Discussion in 'Visual Arts' started by Vidiot, May 19, 2016.
Thx for the clip.
Thought he looked the part in TSWLM, a bit of a Sean Connery thing going for him.
If you really think the Daniel Clueless films are everything and nothing of
interest can ever happen again it's best, as you say, to move on to the next
thing. To get past the neuroses and the agendas of the Craig era doesn't
mean "returning to business as usual" it means getting rid of the baggage
that has weighed the series down. It means removing the stranglehold on
creativity. I agree there's no place left to go for the Craig version of Bond.
Where did you get the idea this was the end of the franchise? No one's said
that.EON earns millions of dollars a year from each production. Each Bond
film earns them another fortune. Why would they stop?
Craig is not the franchise. He was never a legitimate Bond to begin with. He
just crashed the party and overstayed his welcome. Imagination, dramatic
intelligence and invention should return when he's gone, hopefully. The Bond
films made money before he played the role and they'll continue to make
money with a different actor.
I'm going to guess at least 2 years after the release of the next film. The endless and sometimes absurd speculation alone gives the franchise a huge boost as far as publicity is concerned. I am sure that the Broccoli clan wants all of that free press to stretch out for quite some time before the official announcement is made.
Any guess who the clan have chosen to play OO7?
I'm done with Star Wars, but I doubt if that fact is going to sway Disney from cranking out dozens of new ones.
My thoughts exactly, Craig makes his exit, so what?
How many Bond's have made their exit and the franchise still keeps on going like the Energizer Bunny.
Bond has always been a cash cow.
Why on earth would EON kill of a franchise that continues to make stupid profits?
That doesn't make any sense.
If the current producers did not want to continue, the could probably sell it to Disney for a cool billion.
Let me think, I could sell, this property for hundreds of millions of dollars, or I could kill off the Bond character, let me think a minute?
Maybe someone who's more enlightened about the books could answer my question have 001-006 ever been mentioned or played a role, or assisted in any way? what are they doing when 007 is saving the world. How many 00's are there?
And when does Little Cat Z get his moment?
Hang on a mo'... I never said they're ending the franchise, nor should they... all I said was I, myself, in a purely personal capacity, am losing interest in it because it's essentially just moving the same old furniture around the same old room, creatively speaking, and that's served them well for the last 58 years, but it's starting to get a little stale for me... I'm interested enough in the upcoming film that I'll give it a whirl once it's released, but I really don't care what comes after... that's all I said and all I meant.
Oh Richard... I do enjoy reading your posts, but c'mon man, that's just silliness... and a good 14 years out of date!
Ah, so you're the one behind this then?
Daniel Craig is not Bond.com – DCinB Classic Bond Site
You cheeky scamp ...
Not my website, no. But it has the right idea.
Haven't read them for years but 008 and 0011 are mentioned. They're never part of the action though, only existing 'off-screen' as it were. And I believe it's implied in one of the books that the double-0 section is small - only 2 to 3 agents active at any one time.
The latest continuation novel (Horowitz's 'Forever And A Day') mentions that M allocates the 00 numbers randomly.
In the film version of Thunderball the briefing scene implies that all of those 9 chairs are occupied by double-00 agents.
I'm wildly interested in seeing where this one goes - the teaser promises "it'll change everything" - but once Daniel Craig is put to pasture, what then? Will the next 007 have to carry Craig's baggage, too? I like Craig as Bond very much - Casino Royale and Skyfall are among my favorite Bonds - but at this point, I'm ready for Henry Cavill in a tuxedo facing off against a supervillain with a detonator in one hand and a glass of Dom Perignon '55 in the other. Bond 26 doesn't need to be Moonraker...but I'd rather sit through that then another moody brood-athon like Quantum of Solace.
Bring back the class I say.
Difficult though with the metoo movement, men walking on eggshells.
suppose the next Bond 'ack-torr' must NOT be in any way...
white, straight, good looking, confident, Alpha Male, so assured of himself he doesn't need to be 'anything-ist', stands tall and has a self assured manner, keen quick witted with a sense of dark humour, be athletic enjoy sports, also a sharp 'expert' gambler / card player, appreciates the best clothing such as suits, shirts, 'smart casual' wear, knows an absurd amount of everything from key facts, historical events and figures, right down to trivia, enjoy the very best quality food, knows his wines, loves fast cars, how to first befriend and with charm and manners how to gently seduce ladies all done with flair and style...plus handle himself in fights, action sequences, and know how to shoot guns...
right with all that old fashioned rubbish out the way presumably someone who has NONE of those abilities will be considered for the role....
James Bond 007 - Licence To Debate...
Others have been mentioned, but played no significant role. Their numbers were 006, 008, 009, 0011.
so officially there's at least 11 00's? I think it's interesting that there are (or may be) agents of similar caliber that never seem to help out much.
I like that idea!! He did tell her he’d be back and that was left up in the air. Great suggestion!!
Yes, lots of plot holes or discontinuity in Spectre. Dining car full of passengers then a quick moment later...all gone. I did like the movie though. Nice to have M, Moneypenny all in place. And though ill served, it was nice to have the levity in place. Also the gun barrel opening finally. It’s third on my Craig Bond movie list.
Ha! Miss Moneypenny. She was in UFO.
People keep saying this about franchise movies that make $1 billion-plus: BLACK PANTHER, CAPTAIN MARVEL, the last two STAR WARS installments . . . I'm sure any studio would like audiences to lose interest to the tune of $1 billion per film.
Appealing to an aged "core fanbase" that likely as not hasn't watched a movie in a theater in several years isn't how they make hits.
It seems to have worked for bond films for over a half of a century and still counting...
Agreed, but the complaint I was responding to was that the Bond franchise had changed too much and that the core fanbase was leaving. I pointed out that changing with the times and target audiences is the path to success, not placating so-called core fans who don't want anything to change. The Bond franchise has never been more successful than it is with Craig.
Love Craig or hate him, these films are the only Bond outings that don't look badly dated. The compelling feature of the older 007 films were the gadgets, but they just look silly now that we live in the digital age and people jump out of planes in flying squirrel suits for fun.
The gadgets were always the last thing I noticed in the early Bond
films. The early Bonds had a lot more going for them than gadgets.
No matter what you hear today, the gadgets were never the main
attraction in the early Bond films.
The imdb synopsis doesn't tell us much:
Bond has left active service and is enjoying a tranquil life in Jamaica.
His peace is short-lived when his old friend Felix Leiter from the CIA
turns up asking for help. The mission to rescue a kidnapped scientist
turns out to be far more treacherous than expected, leading Bond onto
the trail of a mysterious villain armed with dangerous new technology.
The surprise plot twists and turns are said to be butterfly-net krazy.
In Bond 25, Lashana Lynch is the new 007. James Bond retired. Or
thinks he did. Actually he's still in the chair undergoing the brain
drill in Blofeld's fortress, seen at the end of Spectre. Blofoeld is
feeding him a new life. Sometimes he snaps out of it, long enough
to escape, but he can't be sure what's real.
Never the main thing but always a fun cool part of Bond and it all depends on ones age when they saw s Bond film. I was 12 for the first film
First time ?
A Scotsman playing a Englishman.
say people don't want anything to change - well the sixties to seventies Bond eras saw a MASSIVE change in style and those 'older' fans stuck with it as the films retained a core sense of similarity (two of the strongest sixties Bond films 'From Russia With Love' and 'OHMSS' had very little by way of out and out gadgets either)
- as many 'older fans' do TODAY still stick with the series mostly out of love for the James Bond film series, being the core support who DO bother to go to the cinema to see what they hope will be a well made entertaining piece of escapism....rather than mere 'agenda box ticking' to please those mind controlling mouthy snowflakes !
re no change - right well we now have gone in a big arc from a (pretty inept) female M....to a male M, plus 'Q', 'Moneypenny', and 'Felix' - so not much change there then from the 'core supporting cast' around Bond - all of those characters were in 'Goldfinger'...as was the gadget laden Aston Martin that Daniel Craig had tucked away in his garage in 'Skyfall' !
good to know how much 'new direction' Babs and co are moving in now - in no way playing on the past established SUCCESSFUL film series history of Bond her father built up....to use as a foundation with a guaranteed audience in place for then attempting to ram home 'Agenda' aspects ad nausium
Separate names with a comma.