Stout

Hold onto the ball, Murray!
Joined
Dec 30, 2002
Posts
37,902
Reaction score
20,495
Location
Pittsburgh, PA--Enemy territory!
Now that makes sense. I agree. If they just "retire" the James Bond name (maybe that is what Stout was saying) and this continues as just 007? Yeah that would suck. In that case it should be a new franchise but it really can't be separate unless you plan on letting James Bond sit for awhile. You couldn't have two franchises where different agents use the 007 number. It would have to be a completely different thing unless you let the original rest.

James Bond is James Bond. Hell I would rather they do some long lost daughter type thing and call her Jane Bond or something like that. Again it would be a different franchise though.

I think this is Craig's last one. If so, recast the character and keep moving along.

Exactly. But, for your second point, I disagree vigorously. If I ever see a preview with a Jane Bond that's a serious thing, I'm done forever. When I say different franchise, I don't mean different "this universe" franchise, I mean make a different franchise period. I'm all for differential casting, but Jane Bond would be the ultimate PC stupidity.
 

Covert Rain

Father smelt of elderberries!
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2005
Posts
33,988
Reaction score
11,803
Location
Arizona
Exactly. But, for your second point, I disagree vigorously. If I ever see a preview with a Jane Bond that's a serious thing, I'm done forever. When I say different franchise, I don't mean different "this universe" franchise, I mean make a different franchise period. I'm all for differential casting, but Jane Bond would be the ultimate PC stupidity.

That's what I was suggesting. A different franchise. I wouldn't want them to be disconnected though. That crap never works. However, a different focus on characters could work if it was done right. I could watch that.

By the way I was being a bit facetious about "Jane Bond". I was simply saying if they did a spinoff that would be one way to go. Not that it would be where I want them to go.

I just disagree that if they decided to go with a new female lead for James Bond in the future you should assume it's just to be PC. I mean the same could be said about hiring Idris in the future. That's not to say that it wouldn't be a factor but at the end of the day I only care about two things. Script and acting ability. I don't give a damn who plays the part.

People getting worked up about about a female 007 for this film who is not playing James Bond just seems silly.
 

Stout

Hold onto the ball, Murray!
Joined
Dec 30, 2002
Posts
37,902
Reaction score
20,495
Location
Pittsburgh, PA--Enemy territory!
That's what I was suggesting. A different franchise. I wouldn't want them to be disconnected though. That crap never works. However, a different focus on characters could work if it was done right. I could watch that.

By the way I was being a bit facetious about "Jane Bond". I was simply saying if they did a spinoff that would be one way to go. Not that it would be where I want them to go.

I just disagree that if they decided to go with a new female lead for James Bond in the future you should assume it's just to be PC. I mean the same could be said about hiring Idris in the future. That's not to say that it wouldn't be a factor but at the end of the day I only care about two things. Script and acting ability. I don't give a damn who plays the part.

People getting worked up about about a female 007 for this film who is not playing James Bond just seems silly.

Agreed to an extent on your last point. My only problem with it is it's only a female 007 FOR NOW. They're testing the waters for Jane Bond, mark my word. And I don't care what script or actor you use, Jane Bond would absolutely be stupid and intrinsically change the character, as would making James Bond gay. Like it or not, James Bond is a male womanizer. He had a taste of love, and it spurned him. Certain things, you just can't change in a character.

You and I have different ideas on what a different franchise is. Different franchise = NOTHING to do with ANYTHING from the Bondverse, in what I'm saying. 007 is in the Bondverse. I'm saying, instead of the stupid Jane Bond, just make a female-led spy franchise, not a female 007 franchise.
 

Chaplin

Better off silent
Joined
May 13, 2002
Posts
44,681
Reaction score
14,141
Location
Round Rock, TX
Agreed to an extent on your last point. My only problem with it is it's only a female 007 FOR NOW. They're testing the waters for Jane Bond, mark my word. And I don't care what script or actor you use, Jane Bond would absolutely be stupid and intrinsically change the character, as would making James Bond gay. Like it or not, James Bond is a male womanizer. He had a taste of love, and it spurned him. Certain things, you just can't change in a character.

You and I have different ideas on what a different franchise is. Different franchise = NOTHING to do with ANYTHING from the Bondverse, in what I'm saying. 007 is in the Bondverse. I'm saying, instead of the stupid Jane Bond, just make a female-led spy franchise, not a female 007 franchise.
The Bondverse isn’t that unique anymore.
 

Covert Rain

Father smelt of elderberries!
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2005
Posts
33,988
Reaction score
11,803
Location
Arizona
Agreed to an extent on your last point. My only problem with it is it's only a female 007 FOR NOW. They're testing the waters for Jane Bond, mark my word. And I don't care what script or actor you use, Jane Bond would absolutely be stupid and intrinsically change the character, as would making James Bond gay. Like it or not, James Bond is a male womanizer. He had a taste of love, and it spurned him. Certain things, you just can't change in a character.

You and I have different ideas on what a different franchise is. Different franchise = NOTHING to do with ANYTHING from the Bondverse, in what I'm saying. 007 is in the Bondverse. I'm saying, instead of the stupid Jane Bond, just make a female-led spy franchise, not a female 007 franchise.

No no. I didn’t mean change James Bond into Jane Bond. I meant it would be a spin-off idea only. Something connected but separate characters. Again I was being a bit facetious in that I was just saying you could do a spin-off in a number of ways that I would watch if the movie was high quality.

I think the very idea is doing something not connected even loosely is the worst of bad ideas. The MCU did it right. DCU did not.

There is no way they use 007 with both franchises going at the same time. So I am not worried about that one bit.
 
OP
OP
Brian in Mesa

Brian in Mesa

Advocatus Diaboli
Super Moderator
Moderator
Supporting Member
Joined
May 13, 2002
Posts
70,447
Reaction score
20,928
Location
The Dark Side
xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media
 
OP
OP
Brian in Mesa

Brian in Mesa

Advocatus Diaboli
Super Moderator
Moderator
Supporting Member
Joined
May 13, 2002
Posts
70,447
Reaction score
20,928
Location
The Dark Side
xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media
 

Stout

Hold onto the ball, Murray!
Joined
Dec 30, 2002
Posts
37,902
Reaction score
20,495
Location
Pittsburgh, PA--Enemy territory!
Okay, the trailer was pretty darn good. My interest level still hasn't risen too high, but I do have AMC Stubs, so it's gone from a no to a maybe.

Man, how BAD did the last movie have to be to have erased the excitement Skyfall brought me in this franchise?
 

Cheesebeef

ASFN IDOL
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2003
Posts
88,125
Reaction score
60,431
that's a sick trailer. hope Craig goes out on a high because Moore (A View To A Kill) and Brosnan (Die Another Day) went out with massive stinkbombs.
 

puckhead

Waxing Gibbous
Moderator
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2005
Posts
15,980
Reaction score
14,198
Location
Moment, AZ
xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

Not bad.
 

Covert Rain

Father smelt of elderberries!
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2005
Posts
33,988
Reaction score
11,803
Location
Arizona
that's a sick trailer. hope Craig goes out on a high because Moore (A View To A Kill) and Brosnan (Die Another Day) went out with massive stinkbombs.

Sean Connery as well. Many fans hated Never Say Never. Critics liked it slightly better but I know so many die hards that hated that movie. I always liked it.
 
OP
OP
Brian in Mesa

Brian in Mesa

Advocatus Diaboli
Super Moderator
Moderator
Supporting Member
Joined
May 13, 2002
Posts
70,447
Reaction score
20,928
Location
The Dark Side
Sean Connery as well. Many fans hated Never Say Never. Critics liked it slightly better but I know so many die hards that hated that movie. I always liked it.

Well, technically, it is not considered part of the canon of the Bond film franchise. No Time To Die is being promoted as the 25th Bond film because Casino Royale (1967) and Never Say Never Again (1983) are not included in the count.

Connery's last official Bond film was Diamonds Are Forever.
 

Covert Rain

Father smelt of elderberries!
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2005
Posts
33,988
Reaction score
11,803
Location
Arizona
Well, technically, it is not considered part of the canon of the Bond film franchise. No Time To Die is being promoted as the 25th Bond film because Casino Royale (1967) and Never Say Never Again (1983) are not included in the count.

Connery's last official Bond film was Diamonds Are Forever.

Meh...it's only considered not part of canon because of legal wrangling. It's still a Bond film. It's his last turn as that character. I liken it to when another studio does the same movie (i.e. Spiderman) but it doesn't have creative control (i.e. Marvel). Except it was EON not having creative control this time. Whatever, it's still James Bond. The original Casino Royale was a parody so I don't put them in the same category at all.
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
Brian in Mesa

Brian in Mesa

Advocatus Diaboli
Super Moderator
Moderator
Supporting Member
Joined
May 13, 2002
Posts
70,447
Reaction score
20,928
Location
The Dark Side
Meh...it's only considered not part of canon because of legal wrangling. It's still a Bond film. It's his last turn as that character. I liken it to when another studio does the same movie (i.e. Spiderman) but it doesn't have creative control (i.e. Marvel). Except it was EON not having creative control this time. Whatever, it's still James Bond. The original Casino Royale was a parody so I don't put them in the same category at all.

And Never Say Never Again is a just a remake of Thunderball. :shrug:
 

Covert Rain

Father smelt of elderberries!
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2005
Posts
33,988
Reaction score
11,803
Location
Arizona
And Never Say Never Again is a just a remake of Thunderball. :shrug:

So? How does that make it not a Bond film or not Connery playing Bond? It was an attempt to actually tell a real Ian Flemming story. The original Casino Royale was just making fun of it and was a parody. Not remotely the same thing.
 
OP
OP
Brian in Mesa

Brian in Mesa

Advocatus Diaboli
Super Moderator
Moderator
Supporting Member
Joined
May 13, 2002
Posts
70,447
Reaction score
20,928
Location
The Dark Side
So? How does that make it not a Bond film or not Connery playing Bond? It was an attempt to actually tell a real Ian Flemming story. The original Casino Royale was just making fun of it and was a parody. Not remotely the same thing.

They're both unofficial Bond films and not included with the rest. All in all it makes perfect sense that these two are left out of the continuity. You have 25 official films on one hand (all made by EON). Then, in the other, you have one parody and one remake (neither made by EON). It's not rocket science.

One is a satire made by someone who bought the rights directly from Ian Fleming himself. Don't want it made - don't sell the rights. Same as Marvel selling off the rights to their characters and then struggling to bring their universe together once superhero films took off. In the end, they bought the rights from Fleming and could make it whatever they wanted, but also EON has the right to say it doesn't belong.

The other is a remake made by a producer (who, along with a scriptwriter) were left uncredited by Ian Fleming when he took an abandoned script they had all worked on and turned it into the novel Thunderball. The producer sued Fleming, battled in courts for many years, and eventually the producer won the ability to create "his" movie, which ultimately is a Thunderball remake because it was the same source material they had all collaborated on years earlier. It's Bond without many of the elements or actors from the Bond universe (from the EON films). Certain things had to be changed for legal reasons - no gun barrel sequence, no Bond theme music, different actors in prominent supporting roles, etc.

Another thing these two films are responsible for is the inability of EON to make a serious version of Casino Royale for many years or to reintroduce Spectre and Blofield - until they acquired the rights in legal battles and/or settlements with trustees and heirs.
 

Covert Rain

Father smelt of elderberries!
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2005
Posts
33,988
Reaction score
11,803
Location
Arizona
They're both unofficial Bond films and not included with the rest. All in all it makes perfect sense that these two are left out of the continuity. You have 25 official films on one hand (all made by EON). Then, in the other, you have one parody and one remake (neither made by EON). It's not rocket science.

One is a satire made by someone who bought the rights directly from Ian Fleming himself. Don't want it made - don't sell the rights. Same as Marvel selling off the rights to their characters and then struggling to bring their universe together once superhero films took off. In the end, they bought the rights from Fleming and could make it whatever they wanted, but also EON has the right to say it doesn't belong.

The other is a remake made by a producer (who, along with a scriptwriter) were left uncredited by Ian Fleming when he took an abandoned script they had all worked on and turned it into the novel Thunderball. The producer sued Fleming, battled in courts for many years, and eventually the producer won the ability to create "his" movie, which ultimately is a Thunderball remake because it was the same source material they had all collaborated on years earlier. It's Bond without many of the elements or actors from the Bond universe (from the EON films). Certain things had to be changed for legal reasons - no gun barrel sequence, no Bond theme music, different actors in prominent supporting roles, etc.

Another thing these two films are responsible for is the inability of EON to make a serious version of Casino Royale for many years or to reintroduce Spectre and Blofield - until they acquired the rights in legal battles and/or settlements with trustees and heirs.

Who cares if they were made by EON? That's not what makes something a Bond film or not. It's the characters and story. You are right. Not rocket science at all. You think I care in my Bond collection that EON made the film or not? I don't. Just like I don't care who made the Hulk or that Sony made the Tobey McGuire Spiderman movies. They are part of my collection of films with those characters. Never Say Never will always be in my Bond collection.

Honestly, don't know why you are so stuck on who made the films and want to pretend like it doesn't exist. These things happen. Fights over rights and things are nothing new. Marvel has been dealing with it the past several years with Universal, Sony and Fox. Just because a bunch of people couldn't get their crap together and work things out which caused a legal issue somehow means the films never existed? That SC never played the part or did the movie? Yeah it would have been cool if that stuff never happened but it did.

OK, so it's not canon. We don't disagree. Doesn't change the fact he played James Bond in one last James Bond film. I have read many interviews and recall one where he talks about coming back to play the part one last time. He considers it his last Bond film. Roger Moore and SC were actually friends and discussed how the studios were going to pit their movies against each other since they were playing the same part. They wanted no part in the petty squabbles and agreed they were both playing the character in their respective films. They even had a joint epic party from what I remember reading.
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
Brian in Mesa

Brian in Mesa

Advocatus Diaboli
Super Moderator
Moderator
Supporting Member
Joined
May 13, 2002
Posts
70,447
Reaction score
20,928
Location
The Dark Side
Who cares if they were made by EON? That's not what makes something a Bond film or not. It's the characters and story. You are right. Not rocket science at all. You think I care in my Bond collection that EON made the film or not? I don't. Just like I don't care who made the Hulk or that Sony made the Tobey McGuire Spiderman movies. They are part of my collection of films with those characters. Never Say Never will always be in my Bond collection.

Honestly, don't know why you are so stuck on who made the films and want to pretend like it doesn't exist. These things happen. Fights over rights and things are nothing new. Marvel has been dealing with it the past several years with Universal, Sony and Fox. Just because a bunch of people couldn't get their crap together and work things out which caused a legal issue somehow means the films never existed? That SC never played the part or did the movie? Yeah it would have been cool if that stuff never happened but it did.

OK, so it's not canon. We don't disagree. Doesn't change the fact he played James Bond in one last James Bond film. I have read many interviews and recall one where he talks about coming back to play the part one last time. He considers it his last Bond film. Roger Moore and SC were actually friends and discussed how the studios were going to pit their movies against each other since they were playing the same part. They wanted no part in the petty squabbles and agreed they were both playing the character in their respective films. They even had a joint epic party from what I remember reading.

You're preaching to the choir, I was just explaining the difference. BOTH Never Say Never Again and the original Casino Royale are technically Bond films. They're simply different adaptations of the same source material.

It's like the Star Wars EU (Expanded Universe). Those are and always will be considered official Star Wars books by fans even though they were dismissed (no longer canon) by Disney once they purchased the rights from Lucas. (Personally, I wish we'd have seen a sequel trilogy before a prequel trilogy while the original cast was still much younger and could have pulled off the Thrawn trilogy, for example).
 

Covert Rain

Father smelt of elderberries!
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2005
Posts
33,988
Reaction score
11,803
Location
Arizona
You're preaching to the choir, I was just explaining the difference. BOTH Never Say Never Again and the original Casino Royale are technically Bond films. They're simply different adaptations of the same source material.

It's like the Star Wars EU (Expanded Universe). Those are and always will be considered official Star Wars books by fans even though they were dismissed (no longer canon) by Disney once they purchased the rights from Lucas. (Personally, I wish we'd have seen a sequel trilogy before a prequel trilogy while the original cast was still much younger and could have pulled off the Thrawn trilogy, for example).

Not to get off on a tangent but honestly, if they are going back in time again? The only thing I want to see an adaptation of Knights of the old Republic (or something in that era).
 
OP
OP
Brian in Mesa

Brian in Mesa

Advocatus Diaboli
Super Moderator
Moderator
Supporting Member
Joined
May 13, 2002
Posts
70,447
Reaction score
20,928
Location
The Dark Side
Release of James Bond film No Time To Die delayed amid coronavirus fears

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-51744374


The release of the new James Bond film has been put back by seven months as coronavirus continues to spread.

The producers said they had moved the release of No Time To Die from April to November after "careful consideration and thorough evaluation of the global theatrical marketplace".

The announcement comes days after the founders of two 007 fan sites called on the film studios to delay its release.

It will now come out in the UK on 12 November, and in the US on 25 November.
 

Stout

Hold onto the ball, Murray!
Joined
Dec 30, 2002
Posts
37,902
Reaction score
20,495
Location
Pittsburgh, PA--Enemy territory!
OMG!!!!

So dumb.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

Not really--not from the studio perspective, anyway. The global box office will tank with Chinese theaters closed. For us? Yeah, it's pretty dumb. I'd been half convinced to watch it, but now? Probably not. Go suck up to China some more, and ignore the American audience. Two can play that game.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
534,858
Posts
5,246,908
Members
6,274
Latest member
G-PA
Top