SPECTRE--last Craig-era film?

1246725

Comments

  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,554
    Tuck91 wrote: »
    Craig is going to do one more after Spectre and that will be it. They are going to want to cast someone young again.

    maybe. But I also think the point made by @patb is a good one. SF did so well because its characters and themes appealed to older audiences.

  • Posts: 2,598
    It was my understanding that Daniel would be back for Bond 25 but some people here seem to think that SPECTRE will be his swan-song. Personally, I hope he makes six total.

    Dear @LegateDaar (I love "Star Trek: DS9" too ;-)), this is a rumour that has been strengthened entirely by a partícular SonyLeak where Sony CEO Amy Pascal said, way WAY too prematurely, that black British actor Idris Elba could be the perfect replacement for actor Daniel Craig. Once this leak was picked up by gossip news websites and various entertainment programs it started to live it's own life. Furthermore, gossip 'journalists' started to quote solely one article from Rolling Stone magazine from October 2012, where a rather tipsy Craig said that he "always wanted to leave", and used it to strengthen the "Idris Elba Leak".

    This is what I call a perfect overblown concoction of untrue gossip news, which has become rather negative in nature. It reminds me of the anti-Craig campaign after Craig was announced as agent 007 in 2005.

    Because first of all Barbara Brocolli & Michael Wilson have the final and decisive say in such huge casting decisions. So this leak is, again, more damaging for Amy Pascal. I reckon she one again apologized to movie cast/crew......this time to Barbara & Michael.

    Secondly, Daniel Craig does not have a contract which mentions that he has an option to do a fifth Bond film. He HAS an active contract that says he WILL do a fifth Bond film. Those are the facts right now. Again, Amy Pascal showed her true unprofessional nature here by seeing active contracts as mere toilet paper to wipe off one's arse.

    Also, regarding the insanely succesful "Skyfall", not comparable to any Brosnan-Bond film, it would be crazy to let Craig go after "SPECTRE". Because "SPECTRE" will also most likely be such a top grossing 1 Billion Dollar Bond.

    So to conclude this post: Daniel Craig = Agent James Bond 007. And based on the current facts he will stay Bond well into 2018, when Bond 25 premieres. And after that there's even a possibility EON want him back to do a final 6th film.

    "always wanted to leave" Why did Craig say this, even if he was tipsy?
  • Posts: 2,598
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    I also feel DC wants to one up Pirece and at least do 1 more film than he did.

    I don't think he cares about this.

  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,741
    Bounine wrote: »
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    I also feel DC wants to one up Pirece and at least do 1 more film than he did.
    I don't think he cares about this.
    I think Craig cares deeply about the product, and will leave it to a new man when he feels he can no longer provide the proper Bond.
  • ThomasCrown76ThomasCrown76 Augusta, ks
    Posts: 757
    Test
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    edited February 2015 Posts: 2,138
    I agree, Dan, Babs and Michael seem to be extremely good friend, there is an emotional attachment now, Dan has bought in to to Bond family way of life, you work hard, and your well looked after. What I will say is Michael has already stepped back from any participation in Spectre, I think Dan, Mendes and Barbs will make 25 their last. I think for one important reason both Michael's sons are now producers David G and Gregg, they are both working on Spectre and we have even seen Gregg speak on the initial teaser. I think after 25 it will be older son David G Wilson 3rd film having done work on Skyfall, it will be Gregg's second and and I think it will be time to hand down the mantle.

    In which case it will be a new director, new bond and probably an new reboot.
  • Posts: 1,965
    I agree, Dan, Babs and Michael seem to be extremely good friend, there is an emotional attachment now, Dan has bought in to to Bond family way of life, you work hard, and your well looked after. What I will say is Michael has already stepped back from any participation in Spectre, I think Dan, Mendes and Barbs will make 25 their last. I think for one important reason both Michael's sons are now producers David G and Gregg, they are both working on Spectre and we have even seen Gregg speak on the initial teaser. I think after 25 it will be older son David G Wilson 3rd film having done work on Skyfall, it will be Gregg's second and and I think it will be time to hand down the mantle.

    In which case it will be a new director, new bond and probably an new reboot.

    Bond 25 will defiantly not be barbs last she's only 54 she's has plenty more years left before she retires
  • Posts: 1,680
    Yeah, Barbara isnt going anywhere anytime soon. Shes going to have a say in the next Bond actor
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,340
    Cubby stayed on well into his 80's. I hope to see Barbara do the same.
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    Posts: 2,138
    Got to remember though guys Barbara has been in the thick of it since she was a kid herself. With the next generation of the family coming through. I cant see her starting again. I think she will be on hand for advice but I think she will take a back seat beyond Bond 25.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Murdock wrote: »
    Cubby stayed on well into his 80's. I hope to see Barbara do the same.

    Here here and she promised Cubby not to let ouside powers mess it up.

  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,574
    It's genuinely good to see the next batch of Broccoli/Wilsons coming through to take the series on. I'm sure Michael will be stepping back now and letting his sons move the series on with Barbara.

    I'm a huge Craig fan, but I don't want him to carry on after B25. We will have a Roger Moore scenario. B26 needs fresh blood.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    NicNac wrote: »
    I'm a huge Craig fan, but I don't want him to carry on after B25. We will have a Roger Moore scenario. B26 needs fresh blood.

    You don't think he could pull off a Blofeld trilogy of sorts? Where the final film is accepting of his age, rather than oblivious as in AVTAK.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,574
    RC7 wrote: »
    NicNac wrote: »
    I'm a huge Craig fan, but I don't want him to carry on after B25. We will have a Roger Moore scenario. B26 needs fresh blood.

    You don't think he could pull off a Blofeld trilogy of sorts? Where the final film is accepting of his age, rather than oblivious as in AVTAK.

    Hmm yes possibly. Shame they milked that idea as early as SF.

    However, now we are prone to accepting the idea of several different Bond timelines then they could wind up Craig's time with an elderly Bond (if 52 is elderly of course) in B26.

    I don't like the idea of a rookie Bond on his first mission being explored again but think slight reboots are no worse than the idea that Dalton was the same person as Moore.
  • Posts: 4,602
    IMHO there is nothing wrong in playing a mature Bond as long as it is integrated within the script and the context of the story. It could actually provide a rich vein of material and interest if done properly. Liam Neeson in Taken was roughly the same age as Roger was when he made AVTAK and age did not seem to be an issue (and he made two more), I think the issue is when they make no reference to age and Bond carries on as if he is in his early 30s. Plus we are in an era where Bond is a rougher character so he can afford a few more wrinkles compared to the suave Brosnan era.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Has any one suggested that he make the next two back to back? I know it's never going to happen, but it would help address concerns about his age and the big gaps we get between films now.

    If they did a two-parter, as originally intended for SP, then it would make a lot of sense in terms of cast and crew.
  • Posts: 11,425
    If Bond lasts another 40 years, I am sure there'll be at least one reboot in that time.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    If Bond lasts another 40 years, I am sure there'll be at least one reboot in that time.

    I'm sure, but I don't want it to be every time we get a new Bond.

    Definitely. We don't need the 'origin' story approach with every new Bond.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,340
    Bond reboots himself with each new actor.
  • I think Bond 25 will be the last one.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited March 2015 Posts: 23,883
    Straight origin reboots may have run their course. Witness the Spiderman debacle.

    However a soft-reboot is more than likely.

    I'm curious to see how Warner/DC handle the upcoming Supes/Bat movie and how that is received by fans.

    That is similar to Bond because like the Bat post-Nolan, EON will have to follow up a massive financial and critical era (post-Craig), and they may take some cues either way from Warner (in terms of humour quotient, what demographic to appeal primarily to, how outlandish/realistic to be), depending on how the public accepts the new Bat.

    Sadly, that means we are likely to have a longer than normal wait post-Craig before the new soft reboot Bond comes out. It won't be within 2 years of Craig's last, I'm quite certain.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Something about the fact that Ben Affleck is involved tells me that the new Bat/Superman movie is not going to be a huge success. Will probably be proved totally wrong, but I just thing he's bad casting for the role.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I agree. I'm not a fan of Affleck, although he has periodically surprised me in a positive way. Something about his swagger that's a turnoff.

    Either way, I think EON will watch what happens with this movie very closely, and Affleck's interpretation vs. Bale's in particular.
  • edited March 2015 Posts: 11,425
    bondjames wrote: »
    I agree. I'm not a fan of Affleck, although he has periodically surprised me in a positive way. Something about his swagger that's a turnoff.

    Either way, I think EON will watch what happens with this movie very closely, and Affleck's interpretation vs. Bale's in particular.

    He was excellent in his two directorial movies - The Town and Argo. I think the big knock he'd taken previously, and the apparent humbling process he went through, actually did him a lot of good. I think taking Batman was a bad choice, both for him and for the film.

    Any way, I've always been a Michael Keaton fan when it comes to Batman. Great to see him win an Oscar the other day. I'd actually been wondering what had happened to him, as I think he's a really good actor, and then up he pops in Birdman. Great movie btw (stating the obvious), if any one has still not seen it.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    The idea of having Craig go from Rookie to the end of his career is an interesting one but I'd like him to do another 2 or 3 for this to happen if they are just going to play his era out with Bond 25 and then reboot no I wouldn't want that.

    A soft reboot meaning the next Bond will just start mid career like Connery did in DN, no origins. If they did this I'd be fine, going down the full on reboot that we got with Craig a young Bond (possibly younger than Craig) I think is unnecessary.

    The only problem with even a soft reboot if we end Craig's time properly rather than replace him, do we then have to recast all the principal cast again? Or would Fiennes and co end up being just like Dench staying M even when we rebooted with Craig?

    Reboots are just now lazy ways for studios to get themselves out of tight spots. Nolan situation was unique, I doubt any film maker will get the freedom he got with Batman.

    When Batman Begins arrived we hadn't had the raft of comic book films and it hadn't developed into the juggernaut it now is. Even at the point of TDK Marvel was still in early days and it was only at the point we got to TDKR that DC might have regretted giving Nolan so much freedom due to the success of the Avengers. I'm sure they'd have loved to have had their start up with his film rather than Man of Steel but Nolan was never interested in being a part of the DC universe and wasn't keen on tying things in even with MOS. Imagine if Nolan had given the go ahead for Joseph Gordon Levitt's character to become the new Batman as was hinted at the end of TDKR and then DC used this to launch the DC Universe films.

    It was never his game plan he wanted to make his trilogy and bow out and he denied that he even planned this many times and just took each film at a time. DC are probably quite happy he bowed out after MOS. One of the reasons I think you'll never see him direct a Bond, he'd want the same freedom and EON would never let him have that.

    Whatever freedom EON may seem to give Mendes and other directors they call the shots and it will only be down to them if we get Craig playing out his time with a proper full stop it won't be down to any director however big they are.

    Although I think it's only inevitable that EON will get influenced by the likes of Disney like with Marvel and Star Wars. No not spin offs but they will probably look to appealing to an even larger audience. I'm not expecting to like Bond forever, I'm sure it will go somewhere that I'm not willing to go and I think it's naive to think it will always be the series we all know and love. Maybe not for a few decades but at some point maybe when we are all many years old someone will make a decision that will seem like heresy to us Bond fans.

    I've a feeling that what some have already been upset with in the Craig era will seem relatively mild in comparison to what's in store in the future for 007.



  • Posts: 14,951
    Murdock wrote: »
    Bond reboots himself with each new actor.

    Not really. Lazenby, Moore and Dalton all made references to something from previous Bond movies, from different actors (mostly the death of Tracy).
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I'm hoping we can retain the same M, and possibly Q, and Moneypenny through the next several Bonds. The one act of consistent continuity that the Bond franchise has held to, no matter what else changes, is that at least one actor playing the same role has bridged each Bond actor. I am sure that the current team of producers realizes this and that is a major factor as to why, reboot or not, Dench returned as M. To lose that one thread, now or at anytime in the future, would be a shame. More than that, it would really suck. Through all of the changes and inconsistencies and contradictions in this series' history, that is the one constant that fans have been given.

    Why compare it to comic book movies? That's just populist shit (I am a live long comic book reader, mind you). Bond is much more.

    I personally can't stand comic book movies, I liked the Nolan films and the odd one here and there but Marvel just bores me to death but I think it's only inevitable that they influence Bond and to think it won't is somewhat naive.

    I'm not saying hugely significantly but they already have in subtle ways, this is biggest money making genre out there mores the pity. I just don't see it not effecting Bond in some way in the future @bondjames has already mentioned that the DC's reboot of Batman may well give an indication to whether audience will accept a more comic book version after the more real world version that Nolan presented.

    Possibly if it does go down a storm Bond may well move into a more fantastical arena again with a lighter touch, SPECTRE's approach seems to be testing those waters already.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Keaton was a better Batman IMO.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,340
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    Bond reboots himself with each new actor.

    Not really. Lazenby, Moore and Dalton all made references to something from previous Bond movies, from different actors (mostly the death of Tracy).

    With the exception of Lazenby the actors the preceeded pretty much ignored what came before. A "Soft Reboot" if you will. The Star Trek reboot still mentioned stuff from it's past.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Shardlake wrote: »

    I personally can't stand comic book movies, I liked the Nolan films and the odd one here and there but Marvel just bores me to death but I think it's only inevitable that they influence Bond and to think it won't is somewhat naive.

    We're on the same page. My only problem with the Nolan films is that it never felt like it was Batman that I was watching.

    To be honest I enjoyed them so much is because they weren't like the comic book version, I'm expecting to not like Affleck's version but it will no doubt give allot of comic book fans great satisfaction.

    Bale might not have been a Batman fan's idea of both Bruce Wayne and the caped crusader but I found it so much more rewarding than anyone else that played him.

    Strangely enough a friend of mine who is a big comic book fan said he enjoyed Nolan's films very much but they weren't true to the source, he said they have more in common with the James Bond series than Batman.

    I think I understand that even if you take away all the Bond nods in all 3 Nolan films, they have a feel of Bond film at times, TDKR explosive climax definitely reminded me of Bond.
Sign In or Register to comment.