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
I think he's alot more known. The X-Men films, Jack the Giant Slayer, being the Jennifer Lawrence's ex. Plus he's too effeminate and looks like too much of a pretty boy. Craig has raised the bar in terms of physicality and doubt Hoult will be able to follow him.
I'll grant you DH, but I don't find him bland or wooden at all.
I agree with your first paragraph but not the second. Glen was sub par at best. Slow pace sloppy ...third grade blocking and oh yeah no clue on acting. Just my opinion.
Then the franchise will be re-invigorated once more as everyone prepares for a new actor.
I am saving this post. Don't be so sure about a 5th movie with Craig. Anything can happen. If I had to bet, I would say that Bond 25 will be released around 2020, will feature a new actor and will be directed by Christopher Nolan.
Exactly. Craig has a certain set look and IMO he didn't look that much older at the SP press conference than he did at the CR press conference 9 years ago. The reason he looked older in SF was that unflattering hairstyle and the fact that he walks around for a third of the movie with grey stubble. And like I've said before I believe it was their intention to make Craig look a bit worn out in SF.
And even if Craig plays the role into his fifties, I wouldn't necessarily mind an older Bond along as they acknowledge it and incorporate it into the story, which as evidenced by SF, they're not afraid to do.
You tell us 'anything can happen' then say you're prepared to put money on Craig leaving, the release date and the director of the next film? :))
You missed the part where I wrote "If I had to bet"... Doebleoego wote that " Craig will definitely do his 5th". I did not write anywhere in my post that Nolan will definitely direct the next one or that the next one will definitely be released in 2020...
Well, I'm usually a gracious man but in this instance I vehemently look forward to telling you I told you so when Craig comes back for his 5th movie. Also 2020 for Bond 25??? There's no way you can be serious about that. It makes no financial or creative sense at all.
This is true. But DC isn't Tom Cruise. And he's not Liam Neeson, either, who's also doing this stuff at an older age. Only DC can know what his body can and can't do--or, more importantly, what he desires to do. DC is not a fitness fanatic (by his own admission). Cruise does this stuff because it makes money. I'm not sure DC is in it all for the money. But whether or not he can, I think DC wants to get on with the rest of his life, post-Bond, sooner rather than later. He's a wonderful actor and deserves that much.
I would rather EON not leave Bond alone after Craig leaves. They could recast Bond and carry on with the original timeline.
Yes, Casino Royale is the first Bond movie that is CLEARLY a reboot but that doesn't mean it was the first reboot of the franchise.
Casino Royale was a departure (too much if you ask me) sweeping aside all that went before, setting up it's own timeline/series/whatever term you want to use.
I have always viewed Bond as the same character on a continuous timeline from DN through LTK. There are references in FYEO to Traci's death...so too in LTK. I assume that timeline continues with Brosnan's films. Different actor, but same character.
When DC came on board, EON seemed to wipe the slate clean and start over. There is no Traci, never was (to this Bond). It is a reboot in the strictest fashion, just as Batman Begins was a reboot. It's almost like a remake, starting from scratch.
If it had been up to me, I would have reset CR in the 50s (which was Tarantino's idea) and made all Bond films thereafter set in the 50s/60s time period, without any sense that the character is aging. They would all be period pieces, in that era, stuck there. Think MAD MEN without the time progression. But my guess is that it just becomes too expensive and difficult to continuously find locations to fir the period.
Bond films are and always have been a product of their time. Going 'period' would kill the franchise. The only reason we're still watching Bond films in 2014 is because the producers understood this.
Evolution. It was what the franchise needed to continue. There are more Bond fans now than there ever was before. Barbara Broccoli made tough decisions but the right ones to reignite interest. I think she is a worthy custodian shes done her daddy proud. IMO
I agree that Bond films should generally be set in the present, but how about just a few films set in the past? How about a Bond movie trilogy set in the 60s? Or three movies set in the late 50s/early 60s acting as a prequel to the Connery era?
Making a limited number of Bond films set in the past after the Craig era and THEN returning to making Bond films set in the present would really keep the franchise fresh, I believe.