No Time To Die: Production Diary

11601611631651662507

Comments

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2016 Posts: 23,883
    Germanlady wrote: »
    at about 20 min


    That doesn't really confirm or deny anything. All it says, is that Craig has got Bond to where he wanted him to be.

    If anything it kind of supports the notion that Craig has fulfilled his remit. Continuing now would just be fan service.

    And let's not forget that it's been 10 years in CR. The time is right to inject some new blood into the role. While I have praised Craig in SP, I wont be crying into my pillow at night if he doesn't come back. He should count himself lucky, he's had a good run with 4 films.

    Exactly. There are few people on here that don't enjoy at least 2 of his films. I can understand why EON want to keep printing money with Craig in the role, but creatively I don't think it's the right choice. Why not quit while you're ahead and carry some of that momentum over to the new actor, rather than pushing it that one film too far like Connery, Moore, and arguably Brosnan did. Let's be honest, artificially extending the Craig era is more likely to sully Craig's legacy than solidify it. The people pining for Craig's return aren't looking at what's best for the series as a whole. Craig has had 10 years, that it quite enough for him to leave his mark. Bite the bullet and move forward. Clinging to Craig is the gutless move.
    While I agree with you fully @Mendes4Lyfe, I'm interested to know if you would still feel this way if Hiddles is the chosen successor rather than Turner.
  • DisneyBond007DisneyBond007 Welwyn Garden City
    Posts: 100
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    Could Sony get Bond back? Or are they completely done with Bond?

    Let me think? I think Sony have completely done with Bond now because the deal to co-produce the films with MGM and EON expired last year!

    I mean can they re sign for another deal?

    No, its like double jeopardy, they can only sign with the same studio once. ;)

    Your right!
  • Posts: 489
    Hope Craig comes back. If Not, anybody but Hiddleston. No more soft Bonds.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,920
    Germanlady wrote: »
    at about 20 min


    That doesn't really confirm or deny anything. All it says, is that Craig has got Bond to where he wanted him to be.

    If anything it kind of supports the notion that Craig has fulfilled his remit. Continuing now would just be fan service.

    And let's not forget that it's been 10 years in CR. The time is right to inject some new blood into the role. While I have praised Craig in SP, I wont be crying into my pillow at night if he doesn't come back. He should count himself lucky, he's had a good run with 4 films.

    Exactly. There are few people on here that don't enjoy at least 2 of his films. I can understand why EON want to keep printing money with Craig in the role, but creatively I don't think it's the right choice. Why not quit while you're ahead and carry some of that momentum over to the new actor, rather than pushing it that one film too far like Connery, Moore, and arguably Brosnan did. Let's be honest, artificially extending the Craig era is more likely to sully Craig's legacy than solidify it. The people pining for Craig's return aren't looking at what's best for the series as a whole. Craig has had 10 years, that it quite enough for him to leave his mark. Bite the bullet and move forward. Clinging to Craig is the gutless move.

    For better or worse, I think Craig has left his mark on the series.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited May 2016 Posts: 8,229
    bondjames wrote: »
    Germanlady wrote: »
    at about 20 min


    That doesn't really confirm or deny anything. All it says, is that Craig has got Bond to where he wanted him to be.

    If anything it kind of supports the notion that Craig has fulfilled his remit. Continuing now would just be fan service.

    And let's not forget that it's been 10 years in CR. The time is right to inject some new blood into the role. While I have praised Craig in SP, I wont be crying into my pillow at night if he doesn't come back. He should count himself lucky, he's had a good run with 4 films.

    Exactly. There are few people on here that don't enjoy at least 2 of his films. I can understand why EON want to keep printing money with Craig in the role, but creatively I don't think it's the right choice. Why not quit while you're ahead and carry some of that momentum over to the new actor, rather than pushing it that one film too far like Connery, Moore, and arguably Brosnan did. Let's be honest, artificially extending the Craig era is more likely to sully Craig's legacy than solidify it. The people pining for Craig's return aren't looking at what's best for the series as a whole. Craig has had 10 years, that it quite enough for him to leave his mark. Bite the bullet and move forward. Clinging to Craig is the gutless move.
    While I agree with you fully @Mendes4Lyfe, I'm interested to know if you would still feel this way if Hiddles is the chosen successor rather than Turner.

    I think I would still prefer it, because the outlook for the franchise would be that much brighter knowing we are striding forth in a new direction. The Bond actor is only one aspect after all, and if Craig were to leave pronto, that would leave the door slightly ajar for Campbell to return at the grand age of 74 and complete his trilogy of films.

    The more I check out Hiddleston, the less I like him, so that isn't changing anytime soon. But most importantly I want EON to try new things and basically throw out the current formula. I think the quickest way to make that happen is to drop Craig like an ugly baby. If I have to live with Hiddleston as a result, that is a personal sacrifice I will have to make for the good of the franchise.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    You're a good man @Mendes4Lyfe. Putting the franchise ahead of your preferences. I respect that.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,229
    bondjames wrote: »
    You're a good man @Mendes4Lyfe. Putting the franchise ahead of your preferences. I respect that.

    Think nothing of it, my good man!
  • Posts: 12,506
    If Disney look to snap up Bond? I think without doubt they will throw money at it! Look how well Star Wars Episode VII turned out!
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    edited May 2016 Posts: 28,694
    One good thing that could come from Disney getting Bond is that @Dragonpol would finally get to see Never Send Flowers adapted to the screen, with a finale set in Disneyland Paris. Stranger things have happened.
  • Posts: 7,653
    One good thing that could come from Disney getting Bond is that @Dragonpol would finally get to see Never Send Flowers adapted to the screen, with a finale set in Disneyland Paris. Stranger things have happened.

    That really made me laugh.
    :D
  • Posts: 1,661
    American websites are mentioning the salary as £68 million, not $68 million! If this figure is correct then it's no wonder every Tom, Dick and Idris wants to play the part. It's an insane amount of money if you can secure a long term film deal. If the next Bond actor - whoever he is - can play the part for four to five films he's going to become the richest actor in the UK. It's mind boggling wealth.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,665
    Either way, $68 million or $99 million, that's a lot of money just for filming two movies.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2016 Posts: 23,883
    fanbond123 wrote: »
    If this figure is correct then it's no wonder every Tom, Dick Aidan and Idris wants to play the part.
    Fixed it.
  • Posts: 6,601
    bondjames wrote: »
    You're a good man @Mendes4Lyfe. Putting the franchise ahead of your preferences. I respect that.

    You really believe him though? He really has all of you under his spell and nobody seems to notice that he plays you off with his little boy attitude. :> sweet kid he is. Yeah... :x
  • Posts: 2,081
    Red_Snow wrote: »
    If true, I respect him for walking away from something that no longer challenges him or he feels creatively different about. But what does he have to fall back on now? A play, and a possible TV series. That doesn't seem a wise career move given how much every other actor has struggle career wise post-Bond.

    I don't know how he feels and what he wants to do, but if he'd rather leave the role, then he absolutely should. That's what any actor should do in a similar position. It's definitely the wise career move. How would staying be the better career move if it's not what he wants to do?

    What has he to fall back on? Really?

    1) Financially he's secure, so no worries on that front.

    2) If he doesn't even want to do big movies like Bond anymore, I would understand that perfectly. A lot of actors don't enjoy really long shoots and huge amounts of promotional work. There is nothing wrong in wanting to do smaller movies, and indeed tv series or plays. It's all acting work, and it's not less valuable or somehow a failure for the actor. It's just different size-wise. The work may be even more interesting and fulfilling, and challenging and rewarding in different ways than a huge movie. He seems like a non-movie star, non-blockbuster type of a guy anyway.

    3) He's a good actor and my understanding is that he's well liked and respected as well, and surely he has friends in the industry. Why wouldn't he get offers for work? If they are small projects, I guess that would be fine, it may very well be what he wants. He was doing steady, varied and interesting work before Bond, no reason to think he couldn't do that after Bond. I would imagine that work-wise he'd be in a better position post-Bond than he was pre-Bond - I mean that since his name-recognition is much higher and he was successful in the big franchise role he'd get more offers rather than less.
    Germanlady wrote: »
    The struggle is about WHAT you want, Snow. So, what is it HE wants. I have a feeling, its different to what many others want.

    He once said "I want it all" LC time. Now he has had it all and I believe, ithas not been all THAT great to him (fame wise). Another quote " If I go to a pub and people jiut say Oh, its Daniel Craig and leave me alone that will be great (or something like that). So -here you get your attitude towards what's important in the future for him.
    Good stuff without all the fame boohoo.

    I think a lot of people assume that being in as big movies as possible and being in the limelight as much as possible is what all actors really want - which isn't the case. And people think that, if they ever get to be in big movies then anything smaller is a failure somehow. That it's all about box office and what not. And, of course, it isn't.
    Germanlady wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Red_Snow wrote: »
    If true, I respect him for walking away from something that no longer challenges him or he feels creatively different about. But what does he have to fall back on now? A play, and a possible TV series. That doesn't seem a wise career move given how much every other actor has struggle career wise post-Bond.

    He's not hurting for money, and it's not as if he's had a terribly successful career outside of Bond.

    Seems to me, Creasy, as if this is not really an answer to what was said. Rather the opposite. If someone is afraid, because he has not been all THAT successful, he would normally hold on to what did make him rich, No?

    What I am saying is - he never mapped out a plan to be THAT successful actor. What he wants is a creatively interesting and satisfying career and without a doubt, he can have that without being in all the blockbusters and Marvel universe films. A small Othello theater run might just do the trick.

    Yes, that makes perfect sense to me.
    Red_Snow wrote: »
    Germanlady wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Red_Snow wrote: »
    If true, I respect him for walking away from something that no longer challenges him or he feels creatively different about. But what does he have to fall back on now? A play, and a possible TV series. That doesn't seem a wise career move given how much every other actor has struggle career wise post-Bond.

    He's not hurting for money, and it's not as if he's had a terribly successful career outside of Bond.

    Seems to me, Creasy, as if this is not really an answer to what was said. Rather the opposite. If someone is afraid, because he has not been all THAT successful, he would normally hold on to what did make him rich, No?

    Maybe he wants to go back to doing the type of arty films he did pre-Bond. Those scripts may not have been flooding his inbox the past decade. Attempts at launching other franchises outside of Bond have all but failed, and he's pulled out of high profile films. He might be done with the big blockbusters all together.

    Quite.

  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,830
    There's been no announcement of Craig retiring the role, although it was suggested on Twitter one was coming later today. The only announcement was the BBC saying there have been no decisions.

    I'm surprised by the pack mentality out there. All those that once praised Craig (and rightfully so), are now screaming for fresh blood. I'd understand that if (no matter what you thought of the film), DC had delivered a clunker of a performance in SP.

    But he didn't. He was firmly in charge of the role. Again. As he will be in absolute control of it in future instalments.

    It's the script that crumbled. The writers should be replaced. Bring in fresh eyes to map out a great story that forces Bond, and DC, to exert in the role once again. Bring back the blunt instrument.

    Bring in new writers, but this Bond actor has much more he can explore. He just needs the script to do it.

    Jeez, I feel like some of us are like Hamlet's mother, Gertrude: her husband's not dead for two months before she and her husband's brother are in the sack.





  • Posts: 2,483
    peter wrote: »
    didn't something on twitter say there would be an announcement some time today? I call BS on not just Craig walking away,
    Germanlady wrote: »
    at about 20 min


    That doesn't really confirm or deny anything. All it says, is that Craig has got Bond to where he wanted him to be.

    Well, it clearly shows how enthusiastic and happy he is shooting these films, which some people seem to think he doesn't enjoy anymore, so there's that.


    People have said that we've got 4 Bond films here that tell a specific arc, and that Dan has nothing else to do with the character, but I don't think that's true at all. We've seen Bond on the job and at the top and bottom of the food chain, rallying against a myriad of foes, but we haven't seen him well and truly off the job. We haven't seen his life after he holsters his gun and sets down to try and have a "decent" life. That's where more magic will be derived.

    I want to see Bond's retired psyche examined, because you know he'd be miserable. Is the aching quiet of his life too much to bear, too far removed from the adrenaline of what he used to do? If he sees his MI6 crew or the realm in trouble, can he just stand by and do nothing? All of this really isn't in his nature, and I'd like to see the complications that come along with the choice he makes at the end of SP.

    You could do so much with a fifth Craig Bond film. Start the film with Bond and Madeleine getting married, showing Tanner, M, MP and Q rejoicing in his happiness, then tear it all away. Force Bond to see what he already knew, but didn't want to admit: quiet, for him, just isn't a possibility. The film could go one or two ways. Either Bond faces an escaped Blofeld (or he uses his information to bribe his way out) who has returned to head SPECTRE in one final conflict that will see Bond using all his resources to take out the man and the organization at all costs. Bond and Madeleine's future will be strained, as she knows deep down he needs that life to truly live, and that the quiet life leaves him unsatisfied.

    Or, Blofeld's villainy takes a minor role in comparison to a greater SPECTRE threat that faces Bond and the world. Since Blofeld's capture, the members of the organization have been fighting over his throne, angered by how he took things so personal and effectively outed them all to every intelligence service in the world, when before Blofeld's meddling with Bond, they were off the radar and were all getting rich and powerful in the shadows. Blofeld will watch from either inside or outside the cell as, just like Bond's MI6, his own organization is in ruins, moving on without him, the greatest insult to his ego you could ever imagine, and it's all because of him. Truly like Ozymandias, he is a cracked and weathered statue laying in a desert wasteland, whose message of power and conquest has gone from a mantra to that of a joke.

    What I would like to see in this film is a script that really deals with a retired Bond and what that kind of life means for the man. I want to see him bored of his quiet life, sitting in his living room as the light is bleeding through the windows, his body sagging in the chair, exhausted into torpidity. Bond was born for a storm, and a calm doesn't suit him; I want to see him dealing with his own inability to truly enjoy a retirement of any kind, though he wants to be with Madeleine. It'd make for a fascinating inner conflict that he would be constantly forced to face.

    And of course, I'd love to see a finale with Bond and his fellow 00s and some of the realm's soldiers against Blofeld and/or SPECTRE's forces. More than anything, though, I want EON to continue to paint a deep picture of Bond as a man and explore just what his retirement days would be like, and what his actions speak of his character and his ultimate life fate, because we've never truly seen this done proper before. Is Bond meant to settle down, or is he destined to keep moving, stopping whatever forces threaten the realm until the last possible moment?

    I think there's a lot of mileage that could be gotten from Bond 25 with Dan taking one last ride.

    Agreed whole-heartedly. Plenty more to explore. Challenge the character in the script, give him obstacles, and the actor (we're bloody lucky to have such a talented one playing 007), will be challenged as well.

    Fresh eyes on the story-telling duties, and give Craig a script that's rewarding his talents. Something physical, rugged, dangerous. Let's re-awaken the blunt instrument again.

    There are numerous websites dedicated to doing just that.

  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    There's no smoke without fire, the story has grown a lot of momentum but until an official word has been given it's just speculation but if it is true I'm not going to be surprised.

    I wasn't happy with SPECTRE and the way it ended I was quite happy for them to ignore what it set up entirely and just move on be that with DC doing one final entry and bowing out or rebooting with a new Bond.

    I suppose they could if DC is done pick up and say Bond & Swann didn't work out and the new Bond continues with team MI6 but I think they'll reboot with a new actor but I could be wrong.

    I have to say I think Hiddleston & Turner have just had too much light thrown on their chances and they need to consider a relative unknown and looking at @CatchingBullets post and his blog link it reminded me of Tom Hughes.

    Both my Wife and I noted him while watching the excellent BBC2 series The Game and I think an actor like him with not too much exposure would be ideal, I still like the idea of Dan Stevens and he's certainly not getting the exposure that the Hidds & Turner are.

    If Dan is here for more good, I was one of his biggest advocates and it's only since SPECTRE I have had my reservations, if they can ignore all that ESB nonsense and give him a great swansong then I'm there but I've a feeling reading that BBC post that the reason they are saying an announcement won't be made for sometime is because DC has quit but they can't say it officially till the new partner is finalised.

    That being said, normally a new actor gets announced just as they are about to go into production so we could be waiting till late 2017 before a new actor is announced unless EON decide to sate everyones thirst for a new 007 long before production begins if DC quits.

    It says a lot for me that those that weren't that keen on him thought he was all of a sudden amazing in SPECTRE.

    A number of Brosnan fans now think he's the best thing since sliced bread, just rob him of all that made him so distinctive and they'll cheer jubilantly
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited May 2016 Posts: 4,399
    bondjames wrote: »
    Germanlady wrote: »
    at about 20 min


    That doesn't really confirm or deny anything. All it says, is that Craig has got Bond to where he wanted him to be.

    If anything it kind of supports the notion that Craig has fulfilled his remit. Continuing now would just be fan service.

    And let's not forget that it's been 10 years in CR. The time is right to inject some new blood into the role. While I have praised Craig in SP, I wont be crying into my pillow at night if he doesn't come back. He should count himself lucky, he's had a good run with 4 films.

    Exactly. There are few people on here that don't enjoy at least 2 of his films. I can understand why EON want to keep printing money with Craig in the role, but creatively I don't think it's the right choice. Why not quit while you're ahead and carry some of that momentum over to the new actor, rather than pushing it that one film too far like Connery, Moore, and arguably Brosnan did. Let's be honest, artificially extending the Craig era is more likely to sully Craig's legacy than solidify it. The people pining for Craig's return aren't looking at what's best for the series as a whole. Craig has had 10 years, that it quite enough for him to leave his mark. Bite the bullet and move forward. Clinging to Craig is the gutless move.
    While I agree with you fully @Mendes4Lyfe, I'm interested to know if you would still feel this way if Hiddles is the chosen successor rather than Turner.

    I think I would still prefer it, because the outlook for the franchise would be that much brighter knowing we are striding forth in a new direction. The Bond actor is only one aspect after all, and if Craig were to leave pronto, that would leave the door slightly ajar for Campbell to return at the grand age of 74 and complete his trilogy of films.

    The more I check out Hiddleston, the less I like him, so that isn't changing anytime soon. But most importantly I want EON to try new things and basically throw out the current formula. I think the quickest way to make that happen is to drop Craig like an ugly baby. If I have to live with Hiddleston as a result, that is a personal sacrifice I will have to make for the good of the franchise.

    the day a new Bond actor is introduced, is the same time i feel like EON will make a strong push to Chris Nolan to introduce him as a director, and possibly direct his own 2-3-4 Bond films with said actor... i think the Martin Campbell ship has sailed, as i personally feel like he has done all wanted to do - what else is there for him to come back for and to prove?.... I am not pushing for Nolan to be the director, but you can't deny that if they announced Hiddleston as Bond with Chris Nolan directing, that that wouldn't generate a lot of buzz.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,336
    Oh that would be so dreadful... :-S
  • edited May 2016 Posts: 12,310
    I really don't want a Nolan-directed Bond film. Also not crazy about the idea of Hiddleston as Bond.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Murdock wrote: »
    Oh that would be so dreadful... :-S
    Oh come on, @Murdock. With Nolan directing we could get Hans Zimmer doing the score, and you're the biggest fan of him I know! :D
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    Getafix wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    Before SP I wanted Craig forever but with the mixed reception I think the general audience and some of us are ready.

    Craig's Bond will be blamed for SP even though that's an erroneous connection.

    That mixed reception only happened in the US. In Europe Spectre has broken countless ticket sales records and got a lot of rave reviews.

    Spectre has put movies like Jurassic World, Furious 7 and Age Of Ultron to shame ticket sales wise.

    Europe is ready for some more action with Craig.

    As with Dalton, the US doesn't appreciate what is good about SP

    We did. Just not a lot to appreciate.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    Before SP I wanted Craig forever but with the mixed reception I think the general audience and some of us are ready.

    Craig's Bond will be blamed for SP even though that's an erroneous connection.

    That mixed reception only happened in the US. In Europe Spectre has broken countless ticket sales records and got a lot of rave reviews.

    Spectre has put movies like Jurassic World, Furious 7 and Age Of Ultron to shame ticket sales wise.

    Europe is ready for some more action with Craig.

    As with Dalton, the US doesn't appreciate what is good about SP

    We did. Just not a lot to appreciate.

    The U.S surprisingly was more reserved or critical on SP, some of the reviews it got here were ridiculous, the 5 star ones in the broadsheets from the likes of Tom Bradshaw were just shameful.

    TFA got some ridiculous reviews here as well, I liked the film but 5 stars seriously.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    Before SP I wanted Craig forever but with the mixed reception I think the general audience and some of us are ready.

    Craig's Bond will be blamed for SP even though that's an erroneous connection.

    That mixed reception only happened in the US. In Europe Spectre has broken countless ticket sales records and got a lot of rave reviews.

    Spectre has put movies like Jurassic World, Furious 7 and Age Of Ultron to shame ticket sales wise.

    Europe is ready for some more action with Craig.

    As with Dalton, the US doesn't appreciate what is good about SP

    We did. Just not a lot to appreciate.

    You haven't been looking, then. Is your oculist certified?
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,229
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    Before SP I wanted Craig forever but with the mixed reception I think the general audience and some of us are ready.

    Craig's Bond will be blamed for SP even though that's an erroneous connection.

    That mixed reception only happened in the US. In Europe Spectre has broken countless ticket sales records and got a lot of rave reviews.

    Spectre has put movies like Jurassic World, Furious 7 and Age Of Ultron to shame ticket sales wise.

    Europe is ready for some more action with Craig.

    As with Dalton, the US doesn't appreciate what is good about SP

    We did. Just not a lot to appreciate.

    There is a lot to appreciate in the Dalton films. The problem in 89 was the stiff competition from other franchises (a lot of films that came out that year are now considered classics) and the horrendous market campaign in America.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2016 Posts: 23,883
    Shardlake wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    Before SP I wanted Craig forever but with the mixed reception I think the general audience and some of us are ready.

    Craig's Bond will be blamed for SP even though that's an erroneous connection.

    That mixed reception only happened in the US. In Europe Spectre has broken countless ticket sales records and got a lot of rave reviews.

    Spectre has put movies like Jurassic World, Furious 7 and Age Of Ultron to shame ticket sales wise.

    Europe is ready for some more action with Craig.

    As with Dalton, the US doesn't appreciate what is good about SP

    We did. Just not a lot to appreciate.

    The U.S surprisingly was more reserved or critical on SP, some of the reviews it got here were ridiculous, the 5 star ones in the broadsheets from the likes of Tom Bradshaw were just shameful.
    Folks back home likely got carried away after SF. Pride kicked in. I think in the US they looked at it more skeptically precisely because of SF's outsize success, and also because there isn't any country affiliation to the franchise like in the UK.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,336
    Murdock wrote: »
    Oh that would be so dreadful... :-S
    Oh come on, @Murdock. With Nolan directing we could get Hans Zimmer doing the score, and you're the biggest fan of him I know! :D

  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    Before SP I wanted Craig forever but with the mixed reception I think the general audience and some of us are ready.

    Craig's Bond will be blamed for SP even though that's an erroneous connection.

    That mixed reception only happened in the US. In Europe Spectre has broken countless ticket sales records and got a lot of rave reviews.

    Spectre has put movies like Jurassic World, Furious 7 and Age Of Ultron to shame ticket sales wise.

    Europe is ready for some more action with Craig.

    As with Dalton, the US doesn't appreciate what is good about SP

    We did. Just not a lot to appreciate.

    There is a lot to appreciate in the Dalton films. The problem in 89 was the stiff competition from other franchises (a lot of films that came out that year are now considered classics) and the horrendous market campaign in America.

    i also think Dalton was ahead of his time... he played Bond the way that would be more appreciated today, but the world just wasn't ready for that type of Bond back in the day..... there is also the Brosnan factor to think about as well - everyone was so dead set on him being Bond, that when he wasn't cast, there might have been a percentage of fan backlash..... also, it could be possible that people were just suffering a bit of Bond fatigue - they had been pumping these films out so fast for so long, and some people could've been burnt out by Roger too...

    all of this, plus the heavy competition from the films of that period....

    as much as we all curse the 6 year hiatus between '89-'95, i also think it really helped renew interest in the character, because he had been gone for so long.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    Seriously Dalton was great as Bond but his films especially LTK were at odds with themeselves, they couldn't decide what they wanted to be.

    LTK suffers from serious jarring moments, yes you get the revenge element but then you get the Roger Moore like Q moments and that brush with a radio in it is just plain embarrassing.

    Dalton as the character yes but the content wasn't much better than had been in the latter half of Rog's spell in the role.
Sign In or Register to comment.