James Bond: 007 - Spectre - - - Part 12

[Dark Raven]

Tom was so desperate for the Bond role, he dated Taylor Swift for nothing. Poor guy.

They've just broken up.

But how would dating Taylor Swift help him with the role?

 

[DeadPresident]

Probably makes him more high profile in the States if one wanted to come up with some bull**** PR argument.

 

[Dark Raven]

As if playing in the MCU and being one of the most popular characters wasn't high profile enough.

 

[Hunter Rider]

i like michael fassbender for bond

He'd be perfect.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

I hope he turns them down. $150 million dollars would be better spent on other things. Besides if Craig's paycheck is $150 million on top of a $150 -$200 million budget we are looking at a Bond film that will cost nearly $400 million to make. Thats completely ****ing stupid.

And if they are having to throw that much money at Craig he clearly doesnt want to return. For gods sake let the man go. Save the money and get a new actor. FFS, EON, pull your heads out of your asses!

Yeah, the cost just gets ridiculous if they are giving Craig that much. Plus, we don't need another Bond phoning it in while cashing a paycheck.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I wouldn't mind Craig coming back for one more, I didn't think he phoned it in Spectre personally, but one more movie from him would be great, as long as he wants to do it.

 

[Dark Raven]

They should give Craig the entire budget for the next two movies and don't bother about spending anything else on the film itself. It can be a low budget indie-type Bond filmed around London.

 

[The Joker]

Craig is great, but he's not the be all end all of the franchise. They shouldn't have to throw ridiculous sums of money at him to return. Either he wants to come back or he doesn't. If he doesn't then fine, move on, recast again. The franchise has been doing this for years, and will still keep doing it as long as it turns a profit.

 

[Dark Raven]

I'm actually looking forward to a new Bond actor. I've never really enjoyed the Craig era, but then I never really enjoyed the Brosnan era either. While we're at it, I've never really enjoyed Purvis and Wade writing the scripts.

 

[terry78]

I feel like they've made the movies too damn personal.

 

[Dark Raven]

I feel like they've made the movies too damn personal.

That's the thing. It's always "this time it's personal", but it's been that way for the past 20 years now. I just want a non-personal mission where Bond has no particular stakes in or connection to it, but it's just a job, like back in the old days.

And I don't want anymore of Brosnan's "peeling back the layers" type psychoanalysis of Bond either. I don't care to know anymore about the man behind the myth. Making Blofeld connected to Bond as a childhood friend in Spectre was a mistake IMO.

Now that we've seen the origin of Blofeld's facial scar, are we going to see him turning bald in the next movie?

 

[Loki882]

See I feel the opposite. "Bond is just on a mission and there's no attempt to explore his psychology" stories tend to bore me these days. We had like 40 years of those, it's just kind of "meh" at this point for me.

 

[Dark Raven]

See I feel the opposite. "Bond is just on a mission and there's no attempt to explore his psychology" stories tend to bore me these days. We had like 40 years of those, it's just kind of "meh" at this point for me.

We have not had 40 years of those. It's been exactly half of Bond's cinematic existence. 1962 - 1989 was not 40 years. That was 27 years. Licence to Kill came out in 1989. And since then it's been personal for the past 27 years. And those are "meh" at this point to me.

And in fact, since Licence to Kill was being made in 1988, that actually makes it 28 years, so the "this time it's personal" formula has actually been longer than the Bond just on a mission formula, which has been 26 years.

 

[Jason Kane]

We have not had 40 years of those. It's been exactly half of Bond's cinematic existence. 1962 - 1989 was not 40 years. That was 27 years. Licence to Kill came out in 1989. And since then it's been personal for the past 27 years. And those are "meh" at this point to me.

And in fact, since Licence to Kill was being made in 1988, that actually makes it 28 years, so the "this time it's personal" formula has actually been longer than the Bond just on a mission formula, which has been 26 years.

And the aroma won't go away unless Mike and Babs let it go entirely. Less 80's revenge pattern, little more like the Dynamite produced comics with Warren Ellis (& now Andy Diggle)

 

[Rowsdower!]

I'm actually surprised that they are backing up a truckload of money on Craig's doorstep after the lukewarm response Spectre received. Granted, he wasn't one of that movie's problems, but you'd just think that if he's ready to move on from it, they'd come to their senses and realize that maybe a refresh wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.

 

[KillerMcQueen]

I'm actually surprised that they are backing up a truckload of money on Craig's doorstep after the lukewarm response Spectre received. Granted, he wasn't one of that movie's problems, but you'd just think that if he's ready to move on from it, they'd come to their senses and realize that maybe a refresh wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.

Yeah, when it takes that much money to get him back, it's probably best to just pass the role on to another actor, 150 million for an actor that doesn't want to be there isn't worth it, one of the franchises strengths is its ability to refresh itself every few films with a new lead. That said, if Craig decides he actually wants to come back when the time comes then I'm all for it.

 

[Urich Leeds]

Guys, this rumor is a farce. Sony doesn't even have rights to Bond anymore, so why would they be offering $150 million dollars for not one, but TWO more Bond movies? And then planning a third with a new actor?

 

[Dark Raven]

Who owns the distribution rights now?

 

[Fallen Angel]

Its' up for grabs. But who said Sony can't bid again?

 

[Roose Bolton]

The names I've heard thrown around were Paramount, Warner Bros, Sony or even (and far less likely) MGM self-distributing. But right now nothing has been announced.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

We have not had 40 years of those. It's been exactly half of Bond's cinematic existence. 1962 - 1989 was not 40 years. That was 27 years. Licence to Kill came out in 1989. And since then it's been personal for the past 27 years. And those are "meh" at this point to me.

And in fact, since Licence to Kill was being made in 1988, that actually makes it 28 years, so the "this time it's personal" formula has actually been longer than the Bond just on a mission formula, which has been 26 years.

Even before that some were "this time it's personal." OHMSS, DAF, and FYEO immediately come to mind.

 

[Dark Raven]

Even before that some were "this time it's personal." OHMSS, DAF, and FYEO immediately come to mind.

Well then the "this time it's personal" type mission is actually more of the stale formula than Bond just on a random mission and represents the greater percentage of the films. And in fact, it's more stale because it's been that way for at least the last 28 years.

Having Bond just on a mission where he has no personal stakes would actually be fresh.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Well then the "this time it's personal" type mission is actually more of the stale formula than Bond just on a random mission and represents the greater percentage of the films. And in fact, it's more stale because it's been that way for at least the last 28 years.

Having Bond just on a mission where he has no personal stakes would actually be fresh.

Pretty much.

 

[Vaibow]

I agree, i find it hard to believe that a top secret spy would be invested in so many people and have the, i guess mind set to make things personal. I have always felt that Bond has to be a loner, as his job would be compromised - hence the one night stands, addictions and ease at killing - but what is good is seeing glimpses of 'friendship' and 'bonding' wight he people he works with - Moneypenny is the closest to a wife, Q to family and other oo's as siblings. We see a hint of the true Bond then we see this hard ass on missions, we then get to see how he handles situations.
I personally think they need a new actor, call it a soft reboot, continuation whatever you need to make it through the cinema door, once there is a new actor, the old is long forgotten. Sure, the past can be used as a flip between vague history/continuity like they seemed to do pre craig and then show a very different origins from then on - but to me, i want to see a whole new universe and cast.

That's why i loved Casino Royale, it was a fantastic film - rather than a fantastic Bond film.

 

[Urich Leeds]

Its' up for grabs. But who said Sony can't bid again?

Sony can bid, but it's extremely unlikely they'll regain the rights. And on the flip side, it's extremely likely Warner Bros. will gain them.