New SPECTRE Production Still Sees 007 In A Tight Spot

Still think he'll end up being Blofield

Finally?? We've always known that...where the hell have you been???

Oh... did we know that? ha, sorry

This has been known since the cast announcement, man.

...Why was Chris Waltz's part in the article removed, and the article's name completely changed?

@SuperDude001 Oh, alright. Didn't know, Thanks

Can't [frick]ing wait for Spectre!!!!!!!

Batista bout to hit that:

On Bond

@napoleonwilson

Bellucci won't be in this more than 15 minutes. Léa Seydoux is the main Bond girl here.

Lea Seydoux in that dress though.



Also to a bit of a lesser extent, Bautista in that vest and Craig in that dinner jacket!

But yeah, mostly Ms. Seydoux. Wow.

That should say "effectively neutralizes"

@KNIGHT3000 I know you didn't mention the code name thing, but that's a fairly popular fan-theory that attempts to say that ALL the James Bond movies are somehow connected and in the same continuity. You were saying something along the same lines as that, so I thought it appropriate to bring up.

"As for Craig's run as Bond, you mean to tell me that after 2 Missions/Adventures, Bond is suddenly outed as "old", that too is ridiculous."

I totally agree that it's ridiculous, but that's a failure on Sam Mendes' part. It's not some elaborate conspiratorial scheme trying to make a case that "it's all connected". It's mostly because Quantum of Solace ended up being a direct sequel to Casino, rather than its own standalone story. Had the middle chapter taken place later on with a Bond in his prime, then Skyfall's narrative choice of making Bond into a past-his-prime dinosaur would've made perfect logical AND thematic sense.

"This is why there are no gadgets in CASINO nor QUANTUM, but there are in SKYFALL. "

The reason there were no gadgets in Casino or Quantum was because their respective directors chose not to include gadgets in favor of emphasizing the new "realism" of the series. Mendes chose to include them in Skyfall as a callback to the classics, as it was the 50th anniversary of Bond. He clearly felt it was appropriate.

"To Cherry pick what these new Bond films are willing to keep n throw out over a 50 year period would be ridiculous."

Meaning no offense whatsoever, but the only ridiculous thing here is fanboys who try to say that Sean Connery, George Lazenby, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton, and Pierce Brosnan ALL played the exact same character, rather than different iterations of the same pop culture icon. They have different personalities, different appearances, different motivations, different experiences, and so on and so forth. I can never understand why it's so hard to accept that there have been reboots and that each Bond is its own continuity?

@KNIGHT3000 Glad I could explain myself a little better!

I'm not sure I'd agree that those movies specifically referenced Lazenby's Bond's dead wife. I'm not nearly as well-versed in the Bond movies as I imagine you are, but I think those subsequent movies simply adopted that major event as a general part of Bond "canon" moving forward. Heck, you can possibly even consider Vesper from CR as Craig's version of the dead wife trope. I do vaguely remember one film making a specific, subtle reference to another actor's Bond film, but I strongly believe that was a rare exception rather than the rule.

@SuperDude001 Yep, I keep hearing that Quantum of Solace works A LOT better when viewed directly after Casino Royale. It certainly doesn't hold up as its own movie (which is a glaring weakness), but it sort of works better as a sort of extended prologue to CR. I haven't tried that for myself yet, but it's pretty interesting!

And that's a good point. If the execution is on point, it could be a neat way to make the series feel like more of a cohesive whole. We'll see, I suppose!