I imagine Craig's resignation/commitment to Bond 25 will be made months before a press conference. SPECTRE's announcement was was during rehearsals, just prior to shooting. Pierce Brosnan announced his resignation from the role the year before Craig was cast.
My understanding is (and i may be wrong ) brosnan didn't resign he wanted to do more but when the opportunity to do casino royale came along he was dropped because the producer's needed a younger actor ?
Brosnan was playing games with the press about coming back or not (like Craig is now). But he expected to come back, and the producers didn't want him back. Doing Casino Royale did not mean that a younger actor was necessary since Fleming's story does not involve Bond as a rookie or on his first mission. MGW just used it as an excuse to do the reboot he always wanted to do that Cubby was against.
I imagine Craig's resignation/commitment to Bond 25 will be made months before a press conference. SPECTRE's announcement was was during rehearsals, just prior to shooting. Pierce Brosnan announced his resignation from the role the year before Craig was cast.
My understanding is (and i may be wrong ) brosnan didn't resign he wanted to do more but when the opportunity to do casino royale came along he was dropped because the producer's needed a younger actor ?
Brosnan was playing games with the press about coming back or not (like Craig is now). But he expected to come back, and the producers didn't want him back. Doing Casino Royale did not mean that a younger actor was necessary since Fleming's story does not involve Bond as a rookie or on his first mission. MGW just used it as an excuse to do the reboot he always wanted to do that Cubby was against.
I'm on Cubby's side with this one. I felt MGW's reboot idea was truly the "jumped the shark" moment of the Bond series. Even more so than the CGI crap scene in DAD. CR could have easily just continued as another Bond adventure with or without Pierce. The reboot was piggybacking on the trend started by Batman Begins. Also by giving such characters as Moneypenny, M, Q, etc in later Craig entries specific origins to Bond it destroys the mystique the characters had for decades. By writing the Craig era into a specific current TV trend story arc style it limits itself for future outings once the arc is concluded (which it should have been with CR).
I'm on Cubby's side with this one. I felt MGW's reboot idea was truly the "jumped the shark" moment of the Bond series. Even more so than the CGI crap scene in DAD. CR could have easily just continued as another Bond adventure with or without Pierce. The reboot was piggybacking on the trend started by Batman Begins. Also by giving such characters as Moneypenny, M, Q, etc in later Craig entries specific origins to Bond it destroys the mystique the characters had for decades. By writing the Craig era into a specific current TV trend story arc style it limits itself for future outings once the arc is concluded (which it should have been with CR).
Have to agree. The reboot ruined everything. The Bond mystique destroyed. People stayed away in droves. Doubtful we'll ever see another Bond film in the next 10 years. Painted themselves into a corner this time alright. 8-) ) -{ Just teasing a bit, obviously we are of different minds when it comes to the reboot. The box office numbers don't lie. As soon as a couple issues are settled (who will be Bond and who will be the new distributor) which may even be settled and we just don't know about it, Bond will be back. Whether or not it moves on with Craig or another Bond actor in a mild reboot, Bond will return....I'm guessing around late fall 2018 and so shall the butts of moviegoers into the cinema seats once again.
I'm on Cubby's side with this one. I felt MGW's reboot idea was truly the "jumped the shark" moment of the Bond series. Even more so than the CGI crap scene in DAD. CR could have easily just continued as another Bond adventure with or without Pierce. The reboot was piggybacking on the trend started by Batman Begins. Also by giving such characters as Moneypenny, M, Q, etc in later Craig entries specific origins to Bond it destroys the mystique the characters had for decades. By writing the Craig era into a specific current TV trend story arc style it limits itself for future outings once the arc is concluded (which it should have been with CR).
Have to agree. The reboot ruined everything. The Bond mystique destroyed. People stayed away in droves. Doubtful we'll ever see another Bond film in the next 10 years. Painted themselves into a corner this time alright. 8-) ) -{ Just teasing a bit, obviously we are of different minds when it comes to the reboot. The box office numbers don't lie. As soon as a couple issues are settled (who will be Bond and who will be the new distributor) which may even be settled and we just don't know about it, Bond will be back. Whether or not it moves on with Craig or another Bond actor in a mild reboot, Bond will return....I'm guessing around late fall 2018 and so shall the butts of moviegoers into the cinema seats once again.
I am a bit harsh when I say it jumped the shark. I do feel the other Craigs could have all been stand alone entries. Still Bond will be back hopefully sooner than later.
I imagine Craig's resignation/commitment to Bond 25 will be made months before a press conference. SPECTRE's announcement was was during rehearsals, just prior to shooting. Pierce Brosnan announced his resignation from the role the year before Craig was cast.
My understanding is (and i may be wrong ) brosnan didn't resign he wanted to do more but when the opportunity to do casino royale came along he was dropped because the producer's needed a younger actor ?
Yes, but wasn't it Brosnan himself who announced he wasn't returning in 2004?
I'm on Cubby's side with this one. I felt MGW's reboot idea was truly the "jumped the shark" moment of the Bond series. Even more so than the CGI crap scene in DAD. CR could have easily just continued as another Bond adventure with or without Pierce. The reboot was piggybacking on the trend started by Batman Begins. Also by giving such characters as Moneypenny, M, Q, etc in later Craig entries specific origins to Bond it destroys the mystique the characters had for decades. By writing the Craig era into a specific current TV trend story arc style it limits itself for future outings once the arc is concluded (which it should have been with CR).
Pretty much. Though I like Q's introduction, I would have preferred Moneypenny not to have a field agent background.
But yes, Casino Royale is the biggest misfire of the series, in my opinion. Closely followed by SPECTRE. Casino Royale in 2004 with Brosnan, Catherine Zeta Jones/Rachel Weisz as Vesper and without the rookie Bond angle would have been excellent.
Film: Tomorrow Never Dies | Girl: Teresa di Vicenzo | Villain: Max Zorin | Car: Aston Martin Volante | Novel: You Only Live Twice | Bond: Sir Sean Connery
Of course considering the negative response Craig was getting upon his initial announcement- the concept of using CR to tell Bond's origin story was effective as a marketing tool to get indifferent audiences interested. Reboots were becoming popular then, so it was the perfect timing to make such a departure from that standpoint. I'd just prefer if they hadn't and simply done CR as another Bond film. No tampering with timelines just a straightforward Bond film- that happens to be a faithful adaptation of the book.
I suppose time will tell if the series jumped the shark with the reboot. If the cycle of every other film being received as a major disappointment (especially after 3-4 year gaps) continues, I could actually see MGM and Eon closing up shop in the near future. Maybe after the next couple films depending on their reception. Then I would say rebooting the series was most definitely a mistake.
The Bond films by choice of the filmmakers are no longer a regular tradition. Since the reboot they are now an occasional occurrence.
With the exception of DAD, the Brosnan films were kept at regular intervals. The Craig films seem about as frequent as the Die Hard series. That shows a plateau to me and a true indication Eon gets burnt out more quickly and easy if they need a hiatus after every film.
My hope is that with the MGM distribution deal comes a more solid plan for the series' future as opposed to the "winging it" tendencies these past ten years.
I'm on Cubby's side with this one. I felt MGW's reboot idea was truly the "jumped the shark" moment of the Bond series. Even more so than the CGI crap scene in DAD. CR could have easily just continued as another Bond adventure with or without Pierce. The reboot was piggybacking on the trend started by Batman Begins. Also by giving such characters as Moneypenny, M, Q, etc in later Craig entries specific origins to Bond it destroys the mystique the characters had for decades. By writing the Craig era into a specific current TV trend story arc style it limits itself for future outings once the arc is concluded (which it should have been with CR).
Have to agree. The reboot ruined everything. The Bond mystique destroyed. People stayed away in droves. Doubtful we'll ever see another Bond film in the next 10 years. Painted themselves into a corner this time alright. 8-) ) -{ Just teasing a bit, obviously we are of different minds when it comes to the reboot. The box office numbers don't lie. As soon as a couple issues are settled (who will be Bond and who will be the new distributor) which may even be settled and we just don't know about it, Bond will be back. Whether or not it moves on with Craig or another Bond actor in a mild reboot, Bond will return....I'm guessing around late fall 2018 and so shall the butts of moviegoers into the cinema seats once again.
I am a bit harsh when I say it jumped the shark. I do feel the other Craigs could have all been stand alone entries. Still Bond will be back hopefully sooner than later.
Skyfall is essentially Craig's only stand-alone entry. No Vesper, no Quantum, no Spectre yet.
Have to agree. The reboot ruined everything. The Bond mystique destroyed. People stayed away in droves. Doubtful we'll ever see another Bond film in the next 10 years. Painted themselves into a corner this time alright. 8-) ) -{ Just teasing a bit, obviously we are of different minds when it comes to the reboot. The box office numbers don't lie. As soon as a couple issues are settled (who will be Bond and who will be the new distributor) which may even be settled and we just don't know about it, Bond will be back. Whether or not it moves on with Craig or another Bond actor in a mild reboot, Bond will return....I'm guessing around late fall 2018 and so shall the butts of moviegoers into the cinema seats once again.
I am a bit harsh when I say it jumped the shark. I do feel the other Craigs could have all been stand alone entries. Still Bond will be back hopefully sooner than later.
Skyfall is essentially Craig's only stand-alone entry. No Vesper, no Quantum, no Spectre yet.
I have to agree. A common thought about QOS is that it works best as a continuation of CR. I actually think QOS could have been much better if it was a standalone mission, and I think its ties to CR hold it back. SP also would have worked better as a standalone mission, since its ties to the rest of the series are what really take it down. Tying it to SF was especially a mistake. At least since SF came first, it can still feel like a stand-alone mission, even if SP tries to change that.
I am a bit harsh when I say it jumped the shark. I do feel the other Craigs could have all been stand alone entries. Still Bond will be back hopefully sooner than later.
Skyfall is essentially Craig's only stand-alone entry. No Vesper, no Quantum, no Spectre yet.
I have to agree. A common thought about QOS is that it works best as a continuation of CR. I actually think QOS could have been much better if it was a standalone mission, and I think its ties to CR hold it back. SP also would have worked better as a standalone mission, since its ties to the rest of the series are what really take it down. Tying it to SF was especially a mistake. At least since SF came first, it can still feel like a stand-alone mission, even if SP tries to change that.
Absolutely, I have no problem with SP connecting to CR or QOS, but it was a stretch to include SF beyond the recurring cast members. Not to mention the inclusion of Silva as part of Spectre seems to go against and hinder his rogue menace in SF. It was like really? everybody and event in Bond's double O career had to be connected to Spectre?
I think what we all have to realize is that EON can do what they want without issue. If Craig comes back for 25, they can continue the SPECTRE storyline (hopefully with a better script, tighter production, return to basics, etc) or take a break from SPECTRE and do a standalone adventure (Blofeld is in jail afterall). Madeleine can easily be explained away as another Bond romance that's come and gone...Bond not being one for domestic bliss. If Craig does not return, they move on with a soft reboot with the new Bond actor, picking things up with Bond in his prime and move on from there with a fresh story, new villains, etc. I don't think we will have any problem accepting a new Bond existing with the old "M", "Q", and "Moneypenny" as there is certainly precedent for that.
I think the reboot was good in CR as it helped draw a line in the sand and usher in a new actor. Yes, it was very similar to Batman Begins in that respect but it worked. Keeping Judi as M was an anchor for new and old fans.
Did CR open up Bond to a whole new audience? Yes, I think it did. I think there was an increase in female fandom of Bond because it was starting a new and because of DC's famous banana hammock moment. The Bond's that had come before it had become a bit farcical and it was a brave, yet correct move to reboot.
We Bond fans have always accepted a new actor in the role - a suspension of belief because, at the end of the day, we love Bond - so we can accept another (soft) reboot.
I watched Spectre the other night and I watched it with a different perspective. I looked at it as the end of DC's tenure and the signs were there - right from the title sequence. The faces from the past closes the circle of the DC films. The ending is not that ambiguous. Bond quits the service.
The time is right for a new Bond. Keep Q, M, and Moneypenny. Return to the traditional style that Spectre was developing (M's office) but bring in a new Bond. Blofeld can be kept on hiatus for a while until audiences forget about that ridiculous foster brother thing. At least one film should do it!! Having said that, no one can move on from that bloody DB5 debacle )
So, lets see a new Bond, and a new, better script. If we keep with this DC storyline, the mistakes of the past films will not go away and the films will struggle to be as readily accepted.
Found on Reddit, so take it with a dumptruck of salt (unless our men on the inside want to weigh in)
A treatment by Purvis & Wade, and Steven Knight has been thrown out.
EON are meeting directors but only on a speculatively basis. Numerous people have gone in, despite previous commitments. Eg; I know for fact that Colin Trevorrow met with EON in the last few weeks (despite being tied up till 2019 on Star Wars).
Sam Mendes apparently has an "idea" for Bond 25. It's something that has the backing of Daniel Craig.
I presume Mendes is working with Jez Butterworth on the "idea" (this is a guess by me as I know they're doing a play together next year).
I've heard the agreement is Mendes and Craig will develop the idea and if it comes together they'll return. If they can't get it to work, they will leave as planned.
No word on release date. But considering the original script as been abandoned and Mendes is working from scratch, it would seem that 2019 is most likely. Mendes will shoot Beautiful Ruins first in August next year.
Hmmm I must admit i'm a little concerned about Bond 25. I of course have no idea what's actually happening, but it does seem like they're lacking a clear direction of what to do next. I'm torn as to whether they continue with Blofeld or they just do another stand alone flick. I'd almost rather a stand alone at this point. I also hope that Mendes doesn't come back. I think his time with Bond is done. Guy Hamilton did 3 in a row and over stayed his welcome, and by the end of his tenure the series needed a reset. I'd say that they need a new director, a new team of writers, but with Daniel Craig still in the role. Fingers crossed they can conjure up something great! I'd love to see a new film high on espionage and intrigue that is less concerned with making it personal for the characters. They seem very concerned with that lately. When it works well, like it did in Skyfall it's great, but when it goes to far you get unconvincing love stories, foster brother super villains and M losing his job )
Also let's talk about Purvis and Wade. Sure, they are partly responsible for Casino and Skyfall, but they are 2 from 7 in my book, with the other 5 films they've co-penned suffering from various deficiencies. Surely it's time to oust them and get a different take on it. I don't quite see how they're so indispensable to the franchise. There are some fine screen writers around. Through some cash at one of them and get them to work!
Have to agree. The reboot ruined everything. The Bond mystique destroyed. People stayed away in droves. Doubtful we'll ever see another Bond film in the next 10 years. Painted themselves into a corner this time alright. 8-) ) -{ Just teasing a bit, obviously we are of different minds when it comes to the reboot. The box office numbers don't lie. As soon as a couple issues are settled (who will be Bond and who will be the new distributor) which may even be settled and we just don't know about it, Bond will be back. Whether or not it moves on with Craig or another Bond actor in a mild reboot, Bond will return....I'm guessing around late fall 2018 and so shall the butts of moviegoers into the cinema seats once again.
I am a bit harsh when I say it jumped the shark. I do feel the other Craigs could have all been stand alone entries. Still Bond will be back hopefully sooner than later.
Skyfall is essentially Craig's only stand-alone entry. No Vesper, no Quantum, no Spectre yet.
And all the better for it.
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
You haven't missed much, it's appallingly bad. Like the PTS though.
NSNA has no PTS.
You are right of course ( my bad) I meant the scene where he attempts to rescue the girl and come a cropper. I must confess it's so bad I have not watched it much and not for along time.
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
I try on occasions to watch NSNA, but soon start jumping ahead to a remembered
scene or two ....... and then turn it off, ... as I agree it really is BAD!.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Last time I attempted to watch it I got as far as the scene with the water-skiing girl who ends up bumping into "bond" it just reminded me of an old martini advert, I half expected "bond" to check his watch and pour his drink over himself! Not even Kim basinger makes it worth watching!
Yes NSNA is bad. The only other Bond film that I have seen that I think is as bad if not worse is DAF.
Have you not seen Moonraker ?:)
Huh? Moonraker is a fantastic film.
I know it has a strong fanbase , but for me it's the low point in terms of bafoonery at least in DAF if I squint really hard I can just about discern James Bond.
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
It's too bad that they couldn't get the Nolans (Christopher, Jonathan) interested in giving Bond a test drive, so to speak.
I really think that they would GET it, as far as the character is concerned, and get the proper mix of action and gadgets and interpersonal relationships, and also bring a new visual style and screenwriting talent to the Bond gene pool.
I'm definitely wanting Craig back for Bond 25. I think they'll back up the Brinks truck, give him enough money to never to anything again, except turn Rachel Weisz into a baby machine, and hopefully he will be paired with an amazing director and script that will make Bond 25 a true celebration of the character and the series and a welcomed return to form.
I think the Nolan brothers could make an excellent Bond movie :007)
Welcome to ajb007.co.uk - I hope we'll both agree and disagree in the nicest possible way in the future.
Nolan is a talented guy and certainly can handle big "tent pole" films. He's also a big Bond fan and the Bond influence is pretty obvious in "Inception". The problem is (and this is only my theory) that Nolan would want to do his own Bond trilogy with his own Bond. I believe he would be happy to retain the Bond Theme, the Gun Barrel opening and much of the Bond canon....but beyond that it would be "thank you EON, thank you MGM, thank you 3rd wheel distribution partner for all the $$$$$$ now let go off and make my James Bond movie" and EON does not play that way. Today's EON isn't the EON of Cubby and Harry given the input they have allowed Mendes and Craig but EON still "makes" James Bond films...they just don't supply money to someone else to deliver them a film. Now is it possible that a happy medium could be reached between EON and Nolan.....possibly......but I doubt it will happen.
Comments
Brosnan was playing games with the press about coming back or not (like Craig is now). But he expected to come back, and the producers didn't want him back. Doing Casino Royale did not mean that a younger actor was necessary since Fleming's story does not involve Bond as a rookie or on his first mission. MGW just used it as an excuse to do the reboot he always wanted to do that Cubby was against.
I'm on Cubby's side with this one. I felt MGW's reboot idea was truly the "jumped the shark" moment of the Bond series. Even more so than the CGI crap scene in DAD. CR could have easily just continued as another Bond adventure with or without Pierce. The reboot was piggybacking on the trend started by Batman Begins. Also by giving such characters as Moneypenny, M, Q, etc in later Craig entries specific origins to Bond it destroys the mystique the characters had for decades. By writing the Craig era into a specific current TV trend story arc style it limits itself for future outings once the arc is concluded (which it should have been with CR).
Have to agree. The reboot ruined everything. The Bond mystique destroyed. People stayed away in droves. Doubtful we'll ever see another Bond film in the next 10 years. Painted themselves into a corner this time alright.
Yes, but wasn't it Brosnan himself who announced he wasn't returning in 2004?
Pretty much. Though I like Q's introduction, I would have preferred Moneypenny not to have a field agent background.
But yes, Casino Royale is the biggest misfire of the series, in my opinion. Closely followed by SPECTRE. Casino Royale in 2004 with Brosnan, Catherine Zeta Jones/Rachel Weisz as Vesper and without the rookie Bond angle would have been excellent.
I suppose time will tell if the series jumped the shark with the reboot. If the cycle of every other film being received as a major disappointment (especially after 3-4 year gaps) continues, I could actually see MGM and Eon closing up shop in the near future. Maybe after the next couple films depending on their reception. Then I would say rebooting the series was most definitely a mistake.
The Bond films by choice of the filmmakers are no longer a regular tradition. Since the reboot they are now an occasional occurrence.
With the exception of DAD, the Brosnan films were kept at regular intervals. The Craig films seem about as frequent as the Die Hard series. That shows a plateau to me and a true indication Eon gets burnt out more quickly and easy if they need a hiatus after every film.
My hope is that with the MGM distribution deal comes a more solid plan for the series' future as opposed to the "winging it" tendencies these past ten years.
I have to agree. A common thought about QOS is that it works best as a continuation of CR. I actually think QOS could have been much better if it was a standalone mission, and I think its ties to CR hold it back. SP also would have worked better as a standalone mission, since its ties to the rest of the series are what really take it down. Tying it to SF was especially a mistake. At least since SF came first, it can still feel like a stand-alone mission, even if SP tries to change that.
Did CR open up Bond to a whole new audience? Yes, I think it did. I think there was an increase in female fandom of Bond because it was starting a new and because of DC's famous banana hammock moment. The Bond's that had come before it had become a bit farcical and it was a brave, yet correct move to reboot.
We Bond fans have always accepted a new actor in the role - a suspension of belief because, at the end of the day, we love Bond - so we can accept another (soft) reboot.
I watched Spectre the other night and I watched it with a different perspective. I looked at it as the end of DC's tenure and the signs were there - right from the title sequence. The faces from the past closes the circle of the DC films. The ending is not that ambiguous. Bond quits the service.
The time is right for a new Bond. Keep Q, M, and Moneypenny. Return to the traditional style that Spectre was developing (M's office) but bring in a new Bond. Blofeld can be kept on hiatus for a while until audiences forget about that ridiculous foster brother thing. At least one film should do it!! Having said that, no one can move on from that bloody DB5 debacle
So, lets see a new Bond, and a new, better script. If we keep with this DC storyline, the mistakes of the past films will not go away and the films will struggle to be as readily accepted.
https://www.reddit.com/r/JamesBond/comments/5fe0d1/craig_and_mendes_to_return_for_bond_25/?compact=true
And all the better for it.
You haven't missed much, it's appallingly bad. Like the PTS though.
NSNA has no PTS.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytZ7YxAva2Q
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUSYzXeHIEw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVoCudKsKUw
* I do realise the irony of using the word "official" in connection with NSNA.
The first one did a fantastic job. It made it feel like a classic Bond film. The next two, not so much. I can't stand that Phyllis Hyman song either.
You are right of course ( my bad) I meant the scene where he attempts to rescue the girl and come a cropper. I must confess it's so bad I have not watched it much and not for along time.
scene or two ....... and then turn it off, ... as I agree it really is BAD!.
Have you not seen Moonraker ?:)
Huh? Moonraker is a fantastic film.
I know it has a strong fanbase , but for me it's the low point in terms of bafoonery at least in DAF if I squint really hard I can just about discern James Bond.
I really think that they would GET it, as far as the character is concerned, and get the proper mix of action and gadgets and interpersonal relationships, and also bring a new visual style and screenwriting talent to the Bond gene pool.
I'm definitely wanting Craig back for Bond 25. I think they'll back up the Brinks truck, give him enough money to never to anything again, except turn Rachel Weisz into a baby machine, and hopefully he will be paired with an amazing director and script that will make Bond 25 a true celebration of the character and the series and a welcomed return to form.
My .02
- Bill
http://williammize.com
Welcome to ajb007.co.uk - I hope we'll both agree and disagree in the nicest possible way in the future.