I think by taking Bond into a different direction they have made it harder for a return to the original formula. Craig has his ardent fans now, younger viewers who were not interested in Bond until he morphed into a Jason Bourne like character (perhaps the younger film goers can relate to an insubordinate Bond vs M relationship like their own relationship with their parents... And a jerky, games console style filming / platform game appearance) and now pulling back the character and traditionalising the formula will only serve to alienate this new consumer/fan base.
Amazon #1 Bestselling Author. If you enjoy crime, espionage, action and fast-moving thrillers follow this link:
I think by taking Bond into a different direction they have made it harder for a return to the original formula. Craig has his ardent fans now, younger viewers who were not interested in Bond until he morphed into a Jason Bourne like character (perhaps the younger film goers can relate to an insubordinate Bond vs M relationship like their own relationship with their parents... And a jerky, games console style filming / platform game appearance) and now pulling back the character and traditionalising the formula will only serve to alienate this new consumer/fan base.
I honestly believe that the producers view Fleming's Bond as a conservative and they have no idea why he is so dedicated to the secret service. It's not about partiotism for Bond, it's about having a purpose in life and he realizes the dirty business that he is in. This Bond could sold to the public but instead EON insists to making him a rebel who has a "screw the man" attitude. Hey, I don't mind characters like that on film; I love Lethal Weapon, Dirty Harry, and simular movie franchises but Bond is suppose to be different.
My suggestions to EON are the following:
1. Have Bond obey M
2. Stop the cut-a-minute actions sequences
3. Stop making the Bond villians metro-sexual euro-trash.
4. Have something actually at stake. (No one gives a crap about water.)
5. Have Bond actually seduce woman long enough he can boink them. (He should have done Solange and seducing Fields was done so badly it was laughable.)
6. Have MI6 depicted as a intelligence orginization. (After Doctor No, MI6 only seemed to be the Bond regulars and some extras in the background.)
7. Stop having M hover Bond like a mother hen.
8. More espionage and counter-intelligence.
9. Intelligent dialogue.
10. No more stupid rap/rock songs playing in the main titles.
Looks like the Spyglass deal will happen. So pre-production by the end of the year, filming sometime early 2011... yeah okay then. :007)
PPK 7.65mmSaratoga Springs NY USAPosts: 1,230MI6 Agent
Finally, it looks like this nightmare is just about over. I really hope than once a deal is reached, that MGM will stop making garbage movies like they have been doing for the past 5-9 years between Bond films.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,991Quartermasters
Hot Tub Time Machine II
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
Finally, it looks like this nightmare is just about over. I really hope than once a deal is reached, that MGM will stop making garbage movies like they have been doing for the past 5-9 years between Bond films.
Don't get too excited. The recession is breeding cheap films, tv and commodities. British tv is getting less and less quality - recent programmes repeated less than six months later, six or seven year old dramas repeated at prime time, films on a saturday repeated the following sunday... Films too are becomming cheaper, less substantial.
Maybe Hot Tub Time Machine III, IV, V and Tub - The Prequel will follow...
Amazon #1 Bestselling Author. If you enjoy crime, espionage, action and fast-moving thrillers follow this link:
Finally, it looks like this nightmare is just about over. I really hope than once a deal is reached, that MGM will stop making garbage movies like they have been doing for the past 5-9 years between Bond films.
Don't get too excited. The recession is breeding cheap films, tv and commodities. British tv is getting less and less quality - recent programmes repeated less than six months later, six or seven year old dramas repeated at prime time, films on a saturday repeated the following sunday... Films too are becomming cheaper, less substantial.
Maybe Hot Tub Time Machine III, IV, V and Tub - The Prequel will follow...
Films are getting cheaper ? I am sure you don't mean the US ? They are still spending hundreds of millions of dollars on these bloated special effects spectacles.
UK tv shows only get six or eight episodes, a great series like spooks only gets this type of a run.Simply because it's so expensive to make. Where as we get bombarded with cheap reality tv shows from Big Brother to X-Factor, With these you don't have to pay actors,writers, and all other supporting jobs.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Thunderbird 2East of Cardiff, Wales.Posts: 2,777MI6 Agent
The Secret Agent and Thunderpussy are both right.
Big Brother may have finally been buried on Channel 4 at long last, but its junk food telly "Reality Show" legacy remains. - Plus the government is putting the squeeze on everything, and you can bet the arts are high on that list. - I noted the other week that both the BBC's comedy Last Of The Summer Wine, and ITV's great cop drama The Bill aired their final episodes. That means there are only three long running non-soap series left - Medical drama Casualty, Glasgow based cop series Taggart and classic Agatha Cristie's Poirot. And all of them have a question mark hanging over them, and only Casualty out of the three is a rolling production.
The UK's production companies are having to use the American industry trick of series with but with 6 - 8 episodes instad of 12 / 13 episodes inc the pilot. But unlike America, its because we can't afford the production costs of making more episodes. As I understand it, in the States pilots are coming out like a production line so seasons get shorter to establish potential big hitters faster? The only exception is Dr Who - which gets 12 / 13 episodes a season. However, BBC Wales is in partnerships with companies and networks in other countries. (I think including BBC Canada and one of the American networks? - I'm guessing here) Those partnerships have augmented the series budget, and overall audience ratio.
The UK film industry is in a bigger mess. Bond and The Potter films are the only long running big hitters made here in the UK, and Potter's cameras have now finished filming.
As an aside, I think the Bond formula of Casino Royale worked beautifully, and QoS was a shambles. The ending of CR seemed to promise we were going to get a modern Craig version of the Bond we know, a prelude to real spy games and anti terrorist tension. Coupled with conniving "think bigger" bad guys on a Scale like Dr No, or perhaps FYEO in the modern age. I think if we can dismiss QoS except for the last scenes at the end, the franchise can pick up from where it should have left off in the next film. Preferably with Mpenny, Q and Mr Craig still as Bond.
Although I have to agree, as much as I love Dame Judi as M, the character is one where less is always more. Using her too much also emphasises the lack of Mpenny and Q.
This is Thunderbird 2, how can I be of assistance?
I have to admit, despite my admiration for Dame Judy's very good turn as "M" I'm starting to get a little tired of "M" meaning "Momma" and DC as Bond being the wayward son. I've never had a problem with "M" being female but starting with the Brosnan films and now Craig I think they have really painted themselves into a corner with the dynamics of the "M" / Bond releationship. The only way they can go in another direction is by replacing Dench's "M" with a male. They don't even need to kill off Dench's "M". Maybe have her move on to another government position...maybe have her run for PM and win and then be assasinated and then Bond find the killers...oops back onto the old vendetta thing again.....so scratch the assasination thing and just have her in a new, higher government position and she can still pop up in the films. How about making one of Bond's former high ranking SBS Commanders take over as "M". Someone Bond won't mess with.
The part of M has grown so much over the Dench years,That I really hope when it comes to getting a new M they go for an unknown of relatively unknown on a world stage at least. IMHO Julian Fellows ( played a minister in TND) would be perfect. Then just have him give Bond the mission and let him get on with it.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
I'd like "M" to be portrayed in memorable fashion (Bernard Lee was iconic).....but less is more. When "M" and "Q" started getting involved in actual missions it sort of broke a fourth wall (for lack of a better term) within the films. "M" needs to have some interesting discourse with Bond and then send him out on his mission. There has to be a ton of good actors from the UK who would be great as "M". Oh yeah, not to be just hijacking this thread....it seems like things are starting to move along with MGM and Spyglass.........maybe within the next 30 days JAMES BOND WILL RETURN (at least back on a production schedule).
Actually, This is good news to me.
Now don't misunderstand me, I believe Daniel Craig to be a fine actor. He is very good, and having seen him before in a number of roles, I was dubious that he could actually pull off a grandiose role as James Bond.
Having seen both Quantum of Solice and Casino Royale, I must say that I am completely and utterly disappointed with what has been done with the franchise.
Q= Missing. I know the actor passed away, and he will be sorely missed. But I missed the interaction between Q and Bond. He had such annoyance for Bond for two reasons, Bond's cavalier attitude whenever Bond walked into the lab, and his blatant display of disrespect for the weaponry and gadgets that Q would slave over. That is something I looked forward to with each new release. That, quite sadly, is gone. It would not work with the way Craig handles the new Bond.
Moneypenny= Ms. Moneypenny was a staple, the one person Bond would always return to and know his friendship with her was solid, even though she wanted more out of it. The later Moneypenny was much more independent, quite understandably when she realized the Bond was not the only fish in the sea. I liked that.
Personally I believe the casting of Judy Densch was a stroke of genius. I have no qualms there.
But Daniel Craig is NOT James Bond. I read all the available novels written by Fleming. In all of them I saw the same features of James Bond. The loose lock of black hair that hung in his eyes, a scar he had on his face, small but noticeable. His looks were compared to Hoagy Charmichael. He moved slow and determined, like a panther. When he was with women, he was gentle, romantic, but ready to give it up at a moments notice for Queen and Country.
Daniel Craig is built like a wrestler, and he walks like someone looking to pick a fight. The look on his face says "Talk to me and I'll shoot you in the face" He is not the smooth talking, calculating secret agent that I have known since I read my first JB novel, back when I was 10.
It was Casino Royale. Imagine my delight when Dr. No was released. I thought that Connery fit the bill perfect as described in the books. His walk was just like I had imagined it. His movements determined and careful. I was delighted.
George Lazenby came along, and I thought his take on the role was admirable. In fact, the more I watch OHMSS, the better I like it. It would have been interesting to see where the franchise might have gone if Roger Moore had not come into the picture.
Moore I thought was too foppish for the part. He seemed to portray an attitude of someone looking for someone to tell a joke to. His best movie was For Your Eyes Only. In that, I felt he did the job well. But the others I was a little sad about.
Then came Timothy Dalton. I thought the franchise had taken a well needed shot in the arm. Here was the steel edged secret agent I had missed so much.
|Pierce Brosnan did the part proud! When I saw Goldeneye, I thought that the entire James Bond package had come full circle. He played it perfectly and beautifully.
I apologize for the fans out there who like where the franchise has gone.
Daniel Craig is NOT James Bond.
He is built like a fireplug.
He is blond! Bond was not blond!
The violence meter has been cranked to the limit.
The women are not nearly as stunning.
He seems as suave as a rollercoaster smashing through the dining room wall.
His only gadget is a cell phone.
Hell, EVERYONE has a cell phone!
My apologies to Daniel Craig.
Christopher Reeve was Superman.
Peter Sellers was Inspector Clouseau.
Dean Martin was Matt Helm.
Don Adams was Maxwell Smart.
But Daniel Craig (My Opinion) is NOT James Bond.
He seems about as romantic to me as a rabid dog in a kindergarten.
Well said Dannlopez. I have read several of the Bond novels for the first time recently having grown up on the films and I have to say that, while DC does bring back some complexity back into the role of Bond, he is NOT, in my honest opinion, the closest to Fleming's vision. Additionally, whilst CR stayed faithful to the novel it was based on, QoS missed the Fleming mark by quite a bit.
The main problem I have with comparing Craig to Fleming is that Craig simply does not have that look of gentlemanly sophistication IF so frequently illudes to. The Bond in the books was a trained killer no doubt but he also had a tall, dark, almost Etonian look to him (much like Fleming himself). I for one can't imagine Craig driving a Bentley (or a modern equivilent) along the English countryside in the same way I can with some of the other actors.
I also get annoyed by people referring to the Fleming Bond as a "lose canon". The fact was that M played a fairly small (but still important) role in each of the books and was someone who trusted Bond fully. The only times he really threatened security were in YOLT (following the death of his wife - even then he offered to resign) and TMWTGG (he tried to kill M after being brainwashed by the Russians), Yes Bond was a highly complex figure however he held a firm loyalty to the service. Put simply he was an efficient, charismatic civil servant who recognised the ugly side of his business - not a thug in a suit as some people might claim.
The books also revelled in their glamour. They exposed readers to a luxurious lifestyle people would never otherwise have seen. They also featured a relitively small amount of action (even Casino Royale had to add a few impressive set pieces to satisfy its audience). QoS seemed to be wholly focused on action with little of the glamour that makes Bond so unique. I hope the producers once again explore the novels and remind themselves exactly what sets them apart from other spy adventures.
P.s. IMO the "Ian Fleming Bond" is a mixture of several actors: Sean Connery, Timothy Dalton and Pierce Brosnan.
I am so gratified to know that someone else feels as I do concerning this New Bond. As I said before, Daniel Craig is a terrific actor, and in the other roles I have seen him in, he does very well, but I feel James Bond is not his perfect role. Compare him to Connery, to Dalton, to Brosnan (Even Lazenby!) and you will realize that he does not even come close.
We are in agreement. Bond was a very smooth character, knowledgeable of the business he was in, ready to accept the dangers, and uncompromising in his resolve. I am willing to accept recent changes in the world he lives in, after all, he was created in the shadow of the cold war, and he is not in that environment anymore, but you cannot tell me that there is no espionage going on. With the passing of time comes the advancement of technology, but at the same time, the human element is always present and necessary. Bond can fit into this world the same as he did back in the 60's. Changing the look and feel of Bond is unnecessary. Making him a bulldozer with several chase/fight scenes and just one scene where seduction of the opposite sex is involved, tells me that the formula is completely lopsided.
The rumor is that Spyglass Entertainment is going to eventually take over the franchise. I leave myself open to possibilities and I will not make any judgments on what potential new owners might make. I keep my fingers crossed and hope like hell that the franchise is repaired. I have been a Bond fan since I was 10. I watched the franchise take some strange paths. Until recently, I thought that path was a good one. I don't feel it's on a good path right now. Lets see what the future brings.
I'm watching with much anticipation to see how the Spyglass deal goes. It sounds like the current arrangement is a non-binding deal until MGM emerges from bankruptcy until the end of the year. And it still has to go up to a vote among the shareholders before it gets the go-ahead.
As far as a change of direction goes, I don't know how much Spyglass becomes a creative force versus a financial force in the new arrangement in regards to Bond specifically.
Dannlopez, I'm in full agrement with you -{ I've Been into Bond now since I was about 12, a sad old traditionalist and have read many post from many members on this forum and believed for many months that I was basicly the only AJB member who thought the reboot wasn't needed and that DC was the wrong choice for Bond.At one point I had a hissy fit as I felt I was banging my head against a brick wall, so it is very good news to me at least that some others have these concerns.
My only hope is that they do sort out all the MGM problems and get back on track.Hopefully the producers will have listened to the arguments from fans and the next outing will have more of the feel of the older Bonds.
I not a huge fan of DC I don't regard him as the great actor that others do,But I would rather he stay on to provide some continuity,as He was pretty good in CR so fingers crossed the next Bond won't be the Mess (IMHO) that QOS turnrd out ( although I accept others think of it as a modern masterpiece) still I'll travel in hope.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,991Quartermasters
edited September 2010
By way of being a dissenting opinion, I offer up (yet again) an article I wrote here some time ago on the subject of Craig's much-debated take on Bond.
In it, I make the case that what Craig brings to the Bond role is an often-overlooked but very important aspect of Fleming's Bond: the tough guy who takes an absolute beating to get the job done---while conceding that he violates most of the sacrosanct physical characteristics of the literary character...anyway, this is my opinion---quite far afield from where this thread on Bond #23's delay is inexplicably heading, but here we are :007)
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
Good article,It's just a matter of taste some of us like Peking duck others Russian caviar. The Bond of the novels had little humor and was a bit of a snob much like Fleming himself. Craig has taken a diffrent approach to the character, and fair play to him. You like the direction the Movies are Going while I don't. As I mentioned It's just a diffrence in taste here's hoping the next outing can keep both of us happy with a little move into the middleground.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
By way of being a dissenting opinion, I offer up (yet again) an article I wrote here some time ago on the subject of Craig's much-debated take on Bond.
In it, I make the case that what Craig brings to the Bond role is an often-overlooked but very important aspect of Fleming's Bond: the tough guy who takes an absolute beating to get the job done---while conceding that he violates most of the sacrosanct physical characteristics of the literary character...anyway, this is my opinion---quite far afield from where this thread on Bond #23's delay is inexplicably heading, but here we are :007)
You make a good case L but Craig is not really the appearance of James Bond. He's a facsimile of sorts but he just dosen't resemble the dark, bryonic hero Fleming wrote about. I think Dalton and Connery have come closer to that resemblance.
And yes Craig does take a beating but he still seems a tad too invincible. Yes he does to the hospital at the of Casino Royale but he really don't see him recovering from a tramatic experience that shook him to the core in Fleming's novel; Both the physical and emotional.
Lastly, I'd argue that this is not really in a reboot. During the course of both films, DC's character has not developed at all and not as complex as Fleming's Bond who actually feels conflicted about his own job. The first film he learned "not to trust people", a banal life lesson that really should be common sense to someone who clearly is deadly serious in his profession of KILLING people. The secound film ,I think, was suppose to be about Bond not being consumed by vengance but like everything else in that cut-a-minute wannabe Bond, everything is under developed and rushed. Out of thin air in the final act of QOS he is a changed man, he dosen't kill Greene or the Algerian boyfriend.
EON needs to wake up and realize that James Bond is not just your everyday beat-'em up action hero who sticks the finger to the man. He is a conlificted man who leads a dangerous life and goes on adventures that men envy.
By way of being a dissenting opinion, I offer up (yet again) an article I wrote here some time ago on the subject of Craig's much-debated take on Bond.
In it, I make the case that what Craig brings to the Bond role is an often-overlooked but very important aspect of Fleming's Bond: the tough guy who takes an absolute beating to get the job done---while conceding that he violates most of the sacrosanct physical characteristics of the literary character...anyway, this is my opinion---quite far afield from where this thread on Bond #23's delay is inexplicably heading, but here we are :007)
I have actually seen your article before Loeffelholz as I have been wrestling with the issue myself and I do completely agree with you, but I'm still not sure whether he is the Bond Fleming himself would have picked (we will obviously never know for sure). However I think we can agree that the Bond of the novels was someone who often took a beating in the line of duty and was injured in a way he wasn't in the older films ("his face was covered in blood" - Bond after his car crash in Moonraker). Particularly in CR, Craig's Bond does a great job in bringing this element back to the character. I just wonder what IF would have thought of Craig and his muscley body.
I suppose it comes down to the direction MGM decides to take the character. IMO some actors who have been great in the role were let down by below-par scrtipts. In the cases of Connery and Brosnan the character was turned into a comic book figure. Judging by the very mediocre QoS the same is happening, however this time the character is turning into a kind of indestructable Jason Bourne knock-off.
Meh, we will wait and see. Although I'm not a mad fan of the "new Bond" I think it would be a shame if Craig left the role now. He certainly has great potential and it would be interesting to see how he (and MGM) incoporate some of the more "classical" elements into the series.
PPK 7.65mmSaratoga Springs NY USAPosts: 1,230MI6 Agent
Even if it takes a while for Bond 23 to resume production, I am sure it will be worth the wait. Also I hope that the new film, has a better editor and the script is better polished before filming.
By way of being a dissenting opinion, I offer up (yet again) an article I wrote here some time ago on the subject of Craig's much-debated take on Bond.
In it, I make the case that what Craig brings to the Bond role is an often-overlooked but very important aspect of Fleming's Bond: the tough guy who takes an absolute beating to get the job done---while conceding that he violates most of the sacrosanct physical characteristics of the literary character...anyway, this is my opinion---quite far afield from where this thread on Bond #23's delay is inexplicably heading, but here we are :007)
You make a good case L but Craig is not really the appearance of James Bond. He's a facsimile of sorts but he just dosen't resemble the dark, bryonic hero Fleming wrote about. I think Dalton and Connery have come closer to that resemblance.
And yes Craig does take a beating but he still seems a tad too invincible. Yes he does to the hospital at the of Casino Royale but he really don't see him recovering from a tramatic experience that shook him to the core in Fleming's novel; Both the physical and emotional.
Lastly, I'd argue that this is not really in a reboot. During the course of both films, DC's character has not developed at all and not as complex as Fleming's Bond who actually feels conflicted about his own job. The first film he learned "not to trust people", a banal life lesson that really should be common sense to someone who clearly is deadly serious in his profession of KILLING people. The secound film ,I think, was suppose to be about Bond not being consumed by vengance but like everything else in that cut-a-minute wannabe Bond, everything is under developed and rushed. Out of thin air in the final act of QOS he is a changed man, he dosen't kill Greene or the Algerian boyfriend.
EON needs to wake up and realize that James Bond is not just your everyday beat-'em up action hero who sticks the finger to the man. He is a conlificted man who leads a dangerous life and goes on adventures that men envy.
I don't think there has been an actor who played Bond who looked anything like Hoagy Charmichael - Fleming's description throughout the novels. In fact, David Niven would be closer to the mark...
Amazon #1 Bestselling Author. If you enjoy crime, espionage, action and fast-moving thrillers follow this link:
By way of being a dissenting opinion, I offer up (yet again) an article I wrote here some time ago on the subject of Craig's much-debated take on Bond.
In it, I make the case that what Craig brings to the Bond role is an often-overlooked but very important aspect of Fleming's Bond: the tough guy who takes an absolute beating to get the job done---while conceding that he violates most of the sacrosanct physical characteristics of the literary character...anyway, this is my opinion---quite far afield from where this thread on Bond #23's delay is inexplicably heading, but here we are :007)
You make a good case L but Craig is not really the appearance of James Bond. He's a facsimile of sorts but he just dosen't resemble the dark, bryonic hero Fleming wrote about. I think Dalton and Connery have come closer to that resemblance.
And yes Craig does take a beating but he still seems a tad too invincible. Yes he does to the hospital at the of Casino Royale but he really don't see him recovering from a tramatic experience that shook him to the core in Fleming's novel; Both the physical and emotional.
Lastly, I'd argue that this is not really in a reboot. During the course of both films, DC's character has not developed at all and not as complex as Fleming's Bond who actually feels conflicted about his own job. The first film he learned "not to trust people", a banal life lesson that really should be common sense to someone who clearly is deadly serious in his profession of KILLING people. The secound film ,I think, was suppose to be about Bond not being consumed by vengance but like everything else in that cut-a-minute wannabe Bond, everything is under developed and rushed. Out of thin air in the final act of QOS he is a changed man, he dosen't kill Greene or the Algerian boyfriend.
EON needs to wake up and realize that James Bond is not just your everyday beat-'em up action hero who sticks the finger to the man. He is a conlificted man who leads a dangerous life and goes on adventures that men envy.
I don't think there has been an actor who played Bond who looked anything like Hoagy Charmichael - Fleming's description throughout the novels. In fact, David Niven would be closer to the mark...
I don't entirely trust that whole "Hoagy Carmicheal" thing. Ian Fleming's comissioned image of Bond dosen't look much like him and Bond himself never saw the resemblance.
* MGM lenders agree to extend forbearance deadline
* Won't seek remedies for nonpayment of debt until Oct 29 (Adds background on Spyglass letter of intent)
LOS ANGELES, Sept 15 (Reuters) - Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer [MGMYR.UL] said on Wednesday that its lenders agreed to extend a deadline for debt payments as the film studio prepares to be handed over to film company Spyglass Entertainment.
A source familar with the matter said last week that the founders of Spyglass signed a nonbinding letter of intent to take over MGM, which is struggling with about $4 billion of debt after being bought out in 2005.
The buyers included private equity firms Providence Equity Partners, TPG, Quadrangle Group and DLJ Merchant Banking Partners, and media companies Sony Corp (6758.T) and Comcast Corp (CMCSA.O)
Sources have said MGM was aiming to file a prepackaged bankruptcy as part of the Spyglass plan. (Reporting by Sue Zeidler. Editing by Robert MacMillan)
Well, This is a very interesting piece of news.
So let me just say that when it comes to the decision making aspect of who plays James Bond, or even if there will be another Bond movie, corporations will make the decision based on the almighty dollar, and the fans be damned.
That is simply how it is done. Follow the buck.
We all have opinions about how the franchise should be handled and who should be James Bond, but when it comes down to it, our opinions don't amount to a spit in the river. The corporations will do what they will do. Personally I took the firing of Brosnan as a slap in the face. I thought he was perfect, but then again, that is just what I think. Did my opinion matter? Not in the slightest.
I have a short list of people I feel could do the role justice.
Russell Crowe comes to mind.
But this doesn't matter one whit. The corporations will do what they feel will put the most money in their pocket.
All we can do is sit back, see what they do, and then fire a volley of opinions and views that will keep this website up for years.
Like watching a train wreck, there is little we can do about it.
I await their outcome with great interest and curiosity.
Well, This is a very interesting piece of news.
So let me just say that when it comes to the decision making aspect of who plays James Bond, or even if there will be another Bond movie, corporations will make the decision based on the almighty dollar, and the fans be damned.
That is simply how it is done. Follow the buck.
We all have opinions about how the franchise should be handled and who should be James Bond, but when it comes down to it, our opinions don't amount to a spit in the river. The corporations will do what they will do. Personally I took the firing of Brosnan as a slap in the face. I thought he was perfect, but then again, that is just what I think. Did my opinion matter? Not in the slightest.
I have a short list of people I feel could do the role justice.
Russell Crowe comes to mind.
But this doesn't matter one whit. The corporations will do what they feel will put the most money in their pocket.
All we can do is sit back, see what they do, and then fire a volley of opinions and views that will keep this website up for years.
Like watching a train wreck, there is little we can do about it.
I await their outcome with great interest and curiosity.
Crow is a fine actor, but I'm sure he would never do Bond. He's all too serious and truly thespian now. He wants oscars and to assault lowley hotel staff in his time off...
Amazon #1 Bestselling Author. If you enjoy crime, espionage, action and fast-moving thrillers follow this link:
Hmm I can't really imagine Crowe as Bond. He is a great actor but he is just too big physically. Also the gossip of his well known temper tantrums isn't really that gentlemanly. Personally, if he was a few years younger I'd go for Liam Neeson. Not only is he very charismatic but those who have seen Taken will know he can pull off tough.
There is also Clive Owen who was considered before Craig. I wouldn't rule him out just yet.
Well, This is a very interesting piece of news.
So let me just say that when it comes to the decision making aspect of who plays James Bond, or even if there will be another Bond movie, corporations will make the decision based on the almighty dollar, and the fans be damned.
That is simply how it is done. Follow the buck.
We all have opinions about how the franchise should be handled and who should be James Bond, but when it comes down to it, our opinions don't amount to a spit in the river. The corporations will do what they will do. Personally I took the firing of Brosnan as a slap in the face. I thought he was perfect, but then again, that is just what I think. Did my opinion matter? Not in the slightest.
I have a short list of people I feel could do the role justice.
Russell Crowe comes to mind.
But this doesn't matter one whit. The corporations will do what they feel will put the most money in their pocket.
All we can do is sit back, see what they do, and then fire a volley of opinions and views that will keep this website up for years.
Like watching a train wreck, there is little we can do about it.
I await their outcome with great interest and curiosity.
Crow is a fine actor, but I'm sure he would never do Bond. He's all too serious and truly thespian now. He wants oscars and to assault lowley hotel staff in his time off...
I do acknowledge though that its all about money. For them Bond is a brand name, hence something that can earn £££. For us its a case of loyaltly. Opinions may differ drastically amongst fans but, when it comes down to it, the producers have the final say.
Comments
http://apbateman.com
I honestly believe that the producers view Fleming's Bond as a conservative and they have no idea why he is so dedicated to the secret service. It's not about partiotism for Bond, it's about having a purpose in life and he realizes the dirty business that he is in. This Bond could sold to the public but instead EON insists to making him a rebel who has a "screw the man" attitude. Hey, I don't mind characters like that on film; I love Lethal Weapon, Dirty Harry, and simular movie franchises but Bond is suppose to be different.
My suggestions to EON are the following:
1. Have Bond obey M
2. Stop the cut-a-minute actions sequences
3. Stop making the Bond villians metro-sexual euro-trash.
4. Have something actually at stake. (No one gives a crap about water.)
5. Have Bond actually seduce woman long enough he can boink them. (He should have done Solange and seducing Fields was done so badly it was laughable.)
6. Have MI6 depicted as a intelligence orginization. (After Doctor No, MI6 only seemed to be the Bond regulars and some extras in the background.)
7. Stop having M hover Bond like a mother hen.
8. More espionage and counter-intelligence.
9. Intelligent dialogue.
10. No more stupid rap/rock songs playing in the main titles.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Don't get too excited. The recession is breeding cheap films, tv and commodities. British tv is getting less and less quality - recent programmes repeated less than six months later, six or seven year old dramas repeated at prime time, films on a saturday repeated the following sunday... Films too are becomming cheaper, less substantial.
Maybe Hot Tub Time Machine III, IV, V and Tub - The Prequel will follow...
http://apbateman.com
Films are getting cheaper ? I am sure you don't mean the US ? They are still spending hundreds of millions of dollars on these bloated special effects spectacles.
Big Brother may have finally been buried on Channel 4 at long last, but its junk food telly "Reality Show" legacy remains. - Plus the government is putting the squeeze on everything, and you can bet the arts are high on that list. - I noted the other week that both the BBC's comedy Last Of The Summer Wine, and ITV's great cop drama The Bill aired their final episodes. That means there are only three long running non-soap series left - Medical drama Casualty, Glasgow based cop series Taggart and classic Agatha Cristie's Poirot. And all of them have a question mark hanging over them, and only Casualty out of the three is a rolling production.
The UK's production companies are having to use the American industry trick of series with but with 6 - 8 episodes instad of 12 / 13 episodes inc the pilot. But unlike America, its because we can't afford the production costs of making more episodes. As I understand it, in the States pilots are coming out like a production line so seasons get shorter to establish potential big hitters faster? The only exception is Dr Who - which gets 12 / 13 episodes a season. However, BBC Wales is in partnerships with companies and networks in other countries. (I think including BBC Canada and one of the American networks? - I'm guessing here) Those partnerships have augmented the series budget, and overall audience ratio.
The UK film industry is in a bigger mess. Bond and The Potter films are the only long running big hitters made here in the UK, and Potter's cameras have now finished filming.
As an aside, I think the Bond formula of Casino Royale worked beautifully, and QoS was a shambles. The ending of CR seemed to promise we were going to get a modern Craig version of the Bond we know, a prelude to real spy games and anti terrorist tension. Coupled with conniving "think bigger" bad guys on a Scale like Dr No, or perhaps FYEO in the modern age. I think if we can dismiss QoS except for the last scenes at the end, the franchise can pick up from where it should have left off in the next film. Preferably with Mpenny, Q and Mr Craig still as Bond.
Although I have to agree, as much as I love Dame Judi as M, the character is one where less is always more. Using her too much also emphasises the lack of Mpenny and Q.
Well said Dannlopez. I have read several of the Bond novels for the first time recently having grown up on the films and I have to say that, while DC does bring back some complexity back into the role of Bond, he is NOT, in my honest opinion, the closest to Fleming's vision. Additionally, whilst CR stayed faithful to the novel it was based on, QoS missed the Fleming mark by quite a bit.
The main problem I have with comparing Craig to Fleming is that Craig simply does not have that look of gentlemanly sophistication IF so frequently illudes to. The Bond in the books was a trained killer no doubt but he also had a tall, dark, almost Etonian look to him (much like Fleming himself). I for one can't imagine Craig driving a Bentley (or a modern equivilent) along the English countryside in the same way I can with some of the other actors.
I also get annoyed by people referring to the Fleming Bond as a "lose canon". The fact was that M played a fairly small (but still important) role in each of the books and was someone who trusted Bond fully. The only times he really threatened security were in YOLT (following the death of his wife - even then he offered to resign) and TMWTGG (he tried to kill M after being brainwashed by the Russians), Yes Bond was a highly complex figure however he held a firm loyalty to the service. Put simply he was an efficient, charismatic civil servant who recognised the ugly side of his business - not a thug in a suit as some people might claim.
The books also revelled in their glamour. They exposed readers to a luxurious lifestyle people would never otherwise have seen. They also featured a relitively small amount of action (even Casino Royale had to add a few impressive set pieces to satisfy its audience). QoS seemed to be wholly focused on action with little of the glamour that makes Bond so unique. I hope the producers once again explore the novels and remind themselves exactly what sets them apart from other spy adventures.
P.s. IMO the "Ian Fleming Bond" is a mixture of several actors: Sean Connery, Timothy Dalton and Pierce Brosnan.
We are in agreement. Bond was a very smooth character, knowledgeable of the business he was in, ready to accept the dangers, and uncompromising in his resolve. I am willing to accept recent changes in the world he lives in, after all, he was created in the shadow of the cold war, and he is not in that environment anymore, but you cannot tell me that there is no espionage going on. With the passing of time comes the advancement of technology, but at the same time, the human element is always present and necessary. Bond can fit into this world the same as he did back in the 60's. Changing the look and feel of Bond is unnecessary. Making him a bulldozer with several chase/fight scenes and just one scene where seduction of the opposite sex is involved, tells me that the formula is completely lopsided.
The rumor is that Spyglass Entertainment is going to eventually take over the franchise. I leave myself open to possibilities and I will not make any judgments on what potential new owners might make. I keep my fingers crossed and hope like hell that the franchise is repaired. I have been a Bond fan since I was 10. I watched the franchise take some strange paths. Until recently, I thought that path was a good one. I don't feel it's on a good path right now. Lets see what the future brings.
As far as a change of direction goes, I don't know how much Spyglass becomes a creative force versus a financial force in the new arrangement in regards to Bond specifically.
My only hope is that they do sort out all the MGM problems and get back on track.Hopefully the producers will have listened to the arguments from fans and the next outing will have more of the feel of the older Bonds.
I not a huge fan of DC I don't regard him as the great actor that others do,But I would rather he stay on to provide some continuity,as He was pretty good in CR so fingers crossed the next Bond won't be the Mess (IMHO) that QOS turnrd out ( although I accept others think of it as a modern masterpiece) still I'll travel in hope.
http://jamesbond.ajb007.co.uk/daniel-craig-the-literary-bond/
In it, I make the case that what Craig brings to the Bond role is an often-overlooked but very important aspect of Fleming's Bond: the tough guy who takes an absolute beating to get the job done---while conceding that he violates most of the sacrosanct physical characteristics of the literary character...anyway, this is my opinion---quite far afield from where this thread on Bond #23's delay is inexplicably heading, but here we are :007)
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
You make a good case L but Craig is not really the appearance of James Bond. He's a facsimile of sorts but he just dosen't resemble the dark, bryonic hero Fleming wrote about. I think Dalton and Connery have come closer to that resemblance.
And yes Craig does take a beating but he still seems a tad too invincible. Yes he does to the hospital at the of Casino Royale but he really don't see him recovering from a tramatic experience that shook him to the core in Fleming's novel; Both the physical and emotional.
Lastly, I'd argue that this is not really in a reboot. During the course of both films, DC's character has not developed at all and not as complex as Fleming's Bond who actually feels conflicted about his own job. The first film he learned "not to trust people", a banal life lesson that really should be common sense to someone who clearly is deadly serious in his profession of KILLING people. The secound film ,I think, was suppose to be about Bond not being consumed by vengance but like everything else in that cut-a-minute wannabe Bond, everything is under developed and rushed. Out of thin air in the final act of QOS he is a changed man, he dosen't kill Greene or the Algerian boyfriend.
EON needs to wake up and realize that James Bond is not just your everyday beat-'em up action hero who sticks the finger to the man. He is a conlificted man who leads a dangerous life and goes on adventures that men envy.
I never got the feeling Bond was a snob, he very blunt though.
I have actually seen your article before Loeffelholz as I have been wrestling with the issue myself and I do completely agree with you, but I'm still not sure whether he is the Bond Fleming himself would have picked (we will obviously never know for sure). However I think we can agree that the Bond of the novels was someone who often took a beating in the line of duty and was injured in a way he wasn't in the older films ("his face was covered in blood" - Bond after his car crash in Moonraker). Particularly in CR, Craig's Bond does a great job in bringing this element back to the character. I just wonder what IF would have thought of Craig and his muscley body.
I suppose it comes down to the direction MGM decides to take the character. IMO some actors who have been great in the role were let down by below-par scrtipts. In the cases of Connery and Brosnan the character was turned into a comic book figure. Judging by the very mediocre QoS the same is happening, however this time the character is turning into a kind of indestructable Jason Bourne knock-off.
Meh, we will wait and see. Although I'm not a mad fan of the "new Bond" I think it would be a shame if Craig left the role now. He certainly has great potential and it would be interesting to see how he (and MGM) incoporate some of the more "classical" elements into the series.
I don't think there has been an actor who played Bond who looked anything like Hoagy Charmichael - Fleming's description throughout the novels. In fact, David Niven would be closer to the mark...
http://apbateman.com
I don't entirely trust that whole "Hoagy Carmicheal" thing. Ian Fleming's comissioned image of Bond dosen't look much like him and Bond himself never saw the resemblance.
Wed Sep 15, 2010 5:35pm EDT
* MGM lenders agree to extend forbearance deadline
* Won't seek remedies for nonpayment of debt until Oct 29 (Adds background on Spyglass letter of intent)
LOS ANGELES, Sept 15 (Reuters) - Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer [MGMYR.UL] said on Wednesday that its lenders agreed to extend a deadline for debt payments as the film studio prepares to be handed over to film company Spyglass Entertainment.
A source familar with the matter said last week that the founders of Spyglass signed a nonbinding letter of intent to take over MGM, which is struggling with about $4 billion of debt after being bought out in 2005.
The buyers included private equity firms Providence Equity Partners, TPG, Quadrangle Group and DLJ Merchant Banking Partners, and media companies Sony Corp (6758.T) and Comcast Corp (CMCSA.O)
Sources have said MGM was aiming to file a prepackaged bankruptcy as part of the Spyglass plan. (Reporting by Sue Zeidler. Editing by Robert MacMillan)
So let me just say that when it comes to the decision making aspect of who plays James Bond, or even if there will be another Bond movie, corporations will make the decision based on the almighty dollar, and the fans be damned.
That is simply how it is done. Follow the buck.
We all have opinions about how the franchise should be handled and who should be James Bond, but when it comes down to it, our opinions don't amount to a spit in the river. The corporations will do what they will do. Personally I took the firing of Brosnan as a slap in the face. I thought he was perfect, but then again, that is just what I think. Did my opinion matter? Not in the slightest.
I have a short list of people I feel could do the role justice.
Russell Crowe comes to mind.
But this doesn't matter one whit. The corporations will do what they feel will put the most money in their pocket.
All we can do is sit back, see what they do, and then fire a volley of opinions and views that will keep this website up for years.
Like watching a train wreck, there is little we can do about it.
I await their outcome with great interest and curiosity.
Crow is a fine actor, but I'm sure he would never do Bond. He's all too serious and truly thespian now. He wants oscars and to assault lowley hotel staff in his time off...
http://apbateman.com
There is also Clive Owen who was considered before Craig. I wouldn't rule him out just yet.
I do acknowledge though that its all about money. For them Bond is a brand name, hence something that can earn £££. For us its a case of loyaltly. Opinions may differ drastically amongst fans but, when it comes down to it, the producers have the final say.