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

145791015

Comments

  • Posts: 1,098
    Craig to stay.......but with a new director and writers, who can come up with a more engaging story to satisfy the worldwide audience!
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    mepal1 wrote: »
    Craig to stay.......but with a new director and writers, who can come up with a more engaging story to satisfy the worldwide audience!

    +1
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 7,848
    I would rather they did a simpler, lighter story than one which is complex and deep but filled with holes. Just send Bond out on a mission, have Q M and MP back at base, and no personnel/rogue funny business. Blofeld can sit in that jail cell for a few movies as far as I'm concerned.
  • Posts: 11,425
    I would rather they did a simpler, lighter story than one which is complex and deep but filled with holes. Just send Bond out on a mission, have Q M and MP back at base, and no personnel/rogue funny business. Blofeld can sit in that jail cell for a few movies as far as I'm concerned.

    Totally agree.

  • Posts: 5,767
    mepal1 wrote: »
    Craig to stay.......but with a new director and writers, who can come up with a more engaging story to satisfy the worldwide audience!
    While surely a good script never hurts, I´ve seen enough silly scripts made into splendid movies to be satisfied already if only the director would pull it off to my arrogant liking.
    I guess the different elements must come together in the right combination, and then magic can happen.

  • Posts: 6,601
    This is as inside, as you will ever get from him. Of course, also Spectre stuff being talked about. But it also shows, put him in front of some regular guys and he is a changed man.

    http://hwcdn.libsyn.com/p/1/5/d/15d116b8d0756ccc/Nerdist_761_-_Daniel_Craig.mp3?c_id=10313708&expiration=1447858503&hwt=7d8fe05c49ee4404043b2838fc6f0e8f
  • DonnyDB5DonnyDB5 Buffalo, New York
    Posts: 1,755
    Wish we could just hear him say yes or no as to whether or not he'll return.
  • Posts: 1,092
    Give him a few months and he'll know himself if he is. I'm still convinced he will.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 7,848
    He will return, he just doesn't know it yet. ;)
  • Posts: 582
    I'd be very surprised if he didn't.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited November 2015 Posts: 5,858
    AceHole wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    AceHole wrote: »
    If Dalton had taken the role in 1980 (if I remember correctly he was offered it in 1968 and '80 before actually taking it in '86) he would undoubtedly have become the defining interpretation of 007. The series would not have gone through the hiatus after '89 and we probably would have quite a few more quality entries than we currently do...
    What makes you so assuredly say this?

    There is no evidence that Dalton would have been any more accepted commercially in 1980 than he was in 1987. Replacing an 'in-form' and young Moore post_MR (a massive financial success) would have been more of a challenge than replacing an 'out of form' and old Moore post-AVTAK.

    Critically he may have been good. Commercially, he wasn't though.

    I so assuredly say this because I checked my crystal ball only just this morningsome :D

    But seriously - I feel that Dalton would have had time to establish himself as the renaissance-Bond of the more austere 1980's (MR was a product of it's past, the glitzy, indulgent late 1970's), having the time to prove & establish himself much like DC did, before the landscape of cinema & blockbusters changed in the late 80's. He would have left the series 'naturally', and we wouldn't have had the rather reactionary Brosnan era.

    But the '80s weren't austere. Everything was bigger: big hair, big neon colors...cf the title sequence of AVTAK.

    Back on topic, of course Craig should come back. He is the seminal Bond: finally combining the hard-edged Connery Bond and the introspective Dalton one into the closest incarnation of Fleming's Bond. Ultimately, Lazenby, Moore, and Brosnan couldn't do it.
  • Posts: 1,296
    I want him back. Not as much fafter Skyfall but now he has it in him. Airbrush if need be. :)
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    Posts: 1,727
    echo wrote: »
    AceHole wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    AceHole wrote: »
    If Dalton had taken the role in 1980 (if I remember correctly he was offered it in 1968 and '80 before actually taking it in '86) he would undoubtedly have become the defining interpretation of 007. The series would not have gone through the hiatus after '89 and we probably would have quite a few more quality entries than we currently do...
    What makes you so assuredly say this?

    There is no evidence that Dalton would have been any more accepted commercially in 1980 than he was in 1987. Replacing an 'in-form' and young Moore post_MR (a massive financial success) would have been more of a challenge than replacing an 'out of form' and old Moore post-AVTAK.

    Critically he may have been good. Commercially, he wasn't though.

    I so assuredly say this because I checked my crystal ball only just this morningsome :D

    But seriously - I feel that Dalton would have had time to establish himself as the renaissance-Bond of the more austere 1980's (MR was a product of it's past, the glitzy, indulgent late 1970's), having the time to prove & establish himself much like DC did, before the landscape of cinema & blockbusters changed in the late 80's. He would have left the series 'naturally', and we wouldn't have had the rather reactionary Brosnan era.

    But the '80s weren't austere. Everything was bigger: big hair, big neon colors...cf the title sequence of AVTAK.

    Back on topic, of course Craig should come back. He is the seminal Bond: finally combining the hard-edged Connery Bond and the introspective Dalton one into the closest incarnation of Fleming's Bond. Ultimately, Lazenby, Moore, and Brosnan couldn't do it.

    The 'austere' return to a more grounded, less glamorous Bond in FYEO. More suited to Dalton. That's all.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited November 2015 Posts: 7,848
    Bring back Craig, hire new writers, That's what I say! :D

    Having said that, now does seem an opportune moment for change, given the bidding war that is imminent. B25 could bring a completely different Bond, Director, Writer, Composer etc. With just M, Q, Moneypenny and tanner remaining. (I don't think they would recast those roles again, probably just reduce their screen time.)

    The only thing that makes this seem unlikely is the fact that they just spent a film setting up an actor in the role of ESB. Surely that has to pay off. They didn't kill him off after all. I suppose the next Bond could continue the story from where Craig left off, but I don't think audiences would accept it nowadays (and a new studio would never agree to it).

    I think the disappointing box office results of SPECTRE could be the nail in the coffin for Craig. After Skyfall, I think EON were confident that they could pull in another billion dollars by bringing back Blofeld, the evil lair, deadly henchman etc. You know, all that iconic stuff. With a budget of 300 million there is no way they weren't shooting for another billion with SPECTRE.

    A potential new studio now has the upper hand. They can demand that Craig leave the role and EON's hands are tied. It would have been a different story had SPECTRE blown Skyfall out of the water at the BO. Craig is 47, it's obvious to anyone that he can only do one more before his age becomes a real issue. Why bring him back, have a wild success only to have to start again with a new actor the next time around?
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 5,858
    Bring back Craig, hire new writers, That's what I say! :D

    Having said that, now does seem an opportune moment for change, given the bidding war that is imminent. B25 could bring a completely different Bond, Director, Writer, Composer etc. With just M, Q, Moneypenny and tanner remaining. (I don't think they would recast those roles again, probably just reduce their screen time.)

    The only thing that makes this seem unlikely is the fact that they just spent a film setting up an actor in the role of ESB. Surely that has to pay off. They didn't kill him off after all. I suppose the next Bond could continue the story from where Craig left off, but I don't think audiences would accept it nowadays (and a new studio would never agree to it).

    I think the disappointing box office results of SPECTRE could be the nail in the coffin for Craig. After Skyfall, I think EON were confident that they could pull in another billion dollars by bringing back Blofeld, the evil lair, deadly henchman etc. You know, all that iconic stuff. With a budget of 300 million there is no way they weren't shooting for another billion with SPECTRE.

    A potential new studio now has the upper hand. They can demand that Craig leave the role and EON's hands are tied. It would have been a different story had SPECTRE blown Skyfall out of the water at the BO. Craig is 47, it's obvious to anyone that he can only do one more before his age becomes a real issue. Why bring him back, have a wild success only to have to start again with a new actor the next time around?

    But why would they get rid of Craig? Most people, especially in Hollywood, think he's the best change the series has had in decades. He's not Lazenby, Moore, Dalton, or Brosnan. He is in the top tier of Bond actors with Connery.

    More likely, they'll lure Craig back for one last go-round a la Connery in DAF.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Exactly. Bond without Craig is a much riskier prospect at this point in time.
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 1,092
    Bring back Craig, hire new writers, That's what I say! :D

    Having said that, now does seem an opportune moment for change, given the bidding war that is imminent. B25 could bring a completely different Bond, Director, Writer, Composer etc. With just M, Q, Moneypenny and tanner remaining. (I don't think they would recast those roles again, probably just reduce their screen time.)

    The only thing that makes this seem unlikely is the fact that they just spent a film setting up an actor in the role of ESB. Surely that has to pay off. They didn't kill him off after all. I suppose the next Bond could continue the story from where Craig left off, but I don't think audiences would accept it nowadays (and a new studio would never agree to it).

    I think the disappointing box office results of SPECTRE could be the nail in the coffin for Craig. After Skyfall, I think EON were confident that they could pull in another billion dollars by bringing back Blofeld, the evil lair, deadly henchman etc. You know, all that iconic stuff. With a budget of 300 million there is no way they weren't shooting for another billion with SPECTRE.

    A potential new studio now has the upper hand. They can demand that Craig leave the role and EON's hands are tied. It would have been a different story had SPECTRE blown Skyfall out of the water at the BO. Craig is 47, it's obvious to anyone that he can only do one more before his age becomes a real issue. Why bring him back, have a wild success only to have to start again with a new actor the next time around?

    What on earth are you talking about? "Disappointing BO returns"? Say what? It's on pace to make profits in the hundreds of millions. It will be the 2nd highest grossing Bond film of all time! How is that disappointing? SF was a fluke. No way anyone wants to lose Craig at this point. His four films will have totaled over THREE BILLION dollars at the BO when it's all said and done. They will bend over backwards to get him back.

    To say otherwise is crazy talk, dude.

    Oh, and his age is only an issue if he looks old and can't do the stunts convincingly. He doesn't look old and he's crushing the stunts on his own. Just saying his age means nothing. It's a number, nothing more. I don't understand these complaints. Seriously, what are you talking about?
  • Posts: 11,425
    How old was Rog when he handed in his "00"? 57?

    Dan's got another decade in him yet.

    I think the funny thing is that despite what he says, DC loves this role more and more with each film. I'm fairly sure he'll do one more, but even two is not out of the question.

    It's a shame they did the whole over the hill thing in SF - that would have made for a nice sixth instalment for Dan.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    The_Reaper wrote: »
    Bring back Craig, hire new writers, That's what I say! :D

    Having said that, now does seem an opportune moment for change, given the bidding war that is imminent. B25 could bring a completely different Bond, Director, Writer, Composer etc. With just M, Q, Moneypenny and tanner remaining. (I don't think they would recast those roles again, probably just reduce their screen time.)

    The only thing that makes this seem unlikely is the fact that they just spent a film setting up an actor in the role of ESB. Surely that has to pay off. They didn't kill him off after all. I suppose the next Bond could continue the story from where Craig left off, but I don't think audiences would accept it nowadays (and a new studio would never agree to it).

    I think the disappointing box office results of SPECTRE could be the nail in the coffin for Craig. After Skyfall, I think EON were confident that they could pull in another billion dollars by bringing back Blofeld, the evil lair, deadly henchman etc. You know, all that iconic stuff. With a budget of 300 million there is no way they weren't shooting for another billion with SPECTRE.

    A potential new studio now has the upper hand. They can demand that Craig leave the role and EON's hands are tied. It would have been a different story had SPECTRE blown Skyfall out of the water at the BO. Craig is 47, it's obvious to anyone that he can only do one more before his age becomes a real issue. Why bring him back, have a wild success only to have to start again with a new actor the next time around?

    What on earth are you talking about? "Disappointing BO returns"? Say what? It's on pace to make profits in the hundreds of millions. It will be the 2nd highest grossing Bond film of all time! How is that disappointing? SF was a fluke. No way anyone wants to lose Craig at this point. His four films will have totaled over THREE BILLION dollars at the BO when it's all said and done. They will bend over backwards to get him back.

    To say otherwise is crazy talk, dude.

    Oh, and his age is only an issue if he looks old and can't do the stunts convincingly. He doesn't look old and he's crushing the stunts on his own. Just saying his age means nothing. It's a number, nothing more. I don't understand these complaints. Seriously, what are you talking about?

    Very well said sir.

    Some people stagger you on here with the inanity of their posts.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I'm pretty sure they had higher expectations for SP box office, but a variety of factors have played into that, including a crowded spy market and release schedule as well as losing some momentum in Paris/Brussels etc.

    The film will still be a huge success as has been noted. Its profitability is not in the same league as SF though, from what I know about the budgets.

    On an inflation adjusted basis, it could come in at 4 or 5 on the all time list for box office gross.

    Bottom line - any reduction in overall box office gross for SP vs SF is not on account of Craig....not from what I have read. There are far other factors that have caused that.

    Regarding his age - I don't think he can go on to his mid 50's like Moore because credibility in the action space is much more important now.....and I believe Bourne is to thank for that more than MI. I think he's got one more in him at most, and I think he knows it.
  • Posts: 1,092
    I disagree. He's more buff than any Bond before him thus he could do two more easy.

  • Posts: 11,425
    The exchange rate was to SF's advantage but is now against SP as the dollar has strengthened considerably since SF. That mean SP has to do better than SF outside the U.S. to just match SF, which was unlikely to ever happen.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    The_Reaper wrote: »
    I disagree. He's more buff than any Bond before him thus he could do two more easy.
    I'll agree that he is quite buff. However, age is still an issue despite this. He can't do what he did in the CR crane chase today, and he blew his knee out during the train fight with Bautista and is having surgery in 2016. He even admitted it's much more difficult now in the Charlie Rose interview.
    Getafix wrote: »
    The exchange rate was to SF's advantage but is now against SP as the dollar has strengthened considerably since SF. That mean SP has to do better than SF outside the U.S. to just match SF, which was unlikely to ever happen.
    Yes, absolutely. We discussed that a few months back on the box office thread. That should have been considered though.....it really isn't a surprise about the US $, because folks in the finance industry knew that 'speculation' about a rate increase in 2015 would move the $ up, especially against commodity backed currencies. The Production team should have hedged this.
  • Posts: 11,425
    May be they have done?
  • I think he should go. After the Spectre ending its the perfect time for him to leave. He has done as much as he can with the role. Also he's starting to look old now. Gets away with it in Spectre but another 2 or 3 years and he will look too old. Younger man needed.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited November 2015 Posts: 7,848
    Darren wrote: »
    I think he should go. After the Spectre ending its the perfect time for him to leave. He has done as much as he can with the role. Also he's starting to look old now. Gets away with it in Spectre but another 2 or 3 years and he will look too old. Younger man needed.

    I can see where you're coming from with the age thing. All I ever seem to hear is 'Craig looks great, he could play Bond for another decade!', ' age is just a number'etc. What people forget is how age seeks up quickly. There are little hints already in SPECTRE, especially with Lea, she looks so young. I mean, if you think about it Sean still looked great in TB, but just 2 years later he was starting to show his age. Rog looked ace in TSWLM, 4 years later he was grandpa Bond, buying Bibi an ice cream.

    I think people sometimes confuse looking young and being young. Just because they people age in a linear, consistent fashion (IE you are twice as old at forty than you are at twenty) doesn't mean that the effects of aging become apparent in the same way. The mistake people are making is comparing how he looks now to how he did when he started. The truth is, no one can predict this sort of thing. Sure Craig looks great now, today, but 3 years is a long time and chances are he won't be able to run around, seduce women, dive from explosions next time around. Which means that keeping Daniel limits what they can do and the stories they can tell.

    To those people saying 'DC can pay Bond for a decade' see how he looks in another 3 years. I'm guessing most will have changed their minds by then. I think he can do one more, as a Swan song. Then EON seriously have to get their thinking caps on and figure out how to compete with mission impossible. That series is only getting better, Bond can't coast on iconicism alone.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 7,708
    Sean's showing his age following Thunderball was more a matter of his behavior rather than age. Had he shown the same dedication to fitness as does Daniel, there is no reason that he would not looked essentially the same from 1965 to 75. Look at him in The Great Train Robbery (79) he looked great.
  • Posts: 9,669
    AVB wrote: »
    Please God, not another 'Villain is imprisoned but still pulling strings' trope.


    so you want Blofeld to just magically escape?
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    edited November 2015 Posts: 1,727
    Darren wrote: »
    I think he should go. After the Spectre ending its the perfect time for him to leave. He has done as much as he can with the role. Also he's starting to look old now. Gets away with it in Spectre but another 2 or 3 years and he will look too old. Younger man needed.

    I can see where you're coming from with the age thing. All I ever seem to hear is 'Craig looks great, he could play Bond for another decade!', ' age is just a number'etc. What people forget is how age seeks up quickly. There are little hints already in SPECTRE, especially with Lea, she looks so young.

    I mean, if you think about it Sean still looked great in TB, but just 2 years later he was starting to show his age. Rog looked ace in TSWLM, 4 years later he was grandpa Bond, buying Bibi an ice cream.

    I think people sometimes confuse looking young and being young. Sure Craig looks great now, today, but 3 years is a long time and chances are he won't be able to run around, seduce women, dive from explosions next time around. Which means that keeping Daniel limits what they can do and the stories they can tell.

    To those people saying 'DC can pay Bond for a decade' see how he looks in another 3 years. I'm guessing most will have changed their minds by then. I think he can do one more, as a Swan song. Then EON seriously have to get their thinking caps on and figure out how to compete with mission impossible. That series is only getting better, Bond can't coast on iconicism alone.

    Well quite.

    If you ask me Connery started out looking a lot older than he actually was, he looked like he could have been pushing 40 when he did DN at a mere 31 years of age.
    Moore on the other hand was an absolute baby-face until the mid 70's, by which time he was nearing 50. Brosnan also aged very well.

    DC really does look like he's nearing 50, and he will be on his last legs if he does another Bond film.

    My guess is we'll get a young guy (30-33) next, who can handle serious stunts for a good 10 years into his reign...
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    I honestly can't believe Moore was 45 in LALD. He looked like he was 30 to 35 imho.
Sign In or Register to comment.