whoever it was would've been announced in 2017 or early 2018 with the usual fanfare..and now.. still no film! (that is if eon had still had the fiasco with Danny Boyle.. otherwise they'd have probably made the original Nov 2019 release)
shareBy the time this one is finally released, a new Bond actor could have already been starting work on his third Bond film.
shareExactly. We're not talking about making Schindler's List here. These Bond movies should be churned out every three years. This is almost cookie-cutter stuff here. I don't need a Bond movie that is constantly talking about how MI6 is changing, where they keep saying Bond is a relic, with a leading man that doesn't' crack a smile the whole movie. If an actor or a director doesn't want to do it, get a new one. I don't quit rooting for my team when the star player retires.
At this point, I'm almost dying for a Bronson with a damn invisible car, a cameo by Madonna, and surfing a tsunami. Almost.
I think Craig, Purvis/Wade, Babs, Wilson, and the rest genuinely do think they are making art films now, akin to Schindler's List. I don't think they realize what genre they are in anymore.
Bringing in some pretentious twat like Sam Mendes to direct an action spy film has to be one of the dumbest decisions ever made in the industry, but I think this choice was deliberate. Although he made two god awful films, I think he succeeded in giving Eon what they wanted and what they expected from him; pretentious postmodern pseudo-art film garbage.
Also remember that the decision to bring in Danny Boyle was sort of continuing in this art film direction. I don't think Boyle is really known for his work in the action spy genre. Fukunaga, I'm afraid, is a Danny Boyle lite who is a misfit for the series. Although I generally liked True Detective S1, I don't think that kind of tone is suitable for a Bond film.
Interesting point. I think your theory is valid. They probably saw his work on Road to Perdition, which was actually great, and saw something there they wanted to emulate. It didn't hurt Craig was in that film as well.
I actually blame those Bourne movies a lot. They turned the super-spy thing around with a more serious tone and action, and those films were crushing the box office. Maybe it was what was needed back in the late 2000s, but my word, enough is enough.
I think the world wants... no, NEEDS... Bond to get back to those fun films that are an escape from what's going on. The Mission Impossible movies are doing well mixing a serious and off-the-wall tone and have taken Bond's place.
Well, I think the "serious" and "realistic" movies that we are bombarded with now are a sign of how sick our civilization is. The fact that we can no longer laugh or smile while watching a Bond film is absolutely shocking.
shareI will also add that despite what the Craig apologists say, there is absolutely no correlation between quality and quantity in this series. The series seemed to be at its best when they were churning them out every couple of years. The long gaps which have now become the norm do not seem to increase the film's quality in any way. The films have about a 50/50 chance of being good regardless of whether the producers took 1, 2, 5, or 6 years to release a new one.
share