Ellis is hilarious on "Lucifer," which is all this Yank has seen him in. He certainly can deliver a joke, which Craig himself has admitted is not his strong point. My wife is a fan. She is MUCH more of a fan of a Turner. Not at all of one for Hiddleston. God only knows how Babs herself evaluates these guys.
I continue to regard the fact that Craig has nothing lined up beyond "Purity" as him keeping his options open to return as Bond if EON agrees.
As an aside, as a Bond fan, I am increasingly envious of the people behind the Star Wars and Marvel Comics juggernauts. I would take a poor Bond film more often if I knew that another was right on the way.
My first choice is still for Craig to return but I would go Hiddleston or Turner over Ellis. Part of the problem is Ellis just seems a TV actor (I know that's a bit silly; it's just a vibe I get from him) while Hiddleston and Turner have much more "screen presence". Another actor who might be a possibility could be Oliver Jackson-Cohen, tall, dark, British, the right age. He played a high class hitman who was a bit of a psycho but in some ways very Bond-like in the film "Faster" with Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson.
Ellis is hilarious on "Lucifer," which is all this Yank has seen him in. He certainly can deliver a joke, which Craig himself has admitted is not his strong point. My wife is a fan. She is MUCH more of a fan of a Turner. Not at all of one for Hiddleston. God only knows how Babs herself evaluates these guys.
I continue to regard the fact that Craig has nothing lined up beyond "Purity" as him keeping his options open to return as Bond if EON agrees.
As an aside, as a Bond fan, I am increasingly envious of the people behind the Star Wars and Marvel Comics juggernauts. I would take a poor Bond film more often if I knew that another was right on the way.
Funnily enough I was thinking about Star Wars and Bond last night in the cinema whilst watching Rogue 1 In terms of knocking them out at speed.
Enjoyed Star Wars immensly but I think a lot of that was nostalgia due to the link to the original trilogy since a spin off. I think the continuation of the series as a whole will have to have crazy high standards to keep burnout at bay.
Im sick of all things superhero to be honest - too many too soon. A 2 or 3 year break does good to wet the appetite, and the frustration waiting makes it more worthwhile unless it is total crap. This is yet to happen with Bond as they are all enjoyable for me, I dont get burnt out with them produced every 2/3 years as current and appreciate them more
I am increasingly envious of the people behind the Star Wars and Marvel Comics juggernauts. I would take a poor Bond film more often if I knew that another was right on the way.
those people behind being Disney in both cases...
especially agree about Marvel: they keep all those big stars committed for years on end, crank out at least three huge budget movies a year, and manage to tie all the plot threads together into one big internally consistent universe just like Stan Lee did in the comics back in the 60s
all things these Bond producers cannot seem to manage
I am increasingly envious of the people behind the Star Wars and Marvel Comics juggernauts. I would take a poor Bond film more often if I knew that another was right on the way.
those people behind being Disney in both cases...
especially agree about Marvel: they keep all those big stars committed for years on end, crank out at least three huge budget movies a year, and manage to tie all the plot threads together into one big internally consistent universe just like Stan Lee did in the comics back in the 60s
all things these Bond producers cannot seem to manage
It's an apples-to-oranges comparison. The only thing that Bond and Star Wars/Marvel have in common is that they are movies. EON doesn't churn out films as often as I might like given that I'm a massive Bond fan. But that doesn't matter. They make the films when they get around to it and scores of people pay to see them. It's a pretty solid business model.
To be clear: If cranking things out leads to half-baked ideas like Bond and Blofeld being brothers, count me out.
But what I do see at Marvel is far-seeing planning. They knew "Captain America" was filler to make way for the Avengers movies and especially the "Winter Soldier."
Does anyone know where the Bond franchise is headed?
By the way, who here became Bond fans in the 1970s?
Seeing "James Bond Will Return" was HUGE to me. I didn't know or understand anything about Hollywood, but here was a promise. It meant more to me than a lot of you younger fans understand.
To be clear: If cranking things out leads to half-baked ideas like Bond and Blofeld being brothers, count me out.
But what I do see at Marvel is far-seeing planning. They knew "Captain America" was filler to make way for the Avengers movies and especially the "Winter Soldier."
Does anyone know where the Bond franchise is headed?
But Bond films were never designed for continuity. The Craig films dabbled in this, and in my opinion it turned out to be their biggest flaw. Bond should receive a mission that is topically relevant to whatever is happening in the world at the time, and then go out and accomplish the mission. Why do we need EON to map out a ten year plan? The calculated feeling I get from the Marvel films ruin them for me. It's always about what's coming later, but when it arrives, it's about what's coming next. That's not Bond's forte.
To be clear: If cranking things out leads to half-baked ideas like Bond and Blofeld being brothers, count me out.
But what I do see at Marvel is far-seeing planning. They knew "Captain America" was filler to make way for the Avengers movies and especially the "Winter Soldier."
Does anyone know where the Bond franchise is headed?
But Bond films were never designed for continuity. The Craig films dabbled in this, and in my opinion it turned out to be their biggest flaw. Bond should receive a mission that is topically relevant to whatever is happening in the world at the time, and then go out and accomplish the mission. Why do we need EON to map out a ten year plan? The calculated feeling I get from the Marvel films ruin them for me. It's always about what's coming later, but when it arrives, it's about what's coming next. That's not Bond's forte.
I agree. Do you feel that the problem with Craig film's attempted continuity is that:
a) there is continuity or
b) that the continuity is poorly executed?
Bond films were designed for continuity: Dr No announced he worked for SPECTRE, Sylvia Trench reappeared in the second film in what was intended to be an ongoing gag, and Jack Lord was meant to return as Felix but chose not to
when I first started watching these films in the Moore era, a continuing series of such longevity was unique, I think only Planet of the Apes came close, so I didn't expect them to add up (yet those Apes did have continuity)
but way back in the 30s and 40s there were many such series: the Thin Man, Charlie Chan, Basil Rathbone as Sherlock Holmes, the Bowery Boys, the Frankenstein sequels, etc
such series films seem to have died out by 1950, I'm guessing because television could do that better
now we're in an era where TV and film are almost indistinguishable, we have bigbudget epic tv series like Dr Who, and neverending tightly conceived film series like the Marvel Cinematic Universe
then there was the precedent of Peter Jackson filming all of Lord of the Rings in one fell swoop, then editing postproducing and releasing it in three parts over three years
which is to say just because the Bond producers were not able to manage ongoing continuity in previous decades does not mean they should not be attempting it now, because the standards of filmmaking have changed
if they had a proper ten year plan then maybe they would not have messed up SPECTRE so bad and they'd actually be making Bond25 already, instead of not even knowing who the actor will be
To be clear: If cranking things out leads to half-baked ideas like Bond and Blofeld being brothers, count me out.
But what I do see at Marvel is far-seeing planning. They knew "Captain America" was filler to make way for the Avengers movies and especially the "Winter Soldier."
Does anyone know where the Bond franchise is headed?
But Bond films were never designed for continuity. The Craig films dabbled in this, and in my opinion it turned out to be their biggest flaw. Bond should receive a mission that is topically relevant to whatever is happening in the world at the time, and then go out and accomplish the mission. Why do we need EON to map out a ten year plan? The calculated feeling I get from the Marvel films ruin them for me. It's always about what's coming later, but when it arrives, it's about what's coming next. That's not Bond's forte.
I agree. Do you feel that the problem with Craig film's attempted continuity is that:
a) there is continuity or
b) that the continuity is poorly executed?
For me, it's that the continuity was poorly executed. I bought it up until Spectre. But that was just so clumsy and stupid that I can't bring myself to enjoy what is otherwise a good Bond movie.
There has always been continuity in Bond, but more in passing. With Craig's the continuity has become an element of the stories and something one needs to know to understand everything that's going on. None of the continuity is necessary to understand anything that happens in Connery's films.
which is to say just because the Bond producers were not able to manage ongoing continuity in previous decades does not mean they should not be attempting it now, because the standards of filmmaking have changed
if they had a proper ten year plan then maybe they would not have messed up SPECTRE so bad and they'd actually be making Bond25 already, instead of not even knowing who the actor will be
Marvel-style continuity is not appropriate for Bond unless they intend to faithfully adapt the later Fleming novels. That would require it. Otherwise, I don't see the need just because other franchises are doing it. Movie franchises come and go, but Bond has endured. Just because we don't know who the next Bond will be (remember, we still have an incumbent Bond), or when the film will come out does not mean that it's all gone to pieces.
The article is actually one of the better and less off the wall summaries of pretty much what we know (or don't know ) at this point. Of course they can't help mentioning Idris Elba as a Bond candidate. It seems that while Elba may not really be a serious Bond candidate his PR people seem to be trying to position him as an action star leading man. Idris' film, "Bastille Day" is getting a theatrical release in the USA (re-titled "The Take") with a big push for Idris over the title. I recall seeing posters and a lot of promotion for the film when I was in London in April. Up until now, in the States, Elba has been pretty much been known for his roles as villains ("The Wire"; "No Good Deed") or in supporting roles in big films (Thor series, etc). Wow, did I go off the tracks in that one. Sorry, the no Bond news purgatory is getting to me
Red Grant, that would be Bonds long lost twin brother ,raised by gypsies in Ireland , a killer for the IRA and now used by SPECTRE to free Blofeld from prison, he hates Bond because he believes he should have had Bonds life Please don't give them ideas !
Comments
Just looked him up.as I've never seen him in anything. However on first glance someone like that wouldn't be bad at all. Good choice.
He couldn't punch his way out of a wet paper bag....
I still think Aiden is a good choice.
But I'm getting really impatient not knowing... what's the longest we've gone without a new Bond being announced? This must be one of them surely?
I continue to regard the fact that Craig has nothing lined up beyond "Purity" as him keeping his options open to return as Bond if EON agrees.
As an aside, as a Bond fan, I am increasingly envious of the people behind the Star Wars and Marvel Comics juggernauts. I would take a poor Bond film more often if I knew that another was right on the way.
Bond on the Box - Website | Twitter | Facebook | Instagram | LetterBoxd | YouTube
Funnily enough I was thinking about Star Wars and Bond last night in the cinema whilst watching Rogue 1 In terms of knocking them out at speed.
Enjoyed Star Wars immensly but I think a lot of that was nostalgia due to the link to the original trilogy since a spin off. I think the continuation of the series as a whole will have to have crazy high standards to keep burnout at bay.
Im sick of all things superhero to be honest - too many too soon. A 2 or 3 year break does good to wet the appetite, and the frustration waiting makes it more worthwhile unless it is total crap. This is yet to happen with Bond as they are all enjoyable for me, I dont get burnt out with them produced every 2/3 years as current and appreciate them more
especially agree about Marvel: they keep all those big stars committed for years on end, crank out at least three huge budget movies a year, and manage to tie all the plot threads together into one big internally consistent universe just like Stan Lee did in the comics back in the 60s
all things these Bond producers cannot seem to manage
It's an apples-to-oranges comparison. The only thing that Bond and Star Wars/Marvel have in common is that they are movies. EON doesn't churn out films as often as I might like given that I'm a massive Bond fan. But that doesn't matter. They make the films when they get around to it and scores of people pay to see them. It's a pretty solid business model.
But what I do see at Marvel is far-seeing planning. They knew "Captain America" was filler to make way for the Avengers movies and especially the "Winter Soldier."
Does anyone know where the Bond franchise is headed?
Seeing "James Bond Will Return" was HUGE to me. I didn't know or understand anything about Hollywood, but here was a promise. It meant more to me than a lot of you younger fans understand.
But Bond films were never designed for continuity. The Craig films dabbled in this, and in my opinion it turned out to be their biggest flaw. Bond should receive a mission that is topically relevant to whatever is happening in the world at the time, and then go out and accomplish the mission. Why do we need EON to map out a ten year plan? The calculated feeling I get from the Marvel films ruin them for me. It's always about what's coming later, but when it arrives, it's about what's coming next. That's not Bond's forte.
I agree. Do you feel that the problem with Craig film's attempted continuity is that:
a) there is continuity or
b) that the continuity is poorly executed?
when I first started watching these films in the Moore era, a continuing series of such longevity was unique, I think only Planet of the Apes came close, so I didn't expect them to add up (yet those Apes did have continuity)
but way back in the 30s and 40s there were many such series: the Thin Man, Charlie Chan, Basil Rathbone as Sherlock Holmes, the Bowery Boys, the Frankenstein sequels, etc
such series films seem to have died out by 1950, I'm guessing because television could do that better
now we're in an era where TV and film are almost indistinguishable, we have bigbudget epic tv series like Dr Who, and neverending tightly conceived film series like the Marvel Cinematic Universe
then there was the precedent of Peter Jackson filming all of Lord of the Rings in one fell swoop, then editing postproducing and releasing it in three parts over three years
which is to say just because the Bond producers were not able to manage ongoing continuity in previous decades does not mean they should not be attempting it now, because the standards of filmmaking have changed
if they had a proper ten year plan then maybe they would not have messed up SPECTRE so bad and they'd actually be making Bond25 already, instead of not even knowing who the actor will be
For me, it's that the continuity was poorly executed. I bought it up until Spectre. But that was just so clumsy and stupid that I can't bring myself to enjoy what is otherwise a good Bond movie.
Marvel-style continuity is not appropriate for Bond unless they intend to faithfully adapt the later Fleming novels. That would require it. Otherwise, I don't see the need just because other franchises are doing it. Movie franchises come and go, but Bond has endured. Just because we don't know who the next Bond will be (remember, we still have an incumbent Bond), or when the film will come out does not mean that it's all gone to pieces.
October 2018? Sounds about right.
The article doesn't say there will be a Bond film in October 2018.
"They want Bond 25 out in October 2018, but currently they have no Bond, film dates or knowledge of when that will change."
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-4043208/Daniel-Craig-left-007-bosses-panicking-going-grid-YEAR-decision-star-James-Bond-film-2018.html#ixzz4T6qBdQIe
The article also says that the next Bond film "is set for release in 2018". But in reality the article is just full of assumptions and nonsense.
DC looks better than ever in a photo in that article :v
Red Grant, that would be Bonds long lost twin brother ,raised by gypsies in Ireland , a killer for the IRA and now used by SPECTRE to free Blofeld from prison, he hates Bond because he believes he should have had Bonds life