No Time To Die: Production Diary

124672575

Comments

  • NicNacNicNac Moderator
    Posts: 6,695
    The following thread has been closed, and we can continue debating will he/won't he in this thread. Many thanks.
    http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/12987/daniel-craig-says-he-doesn-t-want-to-do-another-bond-spectre-may-be-his-last#latest
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2015 Posts: 23,883
    Since this thread has been renamed, and the far more interesting & informative previous thread closed, I will start the ball rolling here with my view on this (already noted in the previous thread). This is all (in case it was not obvious) imho:

    ----
    1. He is not returning post-SP

    2. He will move on to the Dragon Tattoo or other smaller fare including theatre and be much happier for it

    3. EON will get a new studio backer (Warner or someone else). Sony are done

    4. The new studio backers and EON will find a way to re-imagine the Bond universe in a sustainable way (meaning for at least 3 more films), so one of two things will happen:

    a) they will not continue on directly from the DC one......so we won't have a Connery to Moore transition, but more a Moore to Dalton or Dalton to Brosnan style situation - i.e. a soft reboot, or:
    b) they will reboot to a period piece

    So there will be no hard reboot (unless they do a period piece) but no direct continuation either. A soft reboot is most likely. The DC period will be remembered as a 'self-contained' origin era (like Nolan's Batman).

    5. The new actor may be someone we've heard of before but who is not all that famous for a similar role (eg. Hiddleston rather than Cavill) or he will be someone very few of us have heard of before (this is more unlikely despite EON's previous modus operandi........due to the new studio insistence for someone semi-bankable).

    6. They will hire a director who will do more than one film and that will be a contractual obligation

    7. They will make the first two films with the new actor in quicker succession (likely 2 yr gap).

    8. The next title song will be much more upbeat than WOTW (no brainer).

    That is my view....controversial or not. Keep in mind, it's not necessarily what I want. Just what I think will happen.
  • NicNacNicNac Moderator
    edited October 2015 Posts: 6,695
    Like I say the other thread is there for reference, so see it as a merging of the two. Or if everyone and anyone would prefer I can swap it round and close this one.
    And I don't think your opinions are even slightly controversial bondjames, as your points cover a multitude of options and some of them are bound to be right.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2015 Posts: 23,883
    NicNac wrote: »
    Like I say the other thread is there for reference, so see it as a merging of the two. Or if everyone and anyone would prefer I can swap it round and close this one.

    No problem @NicNac, I did not mean to suggest that it should be the other way around. It's just that once the thread is closed the conversation history sort of disappears because people are less likely to refer to a closed thread. It was interesting, at least from my perspective, although I'm sure many are a little tired of it too (particularly DC die-hards).

    Maybe by closing it, this never ending 2015 discussion of DC leaving/staying may die off (I doubt it though.........).
  • NicNacNicNac Moderator
    Posts: 6,695
    It won't die until Craig declares one way or the other ;)
  • edited October 2015 Posts: 1,553
    Warner Brothers likely to be new movie rights studio partner. Mendes and Craig apparently both unwilling to work with Sony again. With Sony likely to lose the rights at tender they pushed hard for two films Spectre and it's sequel back to back in order to milk the money of an extra film while the rights were still in their control. Sony executives threw the toys out of the pram and EON stood by Craig and Mendes rather than consider another director and actor who would be willing to do back to back films. Sony not prepared to take it lying down made life difficult, initially cutting a budget which the Mexican government funding plugged the gap. Dan and Mendes were upset as they felt like they were fighting against the studio making the film. When it came to product placement Sam and Dan got their own back by making a point that Sony were not going to make Spectre an advert for Sony to exploit. There is every chance both Craig and Mendes will return. But that's whether Barbara can convince the new studio partner (likely Warner Brothers) that Craig and Mendes should return and agree a budget to make an even bigger movie in 2017. The problem is new studio, new ideas, fresh. Nolan is Warner Brother big picture director. And Tom Hardy (Inception, Dark Knight Rises) is Nolans likely go to actor. Time will tell.

    Fascinating post! Wow - lot of politics behind making Bond films. I guess that's why it's called show BUSINESS!

    :D

    Having seen Mad Max:Fury Road, I like the idea of a Warner Bros produced James Bond film. Perhaps they could offer some new ideas to EON and take the franchise in a new-ish direction. That might necessitate a new Bond actor and new director.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf England
    edited October 2015 Posts: 3,854
    But Mad Max Fury Road has no plot or characterisation? I thought it was one very long fairly boring car chase, with good special effects and good production values.

    I would be gutted if Craig quits.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,038
    fanbond123 wrote: »
    Warner Brothers likely to be new movie rights studio partner. Mendes and Craig apparently both unwilling to work with Sony again. With Sony likely to lose the rights at tender they pushed hard for two films Spectre and it's sequel back to back in order to milk the money of an extra film while the rights were still in their control. Sony executives threw the toys out of the pram and EON stood by Craig and Mendes rather than consider another director and actor who would be willing to do back to back films. Sony not prepared to take it lying down made life difficult, initially cutting a budget which the Mexican government funding plugged the gap. Dan and Mendes were upset as they felt like they were fighting against the studio making the film. When it came to product placement Sam and Dan got their own back by making a point that Sony were not going to make Spectre an advert for Sony to exploit. There is every chance both Craig and Mendes will return. But that's whether Barbara can convince the new studio partner (likely Warner Brothers) that Craig and Mendes should return and agree a budget to make an even bigger movie in 2017. The problem is new studio, new ideas, fresh. Nolan is Warner Brother big picture director. And Tom Hardy (Inception, Dark Knight Rises) is Nolans likely go to actor. Time will tell.

    Fascinating post! Wow - lot of politics behind making Bond films. I guess that's why it's called show BUSINESS!

    :D

    Having seen Mad Max:Fury Road, I like the idea of a Warner Bros produced James Bond film. Perhaps they could offer some new ideas to EON and take the franchise in a new-ish direction. That might necessitate a new Bond actor and new director.

    Are you looking forward to SPECTRE?
  • edited October 2015 Posts: 1,553
    5. The new actor may be someone we've heard of before but who is not all that famous for a similar role (eg. Hiddleston rather than Cavill) or he will be someone very few of us have heard of before (this is more unlikely despite EON's previous modus operandi........due to the new studio insistence for someone semi-bankable).

    Craig wasn't semi-bankable. Hardly anyone knew him!

    Cavill's UNCLE kinda flopped thereby reducing any bankability clout. Indeed, you could argue there are no actors with bankable credentials. Well no British ones. If you were to study the US box office, there are zero British actors with box office bankability. British actors are widely admired in the US but none are genuine box office stars.

    And even actors like Chris Hemsworth (an Aussie) have had major bombs outside of Thor. Blackhat, starring Mr Hemsworh, one of the biggest flops of the year. It's scary how bad that film did (given Chris Hemsworth's alleged film star status). No female fans of Hemsworth turned up to see him. DOA - that film.

    It's a media myth about bankability of stars. Doesn't exist. Name a new-ish actor that can guarantee a large opening for most of their films. There is none. You could cast a complete unknown as Bond - even a George Lazenby type- and I doubt it would damage the film's potential box office. OHMSS was the second highest grossing film world wide of 1969 - based on what I've read online! A lot of stuff in Hollywood is made up nonsense, certainly bankability of actors. Look at Johnny Depp, all his recent films have flopped. He is still a star but is he bankable outside of Pirates... films? Nope!
  • NicNacNicNac Moderator
    Posts: 6,695
    You are right, there are no true bankable British stars that come to mind. But 'bankability' has changed. Big stars were guaranteed to put bums on seats back in the 30s and 40s because it was the only way people got to see their favourite stars. It's all different now - it's the characters who are bankable - Bond, Superman etc. And who plays them is only slightly more important than you allude to.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf England
    Posts: 3,854
    Jude Law, Jason Stratham (albeit a bad actor), Carey Grant, Christian Bale....all bankable british actors who headline/d films?
  • MyNameIsMyBondRnMyNameIsMyBondRn WhereYouLeastExpectMeToBe
    Posts: 221
    Sean connery did not jump houses-he used rocket gadgetry..! If the actor then knee jerks himself into surgery because of needed close-ups, then the wounds on the franchise is more or less self inflicted because of needs of the trade..!
  • MyNameIsMyBondRnMyNameIsMyBondRn WhereYouLeastExpectMeToBe
    Posts: 221
    Daniel Craig is simply exhausted and needs a brake..and that was what he implied-I'm sure..!
  • edited October 2015 Posts: 1,553
    Jude Law, Jason Stratham (albeit a bad actor), Carey Grant, Christian Bale....all bankable british actors who headline/d films?

    I think there is a distinction between an actor making films that get wide theatrical release stateside and those films making sufficient box office. Jason Staham's films must make some profit because he doesn't make straight to DVD releases .

    Statham's most successful film - with him as the star, the lead, is

    Transporter 2 - worldwide gross: $43,095,856

    The rest 20 - 30 million grossers. He's been in bigger films like the Expendables franchise which made more money but he's never made a US film - with him as the star - that reached 50/60 or more million dollars.

    If Daniel Craig quit the role tomorrow, which actor would Eon/Sony pick based on their bankability?

    I can't think of any.

    Hugh Jackman? CHAPPIE and PAN - both starring roles - underperformed. Both got awful reviews too!

    Idris Elba? Well hands up who's seen the trailer, let alone this film?

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2515034/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_8

    I haven't. Never heard of it until I just checked his IMDB page!

    Has Tom Hardy had any hit films which weren't part of a franchise (like Batman or Mad Max)? I don't think so.

    I can't imagine the next Bond actor will have much or any pre-existing bankability. He'll get the role based on his acting, price and availability at the time!

    (edited post!)
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2015 Posts: 23,883
    fanbond123 wrote: »
    5. The new actor may be someone we've heard of before but who is not all that famous for a similar role (eg. Hiddleston rather than Cavill) or he will be someone very few of us have heard of before (this is more unlikely despite EON's previous modus operandi........due to the new studio insistence for someone semi-bankable).

    Craig wasn't semi-bankable. Hardly anyone knew him!

    Cavill's UNCLE kinda flopped thereby reducing any bankability clout. Indeed, you could argue there are no actors with bankable credentials. Well no British ones. If you were to study the US box office, there are zero British actors with box office bankability. British actors are widely admired in the US but none are genuine box office stars.

    And even actors like Chris Hemsworth (an Aussie) have had major bombs outside of Thor. Blackhat, starring Mr Hemsworh, one of the biggest flops of the year. It's scary how bad that film did (given Chris Hemsworth's alleged film star status). No female fans of Hemsworth turned up to see him. DOA - that film.

    It's a media myth about bankability of stars. Doesn't exist. Name a new-ish actor that can guarantee a large opening for most of their films. There is none. You could cast a complete unknown as Bond - even a George Lazenby type- and I doubt it would damage the film's potential box office. OHMSS was the second highest grossing film world wide of 1969 - based on what I've read online! A lot of stuff in Hollywood is made up nonsense, certainly bankability of actors. Look at Johnny Depp, all his recent films have flopped. He is still a star but is he bankable outside of Pirates... films? Nope!

    Yes, you're correct about bankability. It's becoming more difficult for anyone to be truly 'bankable' any more. Certainly not like the 80's/early 90's.

    Having said that, studios are risk averse, and a Bond film is a huge multi-year and multi-$$$ undertaking.

    I realize that very few knew DC prior to CR, but that was a different time. In a higher risk environment (for big budget films) these days, Bond is one of the few guarantees left. Hence, I'm quite sure that any new studio will insist that the star at least have some evident bona fides........EON in contrast will insist on the actor being up to snuff.....and a happy medium will ensue.

    I agree on Cavill. My point is it will definitely not be him due to Uncle (he has played a too similar part). Hiddleston is more likely (familiar, but for a different role) but even he is not guaranteed.

    This will be interesting, but if I'm a betting man, I think the new studio, EON and even DC will say it's best that he move on at 47 having made his mark and on a high.....rather than come back at 50 for one more when the new studio will then have to reimagine from scratch after that with even more risks.
  • MyNameIsMyBondRnMyNameIsMyBondRn WhereYouLeastExpectMeToBe
    Posts: 221
    You can always get yourselves a James Bond on Vacation Stand In..! like as Jackie Chan-from the singapore-office;-?!..!
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,021
    Sarcasm so beware:

    There is only one deciding factor that leads to casting the new Bond:
    If BB has the hots for him;)
  • Posts: 2,081
    NicNac wrote: »
    The following thread has been closed, and we can continue debating will he/won't he in this thread. Many thanks.
    http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/12987/daniel-craig-says-he-doesn-t-want-to-do-another-bond-spectre-may-be-his-last#latest

    You closed what seemed to be the most active thread here recently? Oh. Damn. I sort of see your point, some of the conversation was overlapping, but is that such a big deal? (You might close trailer thread because it overlaps with the production timeline thread?) I still think closing it was unfortunate and unnecessary. Closed threads are dead and get buried fast. I already considered if I'd bother to go over there to get a couple of things to quote and comment on here, but... nah...
    bondjames wrote: »
    NicNac wrote: »
    Like I say the other thread is there for reference, so see it as a merging of the two. Or if everyone and anyone would prefer I can swap it round and close this one.

    No problem @NicNac, I did not mean to suggest that it should be the other way around. It's just that once the thread is closed the conversation history sort of disappears because people are less likely to refer to a closed thread. It was interesting, at least from my perspective, although I'm sure many are a little tired of it too (particularly DC die-hards).

    Maybe by closing it, this never ending 2015 discussion of DC leaving/staying may die off (I doubt it though.........).

    Yes, the conversation history will disappear. I also thought it was interesting. Those who were tired of the thread didn't have to read it. I don't read most threads here, and wouldn't mind one bit if all endless ranking and elimination games threads were closed while I was sleeping... ;)

    ---

    Oh well.

  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe S.A.R.A.H.Moderator
    edited October 2015 Posts: 10,593
    From the other, now locked, thread:
    Why does disliking Craig mean that Brosnan is @aspie's favourite? I don't like Craig, and Brosnan is not my favourite.

    Because I have seen it time and time again. Those unaccepting of Craig of Bond will jump on the band wagon when the opportunity arises to criticise him either as Bond, person or actor. I tend to find those same people are those who are the ones who wanted more Brosnan, didn't want a reboot or dont feel Craig has right look for Bond and can't wait for him to go in the hope they get what they call a "Bondonian" looking actor. It's pathetic the guy said nothing wrong in that interview, and cares what happens to the franchise after he leaves but because he doesn't speak like a public school boy he gets comments from mugs who by what the daily mail print. Shocking uneducated shameful behaviour of so called fans, some of the keyboard terrorists on here need to get their facts right and not let reading tabloids own take sway their opinion for them.

    I don't like Craig's era, but if his successor were blonde, I would him the same chance(s) that I gave Craig. I'm not as rigid on the hair colour. So long as it isn't blue or green (or something like that), I don't really care whether the next Bond has black, brown, blonde or ginger hair.

    I didn't like Lazenby or Dalton in the role. They have their moments. But I love all the films. I don't not like any Bond era


    Dalton 's theatre background meant he over acted on screen. In his films I think he also had the weakest supporting cast l. I don't dislike anyone's tenure. Connery is regarded by many as the greatest Bond. Craig however is the best actor who took on the role.

    What annoys me is the spoilt brat mentality when people criticise EON and Dan when really they have brought in Oscar winning or nominated directors. Turned Bond from what had become a cliché joke to serious darks spy thrillers. And that's why Bond has its greatest ever global audience. I come across so many new fans who love Dan in the role, but have no time for what became before. The films story stands up on there own without flooding them with Gadgets, cheesy puns and cramming in as many trophy women for Bond. But you confirmed my point. You came on here having a go at Craig over a quote said in humour and taken out of context. You let the tabloid headlines drive your opinion. If you read back, you can see a video from Time Out and what was said and the tone. I have never known a Bond actor who's whole tenure has been about who will be the next Bond. Elba, Damien Lewis, Hardy and everyone linked to the role by the press have spoken to the press expressing a desire to take over. When really they should have shown a bit more respect by saying "Dan is Bond, he does a great job it would be wrong to comment". And I agree that Dan doesn't make it easy by not commiting to a return after each film, however to do so compromises your ability to negotiate terms, It's clear Dan also wants to ensure the correct director on each project is someone he wants to work with so it's not possible to commit right after a film.

    All I asked is why does disliking Craig make one a Brosnan fan? How does that work exactly, when I rank Brosnan 5th and Craig 6th? I'll break my response(s) down into points?

    - Who is the childish comment aimed at exactly? Could it be me? My opinion of Craig wasn't really formed until after i'd seen QOS. That means that when he was announced (10 years to the day I make this post), I didn't write him off. I saw two of his films before I decided he wasn't Bond for me, and a further one more before I decided that I didn't want to see any more of his films in the cinema.

    - Good or bad, whatever else they may be, Craig's films are not spy thrillers. They are more like an awkward marriage of action films and dramas.

    - I am no more having a go at Craig, than his fans are jumping to his defense at a seconds notice, as if a member of their own family has been insulted, claiming it is everyone else's fault that they don't get his "sense of humour". And it isn't as if I bash Craig on a constant basis. I don't post as much as I used to, and fewer still do I mention Craig.

    - I haven't let the tabloid headlines drive my opinions As I said in my first point, my opinion on Craig hasn't changed since 2008. Surely if my opinion of Craig were controlled by the press, it would be a constant change between love and hate. I see that he has been carrying out UN duties. Well that doesn't change my opinion of him as an actor. I know nothing of Daniel Craig the father/husband, so I won't comment on those aspects of him.

    - Craig isn't the only Bond to have to contend with rumours of who's next. Dalton had it far worse (albeit without the internet) with Brosnan. Not helped with the "take this job and shove it" interview with Brosnan. That was worse, as Brosnan was look on as the natural successor to Moore as Bond. Not to mention Brosnan's attempt to align with McClory to make a rogue Bond film in 1989.
  • Posts: 3,823
    The cinema audience has never been asked to accept a "bankable" movie star as their new Bond so, in it's own way, it is a gamble IMHO. Either "scale up" a TV actor or give it to a minor star but casting an existing star could be a car crash. I suppose Harrison Ford managed it.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,038
    Tuulia wrote: »
    I don't read most threads here, and wouldn't mind one bit if all endless ranking and elimination games threads were closed while I was sleeping... ;)

    Ha ha. Ditto.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    I think in two probably three years they will make a Bond film with DC returning ..no period piece no reboot. Maybe Warmers Bros.

    But nothing drastic. All this is just pre-release jitters I honestly believe.
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    edited October 2015 Posts: 2,138
    From the other, now locked, thread:
    Why does disliking Craig mean that Brosnan is @aspie's favourite? I don't like Craig, and Brosnan is not my favourite.

    Because I have seen it time and time again. Those unaccepting of Craig of Bond will jump on the band wagon when the opportunity arises to criticise him either as Bond, person or actor. I tend to find those same people are those who are the ones who wanted more Brosnan, didn't want a reboot or dont feel Craig has right look for Bond and can't wait for him to go in the hope they get what they call a "Bondonian" looking actor. It's pathetic the guy said nothing wrong in that interview, and cares what happens to the franchise after he leaves but because he doesn't speak like a public school boy he gets comments from mugs who by what the daily mail print. Shocking uneducated shameful behaviour of so called fans, some of the keyboard terrorists on here need to get their facts right and not let reading tabloids own take sway their opinion for them.

    I don't like Craig's era, but if his successor were blonde, I would him the same chance(s) that I gave Craig. I'm not as rigid on the hair colour. So long as it isn't blue or green (or something like that), I don't really care whether the next Bond has black, brown, blonde or ginger hair.

    I didn't like Lazenby or Dalton in the role. They have their moments. But I love all the films. I don't not like any Bond era


    Dalton 's theatre background meant he over acted on screen. In his films I think he also had the weakest supporting cast l. I don't dislike anyone's tenure. Connery is regarded by many as the greatest Bond. Craig however is the best actor who took on the role.

    What annoys me is the spoilt brat mentality when people criticise EON and Dan when really they have brought in Oscar winning or nominated directors. Turned Bond from what had become a cliché joke to serious darks spy thrillers. And that's why Bond has its greatest ever global audience. I come across so many new fans who love Dan in the role, but have no time for what became before. The films story stands up on there own without flooding them with Gadgets, cheesy puns and cramming in as many trophy women for Bond. But you confirmed my point. You came on here having a go at Craig over a quote said in humour and taken out of context. You let the tabloid headlines drive your opinion. If you read back, you can see a video from Time Out and what was said and the tone. I have never known a Bond actor who's whole tenure has been about who will be the next Bond. Elba, Damien Lewis, Hardy and everyone linked to the role by the press have spoken to the press expressing a desire to take over. When really they should have shown a bit more respect by saying "Dan is Bond, he does a great job it would be wrong to comment". And I agree that Dan doesn't make it easy by not commiting to a return after each film, however to do so compromises your ability to negotiate terms, It's clear Dan also wants to ensure the correct director on each project is someone he wants to work with so it's not possible to commit right after a film.

    All I asked is why does disliking Craig make one a Brosnan fan? How does that work exactly, when I rank Brosnan 5th and Craig 6th? I'll break my response(s) down into points?

    - Who is the childish comment aimed at exactly? Could it be me? My opinion of Craig wasn't really formed until after i'd seen QOS. That means that when he was announced (10 years to the day I make this post), I didn't write him off. I saw two of his films before I decided he wasn't Bond for me, and a further one more before I decided that I didn't want to see any more of his films in the cinema.

    - Good or bad, whatever else they may be, Craig's films are not spy thrillers. They are more like an awkward marriage of action films and dramas.

    - I am no more having a go at Craig, than his fans are jumping to his defense at a seconds notice, as if a member of their own family has been insulted, claiming it is everyone else's fault that they don't get his "sense of humour". And it isn't as if I bash Craig on a constant basis. I don't post as much as I used to, and fewer still do I mention Craig.

    - I haven't let the tabloid headlines drive my opinions As I said in my first point, my opinion on Craig hasn't changed since 2008. Surely if my opinion of Craig were controlled by the press, it would be a constant change between love and hate. I see that he has been carrying out UN duties. Well that doesn't change my opinion of him as an actor. I know nothing of Daniel Craig the father/husband, so I won't comment on those aspects of him.

    - Craig isn't the only Bond to have to contend with rumours of who's next. Dalton had it far worse (albeit without the internet) with Brosnan. Not helped with the "take this job and shove it" interview with Brosnan. That was worse, as Brosnan was look on as the natural successor to Moore as Bond. Not to mention Brosnan's attempt to align with McClory to make a rogue Bond film in 1989.


    "- Who is the childish comment aimed at exactly? Could it be me? My opinion of Craig wasn't really formed until after i'd seen QOS. That means that when he was announced (10 years to the day I make this post), I didn't write him off. I saw two of his films before I decided he wasn't Bond for me, and a further one more before I decided that I didn't want to see any more of his films in the cinema".


    You made my point for me, you came on posting about how Craig should behave, and really you have your own perception of what Bond should be and Craig does not fit that therefore you used the recent comments to have a rant about Craig's behaviour. When really Craig's remarks were taken out of context, you say you did not let tabloids form your opinion. So you therefore agree the tabloids twisted the quotes to make them seem like he was being serious. In which case your original comments about Craig were wrong?

    Based upon the popularity of Daniel as Bond based upon the Skyfall figures alone http://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Skyfall#tab=summary

    There are very few who don't follow your views on Craig as Bond.

    You say "I saw two of his films before I decided he wasn't Bond for me" what was not for you, that it was not more of the same?

    Then you say " Good or bad, whatever else they may be, Craig's films are not spy thrillers. They are more like an awkward marriage of action films and dramas"

    Most media outlets, critics and IMDB manage to list the film as Action, Adventure, Thrillers. And personally I think 1. Dan's Bond films have been full of action, there have been adventures across the globe and have thrilled the audiences who turned up in their millions to see them. (I will give you QOS for some part, but considering the writer strike, studio problems and going over budget that hampered the film this was more Marc Fosters failings and considering all of that Daniel still gave a great performance.

    You are the minority, and the films will follow the trends of their times and the other films drawing audiences that influence the future films. I.E CR - Bourne, Skyfall - The Dark Knight Rises. Craig I do not feel will be truly appreciated until years from now, as they are timeless story telling and the style and have been made with more care and though that anything that came through the Dalton and Brosnan era,

  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,021
    The notion that a Craig critic must be a Brosnan fan is stupid and ridiculous and full of prejudice.

    How Craig's tenure will be seen in 15 years depends highly on how Spectre will be seen and a possible Bond 25.
    Had he stopped at SF it would be viewed as a mediocre legacy over all.
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    Posts: 2,138
    The notion that a Craig critic must be a Brosnan fan is stupid and ridiculous and full of prejudice.

    How Craig's tenure will be seen in 15 years depends highly on how Spectre will be seen and a possible Bond 25.
    Had he stopped at SF it would be viewed as a mediocre legacy over all.

    Highest grossing mediocre legacy you mean. What a div comment. away back under your rock Jason.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,021
    The notion that a Craig critic must be a Brosnan fan is stupid and ridiculous and full of prejudice.

    How Craig's tenure will be seen in 15 years depends highly on how Spectre will be seen and a possible Bond 25.
    Had he stopped at SF it would be viewed as a mediocre legacy over all.

    Highest grossing mediocre legacy you mean. What a div comment. away back under your rock Jason.

    The billion dollar arguments gets old.
    It has nothing to do with the quality of a movie.

    Craig has yet to have a second movie that belongs to the group of the truly greats like GF FRWL OHMSS.
    CR is such a movie.
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    Posts: 2,138
    The notion that a Craig critic must be a Brosnan fan is stupid and ridiculous and full of prejudice.

    How Craig's tenure will be seen in 15 years depends highly on how Spectre will be seen and a possible Bond 25.
    Had he stopped at SF it would be viewed as a mediocre legacy over all.

    Highest grossing mediocre legacy you mean. What a div comment. away back under your rock Jason.

    The billion dollar arguments gets old.
    It has nothing to do with the quality of a movie.

    Craig has yet to have a second movie that belongs to the group of the truly greats like GF FRWL OHMSS.
    CR is such a movie.

    Neither has any Bond since Connery. That arguments simple they were all Fleming novels, he was also alive and having input in to how his character would appear on screen. Nobody wrote Bond like his creator.
  • Posts: 6,601

    Craig has yet to have a second movie that belongs to the group of the truly greats like GF FRWL OHMSS.
    CR is such a movie.

    In your mind. And financial sujccess does tell a story about audiences satisfied with a result. And before you say it, yes, that is even the case with movies, many would say stink. Obviously they found their audiences and in the end, tha is what counts. Many people seeing a film and enjoying it.

    The DC area had lots of that.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe JK ROFLing
    Posts: 6,982
  • MyNameIsMyBondRnMyNameIsMyBondRn WhereYouLeastExpectMeToBe
    Posts: 221
    Looking like a billion Dollars is tiresome..!
Sign In or Register to comment.