4014 replies to this topic

[Odd Jobbies]

If you turned down a job, and so instead the company hired a monkey to do your job and the monkey screwed it up, is that your  fault that they hired a monkey?

 

That's basically what happened here. The problem is the crappy Ghostbusters the studio did  make, not the Ghostbusters Murray didn't  make.

 

Maybe Murray dicked them around, or maybe he was deploying his trade mark dry wit (as in 'of course i've read it, but i think i'll just wind up your audience instead').

 

But even if he was dicking his former buddies around it's still not his fault that the studio hired Feig. They could've gone with a real filmmaker, or just left it alone. That incredibly poor choice is 100% down to the studio.

 

Back on topic, maybe Murray's got the Bond 25 script on his desk, but hasn't bothered reading it yet!

[Orion]

That version of Bond 25 would be...an experience. 

 

In a possibly futile attempt to get things back on topic. I would like Craig to come back for one last hurrah, having loved all 4 of his films (CR being my favourite, but then as parkour and poker are hobbies of mine it it will always have an advantage over the rest of the series)

 

However in the event he doesn't, I've been thinking I'd like someone who doesn't bring associations with other roles with him, someone who will be James Bond rather than someone AS James Bond. Though having said that I won't complain with Fassbender, Hardy or Hiddleston, as I like all three as actors, though the rumours for all 3 I'm pretty sure came from a PR rep trying to get attention for films that were potentially difficult to sell to a mass audience. 

[SecretAgentFan]

Just to be clear: I don´t blame Murray for Paul Feig´s film (which I haven´t seen yet so I cannot comment on its quality).  I blame him however for not being clear about not participating in GHOSTBUSTERS 3 when Ackroyd, Ramis and Reitman were frantically trying to get him to say yes - or no.  Murray either wanted to drive up his asking price or just had fun holding the power over others.  Which some actors do enjoy, believe me.

 

For my taste, GHOSTBUSTERS without Murray would not work period.  Not with a new male cast, nor with an all-female cast or a mix.  The day Murray said no and SONY moved on the whole project should have been shelved.  Let´s face it: not every film has to get sequels or reboots.  Some just work at a very specific point in time and should be left alone.

 

Bond, of course, can go on and on and on - but should an actor delay it, in this case Craig, without making up his mind, enjoying his position of being everybody´s favourite for it - and then at some point saying: nah, won´t do it, then I would find this behaviour despicable.  Especially if he sabotages the work of those people who put him into this position in the first place.

 

Of course, all of that could not apply to Craig, despite the rumours.  So unless there are some hard facts I give Craig the benefit of the doubt and will try to disregard what was posted here and elsewhere.

 

Right now, I would be okay with Craig returning or leaving.  I just wish the whole casting situation would not be subject to so much political struggle within Craig, MGM and the fighting (or waiting) distributors.

[Orion]

Just to be clear: I don´t blame Murray for Paul Feig´s film (which I haven´t seen yet so I cannot comment on its quality).  I blame him however for not being clear about not participating in GHOSTBUSTERS 3 when Ackroyd, Ramis and Reitman were frantically trying to get him to say yes - or no.  Murray either wanted to drive up his asking price or just had fun holding the power over others.  Which some actors do enjoy, believe me.

 

For my taste, GHOSTBUSTERS without Murray would not work period.  Not with a new male cast, nor with an all-female cast or a mix.  The day Murray said no and SONY moved on the whole project should have been shelved.  Let´s face it: not every film has to get sequels or reboots.  Some just work at a very specific point in time and should be left alone.

 

Bond, of course, can go on and on and on - but should an actor delay it, in this case Craig, without making up his mind, enjoying his position of being everybody´s favourite for it - and then at some point saying: nah, won´t do it, then I would find this behaviour despicable.  Especially if he sabotages the work of those people who put him into this position in the first place.

 

Of course, all of that could not apply to Craig, despite the rumours.  So unless there are some hard facts I give Craig the benefit of the doubt and will try to disregard what was posted here and elsewhere.

 

Right now, I would be okay with Craig returning or leaving.  I just wish the whole casting situation would not be subject to so much political struggle within Craig, MGM and the fighting (or waiting) distributors.

I'm pretty sure it's just the MGM finance partner rubbish that's delaying it (much like it did CR and Skyfall), though even if it wasn't we wouldn't have heard anything by this point anyway going by production of all but QOS, which I seem to remember had quite a quick turnaround, but I might be mis-remembering. I claim no insider knowledge on it, but given that's what happened the last two times it happened...

[S K Y F A L L]

I can't imagine  Fassbender playing Bond. Too old for one and he is tied to too many franchises. Xmen, Alien and if Assassins Creed takes off.

 

 

When there is something strange in the neighborhood, who you gonna call, James F~!@#$% Bond.

[Orion]

I can't imagine  Fassbender playing Bond. Too old for one and he is tied to too many franchises. Xmen, Alien and if Assassins Creed takes off.

 

 

When there is something strange in the neighborhood, who you gonna call, James F~!@#$% Bond.

I totally forgot he's in Ailien now, but yeah i'd agree that he's got too many other franchises. I know that he's already contracted for a fourth x-men film and a second Assassins Creed should Fox want to continue with his respective characters. Like I said in my last post my ideal for Bond 7 would be an actor without associations with other big properties.

[Odd Jobbies]

Regarding actors being known for other franchises, i think that when attempting to discount an actor for this reason the fame of the franchise should be measured against their acting chops.

 

ie. i'm not convinced that Cavil has the chops to portray Bond that differently to Napoleon Solo, or that he can craft an interpretation of Bond that's indelible enough to make us forget he's also Superman.

 

However, i think Fassbinder is resourceful enough to make Bond his own and X-Men a distant memory and his android from Alien a totally distinct entity to Bond. Just a shame he's on the old-side.

[S K Y F A L L]

Well put, their acting ability should help separate them from there other roles.

 

I wonder if tv stars are out of the running for Bond. We had Moore's The Saint and Brosnan's Remmington Steel but now the films are bigger then ever and as successful as ever.

[SecretAgentFan]

I would have welcomed Cavill before Craig was announced - but now that Cavill is Superman I would prefer a new, fresh actor without baggage from other franchises to take over.

[# 11]

https://www.reddit.c...lis_top_choice/

Are we discussing this?

I don't buy it.

[sharpshooter]

https://www.reddit.c...lis_top_choice/

Are we discussing this?

I don't buy it.

Some random Reddit user. No credibility as far as I am concerned. 

[Odd Jobbies]

I wonder if tv stars are out of the running for Bond. We had Moore's The Saint and Brosnan's Remmington Steel but now the films are bigger then ever and as successful as ever.

 

Problem is that they need an actor from Britain, Australia, or NZ and tv production is currently very poor in all of these locations.

 

When Brosnan finished up his tenure the 'golden age of tv' was just beginning in the US, so there was still some talent hanging around these shores. Craig had become known for the acclaimed mid-90s series Our Friends in The North and the British films Love Is The Devil and Layer Cake.

 

Since then we've seen a very rapid and apparently bottomless decline in British tv drama and film production (all the money's been sucked up by sparkly entertainment/talent shows). Now and then there's a British tv drama of note, but far too few to maintain a pool of British talent. So any actor with an iota of talent buggers off to the states asap and who can blame them? Blame falls upon successive governments for letting the standards of the BBC fall so low and instead using the BBC licence fee to blackmail the Beeb into becoming a mouthpiece for the government de jour (BBC News is now on par with Russia Today and Fox News in terms of biased reporting).

 

Imo the Night Manager and Aiden Turner's Agatha Christie mini-series were good compared to the crap that British production companies churn out, but when compared to what's seen as good stateside; Breaking Bad, Mr Robot, Stranger Things (the list goes on and on), these British 'highlights' are p*ss poor. Yet it's these pathetic offerings that have given the pundits Hiddleston and Turner. If the Brits were creating the plethora of great drama they did last century (as they were when previous Bonds were being cast) we'd have a lot more possibilities to choose from without having to turn to the too famous British stars of Hollywood such as Fassbender and Hardy.

 

So now the new, aspiring talent of the Brits are in LA seeing voice coaches to perfect their US accents so they can be cast in US shows and movies. Sure if they're good actors then BB can still audition them, but how much harder it must be for her to spot the the good ones, since the good one's will have the best US accents, mannerisms etc. making them appear un-bond-like. And if she does spot good ones they've likely already got big US agencies behind them and a slate of US shows and movie offerings before them.

 

 

https://www.reddit.c...lis_top_choice/

Are we discussing this?

I don't buy it.

 

Probably baseless. However it all make good sense and could well become a reality. I'm not concerned about his visibility; X-Men is done with imo and his Alien role is so well regarded it can only be a boon for Eon's publicity machine.

 

My concern is his age; he'll be in his 40s before cameras role on his first Bond movie, so after 2 or 3 movies we're back here again pondering Bond 8.

 

But Fassbender (and Hardy for that matter, who's just 5 months younger) are so good that it's probably worth that sacrifice. They'll be very high quality stopgaps.

[Orion]

That's worth reading for a good laugh. The first refusal on the director had me in tears. Robert Downey Jr is the only actor on ANYTHING that has actually had that when they weren't already a producer on it, and he had earned Marvel almost 2 billion dollars for that right. No way in hell an actor gets that kind of input straight off the bat no matter who they are.

[Orion]

In regards to tv actors - all the brit cast in the Craig era work primarily worked in and made their reputations in british tv and theatre so it wouldn't be an unwise place to look for who they may be considering for Bond 7. Of the names mentioned Aidan Turner is the one with the most similar background to other Brits cast since Lindy Hemming became casting director.  

 

Also Fassbender is already signed for a fourth x-men (along with James McAvoy, another actor who made his name in Brit tv) it's Jennifer Lawrence and Nicholas Hoult who need new contracts (the former has said both are cautious because of the hours needed in make up, only really worth it when you get good screen time)

[SecretAgentFan]

I doubt this, too - but I would not be surprised if it turns out true anyway.

 

Also, I would love Fassbender as Bond.  And even if he is/were signed for another X-Men one can also say that that franchise is far from a safe bet right now, possibly subject to a total overhaul and therefore no demand for Fassbender in that role anymore.

 

First refusal of director?  Again, that could be part of his demands and not really be absurd at all.  He is an Oscar-nominated actor who is very much in demand.  And EON certainly would not want to bring a director in that Fassbender would not like - so that clause is just something that can be worked out between them.

 

But really, Fassbender has always been part of the internet chatter - and he is pretty old to start a tenure as Bond.  On the other side, so was Sir Roger.

[Orion]

I doubt this, too - but I would not be surprised if it turns out true anyway.

 

Also, I would love Fassbender as Bond.  And even if he is/were signed for another X-Men one can also say that that franchise is far from a safe bet right now, possibly subject to a total overhaul and therefore no demand for Fassbender in that role anymore.

 

First refusal of director?  Again, that could be part of his demands and not really be absurd at all.  He is an Oscar-nominated actor who is very much in demand.  And EON certainly would not want to bring a director in that Fassbender would not like - so that clause is just something that can be worked out between them.

 

But really, Fassbender has always been part of the internet chatter - and he is pretty old to start a tenure as Bond.  On the other side, so was Sir Roger.

It is hard to know where the core x-men franchise (where Fassbender is) stands following Deadpool being more successful than Apocalypse no matter which way you want to look at it.

[Odd Jobbies]

First refusal of director?  Again, that could be part of his demands and not really be absurd at all...

Steve McQueen's Hunger And Shame are Forever.... The pre-titles is a 90 minute timelapse of Fassbender's 10 years a slave in a SPECTRE cell being starved and 'forced' to watch online porn.

 

Not absurd at all

[SecretAgentFan]

Seriously: Steve McQueen as a Bond director...  At least an interesting idea.

[S K Y F A L L]

 

 

But really, Fassbender has always been part of the internet chatter - and he is pretty old to start a tenure as Bond.  On the other side, so was Sir Roger.

I could get behind a 40 year old taking over so long as they don't mind keeping him until he is almost 55. 

 

I would be disappointed if said actor only did three films. 

Seriously: Steve McQueen as a Bond director...  At least an interesting idea.

I haven't seen HUNGER or SHAME however 12 YEARS A SLAVE was entertaining considering the subject matter.

[Tiin007]

Fassbender is no older than Dalton or Brosnan was when they started. I think the problem is less his age, and more the fact that EON seem in no hurry to churn these films out. Had they been operating at the same pace they were when Dalton or Brosnan took over, Fassbender would be the perfect age. It's their current pace which is forcing many of us to consider actors who are 35 or younger. 

[S K Y F A L L]

Good point Tim.

 

 

I was just thinking they gambled on DC and it worked out for them but would they gamble again? Fassbender seems like a safe bet...

[Tiin007]

Fassbender is a safe bet in the sense that I think audiences will embrace him in the role.

 

But his popularity may prove to be his downfall. I've always been worried that, were a Bond actor to achieve prominence in roles outside of Bond, he would choose to leave the franchise in favor of "bigger and better" things. Craig's film career hasn't really taken off to that extent, and yet he doesn't come across as particularly keen on returning to Bond. Now imagine if we had a superstar actor like Fassbender. Do you really think someone with his fame and appeal would be committed to a solid run of Bond films? I'd be too worried that he'd leave after a film or two. 

 

And all this is aside from the fact that his starting salary would be remarkably high. 

 

Simply put, everything about Fassbender would be great, had he not achieved the level of fame he is currently at. 

[Odd Jobbies]

On the other hand, Fassbender no doubt already has plenty of movie offers, so if he chose Bond then he's made that choice of Bond over the other stuff going into the role. However, someone like Craig, who's career as a leading man was just taking off may well soon be feeling held back from those other roles by Bond, as appears to be the case.

 

It's a double edged sword either way.

[SecretAgentFan]

Well, he is not yet a box office attraction - only the X-Men movies made money, but one cannot attribute that to his drawing power.

 

In contrast to Craig, Fassbender, however, is already a household name, respected for his character roles, open to break out in mainstream blockbusters.

 

He also seems very open to and capable in promoting his films - watch his recent appearance on Jimmy Fallon´s Tonight Show - and comes across as good-natured and funny.

 

He would be that rare case of leading man with serious acting chops, and I would welcome him as Bond immediately.

[Surrie]

Fassbender is no older than Dalton or Brosnan was when they started. I think the problem is less his age, and more the fact that EON seem in no hurry to churn these films out. Had they been operating at the same pace they were when Dalton or Brosnan took over, Fassbender would be the perfect age. It's their current pace which is forcing many of us to consider actors who are 35 or younger. 

 

Truth. 

Well, he is not yet a box office attraction - only the X-Men movies made money, but one cannot attribute that to his drawing power.

 

In contrast to Craig, Fassbender, however, is already a household name, respected for his character roles, open to break out in mainstream blockbusters.

 

He also seems very open to and capable in promoting his films - watch his recent appearance on Jimmy Fallon´s Tonight Show - and comes across as good-natured and funny.

 

He would be that rare case of leading man with serious acting chops, and I would welcome him as Bond immediately.

 

He does come across well during promotion periods which are no doubt tiring. Regardless of who is Bond 7, they have to really want to be Bond 7 to start with. 

[SecretAgentFan]

Just for fun:  http://moviepilot.com/posts/3933228

[Odd Jobbies]

Nice find - it's good to hear that he's interested. But please, no more reboots for the foreseeable future, Eon!

[Tiin007]

Nice find - it's good to hear that he's interested. But please, no more reboots for the foreseeable future, Eon!

 

My idea to ensure there aren't too many reboots: only reboot the franchise if the new actor was born after the beginning of the previous timeline.

 

For example, Craig was the first Bond actor born after the release of Dr. No (he was born in 1968).

 

Using this as a template, the Bond series would not be formally / officially / expressly rebooted until the actor portraying Bond was born post-CR (2006). 

 

One can hope. 

[tdalton]

I can't imagine that Fassbender will be Bond.  Certainly not on the current production schedule that EON and MGM seem to favor.  They'll only get, at most, 3 films out of him and it'll be time to search for Bond #8.  

 

It'll be interesting once we actually get some rumors from some sources that you might have to think about for a moment before deciding that they're not reputable.  So far, bookies and reddit users have managed to drive the entire news cycle for the possibly non-existent search for a new Bond.  

[SecretAgentFan]

Maybe at this point the 3-4 films per actor is the model of the future, though.

 

- It frees actors who don´t want to be stuck in the role too long, thereby allowing access to those who otherwise would never want to be Bond.

 

- The event character of a Bond film is bigger if there are fewer films released.

 

- In an age of the minuscule attention span a more frequent change of the Bond actor will get the media and the audiences more excited.

 

 

Mind you, I don´t enjoy those possible reasons at all.  I still prefer to get a great actor who LOVES to be Bond and see at least six or seven films in a two-year cycle.

 

But who asks me?