I totally agree with this. I'm certainly an 'old School' Bond fan, who watches the films for a bit of entertainment, excitement and adventure. There are plenty of other films and franchises for an emotional story arc, and Bond provided a respite from all that. Sadly that is no more the case.
I mean it was already known about as it was the reason Danny Boyle was sacked. Craig wanted that ending, Boyle didn't.
True, but he was also an executive producer on this film.It's not the actor's job to demand that. It's not his franchise to demand an ending like that. Arrogance, pure and simple.
True, but he was also an executive producer on this film.
Won't be Bond then. This film wasn't Bond either.Executive Producer or not, what he demanded and seemingly got is a slap in the face to every Bond fan. I think it's a process to facilitate a female Bond.
Executive Producer or not, what he demanded and seemingly got is a slap in the face to every Bond fan. I think it's a process to facilitate a female Bond.
Barbara Broccoli has consistently ruled out a female Bond, thankfully. That said, I'm surpsied she allowed this film to get away with what it has done.
I never understood the arguments for changing Bond to a female. Why can't he remain a male? It's a fictionalised character, yes, but it's always been a man as it's based on books. Surely there are enough talented women out there who can write, direct, produce and act in a whole new franchise based around a female character, even one based inside the "Bond universe" that they don't need to lazily make her the new 007? Something original can be made and I'm sure if it's done right it'll be a success, but to just say "Bond is a woman now" will just cause more fans to become alienated from the franchise.
Look what casting a female in a male role did in Dr Who.
It does leave the option open yes. Without giving away any spoilers.I haven't seen the new Bond film yet but does it actually open up the possibility of Bond becoming a female character?
This. I swear messing with established characters is done intentionally by some people as they're sad, pathetic individuals who want to take a massive dump on everyone's parade. That and it's easier to mess around with existing characters than to make new ones.I never understood the arguments for changing Bond to a female. Why can't he remain a male? It's a fictionalised character, yes, but it's always been a man as it's based on books. Surely there are enough talented women out there who can write, direct, produce and act in a whole new franchise based around a female character, even one based inside the "Bond universe" that they don't need to lazily make her the new 007? Something original can be made and I'm sure if it's done right it'll be a success, but to just say "Bond is a woman now" will just cause more fans to become alienated from the franchise.
The problem there was the creative team not caring about the source material and then the lead cast member spewing their tosh.Look what casting a female in a male role did in Dr Who.
Opens up, yes. But as said upthread, Barbara Broccoli has said it isn't happening, although whether that stays true under Amazon control is another matter.I haven't seen the new Bond film yet but does it actually open up the possibility of Bond becoming a female character?
Barbara Broccoli has consistently ruled out a female Bond, thankfully. That said, I'm surpsied she allowed this film to get away with what it has done.
I never understood the arguments for changing Bond to a female. Why can't he remain a male? It's a fictionalised character, yes, but it's always been a man as it's based on books. Surely there are enough talented women out there who can write, direct, produce and act in a whole new franchise based around a female character, even one based inside the "Bond universe" that they don't need to lazily make her the new 007? Something original can be made and I'm sure if it's done right it'll be a success, but to just say "Bond is a woman now" will just cause more fans to become alienated from the franchise.
I think a lot of the downward trend had already been happening and it was to do with bad writing. Dr who becoming a woman didn't bother me one bit as the character is written to change every so often into any kind of humanoid being. The changes with Bond are supposed to be invisible, you're just supposed to accept it's the same man on a new mission. The Craig era introduced lots of challenges to that and it's confusing as to how exactly we are supposed to interpret this incarnation of Bond.
There's loads on the Internet about this, the clues in the dialogue are there. It's all very complicated, I need to watch it again with this in mind.3. Skyfall - Looked great, but a bit too brooding in parts, and the plot was just silly. The whole film was a revenge mission on M and MI6, and Bond didn't succeed in saving it. It also pushed them into a hole in terms of changing Bonds by giving them the same codename James Bond, whereas in this the character was clearly Bond from birth. I'm not sure how they are going to write their way out of it when the new Bond comes in.
This surely conflicts with what I had always thought to be true about James Bond - that when the lead actors change, and sometimes even from film to film, there is no continuity. Hence, Daniel Craig's Bond isn't in exactly the same "universe" as Moore's or Connery's for example.There's loads on the Internet about this, the clues in the dialogue are there. It's all very complicated, I need to watch it again with this in mind.
Apparently James Bond is a codename, But James Bond doesn't know it as he's been brainwashed into thinking he is, hence is thinking it's childhood home plus he was brainwashed there; thus remembering some of it or something and throwing grenades etc at it.
That's my thinking too, just going on the Skyfall film I commented on and what people are thinking - I must watch it again.This surely conflicts with what I had always thought to be true about James Bond - that when the lead actors change, and sometimes even from film to film, there is no continuity. Hence, Daniel Craig's Bond isn't in exactly the same "universe" as Moore's or Connery's for example.
I've booked the Odeon Leicester Square for Monday for just me. I've been keen to try it out since the refurb. I booked one of the posh recliner seats.
I paid £10. I think Skyfall might have been the last film I saw there.I saw Skyfall there back in the day, and it was pricey enough then - but since the refurb, the prices are crazy there, so I've not been back (so far).
(In any event, I have a Cineworld Unlimited card, so it costs me zero to go across the square to the ex-Empire and watch stuff there instead
This surely conflicts with what I had always thought to be true about James Bond - that when the lead actors change, and sometimes even from film to film, there is no continuity. Hence, Daniel Craig's Bond isn't in exactly the same "universe" as Moore's or Connery's for example.
Skyfall was a brilliant film though. And it really worked in the context of Skyfall.I'd always thought "Bond" was the code name for the top agent, who changed over time. Skyfall ruined that idea though!
Yes there are nods to previous iterations, but I always took it as the franchise breaking the fourth wall rather than being explictly canon.I've always thought the other way round. Especially when you see OHMSS and Lazenby says "this never happened to the other guy".
Prior to the Craig era Bond continuity was all over the place. The films were pretty much self-contained with occasional nods to previous episodes. The idea seemed to be: it's the same guy, but don't think about it too hard.
Craig's films were a hard reboot and established clear continuity from film to film.
I suspect we'll now see the franchise rested for a bit, then another hard reboot, perhaps set in the past - the premise of Bond has become harder to sustain the further it gets from the 1960s.
Just been to see it, I liked it, it's a pity DC only got 5 films in over 15 years (or 14 years, non-covid).Craig's films were a hard reboot and established clear continuity from film to film.
Prior to the Craig era Bond continuity was all over the place. The films were pretty much self-contained with occasional nods to previous episodes. The idea seemed to be: it's the same guy, but don't think about it too hard.
Craig's films were a hard reboot and established clear continuity from film to film.
I suspect we'll now see the franchise rested for a bit, then another hard reboot, perhaps set in the past - the premise of Bond has become harder to sustain the further it gets from the 1960s.
I paid £10.
I think Skyfall might have been the last film I saw there.