It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
As for the Olympics segment, u disagree with you. Yes, Bond is a British icon but he didn't have to be a part of the Olympics and even if he was, such a segment with the actual Queen would have likely never happened.
Well, the writers strike forced him to if he wanted to try and make a good film, that's what I meant. He wasn't forced by a contract, no. He obviously cared, but since I don't like QOS much at all I'm not sure about his creative influence being a good thing.
I'm sorry, but I don't see what Craig being Bond means for the Queen being involved and for Bond being at the Olympics. Did the Queen or Danny Boyle say they wouldn't have done it if anybody apart from Craig was Bond? The Queen has been to Bond premieres before and Bond was a popular character before Craig and will still be after.
They did it because Bond was a British icon and the games were in London, and they had a new film to promote. Craig just happens to be Bond at the time.
@ 007RM- Other than being a British icon, Bond is in a popularity phase the likes of which we haven't seen since the 1960's. I agree that Brosnan likely would have been asked if he were the current Bond too, he also had strong public support although I think Craig may well be an even hotter property in his tenure, his movies have seemingly done better at the box office. But, the one thing that definitely distinguishes them other than the portrayals is that Craig is quintessentially English through and through. Brosnan is Irish, and much more "Americanized" as well from all the years he's lived here in the States. And Ireland isn't part of Great Britain (neither should Northern Ireland be either but not looking for a political debate or to upset anyone, just my opinion as a neutral party to that hot mess), and it is possible that the Queen may have been more swayed by the things I mentioned than she may have been with Brosnan. Just a thought and not a knock.
I agree completely. This is exactly what I was going to say. Craig, being English, has a much bigger reason to be in the clip with the Queen than Brosnan would have had. It's a double motive.
But on top of that, as some of you have already mentioned, his Bond seems to be better embraced by the general public as a whole than Brosnan's was. Even though Pierce was embraced as well in his own way..
Would Pierce have dome it? Possibly but he is pretty flakey sometimes. Will he? Wont he? And of course he would have had to get up from his beach house in Malibu.
Come to think of it he isnt very British at all.
Personally I can't see Craig doing more than 4 movies. I could be wrong but he doesn't strike me as the type of actor that would want to stick with one role for a long time - even if that role is James Bond. Let's just hope his next few films are good.
Also I think Craig, this time, deserves a "get the girl" ending as so far he hasn't had one yet. Fleming's Bond, by his third outing, had "got the girl" once. Also, Dalton - arguably the closest to Fleming's Bond - "got the girl" in both his flicks.
Regarding Pierce. Is he British? No, he's technically Irish American now (originated from Ireland but is now a US citizen). If you listen to him in interviews his accent fluctuates from English to Irish to American.
"Wilson said he would have no qualms about replacing the franchise’s latest star should "Skyfall" prove to be the rugged actor’s peak."
I can't imagine he'd put it like that seeing as he's praised Daniel Craig's Bond on various occasions. He compared him to Sean Connery, said he wants him to continue in the role. I'm sure that's a bit of public relations talk just to sell Craig to the public, - it's better to give the impression you like the actor you've hired for the part - but I'd amazed if he said:
"I have no problem replacing Daniel with another actor."
He's never said that before - be it about Craig or previous James Bond actors. He's always struck me as being tactful. Perhaps Craig has said he's had enough of playing Bond? That could explain Wilson's comments.
You make good points, but I think the Olympics had more to do with the Bond character than Craig himself. Like I said, Bond is a British icon and it's the London 2012 games, they have a film to promote, etc. And like I said earlier, I don't think the Queen agreed to do it just because Craig was Bond.
I think that the actor didn't matter. Danny Boyle or whoever came up with the sketch wanted Bond at the Olympics with the Queen. The Queen agreed and Craig happened to be Bond at the time. I think people are reading too much into it saying that it was because of Craig.
Craig did smile. The Queen didn't (but hey, what's new there).
according the London Evenening Standard:
13 August 2012
Daniel Craig, star of the Olympic opening ceremony, should not get too comfy in his tuxedo.
Michael G Wilson, the James Bond producer, was speaking at a culture industry seminar during the Games and said Eon Productions will have no qualms about replacing the franchise’s latest star should Skyfall, the next film in the series, prove to be the rugged actor’s peak.
Recalling the decision to axe Craig’s predecessor, Wilson said: “Pierce [Brosnan] was well-liked and the grosses were going up. But we knew we had to change things before they started to taper off. Bond is the star. He is bigger than any actor that portrays him.”
Brosnan completed four Bond movies (GoldenEye, Tomorrow Never Dies, The World is Not Enough and Die Another Day) before being jettisoned, the landmark Craig will equal if he is retained for a further instalment after Skyfall. Craig first appeared as 007 in Casino Royale in 2006, and returned for Quantum of Solace in 2008.
The Londoner yields to no one in his admiration for Craig and hopes Eon does not make any hasty decisions. They should take note of how the Bourne franchise is now faring. Matt Damon has given way to Jeremy Renner as its action hero and opened to lukewarm reviews this month.
(save this post in case I am right!) :D
Ah, Sean played him if you remember Michael.
I love Craig's Bond, but after watching Casino Royale recently, I can't help but notice how much Craig has aged in these six years. I don't know how long he'll be able to go before he really starts to look old. I've also always felt that it was going to be Craig's decision to leave the role as opposed to the producers - just a gut feeling I've had.
And like someone had mentioned on a page earlier, how do you know it is a peak until you start going downhill? In that case, Pierce should have been let go after GE.
You know MGW may have said this knowing it would get all sorts of online rumours going. No news is bad news!
Shows what you know as Craig did smile as a matter of fact. I'd even say it was more of a self satisfying smirk.
My comment about Craig as Bond being part of the Olympics isn't going to change. As far as I'm concerned i refuse to accept if the Bond movies still had Brosnan in the lead role and the films were still of that mediocre standard that the Brosnan era was, Boyle would have bothered putting together the sort of segment we ended up getting. I don't care if the Queen has been to numerous Bobs premiers, that's beside the point. Craig as Bond and his Bobs films bring a certain pinache and credibility that is more fitting with the world in which we live in today that can attract the sort of attention abs publicity that made Boyle do this in the first place.
I'm sorry but I don't give a dam what anyone says, had Brosnan still been Bond and we were getting his by the numbers movies there's no way we'd get the sort if segment we ended up getting.
The Bond Producers have always outwitted their stars by leading them on and declaring them as the best Bond ever bragging about how many films their stars will do only to cut them short by one or two films.
The previous Producer Cubby Broccoli brought back Sean for Diamonds are Forever with a storyline meant for George Lazenby, Dalton was meant to do a 3rd Bond film set in Japan with a script lined up and he most probably would have done Golden Eye before he jumped ship. Any guesses as to why? Pierce also was not even properly notified that Die Another Day would be his last film.
The only Bond actors who left on their own accord were Sean & Roger and that too Roger (he was a fine Bond but he on the other hand prevented other stars from taking on the role sooner). Michael who has been responsible for overseeing some shoddy Bond scripts including ‘Licence to Kill’ and ‘Die Another Day’ ended two formidable Bond careers (Dalton & Brosnan).
I'm sorry Michael, you just don't get Bond and I really think you ever did. Better were the days when Saltzman and Broccoli worked on the films together, two people with contrasting ideas working on a collaborative basis.
Michael says that the character Bond is bigger than the actor. Well I don't think he understands the nature of films and acting. Without Sean to start things off the Bond books would've been just another story on the book shelves, it's the actor who fills the shoes and fleshes the character out which is otherwise a hollow two dimensional image of a person read about in books.
More interested in getting his own credits in Alfred Hitchcock style cameo appearances, it is quite clear as to who thinks they know who or what is bigger than Bond; aka himself and the Broccoli dynasty who have ultimate control over what happens to the character. The sooner Bond jumps ship and leaves the creative hands of the Broccolis the better cos they haven't quite understood what it means to be a British icon as Bond, James Bond...
1) This is much ado about nothing as the direct quote from Wilson (assuming that it is a direct quote from him) does not specifically mention Craig or SF. Sounds suspiciously like a story spun to sound provocative.
2) People are saying things that are demonstrably untrue, such as Bond never smiles in the Olympics short film (he does), there's no humour in Craig's films (there is quite a bit, maybe just not the style that you want), and that Craig is a limited actor (I personally think that he's given us the most three dimensional Bondof all the actors, and he's the only actor nominated for a BAFTA for the role).
3) Wilson and Barbara Broccoli only care about themselves/don't understand Bond. Sigh. Think of how different GF was from DN. Think of how different OHMSS was from GF, and DAF from OHMSS. MR, FYEO, LTK, GE - all these films are very different from each other. While there's a (for lack of a better word) "template" there's no such thing as a "standard" Bond film and thank dog for that else we'd be really bored. CR and QoS (and presumably SF) are as much Bond films as any that have come before and the box office would certainly indicate that lots of the general public agree.
As someone upthread said there are some people who will jump all over this "story" because it allows them to express and presumably have validation for the things or people associated with Bond that they don't like, or in some cases hate. But, really - all this over such an obviously spun story? Really?
Finally someone with good sense!
Yeah, Craig did smile, that was obvious.
Like I said before, the Olympics had nothing to do with Craig, he just happened to be Bond at the time. If it was Brosnan or anyone else he would've done it. Why do Craigs films being more realistic matter???
I think you're just reading too much into things here. Obviously you're a big Craig fan and want to think that if it wasn't for him we wouldn't have gotten the Olympic opening, but he had nothing to do with the Olympic segment apart from starring in it. You're just in plain denial here.
We would. This was about 'Bond' being a cultural icon. Portrayal is irrelevant.
I think Tom Hardy is too young looking (I don't know how old he is but he looks early 30's) as for Idris Elba....LoL! Nice idea but it will NEVER happen in a million years (mind you they said that about the President LoL!) and rightly so in my opinion- it would be like getting Tom Hardy to play Shaft ....LoL! I don't think Michael Fassbender is too famous - altho he he has done a few major Hollywood movies, I still think he would be perfect and the right way to continue Bond in the same tone as Craig's movies!