McQuarrie nails it again.
EON, time to secure him for BOND 26.
McQuarrie nails it again.
EON, time to secure him for BOND 26.
But then follows it with âSean Connery was the gold standardâ
The man who hated being Bond.
Not true. Connery loved being Bond until he felt sold out by EON. If they had catered to him like they do now to Craig Connery would have loved to continue.
Small aside - McQuarrie is referring to the tone of Craigâs Bond films, not Craigâs personal feelings on the role. That love of his life that Moore and Brosnan went for, versus the more broken man Craig has where Bond is looking for a way out if (to use a OHMSS quote) he âcan find something better to doâ
Also, how smug must EON feel that McQuarrie canât promote the home release of his spy film without the conversation turning to Bond?
Oh. I read that line, of course, according to my personal beef with Craig. Still, I agree with that meaning, too.
As for smugness - nah, I donât think EON cares. Bond is the benchmark. It´s only natural that journalists raise that topic. And McQuarrie obviously loves to talk about it instead of asking the journalist to move on to another question.
The man stuck a DB5 at an Mi6 meeting it Rogue Nation. Iâm sure he was fine with it.
I agree wholeheartedly! I definitely read it as the character hating his life, emo Bond so to speak, Craigâs been a fantastic ambassador for Bond imo. If you look at the interviews where he jokes about only doing the next one for money , they are remarkably similar to those given by Moore in the 80s
Glad to hear long overdue Brosnan appreciation. IMHO Brosnan has become the underrated Bond.
He is what made me love the seriesâŚspecifically the caviar factory in TWINE.
âNowâŚwhere were we?â
My favourite Brossa scene by a mile is the face-off with Onatopp in the roman bathâŚ
Xenia Onatopp: You donât need the gun, Commander.
James Bond: Well, that depends on your definition of safe sex.
After some well choreographed fightingâŚ
James Bond: [Bond points a pistol at Onatopp] No, no, no. No more foreplay.
Bond is very rarely better than this. Itâs a perfectly, written, directed, performed and cut scene. Itâs fun, while remaining gritty and not at all cheesy
Brosnanâs performance in that scene, right down to his line pacing, is perfect.
âNo, no, noâŚ(clicks the gun) no more fore playâ
He has some of the best kills in the series, specifically Kauffman, Elektra, and (IMO) Carver.
Kauffman- âWait, Iâm just a professional doing a job.â
Bond- âMe too.â Bang.
Bond shoots Elektra. âI never miss.â
Bond ruthlessly holding a screaming Elliot in front of his seadrill. âYou forgot the first rule of mass media Elliot, give the people what they want!â
Critics are eager to pigeonhole and caricature people with defined narratives, however such broad stroke commentary neglects subtlety. If anyone thinks Brosnan didnât bring humanity to the character (and that also goes for the writers) theyâre mistaken.
The âitâs what keeps me aliveâ speech, his injured shoulder and NK imprisonment spring to mind. Mourning a dead body (Paris and Elektra) also gives him depth. But itâs not overplayed or lingered upon too much.
For all the complaints people level at the Brosnan era, I think they did strike a pretty good balance, especially considering the era they were released in. They knew people loved and wanted the playboy superhero action hero, so thatâs what they emphasised. But for critics to say the Brosnan era didnât have depth is wrong. Itâs actually where some of these Craig era concepts grew.
Yep, a lot of the seeds for the Craig era were planting during the Brosnan era. Audiences werenât quite ready for it with Dalton but EON did gradually work some more mature and darker elements into the Brosnan films.
I canât help but wonder what Die Another Day would have been if they had stuck to the tone of the first half. They had a good political thriller going with Graves being politically connected and Bond a burnt agent. An untouchable villain vs an unaccountable agent. Would have been an excellent film.
DAD is still watchable but the pieces are greater than the whole.
Brosnanâs look of disgust when he dispatches henchmen in bankerâs office during PTS of TWINE also demonstrates his subtlety and professionalism towards the role.
Some comments from MGM and Annapurna about their future, bolstered (for now) by the success of CREED II:
âThis leads to the domestic release of the 25th James Bond film that Cary Fukunaga is directing with Daniel Craig reprising for February 14, 2019.â
Deadline still living in the Boyle/Hodge cinematic universe.
They corrected it.
By the way - studios execs love to kid themselves and the press that everything is going hunky dory when one film performs well.
But I doubt that CREED II (while definitely generating CREED III in the future) will be the start of a string of mega-successes for MGM. BOND 25, yeah. LEGALLY BLONDE 3 - no. A DIRTY ROTTEN SCOUNDRELS remake? C´mon. Even the great Michael B. Jordan appearing in a THOMAS CROWN remake (oh, man - they did not get a sequel to the Brosnan film off the ground and think they can pull this one off?) seems a shaky bet.
Naw, MGM is still dependent on one thing only: BOND.
CREED III might still bring in the big money. But how many CREEDs will they really be able to make? I imagine Jordan, getting showered with offers right now, will not want to go on after part III. Although Iâm sure MGM is already thinking of spinning off that spin-off.
Full disclosure: as long as Stallone is part of these films I will be interested.
Quite. Film success is poker, not chess.