109 replies to this topic

[jaguar007]

I wouldn't want to take my chances that the audiences will care about Craig as Bond if a new film is not ready for release by 2012. If something isn't ready for release by 2012, I think it seriously ups the possibility that Craig is a two-term Bond.

Alot of that depends on the success of Aliens and Cowboys and Tattoo. If both are smash hits and Craig does Bond 23 is 2013 or 2014 (if the world still exists )I think it will be an ever bigger hit than it would be if it were going to be released this fall. Of course if those two movies bomb......

[Loomis]

But, in all fairness, where did MGM find Carey Lowell? Her biggest roles to date had been in straight-to-VHS, B-list fare such as Dangerously Close and Down Twisted, not to mention a comedy with Griffin Dunne about a man who has a talking penis. Would Brigitte Nielsen really have been that much of a stretch back in 1988? I don't think so. In fact, I could easily imagine her wielding that shotgun a bit more convincingly than Lowell did.

Well, at least Lowell was arguably a "star" on her way up as opposed to on her way down. I also wonder why the Danish Ms Nielsen would have been in the frame to play the all-American Ms Bouvier.

And, knowing Eon (which I don't - I mean, knowing them as a longstanding Bond fanboy), I doubt that they'd have wanted someone "tainted" by her association with Stallone (and, if memory serves, other tabloid scandals, fabricated or otherwise - she was hardly ever out of the News of the World in those days) to be their leading lady in LICENCE TO KILL. They don't pick "controversial" people - read your own words on Whitney, and also remember Amy Winehouse and QUANTUM OF SOLACE.

ETA: Wasn't Salma Hayek supposed to have been considered for Jinx? That sounds believable.

[Napoleon Solo]

[quote name='Gravity's Silhouette' date='08 August 2010 - 01:12 AM' timestamp='1281226343' post='1122594']

Yes, I've read the first draft of TWINE, as well as Dana Stevens' rewrite (and maybe one additional rewrite by Bruce Feirstein; can't remember offhand if he worked on the story. Anyone remember?).


Feirstein worked enough on TWINE, as far as the Writers Guild of America was concerned, to get a credit on the movie. Final screenplay credit was, "Screenplay by Neal Purvis & Robert Wade and Bruce Feirstein, Story by Neal Purvis & Robert Wade."

This was apparently a late decision. Raymond Benson's novelization has the credit says it was "Based on the screenplay by Neil Purvis and Robert Wade." That's not a typo, I just looked at my copy and saw the Neil spelling on the title page.

[Guy Haines]

I think you may be right - except concerning a new 007 actor, unless Daniel Craig decides to call it a day. Right now they have the best actor available for the part, and he is willing to continue. The rationale for dropping Pierce Brosnan - filming the first Bond novel, Bond at the start of his career and so on - doesn't apply here. Even if filming were to slip beyond 2012, there's no reason to look for a new Bond actor until Craig is no longer credible in the part, or decides he doesn't want to carry on. To refer to another popular film series - there was a four year gap between the first Indiana Jones film and the second, five years between film two and film three, and eighteen years between three and four. With Indiana played by the same actor. I'm not suggesting it may be credible to cast the current Bond in film 23 if we have a hiatus of more than a decade, but I maintain that Daniel Craig could still be Bond come 2014 or 2016. As I understand it, the producers still wanted Timothy Dalton for what became GoldenEye, even in 1994. It was the studio people who didn't. Craig isn't in the same position as Dalton - a first film that succeeded, a second film that wasn't quite as successful, and some film goers and critics supposedly doubtful about him.

For the purposes of full disclosure, I've never bought into the idea that Casino Royale was an effective film that showed 007 learning how to become a 00-agent. I think CR is a very good film, but compared to, say, BATMAN BEGINS, I think CR pales. I think the film gave the whole idea of a "young Bond" or a "rebooted Bond" or a rookie, up-and-coming Bond short shrift. It talks a big game about what it was going to do, but I basically just see CR and QOS as a harder-edged Bond. If EON really wanted to impress me they would have done a much deeper, bigger origin story with a much younger actor. Truthfully, I don't have any idea where the series goes after Craig because no one knows what's left for Craig to do. I think wherever Craig leaves off will have a definite impact on which direction the next set of films will go. For example.....

....Spider-Man 3 formed the basis for a decision to "reboot" that entire series just 3 films in. BATMAN AND ROBIN was so atrocious that it formed the decision to make BATMAN BEGINS. Just as TEMPLE OF DOOM formed the decision to not be as dark with LAST CRUSADE. LTK was so bad that it convinced the studio to go lighter on the next film, no matter who was going to star in it. So the one thing I don't know is who the next actor is and what the take on the character is going to be until we know what Craig's legacy is, and that has yet to be determined.

Anyway...your Indiana Jones example is, I think, an anomaly. Most of the other successful series that I can think of offhand have usually gone 3 years or less between films. You want to be away long enough to create want, but not gone so long that people quit caring. There were gaps of 2 and 3 years between Bourne films before Damon and the studio decided to part way. The STAR WARS films came out 3 years apart. The Spider-Man films came out 2 and 3 years apart, and when it became clear that there would be a gap of 5 years between the 3rd and 4th film, SONY figured it could do better with different people (jury remains out on that decision). X-Men movies came out 3 years apart.

I think a film series needs space in between films, but also have something in production to keep the creative juices flowing, or else you get something as pathetic as INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL....or STAR WARS: THE PHANTOM MENACE. God help them if they screw up TRON:LEGACY.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't think it is in the best interests of the Craig series of Bond films to be off the screen beyond summer 2012. I think it gets into some very, very tricky, dicey, uncharted waters if that happens. We've never had a series of Bond films with an actor in consecutive films where there was ever a gap of more than 3 years. Connery is the only possible exception to that argument, and his last two Bond films were "comeback" Bond films, not part of an on-going series of films. Point is: I wouldn't want to take my chances that the audiences will care about Craig as Bond if a new film is not ready for release by 2012. If something isn't ready for release by 2012, I think it seriously ups the possibility that Craig is a two-term Bond.

Concerning CR, it's really about Bond's first mission as a Double 0 agent, rather than a "young Bond" learning the ropes. The film producers even concocted a new backstory, complete with new date of birth (1968, co-incidentally the same year as Daniel Craig), which makes it clear that Bond had seen action in various places prior to becoming 007. As for Craig beyond 2012, I want to see him back by that year, if not before. All I'm arguing is that I can't see any reason - not even a fear of the audience being "past caring" - why Craig couldn't still return as Bond beyond 2012. The star of the Bond series is James Bond - in the end, audiences go to see a Bond movie, not a Craig, Brosnan, Dalton, Moore, Lazenby or Connery movie. A new actor as Bond may draw people in post 2012, but equally I think audiences would be drawn back by the long awaited return of Bond with the present incumbent in the role.

[General G.]

The shot at Dalton was terrible. Shame on them.

Nothing new for Entertainment Weekly. The mag never wastes an opportunity to slag Dalton's Bond.

[Syndicate]

To quote TND : "They'll print anything these days."

That so true, that why we have so many trash style entertainment magazine, like US Weekly and People. All talking about this star that star broke up with who, there was a fight at which event, this star spent a lot of money on his or her dog and so on.

I wonder, what IF they said Star Trek is dead, how would all you Bond fans who are Star Trek fans also react or any Trek fans.

Edited by Syndicate, 08 August 2010 - 05:16 PM.

[Guy Haines]

To quote TND : "They'll print anything these days."

That so true, that why we have so many trash style entertainment magazine, like US Weekly and People. All talking about this star that star broke up with who, there was a fight at which event, this star spent a lot of money on his or her dog and so on.

I wonder, what IF they said Star Trek is dead, how would all you Bond fans who are Star Trek fans also react or any Trek fans.

I wouldn't believe it. Any TV/film series which kills off a leading character in one film and spends nearly all the next film trying to bring him back to life - and then keeps bringing him back! - you know who I mean. Spock was hard to kill off, and with all those Trekkers out there, I don't think they would dare kill off Star Trek completely.

[Pierce - Daniel]

http://abcnews.go.co...ory?id=11363123
Could this mean the end of the mgm saga is near?

[volante]

And then sometimes creative differences can be serious.

Please elaborate.

Oh, I don't know anything for a fact, but I had always heard that Richards was the studio's choice and that she was foisted on the production. That creative clash did not exactly result in magic.

I know I'm gonna be hated for this but I thought she was the hottest Brosnan bond girl and only surpassed by eva green in terms of modern bond girls in terms of looks.


Sorry to all Camille Jinx Wai Lin and Natalya fans out there.


Sure she was weak in acting but man I would not kick her out of bed... wait a second there is more room on the floor


ok i'll stop drooling.

What he said

[Harmsway]

http://abcnews.go.co...ory?id=11363123
Could this mean the end of the mgm saga is near?

That link doesn't work.

[The Shark]

http://abcnews.go.co...ory?id=11363123
Could this mean the end of the mgm saga is near?

That link doesn't work.

http://abcnews.go.co...ory?id=11363123

[Safari Suit]

appear briefly in BEVERLY HILLS COP II

Not that briefly, she was one of the main villains. I think she'd have been good in a MayDay-ish role (and apparently MayDay "inspired" her character in BHCII), but in "nice" roles she wasn't a very interesting screen presence.

[zencat]

http://abcnews.go.co...ory?id=11363123
Could this mean the end of the mgm saga is near?

That link doesn't work.

http://abcnews.go.co...ory?id=11363123

Kind of interesting.

As for the fear of losing control of 007 rights, there is no legal consensus on whether lenders would lose those rights in the event of a forced bankruptcy. But such concern has been enough to force lenders to agree to the half-dozen debt payment extensions.

I do believe the Bond rights situation is very complex. I mean, it's been almost 50 years of deals (including Cubby "handshake deals") and renegotiations and mergers and god knows what other kinds of short term deals to keep the franchise producing for the studio/s. This paragraph makes it seem like even the lawyers have no idea what the situation is with Bond, which I can absolutely believe.

[HellIsHere]

The big news is that Spyglass is about to finish a deal to control MGM.

[zencat]

Haha, suck it EW.

[jaguar007]

Haha, suck it EW.

Maybe soon they will have to do another BOnd cover saying "Welcome Back Mr. Bond"

[FLEMINGFAN]

Ill-informed, poorly researched, horrible biased. They never really cared for Bond, as does most of the media, and it shows. How they despise success.

Even if it is a ten-year gap, James Bond will be fine.

[HellIsHere]

Ill-informed, poorly researched, horrible biased. They never really cared for Bond, as does most of the media, and it shows. How they despise success.

Even if it is a ten-year gap, James Bond will be fine.

I agree, it was really a BAD article made of thin air.

[Matt_13]

Haha, suck it EW.

You seriously beat me to it.

[General G.]

The film would have been truly original had it dumped the character of Christmas altogether, and/or let the movie end with Bond sending Christmas back to her boyfriend in the States (sort of like a Bibi Dahl-type relationship) instead of trying to shoehorn a romance into a relationship that is clearly not believable.

Had they cast Lucy Lawless in the role instead of Richards it would've worked as written... Lawless could've made the Christmas character believeable (in a pulp adventure sort of way).

She can act.