Kristatos wrote:
How reliable is the Mirror when it comes to Bond stories?
This article is so disjointed, full of contradictions and conjecture;
First it claims Waltz "is signed on for 2 more films" yet "only if Craig returns" so I guess that's not too ironclad of a contract.
It goes on to say "Christoph could make a brilliant ongoing man for Bond to battle like in the old days" and "But the important clincher of it is that Blofeld can only work with Daniel back in the role to keep continuity." You mean the old days when they changed actors every film? Since when has Bond been that concerned with continuity!
This is where they take that point right off the rails: "And with the potential for Judi Dench to return in flashback form as M, the storyline for Daniel Craig as Bond appears far from over"
Glossing over how ridiculous and melodramatic this idea is! (That of course means EON will do it) So you mean Judi Dench who was M in Brosnan's era, and miraculously turned up as a different M in Craig's. Yeah these folks are really concerned with continuity. That quote also intones that Craig's Bond requires Dench's M, absolutely ridiculous!
They pontificate on Craig's return by stating how popular he is and how much EON wants him back, all that may be true, but has no bearing on his return, sure EON can and will toss literal mountains of money at him, but his return is his decision and his alone.
Which brings up his "slash my wrists” comment from earlier this year, which everyone in the media draws upon. I however am more focused on the bit in the same interview where he states he would "only return for the money". That is more telling, as he is not ruling out a return, but honestly telling us what he is considering in a Freudian slip sort of way. So Craig will return, he will make a huge amount of money, inflating the next film's budget to or beyond SP's, and again we won't see that money on the screen.
!
