Yes, that's the title currently. Anyway, with all the trouble over at MGM there was talk that this film was going to be delayed or could have problems with production. However, it appears some interesting news has come through.. and that is that Sam Mendes (American Beauty, Road to Perdition) is signed up to direct the next installment and production could be fast-tracked as a result.
Especially after the recent reimagining of the Bond universe to be more gritty and dark instead of the often-times goofy and over-the-top Bond movies of the 90s and early 2000s. Come to think of it, the only good Bond movies of the last two decades (IMHO) were Golden Eye and Casino Royale.
I wasn't much impressed with Mendes' last few films (Jarhead, Revolutionary Road, and Away We Go). However, this bodes well for a reduction in shaky-cam usage, at least compared to Quantum of Solace. I can't imagine Mendes using much shaky-cam. It doesn't seem to be in his visual language at all.
Which, funny enough, was tried unsuccessfully 20 years prior with Timothy Dalton. Which may signal a change in the tastes of movie-goers, perhaps we've hardened along with the world around us. Roger Moore's slapstick style wouldn't make it today, in fact Brosnan's Bond wore out its welcome after the invisible car BS in Die another Day. And finally, the Bourne Identity came along and rendered James Bond obsolete. He had to change, or risk getting left behind.
Nearly two years and a bankruptcy later, production on this is moving again. Newest word is a possible title for the film -- "Skyfall". Also word is it will shoot in India and Istanbul and the official release date is Nov 9, 2012.
Was it Brosnan or the special effects / directing that killed Bond #5? I enjoyed each movie he was in until the last one (Die) when he was parachuting on a wing with a glacial tsunami occuring behind him, and I amlost threw-up. But in going back to the other films he was in, there moments where I would have loved to slap the writer / director and told them no. But it was never Pierce that made it bad (IMO).
Quote:
Originally Posted by dgotwals1 /forum/post/21162970
Was it Brosnan or the special effects / directing that killed Bond #5? I enjoyed each movie he was in until the last one (Die) when he was parachuting on a wing with a glacial tsunami occuring behind him, and I amlost threw-up. But in going back to the other films he was in, there moments where I would have loved to slap the writer / director and told them no. But it was never Pierce that made it bad (IMO).
Quote:
Originally Posted by dgotwals1 /forum/post/21162970
Was it Brosnan or the special effects / directing that killed Bond #5? I enjoyed each movie he was in until the last one (Die) when he was parachuting on a wing with a glacial tsunami occuring behind him, and I amlost threw-up. But in going back to the other films he was in, there moments where I would have loved to slap the writer / director and told them no. But it was never Pierce that made it bad (IMO).
I really only liked Goldeneye and to a lesser degree, Tomorrow never dies( why on earth did they put Sheryl Crow's theme in the title credits instead of K.D Lang's??). I didn't care for the World is not enough, and Die Another Day sealed the fate of the Brosnan era. Yeah, maybe it was more the directing/script/ writing in retrospect; having said that I find Brosnan harder to take seriously, even in the 'good' movies he did, after seeing Craig's performance. I prefer the grittier take on the character, which is why I have a great appreciation for the criminally underrated Timothy Dalton.
Bring back Pierce Brosnan and drop the current blockhead 007. Or give it to Ben affleck or anyone with some charm, humor, romance and finesse. Craig is a fine actor but IMO totally wrong for james bond...not for this kind of work. And I don't want to hear any nonsense that he's the accurate portrayal of the old original bond....sean connery and roger moore was nothing like this In fact I think Denzel can play 007 better than Craig.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoey67 /forum/post/21164912
Bring back Pierce Brosnan and drop the current blockhead 007. Or give it to Ben affleck or anyone with some charm, humor, romance and finesse. Craig is a fine actor but IMO totally wrong for james bond...not for this kind of work. And I don't want to hear any nonsense that he's the accurate portrayal of the old original bond....sean connery and roger moore was nothing like this In fact I think Denzel can play 007 better than Craig.
Did you really use Ben Affleck and charm and finesse in the same sentence??
Affleck has zero charisma and even less on screen 'presence'. I dont think I can think of anyone worse as Bond than BF would be.
BTW, you may or may not be the first person I've seen that doesnt like craig as bond but you are definately the first person Ive ever seen that thinks Affleck has 'finesse'!
Besides Affleck, I just realized several more that have aged and matured well and would fit much better than our current meathead 007. Christian bale haven't been a great batman but he's a great bruce wayne..who share the same panache and sophistication as Bond. Hugh jackman who I think is also another bad choice for Wolverine also would be a great 007 for this suave and sophistication. Lastly, there is Kevin costner who I wouldn't never think of 10 yrs ago but he has aged rather nice, and into a Jr Sean connery physically and character .
And all of the above mentioned ALL has that "wink" suave and sophistication for romance needed in James bond but can also handle a gun and action for 007. I know Craig is still popular but most are from the Joe six pack and handyman demographics. Trust me, most females young and old would agree with me and there fore submit my unofficial short list for the next 007 and not in any order:
As someone who read all the Ian Fleming Bond novels in my youth (not that long ago, dammit), I think Daniel Craig most personifies the rough-hewn-yet-sophisticated man, complete with imperfections, that Fleming brought to life in his books. I still think Sean Connery is Bond, how could a rational man not?, but Craig is probably closest to the character in the books, IMO. I've greatly enjoyed the two installments of the Craig era we've seen thusfar.
Quote:
Originally Posted by archiguy /forum/post/21169790
As someone who read all the Ian Fleming Bond novels in my youth (not that long ago, dammit), I think Daniel Craig most personifies the rough-hewn-yet-sophisticated man, complete with imperfections, that Fleming brought to life in his books. I still think Sean Connery is Bond, how could a rational man not?, but Craig is probably closest to the character in the books, IMO. I've greatly enjoyed the two installments of the Craig era we've seen thusfar.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoey67 /forum/post/21164912
Or give it to Ben affleck or anyone with some charm, humor, romance and finesse. Craig is a fine actor but IMO totally wrong for james bond...not for this kind of work.
Not sure if serious. Regardless of whether you think Craig fits the bill, are you seriously suggesting BEN AFFLECK!!??
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoey67 /forum/post/21169769
Besides Affleck, I just realized several more that have aged and matured well and would fit much better than our current meathead 007. Christian bale haven't been a great batman but he's a great bruce wayne..who share the same panache and sophistication as Bond. Hugh jackman who I think is also another bad choice for Wolverine also would be a great 007 for this suave and sophistication. Lastly, there is Kevin costner who I wouldn't never think of 10 yrs ago but he has aged rather nice, and into a Jr Sean connery physically and character .
And all of the above mentioned ALL has that "wink" suave and sophistication for romance needed in James bond but can also handle a gun and action for 007. I know Craig is still popular but most are from the Joe six pack and handyman demographics. Trust me, most females young and old would agree with me and there fore submit my unofficial short list for the next 007 and not in any order:
Ah, I see you've got Affleck in there again, so you're serious. Asides from how horribly miscast he'd be in that role, I can only imagine the uproar over a non-Brit playing the Bond character( well there is Lazenby but other than that). I think Clive Owen would have been a good choice for Bond 5 years ago, but he may be getting a bit long in the tooth now. Ideally someone playing Bond should be mid-late 30's, and age into the character over multiple movies. Funny enough Connery was only 32 when Dr. No debuted, but he certainly had a world-weariness and look that transcended his real-life age.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
AVS Forum
34M posts
1.5M members
Since 1999
A forum community dedicated to home theater owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about home audio/video, TVs, projectors, screens, receivers, speakers, projects, DIY’s, product reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!