Nothing to quarrel with there. But the director will almost certainly have a say in who comes on as editor and DP...and possibly scorer. Waiting anxiously here {:)
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
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
For its midlife crisis aspect, now I wish SF was saved for this 5th and presumably last DC film, but hindsight is 20/20 I suppose. It would have been nice to do the endgame aspect of YOLT the novel (and of course using a different title) and perhaps even having a plausible mad-Blofeld including a sequence involving his Garden of Death, but now that would seem like SF 2.0.
I remember having this discussion for CR before DC was cast, in which PB ideally has his decent swansong, interweaving Bond's penultimate period in his career with recollections of his beginnings as a 00, with loose ends finally getting resolved with his finding his professional nirvana.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
I’ve got very mixed feelings. Have never been a fan of Craig’s Bond (although he would make a perfect Bond villain!) and will be happy to see him gone. At the same time, none of the successors’ names thrown around really made me excited. Except perhaps Idris Elba, but we always knew his chances were slim. What we should not forget here – and I am surprised that no-one seems to have mentioned it yet in the excitement – is that Craig admitted himself that if he would be doing another one, it would be only for the money. Which would also, incidentally, make a great title, "ONLY FOR THE MONEY".
I agree with everything you've written! I've sort of got used to Craig in the role but I'd be more cheery about his return had he not made those comments about money and slashing his wrists. We all know every Bond actor plays the role for the money although it's nice to think - perhaps in a naive, innocent kind of way - they actually enjoy playing the role. It's clear Craig doesn't really enjoy the role, perhaps he did at the beginning, although that's open to debate, but it's clear he's doing Bond 25 for the cash rather than any love for the franchise. I don't mean that as sounding anti-Craig just my honest opinion! Personally I'd rather he hadn't returned but if there are no exciting actors out there to replace him, fair enough. Perhaps someone will appear in a few years time and really excite the public.
I’ve got very mixed feelings. Have never been a fan of Craig’s Bond (although he would make a perfect Bond villain!) and will be happy to see him gone. At the same time, none of the successors’ names thrown around really made me excited. Except perhaps Idris Elba, but we always knew his chances were slim. What we should not forget here – and I am surprised that no-one seems to have mentioned it yet in the excitement – is that Craig admitted himself that if he would be doing another one, it would be only for the money. Which would also, incidentally, make a great title, "ONLY FOR THE MONEY".
I agree with everything you've written! I've sort of got used to Craig in the role but I'd be more cheery about his return had he not made those comments about money and slashing his wrists. We all know every Bond actor plays the role for the money although it's nice to think - perhaps in a naive, innocent kind of way - they actually enjoy playing the role. It's clear Craig doesn't really enjoy the role, perhaps he did at the beginning, although that's open to debate, but it's clear he's doing Bond 25 for the cash rather than any love for the franchise. I don't mean that as sounding anti-Craig just my honest opinion! Personally I'd rather he hadn't returned but if there are no exciting actors out there to replace him, fair enough. Perhaps someone will appear in a few years time and really excite the public.
He's often said how he loves the role and it's the best job in the world, the quotes you've used were given in answer to the same question, admittedly a really stupid reply to an Ill thought out question. I actually thought Craig looked visibly moved by colberts audiences reaction to his confirmation.
I’ve got very mixed feelings. Have never been a fan of Craig’s Bond (although he would make a perfect Bond villain!) and will be happy to see him gone. At the same time, none of the successors’ names thrown around really made me excited. Except perhaps Idris Elba, but we always knew his chances were slim. What we should not forget here – and I am surprised that no-one seems to have mentioned it yet in the excitement – is that Craig admitted himself that if he would be doing another one, it would be only for the money. Which would also, incidentally, make a great title, "ONLY FOR THE MONEY".
I agree with everything you've written! I've sort of got used to Craig in the role but I'd be more cheery about his return had he not made those comments about money and slashing his wrists. We all know every Bond actor plays the role for the money although it's nice to think - perhaps in a naive, innocent kind of way - they actually enjoy playing the role. It's clear Craig doesn't really enjoy the role, perhaps he did at the beginning, although that's open to debate, but it's clear he's doing Bond 25 for the cash rather than any love for the franchise. I don't mean that as sounding anti-Craig just my honest opinion! Personally I'd rather he hadn't returned but if there are no exciting actors out there to replace him, fair enough. Perhaps someone will appear in a few years time and really excite the public.
I am more than certain that neither Dalton nor Brosnan did it for the money. For them it was a privilege to get chosen and Brosnan got sacked in the end for asking a bit too much money, which was his right given the overwhelming success at the BO of all of his four films.
Ironically BB throws money out of the window for Craig to return but Brosnan was deemed too expensive in 2003/2004.
I’ve got very mixed feelings. Have never been a fan of Craig’s Bond (although he would make a perfect Bond villain!) and will be happy to see him gone. At the same time, none of the successors’ names thrown around really made me excited. Except perhaps Idris Elba, but we always knew his chances were slim. What we should not forget here – and I am surprised that no-one seems to have mentioned it yet in the excitement – is that Craig admitted himself that if he would be doing another one, it would be only for the money. Which would also, incidentally, make a great title, "ONLY FOR THE MONEY".
I agree with everything you've written! I've sort of got used to Craig in the role but I'd be more cheery about his return had he not made those comments about money and slashing his wrists. We all know every Bond actor plays the role for the money although it's nice to think - perhaps in a naive, innocent kind of way - they actually enjoy playing the role. It's clear Craig doesn't really enjoy the role, perhaps he did at the beginning, although that's open to debate, but it's clear he's doing Bond 25 for the cash rather than any love for the franchise. I don't mean that as sounding anti-Craig just my honest opinion! Personally I'd rather he hadn't returned but if there are no exciting actors out there to replace him, fair enough. Perhaps someone will appear in a few years time and really excite the public.
He's often said how he loves the role and it's the best job in the world, the quotes you've used were given in answer to the same question, admittedly a really stupid reply to an Ill thought out question. I actually thought Craig looked visibly moved by colberts audiences reaction to his confirmation.
I am more than certain that neither Dalton nor Brosnan did it for the money. For them it was a privilege to get chosen and Brosnan got sacked in the end for asking a bit too much money, which was his right given the overwhelming success at the BO of all of his four films.
Ironically BB throws money out of the window for Craig to return but Brosnan was deemed too expensive in 2003/2004.
That's an incredible leap/assumption on your part but everyone is entitled to their opinion. IMO, it's pretty petty to start judging Bond actors on whether they did Bond for the money or because of some higher calling especially given the fact that we pretty much have no idea. If you don't like Craig or EON, etc that's fine. Conjuring up and reaching for these opinions that you present as facts is just unfair. First of all, it apparently wasn't about money which fueled EON parting ways with Brosnan. EON, for better or worst felt the series was getting stale and needed to make a significant change to make the Bond films viable going forward. Just about all the Bond actors were always negotiating for higher fees....including most famously, Roger Moore (who was always threatening to quit). If EON wanted to keep Brosnan, finances would have been worked out.
I don't think any actor does a role simply for the money.
Even those experimental nude art movies of mine, I only did because
It was important to the plot.
Every Actor who has played Bond. Have all seemed to want
To try something different with the character.
I really like Craig as 007. He looks nothing like the literary
Description but his attitude and physicality is pure Bond
( in my humble opinion ) and with Spectre he proved he
Can do the dry quip.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
I am more than certain that neither Dalton nor Brosnan did it for the money. For them it was a privilege to get chosen and Brosnan got sacked in the end for asking a bit too much money, which was his right given the overwhelming success at the BO of all of his four films.
Ironically BB throws money out of the window for Craig to return but Brosnan was deemed too expensive in 2003/2004.
I like how Moore loved his job and wanted to continue but "the trick is to quit while you're still ahead". Octopussy or Moonraker would've been OK as his last films.
Dalton felt privileged to have been chosen for Bond but he had the utmost respect for the character and he quit in '94.
He didn't do it for the money...or the attention that came with the role. He just wanted to do a good job as an actor and he felt that he couldn't be convincing as Bond in '94 due to his age. That is something to admire but it led to the Brosnan era.
Brosnan must've thought he was betrayed by the producers of Steele when they wanted him to continue the role in the TV show, making him unable be James Bond. As Bond he brought in a lot of money...but the budgets were equally high too. (Is it true that all of the budget of TND was covered by product placements?). Barbara just didn't "gush" over Brosnan as he was Cubby's last act as a producer of the Bonds and he let him go when he wanted some more money. I'm sure that there were many, many people who would've wanted Pierce to return. Some say it's because he was turning 50 but that isn't stopping them from getting Craig back or Moore way back when he had the part. Pierce wasn't Lucky Brozzer in the Bonds. In some ways...a selfish thing to do for BB.
The switch from Brosnan to Craig was necessary for two reasons. First, the world - or at least audience perception of it - had drastically changed in 2001 and Brosnan's Bond was out of place (DAD provided unequivocal evidence of this). Second, they decided to make Casino Royale and, although the literary Bond is not a novice in the book, it certainly takes place earlier in his career. It wouldn't have made sense to tell that story with Brosnan as Bond in 2006. So they made the move at the appropriate time.
In the history of EON, however, the tendency has been to hang on to the incumbent Bond for one film too many. The eras of Connery, Moore, and Dalton (if he hadn't stepped away) are evidence of this trend. A little voice in my head says it might be happening again with Craig, but I'd love to be wrong about that.
I am more than certain that neither Dalton nor Brosnan did it for the money. For them it was a privilege to get chosen and Brosnan got sacked in the end for asking a bit too much money, which was his right given the overwhelming success at the BO of all of his four films.
Ironically BB throws money out of the window for Craig to return but Brosnan was deemed too expensive in 2003/2004.
That's an incredible leap/assumption on your part but everyone is entitled to their opinion. IMO, it's pretty petty to start judging Bond actors on whether they did Bond for the money or because of some higher calling especially given the fact that we pretty much have no idea. If you don't like Craig or EON, etc that's fine. Conjuring up and reaching for these opinions that you present as facts is just unfair. First of all, it apparently wasn't about money which fueled EON parting ways with Brosnan. EON, for better or worst felt the series was getting stale and needed to make a significant change to make the Bond films viable going forward. Just about all the Bond actors were always negotiating for higher fees....including most famously, Roger Moore (who was always threatening to quit). If EON wanted to keep Brosnan, finances would have been worked out.
In 2004 it was reported that Brosnan and EON couldn't find a deal because of the money. Later in the EON documentary BB tries to step around that fact by "blaming" 9/11 for changing the cinematic world and wanting to do CR which they got the rights back.
I don't just put things "out there", it's all based on well documented facts/rumours/articles, call it whatever you want.
We will never know the exact truth about Brosnan's departure though as he himself later on was the gentleman he is and talked always only in highest regard of the Bond franchise.
I also remember Craig saying the excellent script for CR was the main reason he decided to sign on as Bond. That sounds about right - he became Bond because of the plot and the character, but like any Bond actor he wants to make a lot of money from it.
So money was a major motivation for Brosnan too, is that what you're saging ? :v
You read my mind.
Also, remember in that doc when Brozz said he couldn't tell his last three films apart? So honored.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
Acting is - wait for it - a profession. Whether one's background is Royal Shakespeare or not, if an actor takes a job and isn't just volunteering and donating his time, money factors into the decision to do the work. For crying out loud 8-)
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
Playing James Bond is a very exclusive club. With it comes wealth and fame but there is a big potential downside also. Type casting (once you are Bond, it's hard to be anything else), if you are a bad Bond it could be a career killer. For all the Bond actors their motivations for wanting the part will all vary as well as their reasons for wanting to move on. Unless a Bond actor were to publically slag the fans or insult the integrity of the role (ie playing Bond is below my master thespian station) we shouldn't take it personally and get caught up in it. Daniel Craig has been pretty honest regarding his misgivings about taking on the Bond role to begin with. It certainly wasn't the money (I am sure it far eclipsed anything he had earned previously). He didn't look down upon the Bond role and actually questioned his own ability to do it justice (very ironic as many fans felt the same way) and of course the old type casting and incredible time commitment that would have to be made over a good span of years. IMO, I don't think Craig himself for Bond 25 will suffer from the one too many syndrome....he will whip himself into the best shape possible and put 100% into his performance. Now on the other hand if EON c_ _ks it up with a bad script, etc that's a horse of another color .
Brosnan has humour, he always made and makes fun of himself about him being Bond and his films, always has always will.
Unlike with Craig who gets "misquoted" Brosnan's words are very well known and what he means.
Anyhow. Sorry I interrupted the thread with some views of mine.
Is there any thread which allows me to share my two cents on the Brosnan vs Craig era? I promise I'll behave in there )
Dalton Rulez™
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
Views expressing displeasure with Craig's return are perfectly appropriate here, of course. The way he has always polarized Bond fandom has always been a part of the story, so it isn't surprising that the confirmation of his return has sparked a minor re-litigation of The Craig WarsTM of '05-'06. Do carry on -{
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
Brosnan has humour, he always made and makes fun of himself about him being Bond and his films, always has always will.
Unlike with Craig who gets "misquoted" Brosnan's words are very well known and what he means.
Anyhow. Sorry I interrupted the thread with some views of mine.
Is there any thread which allows me to share my two cents on the Brosnan vs Craig era? I promise I'll behave in there )
How was Craig "misquoted"?
I'm sure he means the wrist-slashing, etc. Not everyone can be Roger Moore with the press {:)
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
Brosnan has humour, he always made and makes fun of himself about him being Bond and his films, always has always will.
Unlike with Craig who gets "misquoted" Brosnan's words are very well known and what he means.
Anyhow. Sorry I interrupted the thread with some views of mine.
Is there any thread which allows me to share my two cents on the Brosnan vs Craig era? I promise I'll behave in there )
Back in 2014 Brosnan said how he thought he was never good enough as James Bond, in later interviews he talks about how he wished his Bond films had gone grittier and darker and was disappointed when the scripts arrived and it was " the same outlandish stuff" he goes on " but you just accept it and go along for the ride "
Now before I go on let me say that I'm a huge fan of brozzer I enjoy his Bond films up until the second half of DAD. But if his comments aren't tinged with a hue of derision and smack of regret with a touch of getting paid so I do as they want then I don't know what would.
It's absolutely fine to air your views on Daniel Craig as Bond it opens up a healthy discussion.... Or should but to bounce from thread to thread denouncing him and Barbara Broccoli sneer at those happy to see him return and openly ridicule him for his age despite the fact there are many members here older than him then you should expect return fire to your derisive posts and supposition open discussion, friendly banter and constructive argument are the joys of this forum. So stop complaining about counter arguments it's all subjective and objective and let's have some decent Bond 25 discussion and debate.
Yes Brosnan has been bitter at times and rightfully so. EON stepped up their game considerably with CR concerning production quality. Considerably.
That is something that Brosnan would have got if he had had his fifth Bond film. So I understand his regrets. It's something that bothers me always getting to hear that Craig is so much better than Brosnan when it's due to much bigger budgets, production quality and even better casting, although that was great enough during the Brosnan era.
Craig got lucky to come at the right time. He is not better than any of his predecessors he just got better produced films. Not counting scripts of course, all of them have been quite mediocre to downright stupid in parts except CR. IMHO
Anyhow, it's about Bond 25: With P+W writing again I don't have high hopes, it will be the same old stuff like in TWINE to SP except CR.
Bond 25 even with a four year gap could, - could -, be the first bookend film that doesn't stand for the low point in an era. The age thing does not favour it though imho.
I wanted Craig back badly after SPECTRE, in 2017. 2018 the most. I have to accept it's 2019 but I don't have to like it. In fact it's the single most offensive thing EON has ever cast upon us imho.
Perhaps JBJ007 meant that Craig's statement could be
Misrepresentated by lazy journalists as a definite statement
Rather than the throw away, joke remark. Which is what DC
Has said it was.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
I'm sure he means the wrist-slashing, etc. Not everyone can be Roger Moore with the press {:)
But Craig never claimed to be misquoted on that did he? What did you mean, JBJ007?
People claim that Craig got misquoted when he did not (imho) but the same people misuse Brosnan's words to claim Brosnan was not a good Bond or his films hadn't been any good. It's double standard imho. But I won't say anything more on the matter now. Not in this thread anyway.
Still looking for a proper thread. I get across as aggressive sometimes because I am passionate about Bond, I am harmless as a lamb though )
Yes Brosnan has been bitter at times and rightfully so. EON stepped up their game considerably with CR concerning production quality. Considerably.
That is something that Brosnan would have got if he had had his fifth Bond film. So I understand his regrets. It's something that bothers me always getting to hear that Craig is so much better than Brosnan when it's due to much bigger budgets, production quality and even better casting, although that was great enough during the Brosnan era.
Craig got lucky to come at the right time. He is not better than any of his predecessors he just got better produced films. Not counting scripts of course, all of them have been quite mediocre to downright stupid in parts except CR. IMHO
Anyhow, it's about Bond 25: With P+W writing again I don't have high hopes, it will be the same old stuff like in TWINE to SP except CR.
Bond 25 even with a four year gap could, - could -, be the first bookend film that doesn't stand for the low point in an era. The age thing does not favour it though imho.
I wanted Craig back badly after SPECTRE, in 2017. 2018 the most. I have to accept it's 2019 but I don't have to like it. In fact it's the single most offensive thing EON has ever cast upon us imho.
Die Another Day budget 140 million usd, casino royale budget 150 million usd
Comments
Got to get rid of him, presume Mendes out guarantees us that at least
Nothing to quarrel with there. But the director will almost certainly have a say in who comes on as editor and DP...and possibly scorer. Waiting anxiously here {:)
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I remember having this discussion for CR before DC was cast, in which PB ideally has his decent swansong, interweaving Bond's penultimate period in his career with recollections of his beginnings as a 00, with loose ends finally getting resolved with his finding his professional nirvana.
I agree with everything you've written! I've sort of got used to Craig in the role but I'd be more cheery about his return had he not made those comments about money and slashing his wrists. We all know every Bond actor plays the role for the money although it's nice to think - perhaps in a naive, innocent kind of way - they actually enjoy playing the role. It's clear Craig doesn't really enjoy the role, perhaps he did at the beginning, although that's open to debate, but it's clear he's doing Bond 25 for the cash rather than any love for the franchise. I don't mean that as sounding anti-Craig just my honest opinion! Personally I'd rather he hadn't returned but if there are no exciting actors out there to replace him, fair enough. Perhaps someone will appear in a few years time and really excite the public.
He's often said how he loves the role and it's the best job in the world, the quotes you've used were given in answer to the same question, admittedly a really stupid reply to an Ill thought out question. I actually thought Craig looked visibly moved by colberts audiences reaction to his confirmation.
I am more than certain that neither Dalton nor Brosnan did it for the money. For them it was a privilege to get chosen and Brosnan got sacked in the end for asking a bit too much money, which was his right given the overwhelming success at the BO of all of his four films.
Ironically BB throws money out of the window for Craig to return but Brosnan was deemed too expensive in 2003/2004.
+ 1
That's an incredible leap/assumption on your part but everyone is entitled to their opinion. IMO, it's pretty petty to start judging Bond actors on whether they did Bond for the money or because of some higher calling especially given the fact that we pretty much have no idea. If you don't like Craig or EON, etc that's fine. Conjuring up and reaching for these opinions that you present as facts is just unfair. First of all, it apparently wasn't about money which fueled EON parting ways with Brosnan. EON, for better or worst felt the series was getting stale and needed to make a significant change to make the Bond films viable going forward. Just about all the Bond actors were always negotiating for higher fees....including most famously, Roger Moore (who was always threatening to quit). If EON wanted to keep Brosnan, finances would have been worked out.
Even those experimental nude art movies of mine, I only did because
It was important to the plot.
Every Actor who has played Bond. Have all seemed to want
To try something different with the character.
I really like Craig as 007. He looks nothing like the literary
Description but his attitude and physicality is pure Bond
( in my humble opinion ) and with Spectre he proved he
Can do the dry quip.
Dalton felt privileged to have been chosen for Bond but he had the utmost respect for the character and he quit in '94.
He didn't do it for the money...or the attention that came with the role. He just wanted to do a good job as an actor and he felt that he couldn't be convincing as Bond in '94 due to his age. That is something to admire but it led to the Brosnan era.
Brosnan must've thought he was betrayed by the producers of Steele when they wanted him to continue the role in the TV show, making him unable be James Bond. As Bond he brought in a lot of money...but the budgets were equally high too. (Is it true that all of the budget of TND was covered by product placements?). Barbara just didn't "gush" over Brosnan as he was Cubby's last act as a producer of the Bonds and he let him go when he wanted some more money. I'm sure that there were many, many people who would've wanted Pierce to return. Some say it's because he was turning 50 but that isn't stopping them from getting Craig back or Moore way back when he had the part. Pierce wasn't Lucky Brozzer in the Bonds. In some ways...a selfish thing to do for BB.
In the history of EON, however, the tendency has been to hang on to the incumbent Bond for one film too many. The eras of Connery, Moore, and Dalton (if he hadn't stepped away) are evidence of this trend. A little voice in my head says it might be happening again with Craig, but I'd love to be wrong about that.
In 2004 it was reported that Brosnan and EON couldn't find a deal because of the money. Later in the EON documentary BB tries to step around that fact by "blaming" 9/11 for changing the cinematic world and wanting to do CR which they got the rights back.
I don't just put things "out there", it's all based on well documented facts/rumours/articles, call it whatever you want.
We will never know the exact truth about Brosnan's departure though as he himself later on was the gentleman he is and talked always only in highest regard of the Bond franchise.
You read my mind.
Also, remember in that doc when Brozz said he couldn't tell his last three films apart? So honored.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Unlike with Craig who gets "misquoted" Brosnan's words are very well known and what he means.
Anyhow. Sorry I interrupted the thread with some views of mine.
Is there any thread which allows me to share my two cents on the Brosnan vs Craig era? I promise I'll behave in there
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
How was Craig "misquoted"?
I'm sure he means the wrist-slashing, etc. Not everyone can be Roger Moore with the press {:)
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Back in 2014 Brosnan said how he thought he was never good enough as James Bond, in later interviews he talks about how he wished his Bond films had gone grittier and darker and was disappointed when the scripts arrived and it was " the same outlandish stuff" he goes on " but you just accept it and go along for the ride "
Now before I go on let me say that I'm a huge fan of brozzer I enjoy his Bond films up until the second half of DAD. But if his comments aren't tinged with a hue of derision and smack of regret with a touch of getting paid so I do as they want then I don't know what would.
It's absolutely fine to air your views on Daniel Craig as Bond it opens up a healthy discussion.... Or should but to bounce from thread to thread denouncing him and Barbara Broccoli sneer at those happy to see him return and openly ridicule him for his age despite the fact there are many members here older than him then you should expect return fire to your derisive posts and supposition open discussion, friendly banter and constructive argument are the joys of this forum. So stop complaining about counter arguments it's all subjective and objective and let's have some decent Bond 25 discussion and debate.
But Craig never claimed to be misquoted on that did he? What did you mean, JBJ007?
That is something that Brosnan would have got if he had had his fifth Bond film. So I understand his regrets. It's something that bothers me always getting to hear that Craig is so much better than Brosnan when it's due to much bigger budgets, production quality and even better casting, although that was great enough during the Brosnan era.
Craig got lucky to come at the right time. He is not better than any of his predecessors he just got better produced films. Not counting scripts of course, all of them have been quite mediocre to downright stupid in parts except CR. IMHO
Anyhow, it's about Bond 25: With P+W writing again I don't have high hopes, it will be the same old stuff like in TWINE to SP except CR.
Bond 25 even with a four year gap could, - could -, be the first bookend film that doesn't stand for the low point in an era. The age thing does not favour it though imho.
I wanted Craig back badly after SPECTRE, in 2017. 2018 the most. I have to accept it's 2019 but I don't have to like it. In fact it's the single most offensive thing EON has ever cast upon us imho.
Misrepresentated by lazy journalists as a definite statement
Rather than the throw away, joke remark. Which is what DC
Has said it was.
People claim that Craig got misquoted when he did not (imho) but the same people misuse Brosnan's words to claim Brosnan was not a good Bond or his films hadn't been any good. It's double standard imho. But I won't say anything more on the matter now. Not in this thread anyway.
Still looking for a proper thread. I get across as aggressive sometimes because I am passionate about Bond, I am harmless as a lamb though
Die Another Day budget 140 million usd, casino royale budget 150 million usd