Yep, the reason he was killed off imo. A new fresh start which makes choosing the next Bond so very important.
To keep the woke pc mob off their backs? But they should first consider the wild success of Top Gun Maverick.
Watched it yesterday for the first time, it was ok not great. 3.5/5 - probably 3rd in the Craig list of Bond movies.
Next James Bond Movie Will Be a 'Complete Reinvention' For the Series - IGN James Bond producer says it'll be 'at least 2 years' before new film
We could start a thread of all the characters/ideas that have been 'reinvented' throughout the years by Hollywood!
Re-watched this film half a dozen times now. Still really rate the ending. What a way to go out. I don't want the wheel reinventing. I don't want a gay Bond, I don't want a black Bond, I don't want a P.C Bond, I don't want a woman Bond. If that's your bag, then invent a different character and go make a series of films. I'm sure they'll be successful. But this is BOND. It's not a codename. He's ruthless, a British, ex-Navy, serial womaniser, heart, soul and upbringing tempered by the 2nd World War and the demanding 50s. What I do want is the old 60s style espionage stories back. Less gadgets. A hard man Bond. A no prisoners Bond. Big supporter of a couple of retro set films. Put him back in that '64 - '67 period. I fairly convinced I won't get what I want.
Yup, that's the way I saw it. Craig's Bond was a different Bond from the previous incarnations, not least becuase they started his run with Casino Royale (an origin story) and then reintroduced Spectre, Blofeld and other stuff. Although they did muddy the waters somewhat by having the likes of Judi Dench's M stick around after the Brosnan era, and having the DB6 in the third movie. Should have been a clean break with the previous films, IMHO. Wouldn't bother me if they just completely ignored the Craig films and have Bond alive and kicking in the next film. Just so long as it isn't Henry Cavill.
In regard to the Gay/trans/female Bond stuff, I think a lot of the speculation and hand wringing that they are going to do any of the above is just that: speculation. Usually by websites with political agendas.On one side you have the left throwing those trial balloons out there as if that is exactly what Ion and Amazon should do to win the internet and the Twitter verse and accusing anyone who disagrees automatically racist or transphobic etc. On the other you have the right reporting it as if its been confirmed that is what Ion is doing and screaming "OUTRAGE!!!!" at the top of their lungs and declaring a culture war on anything and anyone that believes that trying new things is inherently bad or a conspiracy to ruin the western world. Both of the current heads of ION have stated repeatedly that Bond himself will never be a woman , and at his core will remain true to his personality and his main traits and character flaws. Now...is it possible in the future that they may hire a gay actor or even a trans actor who can pass for a male for the role? Maybe...but I doubt the character of Bond himself will be depicted as Gay or Trans. Actors act. We've had plenty of actors over the decades who were Gay who portrayed straight roles convincingly. Hell for all we know any of the Previous Bond actors could have been closeted Gay or bisexual. We don't know and we probably will never know nor do I care to know. As for whether they hire a black actor or not for Bond eventually, who cares? I mean...of course you don't hire , say, Chris Rock type as Bond...but who in their right mind would say Idris Iriba wouldn't be a kick ass Bond? There is a certain Bond "type" for sure you sort of have to go with. But an actor of any race that can embody that and do the character justice should be considered. To limit the part forever to just white guys just because they've never considered another type of actor before is frankly silly and short sighted. Ultimately though I think the part will go to a straight fit white guy and the character will largely remain the same he always had. I don't think ION or Amazon are going to want to mess too much with the Bond recipe at the risk the box office or too much controversy and all of this speculation and hand wringing will be for naught. It may happen in the future but this time around I don't see it happening.
Yep. How many times have they "reinvented " Batman...and ultimately he's still a rich guy whose childhood trauma leads to him to dressing as a Bat, driving around in a cool car, using funky gadgets and beating the crap out of criminals? Virtually every Batman film is that. The "reinvention" is usually down to style,cinematography and asthetics.
The most regrettable thing about the Craig era was how they spent 2 movies getting him up to speed as a double-O, then by the third movie he was already a past-it dinosaur who couldn't pass a physical. EDIT: I take this back. Making Blofeld his half-brother and "the architect of all (his) pain" was the dumbest.
The former was because there was a long gap between Quantum and Skyfall where there probably would have been another movie. Also it felt like with SKYFALL they sort of temporarily put aside the idea of the Craig films being a total reboot and semi leaned into the history of the franchise as that was billed as the big anniversary film. I mean, aside from the death of Judy Dench M and introducing the new Q and moneypenny you could easily skip that film when doing a Craig era rewatch because the first two films tie together and the last two tie together but SKYFALL is its own stand alone animal more or less. As for your last point....I don't know what you are talking about, mainly because I've blocked it from my mind. It makes both SPECTRE and NTTD better .
When Austin Powers starts to influence Bond and not the other way around, you know you have a problem.
If you told me that, I would question your judgement. Half of his dialog was dubbed by another actor. However, OHMSS was a top-three Bond film. The movie was great in spite of Lazenby, not because of him.
Would Connery have been half as good in it? I doubt it. I thought they wanted to bring in Timothy Dalton at that time anyway.
It depends how engaged in the project Connery would have been. At that time, he probably would have just phoned it in. But if you had him at the top of his game, no question to me Connery would have been better.
