I simply don't like apples lock in mentality, I'm sure if they got it, I tunes would get an earlier stream date, bond would have an apple watch, white earphones etc
I simply can't see a remake of ohmss being on the cards, firstly I don't think DC would agree to it, I believe his reticence in committing to 25 is due to the Spectre story line and the luke warm reception it got, he's held out not for money but a decent story and script which interests and excites him, I think if they'd come to him with a more of the same story he'd have gone.
Secondly it's just not in eons form to do remakes... They havnt done it yet, why start now?
Thirdly, since the reboot bond has continually been stricken with grief except in qos but that was a CR continuation. vesper was the big one for this era,
And finally Felix is heavily expected to return, which is at odds with the ohmss story.
Lets hope this rumor remains just that, a rumor. It's clear that OHMSS had some influence on SP but it didn't benefit the final product much if at all. Hopefully Purvis and Wade and the rest of EON are as fed up with personal, revenge and backstory driven Bond films now as we are.
Skyfall is a remake of TWINE.
P+W will do another remake under the working title "this time it's personal".
Hope dies last though. Maybe for some miraculous reason we will get a stand alone film with an actual mission for Bond.
One guy mentioned the theory that if EON are giving up the franchise, they may end it with the death of Bond and walk away. Leaving whoever buys them out to do what they want.
This is not a rumour, just a guys theory but it kind of made some sense to me after the initial horror kicking in of Bond dying.
Any thoughts on this angle? Would be interesting and a bit crazy etc but some way to bow out lol
Instagram - bondclothes007
Asp9mmOver the Hills and Far Away.Posts: 7,535MI6 Agent
One guy mentioned the theory that if EON are giving up the franchise, they may end it with the death of Bond and walk away. Leaving whoever buys them out to do what they want.
This is not a rumour, just a guys theory but it kind of made some sense to me after the initial horror kicking in of Bond dying.
Any thoughts on this angle? Would be interesting and a bit crazy etc but some way to bow out lol
I think both Barbara and Michael could be reaching a point where as lucrative as Bond films are, to have to create and promote the same type of film over and over again probably gets boring after a few decades.
I think we may be letting this get a bit away from us. Craig is back for most likely one more, possibly two if filmed back to back. EON will not kill Bond off or do anything really off the wall. If anything, the film will more than likely get back to the "gritty, serious business Bond" that was successful for Craig. I wouldn't get carried away with whoever MGM and EON partner with. Remember, unless something drastically changes, the third partner will have distribution rights and not a ton of say in the production of the film...not equal partners with MGM and EON. If Amazon signs on, all that would probably mean is they would get first crack at the streaming rights for Bond 25....no spin-offs, TV show, etc. Just a shot in the dark theory on my part but Warners may have a bigger agenda: get their foot in the door with a distribution deal and then buy out MGM or EON, paving the way for a Christopher Nolan Bond trilogy to begin the post Craig era.
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,746Chief of Staff
One guy mentioned the theory that if EON are giving up the franchise, they may end it with the death of Bond and walk away. Leaving whoever buys them out to do what they want.
This is not a rumour, just a guys theory but it kind of made some sense to me after the initial horror kicking in of Bond dying.
Any thoughts on this angle? Would be interesting and a bit crazy etc but some way to bow out lol
This has been 'doing the rounds' for about a year...I wonder this 'guy' from MI6 got 'his idea' from? :v
YNWA 97
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
I put this in 'The Future of Bond' thread (in the Films forum) as well, as it seems appropriate there.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
One guy mentioned the theory that if EON are giving up the franchise, they may end it with the death of Bond and walk away. Leaving whoever buys them out to do what they want.
This is not a rumour, just a guys theory but it kind of made some sense to me after the initial horror kicking in of Bond dying.
Any thoughts on this angle? Would be interesting and a bit crazy etc but some way to bow out lol
This has been 'doing the rounds' for about a year...I wonder this 'guy' from MI6 got 'his idea' from? :v
One guy mentioned the theory that if EON are giving up the franchise, they may end it with the death of Bond and walk away. Leaving whoever buys them out to do what they want.
This is not a rumour, just a guys theory but it kind of made some sense to me after the initial horror kicking in of Bond dying.
Any thoughts on this angle? Would be interesting and a bit crazy etc but some way to bow out lol
This has been 'doing the rounds' for about a year...I wonder this 'guy' from MI6 got 'his idea' from? :v
Ah ok - ive just never read it before. )
Just like most people in the Craig era who are prepared to die, Bond should say "make it quick".
Craig has given a brilliant and ultimately different take on Bond. And this is probably the last of the Bond films as we know them. Times are changing and Bond needs to move with the times.
Some say Brosnan represent the last of the Bond films as we knew them, others say it about Dalton etc.
There will be a Bond actors after Craig and they will portray Bond in their own way, just as every Bond actor in the past did.
The John Glen era ended after LTK, The Brosnan era was new and refreshing at the time, DC's era likewise. The next era will feel different again. Times change. Politics, culture, fashion, technology, business, will always influence the feel of the films and the reign of each Bond actor.
There will be Bond again after DC. Just Bond in a new era.
What this era will be remembered for is that it threw away all the widely beloved traits that make a Bond film. Some call that innovation or moving on with the times. I call it spitting on the Bond legacy of 40 years.
SPECTRE corrected some of those sins. We'll see if Bond 25, hopefully, will correct it even further.
Because when you take away what makes a Bond film like they did, Bond will just be any common action hero/spy, still highly entertaining but nothing special anymore.
I still think that SP would have been a great end for this era.
And it should have been, especially given the fact we get another four year gap, with a three year gap between SF and SP.
If Bond 25 should be another GE, GF or TSWLM, which is highly doubtful, then of course it will look differently. Hope dies last, but the history of the franchise almost dictates that Bond 25 will be the low point in this era. Sadly.
What this era will be remembered for is that it threw away all the widely beloved traits that make a Bond film. Some call that innovation or moving on with the times. I call it spitting on the Bond legacy of 40 years.
SPECTRE corrected some of those sins. We'll see if Bond 25, hopefully, will correct it even further.
Because when you take away what makes a Bond film like they did, Bond will just be any common action hero/spy, still highly entertaining but nothing special anymore.
What I'm about to say isn't anything new:
To me, what makes the Bond franchise unique (and has allowed it to survive) after 24 films is the variety. There literally is something for everyone. And I for one love that fact that I can pick out a Bond film to suit my mood, whether I'm looking for a more lighthearted action/adventure movie, a noir-ish thriller, or a straight up revenge story.
Like most other fans, I have my personal template for what makes a great Bond film. It's obvious from your comments that you also have your "Bond films must have ..." checklist. But I'd bet that if you make your list public, we could find at least 4 pre-Craig Bond films that don't meet all your criteria. Same would be true for my list.
So let's stop pretending that Craig's era did something radical with the Bond films' "legacy" that hadn't already been done multiple times before. Moonraker is about as far from Dr. No as you can get. LALD and LTK have completely different vibes from OHMSS. And how about comparing DAD to FRWL?
Bond on screen has always been evolving, even going back to the first 5 films. I'm sure in the 1960s their were plenty of Fleming purists who despised the changes made in each movie. "Bond gets plastic surgery to look Japanese? The villain lives in a volcano?!? That's ridiculous!!!" But the words "Bigger! Better! More!" were right there on the movie posters as each new film was released. Change was part of the philosophy and strategy from the start. From my perspective, the Craig-era has just been following that tradition.
What this era will be remembered for is that it threw away all the widely beloved traits that make a Bond film. Some call that innovation or moving on with the times. I call it spitting on the Bond legacy of 40 years.
SPECTRE corrected some of those sins. We'll see if Bond 25, hopefully, will correct it even further.
Because when you take away what makes a Bond film like they did, Bond will just be any common action hero/spy, still highly entertaining but nothing special anymore.
There's a door to the left that leads to the classic bond forum. |)
Lifestyle guide to the products and locations featured in the James Bond films.
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,746Chief of Staff
One guy mentioned the theory that if EON are giving up the franchise, they may end it with the death of Bond and walk away. Leaving whoever buys them out to do what they want.
This is not a rumour, just a guys theory but it kind of made some sense to me after the initial horror kicking in of Bond dying.
Any thoughts on this angle? Would be interesting and a bit crazy etc but some way to bow out lol
This has been 'doing the rounds' for about a year...I wonder this 'guy' from MI6 got 'his idea' from? :v
Ah ok - ive just never read it before. )
Didn't mean my post to come across as rude - so apologies if it did ;%
Allegedly it was one of the main reasons as to why DC returned...
What this era will be remembered for is that it threw away all the widely beloved traits that make a Bond film. Some call that innovation or moving on with the times. I call it spitting on the Bond legacy of 40 years.
SPECTRE corrected some of those sins. We'll see if Bond 25, hopefully, will correct it even further.
Because when you take away what makes a Bond film like they did, Bond will just be any common action hero/spy, still highly entertaining but nothing special anymore.
What I'm about to say isn't anything new:
To me, what makes the Bond franchise unique (and has allowed it to survive) after 24 films is the variety. There literally is something for everyone. And I for one love that fact that I can pick out a Bond film to suit my mood, whether I'm looking for a more lighthearted action/adventure movie, a noir-ish thriller, or a straight up revenge story.
Like most other fans, I have my personal template for what makes a great Bond film. It's obvious from your comments that you also have your "Bond films must have ..." checklist. But I'd bet that if you make your list public, we could find at least 4 pre-Craig Bond films that don't meet all your criteria. Same would be true for my list.
So let's stop pretending that Craig's era did something radical with the Bond films' "legacy" that hadn't already been done multiple times before. Moonraker is about as far from Dr. No as you can get. LALD and LTK have completely different vibes from OHMSS. And how about comparing DAD to FRWL?
Bond on screen has always been evolving, even going back to the first 5 films. I'm sure in the 1960s their were plenty of Fleming purists who despised the changes made in each movie. "Bond gets plastic surgery to look Japanese? The villain lives in a volcano?!? That's ridiculous!!!" But the words "Bigger! Better! More!" were right there on the movie posters as each new film was released. Change was part of the philosophy and strategy from the start. From my perspective, the Craig-era has just been following that tradition.
Well.said -{ the things you point out I've said before and is why I can't rank or rate the bond films. I honestly do get something positive out of every bond film.
What this era will be remembered for is that it threw away all the widely beloved traits that make a Bond film. Some call that innovation or moving on with the times. I call it spitting on the Bond legacy of 40 years.
SPECTRE corrected some of those sins. We'll see if Bond 25, hopefully, will correct it even further.
Because when you take away what makes a Bond film like they did, Bond will just be any common action hero/spy, still highly entertaining but nothing special anymore.
What I'm about to say isn't anything new:
To me, what makes the Bond franchise unique (and has allowed it to survive) after 24 films is the variety. There literally is something for everyone. And I for one love that fact that I can pick out a Bond film to suit my mood, whether I'm looking for a more lighthearted action/adventure movie, a noir-ish thriller, or a straight up revenge story.
Like most other fans, I have my personal template for what makes a great Bond film. It's obvious from your comments that you also have your "Bond films must have ..." checklist. But I'd bet that if you make your list public, we could find at least 4 pre-Craig Bond films that don't meet all your criteria. Same would be true for my list.
So let's stop pretending that Craig's era did something radical with the Bond films' "legacy" that hadn't already been done multiple times before. Moonraker is about as far from Dr. No as you can get. LALD and LTK have completely different vibes from OHMSS. And how about comparing DAD to FRWL?
Bond on screen has always been evolving, even going back to the first 5 films. I'm sure in the 1960s their were plenty of Fleming purists who despised the changes made in each movie. "Bond gets plastic surgery to look Japanese? The villain lives in a volcano?!? That's ridiculous!!!" But the words "Bigger! Better! More!" were right there on the movie posters as each new film was released. Change was part of the philosophy and strategy from the start. From my perspective, the Craig-era has just been following that tradition.
Well.said -{ the things you point out I've said before and is why I can't rank or rate the bond films. I honestly do get something positive out of every bond film.
As do I, even of Skyfall ) but the Craig films could rank much higher with me if there had not been that reboot nonsense, and toying with the gunbarrel and other such things that are cinematic Bond's identity.
Diversity is fine, Dr. No, Moonraker, Licence To Kill, diversity galore but ALWAYS recognisable as Bond instantly when you sit in the cinema. With QOS and SF that was hardly the case. CR is kind of excused as it was the "first" Bond film (reboot) and wanted to do something different. By the end of the PTS of QOS that already was old and quite simply annoying and not much else.
There were Bondian aspects in that pts to still mark it out as bond, Aston Martin, Bond theme cues in the score, the suit, the fact there's a pts at all..... Just because the gunbarrel wasn't present imho that alone doesn't negate the cinematic Bond heritage.
This has been 'doing the rounds' for about a year...I wonder this 'guy' from MI6 got 'his idea' from? :v
Ah ok - ive just never read it before. )
Didn't mean my post to come across as rude - so apologies if it did ;%
Allegedly it was one of the main reasons as to why DC returned...
Now that would be crazy. Would be a first if I am not mistaken and would absolutely be an end with no misinterpretation from anyone that Craig would be done.
Comments
OHMSS and Craig in the same era is just wrong on any imaginable level.
Secondly it's just not in eons form to do remakes... They havnt done it yet, why start now?
Thirdly, since the reboot bond has continually been stricken with grief except in qos but that was a CR continuation. vesper was the big one for this era,
And finally Felix is heavily expected to return, which is at odds with the ohmss story.
P+W will do another remake under the working title "this time it's personal".
Hope dies last though. Maybe for some miraculous reason we will get a stand alone film with an actual mission for Bond.
One guy mentioned the theory that if EON are giving up the franchise, they may end it with the death of Bond and walk away. Leaving whoever buys them out to do what they want.
This is not a rumour, just a guys theory but it kind of made some sense to me after the initial horror kicking in of Bond dying.
Any thoughts on this angle? Would be interesting and a bit crazy etc but some way to bow out lol
It's nothing like it. Do you actually watch the films
Their ol'man didn't seem to get bored through the decades!
1960s...
1970s...
1980s...
1990s...
This has been 'doing the rounds' for about a year...I wonder this 'guy' from MI6 got 'his idea' from? :v
I put this in 'The Future of Bond' thread (in the Films forum) as well, as it seems appropriate there.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Ah ok - ive just never read it before.
There will be a Bond actors after Craig and they will portray Bond in their own way, just as every Bond actor in the past did.
The John Glen era ended after LTK, The Brosnan era was new and refreshing at the time, DC's era likewise. The next era will feel different again. Times change. Politics, culture, fashion, technology, business, will always influence the feel of the films and the reign of each Bond actor.
There will be Bond again after DC. Just Bond in a new era.
Some call that innovation or moving on with the times. I call it spitting on the Bond legacy of 40 years.
SPECTRE corrected some of those sins. We'll see if Bond 25, hopefully, will correct it even further.
Because when you take away what makes a Bond film like they did, Bond will just be any common action hero/spy, still highly entertaining but nothing special anymore.
And it should have been, especially given the fact we get another four year gap, with a three year gap between SF and SP.
If Bond 25 should be another GE, GF or TSWLM, which is highly doubtful, then of course it will look differently. Hope dies last, but the history of the franchise almost dictates that Bond 25 will be the low point in this era. Sadly.
What I'm about to say isn't anything new:
To me, what makes the Bond franchise unique (and has allowed it to survive) after 24 films is the variety. There literally is something for everyone. And I for one love that fact that I can pick out a Bond film to suit my mood, whether I'm looking for a more lighthearted action/adventure movie, a noir-ish thriller, or a straight up revenge story.
Like most other fans, I have my personal template for what makes a great Bond film. It's obvious from your comments that you also have your "Bond films must have ..." checklist. But I'd bet that if you make your list public, we could find at least 4 pre-Craig Bond films that don't meet all your criteria. Same would be true for my list.
So let's stop pretending that Craig's era did something radical with the Bond films' "legacy" that hadn't already been done multiple times before. Moonraker is about as far from Dr. No as you can get. LALD and LTK have completely different vibes from OHMSS. And how about comparing DAD to FRWL?
Bond on screen has always been evolving, even going back to the first 5 films. I'm sure in the 1960s their were plenty of Fleming purists who despised the changes made in each movie. "Bond gets plastic surgery to look Japanese? The villain lives in a volcano?!? That's ridiculous!!!" But the words "Bigger! Better! More!" were right there on the movie posters as each new film was released. Change was part of the philosophy and strategy from the start. From my perspective, the Craig-era has just been following that tradition.
Didn't mean my post to come across as rude - so apologies if it did ;%
Allegedly it was one of the main reasons as to why DC returned...
Well.said -{ the things you point out I've said before and is why I can't rank or rate the bond films. I honestly do get something positive out of every bond film.
As do I, even of Skyfall
Diversity is fine, Dr. No, Moonraker, Licence To Kill, diversity galore but ALWAYS recognisable as Bond instantly when you sit in the cinema. With QOS and SF that was hardly the case. CR is kind of excused as it was the "first" Bond film (reboot) and wanted to do something different. By the end of the PTS of QOS that already was old and quite simply annoying and not much else.
Now that would be crazy. Would be a first if I am not mistaken and would absolutely be an end with no misinterpretation from anyone that Craig would be done.
Best,
Stefan