That would be a divine bit of casting.
I accept what you say, but I thought Craig did some umming-and-aahhing about coming back?
Only according to forums, once he there was a film to be part of he announced his involvement in it.
1 Like
Well, he at least didnât seem to be very keen to go on after SPECTRE.
But in all fairness: it seems only Dalton and Brosnan were keen to keep on doing Bond films.
2 Likes
Moore probably wouldâve gone on foreverâŚ
1 Like
And Dalton said only oneâŚ
Brosnan is the only one of the six who was vocally keen to go again immediately after filming. Part of me does feel there is a 5th Brosnan Bond in 2004 we never gotâŚ
âŚapart from Everything Or Nothing
2 Likes
Which is better than Die Another DayâŚ
3 Likes
It is, but Willem Defoe has that ability
3 Likes
Shouldâve won for Best ActorâŚ
Watching Archangel on I-tunes, the blurb opens â4 days in the life of Fluke Kelso (Daniel Craig, James Bond)â
No films listed, they just know youâll see him and think James Bond.
Thereâs very few other roles that can do that.
In a perfect world. Brosnan would have had a fifth film in 2004 and Casino Royale with Craig could have arrived in 2007.
3 Likes
Absolutely. I know itâs silly, but I feel quite cheated about that.
They could easily have made another for 2004. Didnât they script one?
Goes to show he was still considered the incumbent two years after DAD. With a scanned Brosnan likeness, voiceover work, and the voices of Dench and Cleese, Iâm happy to consider EoN canon, even if not in the strictest sense. It adds to his Bond resume in any case.
Brief answer: at the point that new voices started to emerge, and not knowing how to respond, editors, teachers, and gatekeepers tried to ignore what was happening and so lost the battle of maintaining critical integrity.
Longer answer: criticism as developed during the modernity project was based on the notion that any personâwith a properly trained aestheticâwould be able to discern which artworks were great and which were not (same with ethicsâa properly trained mind would discern what was moral and what was not, and properly trained mindsâwhether regarding aesthetics or ethicsâwould agreeâwhich was how one knew they were properly trained).
This approach with modifications dominates into the 20th century. In some ways, it is a variant of pre-Enlightenment aesthetics which believed that all good art was a manifestation of the divine. The Enlightenment substituted the concepts of goodness and beauty for the divineâstill transcendent, but not necessarily pointing toward the godhead.
Everything was good until the catastrophes and terrors of the 20th century, when beliefs in grand narratives took an extreme hitâthe transcendent was suddenly being given a run for its money by the immanent. At the same time, voices/perspectives which had been marginalized and even silenced were demanding equal air time. In my own career, I was frequently told that my criticism was good, but was too influenced by my being gay, as if my sexuality somehow inflected my work away from the truth. I always thought of Gloria Steinemâs quote about men always questioning the womenâs agenda without realizing that they had one of their own.
So the voices were beginning to be heard, and teachers et. al. did not quite know what to do. They tried the path of authorial intent, but found that even they could not be sure what had been intended. All their lessons plans and test rubrics were based on the notion that symbols and formal elements convergedâno matter how you approached themâon certain transcendent themes and understandings. But now, artworks which were considered guilty pleasures (at best) were being claimed as straight-up pleasures.
None of this would have been problematic, but concurrent with this opening of perspectives was a loosening of critical integrityâcritiques no longer had to be grounded in close readings of the texts and their cultural and genre histories. A work of criticism could now be grounded in the experience and emotions of the viewer which were granted pride of placeâreception theory run amok. If one were to criticize such an opinion, it was inevitably taken as an attack on the self, since the self was the only thing in which the critique was grounded.
Society was changing as wellâhyper-individualism was the order of the day, and late capitalism and neo-liberalism become ruling societal ideologies. So Barry and his persona/emotional opinion was transformed into coin of the critical realm and beyond (the better to generate profits). If you could get a society of individuals to believe that their feelings, likes, and desires were the proper measure of value, you could sell them boatloads of stuff (possessed of increasingly short windows of planned obsolescenceâwhat iPhone are you on and what digital K level are your blu-rays? On sites listing upcoming blu-rays, there are the frequent comments of âDay 1 purchaseâ as if some status were conferred though the announcement).
There are dinosaurs such as myself who still believe that there can be aesthetic standards external to the individual viewer whichâwhen brought into contact with a viewerâs personal prismsâcan result in a robust and compelling critique. But nobody wants to support such an approach on the chance it might contradict what readers believe and, thereby, disrupt the (over)consumption behavior society has striven so mightily to inculcate. In such a world, expertise is anathema since confirmation of opinion is more valued than truth/fact.
7 Likes
Thank you.
I feel the same, but then I also feel the same about the criminally underrated Bloodstone as the 2010 Bond movie we never had. Both written by Bruce Feirstein, says thereâs not really any difference
Itâs not all that different. Youâre still trying to tell an interesting story, with unique settings and compelling characters. So the actual process isnât that different. Itâs just as collaborative, and in some aspects easier
Itâs quite a good interview, ignore the hot take style title the gamespot editor thought was a good one for an interview with the writer of some of said games.
3 Likes
Moved to the BOND 25 Spoiler Thread.
So, a lot of us here speculated we might hear something official the Friday after the Oscars. Is everyone still thinking along those lines?
I wouldnât point to a specific day for that. But in the upcoming weeks the probability of any sort of announcement rises considerably.
Given the article you posted to spoilers (following @Red_Snow discovering it) references filming towards the end of March, I would assume weâll hear more soon.