SPECTRE--last Craig-era film?

1111214161725

Comments

  • Posts: 2,081
    And then again, do you remember what happened when Marketto took the photo of Silva's blond hair on the London set, a secret at that time ?..

    I wasn't here then... what happened?

  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,090
    People were saying that it wasn't his hair that it was some fur around the collar of his police uniform.
  • Posts: 725
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    If it helps, I actually think the original poster with news that SP might be Craig's last, sounded legit to me. It read, from the way the report
    was worded and expressed, like he or she works in or is professionally connected to the film industry.

    Sadly, I think you are right. I jumped on the poster because he established an account just to post the rumor, so I didn't believe him. But he was not snarky or nasty about the rumor as I recall, and by this time EON should have said something to blunt the tons of replacement rumors in the press and they haven't said a word. So it makes me think where there is smoke etc. etc. I was really looking forward to Craig, Lea and Waltz continuing the SP storyline in B25. I hope it's not true, but...

  • Posts: 2,081
    doubleoego wrote: »
    People were saying that it wasn't his hair that it was some fur around the collar of his police uniform.

    Seriously? Oh...
  • Posts: 6,601
    Imo, everything is possible at this point. My gut feeling is, it will all depemd on how this one performs. If it does well, he will go on...if not, not. So, as it is, there will be no comment.its all open. From what I rrad, they made an end, that allows both directions.
  • edited June 2015 Posts: 2,014
    smitty, you're writing far too much from what you know, this is the not the leaks thread...
    Gee, we're discussing the end of the movie now. I've written this already 10 times but this thread should not exist, or should be tagged "leaks / spoiler" to the max.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    smitty, you're writing far too much from what you know, this is the not the leaks thread...
    Gee, we're discussing the end of the movie now. I've written this already 10 times but this thread should not exist, or should be tagged "leaks / spoiler" to the max.

    Agreed
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    Posts: 2,138
    Germanlady wrote: »
    You wouldn't see that from the Colonel and I am sure, HE could really tell a bit.

    I never said I had more than only rumours too about SPECTRE being said to be Craig's last from months ago. But I'll keep on defend by default the member who posted what he was told here, and who was then described as an obvious troll by people claiming to know how such an info would be handled in reality (and yet have never actually worked in the industry). Note that Colonel Sun never said the original poster was obviously a troll..

    If you don't want to use me as an example, go back to the time where another member announced that the title would be SPECTRE, before the media ran the rumour too. And compare what happened. He was also "proven" to be a troll by the experts here. So, yes, some unknown guy who heard the news from someone else posted on some Internet forum and announced such a big secret before everyone else. It does happen. Now find me an example of someone bothering to do a complete hearsay fabrication and post on a forum. It's supposed to happen all the time if you believe some. Where are they ?

    Look also at what happened when the first leaks about SPECTRE's script were posted on some forums. It's only when they could actually read the script themselves that some members believed it. Look at my profile to see funny comments... There are people who shout "Liar" a lot and who never learn from their mistakes.

    I'll say again, Hollywood does not fear much from the hearsays on the Internet, because the truth won't be believed anyway. It's very, very different when one image is out though. That's why they control this very well, and let the rumors roll anyway. Even bothering to dismiss some rumour would bring credence to it actually. On the other hand, people bothering to fabricate stories would rather create fake images. And there, they have a motive : it will be quite a click bait for their websites.

    Imagine some story about Waltz's character being some half man half robot for instance (I just made this up). Ok, what next, it'll be a rumour like "many others" (even though they are not that many others in the end...) ? Now imagine a nicely done fake image of Waltz with a bionic arm, looking like it was taken on the set of SPECTRE. Well I guess the website with the image will have quite a few thousands of clicks. That's where the real fabrication lies; not on some forum with text only info.

    And then again, do you remember what happened when Marketto took the photo of Silva's blond hair on the London set, a secret at that time ?..







    Dans actual and only quote regarding this

    “I’ve been trying to get out of this from the very moment I got into it. But they won’t let me go, and I’ve agreed to do a couple more, but let’s see how this one does, because business is business,” he told Rolling Stone two years ago.
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    edited June 2015 Posts: 2,138
    AceHole wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I wouldn't call it a stupid creative decision. It's the story that they wanted to tell, and it worked. One of the strengths of the franchise is that it has never been beholden to continuity between the films in expense of storytelling within each film. Even in the Craig era, where the films are unquestionably linked, they (Barbara Broccoli and Co.) are thinking of the film and the general audience more than whether or not it offends the sensibilities of the ultra-fans. How many people, aside from those here and on similar boards, actually noticed or cared how much time had passed between QUANTUM OF SOLACE and SKYFALL.
    That last sentence (Another drop of the ball by Babs I'm afraid.
    As I have said numerous times - she lacks good judgement & the creative talent to be calling the shots on her fathers' franchise
    ) makes no sense what so ever. Under her father, characters would know and then not know each other from one film to the next.

    I beg to differ, I think it makes perfect sense.
    She hired two bond fans to write the scripts (instead of actual writers), utilizes utterly unsuitable directors like Lee Tamahori and Marc Forster, makes mostly bad calls regarding the title song (often cannot seem to put her foot down to get a coherent Bond song worked into the scores, for some reason) and has been unable to make her mind up about what direction she wants DC's bond to be going in.
    Frankly, the Bond franchise is alive and well despite Babs, not because of her. She should limit herself to being excec producer (ie. funding, representation and lobbying for the future of the series) and nothing else.
    Leave the creative decisions to someone who understands the subtleties of the franchise, Babs.

    Wow, lets see if you can find someone to agree with you.. I think Barbs has done a fantastic job, everyone makes bad calls sometime but her good calls massivley outweight the bad.

    FYI Foster was a highly sought after director after Finding Neverland's 7 academy awards including best picture and received critical acclaim, and he proved post QOS he could deliver with World War Z he was working under huge financial and timing problems and screen writers strike at the time of QOS, are you saying Foster having won 7 Oscars you would say no thanks?

    Tamahori again received praise for his adaptation of the Patterson Alex Cross novel Along Came a Spider. Considering what he had done with transfering that charachter to film it made sense, its considered one of thee great thrillers. It made sense to give him the chair on DAD.

    Your easy in hindsight to be critical but both directors had the credentials and prior sucess to support their ability to do a Bond film.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited June 2015 Posts: 23,883
    AceHole wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I wouldn't call it a stupid creative decision. It's the story that they wanted to tell, and it worked. One of the strengths of the franchise is that it has never been beholden to continuity between the films in expense of storytelling within each film. Even in the Craig era, where the films are unquestionably linked, they (Barbara Broccoli and Co.) are thinking of the film and the general audience more than whether or not it offends the sensibilities of the ultra-fans. How many people, aside from those here and on similar boards, actually noticed or cared how much time had passed between QUANTUM OF SOLACE and SKYFALL.
    That last sentence (Another drop of the ball by Babs I'm afraid.
    As I have said numerous times - she lacks good judgement & the creative talent to be calling the shots on her fathers' franchise
    ) makes no sense what so ever. Under her father, characters would know and then not know each other from one film to the next.

    I beg to differ, I think it makes perfect sense.
    She hired two bond fans to write the scripts (instead of actual writers), utilizes utterly unsuitable directors like Lee Tamahori and Marc Forster, makes mostly bad calls regarding the title song (often cannot seem to put her foot down to get a coherent Bond song worked into the scores, for some reason) and has been unable to make her mind up about what direction she wants DC's bond to be going in.
    Frankly, the Bond franchise is alive and well despite Babs, not because of her. She should limit herself to being excec producer (ie. funding, representation and lobbying for the future of the series) and nothing else.
    Leave the creative decisions to someone who understands the subtleties of the franchise, Babs.

    Wow, lets see if you can find someone to agree with you.. I think Barbs has done a fantastic job, everyone makes bad calls sometime but her good calls massivley outweight the bad.

    FYI Foster was a highly sought after director after Finding Neverland's 7 academy awards including best picture and received critical acclaim, and he proved post QOS he could deliver with World War Z he was working under huge financial and timing problems and screen writers strike at the time of QOS, are you saying Foster having won 7 Oscars you would say no thanks?

    Tamahori again received praise for his adaptation of the Patterson Alex Cross novel Along Came a Spider. Considering what he had done with transfering that charachter to film it made sense, its considered one of thee great thrillers. It made sense to give him the chair on DAD.

    Your easy in hindsight to be critical but both directors had the credentials and prior sucess to support their ability to do a Bond film.

    I agree. They had the credentials (except for Apted).

    However, I think EON must take blame for not keeping their directors on a tighter leash. The brief must be clearer/stricter so that these journeymen don't take too much creative license (editing mishaps in QoS & nearly everything about DAD/TWINE imho). Tough thing to do.....I realize.....in a creative profession.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    I'll agree some of those directors could have done with some kind of control over their artistic tendencies but anyone expecting Bond to return to those days of John Glen who was serviceable but got the job done are likely to be disappointed.

    Seriously what all this talk about Cubby being so great, yeah we owe him a great debt and yes he did steer the ship but this was the guy that told Spielberg to come back a bit later even though he'd already directed that shark film.

    Spielberg then went to Lucas and George said look I've got something better than Bond and boy he wasn't wrong. Then a a few years later we get some tacky Raiders rip off sequence with racist overtones directed by Glen that looks ridiculous compared to the beards masterpiece.

    Personally I feel Babs and MGW have had their missteps but Cubby played it safe for far too long and if they'd followed down this trajectory I don't think we'd be talking about Bond like we are now. Yes personally you might not like it but to say they've made a mess of this, this looks a bit silly when you considered they delivered a billion dollar grossing entry just under 3 years ago.

    If that is cocking things up I can only imagine what the series will be like when they make better decisions. Some people want this to resemble the Bond they remember but it won't, these films are long way away from the Moore type adventures that came out every two years.

    I actually think some people would accept an OK action actor (like Statham) in the role if they could have something like those cosy Moore adventures. Lets face it the James Bond series is not your bitch.
  • Posts: 2,081
    Germanlady wrote: »
    You wouldn't see that from the Colonel and I am sure, HE could really tell a bit.

    I never said I had more than only rumours too about SPECTRE being said to be Craig's last from months ago. But I'll keep on defend by default the member who posted what he was told here, and who was then described as an obvious troll by people claiming to know how such an info would be handled in reality (and yet have never actually worked in the industry). Note that Colonel Sun never said the original poster was obviously a troll..

    If you don't want to use me as an example, go back to the time where another member announced that the title would be SPECTRE, before the media ran the rumour too. And compare what happened. He was also "proven" to be a troll by the experts here. So, yes, some unknown guy who heard the news from someone else posted on some Internet forum and announced such a big secret before everyone else. It does happen. Now find me an example of someone bothering to do a complete hearsay fabrication and post on a forum. It's supposed to happen all the time if you believe some. Where are they ?

    Look also at what happened when the first leaks about SPECTRE's script were posted on some forums. It's only when they could actually read the script themselves that some members believed it. Look at my profile to see funny comments... There are people who shout "Liar" a lot and who never learn from their mistakes.

    I'll say again, Hollywood does not fear much from the hearsays on the Internet, because the truth won't be believed anyway. It's very, very different when one image is out though. That's why they control this very well, and let the rumors roll anyway. Even bothering to dismiss some rumour would bring credence to it actually. On the other hand, people bothering to fabricate stories would rather create fake images. And there, they have a motive : it will be quite a click bait for their websites.

    Imagine some story about Waltz's character being some half man half robot for instance (I just made this up). Ok, what next, it'll be a rumour like "many others" (even though they are not that many others in the end...) ? Now imagine a nicely done fake image of Waltz with a bionic arm, looking like it was taken on the set of SPECTRE. Well I guess the website with the image will have quite a few thousands of clicks. That's where the real fabrication lies; not on some forum with text only info.

    And then again, do you remember what happened when Marketto took the photo of Silva's blond hair on the London set, a secret at that time ?..







    Dans actual and only quote regarding this

    “I’ve been trying to get out of this from the very moment I got into it. But they won’t let me go, and I’ve agreed to do a couple more, but let’s see how this one does, because business is business,” he told Rolling Stone two years ago.

    I always assumed that comment about wanting to get out since he got in was clearly jokingly said, and found it weird (though typical) that it was reported as a serious statement. It's pretty clear that he has enjoyed Bond, and he could have not signed a contract continuing his tenure had he actually wanted out.


    AceHole wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I wouldn't call it a stupid creative decision. It's the story that they wanted to tell, and it worked. One of the strengths of the franchise is that it has never been beholden to continuity between the films in expense of storytelling within each film. Even in the Craig era, where the films are unquestionably linked, they (Barbara Broccoli and Co.) are thinking of the film and the general audience more than whether or not it offends the sensibilities of the ultra-fans. How many people, aside from those here and on similar boards, actually noticed or cared how much time had passed between QUANTUM OF SOLACE and SKYFALL.
    That last sentence (Another drop of the ball by Babs I'm afraid.
    As I have said numerous times - she lacks good judgement & the creative talent to be calling the shots on her fathers' franchise
    ) makes no sense what so ever. Under her father, characters would know and then not know each other from one film to the next.

    I beg to differ, I think it makes perfect sense.
    She hired two bond fans to write the scripts (instead of actual writers), utilizes utterly unsuitable directors like Lee Tamahori and Marc Forster, makes mostly bad calls regarding the title song (often cannot seem to put her foot down to get a coherent Bond song worked into the scores, for some reason) and has been unable to make her mind up about what direction she wants DC's bond to be going in.
    Frankly, the Bond franchise is alive and well despite Babs, not because of her. She should limit herself to being excec producer (ie. funding, representation and lobbying for the future of the series) and nothing else.
    Leave the creative decisions to someone who understands the subtleties of the franchise, Babs.

    Wow, lets see if you can find someone to agree with you.. I think Barbs has done a fantastic job, everyone makes bad calls sometime but her good calls massivley outweight the bad.

    FYI Foster was a highly sought after director after Finding Neverland's 7 academy awards including best picture and received critical acclaim, and he proved post QOS he could deliver with World War Z he was working under huge financial and timing problems and screen writers strike at the time of QOS, are you saying Foster having won 7 Oscars you would say no thanks?

    Tamahori again received praise for his adaptation of the Patterson Alex Cross novel Along Came a Spider. Considering what he had done with transfering that charachter to film it made sense, its considered one of thee great thrillers. It made sense to give him the chair on DAD.

    Your easy in hindsight to be critical but both directors had the credentials and prior sucess to support their ability to do a Bond film.

    I agree on the point you're making. It's always easy to be critical afterwards.

    A correction though, Finding Neverland was nominated for several Oscars, yes, but only actually won one (for the score). Also, Forster himself was not nominated for that or other movies at the Academy Awards, but was nominated for GG and DGA (didn't win either). But still, yes, he had credentials.

  • RC7RC7
    edited June 2015 Posts: 10,512
    Shardlake wrote: »
    Seriously what all this talk about Cubby being so great, yeah we owe him a great debt and yes he did steer the ship but this was the guy that told Spielberg to come back a bit later even though he'd already directed that shark film.

    Spielberg then went to Lucas and George said look I've got something better than Bond and boy he wasn't wrong. Then a a few years later we get some tacky Raiders rip off sequence with racist overtones directed by Glen that looks ridiculous compared to the beards masterpiece.

    I think he made the best move possible by shunning Spielberg and I'm a massive Spielberg fan, particularly 75-93. It wasn't the right time (I still don't think it is) to have an uber-director step into the franchise, irrespective of his talent and Raiders is one of my favourite films. It's a similar scenario to fans clamouring for Nolan to step in. So Spielberg pulls off a great film... what next? Does he do another? Or does he step away. Is the next film now judged as a Bond film or the Bond film that follows the 'Spielberg' Bond film. And if they don't get a bigger name, what then? Cubby made the films a producer led gig, he was effectively a showrunner before that became an actual job, which was a master stroke because it was the bedrock of the legacy, no director could step in, ego in hand and really fuck it up (Tamahori). He laid the enormous foundations which allow this franchise to continually flourish. People expect Bond in their life. It's not a franchise that dies for decades at a time, or one people expect to run out of steam.

    Aside from that, I really don't understand the reverence people have for certain directors when it comes to Bond. Martin Campbell is not regarded as an auteur, yet he's put together two of the greatest Bond films of all time. No pretension, no nonsense. The key is to Babs and MGW staying strong and maintaining this role of 'showrunners', because if they let it slip, one day they'll hire a big time director who's spent their career always getting their own way and mark my words they will royally fuck it.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    RC7 wrote: »
    Martin Campbell is not regarded as an auteur, yet he's put together two of the greatest Bond films of all time. No pretension, no nonsense.....

    100% in agreement on Campbell. I don't think anyone in the recent past gets Bond as well as he does. Including Mendes imho.
  • Posts: 150
    bondjames wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Martin Campbell is not regarded as an auteur, yet he's put together two of the greatest Bond films of all time. No pretension, no nonsense.....

    100% in agreement on Campbell. I don't think anyone in the recent past gets Bond as well as he does. Including Mendes imho.

    to me, Campbell strikes the perfect balance between action and drama, has pitch-perfect sense of tone and rhythm and I would love him to come back for more. imho GE nad CR are their actors' best films (so far, regarding Craig) and it's only a pitty that Campbell is at 72 this year, so let's hope he'll have a third chance at Bond sooner than later
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Agree with both of you @bondjames and @nikos78.

    My genuine belief is that it should be the job of MGW and Babs to unearth directors like this, who just 'get' Bond. Not necessarily people who are Oscar nominated Bond fans.
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    Posts: 2,138
    bondjames wrote: »
    AceHole wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I wouldn't call it a stupid creative decision. It's the story that they wanted to tell, and it worked. One of the strengths of the franchise is that it has never been beholden to continuity between the films in expense of storytelling within each film. Even in the Craig era, where the films are unquestionably linked, they (Barbara Broccoli and Co.) are thinking of the film and the general audience more than whether or not it offends the sensibilities of the ultra-fans. How many people, aside from those here and on similar boards, actually noticed or cared how much time had passed between QUANTUM OF SOLACE and SKYFALL.
    That last sentence (Another drop of the ball by Babs I'm afraid.
    As I have said numerous times - she lacks good judgement & the creative talent to be calling the shots on her fathers' franchise
    ) makes no sense what so ever. Under her father, characters would know and then not know each other from one film to the next.

    I beg to differ, I think it makes perfect sense.
    She hired two bond fans to write the scripts (instead of actual writers), utilizes utterly unsuitable directors like Lee Tamahori and Marc Forster, makes mostly bad calls regarding the title song (often cannot seem to put her foot down to get a coherent Bond song worked into the scores, for some reason) and has been unable to make her mind up about what direction she wants DC's bond to be going in.
    Frankly, the Bond franchise is alive and well despite Babs, not because of her. She should limit herself to being excec producer (ie. funding, representation and lobbying for the future of the series) and nothing else.
    Leave the creative decisions to someone who understands the subtleties of the franchise, Babs.

    Wow, lets see if you can find someone to agree with you.. I think Barbs has done a fantastic job, everyone makes bad calls sometime but her good calls massivley outweight the bad.

    FYI Foster was a highly sought after director after Finding Neverland's 7 academy awards including best picture and received critical acclaim, and he proved post QOS he could deliver with World War Z he was working under huge financial and timing problems and screen writers strike at the time of QOS, are you saying Foster having won 7 Oscars you would say no thanks?

    Tamahori again received praise for his adaptation of the Patterson Alex Cross novel Along Came a Spider. Considering what he had done with transfering that charachter to film it made sense, its considered one of thee great thrillers. It made sense to give him the chair on DAD.

    Your easy in hindsight to be critical but both directors had the credentials and prior sucess to support their ability to do a Bond film.

    I agree. They had the credentials (except for Apted).

    However, I think EON must take blame for not keeping their directors on a tighter leash. The brief must be clearer/stricter so that these journeymen don't take too much creative license (editing mishaps in QoS & nearly everything about DAD/TWINE imho). Tough thing to do.....I realize.....in a creative profession.

    No director would take a job under those terms.
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    Posts: 2,138
    RC7 wrote: »
    Agree with both of you @bondjames and @nikos78.

    My genuine belief is that it should be the job of MGW and Babs to unearth directors like this, who just 'get' Bond. Not necessarily people who are Oscar nominated Bond fans.

    TBH I have to agree with the Martin Campbell comments he just gets it and delivers the goods. QOS would have been a stronger film with him at the helm.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    That's fine if they can do it and know some people love John Glen but I'd hope for someone not so journeyman as him to do the job.

    Campbell is fine and if he returned I'd have no problem but I think using Mendes has now changed what type of director gets the job and when he decides he's had enough I don't see it not being another acclaimed director, not one that wants all control like Nolan but someone with a style, I don't want Bond films all looking the same anyway. They need an individuality to them.

    Like I said these films aren't the ones under Cubby anymore and Babs & MGW despite a few missteps are doing allot better than some of you give them credit. Personal opinion aside these films are not flopping are they?

    Granted if SPECTRE becomes a huge financial flop then maybe they need to look at things but really do you see that happening on the back of Skyfall?
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Shardlake wrote: »
    That's fine if they can do it and know some people love John Glen but I'd hope for someone not so journeyman as him to do the job.

    Campbell is fine and if he returned I'd have no problem but I think using Mendes has now changed what type of director gets the job and when he decides he's had enough I don't see it not being another acclaimed director, not one that wants all control like Nolan but someone with a style, I don't want Bond films all looking the same anyway. They need an individuality to them.

    Like I said these films aren't the ones under Cubby anymore and Babs & MGW despite a few missteps are doing allot better than some of you give them credit. Personal opinion aside these films are not flopping are they?

    Granted if SPECTRE becomes a huge financial flop then maybe they need to look at things but really do you see that happening on the back of Skyfall?

    No. They are not flopping and neither will SP. But at the same time I don't and never have judged movies in terms of monetary success, purely the movie. Whether SF made 500m or 1bn is irrelevant to me, I still find it an inferior film, by quite some distance in areas, to CR.

    After the CR relaunch, the subsequent films are helmed by Oscar winners, yet to me CR stills stands well above both. A film directed by someone with a sense of style, storytelling verve and visual panache, but perhaps not in the 'marketable' name bracket that appears to be in vogue.

    I don't recall them putting up as much of a fight to get Campbell back for QoS, as they did Mendes for SP. That I find strange. Money and hype talks, though.

    Last years best big budget flick, GOTG was directed by a (in Hollywood terms) newcomer. This years best thus far, MM:FR is directed by a veteran whose last two movies were 'Happy Feet'.

    We can't forget these films are ultimately popcorn flicks and there are great directors out there who know how to perfectly balance story, character and action without the need to feel the overly artistic burden of being considered 'Oscar' worthy.

    The Oscar hype after SF was just nonsense.

    I hope SP is awesome, but whatever the outcome I definitely don't think they need to get into the routine of hiring the 'flavour of the month' or 'talent du jour', whether that's actor, director, cinematographer...

    Writing seems, to me, to be where a lot of potential lies when taking Bond to the next level.
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    Posts: 2,138
    At 71 I'm pretty sure Campbell is done with the franchise
  • Posts: 2,081
    RC7 wrote: »
    Shardlake wrote: »
    That's fine if they can do it and know some people love John Glen but I'd hope for someone not so journeyman as him to do the job.

    Campbell is fine and if he returned I'd have no problem but I think using Mendes has now changed what type of director gets the job and when he decides he's had enough I don't see it not being another acclaimed director, not one that wants all control like Nolan but someone with a style, I don't want Bond films all looking the same anyway. They need an individuality to them.

    Like I said these films aren't the ones under Cubby anymore and Babs & MGW despite a few missteps are doing allot better than some of you give them credit. Personal opinion aside these films are not flopping are they?

    Granted if SPECTRE becomes a huge financial flop then maybe they need to look at things but really do you see that happening on the back of Skyfall?

    No. They are not flopping and neither will SP. But at the same time I don't and never have judged movies in terms of monetary success, purely the movie. Whether SF made 500m or 1bn is irrelevant to me, I still find it an inferior film, by quite some distance in areas, to CR.

    After the CR relaunch, the subsequent films are helmed by Oscar winners, yet to me CR stills stands well above both. A film directed by someone with a sense of style, storytelling verve and visual panache, but perhaps not in the 'marketable' name bracket that appears to be in vogue.

    I don't recall them putting up as much of a fight to get Campbell back for QoS, as they did Mendes for SP. That I find strange. Money and hype talks, though.

    Last years best big budget flick, GOTG was directed by a (in Hollywood terms) newcomer. This years best thus far, MM:FR is directed by a veteran whose last two movies were 'Happy Feet'.

    We can't forget these films are ultimately popcorn flicks and there are great directors out there who know how to perfectly balance story, character and action without the need to feel the overly artistic burden of being considered 'Oscar' worthy.

    The Oscar hype after SF was just nonsense.

    I hope SP is awesome, but whatever the outcome I definitely don't think they need to get into the routine of hiring the 'flavour of the month' or 'talent du jour', whether that's actor, director, cinematographer...

    Writing seems, to me, to be where a lot of potential lies when taking Bond to the next level.

    Forster is not an Oscar winner. Anyway, I agree Oscar (or other award) stuff can be given more importance than it deserves and also fitting to do something particular does not require having awards, nor do awards mean the result will be better.

    Finding good people can be tricky though (directors, cast...). Campbell not having been used more was indeed a pity. Otherwise, somebody may seem like the right person beforehand, and isn't. Newcomers may turn out to be awesome, as may people who haven't done anything big before, or anything that good before, or not for a long time. Some people also say no, or aren't available due to schedule conflicts. I'm sure the producers have the franchise's best interests at heart, but it's always more or less a risk, that may or may not work. Previous proven credentials presumably make it a safer bet.

    I haven't seen GOTG (nor can I claim any interest in seeing it), so I can't comment. With MMFR though, I understand the director owns the rights, so it was his baby to make. I do agree it's excellent. (And I enjoyed both Happy Feet movies, too, btw, apart from the irritating singing).
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    Posts: 1,726
    bondjames wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Martin Campbell is not regarded as an auteur, yet he's put together two of the greatest Bond films of all time. No pretension, no nonsense.....

    100% in agreement on Campbell. I don't think anyone in the recent past gets Bond as well as he does. Including Mendes imho.

    Spot on.
  • Posts: 381
    If Spectre were to be Daniel's last film, when is that likely to be announced? Also, if Waltz is back for Bond 25, can we assume so will Craig?
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,534
    I believe they will announce Craig's retirement from this role a big while before the film (Bond 25, 26 or whenever) a fair bit of time before the concerned film will be release. If I were to place a bet, I think Craig's last film will be advertised as his last film from the moment they do the first main press conference (where they announce the title and cast). Craig is a hugely popular Bond, so it makes sense EON will play the 'final outing with him' card the whole distance. It's the first time they'd have the opportunity for such a promotional angle in the franchise's history.
  • IMO, there is no way you can put a positive spin on if you announce beforehand that "SPECTRE/B25/B26..." is the last Craig Bond movie. Because everyone knows it won't mean it's the last Bond. There is in fact zero suspense. The buzz would be about who will be the next Bond.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,090
    IMO, there is no way you can put a positive spin on if you announce beforehand that "SPECTRE/B25/B26..." is the last Craig Bond movie. Because everyone knows it won't mean it's the last Bond. There is in fact zero suspense. The buzz would be about who will be the next Bond.

    You're right to a limited extent but to say you can't get a positive spin out of it is shortsighted and far from the truth. It's worked for many movies, a classic example being Bale's batman. It not being the last Bond movie is obvious, Bond is here to stay and after 53 years on the screen and seeing a massive resurgence in popularity last seen in 1964, it's not even up for discussion. However, the next Bond actor is an itch no scratch can relieve so that's always going to be a bothersome distraction irrespective of who's in the role and how long they've been in it or have it but a very positive outcome could definitely come from announcing Craig's last Bond movie when the time comes, which won't be for a good few years. It just depends how they spin it.

  • The end of Bale's Batman was the end of everything around him too. We never expected Nolan to shoot a movie about Robin after that, and it was clear Bale was not retiring because he was getting too old and so on. An announcement that SPECTRE would be Craig's last would have 'negativity' written all over it IMO : for instance we'd hear stories about Craig's injuries while Cruise still does his own stunts, or half of his interviews would be about who will play Bond next, etc. Bale was never asked who would play Batman next.
  • Posts: 1,680
    Eon & Babs probably know Craigs future with all the talk over recent negotiations. BUt there not going to tell us when/what Craigs last film will be.

    I have a feeling though there is going to be a very long gap after Craig leaves though.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited July 2015 Posts: 15,534
    Tuck91 wrote: »
    I have a feeling though there is going to be a very long gap after Craig leaves though.

    I very much doubt it. With the amount of money Bond films make now, there won't be another long break, apart from unforseen things (legal issues, for exemple). If the rest of the Craig era stays on the level of SF's box office, there is no way EON and the studio linked to them will want to wait before making the next film with the new actor and continue bringing in the big cash. If anything, the wait between Craig's last and Bond 7's first will be shorter than between DAD and CR, as there won't be a period of uncertainty after the universally panned DAD.
Sign In or Register to comment.