highlights in SF for me... IMO, i would put it up there with the fight against Slate in QOS.

    in terms of ruggedness - eh...... again, this where the Bond/Bourne complaints came flooding in when QOS came out.. i find it funny how people praise the look and style of that film, when just a few years ago, that film was being universally panned for trying to be a Bourne film..... but it is what it is..... the way i've viewed Craig's Bond, is a Bond that has gotten more refined with his kills as the series goes on.. if you look at the sloppy brutality of the PTS kill in CR, to how smoothly he executes the spectre agents who were sent to kill Lucia in SP, there is a gradual progression throughout the films... and IMO, that double kill on the SP agents is pure Bond - quietly and confidently dispatches two men without batting an eyelash - just watch his body language in that moment.. to me, it's as 'cool' a moment as when Bond offs Dent in DN.... Bond doesn't need to always break a sweat when he has to kill someone - that is part of what makes Bond BOND - in control.
  • MooseWithFleasMooseWithFleas Philadelphia
    Posts: 3,368
    I have to imagine EON wants to stick to a 2018 release date. We are still three years away from 2019 and it is lining up to be brutal competition. 2018's fall/winter does have some healthy competition between DC extended universe film (Oct 5), Fantastic Beasts 2 (Nov 16), and Spider Man (Dec 21). But a mid/late october release looks like a nice place to slot in as most of the big blockbusters for 2018 already have a planned release date.

    Part of me wonders if all these moving parts are contingent on one another. For instance the reported 2 film deal that Craig turned down might have been a key piece to courting WB or Disney to pick up Bond. I would think the prospective studios would want Craig for at least 1 or 2 films as he is a known successful commodity who is accepted and draws money. It also puts them in the roots of the franchise and I wonder if the future studio would have a say over future Bonds.

    The longer this goes for some reason, the more I feel Craig will be back. At this stage of his career, I don't think he wants to lock himself into a multi-film deal. I could see him doing 2 more, but he will be negotiating on a film by film basis at this stage. It makes sense for EON to try to get him for 2, because my guess is they want to do a Blofeld Trilogy and the next film may be setting up for a first cliff-hanger type ending.

    All fun speculation of course :)




  • Posts: 1,970
    bondjames wrote: »
    An interesting perspective @fjdinardo. I have no doubt BB would want Craig back. The question always has been whether he wants to come back, and what the distributor will say about it.

    The fact that the distributor thing hasn't been sorted out yet (when Wilson suggested off the cuff that it might be by now) suggests to me that they aren't really champing at the bit for this business, which is not surprising given how bad a deal Sony got stuck with last time.

    I think profitability of the future films will drive a lot of the future decisions, as a result. Cost control will be a major discussion item imho.

    IMO Craig will come back for money which is something he has said before. So that rumor of him turning down $100 Million is BS to me.

    I do think that EON/MGM are in the process/close to signing a deal with a new distributor. It will probably be a 4 film deal like Sony had. If Craig agrees to be Bond again through Eon then Craig will be a big selling point to the distributor especially if the distributor is thinking of hiring a new actor. IMO BB will cut money out of the budget of the film before she cuts down DC pay check
  • edited June 2016 Posts: 12,837
    or restart entirely, in which case even more time has to be spent planning what that future will be like, and what vision will drive it, as they did with Craig pre-CR

    I don't think this is true. For one thing it's pretty clear that EON's vision doesn't require that much forward planning. They take things on a film by film basis, which I personally like as it means they can adapt and change course if necessary, and it also makes things more exciting that way (in contrast to the comic book studios announcing a million films which are all basically the same anyway).

    Also, CR was decided on before Craig signed on. In fact I think he asked to read the script before agreeing to it. They'd already written it, got a director (who wanted a completely different actor for the role), etc. Their vision was set in stone regardless of who would be playing the part.

    As evidence of this, Brosnan was in negotiations to come back as late as 2004. It wasn't officially decided on until early 2005 iirc, and even then there was still a chance of him returning (https://www.mi6-hq.com/sections/articles/bond_21_brosnan_back.php3?t=bond21&s=bond21&id=0915). I think that Brosnan being so close to returning for CR, with talks ongoing just a couple of months away from production and little over a year before the films release date, shows that recasting the role wouldn't necessarily mean more time spent planning. It certainly didn't then. They knew what they were doing no matter if it was Brosnan (probably some minor script changes in this case, remove any mentions of it being his first mission), Craig or Cavill in the role.

    It is a different situation now than in 2005 though, because as you said, they basically have to be prepared for two very different outcomes. Bond 25 if Craig doesn't return (personally I think he's gone, I've been saying since the leaks that SP would be his last) would be very different to Bond 25 if he does.

    But that's the only decision that needs to be made. Is Craig returning or not. They don't have to actually cast the new guy before deciding on their vision for the next film, that's the point I was trying to make. So there isn't that much planning required.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited June 2016 Posts: 4,399
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    @jake24, it means he'll shoot all twenty episodes next year, and they'll be released (I can only assume) in two installments, one in 2017 and one in 2018 - or one in 2018 and one in 2019.

    @Creasy47


    if Purity follows the same shooting parameters as Daredevil on Netflix (and using their shooting cycle just as a template).. Daredevil takes 8 days to shoot 1 episode..... if things move similarly on Purity - which it has been confirmed that each episode is 1 hour long... then conceivably, 20 episodes shot all at once would take anywhere from 5-6 months.. leaning more on the side of 6..... which is plenty of time for Dan to shoot Purity in 2017, then do Bond 25 in January/February of 2018 - and we also don't yet know the size and scale of the next Bond film.. SP was a gargantuan film to make, 7 months... SF took 128 days (roughly 4 months)...... the only thing is, when will 'Purity' start filming?

    so you never know..

    and i highly doubt a 6 month shoot on Purity would be as physically exhausting as SP was... not saying it will be a walk in the park on a sunday afternoon - but i don't think it will be as laborious as a Bond film would be.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,961
    @haserot, you answered your own question, and the bit you quoted from me answers it, too: 'Purity' shoots in 2017. Whether it's in the first few months or the last, it'll still begin and end in 2017.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    @haserot, you answered your own question, and the bit you quoted from me answers it, too: 'Purity' shoots in 2017. Whether it's in the first few months or the last, it'll still begin and end in 2017.

    yeah - but seeing as how Craig seems to like his breaks, and he likes to have time to get physically ready for the role.. if filming of Purity ends in late 2017 (ie: November or December).. that could deter him........ thats what i mean by "we don't know".... i know it's all being filmed in 2017 - but is it the first half of 2017, so he'd be done by June or July?.. or is it the second half of 2017? or somewhere inbetween?.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,961
    Actually, doesn't he have his Broadway work around the beginning of next year? If so, I can only assume, then, that filming for this won't take place until a little later on in the year.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Craig's role in the series, and how much time he'll be needed to film everything is the important thing. If he's not a major character, which I don't think he will be (more of a strong supporting role), his work could be wrapped up quite quickly in comparison to the schedules of the leads, who will have to endure all of it.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,961
    @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7, no, he'll be starring in it alongside whoever plays Pip.
  • Posts: 1,680
    The 3 year gap between SF & SP is what I consider the new two year gap, they couldnt come up with a critically acclaimed film in 3 years time, they are just too slow.

    If we dont hear who is writing or working on any sort of script by Jan 2017 the film wont make a 2018 release. Remember, Spectre had a script by late summer/fall of 2014.

    We will know when the film is coming out by years end IMO.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Actually, doesn't he have his Broadway work around the beginning of next year? If so, I can only assume, then, that filming for this won't take place until a little later on in the year.

    Othello is currently scheduled for late 2016 (November/December) no dates are confirmed yet.... and theater runs typically don't last that long nowadays, even on Broadway.... a month tops, probably.
  • Posts: 6,601
    Those short engagements run for about 3 months. No such thing as one month.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited June 2016 Posts: 15,423
    Craig isn't playing a supporting role. He's taken on the main lead, although his character in the book the series being adapted from, Andreas Wolf, is one of the co-leads, and in a couple of factions in the novel (as they are somewhat anthologies tied together), he is merely a minor character. But, as the reports insist he's playing "the lead", then the adaptation is going to be somewhat different than the source material to give the Andreas Wolf character more screen time.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,591
    Off topic a bit. I've been searching way back into the archives of MI6, reading articles centred on the early production of Casino Royale and the uncertainty surrounding Bond #6 and whether or not Brosnan was to return for Bond 21.

    https://www.mi6-hq.com/sections/articles/bond_21_report_sep05b.php3?t=bond21&s=bond21&id=0929
    https://www.mi6-hq.com/sections/articles/bond_21_brosnan_pay.php3?t=bond21&s=bond21&id=0704
    https://www.mi6-hq.com/sections/articles/bond_21_brosnan_quit4.php3?t=&s=&id=0691
    https://www.mi6-hq.com/sections/articles/james_bond_6_announced.php3?t=&s=&id=0951

    It struck me that we are essentially right back at this level of uncertainty. We know next to nothing about the future of the franchise, and virtually everything discussed has been speculation at this point.
  • Posts: 9,844
    https://web.archive.org/web/20080820040711/http://commanderbond.net/article/1428/25

    Just as a point of reference Craig's name was rumored and denied a lot in the months leading up to him being cast in casino Royale makes all this Hiddleston talk more interesting in my opinion
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,197
    Turner is also very quick to shut down any Bond related questions.
  • Posts: 9,844
    jake24 wrote: »
    Off topic a bit. I've been searching way back into the archives of MI6, reading articles centred on the early production of Casino Royale and the uncertainty surrounding Bond #6 and whether or not Brosnan was to return for Bond 21.

    https://www.mi6-hq.com/sections/articles/bond_21_report_sep05b.php3?t=bond21&s=bond21&id=0929
    https://www.mi6-hq.com/sections/articles/bond_21_brosnan_pay.php3?t=bond21&s=bond21&id=0704
    https://www.mi6-hq.com/sections/articles/bond_21_brosnan_quit4.php3?t=&s=&id=0691
    https://www.mi6-hq.com/sections/articles/james_bond_6_announced.php3?t=&s=&id=0951

    It struck me that we are essentially right back at this level of uncertainty. We know next to nothing about the future of the franchise, and virtually everything discussed has been speculation at this point.
    You beat me by a minute and your absolutely right
  • edited June 2016 Posts: 2,598
    Tuulia wrote: »
    fanbond123 wrote: »
    The Purity deal is for megabucks so it makes sense why Craig would turn down a mega deal for two more Bond films. He can make big bucks doing the tv show. In money terms he can afford to say no to more Bond. It's quite a canny move by Craig but I'm sure those wanting more Craig Bond films will feel upset.

    He can afford to not work on anything ever, if he so chooses to, so whatever he might now get paid for one job is highly unlikely to have the slightest impact on his interest to do or not do another job.

    Why would anyone think he'd pick jobs based on what he gets paid for them? Why would he? Makes zero sense.



    And why do some people think we now know a hell of a lot more than we did a couple of days ago, and things are "moving fast" and whatnot? Where does that thinking come from? This is one weird thread...

    Right? Every day there's somebody saying (usually the same people), "Oh boy, I can smell Bond 25 coming!" or, "Just a matter of time now, things are really moving," and "A 2018 release date is totally assured!"

    I'm a realist and base predictions on empirical data, so I don't see where all these clues pointing to massive gears moving in the EON machine are coming from. It is amusing, however, to watch people react who think there are.

    People think going forward without Dan will keep things moving quick, release wise, but I'd say it's the opposite. Without Dan, EON would have to figure out if they are going to keep the continuity going with another actor (bad idea, IMO) or restart entirely, in which case even more time has to be spent planning what that future will be like, and what vision will drive it, as they did with Craig pre-CR, and to do that they'll actually have to decide on an actor. That process will take a long time all on its own.

    Until we hear things about a distribution deal officially secured, there's no point in discussing anything else. No matter how much EON wants to make a move, they can't until MGM sort things out on their end, and they seem to be in no rush to get things done, either. I'm not surprised Dan is keeping himself busy; if he didn't it'd be like sitting in the waiting room of the doctor's office after you know he's called in sick.

    Personally, I think that a reboot would be a bad idea if that's what you were suggesting. There's been enough reboots in Hollywood and they've already done one in Bond. If they get a new actor I think they should devote a small part of the film to Bond fighting in an updated war (I'm all for a period piece [WW2] of course but that won't happen) then show him being recruited into the service and his first simple spying assignment that goes horribly wrong. The only thing is that this would be before Bond is recruited into the 00 section so he couldn't kill and I guess he wouldn't have a gun but this could be interesting. They could bring back Spectre one or two films later. Or is what I suggested a reboot? LOL. I see it as a prequel.

    I can't help but think that if Eon really are interested in Hiddleston as a potential replacement, that possibly a part of the appeal (probably just a small part) is that he looks a little like a young Daniel Craig.

    I remember back in 2005, in the old Mi6 threads, that some were convinced that Clive Owen was the new Bond and he had never even auditioned. There was a girl on those threads, Australian I think, who was almost entirely convinced, if not 100% convinced that Julian McMahon would be the new Bond. After Craig was announced, she disappeared.

    I remember reading the below announcement along with the one regarding Casino Royale being Bond 21 all those years ago. I was at work both times. Damn, how time flies. The Craig announcement excited me more. I was pretty pleased to hear that Brosnan had gone. I really didn't like him as Bond. He was passable in GE and then he just went down hill from there. In some scenes his acting was just plain bad.

    https://www.mi6-hq.com/sections/articles/james_bond_6_announced.php3?t=&s=&id=0951

    If we do get a new actor in the role, it'll probably be the first time that the Bond actor will be younger than me. Please, Mr Craig, come back! I don't have to feel any older than I need to. ;)

    Well, enough with the reminiscing. May the fun speculating continue...

    Oh, on a side note, if Craig does return, it would be great if they gave him the same haircut that he had in Casino Royale. It's modern, hip, not scruffy and makes him look younger.

    "He can afford to not work on anything ever, if he so chooses to, so whatever he might now get paid for one job is highly unlikely to have the slightest impact on his interest to do or not do another job."

    @Tuulia Lucky man. I should have continued with my acting classes. ;) Nah, I got tired of them after a while.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    Germanlady wrote: »
    Those short engagements run for about 3 months. No such thing as one month.

    even for Off Broadway productions?... because Othello is technically not Broadway, but Off Broadway.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    Bounine wrote: »
    Tuulia wrote: »
    fanbond123 wrote: »
    The Purity deal is for megabucks so it makes sense why Craig would turn down a mega deal for two more Bond films. He can make big bucks doing the tv show. In money terms he can afford to say no to more Bond. It's quite a canny move by Craig but I'm sure those wanting more Craig Bond films will feel upset.

    He can afford to not work on anything ever, if he so chooses to, so whatever he might now get paid for one job is highly unlikely to have the slightest impact on his interest to do or not do another job.

    Why would anyone think he'd pick jobs based on what he gets paid for them? Why would he? Makes zero sense.



    And why do some people think we now know a hell of a lot more than we did a couple of days ago, and things are "moving fast" and whatnot? Where does that thinking come from? This is one weird thread...

    Right? Every day there's somebody saying (usually the same people), "Oh boy, I can smell Bond 25 coming!" or, "Just a matter of time now, things are really moving," and "A 2018 release date is totally assured!"

    I'm a realist and base predictions on empirical data, so I don't see where all these clues pointing to massive gears moving in the EON machine are coming from. It is amusing, however, to watch people react who think there are.

    People think going forward without Dan will keep things moving quick, release wise, but I'd say it's the opposite. Without Dan, EON would have to figure out if they are going to keep the continuity going with another actor (bad idea, IMO) or restart entirely, in which case even more time has to be spent planning what that future will be like, and what vision will drive it, as they did with Craig pre-CR, and to do that they'll actually have to decide on an actor. That process will take a long time all on its own.

    Until we hear things about a distribution deal officially secured, there's no point in discussing anything else. No matter how much EON wants to make a move, they can't until MGM sort things out on their end, and they seem to be in no rush to get things done, either. I'm not surprised Dan is keeping himself busy; if he didn't it'd be like sitting in the waiting room of the doctor's office after you know he's called in sick.

    Personally, I think that a reboot would be a bad idea if that's what you were suggesting. There's been enough reboots in Hollywood and they've already done one in Bond. If they get a new actor I think they should devote a small part of the film to Bond fighting in an updated war (I'm all for a period piece [WW2] of course but that won't happen) then show him being recruited into the service and his first simple spying assignment that goes horribly wrong. The only thing is that this would be before Bond is recruited into the 00 section so he couldn't kill and I guess he wouldn't have a gun but this could be interesting. They could bring back Spectre one or two films later. Or is what I suggested a reboot? LOL. I see it as a prequel.

    I can't help but think that if Eon really are interested in Hiddleston as a potential replacement, that possibly a part of the appeal (probably just a small part) is that he looks a little like a young Daniel Craig.

    I remember back in 2005, in the old Mi6 threads, that some were convinced that Clive Owen was the new Bond and he had never even auditioned. There was a girl on those threads, Australian I think, who was almost entirely convinced, if not 100% convinced that Julian McMahon would be the new Bond. After Craig was announced, she disappeared. Well, enough with the reminiscing. May the fun speculating continue...


    No to reboot as well... if they want to continue on, similarly to how they used to between actors (as they should) that is fine... but no more reboots please.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,197
    Wasn't there a member who went by Luds who was positive that Owen was going to get the role? Or was this over at CB?
  • Posts: 2,598
    talos7 wrote: »
    Wasn't there a member who went by Luds who was positive that Owen was going to get the role? Or was this over at CB?

    Yes, he worked over here on Mi6 and was convinced that he had the role. I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with this but I always wondered why he was so positive that Owen had the role. I almost wondered if he knew something that the rest of us didn't. He had a Clive Owen avatar.

  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,197
    Ha, I can remember when the announcement of Owen was imminent....then Daniel was announced
  • edited June 2016 Posts: 2,598
    HASEROT wrote: »
    Bounine wrote: »
    Tuulia wrote: »
    fanbond123 wrote: »
    The Purity deal is for megabucks so it makes sense why Craig would turn down a mega deal for two more Bond films. He can make big bucks doing the tv show. In money terms he can afford to say no to more Bond. It's quite a canny move by Craig but I'm sure those wanting more Craig Bond films will feel upset.

    He can afford to not work on anything ever, if he so chooses to, so whatever he might now get paid for one job is highly unlikely to have the slightest impact on his interest to do or not do another job.

    Why would anyone think he'd pick jobs based on what he gets paid for them? Why would he? Makes zero sense.



    And why do some people think we now know a hell of a lot more than we did a couple of days ago, and things are "moving fast" and whatnot? Where does that thinking come from? This is one weird thread...

    Right? Every day there's somebody saying (usually the same people), "Oh boy, I can smell Bond 25 coming!" or, "Just a matter of time now, things are really moving," and "A 2018 release date is totally assured!"

    I'm a realist and base predictions on empirical data, so I don't see where all these clues pointing to massive gears moving in the EON machine are coming from. It is amusing, however, to watch people react who think there are.

    People think going forward without Dan will keep things moving quick, release wise, but I'd say it's the opposite. Without Dan, EON would have to figure out if they are going to keep the continuity going with another actor (bad idea, IMO) or restart entirely, in which case even more time has to be spent planning what that future will be like, and what vision will drive it, as they did with Craig pre-CR, and to do that they'll actually have to decide on an actor. That process will take a long time all on its own.

    Until we hear things about a distribution deal officially secured, there's no point in discussing anything else. No matter how much EON wants to make a move, they can't until MGM sort things out on their end, and they seem to be in no rush to get things done, either. I'm not surprised Dan is keeping himself busy; if he didn't it'd be like sitting in the waiting room of the doctor's office after you know he's called in sick.

    Personally, I think that a reboot would be a bad idea if that's what you were suggesting. There's been enough reboots in Hollywood and they've already done one in Bond. If they get a new actor I think they should devote a small part of the film to Bond fighting in an updated war (I'm all for a period piece [WW2] of course but that won't happen) then show him being recruited into the service and his first simple spying assignment that goes horribly wrong. The only thing is that this would be before Bond is recruited into the 00 section so he couldn't kill and I guess he wouldn't have a gun but this could be interesting. They could bring back Spectre one or two films later. Or is what I suggested a reboot? LOL. I see it as a prequel.

    I can't help but think that if Eon really are interested in Hiddleston as a potential replacement, that possibly a part of the appeal (probably just a small part) is that he looks a little like a young Daniel Craig.

    I remember back in 2005, in the old Mi6 threads, that some were convinced that Clive Owen was the new Bond and he had never even auditioned. There was a girl on those threads, Australian I think, who was almost entirely convinced, if not 100% convinced that Julian McMahon would be the new Bond. After Craig was announced, she disappeared. Well, enough with the reminiscing. May the fun speculating continue...


    No to reboot as well... if they want to continue on, similarly to how they used to between actors (as they should) that is fine... but no more reboots please.

    Yes. If they get a new actor then they should have two stand alone Bond films with no reference to the past like how they used to do, or at least one, then bring back Spectre for the second or third. Whether it's with Waltz (who could be too old by then) or a new head of Spectre, it won't really matter I don't think. After this Spectre reboot, I really think it would be a damn waste to just forget about them. There's nothing wrong with having Spectre with a new actor but don't bring them back for the actor's first Bond film.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    Clive Owen was the odds on favorite at the time - the obvious choice according to the mainstream media...

    but as we should all know by now, if it's too obvious a choice, it's highly unlikely to happen.
  • Posts: 2,598
    HASEROT wrote: »
    Clive Owen was the odds on favorite at the time - the obvious choice according to the mainstream media...

    but as we should all know by now, if it's too obvious a choice, it's highly unlikely to happen.

    Does this mean that Hiddleston won't get the part, should Craig step down?

    Hiddleston said a while back that he'd never been approached by Eon. Now, the media is saying that he is in final talks. Have we heard anything from Hiddleston himself since this initial comment?
Sign In or Register to comment.