Where does Bond go after Craig?

178101213182

Comments

  • Posts: 4,517
    Re Nolan bringing in bums on seats, again, I think its easy to fall into the trap of being in the Bond bubble. Most Skyfall punters IMHO, would not be able to name the director, they turn up, eat popcorn, enjoy the movie and tell their mates.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    edited September 2015 Posts: 4,043
    smitty wrote: »
    Shardlake wrote: »
    But Nolan was cribbing from Bond since Batman Begins so all this Bond owes a debt to Nolan is a moot point with me.

    I'm not sure I want to see him direct Bond in fact I'm getting more convinced I would like if he didn't and someone else was given a crack at it, Thomas Alfredsen, Morten Tyldum or possibly Paul McGuigan.

    Agreed. Someone wrote a great post many weeks ago noting there isn't a creative idea in film that hasn't already been done. New films are just recycling old ideas and plots, some more creatively than others. Dalton's Bond was darker and more realistic long before Nolan's Batman or Damon's Bourne. So all this "Bond is copying us" bs is kind of phony. They all copy each other. Some just copy better and smarter than others.

    I was watching Die Hard a few weekends I hadn't really notice it before quite so blatantly but that film you could see influenced the tone of LTK without a doubt. The Kamen score even has similar cues which added to it but I see that film influencing Dalton's 2nd as much as Bourne or Batman has influenced the Craig era.
  • edited September 2015 Posts: 11,175
    Shardlake wrote: »
    smitty wrote: »
    Shardlake wrote: »
    But Nolan was cribbing from Bond since Batman Begins so all this Bond owes a debt to Nolan is a moot point with me.

    I'm not sure I want to see him direct Bond in fact I'm getting more convinced I would like if he didn't and someone else was given a crack at it, Thomas Alfredsen, Morten Tyldum or possibly Paul McGuigan.

    Agreed. Someone wrote a great post many weeks ago noting there isn't a creative idea in film that hasn't already been done. New films are just recycling old ideas and plots, some more creatively than others. Dalton's Bond was darker and more realistic long before Nolan's Batman or Damon's Bourne. So all this "Bond is copying us" bs is kind of phony. They all copy each other. Some just copy better and smarter than others.

    I was watching Die Hard a few weekends I hadn't really notice it before quite so blatantly but that film you could see influenced the tone of LTK without a doubt. The Kamen score even has similar cues which added to it but I see that film influencing Dalton's 2nd as much as Bourne or Batman has influenced the Craig era.

    Well it did have the two Johnson agents in it as well as Kamen doing the score.

    I do get what you mean in all seriousness though. The bit at the end with a battered Dalton and the smoke in the background echoes Bruce Willis a bit.
  • ....Moonraker 2?
  • Posts: 725
    echo wrote: »
    Nolan suffers from the same problem as George Lucas. He has been tremendously successful and doesn't seem to have a lot of--if any--naysayers around him. I mean, the third act of Interstellar was...endless. I believe Nolan's main collaborators are his producer wife and his writer brother.

    Compare Nolan to J.J. Abrams, who picked Lawrence Kasdan (who has obviously proved himself on his own) as his co-screenwriter on the new Star Wars movie. Sometimes listening to diverse voices is a good thing.

    Great post. You note the old "wrapped in cotton" syndrome that can kill, or at least seriously diminish good talent. Nobody tells them no because nobody wants to lose proximity to the golden child. They can become very insular and their art can really suffer.

    I too found Interstellar deeply flawed. I had to double check the BO to remind myself that it was hardly a huge $1b hit. Something as simple as McConaughey's accent was incredible. He starts out with a deep Texas drawl, and half way through the film, the accent is gone. I'm thinking WTF?? It was such a blatantly lazy flaw to me as his dialogue in the front end of the film could have been so easily dubbed in with a consistent accent. The time lapse was not relevant. It was noted in some reviews, so it was noticed.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    Oddly I didn't notice ...to me he never lost it. May have been more pronouced at certain times.
  • Posts: 12,377
    I will post my next thoughts on this once DC has done his 5th and final film.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    edited September 2015 Posts: 9,021
    Here is my take on things how since 1989 everything played out with Bond in general and how it eventually will lead to a new Bond era after Craig.
    (I posted something similar in "Spectre -last Craig Bond" thread.)

    After it failed to bring a more realistic, to other Hollywood blockbusters adapted James Bond to the screen with Dalton (Die Hard, Lethal Weapon comes to mind) they had to play it by the numbers to make sure the franchise will not die.

    Pierce Brosnan was perfect for this. An everybody's darling, still fresh in mind from his incredible international success Remington Steele (outside the US Steele was still going on strong on TV in many regions).

    Goldeneye was a celebration of all that Bond was before. An epitome of Bond to the audience of its generation. I was 21 when it hit the screen and EVERYBODY in my age-range was absolutely delighted and excited about Goldeneye and Brosnan. Maybe older generations didn't feel that way in general but those were not the people going to watch it at the cinema anyway. The same applies for today. Bond is popcorn movie stuff and CR and QOS got a young audience, only SF managed to bring in all generations.

    The Brosnan-era is not less loved than any other before it, it has different fans as has Connery's or Moore's.

    Brosnan and the movies, especially GE and DAD worked big time back then and I think the die-hard Bond fans that especially on forums now tend to bash that era should be thankful it happened. Because without Brosnan there would be no Craig.

    EON stopped the Brosnan era at the right moment. DAD was the pinnacle of success, over-the-top fun simple entertainment.

    In 2006 CR managed to reinvent Bond exactly at the right time when Christopher Nolan was on the rise practically revolutionising the way how former "brainless" entertainment movies were made now. Throw in a bit of Jason Bourne which also had a great impact on Hollywood and you have the way to go for the future, and that future was CR and the following Bond movies up to SF.
    Daniel Craig was the right one and perfect for this era, as was Brosnan for his era.

    What comes next depends on what is going on in Hollywood. At the moment it seems the "Nolan" era (if I may call it that) is coming to an end.
    Spy, Kingsman, UNCLE, MI and many other "similar" movies to Bond go already in a different direction.
    It seems they are able to combine fun, pure entertainment, some over-the-top action with intelligently written characters and more or less good stories. Hollywood is constantly evolving.

    To simply continue with Bond after Craig in the same manner would not be wise.
    As for now I'm certain the next Bond (ca 2020 is my guess) will be much more fun, have over-the-top (not too much) elaborate action and character driven stories. It's possible, we see it every day on TV where many TV Shows are already better than movies.

    EON will cast a new Bond and possibly new actors for the side-characters as well. Imo that would be the wise thing to clearly show that a new Bond era has started.

    The time where you can cast a dress man or former TV darling for Bond is definitely over.
    My guess is, they will look for a proven actor (possibly with theatre background) that looks the part and has the physicality to be believable but at the same time can be witty and charming.
  • DariusDarius UK
    Posts: 354
    kl
    sew
    Here is my take on things how since 1989 everything played out with Bond in general and how it eventually will lead to a new Bond era after Craig.
    (I posted something similar in "Spectre -last Craig Bond" thread.)

    After it failed to bring a more realistic, to other Hollywood blockbusters adapted James Bond to the screen with Dalton (Die Hard, Lethal Weapon comes to mind) they had to play it by the numbers to make sure the franchise will not die.

    Pierce Brosnan was perfect for this. An everybody's darling, still fresh in mind from his incredible international success Remington Steele (outside the US Steele was still going on strong on TV in many regions).

    Goldeneye was a celebration of all that Bond was before. An epitome of Bond to the audience of its generation. I was 21 when it hit the screen and EVERYBODY in my age-range was absolutely delighted and excited about Goldeneye and Brosnan. Maybe older generations didn't feel that way in general but those were not the people going to watch it at the cinema anyway. The same applies for today. Bond is popcorn movie stuff and CR and QOS got a young audience, only SF managed to bring in all generations.

    The Brosnan-era is not less loved than any other before it, it has different fans as has Connery's or Moore's.

    Brosnan and the movies, especially GE and DAD worked big time back then and I think the die-hard Bond fans that especially on forums now tend to bash that era should be thankful it happened. Because without Brosnan there would be no Craig.

    EON stopped the Brosnan era at the right moment. DAD was the pinnacle of success, over-the-top fun simple entertainment.

    In 2006 CR managed to reinvent Bond exactly at the right time when Christopher Nolan was on the rise practically revolutionising the way how former "brainless" entertainment movies were made now. Throw in a bit of Jason Bourne which also had a great impact on Hollywood and you have the way to go for the future, and that future was CR and the following Bond movies up to SF.
    Daniel Craig was the right one and perfect for this era, as was Brosnan for his era.

    What comes next depends on what is going on in Hollywood. At the moment it seems the "Nolan" era (if I may call it that) is coming to an end.
    Spy, Kingsman, UNCLE, MI and many other "similar" movies to Bond go already in a different direction.
    It seems they are able to combine fun, pure entertainment, some over-the-top action with intelligently written characters and more or less good stories. Hollywood is constantly evolving.

    To simply continue with Bond after Craig in the same manner would not be wise.
    As for now I'm certain the next Bond (ca 2020 is my guess) will be much more fun, have over-the-top (not too much) elaborate action and character driven stories. It's possible, we see it every day on TV where many TV Shows are already better than movies.

    EON will cast a new Bond and possibly new actors for the side-characters as well. Imo that would be the wise thing to clearly show that a new Bond era has started.

    The time where you can cast a dress man or former TV darling for Bond is definitely over.
    My guess is, they will look for a proven actor (possibly with theatre background) that looks the part and has the physicality to be believable but at the same time can be witty and charming.

    I thought this was a an insightful and perspicacious post, BondJasonBond006.

    Don't forget that movie-making also has a lot to do with finance. Where the producers take the franchise artistically will also depend on their financial backers. SF was such a smash hit, both in terms of fan popularity and revenue that backers were willing to lavish a whopping 350 million US dollars on SP, according to Forbes. It seems also that they were falling over themselves in the initial pre-production stage for a piece of the action. On the day EON need, firstly, to go with a new actor and secondly then choose to go in a different direction, this will cause doubt in eyes of financiers, who generally don't like journeys into "Red Indian" territory.

    What I'm saying is that EON will have a great deal of difficulty pitching the changes you suggest to the backers they desperately need, unless DC's final movie turns out to be a box-office flop in comparative terms to his previous movies.
  • EsotericEsoteric Poland
    Posts: 28
    I would give one more movie for Craig to say goodbye. The movie, that from the beginning, even same title theme would point out that this is a farewell. Spectre isn't the plot for one movie, i've hear rumours that Bond 25 will continue it's story - in that case, sudden change of the actor would look weird. If Bond 25 will really be "sequel", it is essential for Daniel Craig and Sam Mendes to participate.

    What after Craig's departure (which will make me sad as hell)?

    I would really want to see Henry Cavill as Roger Moore's successor. And... I know this is twisted idea, but... Master Tarantino wanted to direct Casino Royale placed in 50's - 60's and in black-and-white. Also, i'm currently reading "Live And Let Die" - the description of Bond's appearance made me want to see standalone movie, placed in 50's or 60's, in black-and-white with... Benedict Cumberbatch as Bond. I am serious now.

    Bloody high cheeckbones!
  • MrLunnMrLunn Lunnigham
    Posts: 60


    This is where Bond should go - he's perfect for the role.
  • JeffreyJeffrey The Netherlands
    Posts: 308
    Esoteric wrote: »
    I would give one more movie for Craig to say goodbye. The movie, that from the beginning, even same title theme would point out that this is a farewell. Spectre isn't the plot for one movie, i've hear rumours that Bond 25 will continue it's story - in that case, sudden change of the actor would look weird. If Bond 25 will really be "sequel", it is essential for Daniel Craig and Sam Mendes to participate.

    What after Craig's departure (which will make me sad as hell)?

    I would really want to see Henry Cavill as Roger Moore's successor. And... I know this is twisted idea, but... Master Tarantino wanted to direct Casino Royale placed in 50's - 60's and in black-and-white. Also, i'm currently reading "Live And Let Die" - the description of Bond's appearance made me want to see standalone movie, placed in 50's or 60's, in black-and-white with... Benedict Cumberbatch as Bond. I am serious now.

    Bloody high cheeckbones!
    I don't think Mendes would have to return for a sequel.

    Cumberbatch as Bond. For me he doesn't look like Bond to be honest.
  • EsotericEsoteric Poland
    edited September 2015 Posts: 28
    Jeffrey wrote: »
    I don't think Mendes would have to return for a sequel.

    Cumberbatch as Bond. For me he doesn't look like Bond to be honest.

    I know he said he will not change his mind again, but if Craig would return for his last movie, i would want sure director to continue the legacy of Skyfall and Spectre - because that's how Craig's goodbye should look.

    I'm sure that BCB would be great, no matter how controversial this idea looks now. While reading "Live And Let Die" i have tried to imagine Craig in this book, but suddenly, afer that short description part i only thought: "Bloody Cumberbatch".

  • MurdockMurdock Mr. 2000
    Posts: 16,146
    I believe Daniel Craig was once considered to play Thor. That would have been very interesting though.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited September 2015 Posts: 23,883
    Yes, I'd prefer Hemsworth come no where near Bond really. He's a bit of a block of wood compared to what we need. Case in point: He gets completely overshadowed by Downey Jr. in Avengers & even Hiddleston in Thor.

    If it came to it, I'd prefer someone with Downey's charisma rather than someone with Hemsworth's looks.
  • Posts: 2,488
    Hopefully back to basics. James Blond was an experiment that worked, but I hope they go back to basics, and watch some Connery 007 movies before moving on.

    Maybe it will be Bond vs SPECTRE again before Bond moving on to facing random villains like it was Silva in SF for example ?
  • Posts: 191
    Craig will probably be doing one more after Spectre. I mean, he looks great, doesn't he. I think they'll do a complete refresh / reboot after Craig, and cast someone younger (not Idris I'm afraid - he'll be too old to start a new cycle of Bond movies). I think we'll be looking again at a Bond in his early / mid-30's by the time we get a new Bond.
  • Personally I wouldn't reboot and if you get different actors to play Q, Miss Moneypenny and M, have them established as we know who they are. Give the Role to Tom Hardy and move away from Bonds past and have a mix of Spectre and stand alone films and bring in humour and if it is Hardy make him brutal like his Mad Max Character.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    edited October 2015 Posts: 11,105
    Hardy won't get the role. I'm 100% certain of that.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,021
    If Nolan happens to direct Bond 25 which I would not rule out, Hardy will be on the very short short list.
    If Bond 25 gets Craig back in action, Hardy will never be Bond because he'll be too old.

    Read my lips folks:

    DAN STEVENS teehee :))
  • bond_azoozbondbond_azoozbond Portland,OR
    Posts: 97
    I saw Legends, Tom hardy of course.. I didnt feel he is bond at all .. So no hardy !!
  • A question to everyone:

    In the Fleming novels Bond is in his mid 30's to early 40's (if I recall that correctly).

    Having finished my Bondathon now I realised that I actually like it most when Bond is "young", like the first 4 Connery movies, the first two Moore movies, the first 3 Brosnan movies and the first two Craig movies.
    Bond simply looks his best in those movies, after that it goes downhill with all of the actors I mentioned.

    I really hope BB will cast a new Bond that is 35 years old, possibly even looking a bit more youthful, and do movies with him until he's 45 max.
    It would reflect the Fleming Bond better imo, and make more sense as the age question would never even pop up anymore.

    I agree (partially). Absolutely to Connery and Moore. I actually think Brosnan and Craig have aged well and look great in all of their respective Bond films.
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    Posts: 2,138
    With it being projected by industry experts that Spectre I'd on track to make $75-80M on opening week. Dan will be back for more. Possibly as one of the highest earning actors in a role ever. A lot of names banded around will be too old. The next Bond is probably not even on the radar yet.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    I agree Sir Hilary and really hope your right. Yes Tom Hardy is a good actor, but he's too short.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,021
    Hardy is a mere 3 cm shorter than Craig and honestly, 1.75 m or 1.78 doesn't matter when all other Bond actors where some 10 cm taller.

    Funny how this argument "too short, not too short" can go either way if someone wants to argue for or against Craig :))

    This is not a direct reply to anyone, just saying.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    edited October 2015 Posts: 5,131
    This matters. Daniel is just ok height wise at 5 ft 10/ 11 (i.e. UK average height for a male). Hardy is 5ft 8/ 9 in - smaller than average UK height. i.e. short. You have to have rules otherwise before you know it Warwick Davis will be 007 (ha ha ha)!
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,021
    suavejmf wrote: »
    This matters. Daniel is just ok height wise at 5 ft 10/ 11 (i.e. UK average height for a male). Hardy is 5ft 8/ 9 in - smaller than average UK height. i.e. short. You have to have rules otherwise before you know it Warwick Davis will be 007 (ha ha ha)!

    Ok I agree, Warwick Davis is too old anyway :))
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    I'll be very surprised if some as high profile as Hardy gets picked, even with Nolan directing he'd have to look for someone less well known to take on the part

    I believe Campbell wanted to go with Cavill but was over ruled no doubt by MGW & Babs.

    Basically he's not on anyone's radar unless it's Dan Stevens or possibly Tom Hughes but I'm thinking it might even be someone less known than them by the time Craig exits.

    I've said it before Bond makes the star and not the other way round, this has for the most part worked why change that now regardless of what studio MGM & EON get into bed with next.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e il momento che verrà
    edited October 2015 Posts: 5,914
    Anyone ever thought Jack Davenport would make a Bond? I think he'd make a good Bond.
  • DariusDarius UK
    edited October 2015 Posts: 354
    A good long trawl through the Internet reveals a plethora of websites showing articles on who should be the next Bond, and not a single one of them looks beyond A list or at least household name actors. By this, I mean the likes of Tom Hardy, Hugh Jackman, Henry Cavill, along with loads of refugees from popular TV shows.

    The secret behind choosing the next Bond, I think, is to choose an obscure actor whose career has been spent largely under the radar of the mainstream viewing public. Not only this, but he also needs to be under the radar of the vast majority of Bond fans, the like of which populate this site.

    When DC was first chosen as 007, most of the negative feelings were born out of the fact that he was an unknown quantity, and the human animal is largely resistant to any sort of change, especially if that change is into the unknown. It is this factor that was mostly instrumental in giving rise to the CnB campaigners -- they simply wanted the security of a known quantity to be 007, rather than a face they didn't know and whose work was largely confined to the "arty" sector of the film world. Gosh, they were thinking, this isn't art -- it's James Bond! What the hell are Eon thinking of? Surely this won't work.

    But it did work. CR was arguably the first Bond movie with slightly artistic leanings (I don't deign to use the word pretentions) and it blew everyone away. The main reason why it worked so well, I think, is because DC was a clean slate with little or no dramatic baggage worthy of note and he was/is a good actor to boot.

    This is, in my opinion, is the formula to go for when looking to the future beyond DC.
Sign In or Register to comment.