• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

News Daniel Craig signs up for Bond 25, Christopher Nolan in talks to direct

Bixby said:
There's a lot of tradition here, but for Bond's sake as a franchise, they need to wipe the slate clean and replace Barbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson as Exec producers.
Click to expand...
The film rights to James Bond are owned by Danjaq LLC, which is owned by Wilson; Danjaq then licenses Eon Productions Ltd. — which is owned by Wilson and Broccoli — to make James Bond films. So yeah, good luck with that. This isn't like Star Trek or Star Wars where the parent company can tell a Rick Berman or J.J. Abrams to pound sand. Wilson and Broccoli are the parent company.
 
MakeshiftPython said:
The only Bond movie that took influence from Bourne was QUANTUM OF SOLACE.

:shrug:
Click to expand...
For Bond doing the parkour chase at the beginning of Casino Royale, as well as the one-on-one fight in the bathroom, they cribbed a lot of Bourne's camera work there...Not to mention the desaturated look
 
Last edited:
cardinal biggles said:
The film rights to James Bond are owned by Danjaq LLC, which is owned by Wilson; Danjaq then licenses Eon Productions Ltd. — which is owned by Wilson and Broccoli — to make James Bond films. So yeah, good luck with that. This isn't like Star Trek or Star Wars where the parent company can tell a Rick Berman or J.J. Abrams to pound sand. Wilson and Broccoli are the parent company.
Click to expand...
You mean like with George Lucas and Star Wars, how the prospect of anyone else handling Star Wars was unthinkable 10 years ago, that kind of thing?
 
Bixby said:
For Bond doing the parkour chase at the beginning of Casino Royale, as well as the one-on-one fight in the bathroom, they cribbed a lot of Bourne's camera work there...Not to mention the desaturated look
Click to expand...

That’s flimsy. Close quarters combat shot on handheld cameras has been done on Bond well before Bourne. FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE, DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER, and GOLDENEYE spring to mind. And CASINO ROYAKE is shot in high speed black and white, which wasn’t a thing in Bourne. I don’t even think we get a full on fight sequence in black and white, so I’m not sure where you’re going with “desaturated”. You definitely cannot call SKYFALL that.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

That said, you can definitely make a case with QUANTUM OF SOLACE because they actually employed the same second unit and editors to duplicate that CQC style in Bourne, right down to Bond using a objects in his surroundings like a shoe.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

But that still leaves SKYFALL and SPECTRE, which very much abandoned that Bourne style in favor for more classical Bond filmmaking.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.


As for parkour, that was literally everywhere else, and CASINO ROYALE even makes a point to show that Bond himself isn’t even good at it, but is so determined to chase that parkour terrorist that he’ll throw himself as much as he can in order to catch his target, even use his head to catch up like hanging on the back of the vehicle instead of persisting on foot.
 
Last edited:
Bixby said:
You mean like with George Lucas and Star Wars, how the prospect of anyone else handling Star Wars was unthinkable 10 years ago, that kind of thing?
Click to expand...
Oh wow, you got me there. Except Wilson and Broccoli don't seem to be anywhere close to wanting to move on the way Lucas was with his properties, and [speculation]they've also probably seen the mixed bag that's been Disney's handling of Star Wars and decided they don't want that to happen to the Bond franchise.[/speculation, but probably not wrong]
 
To coin a phrase, never say never, but that family has held the Bond franchise pretty tightly for 60 years now. Does anyone know if michael or Barbara have children?
 
Michael G Wilson actually has two sons, and the one that has been most active is Gregg Wilson, who has been an associate producer ever since QOS. In fact, he began doing cameos ever since SF. First cameo is in the bar where Bond plays the drinking game with the scorpion. The next cameo in SP is with his father, when M goes to confront C after the successful Nine Eyes vote. You can see it on this video:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Gregg has been stepping up over the years, I think he only began doing interviews for EON with SP.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

My bet is after his father decides to retire, Gregg will join his aunt as her new partner and help her in shaping post-Craig era.

As mentioned above, there’s also David G Wilson who had been working on Bond films in various capacities since GE. However, he hasn’t been credited since CR. I don’t know the story behind that. I’d assume he decided producing Bond wasn’t in his interest anymore and went on his own path.
 
cardinal biggles said:
Oh wow, you got me there. Except Wilson and Broccoli don't seem to be anywhere close to wanting to move on the way Lucas was with his properties, and [speculation]they've also probably seen the mixed bag that's been Disney's handling of Star Wars and decided they don't want that to happen to the Bond franchise.[/speculation, but probably not wrong]
Click to expand...
They themselves have been responsible for Bond's mixed bag. I think it's fair to say that they only get their act together when they introduce a new actor as Bond, because Goldeneye and Casino Royale have been the only satisfying film versions of Bond in the last 25 years
 
giphy.gif


If their films are such shit, why are they making money hand over fist every time a new one comes out? :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
If making money was the biggest argument for how great a film is, then Michael Bay's Transformers series should have swept all the Oscars
 
The Bond films have always been a mixed bag; Roger Moore had more than a few bad ones and overstayed his welcome, and Connery's last two (official) films had their issues. I don't think Wilson and Broccoli have done an objectively worse job running the franchise than their dad and Harry Saltzman did. And going backwards to the '60s, which you and Steph inexplicably have hard-ons for, would not be an improvement.
 
cardinal biggles said:
And going backwards to the '60s, which you and Steph inexplicably have hard-ons for, would not be an improvement.
Click to expand...
It's not just the 60s. There are STILL people exactly like I've described running around today (the hard-smoking, hard-drinking, womanizing, ruthless killers for hire...well I haven't met any killers for hire)
But at least THAT's a character. Broccoli and Wilson have been so busy since the Dalton days to remove everything about Bond that made him a character, we see whoever it is that Daniel Craig is supposed to be playing and even HE doesn't know. Why do YOU think he's been so eager to leave the franchise for at least 2 of the last installments?
The current Bond has no personality whatsoever, he's almost a robot.
 
Last edited:
Craig Bond still drinks and sleeps with women. Hell, there’s a scene where he’s basically on his sixth Vesper martini (which is honestly astounding that he’s still coherent. And Bond barely smoked at all during Cubby’s reign. Connery had like two cigarettes and Moore had a cigar. Dalton was the only one that tried to bring back the smoking, but that was short lived. Cinematic Bond was never the heavy smoker he was in the novels.
 
Bond doesn't sleep with women, he now has relationships with women. Not the same thing. (and frankly women who aren't that smart if they're ok with a man who can snap another's neck without blinking.
And the only reason they've stopped showing him SMOKING is because the movies would then be slapped with an R rating. but there are symbolic ways that could be shown without jeopardizing their money train.

As for drinking, yes Craig did do that, but Connery's Bond seemed to relish a good drink and eating a sumptuous meal, implying that he knew his life was dangerous but while he was still there he was going to enjoy living. Craig just comes off as tired of living.
EDIT: sorry I meant smoking just above, not drinking
 
Last edited:
Bixby said:
It's not just the 60s. There are STILL people exactly like I've described running around today (the hard-smoking, hard-drinking, womanizing, ruthless killers for hire...well I haven't met any killers for hire)
But at least THAT's a character. Broccoli and Wilson have been so busy since the Dalton days to remove everything about Bond that made him a character, we see whoever it is that Daniel Craig is supposed to be playing and even HE doesn't know. Why do YOU think he's been so eager to leave the franchise for at least 2 of the last installments?
The current Bond has no personality whatsoever, he's almost a robot.
Click to expand...

Casino Royale I thought was considered a reboot where we get to see a young agent become James Bond. Well... Quantum felt he was still trying to find himself even when I thought the 1st film did just that. Skyfall, Bond is now considered old and he failed to get hold of a Noc-list which threatened to reveal the identities of secret agents, quits and take a vacation, failed to save Severine who he promised he would save her, he had the opportunity to kill Silva on the island and this incompetent move led to the disaster in London and later failed to protect M.

Spectre, OO7 appeared he doesn't trust the new M which I don't understand he appeared to be a straight up man of honor and would stick his neck out for Bond and his agents. M has proven his loyalties in the last 2 movies which doesn't gel well with the character of Bond where he's this emo, very moody person which shades any joy of being the James Bond. From the previous movies I'd seen before Craig's run there was a proudness I loved about the character, charming and clever. It's just me but emo people in real life are miserable bastards and angry all of the time. I don't like them and I don't trust angry people they tend to be backstabbing types, the types to react and do horrible things to other people out of their emotions rather than thinking about what they're doing.

Craig's Bond fits that mold where I can understand why it seems he doesn't trust anyone BUT they have to trust him. It's bizarre and is not a good way to create a good character, this unstableness would lead him to quit in every movie and of course will eventually lead to this final outing. The Craig movies were designed to be unstable where I never felt he was capable to last as OO7 too long. So because the movies were continuous, the reason why Bond looks old is not because of Daniel Craig's age in real life, he looks old because of the mileage he undertaken throughout the course of his run. His Bond movies were set back to back to back to back. That's if these movies are following some form of continuity.
 
Last edited:
Bixby said:
You know that that NEVER starts a civil discussion when you put a comment like that, right?
Click to expand...
Honestly it just sounds like you’ve skimmed these movies. Which I can understand if they’re not to your liking, especially with an actor you call “robotic”. The last one came out six years ago, after all.
 
MakeshiftPython said:
Honestly it just sounds like you’ve skimmed these movies. Which I can understand if they’re not to your liking, especially with an actor you call “robotic”. The last one came out six years ago, after all.
Click to expand...
Uh-huh. I didn't say Craig was playing him robotic, but that his Bond was like a robot.
Tell you what: I can easily write a 500-word essay describing Sean Connery's Bond, his personality mind you. I bet you that apart from loyal to M and determined to accomplish his missions, you would be very hard-pressed to write even 50 words to describe Craig's personality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top