The Zone

by **Ribbons** on Sat Mar 28, 2015 12:45 pm

Still wary of this one, after the stuff that came out in the Sony leak. It sure looks pretty though. Fingers crossed.

by **so sorry** on Sat Mar 28, 2015 1:25 pm

Ribbons wrote:Still wary of this one, after the stuff that came out in the Sony leak. It sure looks pretty though. Fingers crossed.

More Skyfall shit? Is this incarnation of Bond ever going to have some fucking fun? So damn somber and meloncholy. Lighten up James.

by **Spandau Belly** on Sat Mar 28, 2015 4:20 pm

That trailer contains many of the things I dislike about modern action movies and none of things I like about James Bond films.

I'm sure the actual film will contain the requisite amounts of gambling, luxury, sex, and stunts to ensure that I am passably amused; but stringing it all together with a genealogy quest just rubs me the wrong way. Bond is not an introspective man. He's an imperialist. He doesn't mope around looking for an identity from his dead daddy, he just goes out and saves the fucking day. That's all.

Hopefully they were able to fix up that script that was being discussed as complete shit during those Sony leaks. And hopefully it avoids the Bond's-parents-worked-for-Oscorp shit that I'm smelling off this and finds a more original way to link Bond to SPECTRE than another revenge-for-murdered-loved-one plot.

The cinematography looks nice (as expected).

I am looking forward to this movie. But I've never been so worried that a Bond film is going to fuckup before.

Also, I know back when I saw SKYFALL, I remarked that Noami Harris is sorta too hot to be Moneypenny. It's not a big gripe or anything. But I would like Sally Hawkins as the next Moneypenny.

by **caruso_stalker217** on Sat Mar 28, 2015 5:33 pm

Spandau Belly wrote:I would like Sally Hawkins as the next Moneypenny.

Seconded.

by **Spandau Belly** on Tue Apr 07, 2015 12:57 pm

Christoph Waltz takes PR lessons from J.J. Abrams

by **Peven** on Tue Apr 07, 2015 1:36 pm

so sorry wrote:
Ribbons wrote:Still wary of this one, after the stuff that came out in the Sony leak. It sure looks pretty though. Fingers crossed.

More Skyfall shit? Is this incarnation of Bond ever going to have some fucking fun? So damn somber and meloncholy. Lighten up James.

aawww, do you miss Roger Moore? maybe they could recast Bond with the guy that plays Sheldon Cooper and that would please you? did you ever actually read a Bond novel? not very jokey

by **TheBaxter** on Tue Apr 07, 2015 3:17 pm

Peven wrote:
so sorry wrote:
Ribbons wrote:Still wary of this one, after the stuff that came out in the Sony leak. It sure looks pretty though. Fingers crossed.

More Skyfall shit? Is this incarnation of Bond ever going to have some fucking fun? So damn somber and meloncholy. Lighten up James.

aawww, do you miss Roger Moore? maybe they could recast Bond with the guy that plays Sheldon Cooper and that would please you? did you ever actually read a Bond novel? not very jokey

*knock knock knock* miss moneypenny? *knock knock knock* miss moneypenny? *knock knock knock* miss moneypenny?

by **so sorry** on Tue Apr 07, 2015 5:13 pm

Peven wrote:
so sorry wrote:
Ribbons wrote:Still wary of this one, after the stuff that came out in the Sony leak. It sure looks pretty though. Fingers crossed.

More Skyfall shit? Is this incarnation of Bond ever going to have some fucking fun? So damn somber and meloncholy. Lighten up James.

aawww, do you miss Roger Moore? maybe they could recast Bond with the guy that plays Sheldon Cooper and that would please you? did you ever actually read a Bond novel? not very jokey

What do the novels have to do with my enjoyment of the movies? I love the Connery Bond flicks most, never got into any of the other ones (although I've seen them all). Connery had the best mix of fun, adventure, action, humor, hot chicks, etc. Skyfall was forgettable to me, and I grew tired of all the back story stuff, as if I needed a "origin" movie for Bond.

by **Peven** on Tue Apr 07, 2015 11:17 pm

Connery Bond was dark, he slapped women around, he killed people without remorse, not even close to the jokey Charles Nelson Reilly version of lightweight Bond that Moore played. the current Bond is definitely much more like Connery Bond than Moore Bond, so when you say that you want more "fun" in Bond movies than the last couple you are implying that you prefer Moore Bond. at least, that is the common sense conclusion to your earlier statement.

by **caruso_stalker217** on Wed Apr 08, 2015 1:01 am

Moore had some pretty cold-blooded moments, when he wasn't running around dressed as a clown for some reason.

by **TheBaxter** on Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:36 am

Peven wrote:Connery Bond was dark, he slapped women around, he killed people without remorse, not even close to the jokey Charles Nelson Reilly version of lightweight Bond that Moore played. the current Bond is definitely much more like Connery Bond than Moore Bond, so when you say that you want more "fun" in Bond movies than the last couple you are implying that you prefer Moore Bond. at least, that is the common sense conclusion to your earlier statement.

actually, i think the common sense conclusion of his statement wanting a more fun Bond is... wanting a more fun Bond. that could be ANY of the previous Bonds, Connery or Moore or Dalton or Brosnan or Niven or probably even Lazenby. the current Daniel Craig version of the character is probably the least "fun", in any sense of the word, version of the character that's been filmed. and i say that as someone who personally really liked both casino royale and skyfall (the one in between sucked though). i can enjoy the films and even prefer them in a lot of ways to previous bond films while still acknowledging that they don't have the same fun factor as previous incarnations.

yeah, connery's bond had a dark side and did some rough things. but he also had a charm and mischievous quality that brought a lot more of the fun out of the character than craig's more dour take, and the overall tone of those films was a lot less grim. the two aren't mutually exclusive you know. you can have a fun film with a dark character, and you can have a fun film without necessarily being a farce or a silly joke-fest.

i felt like the end of skyfall implied we would be seeing a looser, freer, more "fun" bond in ensuing films. not sure if that's still the case or not, but it felt like that's what the previous film's ending was setting up.

by **Spandau Belly** on Wed Apr 08, 2015 8:19 am

I found Dalton to be the most joyless Bond. The guy is just a bummer to watch. Craig often comes across pouty and cranky, but at least he's engaged. Dalton just seems bored and embarassed. Dalton didn't even want to do the movies, and in my opinion it shows.

by **so sorry** on Wed Apr 08, 2015 8:34 am

Peven wrote:Connery Bond was dark

Couldn't disagree with you moore on that point. No, he wasn't campy like Moore, disinterested like Dalton, or Remington-Steele-ish like Brosnan, but he was still fun, playful, and a killer. THAT'S what I would like to see again.

by **Spandau Belly** on Wed Apr 08, 2015 9:19 am

I guess when I think of a "dark" character, I think of traits like being depressed, angry, bitter, spiteful or tormented by guilt or some sort of inner-conflict. None of that was how I saw Connery's Bond. Connery had a brutish physical presence and brought a level of physical intimidation that none of the other guys have had, but I wouldn't call that dark. Even though he wasn't the comedian that Moore was, he made his fair share of corny puns and he always seemed to be having fun and never taking any of it terribly personally.

by **Peven** on Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:05 pm

I don't think you guys have either read any Bond or seen any of the Connery Bond movies in toooo long.

so "dark" = angst?? according to that definition Twilight's main characters are all sorts of dark. Happy Gilmore is angry and bitter and tormented by guilt about the possibility of his grandmother losing her house. is he dark, too? shit, I thought a guy who cold-bloodedly slapped women around to get information, watched women die he had just fucked with little to no show of emotion, and killed people as casually as I pour a cup of coffee was dark. :roll:

by **TheBaxter** on Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:34 pm

Peven wrote:I don't think you guys have either read any Bond or seen any of the Connery Bond movies in toooo long.

so "dark" = angst?? according to that definition Twilight's main characters are all sorts of dark. Happy Gilmore is angry and bitter and tormented by guilt about the possibility of his grandmother losing her house. is he dark, too? shit, I thought a guy who cold-bloodedly slapped women around to get information, watched women die he had just fucked with little to no show of emotion, and killed people as casually as I pour a cup of coffee was dark.

you're the one who brought "dark" into this conversation. sosorry never said anything about wanting Bond to be less "dark." he said he wanted him to be less somber or melancholy. you're the one who made the leap from "somber and melancholy" to "dark" so if you don't like those concepts being conflated, you have only yourself to blame for it.

by **Spandau Belly** on Wed Apr 08, 2015 4:12 pm

Peven wrote:shit, I thought a guy who cold-bloodedly slapped women around to get information, watched women die he had just fucked with little to no show of emotion, and killed people as casually as I pour a cup of coffee was dark.

Um, Roger Moore does all the stuff you mention. He nearly breaks Maud Adams's arm in THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN to get information out of her. He's never shown to be remorseful for killing. Many of his murders are very cold and cruel. The way he kicks a helpless villain to his death in FOR YOUR EYES ONLY was for a long time considered the most cold-blooded of James Bond's on screen kills (some consider Brosnan's muder of Sophie Marceau in THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH to be colder).

So if you're going to say Connery is dark and Moore is light, then you'll need something other than cold-blooded kills and being rough with women to back it up because they both do all that stuff.

by **Peven** on Wed Apr 08, 2015 6:34 pm

one of the very first movies I ever saw in the theatre was "Live and Let Die", Moore's first Bond movie, and I was 5, maybe 6 at the time. damn, I thought that magnetic watch was cool, and the bullet that contained pressurized gas that literally blew up inside of a victim? like something out of a pg-13 rated Speed Buggy episode. I loved it. I grew up watching Moore's Bond and he was IT for me, the Connery Bond movies were too serious for my taste, too much like "grown-up" movies. the Moore Bond movies were fun, brightly lit, he cracked wise throughout the movie and especially after almost every kill. cartoonish characters like Jaws, almost like a live action cartoon. then I grew up and was able to appreciate the Connery Bond movies for being so much better than the Moore movies and now I can't watch Moore Bond movie without shredding it the whole way through, though that is fun in its own way.

point is, there is NO way you can say that there isn't a drastic change of tone between the Connery Bond movies and the Moore Bond movies, both in content and look. am I a nit-picker about terminology/language? yep, I confess, i am the son of an English/SS teacher. so to me "dark" is dark, and as a metaphorical description of someone that would seem to me to be an allusion to someone's essence, their nature, dark being the opposite of light and light being associated with kindness and compassion, with life, and so "darK" refers to coldness, cruelty, violence, death. being confused or feeling guilty or conflicted doesn't seem to me to coincide with a reference to being "dark", "goth" maybe but "goth" people aren't "dark"they are just whiney pessimists. actually the term "conflicted" itself is a much better adjective for that type of person, if you think about it.

as for Craig's Bond, he is most definitely dark, imo, and also has a little conflicted mixed in as well because I think Craig plays him as real and three dimensional as anyone has portrayed Bond to date. one could make the case that the both Moore and Connery were one-note Bonds, actually, and that Craig has brought more to the role than either of those guys did.

by **Spandau Belly** on Wed Apr 08, 2015 8:14 pm

Peven wrote:point is, there is NO way you can say that there isn't a drastic change of tone between the Connery Bond movies and the Moore Bond movies, both in content and look.

Well, actually there is a way I can say that and I am about to.

I realize most people subsribe to the outlook that Connery = FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE, Moore = MOONRAKER. But I find that very superficial. Both these guys had their gritty moments and their share of goofy cartoonish shit.

Sure, Jaws is a gimmicky cartoon henchman charater. But so is Oddjob. Both Moore and Connery make goofy puns after killing people or before fucking them. Both guys had the female characters with goofy sex names like Pussy Galore and Plenty O'Toole. None of it was ever real to me. The violence was always fun spectacle. It was never delivered with any sense of consequence (well, other than Diana Rigg's death in OHMSS). They're all escapist fun adolescent fantasies. None of them are adult espionage dramas like TINKER TAILOR SOLDIER SPY or MUNICH.

Yeah, Moore did star in a movie that is actually called OCTOPUSSY, a word that nobody can say with a straight face. So that earns him a special distinction. As actors, both guys have different styles. The producers say that the first two Moore ones were just done as though Connery was still in the role. Then they started tailoring the role to Moore's real life personality. So Bond got more of Moore's dry brand of humour.

The series did change a lot during Moore's run. And the producers tried different things to keep the series interesting and to compete with rival blockbusters. But when people make it out to be like Connery = Burton, Moore = Schumacher, I find that more untrue than true.

Peven wrote:am I a nit-picker about terminology/language? yep, I confess, i am the son of an English/SS teacher. so to me "dark" is dark, dark being the opposite of light and light being associated with kindness and compassion, with life, and so "darK" refers to coldness, cruelty, violence, death.

Well, I didn't have your mum/dad as my English teacher. Here's what Oxford has to say about it. They don't seem to have any trouble associating darkness with depression, pessimism, shame, anger etc. But they're cool with your definition, too.

by **caruso_stalker217** on Wed Apr 08, 2015 8:56 pm

These arguments are moot. No matter how many ways you slice it, DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER is still the shittiest Bond movie of all time.

And you've had your six.

by **Spandau Belly** on Thu Apr 09, 2015 8:56 am

Yeah, you're probably right on that one.

Roger Moore and Sean Connery have both made better Bond films than Daniel Craig, and they've both made worse Bond films than Daniel Craig.

by **caruso_stalker217** on Thu Apr 09, 2015 11:43 am

I would say it's tied with DIE ANOTHER DAY, but that one actually had a good first 30 minutes.

by **TheBaxter** on Thu Apr 09, 2015 1:50 pm

which one had Denise Richards in it? i'd guess that one was the worst one. any film with Denise Richards in it is a safe bet for the worst film of its kind (Wild Things excepted).

by **caruso_stalker217** on Thu Apr 09, 2015 4:26 pm

Denise Richards was in THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH. She's garbage in it, but I actually like the movie a lot.

by **Cpt Kirks 2pay** on Thu Apr 09, 2015 5:42 pm

Peven wrote:

so "dark" = angst?? according to that definition Twilight's main characters are all sorts of dark. Happy Gilmore is angry and bitter and tormented by guilt about the possibility of his grandmother losing her house. is he dark, too? shit, I thought a guy who cold-bloodedly slapped women around to get information, watched women die he had just fucked with little to no show of emotion, and killed people as casually as I pour a cup of coffee was dark.

I completely agree with Peven.

by **Peven** on Thu Apr 09, 2015 9:09 pm

Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote:
Peven wrote:

so "dark" = angst?? according to that definition Twilight's main characters are all sorts of dark. Happy Gilmore is angry and bitter and tormented by guilt about the possibility of his grandmother losing her house. is he dark, too? shit, I thought a guy who cold-bloodedly slapped women around to get information, watched women die he had just fucked with little to no show of emotion, and killed people as casually as I pour a cup of coffee was dark.

I completely agree with Peven.

do you people need any more proof that I am right than THAT??? :-P

by **TheBaxter** on Fri Apr 10, 2015 10:53 am

Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote:
Peven wrote:

so "dark" = angst?? according to that definition Twilight's main characters are all sorts of dark. Happy Gilmore is angry and bitter and tormented by guilt about the possibility of his grandmother losing her house. is he dark, too? shit, I thought a guy who cold-bloodedly slapped women around to get information, watched women die he had just fucked with little to no show of emotion, and killed people as casually as I pour a cup of coffee was dark.

I completely agree with Peven.

i always suspected you were a Twihard, but a Happy Gilmore fan as well? that's a surprise.

by **TheButcher** on Tue Jun 02, 2015 10:22 pm

James Bond Distribution Rights Coming Up For Grabs (EXCLUSIVE)
Who Will Win the Rights to the Bond Franchise?

by **so sorry** on Wed Jul 22, 2015 10:09 am

Trailer. Looks pretty badass, but then again, most Bond trailers do an awesome job of getting me pumped for the movie.

The only thing I can tell you about the last three Craig-Bond flicks is that I don't remember shit from them other than some basics...he gets his balls beat in, he was an heir to a castle in the mud, he bangs Eva Green, a building collapses on her I think? Point is, the last three Bonds have been fogettable (for ME), despite being intrigued by the trailers.

BUT, its Bond, so there's a good chance I'll check it out. Looks like they have a new "oddjob" bad guy, and Chistopher Waltz was literally born to play evil dudes, so he fits perfectly as Blofeld.

by **Fried Gold** on Wed Jul 22, 2015 11:27 am

so sorry wrote:Chistopher Waltz was literally born to play evil dudes, so he fits perfectly as Blofeld.

As I understand it, he really might not actually be playing Blofeld even if this trailer suggests he is. Think Iron Man 3 and what happened with The Mandarin.

by **Peven** on Wed Jul 22, 2015 2:25 pm

I like it a lot, looks badass. may as well buy my ticket now

by **TheButcher** on Thu Jul 23, 2015 12:14 am

Why Sam Mendes will make a third James Bond movie (even if he doesn't know it)
No matter what the director says now, there are reasons he's likely to return

by **Spandau Belly** on Fri Jul 24, 2015 10:36 am

I agree with sosorry. It's pretty hard to make a bad trailer for a Bond movie. Show a bunch of stunts, locations, women; play the theme music and you're good.

A self-confessed Roger Moore fan, Mendes started to ease the humour back into this series with the last one. SKYFALL featured a couple groantastic puns and the Roger Moore homage with komodo dragons made me smile. It looks like Bond's being more of a smartass again here, which I appreciate. I don't know if that smirk was CGI, but it did the job.

During the Craig run they keep trying to explain Bond or make him this deep character and giving him personal reasons for his actions. So far it just feels like they've half-committed to a bunch of clichés because they saw them work (better) in other recent popular movies. So after vengeful bereaved lover and tortured orphan, it looks like they're now going with trying to make Bond into some sort of "chosen one". Like I've said before, I don't really care for any of this.

The Craig ones have all been entertaining, although nothing special. I'll probably have a good time at this one, too.

by **so sorry** on Fri Jul 24, 2015 10:55 am

Spandau Belly wrote:During the Craig run they keep trying to explain Bond or make him this deep character and giving him personal reasons for his actions. So far it just feels like they've half-committed to a bunch of clichés because they saw them work (better) in other recent popular movies. So after vengeful bereaved lover and tortured orphan, it looks like they're now going with trying to make Bond into some sort of "chosen one". Like I've said before, I don't really care for any of this.

Maybe Bond is supposed to be Spectre's deep deep deep sleeper agent?

by **Ribbons** on Fri Jul 24, 2015 12:17 pm

Spandau Belly wrote:During the Craig run they keep trying to explain Bond or make him this deep character and giving him personal reasons for his actions. So far it just feels like they've half-committed to a bunch of clichés because they saw them work (better) in other recent popular movies. So after vengeful bereaved lover and tortured orphan, it looks like they're now going with trying to make Bond into some sort of "chosen one".

You know things are dire when they're taking a page from The Amazing Spider-Man's playbook.

by **so sorry** on Fri Jul 24, 2015 12:56 pm

Ribbons wrote:
Spandau Belly wrote:During the Craig run they keep trying to explain Bond or make him this deep character and giving him personal reasons for his actions. So far it just feels like they've half-committed to a bunch of clichés because they saw them work (better) in other recent popular movies. So after vengeful bereaved lover and tortured orphan, it looks like they're now going with trying to make Bond into some sort of "chosen one".

You know things are dire when they're taking a page from The Amazing Spider-Man's playbook.

Peter Parker was a vengeful bereaved lover?

by **Ribbons** on Fri Jul 24, 2015 3:21 pm

A bereaved one, anyway

by **TheButcher** on Fri Oct 09, 2015 2:18 am

Daniel Craig: I'd Rather "Slash My Wrists" Than Return as James Bond

Graeme McMillan wrote:In an honest interview in which the actor admits that he "begged" director Sam Mendes to return after 2012's Skyfall, Craig says that playing the British secret agent was "a drag." ("The best acting is when you're not concerned about the surface," he explains, "and Bond is the opposite of that. You have to be bothered about how you're looking.") Craig added that he hadn't given a potential return to the role any real consideration so far.

"For at least a year or two, I just don’t want to think about it," he says. "I don’t know what the next step is. I’ve no idea. Not because I’m trying to be cagey. Who the f— knows? At the moment, we’ve done it. I’m not in discussion with anybody about anything. If I did another Bond movie, it would only be for the money."

Not that Craig is entirely divorced from the responsibility of being Bond, however. "All I care about is that if I stop doing these things, we’ve left it in a good place and people pick it up and make it better," he says before later, adding that his advice to any future Bond would be to "just make sure you’re great. You’ve got to push yourself as far as you can. It’s worth it, it’s James Bond."

by **caruso_stalker217** on Fri Oct 09, 2015 3:49 am

Is anyone going to see this? This might be the last theatrical release I get to see before a baby drops out of my wife.

by **Ribbons** on Fri Oct 09, 2015 1:37 pm

I'm probably going to see it in theaters, yeah

by **TheButcher** on Sat Oct 10, 2015 4:51 am

Yeah. I want to see the part with the helicopter.

How Sony Could Lose James Bond After Bloated 'Spectre' (Analysis)
The film, with a $250 million-plus budget, marks the last in a deal with MGM, which is expected to court many distributors as a major franchise could change hands.

by **Ribbons** on Thu Nov 05, 2015 7:18 pm

Crappy! Fillllm. Crappy! Fillllm. Dunh dunh dunh dunh!

This movie's almost Rotten! Something something James Bond:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/spectre_2015/

by **caruso_stalker217** on Fri Nov 06, 2015 2:21 pm

To be honest, the lukewarm response has me wanting to see this even more. I've more or less liked every Bond movie, with the exception of DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER and DIE ANOTHER DAY. Also there were some bland fucking Roger Moore entries in the early '80s. FOR YOUR EYES ONLY was probably the worst of that era. OCTOPUSSY at least had some enjoyably goofy shit in it.

So I guess I'm hoping this errs more on the side of Daniel Craig dressed as a clown trying to avert a nuclear catastrophe at the circus.

by **Ribbons** on Fri Nov 06, 2015 3:50 pm

It hasn't changed my plans to see it at all. If Skyfall --which I didn't really like -- is any indication, the film will at least be beautiful

by **TheButcher** on Fri Nov 06, 2015 5:02 pm

What happens when everyone decides to make James Bond movies at once?
'Kingsman,' 'UNCLE,' and 'SPECTRE' are all aiming at the same iconography

Moriarty wrote:It seems appropriate that Matthew Vaughn and Guy Ritchie began their film careers working together, and that they each seem to have helped define the British film industry now for sixteen years, because this year, both have decided to take on the most British of all British subjects… James Bond.

SPECTRE Review: Bond Betrayed

DEVIN FARACI wrote: One part Star Trek Into Darkness rehash, one part Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation rehash, one part artless cash-in on Edward Snowden, Spectre sluggishly (and often illogically) trudges from location to location, occasionally stopping to have a poorly edited action sequence and/or have Bond fuck somebody.

This review contains spoilers.

by **TheButcher** on Fri Nov 06, 2015 5:07 pm

SPECTRE Review: James Bond Goes Fourth
Daniel Craig’s quaternary outing as 007 maintains the franchise tradition of being an overstuffed, mixed bag.

PHIL NOBILE JR. wrote:Tradition, trend or curse, each 007 actor’s fourth entry has been a bloated, sometimes wrongheaded collection of “greatest hits” Bond moments, and it is with great regret we must report the phenomenon is alive and unwell in SPECTRE.

This review contains spoilers.

SPECTRE Isn’t Daniel Craig’s Last Bond Movie

DEVIN FARACI wrote:The problem is that Craig signed a new contract in 2012 that tied him up for both Spectre and whatever comes next. He's got five films on his contract, which means he has one more remaining. His contract also leaves open the possibility of re-upping, but I bet he just goes to five and is done with it.

by **TheButcher** on Fri Nov 06, 2015 5:23 pm

'Spectre' Producer Expects Daniel Craig to Return for Another Bond Movie
Michael G. Wilson says he believes a new distributor for the film franchise will be chosen from among three suitors by February.

Stephen Galloway wrote:"I think we've got Daniel Craig," Wilson tells The Hollywood Reporter in an interview, waving aside the actor's recent protestations that he was through with the role. Wilson makes a comparison to director Sam Mendes, who said he was done with Bond after 2012's Skyfall, only to return for Spectre. "[Mendes] said they were never going to make the picture again, and he told the press that."

Asked if Craig was legally bound to do another Bond film, however, Wilson acknowledges: "We don't have a contract."

Daniel Craig: "Maybe I'll Make Another" James Bond Film
Daniel Craig also confirmed he wrecked "three or four" Aston Martins while filming 'Spectre.'

His Exit Interview? ‘Spectre’s Sam Mendes On His Role In The Dramatic Transformation Of James Bond

Mike Fleming Jr wrote:DEADLINE: Daniel Craig owes one more movie, but was blunt in describing how unappealing another 007 would be for him in an interview just after the movie ended. Was this like asking as woman just out of the delivery room if she wants to have another baby?

MENDES: Yeah. Or my analogy is, you’re running your first marathon, and 200 yards from the finish line, some guy shouts, “Are you going to run another one straight away?” I get why Daniel responded the way he did. Again, a two-word answer is what springs to mind.

DEADLINE: It has made the “will they come back” question the recurring narrative in Spectre launch coverage. You’ve dodged it pretty well, but let me ask you this. After Skyfall, you both said much the same thing, that you’d had enough. And then you both came back for Spectre. What’s different now?

MENDES: Did Daniel say he’s had enough after Skyfall? I’m not sure.

DEADLINE: Well, I think he says it after every movie.

MENDES: You’re probably right. He might say it, after every scene. It’s a daily occurrence. This is why his comments get misjudged. I’d put it this way. Daniel leaves everything on the field. Every piece of him is out there and he’s so spent when he’s finished that it’s obviously the wrong time to ask, the day after he’s finished, which is what happened. The pronouncements after the last movie were taken seriously and I then had to undo them when I agreed to make this movie. Without giving too much away, the difference here for me is, this movie draws together all four of Daniel’s movies into one final story, and he completes a journey. That wasn’t the case last time. There is a sense of completeness that wasn’t there at the end of Skyfall, and that’s what makes this feel different. It feels like there’s a rightness to it, that I have finished a journey. I’m not talking about Daniel here because Daniel may absolutely turn around six months’ time and feel his energy renewed. Or he might say just the opposite. If he is as sensible as I think he is, he needs to go away and have some time to think and do another job that’s completely different, which he’s already doing with Othello.

by **TheButcher** on Sat Nov 07, 2015 1:09 am

This article contains spoilers.
Spectre: 9 burning Bond questions we need answers to right now
What happened to The One Ring

EMMA DIBDIN wrote:5. Who is 009?

We know that he was assigned the Aston Martin DB10 which Bond commandeered, and that his taste in music makes Bond grimace. It's pretty rare that we hear anything at all about another 00 agent - the last time being Sean Bean's double-crossing 006 in Goldeneye, so to have 009 fleshed out even this much is significant. Is 009 the campy yin to Bond's gritty yang – a winking, wisecracking agent in the Roger Moore mould?

Aficionados will remember that Bond replaced 009 following the latter's death in Octopussy, but we're going to go out on a limb and say the Sam Mendes incarnation of 009 probably wouldn't have been dressed as a clown, had we got to meet him. Maybe in the next movie, we'll find ou

by **TheButcher** on Sun Nov 08, 2015 3:56 am

SPECTRE casts no dark specter upon James Bond!
It's absolutely terrific fun!

Harry wrote:Today I saw SPECTRE, like I have done most every James Bond film I’ve ever seen, in the company of my Father. The first long movie line that Father Geek ever stood in was for GOLDFINGER and he’s been attending these action adventure spy films from DR. NO forward. He raised me to believe Sean Connery was the one true Bond, but I grew up loving Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton, George Lazenby… and I really wanted to love Pierce Brosnan’s BOND, but never felt the writing was on par with his casting.

My big desire for the Daniel Craig BOND series was the introduction of SPECTRE. I adore SPECTRE. As an organization of EVIL, it’s the cat’s pajamas! And boy did I let out a little squeal when I saw that Pussy!

Welcome to Spoilerville.
So when the title SPECTRE was released - and the casting of Christophe Waltz announced - and we were told, He’s not Blofeld, well that was totally a JJ. Of course he’s Blofeld - and that’s really not a big deal, because it is a huge deal because we’re getting THE ORIGIN OF BLOFELD in our SPECTRE movie - and that’s exactly what I wanted from this. We get to see him get his scar and possibly his injury that places him in his wheelchair. They get a bit Tim Burton/Joker origin tied to Bruce Wayne for my tastes, but fine… In a galaxy far far away they’d be blood relatives. But a Bond film called SPECTRE, without the origin of Blofeld would be profoundly disappointing to me.

Moreso, we learn that behind everything that Craig’s Bond has been involved - has had it’s strings pulled by SPECTRE. Now, I know - you’re used to stand alone BOND films - but that’s kinda bullshit, cuz usually - SPECTRE is behind everyone and everything. That’s what super secret evil organizations do. Profit from tragedy. I’ve seen some writers bitch that Waltz’s Blofeld toys with Bond instead of killing him.

BRACE YOURSELF FOR ONE OF THE DUMBEST "TWISTS" IN MOVIE HISTORY
'SPECTRE' manages to majorly muddy Daniel Craig's James Bond legacy

Moriarty wrote:"SPECTRE" is entirely mediocre. It's no "Moonraker" or "A View To A Kill," so for that reason alone, some Bond fans will shrug off all criticism. That's fine, except with "Casino Royale," the producers made a huge mistake. They made it too well. They have tried, with this Daniel Craig run of films, to elevate the Bond movies so they are more than just acceptably silly spy movies, and one of the reasons "SPECTRE" is so frustrating is because it feels like the collapse of that ambition, and it is in one moment that you can see the entire thing burn to the ground.

So let's talk about that moment. Yes, this is a spoiler. Yes, this is "the" spoiler.But in this context, we're talking about a different kind of spoiling. When Bond and This Season's Fleshlight arrive at SPECTRE's surprisingly easy to find sort-of-homage-to-the-volcano-lair in the middle of nowhere, Oberhauser picks them up at the train station and then just drives them right into the base. Everyone is so set in their part that Bond practically hops up onto the torture table himself. First, though, there's some monologuing and a big "reveal" that should come as a surprise to absolutely no one. Yes, Oberhauser is indeed Ernst Stavro Blofeld, but just like in "Star Trek Into Darkness," all of the name games seem pointless. Blofeld has no value as a name to any character in the film. It's just a pseudonym that Oberhauser started using after he faked his own death when he murdered his father. And why did he murder his father?

Here's where I have to grit my teeth to even type something so stupid: the reason that Oberhauser became a criminal mastermind in charge of an international organization that is involved in human trafficking, drugs, terrorism, and myriad other destructive crimes is because when James Bond's parents died, Bond was sent to live with the Oberhausers, and Papa Oberhauser decided he liked James Bond better than he liked his real son, Franz.

by **Ribbons** on Sun Nov 08, 2015 2:29 pm

So, in the wake of some of these negative SPECTRE reviews I have a larger question: is the spy genre broken?

A lot of people have expressed frustration that this is the second (arguably the third) Bond movie in a row where he goes rogue and is being hunted by both henchmen and his own superiors. But if you take a look around at other "spy" franchises, this is nothing new. Mission: Impossible has had some version of this plot in I think every installment, and rebelling against The Man is pretty much what the Bourne series is all about. At this point it's become a tiresome cliche, but is it so pervasive because we as a culture are fundamentally incapable of rooting for a Company Man?