Where does Bond go after Craig?

1125126128130131523

Comments

  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    I agree it's not ideal, but it may have just been the only way. If I recall correctly, he was shooting After the Sunset in The Bahamas at the time and it probably wasn't convenient for one of them to fly all the way out there just to tell him he's out, and they may have felt it was their responsibility to let him know as soon as possible so he wouldn't have to keep turning down job offers for the duration of filming, only to be told a few months later that they didn't want him back.

    Yeah I don’t really see the problem. He was in the Bahamas, they were in maybe LA, possibly more likely London… I wouldn’t expect them to fly there just for the result of a decision; especially when we all expect them to be getting on with making the movie we want to see. Also if they’d have done that it also possibly suggests they’re willing to have a conversation about it, but the reality was their minds were made up.
    They made the call personally, it wasn’t done through agents or third parties… I’m not sure what people want.

    They should have given him a few drinks, then Barbara should have held his hand while Michael stood standby with a handkerchief.

    But who had the smelling salts? :)

    Oh, definitely needed that as well, and a stretcher to make it really professional.
  • GadgetManGadgetMan Lagos, Nigeria
    edited March 2022 Posts: 4,247
    I can't help but think Brosnan is still not happy with the way he was let go though. It would have been much more easier on him and the producers, if he wasn't aware of his 5th Bond film.
  • GadgetMan wrote: »
    I can't help but think Brosnan is still not happy with the way he was let go though. It would have been much more easier on him and the producers, if he wasn't aware of his 5th Bond film.

    Agreed, it doesn’t help that after DAD’s premiere they told Brosnan they were all set to do a 5th film. Brosnan himself seemed excited, but alas the rug was pulled out from underneath him.
  • edited March 2022 Posts: 12,837
    `at any cost' isn't hyperbolic at all. Expressing a desire to come back to kill off the main character of Bond, what else would deem a higher cost than that?

    The cost of that is nothing though, it really isn’t that big a deal to anyone except fanboys like us on websites like this, because it’s not like they were killing him off forever. The film got a mostly positive audience reaction, and even most of the people who didn’t like it are over it by now, because it’s just a film they didn’t like and maybe the next one will be better. It’s only in these sort of fan communities that the debate runs on and on and on. So, I think it’s a silly thing to use as an example of them going to “any cost” to keep Craig, because “agreeing to a story idea that would ruffle some feathers in niche Bond fan circles” is hardly them taking some massive risk that could sink the series. He suggested an idea and they apparently liked it enough to go for it. It’s not that deep.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    I can't help but think Brosnan is still not happy with the way he was let go though. It would have been much more easier on him and the producers, if he wasn't aware of his 5th Bond film.

    Agreed, it doesn’t help that after DAD’s premiere they told Brosnan they were all set to do a 5th film.

    How long after was this? April 1st perhaps?
  • GadgetManGadgetMan Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 4,247
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    I can't help but think Brosnan is still not happy with the way he was let go though. It would have been much more easier on him and the producers, if he wasn't aware of his 5th Bond film.

    Agreed, it doesn’t help that after DAD’s premiere they told Brosnan they were all set to do a 5th film. Brosnan himself seemed excited, but alas the rug was pulled out from underneath him.

    Yeah, that was the problem. Brosnan was excited and let down afterwards. Must have been such a sucker punch.
  • edited March 2022 Posts: 3,279
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    I agree it's not ideal, but it may have just been the only way. If I recall correctly, he was shooting After the Sunset in The Bahamas at the time and it probably wasn't convenient for one of them to fly all the way out there just to tell him he's out, and they may have felt it was their responsibility to let him know as soon as possible so he wouldn't have to keep turning down job offers for the duration of filming, only to be told a few months later that they didn't want him back.

    Yeah I don’t really see the problem. He was in the Bahamas, they were in maybe LA, possibly more likely London… I wouldn’t expect them to fly there just for the result of a decision; especially when we all expect them to be getting on with making the movie we want to see. Also if they’d have done that it also possibly suggests they’re willing to have a conversation about it, but the reality was their minds were made up.
    They made the call personally, it wasn’t done through agents or third parties… I’m not sure what people want.
    Craig was Babs Bond, and there is no way she would have let Craig go over a phone call.

    You have zero proof of that though, it’s an entirely imagined scenario.
    She hired him with a phone call, after all.
    She didn't stick her neck out on the line for Brosnan in the same way she did for Craig, desperate to keep him on for just one more at any cost.

    ‘At any cost’? Slightly hyperbolic there.
    And yes, they decided to do something different with CR, that’s all very well-documented, and their decision was more than vindicated as we all know.
    We can look at how Cubby was desperate to keep Roger on ‘at any cost’ though, and how the series became a mild laughing stock because of his advanced age.

    No proof, just an opinion based on years of commentary from Babs. And bringing him back for one more on the proviso that Bond is killed off, Craig has already stated this now as his desire, and willing to return one last time if they did this, so `at any cost' isn't hyperbolic at all. Expressing a desire to come back to kill off the main character of Bond, what else would deem a higher cost than that?

    $1million in 1971? That's a pretty high cost. To hire a lead actor for the same amount as the budget of your entire first movie, only nine years before. That certainly snacks of desperation and fawning if this does.
    There is an argument that the producers were not paying their star the due amount until 1971 anyway. Greed was the main reason why Connery held a grudge for so long and one of the reasons why he left in 1967. Even the distributors and other money backers thought the producers should be paying their star more, and on the back of OHMSS and a failed one-hit actor in the role, I suppose there was a desperation to bring Connery back.

    I wonder if Craig would have stayed on to do the role for 5 films if he was on a similar deal to what Connery was on back then (inflation adjusted, obviously).

    Had Connery demanded that they killed off Bond too as part of his deal to come back in 1971, I doubt Cubby would have agreed to that too. It would have been A Bridge Too Far.


  • Posts: 3,279
    No proof, just an opinion based on years of commentary from Babs. And bringing him back for one more on the proviso that Bond is killed off, Craig has already stated this now as his desire, and willing to return one last time if they did this, so `at any cost' isn't hyperbolic at all. Expressing a desire to come back to kill off the main character of Bond, what else would deem a higher cost than that?
    All previous actors would have been shown the door if they had told Cubby this was their condition to come back.

    I'm quite happy to be the lonely voice on here that sees a lot of sense in the above. I was also on board with the Craig era, especially after CR, but he's got to take some of the blame for the car-crash that was the second half of NTTD.

    Nice to see some lone sanity checks on here... ;)
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    edited March 2022 Posts: 12,976
    No proof, just an opinion based on years of commentary from Babs. And bringing him back for one more on the proviso that Bond is killed off, Craig has already stated this now as his desire, and willing to return one last time if they did this, so `at any cost' isn't hyperbolic at all. Expressing a desire to come back to kill off the main character of Bond, what else would deem a higher cost than that?
    All previous actors would have been shown the door if they had told Cubby this was their condition to come back.

    I'm quite happy to be the lonely voice on here that sees a lot of sense in the above. I was also on board with the Craig era, especially after CR, but he's got to take some of the blame for the car-crash that was the second half of NTTD.

    Nice to see some lone sanity checks on here... ;)

    There's no shortage of negative comments on Daniel Craig and the latest Bond film, is there.

  • edited March 2022 Posts: 2,038
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    I can't help but think Brosnan is still not happy with the way he was let go though. It would have been much more easier on him and the producers, if he wasn't aware of his 5th Bond film.

    Agreed, it doesn’t help that after DAD’s premiere they told Brosnan they were all set to do a 5th film.

    How long after was this? April 1st perhaps?

    If so that’s the world’s best/worst April Fools Joke XD.
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    I can't help but think Brosnan is still not happy with the way he was let go though. It would have been much more easier on him and the producers, if he wasn't aware of his 5th Bond film.

    Agreed, it doesn’t help that after DAD’s premiere they told Brosnan they were all set to do a 5th film. Brosnan himself seemed excited, but alas the rug was pulled out from underneath him.

    Yeah, that was the problem. Brosnan was excited and let down afterwards. Must have been such a sucker punch.

    It essentially was. In a perfect world perhaps Brosnan’s 5th film would’ve gone darker, more Fleming. Instead we leave poor Piece on an absolute dumpster fire that somehow became the microcosm for his entire era (save GE).

    ...Don’t worry Pierce, some of us still love you.

    EDIT...on that note, NTTD looks like Citizen Kane when you compare it to DAF, AVATK, and DAD.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    edited March 2022 Posts: 8,445
    @jetsetwilly ... The death of Bond didn't fit Connery-Bond, nor Moore-Bond, nor Dalton or Brosnan-Bonds, so it's not comparable to the narrative of the Craig Era which really explored the cycle of life for a double-0 agent, from birth (becoming an agent for Her Majesty), to death (foreshadowed in CR).

    You and a few others despised the concluding chapters, that's your right. But no matter how many times you say the same things, the result remains the same: Craig-Bond is dead. However;

    The character of James Bond will once again grace our screens in a new time line.

    If there was some kind of new and valid argument to your dislike I'd be all in reading, and maybe participating in, further discussions.

    But to date, we have only your personal dislike mixed with hyperbole and conjectures and assumptions (my favourite being: Babs is so blindly infatuated with Craig.....).

    You and a few other didn't like the last three films, or whatever it is. Isn't it time to move on and get excited for the next adventure to come?

  • What I don’t really get is the inability to look at NTTD objectively purely because of the ending. I didn’t like that ending, but that didn’t drag down my enjoyment of the rest of the film. What made NTTD for me was the family Dynamic between Bond, Madeline, and Mathilde, and it annoys me that any discussion about NTTD is boiled down to the ending, and the professional relationship between EON/Craig. I’ll admit that I can at least see/understand why some don’t like the creative input Craig had, and heck I slightly feel the same, but I’m also not upset knowing what the Craig era has been, and what it’s meant for people. I dislike when people drag down Brosnan and his era, so why do the same for Craig? That’s just my mode of thinking. Besides you guys want to talk about the worst Bond swan song? Look no further than AVTAK. On my latest rewatch, I was incredibly surprised at how much I came away disliking that film. THAT film is more of a betrayal to Bond than NTTD ever could be.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,026
    It says a lot that Bond being a father for the first time on screen in 60 years is not discussed nearly as much as it would have been had it happened in any other film. A huge development.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,445
    @007ClassicBondFan , a very nuanced and thoughtful post. I especially agree with you and @CraigMooreOHMSS about the interesting family dynamics (which automatically ups the stakes).
  • edited March 2022 Posts: 2,038
    peter wrote: »
    @007ClassicBondFan , a very nuanced and thoughtful post. I especially agree with you and @CraigMooreOHMSS about the interesting family dynamics (which automatically ups the stakes).

    Thank you @peter. For me the Family Dynamic is only the tip of the iceberg. I love all of the following about NTTD;
    •The Return of Felix Leiter, in what is probably my favorite appearance of the character in any of the films.
    •Paloma, who is perfect every single second she’s on screen....though that could be because of my “appreciation” of Ana De Armas ;)
    •Nomi, who really took me by surprise. For years I thought that having two 007’s in the film would be doing Casino Royale ‘67 all over again, but the dynamic works here, and for me established that James Bond doesn’t need the 007 prefix to be the hero we all know and love, something that I also think LTK does extremely well also.
    •Madeline, who went from being down towards the very bottom of my rankings (thanks to Spectre) to one of my favorite Bond girls after this film.
    •Blofeld, who much like Madeline, didn’t do much for me in SP, but improves here with Waltz, although still calm and collected, being much more cartoonish and outlandish.
    •Safin, Primo, and the other villains being my 2nd favorite Rogue’s group from the Craig Era.
    •The Russian scientist; great source for humor and levity.
    •The return of the fantastical elements of the series, from nanobots and stealth planes to EMP Watches and Cybernetic Eyeballs. This was the kind of Bond film I was raised on, and seeing it work so well within the Craig era really put a huge smile on my face.
    •Lastly, Craig himself. Not my favorite performance from him, but to me, his strongest performance as Bond.

    But hey, NTTD is bad I guess because Bond is dead and will never, ever return to screens...
  • CharmianBondCharmianBond Pett Bottom, Kent
    Posts: 534
    Seconded @Peter. It's funny that Bond's death eclipses everything because Bond being a father truly is one of those ideas where you can only do for the first time once and I think No Time to Die is all the better for it.
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    edited March 2022 Posts: 650
    It says a lot that Bond being a father for the first time on screen in 60 years is not discussed nearly as much as it would have been had it happened in any other film. A huge development.

    Like Calvin Dyson said, NTTD becomes the movie where Craig's Bond gets killed, not the one where he has a family. Such an extreme ending naturally overshadows everything else. They should have done one or other other but not both.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited March 2022 Posts: 5,869
    slide_99 wrote: »
    It says a lot that Bond being a father for the first time on screen in 60 years is not discussed nearly as much as it would have been had it happened in any other film. A huge development.

    Like Calvin Dyson said, NTTD becomes the movie where Craig's Bond gets killed, not the one where he has a family. Such an extreme ending naturally overshadows everything else. They should have done one or other other but not both.
    But for me the two go hand in hand, as it seems integral to Craig's arc that he can never escape from his life as a 00, which we've seen throughout, so when he eventually gets to close to having a family, he has to die.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,445
    @slide_99 : you should actually watch NTTD instead of cribbing other peoples opinions, 😂
  • Posts: 1,703
    peter wrote: »
    @007ClassicBondFan , a very nuanced and thoughtful post. I especially agree with you and @CraigMooreOHMSS about the interesting family dynamics (which automatically ups the stakes).

    Thank you @peter. For me the Family Dynamic is only the tip of the iceberg. I love all of the following about NTTD;
    •The Return of Felix Leiter, in what is probably my favorite appearance of the character in any of the films.
    •Paloma, who is perfect every single second she’s on screen....though that could be because of my “appreciation” of Ana De Armas ;)
    •Nomi, who really took me by surprise. For years I thought that having two 007’s in the film would be doing Casino Royale ‘67 all over again, but the dynamic works here, and for me established that James Bond doesn’t need the 007 prefix to be the hero we all know and love, something that I also think LTK does extremely well also.
    •Madeline, who went from being down towards the very bottom of my rankings (thanks to Spectre) to one of my favorite Bond girls after this film.
    •Blofeld, who much like Madeline, didn’t do much for me in SP, but improves here with Waltz, although still calm and collected, being much more cartoonish and outlandish.
    •Safin, Primo, and the other villains being my 2nd favorite Rogue’s group from the Craig Era.
    •The Russian scientist; great source for humor and levity.
    •The return of the fantastical elements of the series, from nanobots and stealth planes to EMP Watches and Cybernetic Eyeballs. This was the kind of Bond film I was raised on, and seeing it work so well within the Craig era really put a huge smile on my face.
    •Lastly, Craig himself. Not my favorite performance from him, but to me, his strongest performance as Bond.

    But hey, NTTD is bad I guess because Bond is dead and will never, ever return to screens...

    Agreed and I feel once the new Bond is established along with new stories, NTTD will be more accepted as a proper ending to the Craig era of James Bond. Time heals wounds, just ask fans who remained in the fold after TMWTGG and Moonraker. I know Bond wasn't literally killed in those films but...........................
  • edited March 2022 Posts: 12,837
    Denbigh wrote: »
    slide_99 wrote: »
    It says a lot that Bond being a father for the first time on screen in 60 years is not discussed nearly as much as it would have been had it happened in any other film. A huge development.

    Like Calvin Dyson said, NTTD becomes the movie where Craig's Bond gets killed, not the one where he has a family. Such an extreme ending naturally overshadows everything else. They should have done one or other other but not both.
    But for me the two go hand in hand, as it seems integral to Craig's arc that he can never escape from his life as a 00, which we've seen throughout, so when he eventually gets to close to having a family, he has to die.

    Yeah I can understand thinking the story was overstuffed, but if you removed either of those plot points then you’d basically break the film imo. I really can’t think of a more perfect ending for Craig’s Bond than the one we got. Perfectly capped off all the ideas they’d been exploring through his run. And that amazing sense of theme unity is what kept all those other fairly disparate elements hanging together for me.
  • Posts: 3,279
    peter wrote: »

    You and a few other didn't like the last three films, or whatever it is. Isn't it time to move on and get excited for the next adventure to come?

    Amen. I'll drink to that.

  • Posts: 12,248
    If people want to continue to air their complaints about the era, I have nothing against that. We all have different tastes regarding this series; Craig is a close second to Connery among my favorite Bonds, but for others he is the least good. It is what it is. But yes, I think whatever side of the argument you’re on, we can and should all have some excitement for the mysteries of what’s coming next.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited March 2022 Posts: 14,917
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    I agree it's not ideal, but it may have just been the only way. If I recall correctly, he was shooting After the Sunset in The Bahamas at the time and it probably wasn't convenient for one of them to fly all the way out there just to tell him he's out, and they may have felt it was their responsibility to let him know as soon as possible so he wouldn't have to keep turning down job offers for the duration of filming, only to be told a few months later that they didn't want him back.

    Yeah I don’t really see the problem. He was in the Bahamas, they were in maybe LA, possibly more likely London… I wouldn’t expect them to fly there just for the result of a decision; especially when we all expect them to be getting on with making the movie we want to see. Also if they’d have done that it also possibly suggests they’re willing to have a conversation about it, but the reality was their minds were made up.
    They made the call personally, it wasn’t done through agents or third parties… I’m not sure what people want.
    Craig was Babs Bond, and there is no way she would have let Craig go over a phone call.

    You have zero proof of that though, it’s an entirely imagined scenario.
    She hired him with a phone call, after all.
    She didn't stick her neck out on the line for Brosnan in the same way she did for Craig, desperate to keep him on for just one more at any cost.

    ‘At any cost’? Slightly hyperbolic there.
    And yes, they decided to do something different with CR, that’s all very well-documented, and their decision was more than vindicated as we all know.
    We can look at how Cubby was desperate to keep Roger on ‘at any cost’ though, and how the series became a mild laughing stock because of his advanced age.

    No proof, just an opinion based on years of commentary from Babs. And bringing him back for one more on the proviso that Bond is killed off, Craig has already stated this now as his desire, and willing to return one last time if they did this, so `at any cost' isn't hyperbolic at all. Expressing a desire to come back to kill off the main character of Bond, what else would deem a higher cost than that?

    $1million in 1971? That's a pretty high cost. To hire a lead actor for the same amount as the budget of your entire first movie, only nine years before. That certainly snacks of desperation and fawning if this does.
    There is an argument that the producers were not paying their star the due amount until 1971 anyway. Greed was the main reason why Connery held a grudge for so long and one of the reasons why he left in 1967. Even the distributors and other money backers thought the producers should be paying their star more, and on the back of OHMSS and a failed one-hit actor in the role, I suppose there was a desperation to bring Connery back.

    Cubby was desperate and fawning then, yes. Immediately after not paying his stars enough to keep them happy.
    I wonder if Craig would have stayed on to do the role for 5 films if he was on a similar deal to what Connery was on back then (inflation adjusted, obviously).

    I doubt they'd have paid him an amount equal to the budget of the film 9 years previous (Skyfall) i.e. $200m
    Had Connery demanded that they killed off Bond too as part of his deal to come back in 1971, I doubt Cubby would have agreed to that too. It would have been A Bridge Too Far.

    Connery doing that would have come from the place of bad faith that their relationship had reached, spitefully killing the character for its producers. Luckily the current producers are better at handling their star.

    It says a lot that Bond being a father for the first time on screen in 60 years is not discussed nearly as much as it would have been had it happened in any other film. A huge development.

    Yeah I quite like that; it's nice to see people who were adamant that they wouldn't accept something like another person holding the 007 number a few months previously just took Bond being a father in their stride.
  • Posts: 3,279
    mtm wrote: »

    Yeah I quite like that; it's nice to see people who were adamant that they wouldn't accept something like another person holding the 007 number a few months previously just took Bond being a father in their stride.
    A female 007 and Bond having a daughter was very quickly forgotten about in the shadow of Bond's death itself, which would always dwarf any other event in the movie.

    Had Bond lived to fight another day, then maybe the daughter aspect would have caused more of a stir (although not sure how that would have worked in the continuity of the series, with Bond now being an official father in the next flick.)

  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,445
    Getting back to the original point to this conversation: where does Bond go after Craig?

    The Amazon deal has gone through.

    Barbara Broccoli and MGW have stated they’re not interested in a Bond streaming series nor streaming their films without first showcasing the films in the cinemas worldwide.

    Next up I think we can anticipate hearing about the writers being hired and working on the script…

    Once a script is in good shape, they will go after…. Denis Villeneuve as director… he will then direct the finalists in scenes from the new script. From here-

    The new James Bond will be announced to the world, with a release date attached….
  • Posts: 1,550
    Oh, no, not Denis Take-an-Existing-Film-and-Put-Everyone-to-Sleep-with-the-New-One Villeneuve...
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,095
    Since62 wrote: »
    Oh, no, not Denis Take-an-Existing-Film-and-Put-Everyone-to-Sleep-with-the-New-One Villeneuve...

    https://variety.com/2022/film/awards/francis-coppola-godfather-anniversary-walk-of-fame-1235204672/

    Somewhat off topic, but in the article, FFC says he likes and thinks that Denis Villeneuve and Cary Fukunaga are two of the best filmmakers today. I wouldn’t be surprised if Cary comes back to launch the next Bond. Didn’t someone say he had a few ideas to BB about how to do it? I could give or leave him, either way.
    peter wrote: »
    Getting back to the original point to this conversation: where does Bond go after Craig?

    The Amazon deal has gone through.

    Barbara Broccoli and MGW have stated they’re not interested in a Bond streaming series nor streaming their films without first showcasing the films in the cinemas worldwide.

    Next up I think we can anticipate hearing about the writers being hired and working on the script…

    Once a script is in good shape, they will go after…. Denis Villeneuve as director… he will then direct the finalists in scenes from the new script. From here-

    The new James Bond will be announced to the world, with a release date attached….

    I shudder about the script, knowing how loyal to Purvis and Wade EON is, they’ll probably come back at some point. EON’s loyalty to them is arguably stronger than the one to Craig’s.
  • edited March 2022 Posts: 2,038
    Eh I’m mixed on the return of Fukanaga personally. On one hand, I love the visual flair, style, and action of NTTD. On the other hand, not really a huge fan of his comments reducing Connery’s Bond to “basically a rapist.”

    For a tone for the film, I’ve always said this on here, but I’d personally like something in the style of the earlier Bond films. Use Connery’s first four films as templates as opposed to something like CR, or Skyfall. TLD, and GE all did this perfectly mixing a fast paced, tightly scripted thriller with elements of the fantastical. Not that I think CR or Skyfall don’t do this, but trying to replicate those films would bring inevitable comparisons, especially coming immediately after Craig’s era.

    I’d rather the emotional stakes take a bit of a backseat for the next era. I don’t really think we need movies that always delve deep into Bond as a character, in fact I think it’s a concept that was overused in Craig’s era. I’d also rather not have another connected story arc. If they insist on doing that, then they should at least plan it out better than they previously have, because unfortunately for me, a lot of why Craig’s era/his arc doesn’t work for me is because of the poor planning/retconning, despite the performances Craig put in.

    Finally, I’d like the next Bond to be a bit more of a Bastard. That sophisticated playboy who could make love to a woman one moment and kill somebody the next, all while cracking a quip and wry smile. Someone more Connery/Moore/Brosnan than Lazenby/Dalton/Craig.
  • Posts: 1,550
    Hmmm, I think Lazenby would fit into your first grouping.
    Also - Moore's Bond tricked Solitaire into giving up her virginity for him. Oh, sure, she already was attracted, but she believed in those Tarot cards. Bond knew it, and it was the reason he brought a set of cards in which each one shows The Lovers. Solitaire may have been heading there with Bond, but it seemed the cards made the difference and pushed her into his arms, so to speak, but by way of his deception. Was it really necessary for him to do that to get her on his side ? Wouldn't she have been persuaded by knowing more about what Kananga/Mr. Big was up to ?
Sign In or Register to comment.