How Shazam! Changed An Important Sivana Scene During Its Reshoots

How Shazam! Changed An Important Sivana Scene During Its Reshoots

Warning: MAJOR SPOILERS for Shazam! are ahead!

Although the original plan for Shazam! was to have the eponymous protagonist face off against Black Adam, the clash is being saved for the future, as the villain/anti-hero also known as Teth-Adam will first debut in his own movie. Instead, Shazam! used Mark Strong’s Doctor Thaddeus Sivana as its main antagonist, and he definitely showed off his intimidation chops.

This was best demonstrated when Sivana killed everyone inside of a boardroom, including his own brother and father, using the Seven Deadly Sins. As it turns out though, that wasn’t originally the scene that showed just how frightening Sivana could be. I recently spoke with Michel Aller, the editor of Shazam! and frequent collaborator with director David F. Sandberg, and she informed me that during principal photography, Sivana’s display of incredible power happened in a different location. Speaking about the boardroom scene, she said:

It was a later addition. Originally the way Sivana confronts his family was completely different. It was at a Christmas party in his mansion. And so the whole idea of him confronting his family was re-conceived. So that was part of the additional photography.

The Christmas season can be a dramatic time among certain families, but killing your relatives and all the attendees of a holiday party is an entirely different beast. Something like that feels more appropriate during the Airing of Grievances in a Festivus celebration. But as Michel Aller explained to me, during Shazam!’s reshoots phase, it was decided to change things up, which is how the boardroom slaughter came to be.

In case you need a refresher, after Thaddeus Sivana, against the wizard Shazam’s protests, stole the Eye of Sin from the Rock of Eternity and became the new vessel for the Seven Deadly Sins, he traveled to Sivana Industries to confront his father and brother. Both of them had been emotionally abusive towards Thaddeus growing up, with his brother, Sid, blaming him for the accident that paralyzed their father. Now that he had the power to exact revenge, Thaddeus tossed Sid out the window and had the Seven Deadly Sins murder Mr. Sivana and everyone else in the room.

For those curious to see how this massacre was originally supposed to play out at the Christmas party, Michel Aller states that there’s a good chance this will be one of the deleted scenes included on the Shazam! home media release, although obviously the visual effects effects won’t be complete. In her words:

Yeah, I mean, I’ve submitted it and I believe that they’ll include that for sure.

Doctor Sivana didn’t get to enjoy his partnership with the Seven Deadly Sins for very long in Shazam!. Thanks to the World’s Mightiest Mortal and his adoptive siblings, who were able to become superheroes thanks to Billy Batson sharing his power, the Sins were contained back in the Eye of Eternity and redeposited to their prison in the Rock of Eternity, which is now officially the Shazam family’s lair.

However, don’t think this is the last we’ve seen of Sivana in the DC Extended Universe. In the Shazam! mid-credits scene, he was shown obsessively scrawling ancient runes on the walls of his prison cell, desperately trying to go back to Rock of Eternity to reclaim his lost power. However, he was then approached by Mr. Mind, who promised him that there are other ways to obtain power, and by working together, the two of them will be able to conquer the Seven Realms. In other words, Sivana’s days of slaughtering innocents probably aren’t done yet.

Be sure to read CinemaBlend’s review of Shazam! and stay tuned for updates concerning Shazam! 2. In the meantime, catch up on all the other DC movies in development by looking through our handy guide.

Pet Sematary Director Explains Why The Film’s Ending Was Changed

Pet Sematary Director Explains Why The Film’s Ending Was Changed

Warning: SPOILERS for Pet Sematary are discussed in this article. If you haven’t seen the film yet and want to stay unspoiled, please bookmark and come back once you’re current.

In the 2019 remake of Pet Sematary, there’s a pretty big change to how the famed Stephen King story ends. It arrives off the back of a lot of smaller changes that build up to the big finale, with the end result being something so pitch black that it hits harder than the entire third act of the 1983 novel. And as it turns out, there was another ending that was shot and audience tested, which would have been even bleaker, according to the film’s directors.

When speaking in a recent interview about the film, directors Kevin Kölsch and Dennis Widmyer talked about a lot of material that was cut from Pet Sematary’s final cut. Amidst remarks about deleted content that fleshed out the relationships between Louis and Jud, as well as Louis and his daughter Ellie, an entire alternate ending was shot for the film; an ending that, according to Dennis Widmyer’s remarks below, was pretty hard to cut:

That [alternate] ending we shot first, and then we decided, you know, to have this other ending – so the studio could test two different endings…We [edited] them both and both endings [test] scored pretty equally. They’re both disturbing and dark. [But] I would say that the current ending [in the final film] sends off the audience with a smile on its face, while at the same time though, [they’re saying] ‘That was that was messed up!’ Whereas the other one, I don’t think anyone would be smiling. The other one has more of a bleak, kind of sad tone to it.

While we’ve covered the ending of Pet Sematary’s 2019 in depth, here's the short version: Ellie turns out to be the kid who dies in this version, and she comes back to life with a bit of an agenda. That agenda includes killing and resurrecting her mother, who then kills and resurrects her husband. The final shot of the film sees Ellie and her parents returning home, with Church in tow, in order to retrieve the youngest member of their family, Gage.

It can be understood that the filmmakers and studio heads behind Pet Sematary didn’t want to send fans out of the theater with a sense of horrible unease. The subject matter is pretty grim, no matter which version you partake in, and being completely honest, the implication of that ending’s darkness kind of does put a smile on your face in the way that Widmyer specified while speaking to Slashfilm. But if that’s the ending that turned out to be the lighter of the two, what the hell is the other ending supposed to contain?

Frankly, our guess is that it’s ether a slightly extended ending where we see Gage being carried off by his undead family, or it’s something so horrific we haven’t even thought of it yet. If there’s any justice, this curiosity worthy of killing the cat just might lead to the satisfaction of an alternate Blu-ray cut of the film, including all the other content that was hinted at by the directors. But at the very least, the facts that the deleted material is already being teased as being part of the home video release, with the ending hitting the internet shortly before then, is something that does make us happy about this particularly grizzly scenario.

Pet Sematary is in theaters now, with a home video release hinted at some point in July.

Why The Wild Us Theory About The Son Is Probably Wrong

Why The Wild Us Theory About The Son Is Probably Wrong

Warning: spoilers for Us are in play. If you, or your tethered haven't seen the film yet, please bookmark this article, and come back once you've caught up.

You knew this was coming. Whenever a movie like Jordan Peele's Us storms theaters, there are going to be reactions, theories, hot takes, and think pieces dissecting the film's many meanings -- and that's not necessarily a bad thing. A movie such as Us is always going to generate a lot of thought, and tons of opinions as to what's been presented. For example, there's a theory involving the son of the family, played by Evan Alex, and it makes a pretty big implication about his character. Take this as your last warning for spoiler country, as we're about to jump into just what this theory entails, and why it's probably wrong.

The Theory About Jason

First, Young Jason, son to Adelaide and Gabe and brother to Zora, has been theorized to have switched places with his Tethered doppelganger, Pluto. Fans feel that during the events of Us, there was somehow a switch that allowed Pluto to become a secret part of the Wilson family, and the look of understanding with Adelaide, a known underground dweller who swapped places with her surface counterpart, was one of collusion.

Previously, we had already seen a switch between Lupita N'yongo's Adelaide and Red happen during their childhood years, and taking into account the fact that Jason is the only other family member to go into that underground bunker besides his own mother, there's definitely enough material to raise the question. Furthermore, there are a couple of instances where folks may believe that's exactly what the movie is trying to tell them. But does it make sense?

What Led To This Theory

There are two pieces of information that have people thinking Jason and Pluto somehow swapped places, and they're valid concerns. The first supposed clue is, obviously, the fact that Jason and Pluto spend an extended amount of time in the closet of the Wilson family beach house in Us. If you had two characters who look almost identical trapped in a room for a long period, with no one observing them, you wouldn't be wrong to think that maybe a swap had taken place.

But it's the second piece of information that's probably triggering audiences the most. Towards the end of Us, there's a moment where Jason looks at Adelaide with a face of fear and understanding. In that moment, it's presumed that he knows the entire truth about the swap with her surface doppelganger, and her assumption of her identity. Whatever the case, Jason knows something's off, and rather than freak out, he slips his mask back on and stays silent.

There's a case to be made regarding why this theory could be true. Us is the sort of movie that will  lay out the details it has to in order to tell the story, but also doesn' lock them in so tight they can't be interpreted another way. There's enough room for theories, but after really digging into what was shown in the film, as well as piecing together some key details, I believe the theory that Jason and Pluto switched places by the end of the movie is indeed false. While Jason best understands the Tethered, catching on quickly as to who they are and being able to interact with his doppelganger in a meaningful way, he's not one of them.

Why The Son Theory Is Probably Wrong

There are just too many pieces of supporting evidence scattered throughout Us that dictate Jason and Pluto have not switched places. Starting on the surface level, the fact that Jason still has normal speech is an important clue to his true identity. Pluto wouldn't have that sort of capability yet, because as we saw with Adelaide/Red, it takes time for a Tethered to learn how to speak like a normal person. Red couldn't have taught him in that short of a time, and even if she could, Pluto's English wouldn't be passable enough for him to seamlessly integrate into the family. Even with her ability to speak better than the rest of the tethered, Red's speech pattern was altered into a sort of hybrid between surface and Tethered.

While we're on the subject of Red, as we know in her recitation at the Wilson home, her children are monsters that even she has issues with. One of the main points of the narrative thrust in Us is that she wants what Adelaide has, and that includes her family. Red wouldn't have taken Jason if he were Pluto, and his kidnapping takes place right after Pluto incinerates himself in the car fire, with just one child left in play. This is another logistical hurdle the film just doesn't clear to support Pluto being the kid going home at the end.

Most importantly, Pluto has extensive facial scarring, undoubtedly a consequence of his pyromaniacal tendencies. Unless the Tethered have a really good plastic surgeon that can get the job done in an afternoon, or possess some sort of makeup that can erase that sort of scarring very easily, there's no way that Pluto and Jason have done a quick switcharoo. It's this last fact in particular that supports Jason just being himself, able to interact and understand the Tethered best in his family, but ultimately debunking theories that he himself has been swapped out.

Over time, there's always the possibility there are clues in Us that will surface to either reinforce or reexamine the theory that Jason was really swapped for Pluto. Based on the evidence currently observed, I do not think that is the case. That said, if more supporting arguments emerge to support that suggestion, and they pan out, I honestly wouldn't be mad. If Jason and Pluto somehow took a page out of the Prince and the Pauper playbook, it'd be the ultimate statement in Jordan Peele's examination of class warfare by means of infiltration. It'd also be extremely chilling, because then the question of whether we really know the ones we love would be raised with a rather effective exclamation point. For now though, let's consider that theory sent back underground, because it has no place here.

Avengers: Endgame Is Already Breaking Records In China

Avengers: Endgame Is Already Breaking Records In China

Last night Avengers: Endgame had its world premiere in Los Angeles and the early response was overwhelmingly positive. The star-studded cast assembled on the red carpet to see the conclusion the highly-anticipated film that marks the end of an era for the MCU for the first time themselves. Soon enough, the rest of the world will get a chance to see Endgame themselves starting with China’s Wednesday debut to the best opening of all time.

Avengers: Endgame has already shattered pre-sale records for the market, with $90 million in early ticket sales, well over 2018’s Infinity War’s $59 million pre-sale total and the previous record holder Monster Hunt 2 almost $60 million. According to The Hollywood Reporter, after Endgame breaks records for making more than $20 million in midnight previews, it could take $270 million during its five-day debut and make around $450 million by the time it leaves Chinese theaters.

The Marvel film also has the luck of having its second weekend overlap with China’s Labor Day, which gives students and workers time off between Wednesday, May 1 and Saturday, May 4. During this time off, fans from all over China will have more time to go see the epic superhero film, instead of having to skip out on work or school in order to catch the fate of their favorite characters.

Endgame is the conclusion to a 22-film journey across 11 years, which started just at China’s box office boom era, also characterized by the success of Avatar in 3D overseas. The movie of course isn’t only set to do well for itself over in China, but very well break some incredible box office records globally. The Avengers film could pass $800 million worldwide after its first weekend alone, which would be the biggest opening ever.

In the United States, Avengers: Endgame is predicted to see a record-breaking debut of $270 million. The film already sold five times as many advance tickets as Infinity War in first week they went on sale. Since Endgame has been clouded in secrecy since the shocking conclusion of Infinity War, it’s no wonder fans want to go out and it see it especially in its first weekend. The fear of spoilers are certainly in high gear since well... the internet exists and when the movie comes out people will be talking about it left and right.

Avengers: Endgame will follow the superheroes who survived the snap, such as the original six, Nebula, Rocket, Ant-Man, War Machine, Okoye and Captain Marvel who must deal with the aftermath of their failed mission to stop Thanos. Endgame certainly will answer questions about the continuation of the Marvel franchise as well when it hits theaters globally this week.

The Special Way Kevin Smith Is Responding To Captain Marvel's Mallrats Reference

The Special Way Kevin Smith Is Responding To Captain Marvel's Mallrats Reference

Given the recent passing of Stan Lee, many went to see Captain Marvel with a bit of extra anticipation for his cameo, and the film didn't disappoint. Taking advantage of both its 1995 and Los Angeles setting, the blockbuster depicted Lee at a very specific time in his life - specifically when he was preparing to play a small role in the Kevin Smith indie comedy Mallrats. It's a moment that hit Smith very hard emotionally - as seen on social media - and it seems that the impact has gone as far as to have an effect on the in-production Jay And Silent Bob Reboot:

Much like he did with 2001's Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back, Kevin Smith is re-exploring his roots with his latest feature, and you can feel it in this image posted to the filmmaker's personal Twitter page. In the shot we see Jason Lee reprise his Mallrats role, superhero aficionado/former late night host Brodie Bruce, and while it's no surprise that he's in a comic book shop (he owns one in the 2001 feature), what is obviously significant is the fact that he is reaching for Captain Marvel Vol. 10 #1, which just hit shelves this past January.

Despite the fact that he knew about it ahead of time, Kevin Smith was left a blubbering mess by Stan Lee's cameo in Captain Marvel - which sees the comic book legend on a bus practicing lines from a Mallrats script ("Trust me, true believer"). Obviously right now we don't know exactly what Brodie will say when he picks up that issue, but one can probably assume fairly that it will be something positive... even if that isn't super on-brand for the cynical former-basement dweller. It's possible that he's evolved even further beyond who he was when we last saw him 18 years ago.

Written and directed by Kevin Smith, Jay And Silent Bob Reboot reunites audiences with the titular characters (Jason Mewes, Smith) as they go on another adventure to Hollywood in hopes of stopping the new Bluntman and Chronic reboot that is in development. In addition to the lead duo and Jason Lee, the film will feature many more familiar View Askewniverse faces, including Shannon Elizabeth, Diedrich Bader, and Brian O'Halloran, as well as some new ones - such as Joe Manganiello and Grant Gustin. Saban Films is on board producing and distributing, but it's not yet known exactly when fans can expect to see the finished film.

As he pretty much always is, Kevin Smith has been active on Twitter all throughout the production of Jay And Silent Bob Reboot, so you can be sure that this isn't the last update we'll get from the set. Stay tuned for more updates as the filming continues of what we hope winds up being a super weird, meta, funny ride.

Avengers Writers Confirm Deeper Meaning Of Doctor Strange's Line To Tony Stark

Avengers Writers Confirm Deeper Meaning Of Doctor Strange's Line To Tony Stark

SPOILER alert for Avengers: Infinity War and Avengers: Endgame.

By now, Avengers fans know that Doctor Strange predicted the "endgame" of Avengers: Endgame back in Avengers: Infinity War. The writers confirmed that, in that moment, Strange knew Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) had to die. There was no other outcome.

Interestingly enough, before Doctor Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch) gave us the "Endgame" title, Tony Stark had mentioned the word "endgame" in Avengers: Age of Ultron. Strange and Stark shared a loaded endgame moment in Infinity War when Doctor Strange revealed he went forward in time to view alternate futures, to see all the possible outcomes of the coming conflict. He told Star-Lord he saw 14,000,605 futures.

Tony Stark asked, "How many do we win?" Doctor Strange gave Tony a long look, then replied, "One." At the time, fans didn't know that the "one" necessitated Tony Stark's death. But Strange knew.

Avengers: Endgame screenwriters Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely have been addressing fan theories about the movie, including the speculation that there was more than one way to defeat Thanos. As THR told the writers, fans have posited there were multiple ways the team could've "won" the conflict, but Doctor Strange picked the scenario where the Infinity Stones would also be destroyed, thus ensuring they couldn't return for use again.

The writers shot down that theory as not true. There was only one way end to this conflict, period, and it meant the endgame for Iron Man:

The only way this works is if Tony dies. If you go back and watch Infinity War, when [Strange] says 'one,' Benedict … is just choked on emotion. Now that you know the end, go back and watch that moment. He means, 'You're going to have to die, Tony.'

Watch that Infinity War scene again here in this clip, if you can, to relive that moment with all of its added meaning after Endgame:

Doctor Strange could've spoiled the ending of Avengers: Endgame right then and there, and instead he only gave hints. We're in the endgame now.

Tony Stark checked in with Doctor Strange during Endgame, asking if this was it, if they were in the reality where everyone survives. Doctor Strange's cryptic reply -- "If I tell you, it won’t happen" -- was a big hint to Tony's role. Tony would have to sacrifice his life, to miss out on his daughter's future. But after meeting up with his father in the past, it seemed like he knew he wanted to be the kind of man who put others before himself.

And so Avengers: Endgame made Tony Stark the ultimate hero, giving him that "And I am Iron Man" line at the last minute in reshoots.

Avengers: Endgame is now playing in theaters, with a new post-credits scene to boot, as it works its way up the box office charts past Titanic and on to Avatar.

Bond, James Bond: 8 Actors Who Played 007, From Past To Present

Bond, James Bond: 8 Actors Who Played 007, From Past To Present

When Ian Fleming created the character of James Bond in his 1953 novel Casino Royale, he probably never imagined that it would start a media franchise that would not only outlive him, but also span more than 50 years of action. With countless books, 24 films, and other adaptations and depictions having taken place, there's certainly a lot of Bond to go around for anyone who wants it.

But those who have most indelibly ingrained the character on our minds are, of course, those who got to play the character on film, and for one brief instance on television. Those eight actors are the historic watermarks for James Bond's longevity on the screen, and without their contributions, the series just might not be the behemoth that it has evolved into. Who are the people who have played James Bond over the years? Let's catch up on them all.

Barry Nelson

Year(s) Active: 1954

Number Of Films: 1

Believe it or not, James Bond began his journey to the silver screen as a live TV adaptation for the hit show Climax! Adapting the first book in the series, Casino Royale, writers Charles Bennett and Anthony Ellis made a rather interesting change to the source material in order for Barry Nelson to star as 007 himself. Which is why this is the only version you'll see with an American James Bond, and a British Felix Leiter. All other versions after this would revert Bond back to being a renowned super spy for MI6, but in the Climax! version, he works for the Combined Intelligence Agency.

Sean Connery

Year(s) Active: 1962 – 1967, 1971, 1983

Number Of Films: 7

Probably the most iconic James Bond to ever hit the screen, Sean Connery is the person that everyone thinks of when you say the words, “Bond, James Bond.” While Ian Fleming initially doubted the casting, his successful debut in 1962's Dr. No not only won the author over to his side, it also caused him to write the character closer to the actor's own background in subsequent novels. But while he's one of the most iconic actors to have played the role, he's also one of the most complicated actors to have taken the role.

This is because of the fact that while he had a straight five year run as the character, from 1962 to 1967, he was lured back twice after that golden age to reprise the character. One of those performances, 1983's Never Say Never Again, is counted as an unofficial James Bond film; considering it was made outside of the EON Productions canon, and is a remake of Thunderball, driven by the film's original creator, Kevin McClory. Save for a video game voice-over role in an adaptation of From Russia With Love, that was the last time Connery ever donned the tuxedo – and it's still a source of debate between Bond fans who love it or hate it.

David Niven

Year(s) Active: 1967

Number Of Films: 1

Whenever David Niven enters a conversation on film, the James Bond series is something folks wouldn't be likely to cite as part of his resume. And yet, when Columbia bought the rights to turn Casino Royale into a comedy send-up of the still young 007 franchise, he was indeed the man they chose to play the O.G. James Bond. The second of the non-EON Productions films that is argued to either be canon or not, it took an interesting approach to the character that saw Niven being the classiest, most atypical Bond of all.

In the 1967 spoof, MI6 decides to name several agents James Bond, complete with the 007 designation. Their reasoning? Because it'll confuse the enemy. And the one to train all of them is Niven's Sir James Bond, who doesn't do fancy gadgets or womanizing, but instead is a stiff upper lip type who knows his craft. The film remains an oddity for Bond fans to discuss, and while co-stars like Peter Sellers and Woody Allen technically had the Bond name as covers, David Niven was the only one to really be James Bond.

George Lazenby

Year(s) Active: 1969

Number Of Films: 1

A first time actor and Australian model, George Lazenby was the man selected to take on the role of James Bond after Sean Connery had first bowed out of the role after 1967's You Only Live Twice. His one, and only, turn in the role was in the 1969 format breaker On Her Majesty's Secret Service. It's a format breaker for two key components: there's only one, big gadget used in the entire film, and Bond ends up having a female partner / love interest.

While he was considering returning for The Man With The Golden Gun, back when it was slated to be the next film in line, Lazenby eventually vacated the role, triggering Connery's first return to the role. Apparently, the production of On Her Majesty's Secret Service was so disheartening for George Lazenby, as he felt the creative forces mistreated him and he had grudges with two of his co-stars. Though after this slight bump in the road, the James Bond franchise would experience its most stable period yet.

Roger Moore

Year(s) Active: 1973 - 1985

Number Of Films: 7

Thanks to his work on a rather Bond-esque television adaptation of Leslie Charteris' The Saint, Roger Moore was eventually cast as the fifth actor to take on the role of 007. Starting in 1973's Live and Let Die, the actor would set a record for official installments played by a single actor, as he racked up seven films by time 1985's A View To A Kill hit theaters. Though if you were to ever discuss his tenure with die-hard Bond fans, you'll hear some of the same criticisms come up over and over again.

Between the more joke-laden tone that the Moore films took, and the fact that Roger Moore might have been wise to retire while he could still do most of his stunt work, you'll get some people labeling him as the worst James Bond of the lot. But it's hard to deny that he did possess the charm that the role requires, and when allowed by the material he was given, was able to lend an air of gravitas in moments that truly counted.

Timothy Dalton

Year(s) Active: 1987 - 1989

Number Of Films: 2

When On Her Majesty's Secret Service was trying to cast the role of James Bond, one particular actor was considered but eventually deemed too young for the role. That man was none other than Timothy Dalton, a classically trained actor who was eventually given another chance when someone with a very similar situation had to back out when casting 1987's The Living Daylights. Naturally, the role went to Dalton, and the rest was rather interesting history.

Known as a super serious Bond, Dalton only made two very experimental appearances as the character, with 1989's License To Kill being his swan song. In both films, 007 ditched the Moore era's tone of winks and smiles, and instead delved more into Ian Fleming's original intent for the character to be a noir-ish hard case. Even the trademark womanizing was toned down, as Bond focused more on his job and less on the ladies surrounding him on both occasions. He would never get to reprise the role, as legal troubles for the series would delay production on his proposed third film so long, his contract had expired and not been brought up for renewal.

Pierce Brosnan

Year(s) Active: 1995 - 2002

Number Of Films: 4

After legal troubles, and the end of the Cold War took place in the gap between License To Kill and 1995's Goldeneye, the storied franchise of 007's exploits was going to need a pretty severe revamp. And who better to lead the way than another actor who was previously approached for the role, but had to pass. We could have had a version of The Living Daylights starring Pierce Brosnan, but you can thank contractual obligations with NBC's hit TV show Remington Steele from letting that happen. But as history has shown us, sometimes losing the role once means it just wasn't your time.

With one foot in the wittier side of the pool that Roger Moore's films occupied, and the other in Sean Connery's era of a killer edge, Brosnan's tenure in the role was a mixed, but exciting bag. Starting off with the very serious Goldeneye, but finishing with the very silly Die Another Day, the Pierce Brosnan era also brought another pleasant surprise – his first female boss. Through four films together, Brosnan and Dame Judi Dench gave the flagging series a more contemporary update, which also saw its lead surprisingly replaced with very little notice. While his last film would celebrate 40 years and 20 films in the James Bond canon, change was once again in the air.

Daniel Craig

Year(s) Active: 2006 - 2020

Number Of Films: 4 (to date)

Enter the most recent cast change, and our current era of Bond history – the age of Daniel Craig. In a casting contest that had the likes of Clive Owen and Henry Cavill competing for the role, Craig won out when it came to the role of England's premiere covert operative. And it was at a moment that the series really needed a strong hand, as 2006's Casino Royale was announced as not only the 21st James Bond film, but also a reboot to the character's first assignment as a 00-agent.

Like a brick through a plate glass window, the film was the smash that revitalized the series that has now been operating into its fifth decade of film history. Craig brought back the edge of Timothy Dalton and the vulnerability of George Lazenby, and the charm of Sean Connery, into a cocktail that would serve Craig, and his audience, very well in the years that followed. While he was originally deemed by fans as unfit for the role, most memorably after being labeled as “James Blonde,” it didn't take long for him to convince the world that he was one of the best Bonds to have come along in some time.

While Quantum of Solace and Spectre have been seen as slight dips in quality, Skyfall delivered a 50th birthday present that only guaranteed that James Bond would be returning for some time to come. And as Bond 25 serves as Daniel Craig's rumored final entry as 007, the page will now turn for a new era of Bond history. Who will occupy the role next is left to be discovered. If we've learned anything from this re-examination of history, it's that whoever fills the tuxedo next will probably be an unexpected surprise, but one worth sticking around for.