Shaking Up a Franchise
With Daniel Craig in the lead role, James Bond has never been better. I truly believe that he has what it takes to be 007 for a long time, and I imagine Sean Connery and Roger Moore would share my sentiments.
In your Skyfall feature, you state that the James Bond franchise had ”run like clockwork since 1962’s Dr. No.” Sure, you could speed over the bumpy transitions between Sean Connery, George Lazenby, Connery again, and Roger Moore, but it would take a Blofeld to overlook the legal battles that created a six-year gap between Timothy Dalton’s exit in 1989 and Pierce Brosnan’s introduction in 1995. Such blithe oversights left me shaken and stirred.
Senior writer Chris Nashawaty responds: Richard, you are quite correct that the 007 franchise has hit a few bumps over the past 50 years, including the lengthy layoff between Dalton and Brosnan. My point was simply that any series that manages to crank out 23 films in 50 years is a pretty well-oiled machine. One thing I’m sure we can both agree on is that Skyfall was worth the four-year wait.
Most Welcome Guests
How is it possible that there was no mention of The Big Bang Theory in the ”Most Coveted Comedies” sidebar (News and Notes)? Everyone from Stephen Hawking to Eliza Dushku has done a guest spot, and you never know who will show up next.
William R. Mann
Not a One-Trick Pony
I agree with Owen Gleiberman in his Cloud Atlas review (Movies) that the Wachowski siblings haven’t made a good film since The Matrix, but it was unfair of him to call Atlas codirector Tom Tykwer a ”one-hit art-house wonder.” Run Lola Run may have been Tykwer’s best film, but it certainly wasn’t his biggest hit. That would be 2006’s Perfume, which took in nearly 10 times as much money at the worldwide box office.
The photo accompanying our review of Middle of Nowhere misidentified actor David Oyelowo as Omari Hardwick (Movies). Sarah Baker plays the role of Sonia on NBC’s comedy Go On (What to Watch).
World War Z: Are You Dying for It?
Star Brad Pitt isn’t the only one at war. EW.com visitors took each other on after reading our post about this summer’s zombie film.
Fine, you can make this a zombie movie with fast zombies and Brad Pitt as an action hero. But why call it World War Z? The book and the shots I’ve seen from the movie have next to nothing to do with each other. Why not leave the book to be made by someone who wants to stick to the source material?
Left intact, the narrative structure of the book would have made for a boring movie: It’s closer to a documentary/newsreel. There is nothing inherently wrong with taking the point of a story and amping up the dramatic quotient by adding central characters with whom the audience can identify.
I like the zombie mythology described here. The movie actually sounds like it’s trying to figure out how a zombie virus would cripple the world. And to anyone who complains about fast zombies: If something can make the dead move, why can’t it make them move fast?
Leave Me Alone!
I am always amused when people who’ve never seen a movie are certain they’ll hate it months before it comes out. I’m sure you were the same people saying that a new Star Trek movie would be terrible, blah, blah, blah. Heaven forbid you actually wait until something is released before freaking out.