Craig: stay or go? has SPECTRE changed any opinions?

talos7talos7 New Orleans
Prior to seeing SPECTRE I was 100% in favor of Daniel Craig returning for another. Now, having seen it, I'm not so sure. It really is a perfect way to end his run.
«13456716

Comments

  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    edited November 2015 Posts: 9,021
    I WANT MORE

    Rather risking another Skyfall than potentially missing another Spectre.

    PS: yes, changed my mind, after SF I couldn't care less for Craig and Mendes
  • MurdockMurdock Mr. 2000
    Posts: 16,057
    More Craig Please. He can't do no wrong in my book.
  • Lancaster007Lancaster007 Shrublands Health Clinic, England
    Posts: 1,874
    Craig, yes. Mendes, no. And please lets get back to Bond being given a mission by M, and off we go. No more action taking place in London (or anywhere in GB) just great locations, beautiful girls, badass henchmen and a villain with a purpose.
  • BirdlesonBirdleson San Jose, CAModerator
    Posts: 30,996
    Pre-seeing SPECTRE I was all for Craig doing five. After seeing SP, I think it's time for him to go.
  • Lancaster007Lancaster007 Shrublands Health Clinic, England
    Posts: 1,874
    wrote: »
    Pre-seeing SPECTRE I was all for Craig doing five. After seeing SP, I think it's time for him to go.

    Do you think he has too much input to the films? Just read an interview and it sounds like he has a say on casting, story, etc.
  • Posts: 10,525
    I'm a little split. I'd lean yes though, because I think for sure he is one of the greatest Bonds, and I've enjoyed all his films. Of course, the way SP ended felt complete, so it really depends on where they go with the next film. I'd be in favor of a stand-alone type film (we're due for one).
  • BirdlesonBirdleson San Jose, CAModerator
    Posts: 30,996
    I wouldn't know, but he didn't I felt his performance was way off this time.

    In addition, they've tied his whole saga so tightly into a knot with the past, all his missions being connected, team Bond, M recordings from the dead, leaving...time for a clean slate.
  • Lancaster007Lancaster007 Shrublands Health Clinic, England
    edited November 2015 Posts: 1,874
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I wouldn't know, but he didn't I felt his performance was way off this time.

    In addition, they've tied his whole saga so tightly into a knot with the past, all his missions being connected, team Bond, M recordings from the dead, leaving...time for a clean slate.

    Certainly a stand alone film, which I hoped SPECTRE would be. And I think I'm not enjoying it as much as I could because of this tying all previous DC Bonds together. Yet my friend who is a casual Bond fan thought that idea was brilliant! We're all different I guess.
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 10,525
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I wouldn't know, but he didn't I felt his performance was way off this time.

    In addition, they've tied his whole saga so tightly into a knot with the past, all his missions being connected, team Bond, M recordings from the dead, leaving...time for a clean slate.

    Would you be more in favor of him staying if the film was completely unrelated to the last four?
  • BirdlesonBirdleson San Jose, CAModerator
    edited November 2015 Posts: 30,996
    It would be hard to get his performance from this film out of my head. If he could retain that focus and commitment to character that had in the first three, I guess I could be won over. But right now I'm ready for a fresh start. For nine years I've been saying no more reboots, the one in 2006 was appropriate, but I felt that was a once in a fifty year event. But, with what EON and Mendes and Craig have saddled to this character, I now think it is necessary to reboot again. Or at least just completely ignore what has gone past except when convenient, like they used to.
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 2,331
    I think SP is Craig's best performance in the role. It's the closest to Connery's in TB - cool, suave, dangerous, yet still manages to pull off serious and even vulnerable at the same time.

    This is Craig Bond meets Cinematic Bond, and boy does he pull it off well.

    He should do one more. After that, age will be against him.
  • imranbecksimranbecks Singapore
    Posts: 889
    He should stay. And do at least one more. I actually think his performance as Bond in Spectre is his best yet. He really pulled it off so well and made it seem so natural. Fleming would be proud.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,090
    @jetsetwilly and @imranbecks I agree with both of you. SP demonstrated the versatility of Craig's dexterity as an actor and also displayed his status to be mentioned in the same breath as Connery when it comes to a fully formed Bond performance. The man definitely has at least one more film in him and irrespective of what one thinks of SP; good or bad note, it's imperative he stays.
  • MurdockMurdock Mr. 2000
    Posts: 16,057
    Luckily Barbara is keen to keep Daniel onboard no matter what. ;)
  • imranbecksimranbecks Singapore
    edited November 2015 Posts: 889
    They need to cast someone younger in the future, so he can do a lot more Bond films than Brosnan or Craig before age catches up to them which plagued Brosnan and now Craig. Early to mid 30s would be good...
  • GHettoblasterGHettoblaster New York, USA
    Posts: 15
    It's hard to say. I'm fine either way. If they think they can build off this movie and do another legit film with Daniel, then I'm all for him staying. However, if they're out of ideas and want to start fresh, then spectre would be a perfect swan song for the Craig era and I'd hate to see him go out on a stinker or an ending with a sad note. My heart wants him to come back but my brain says this might have been the best way to cap off his era.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 6,044
    It's hard to say. I'm fine either way. If they think they can build off this movie and do another legit film with Daniel, then I'm all for him staying. However, if they're out of ideas and want to start fresh, then spectre would be a perfect swan song for the Craig era and I'd hate to see him go out on a stinker or an ending with a sad note. My heart wants him to come back but my brain says this might have been the best way to cap off his era.

    Well said, I agree.

  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,090
    imranbecks wrote: »
    They need to cast someone younger in the future, so he can do a lot more Bond films than Brosnan or Craig before age catches up to them which plagued Brosnan and now Craig. Early to mid 30s would be good...

    Casting younger once Craig is finished is a given, however, I think Craig being cast at 38 was a good age. It just sucks that the MGM crisis robbed him of having done 5 films by now instead of 4.
  • Murdock wrote: »
    More Craig Please. He can't do no wrong in my book.

    I agree. More please.
  • DrShatterhandDrShatterhand Garden of Death, near Belfast
    Posts: 805
    If Bond 25 is a direct sequel then one more Craig, if not bring in some fresh blood.

    There was something about his performance in SP though that made me think it would be his last. I know it's called 'acting' but that last scene where he chose the woman over the job seemed to be as much about Craig as it was for Bond.
  • Lancaster007Lancaster007 Shrublands Health Clinic, England
    Posts: 1,874
    If Bond 25 is a direct sequel then one more Craig, if not bring in some fresh blood.

    There was something about his performance in SP though that made me think it would be his last. I know it's called 'acting' but that last scene where he chose the woman over the job seemed to be as much about Craig as it was for Bond.

    I had the same feeling on first viewing. I thought 'there he goes, end of Craig'.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    I'm indifferent, but am leaning towards 'go'.

    He's done what he can with the role. Brought it full circle. Given us 4 very good films. If B25 is a direct sequel then stay and finish it. Otherwise, let's have a younger Bond.

    Also, if we're leaning more towards the slightly more glib Bond of old (which is where I think they're taking us) there are other actors who can do it just as well if not better. DC is best with real 'depth' like in SF/CR, and not with casual fare. It's really not his forte. Although he did a good enough job with the lighter fare in SP, he is no Connery, or even Moore when it comes to this sort of thing.
  • DrShatterhandDrShatterhand Garden of Death, near Belfast
    Posts: 805
    Does anyone else think that replacing Craig may actually be the most challenging replacement of all for EON?

    (I'm leaving out Connery for Lazenby as he quit and everyone knew SC was returning just for one more)

    How I see it:

    1. Lazenby for Connery - SC had made it clear during the filming of YOLT that it would be his last one so the public had been set up well in advance there would be a new face at the helm. EON's decision: Go for a looky-likey and pretend nothing had changed...

    2. Moore for Connery - Again, the public knew SC was only doing the one film before handing over to someone else. EON's decision: Choose someone who had already been mentioned as a possible 007 and was well known to the public playing similar characters, a no-brainer really...

    3. Dalton for Moore - While RM was much loved, it was clear to everyone - RM included - that by AVTAK he as far too old for the role. There was a clear understanding commercially and artistically that the series needed to adapt to survive. EON's decision: Bring in a classically-trained actor for a more grounded approach and a return to Fleming's character...

    4. Brosnan for Dalton - The long gap in production and the under-performance of LTK in the US meant this was a pretty easy one to sell to the public. By the time GE was announced there were probably a lot of people who couldn't even name the actor currently playing Bond. EON's decision: Bring in an actor that was well known in the US, good-looking, a little bit SC, a little bit Moore, who suited the repackaging of old ideas they were going for.

    5. Craig for Dalton - Possibly the most difficult replacement to date, particularly with all the 'Bond Not Blond' brouhaha. The public were reassured though that this was a complete fresh start and here was the guy to deliver something tougher and more human, a blessed relief after the end of Brosnans's tenure....

    So here we are James..

    6. Craig for..Hardy? Fassbender? Whoever? - I think this could be tough for EON as they've made the Craig films effectively one long story. We've seen his first kills to gain 00 status and the raw, unrefined early days. Before we knew it, he was a bit over the hill and ripe for replacement by computers.

    So EON's decision...do they try to continue Bonds' story and exploration of his past but now with a clearly younger man? or forget about it and move on? or go back in time and show us some of his earlier missions? Do they continue the rougher tougher Craigf version by casting someone like Hardy? Or switch tack to a more urbane slicker Bond like Fassbender? Or something else entirely?

    Like I say, could be tricky...
  • Lancaster007Lancaster007 Shrublands Health Clinic, England
    Posts: 1,874
    Wasn't Bond 24 and Bond 25 meant to be conceived as two parts of the same story? Or was that before they got the rights to SPECTRE back?
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 50
    For me, it all depends on exactly what the plan going forward is. As many have mentioned already, SP and B25 were conceived as a two parter originally, so having Dan for the second part only makes sense, right? But that's the only reason i would want to see Dan back again. Heck, i'm not a big fan of SP but if the idea is a two parter then you need to carry on with the same actor. If we are going with a new original flick for 25 then i say its time to bring in Bond #7
  • DrShatterhandDrShatterhand Garden of Death, near Belfast
    edited November 2015 Posts: 805
    WaltherPPK wrote: »
    For me, it all depends on exactly what the plan going forward is. As many have mentioned already, SP and B25 were conceived as a two parter originally, so having Dan for the second part only makes sense, right? But that's the only reason i would want to see Dan back again. Heck, i'm not a big fan of SP but if the idea is a two parter then you need to carry on with the same actor. If we are going with a new original flick for 25 then i say its time to bring in Bond #7

    But I think the two-parter plan was abandoned and it was all squashed up into one movie: SP. A bit like The Dark Knight being originally planned to end at the Joker's incarceration with part 2 then dealing with his trial and disfigurement of Harvey Dent. I'd guess Part 1 of SP was to end with Blofeld's reveal of who he really is and his part in all of Bond's previous woes.
  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    Posts: 3,157
    Well, thank you very much for spoiling me the Dark Night.
  • Thunderball007Thunderball007 United States
    edited November 2015 Posts: 306
    I think that Daniel Craig's performance in SPECTRE is masterful! I want him to stay! :D
  • DrShatterhandDrShatterhand Garden of Death, near Belfast
    edited November 2015 Posts: 805
    Walecs wrote: »
    Well, thank you very much for spoiling me the Dark Night.

    :-\"
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,440
    Walecs wrote: »
    Well, thank you very much for spoiling me the Dark Night.

    How have you not seen TDK after 7 years?
Sign In or Register to comment.