Well known directors on that level (Nolan, Tarantino, Spielberg) would never get a Bond film because, especially with the first two, they would indeed want to make their own movie, and not a Bond movie. While I think it's invaluable to mix things up, after a while it could stop feeling like a Bond movie.
I don't know about that. All three of them are "film geeks" and while they would want to bring some of their own flavors to a Bond film I think they would respect the "canon" and make something more traditional than you might expect. For all of Tarantino's maverick, indy rep he is notorious for cribbing from classic films (Italian Westerns, grindhouse exploitation, etc). I just think they all have other pursuits and things on their plates cinematically and just not have the time or inclination to do a Bond film which would be more of a lark for them.
Well known directors on that level (Nolan, Tarantino, Spielberg) would never get a Bond film because, especially with the first two, they would indeed want to make their own movie, and not a Bond movie. While I think it's invaluable to mix things up, after a while it could stop feeling like a Bond movie.
I don't know about that. All three of them are "film geeks" and while they would want to bring some of their own flavors to a Bond film I think they would respect the "canon" and make something more traditional than you might expect. For all of Tarantino's maverick, indy rep he is notorious for cribbing from classic films (Italian Westerns, grindhouse exploitation, etc). I just think they all have other pursuits and things on their plates cinematically and just not have the time or inclination to do a Bond film which would be more of a lark for them.
I don't mind Tarantino stealing from other films (all art borrows from all other art) it's when he steals and then denies it. The Kill Bill films were obviously inspired by Trauffaut's The Bride Wore Black, but he denies even seeing The Bride Wore Black, which makes no sense at all.
Kill Bill was certainly inspired by the Trauffaut film but his biggest out and out theft was Reservoir Dogs which was basically a remake of the 80's Honk Kong action film City On Fire. It is incredibly disingenuous or downright dishonest for a self proclaimed genre film aficionado like Tarantino to expect people to believe he has not seen "Bride" or "City On Fire".
I have a feeling Charlie Hunnam will be cast as the next Bond. Why? I think he's Barbera Broccoli's type. She seems to favour Blonde, muscular, edgy, brawler types. I've read she favoured Sean Bean back in the day. She first suggested Daniel Craig and she backed him for the role, and since his tenure has been so succesful I think her opinion will matter even more this time. Hunnam isn't my favorite, mind.
I think you're 100 percent on the money, Number 24! If Barbara Broccoli were in charge in 1994 I don't think she would have cast Pierce Brosnan. I reckon she would have convinced someone like Liam Neeson or Sean Bean to take the part. If she prefers the "rough" type it's unlikely the likes of Tom Hiddleston will get the part.
I have a feeling that growing up with James Bond has made the James Bond type is not attractive to her. She may continue to miscast James Bond because of that.
I have a feeling that growing up with James Bond has made the James Bond type is not attractive to her. She may continue to miscast James Bond because of that.
Spectacular box-office returns for a 'miscast' Bond :v if only ALL errors turned out that good )
I have a feeling that growing up with James Bond has made the James Bond type is not attractive to her. She may continue to miscast James Bond because of that.
Spectacular box-office returns for a 'miscast' Bond :v if only ALL errors turned out that good )
I have a feeling that growing up with James Bond has made the James Bond type is not attractive to her. She may continue to miscast James Bond because of that.
Spectacular box-office returns for a 'miscast' Bond :v if only ALL errors turned out that good )
What part of the development of Craig's Bond is less believe ble than a laser battle in space? I really want to know.
An immature 38-year-old will not all of the sudden start to mature at that age. People are very set in their ways by then, yet we're supposed to believe that the story of the film is how Bond starts out as a rough novice and becomes the Bond we know from before by the end of the film. It would have made sense if Bond were in his 20s, but not his late 30s. And while not Craig's fault, I don't like how the character isn't written much like Fleming's Bond, as Fleming's Bond was a mature agent by the time he was 38.
What part of the development of Craig's Bond is less believe ble than a laser battle in space? I really want to know.
An immature 38-year-old will not all of the sudden start to mature at that age. People are very set in their ways by then, yet we're supposed to believe that the story of the film is how Bond starts out as a rough novice and becomes the Bond we know from before by the end of the film. It would have made sense if Bond were in his 20s, but not his late 30s. And while not Craig's fault, I don't like how the character isn't written much like Fleming's Bond, as Fleming's Bond was a mature agent by the time he was 38.
In the novel Casino Royale, Bond says he bought his Bentley in 1933. Assuming he was 20 (seems reasonable) when he bought it, he would've been born in 1913. Casino Royale takes place in 1952, so he was 39.
There's no way he could've been younger than 37.
It seems that you should take up your complaint with Ian Fleming.
You have a good point (I'd have liked to see what Michael Fassbender would have done with the role), but MR wasn't the best movie to compare with. Small we agree that Craig's development was less believe than, say..... Octopussy?
What part of the development of Craig's Bond is less believe ble than a laser battle in space? I really want to know.
An immature 38-year-old will not all of the sudden start to mature at that age. People are very set in their ways by then, yet we're supposed to believe that the story of the film is how Bond starts out as a rough novice and becomes the Bond we know from before by the end of the film. It would have made sense if Bond were in his 20s, but not his late 30s. And while not Craig's fault, I don't like how the character isn't written much like Fleming's Bond, as Fleming's Bond was a mature agent by the time he was 38.
In the novel Casino Royale, Bond says he bought his Bentley in 1933. Assuming he was 20 (seems reasonable) when he bought it, he would've been born in 1913. Casino Royale takes place in 1952, so he was 39.
There's no way he could've been younger than 37.
It seems that you should take up your complaint with Ian Fleming.
The Bond character in the CR film is not written the same as the Bond character in the CR novel. In the CR novel Bond is not a novice on his first mission. The novel isn't about a cocky new agent who doesn't know what he's doing, but that's what the film is about. There is no way that Bond of the film could be the same age as Bond of the novel.
Chronology wasn't one of Fleming's strong points- either that, or he just didn't care about it. He's pretty inconsistent with Bond's age through the series.
Bond seems to be about 40 in all the books and stories.
All that drinking must've kept him young.
Yes, he is around that age in all of the stories. But he's also never a new agent in Fleming's stories. I don't believe Fleming told us how old he was when he became a 00.
I have grown to like Craig, despite that I saw no resemblances with the literature Bond. Not in looks and not in sophistication. But, the boy can act, did bring back the reality in the Bond movies and now I am kind of used to him being Bond. He does bring something to the screen as Bond.
Still, I would have preffered Fassbender or even Christian Bale in 2006 to be Bond. Bale wasn't Batman at that time yet I believe when Craig was cast. Correct me if I am wrong.
Batman Begins was released in '05 and CR in '06 so Bale was Batman already. IMO, Bale could have been a good Bond but frankly he has a rep as being a major PITA so I'm guessing EON would have avoided him anyway. Craig was not too old to play a new "00". If you read the backstory that was created for the Bond of the re-boot, it was very clear that between his military service and intelligence service prior to being promoted to a "00" there is no reason not to assume that Bond was in his early 30's when promoted and despite all the hoo-ha about Craig's "craggy" looks he certainly could pass for early 30's in CR. There is also some question alluded to in CR regarding Bond's suitability to be promoted to "00" status, which could be more attributed to his reckless nature than his actual age. The only scene that was obviously written for someone who really appeared to be younger was when Bond is mistaken for a valet at the hotel. That was a bit of a stretch.
Bale has said that he's not interested in playing James Bond. He said Bond represented “every despicable stereotype about England and British actors... and I've already played a serial killer.”
Bale has said that he's not interested in playing James Bond. He said Bond represented “every despicable stereotype about England and British actors... and I've already played a serial killer.”
I've seen that one too. Bond is just so below my station as a Master Thespian. I can emote so much better running around in a rubber bat suit. By the way Master Thespian, Affleck is a better Batman ) -{
Comments
I don't mind Tarantino stealing from other films (all art borrows from all other art) it's when he steals and then denies it. The Kill Bill films were obviously inspired by Trauffaut's The Bride Wore Black, but he denies even seeing The Bride Wore Black, which makes no sense at all.
I think you're 100 percent on the money, Number 24! If Barbara Broccoli were in charge in 1994 I don't think she would have cast Pierce Brosnan. I reckon she would have convinced someone like Liam Neeson or Sean Bean to take the part. If she prefers the "rough" type it's unlikely the likes of Tom Hiddleston will get the part.
Spectacular box-office returns for a 'miscast' Bond :v if only ALL errors turned out that good
Lots of bad things are extremely popular.
I wouldn't class DC as bad
But each to their own -{
1 - Moore, 2 - Dalton, 3 - Craig, 4 - Connery, 5 - Brosnan, 6 - Lazenby
Craig was especially miscast for CR, being at least 10 years too old for the way the character was written.
Absolutely, a blunder of epic proportions.
The character development in Craig's Bond films is less believable than anything in Moonraker is. At least Moonraker is fun.
Bond was dangerous again. -{
The question was ment for Matt S
1 - Moore, 2 - Dalton, 3 - Craig, 4 - Connery, 5 - Brosnan, 6 - Lazenby
An immature 38-year-old will not all of the sudden start to mature at that age. People are very set in their ways by then, yet we're supposed to believe that the story of the film is how Bond starts out as a rough novice and becomes the Bond we know from before by the end of the film. It would have made sense if Bond were in his 20s, but not his late 30s. And while not Craig's fault, I don't like how the character isn't written much like Fleming's Bond, as Fleming's Bond was a mature agent by the time he was 38.
In the novel Casino Royale, Bond says he bought his Bentley in 1933. Assuming he was 20 (seems reasonable) when he bought it, he would've been born in 1913. Casino Royale takes place in 1952, so he was 39.
There's no way he could've been younger than 37.
It seems that you should take up your complaint with Ian Fleming.
The Bond character in the CR film is not written the same as the Bond character in the CR novel. In the CR novel Bond is not a novice on his first mission. The novel isn't about a cocky new agent who doesn't know what he's doing, but that's what the film is about. There is no way that Bond of the film could be the same age as Bond of the novel.
All that drinking must've kept him young.
Yes, he is around that age in all of the stories. But he's also never a new agent in Fleming's stories. I don't believe Fleming told us how old he was when he became a 00.
Still, I would have preffered Fassbender or even Christian Bale in 2006 to be Bond. Bale wasn't Batman at that time yet I believe when Craig was cast. Correct me if I am wrong.
1. Connery 2. Craig 3. Brosnan 4. Dalton 5. Lazenby 6. Moore
Casino Royale turned out to be a gem of a movie, despite my skepticism in the beginning after the casting of Craig.
1. Connery 2. Craig 3. Brosnan 4. Dalton 5. Lazenby 6. Moore
I've seen that one too. Bond is just so below my station as a Master Thespian. I can emote so much better running around in a rubber bat suit. By the way Master Thespian, Affleck is a better Batman