It was reported yesterday that Jesper Christensen, the actor that played Quantum agent Mr. White in Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace, is also going to appear in this installment. Since the web is made for speculation, I'm guessing that SPECTRE will crush Quantum and demonstrate that they are the one and only powerful antagonist organization in the world of agent 007.
Oh, that could be interesting... a war between Quantum and SPECTRE with the rest of the world (though mostly 007 and MI-6) caught in between would make for an awesome movie.
Most of my thoughts echo most of everyone's thoughts - Monica Belucci is perfect, Christoph Waltz is perfect, I hope he plays Blofeld, etc. - but I do have one extra thought. I hope they give Dave Bautista a role beyond the latest version of Oddjob; his part in Guardians of the Galaxy showed that he can play something besides his wrestling character. I'd like to see them use that, maybe as a Valentin Zhukovsky type.
There's a worrying article below listing big problems with the script. It seems to have come from the Sony hack. Be warned there are HUGE spoilers later in the article.
Truthfully, I was more interested in this before the trailer. After reading a synopsis of the leaked script following that Sony hack, I'm cringing at the notion of a long lost relative who happens to run and/or is a member of an organization that just happens to employ Bond.
Truthfully, I was more interested in this before the trailer. After reading a synopsis of the leaked script following that Sony hack, I'm cringing at the notion of a long lost relative who happens to run and/or is a member of an organization that just happens to employ Bond.
Very Austin Powers/Dr. Evil-ish.
M
As much as I love Bond, I'd have to admit it has always been more about style than substance. Yes a well scripted story makes for a better experience but honestly even the stronger ones SkfallSpy Who Loved MeGoldeneye were not the best scripts out there. Bond is always derivative and never really trailblazing in regards of the bones of the material.
I do like that it looks like these films are going to allow plot threads to travel through films. The books used to do that all the time, but the films typically start fresh each outing. You could probably watch most of them in any order and it wouldn't matter, with a few exceptions. I grew up watching them randomly on network television, and unless they referenced Bond's late wife, I didn't make any connections to a timeline.
The drawback is that we're likely to get more frequent reboots, but audiences seem more comfortable with that today.
I do like that it looks like these films are going to allow plot threads to travel through films. The books used to do that all the time, but the films typically start fresh each outing. You could probably watch most of them in any order and it wouldn't matter, with a few exceptions. I grew up watching them randomly on network television, and unless they referenced Bond's late wife, I didn't make any connections to a timeline.
The drawback is that we're likely to get more frequent reboots, but audiences seem more comfortable with that today.
The Connery era (with the Lasenby detour) had some continuity threads. It was the third or fourth viewing befor I realized the girl at the beginning of From Russia with Love is the same from the casino in Dr. No.
It's interesting how Craig's Bond had 2 movies that fleshed out his yearly days as a 00. Outing 3 & 4 seem to have aspects of the man himself with information about his youth & family.
I think he's signed for 2 more movies. I wonder if we'll get a Bond near the end of his career.
I do like that it looks like these films are going to allow plot threads to travel through films. The books used to do that all the time, but the films typically start fresh each outing. You could probably watch most of them in any order and it wouldn't matter, with a few exceptions. I grew up watching them randomly on network television, and unless they referenced Bond's late wife, I didn't make any connections to a timeline.
The drawback is that we're likely to get more frequent reboots, but audiences seem more comfortable with that today.
The Connery era (with the Lasenby detour) had some continuity threads. It was the third or fourth viewing befor I realized the girl at the beginning of From Russia with Love is the same from the casino in Dr. No.
It's interesting how Craig's Bond had 2 movies that fleshed out his yearly days as a 00. Outing 3 & 4 seem to have aspects of the man himself with information about his youth & family.
I think he's signed for 2 more movies. I wonder if we'll get a Bond near the end of his career.
M
I believe it's 1 more after Spectre, which seems right to me.
I do like that it looks like these films are going to allow plot threads to travel through films. The books used to do that all the time, but the films typically start fresh each outing. You could probably watch most of them in any order and it wouldn't matter, with a few exceptions. I grew up watching them randomly on network television, and unless they referenced Bond's late wife, I didn't make any connections to a timeline.
The drawback is that we're likely to get more frequent reboots, but audiences seem more comfortable with that today.
We're already on movie #4 for Daniel Craig, with at least a 5th and if Matt is right 6th Craig Bond movies. That's more than any Bond since Roger Moore. True there was some consistency with other roles (Q,M, Moneypenny) but it's always included a soft reboot of sorts and this is a pretty long run for a single Bond rendition. I think that as long as the audience is there and the actor wants to do it we'll continue to see a new Bond ever 10-15 years like we always have.
Just saw the new trailer. Looks like all we want from Bond. Spectre has to follow up on Skyfall's critical and commercial succsses and from what the trailer shows, I think we will be just fine. Bond always competes against the world we live in now so there is always competition from bigger franchises ( MCU ) and critiques (Kingsman ) but Bond prevails. I want nothing more than 120 minutes of travel brochures, gadgets, action and beautiful women. Looking forward to this as much as Force Awakens.
Just saw the new trailer. Looks like all we want from Bond. Spectre has to follow up on Skyfall's critical and commercial succsses and from what the trailer shows, I think we will be just fine. Bond always competes against the world we live in now so there is always competition from bigger franchises ( MCU ) and critiques (Kingsman ) but Bond prevails. I want nothing more than 120 minutes of travel brochures, gadgets, action and beautiful women. Looking forward to this as much as Force Awakens.
Remember when Daniel Craig was initially cast & there was a website about recasting? Something like "noblondebond.com"*. I wonder if those whiners feel ridiculous at this point?
M
* anyone else notice in Casino Royale Craig's hair was filmed more shaded & looked darker?
Just saw the new trailer. Looks like all we want from Bond. Spectre has to follow up on Skyfall's critical and commercial succsses and from what the trailer shows, I think we will be just fine. Bond always competes against the world we live in now so there is always competition from bigger franchises ( MCU ) and critiques (Kingsman ) but Bond prevails. I want nothing more than 120 minutes of travel brochures, gadgets, action and beautiful women. Looking forward to this as much as Force Awakens.
Remember when Daniel Craig was initially cast & there was a website about recasting? Something like "noblondebond.com"*. I wonder if those whiners feel ridiculous at this point?
M
* anyone else notice in Casino Royale Craig's hair was filmed more shaded & looked darker?
There is still a website that is very anti-Craig up and running. If someone is that wrapped up in Bond casting I can't wait til Idris Elba gets cast.
I think in Royale they were hedging their bets a little with the tuxedos and slightly darker shade of hair just to get us invested then he clicked it was less scandalous.
Just saw the new trailer. Looks like all we want from Bond. Spectre has to follow up on Skyfall's critical and commercial succsses and from what the trailer shows, I think we will be just fine. Bond always competes against the world we live in now so there is always competition from bigger franchises ( MCU ) and critiques (Kingsman ) but Bond prevails. I want nothing more than 120 minutes of travel brochures, gadgets, action and beautiful women. Looking forward to this as much as Force Awakens.
Remember when Daniel Craig was initially cast & there was a website about recasting? Something like "noblondebond.com"*. I wonder if those whiners feel ridiculous at this point?
M
* anyone else notice in Casino Royale Craig's hair was filmed more shaded & looked darker?
There is still a website that is very anti-Craig up and running. If someone is that wrapped up in Bond casting I can't wait til Idris Elba gets cast.
I think in Royale they were hedging their bets a little with the tuxedos and slightly darker shade of hair just to get us invested then he clicked it was less scandalous.
I think I'm one of the only people not into Idris Elba as Bond. He's a great actor, but he's too old for me. Already 43, he'd be 46-47 by the time his first movie would come out. Which means he'd either be close to 60 when he finished or only do 1 or two movies. And that's if Craig doesn't do another one. (His protestations seem more like the early stages of contract renegotiations than actual disinterest. When Spectre hits huge, the Brocolis will be throwing money at him to stay for one more).
I want a Bond who will be around for 10 years. And who won't look or seem tired when his time is up, and who doesn't completely gross me out when he beds a 25 year old.
Just saw the new trailer. Looks like all we want from Bond. Spectre has to follow up on Skyfall's critical and commercial succsses and from what the trailer shows, I think we will be just fine. Bond always competes against the world we live in now so there is always competition from bigger franchises ( MCU ) and critiques (Kingsman ) but Bond prevails. I want nothing more than 120 minutes of travel brochures, gadgets, action and beautiful women. Looking forward to this as much as Force Awakens.
Remember when Daniel Craig was initially cast & there was a website about recasting? Something like "noblondebond.com"*. I wonder if those whiners feel ridiculous at this point?
M
* anyone else notice in Casino Royale Craig's hair was filmed more shaded & looked darker?
There is still a website that is very anti-Craig up and running. If someone is that wrapped up in Bond casting I can't wait til Idris Elba gets cast.
I think in Royale they were hedging their bets a little with the tuxedos and slightly darker shade of hair just to get us invested then he clicked it was less scandalous.
I think I'm one of the only people not into Idris Elba as Bond. He's a great actor, but he's too old for me. Already 43, he'd be 46-47 by the time his first movie would come out. Which means he'd either be close to 60 when he finished or only do 1 or two movies. And that's if Craig doesn't do another one. (His protestations seem more like the early stages of contract renegotiations than actual disinterest. When Spectre hits huge, the Brocolis will be throwing money at him to stay for one more).
I want a Bond who will be around for 10 years. And who won't look or seem tired when his time is up, and who doesn't completely gross me out when he beds a 25 year old.
I also am not cheering for Elba. I think I referred to his potential casting as an example of how caught up fans can get for physical characteristics like build or hair color. I agree with the age range. Moore is my guy but he was so creaky in Octopussy that I was disappointed when he did View which is a low point for him and the series.
The actor who will replace Bond is a known guy if history repeats itself. Only Lazenby was an unknown so that means names like Cavill, Lewis or Bomer are not out of line.
I'm pretty sure Craig is contracted for one more, so there won't be any need to throw money at him. I'd be surprised if either Craig or the producers are interested in going past that, regardless of how successful that final film is. He'll be getting too old, the series will be ripe for a change after a decade with the same actor.
I also don't get the constant cries for Elba to be cast as Bond or any genre character (Green Lantern, Batman, Doctor Who). He's a good actor, and I think he might be better off avoiding something like that. It's so weird, years ago it was always considered a step down to play a part like that. Now, it's as if you haven't truly made it unless you do so.
I'm pretty sure Craig is contracted for one more, so there won't be any need to throw money at him. I'd be surprised if either Craig or the producers are interested in going past that, regardless of how successful that final film is. He'll be getting too old, the series will be ripe for a change after a decade with the same actor.
I also don't get the constant cries for Elba to be cast as Bond or any genre character (Green Lantern, Batman, Doctor Who). He's a good actor, and I think he might be better off avoiding something like that. It's so weird, years ago it was always considered a step down to play a part like that. Now, it's as if you haven't truly made it unless you do so.
Yes and no. From a financial, and perhaps pop culture point of view, I suppose there is this pressure, this sort of inevitable force of 'which superhero will YOU be??' coming at you.
But I also think that there have been a number of stars that have worked a lot, including big high profile things, without getting involved in playing an existing franchise character. Brad Pitt and Jon Hamm come to mind, though I am sure there are many others. And it may be that you've really made when you can open a movie on your own stardom, rather than people being able to say, 'They aren't coming to see you, they are coming because it is James Bond/Batman/etc.'
But even PItt and Hamm get their names batted around when certain comic books films go into development. Maybe not Pitt as much these days, though I do remember hearing him come up when they were casting Captain America. But Hamm has been mentioned for Batman, Doctor Strange, and I think even a few others. I just find it odd that comic book films are so dominant today that it's often a matter of "if", not "when", an actor will do one.
I actually think actors like Tom Hiddleston and Chiwetel Ejiofor are playing things a little smarter by doing non-lead roles in comic book films. They get the benefit of doing a Marvel film, but minus the demands on their time and possibly detrimental impact on their careers. And Elba's already done that, as well (though I think Heimdall was an unusually small part to cast him in ).
But even PItt and Hamm get their names batted around when certain comic books films go into development. Maybe not Pitt as much these days, though I do remember hearing him come up when they were casting Captain America. But Hamm has been mentioned for Batman, Doctor Strange, and I think even a few others. I just find it odd that comic book films are so dominant today that it's often a matter of "if", not "when", an actor will do one.
I actually think actors like Tom Hiddleston and Chiwetel Ejiofor are playing things a little smarter by doing non-lead roles in comic book films. They get the benefit of doing a Marvel film, but minus the demands on their time and possibly detrimental impact on their careers. And Elba's already done that, as well (though I think Heimdall was an unusually small part to cast him in ).
Oh, totally people put those stars on wish lists. I am not saying fans don't imagine them in those roles. And I see what you are saying that the culture now just expects anyone of a certain stature in the business to end up in one of these.
I just meant that I would guess, the fact that Pitt and Hamm have not been in a corporate IP supersuit yet has been their choice. (If only, their choice because they couldn't get the number or the points on the net they were asking for, could be).
But even PItt and Hamm get their names batted around when certain comic books films go into development. Maybe not Pitt as much these days, though I do remember hearing him come up when they were casting Captain America. But Hamm has been mentioned for Batman, Doctor Strange, and I think even a few others. I just find it odd that comic book films are so dominant today that it's often a matter of "if", not "when", an actor will do one.
I actually think actors like Tom Hiddleston and Chiwetel Ejiofor are playing things a little smarter by doing non-lead roles in comic book films. They get the benefit of doing a Marvel film, but minus the demands on their time and possibly detrimental impact on their careers. And Elba's already done that, as well (though I think Heimdall was an unusually small part to cast him in ).
Oh, totally people put those stars on wish lists. I am not saying fans don't imagine them in those roles. And I see what you are saying that the culture now just expects anyone of a certain stature in the business to end up in one of these.
I just meant that I would guess, the fact that Pitt and Hamm have not been in a corporate IP supersuit yet has been their choice. (If only, their choice because they couldn't get the number or the points on the net they were asking for, could be).
But why would the studios get Hamm or Pitt for those roles when you can get stars on a lower rung of the ladder, at the time of casting, for less and then worry about the money later, if the films make it. I'm sure Downey and Evans and Renner were not Top Ten salary-wise prior to casting. It was a risk worth taking at the time and now that comic book genre of films have proven a safe bet, a name is not required to sell the movie. The only name needed now is Marvel.
But even PItt and Hamm get their names batted around when certain comic books films go into development. Maybe not Pitt as much these days, though I do remember hearing him come up when they were casting Captain America. But Hamm has been mentioned for Batman, Doctor Strange, and I think even a few others. I just find it odd that comic book films are so dominant today that it's often a matter of "if", not "when", an actor will do one.
I actually think actors like Tom Hiddleston and Chiwetel Ejiofor are playing things a little smarter by doing non-lead roles in comic book films. They get the benefit of doing a Marvel film, but minus the demands on their time and possibly detrimental impact on their careers. And Elba's already done that, as well (though I think Heimdall was an unusually small part to cast him in ).
Oh, totally people put those stars on wish lists. I am not saying fans don't imagine them in those roles. And I see what you are saying that the culture now just expects anyone of a certain stature in the business to end up in one of these.
I just meant that I would guess, the fact that Pitt and Hamm have not been in a corporate IP supersuit yet has been their choice. (If only, their choice because they couldn't get the number or the points on the net they were asking for, could be).
Yeah, I was saying it's more the public and the culture of today that seems to think a superhero or similar role is a necessary notch in an actor's belt at this point. Not the actors themselves. I sometimes get the impression that if Elba doesn't get some sort of role like that, there are many who would view his career as something of a failure, which is far from the case.
But even PItt and Hamm get their names batted around when certain comic books films go into development. Maybe not Pitt as much these days, though I do remember hearing him come up when they were casting Captain America. But Hamm has been mentioned for Batman, Doctor Strange, and I think even a few others. I just find it odd that comic book films are so dominant today that it's often a matter of "if", not "when", an actor will do one.
I actually think actors like Tom Hiddleston and Chiwetel Ejiofor are playing things a little smarter by doing non-lead roles in comic book films. They get the benefit of doing a Marvel film, but minus the demands on their time and possibly detrimental impact on their careers. And Elba's already done that, as well (though I think Heimdall was an unusually small part to cast him in ).
Oh, totally people put those stars on wish lists. I am not saying fans don't imagine them in those roles. And I see what you are saying that the culture now just expects anyone of a certain stature in the business to end up in one of these.
I just meant that I would guess, the fact that Pitt and Hamm have not been in a corporate IP supersuit yet has been their choice. (If only, their choice because they couldn't get the number or the points on the net they were asking for, could be).
But why would the studios get Hamm or Pitt for those roles when you can get stars on a lower rung of the ladder, at the time of casting, for less and then worry about the money later, if the films make it. I'm sure Downey and Evans and Renner were not Top Ten salary-wise prior to casting. It was a risk worth taking at the time and now that comic book genre of films have proven a safe bet, a name is not required to sell the movie. The only name needed now is Marvel.
I think it helps to cast the occasional big name, just to keep audience interest up, or to sell a difficult concept. It sounds like Marvel started out with such a notion when casting Doctor Strange. Joaquin Phoenix, while not a megastar who can guarantee an opening, is still probably in a better position than Downey was when he was cast as Iron Man. And if the rumor that they were looking into Johnny Depp is true, then they were definitely going that route. Even Cumberbatch, while not as big a name, is certainly at a higher level than Evans, Hemsworth and Pratt were when they were cast.
But even PItt and Hamm get their names batted around when certain comic books films go into development. Maybe not Pitt as much these days, though I do remember hearing him come up when they were casting Captain America. But Hamm has been mentioned for Batman, Doctor Strange, and I think even a few others. I just find it odd that comic book films are so dominant today that it's often a matter of "if", not "when", an actor will do one.
I actually think actors like Tom Hiddleston and Chiwetel Ejiofor are playing things a little smarter by doing non-lead roles in comic book films. They get the benefit of doing a Marvel film, but minus the demands on their time and possibly detrimental impact on their careers. And Elba's already done that, as well (though I think Heimdall was an unusually small part to cast him in ).
Oh, totally people put those stars on wish lists. I am not saying fans don't imagine them in those roles. And I see what you are saying that the culture now just expects anyone of a certain stature in the business to end up in one of these.
I just meant that I would guess, the fact that Pitt and Hamm have not been in a corporate IP supersuit yet has been their choice. (If only, their choice because they couldn't get the number or the points on the net they were asking for, could be).
But why would the studios get Hamm or Pitt for those roles when you can get stars on a lower rung of the ladder, at the time of casting, for less and then worry about the money later, if the films make it. I'm sure Downey and Evans and Renner were not Top Ten salary-wise prior to casting. It was a risk worth taking at the time and now that comic book genre of films have proven a safe bet, a name is not required to sell the movie. The only name needed now is Marvel.
I agree. And I'm not arguing otherwise. In fact I think the confluence of huge strides in digital effects at the same time as a geek culture with a love of corporate owned-IPs to mine was the perfect time for studios to tramp down how much they had to lay out in talent costs. So the superhero/80s toys/franchise craze has been pretty good for studios.
When it comes to some of these big franchises, I think it can behoove both the studio to be able to say 'They aren't coming to see XYZ movie star, they are coming to see our character', just as I was arguing a different (maybe better) way of 'making it' as a big movie star is to be able to get people to be able to come see a movie because they are in it, rather than because they are in it as this or that established franchise/comic book character.
So my point to @chrisw was that, as much as pop culture may feel 'you haven't really made it until you get your superhero franchise', I think it is even more A list for a star to be able to be able to succeed at opening a movie playing while playing a character no one has heard of before, especially in a market so dominated by established brands.
Comments
http://gawker.com/new-bond-script-leaks-execs-scrambling-to-fix-awful-en-1670479885
Very Austin Powers/Dr. Evil-ish.
M
The drawback is that we're likely to get more frequent reboots, but audiences seem more comfortable with that today.
It's interesting how Craig's Bond had 2 movies that fleshed out his yearly days as a 00. Outing 3 & 4 seem to have aspects of the man himself with information about his youth & family.
I think he's signed for 2 more movies. I wonder if we'll get a Bond near the end of his career.
M
M
* anyone else notice in Casino Royale Craig's hair was filmed more shaded & looked darker?
I think in Royale they were hedging their bets a little with the tuxedos and slightly darker shade of hair just to get us invested then he clicked it was less scandalous.
In theaters in one month
I want a Bond who will be around for 10 years. And who won't look or seem tired when his time is up, and who doesn't completely gross me out when he beds a 25 year old.
The actor who will replace Bond is a known guy if history repeats itself. Only Lazenby was an unknown so that means names like Cavill, Lewis or Bomer are not out of line.
I also don't get the constant cries for Elba to be cast as Bond or any genre character (Green Lantern, Batman, Doctor Who). He's a good actor, and I think he might be better off avoiding something like that. It's so weird, years ago it was always considered a step down to play a part like that. Now, it's as if you haven't truly made it unless you do so.
But I also think that there have been a number of stars that have worked a lot, including big high profile things, without getting involved in playing an existing franchise character. Brad Pitt and Jon Hamm come to mind, though I am sure there are many others. And it may be that you've really made when you can open a movie on your own stardom, rather than people being able to say, 'They aren't coming to see you, they are coming because it is James Bond/Batman/etc.'
I actually think actors like Tom Hiddleston and Chiwetel Ejiofor are playing things a little smarter by doing non-lead roles in comic book films. They get the benefit of doing a Marvel film, but minus the demands on their time and possibly detrimental impact on their careers. And Elba's already done that, as well (though I think Heimdall was an unusually small part to cast him in ).
I just meant that I would guess, the fact that Pitt and Hamm have not been in a corporate IP supersuit yet has been their choice. (If only, their choice because they couldn't get the number or the points on the net they were asking for, could be).
When it comes to some of these big franchises, I think it can behoove both the studio to be able to say 'They aren't coming to see XYZ movie star, they are coming to see our character', just as I was arguing a different (maybe better) way of 'making it' as a big movie star is to be able to get people to be able to come see a movie because they are in it, rather than because they are in it as this or that established franchise/comic book character.
So my point to @chrisw was that, as much as pop culture may feel 'you haven't really made it until you get your superhero franchise', I think it is even more A list for a star to be able to be able to succeed at opening a movie playing while playing a character no one has heard of before, especially in a market so dominated by established brands.