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

1568101115

Comments

  • Posts: 11,425
    May be they can all Craig's next one "Age is Just a Number"?! ;)
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    edited November 2015 Posts: 1,727
    bondjames wrote: »
    I honestly can't believe Moore was 45 in LALD. He looked like he was 30 to 35 imho.

    He looked incredible for his age untill the late 70's.
    After MR he really started (visibly) ageing, it's as if there was a good 5 years between filming that and FYEO...
  • DoctorNoDoctorNo USA-Maryland
    Posts: 754
    Tom Cruise is 53 and no is complaining about Rogue Nation or questioning whether he's too old for another.

    DC will be fine for one more and likely two. The next one should feature beach scenes and Craig in swimsuit and no one will question his age given the shape he keeps himself in. No other Bond has maintained his conditioning like DC
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    DoctorNo wrote: »
    Tom Cruise is 53 and no is complaining about Rogue Nation or questioning whether he's too old for another.

    DC will be fine for one more and likely two. The next one should feature beach scenes and Craig in swimsuit and no one will question his age given the shape he keeps himself in. No other Bond has maintained his conditioning like DC
    Cruise is a babyface. Same with Moore. So they can pull it off for longer imho. I agree with you on DC and shirtless. I think this is his competitive differentiator and they should showcase it if they want to project his youth and virility.
  • DC is one of those people who has an old looking face anyway. IMO he looked older than his years when he started in CR!
  • Posts: 5,767
    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.
    To end after that SP ending would be a disgusting breaking of the 4th wall IMO, even worse than "that never happened to the other fella". No, especially after that ending he has to come back and soothe everybody that he was just kidding with that blonde.
    Or bring in a new actor but start the film with Madeline moving out of Bond´s flat, and then Bond being depressed for 15sec, only to turn the happiest man in the world when the red phone rings and he gets a new assignment :-).

    But seriously, Craig is much too young to quit. He looked older than he really was in SF, and in SP there are scenes where he looks exactly as in CR, so age is really no issue here.


    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.
    Aah but that´s not age that was showing, but lack of workout. Or do you suggest that he was completely put together again by esthaetic surgery for NSNA? He doesn´t look really older in NSNA than he did in DAF, but much fitter.
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 613
    He does look a little older in the face in SP but I think he can easily do one more.Four films is not enough for an actor and they have a perfect set up for the next movie.The villian and henchman can both return and you can have a Tracy bond moment with Swan.SP really felt like part 1 of a 2 film story arc for me.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    At this juncture I feel quite indifferent if Craig stays or calls it quits. I'm tired of the games and wish the powers that be just got down to business and stopped with the bs. Get rid of Mendes, let him get on with his other commitments and hire a director who can tell a cohesive story, that thrills and excites and allows the movie to convey an immersive atmosphere and that resonates with audiences.

    Bond will return, he always does that much we know and quite frankly the BO results I don't care for really. If the producers are happy, good for them, if they're not I hope they have the good sense to address and rectify the real problems and issues.

    SP was enjoyable but it had a weak story and as long as the film was, everything felt rushed, Mendes was too reliant on throwbacks and the cost of the movie was ridiculously too much. A better Bond movie could have been made with around half the budget.

    The producers need to step up and cull this overrelliance on their current writers and their neediness over Mendes. Had we got SP in 2014 people would have been saying the movie needed another year to get the script right. Bullshit. Good writers are good writers, 1 year, 2 years, 3 years or 4 it doesn't matter. Hire and pay the right people and you'll get something special. Relying on the goodwill of a fluke movie isn't enough and now look, SP critically isn't garnering the kudos many people were expecting and to a number of people it's a meh movie. I don't want to wait 3 years for a meh Bond movie and I certainly don't want a Bond movie to keep repeating the same mistakes over and over again.

    I love Craig in the role and I think he should do a 5th for many reasons i'm too lazy to get into but if he decides to walk, then thanks and good luck with your future endeavours. There's a lack of dedicated focus that needs to be sorted out and an alarming sense of complacency from the producers to ensure we're getting something solid. It doesn't matter who's in the role, fundamentally if the script is fractured and the director lacks visual agility then there shouldn't be any surprise if there's a backlash of varying degrees.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Well said
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Agreed. Well put.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    doubleoego wrote: »
    At this juncture I feel quite indifferent if Craig stays or calls it quits. I'm tired of the games and wish the powers that be just got down to business and stopped with the bs. Get rid of Mendes, let him get on with his other commitments and hire a director who can tell a cohesive story, that thrills and excites and allows the movie to convey an immersive atmosphere and that resonates with audiences.

    Bond will return, he always does that much we know and quite frankly the BO results I don't care for really. If the producers are happy, good for them, if they're not I hope they have the good sense to address and rectify the real problems and issues.

    SP was enjoyable but it had a weak story and as long as the film was, everything felt rushed, Mendes was too reliant on throwbacks and the cost of the movie was ridiculously too much. A better Bond movie could have been made with around half the budget.

    The producers need to step up and cull this overrelliance on their current writers and their neediness over Mendes. Had we got SP in 2014 people would have been saying the movie needed another year to get the script right. Bullshit. Good writers are good writers, 1 year, 2 years, 3 years or 4 it doesn't matter. Hire and pay the right people and you'll get something special. Relying on the goodwill of a fluke movie isn't enough and now look, SP critically isn't garnering the kudos many people were expecting and to a number of people it's a meh movie. I don't want to wait 3 years for a meh Bond movie and I certainly don't want a Bond movie to keep repeating the same mistakes over and over again.

    I love Craig in the role and I think he should do a 5th for many reasons i'm too lazy to get into but if he decides to walk, then thanks and good luck with your future endeavours. There's a lack of dedicated focus that needs to be sorted out and an alarming sense of complacency from the producers to ensure we're getting something solid. It doesn't matter who's in the role, fundamentally if the script is fractured and the director lacks visual agility then there shouldn't be any surprise if there's a backlash of varying degrees.

    Have to agree with you here.

    When all the 'will he won't he' bullshit from Mendes ended up meaning it would be 3 years till the next film I took it as a positive as I naively thought 'at least we'll get a polished script then' but is SPs script any more well put together than QOS's? It's slightly better but with an extra year it should be so much better.

    I was happy to go to a 3 year cycle as I thought it meant we'd get better scripts but as I'm getting older I can't wait so long between films if all we get is half finished scripts.

    SP could've been sooooo f**king good if they had decent writers on board. Such a missed opportunity.

    Logan has bottled it big style and P&W have had more than enough chances so its well past time for them to get the boot as well.

    Given his age and the superiority of the 80's scripts he wrote (namely FYEO, OP, TLD, LTK) I'd like to see MGW have one last crack along with Gatiss to finish off the Craig era (unless they can somehow persuade Craig to do two more in quick succession 2 year cycles but that would mean starting filming basically 14 months from now - I really can't see it).

    It seems odd to persist with clowns like P&W when they still have a bona fide Bond writing legend still on the staff.

    Let Babs do the producing and have MGW put all his efforts into the writing.
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 1,497
    I thought Craig was fine in SP. I never noticed that he was 'bored'. In fact I thought he wore the role like a glove. The problem lies in the film however, which I would agree with @doubleoego's salient points. The story was deflating, and by forcing a connection to the past 3 Craig films with the SP villain behind all of it, they retroactively tarnish the goodwill of those fillms and indirectly tarnish Craig. Don't get me wrong, Craig had a good run. But I think SP has knocked the wind out of the Craig era, so it's time for a fresh start.

    Had they knocked it out of the park with SP, my opinion on Craig staying would be different obviously.
  • Posts: 486
    It seems odd to persist with clowns like P&W when they still have a bona fide Bond writing legend still on the staff.

    Let Babs do the producing and have MGW put all his efforts into the writing.

    As someone whom loved the Maibaum\MGW scripts I'd heartily endorse that. Get MGW to plot out the new film and someone decent in to provide the dialogue.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Yes Indont understand why MGW stepped back from the writing. I don't know exactly what his contributions were but his films all had decent plots.

    I am one of the few who actually likes the QoS plot I think, which I believe was an MGW idea.
  • Posts: 1,680
    Craig isnt the problem, never was & still isnt. His performance in SP was his best yet arguably.

  • DonnyDB5DonnyDB5 Buffalo, New York
    Posts: 1,755
    Tuck91 wrote: »
    Craig isnt the problem, never was & still isnt. His performance in SP was his best yet arguably.

    Agree.

  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 7,942
    To touch on something in the Marvel Cinematic Universe topic, picture DC in a Russos written and directed Bond. Ha I just noticed the irony of Daniel Craig's initials and this post. ;)
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 11,119
    talos7 wrote:
    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.

    Perhaps for Daniel Craig himself. But he will leave the franchise begotten and in shambles.

    First of all because there are so many open-ended questions with SP. If Craig leaves, he will force the franchise basically in another reboot. And I don't want that. I don't want a reboot.

    I think Craig's run can end much more neutral. In such a way that a successor can easily continue the new Bond timeline that has been created with "Casino Royale".

    Secondly, I still think "SPECTRE" isn't the film that gives us a remarkable send-off. Most reviews are mainly talking about the flaws of the film, and not about Craig's performance as Bond. It would help if the screening of the MI6-team will be reduced considerably. A story that is not set for a large part in London anymore.

  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 7,942
    Many thought that when Pierce was shown the door that the franchise was " begotten and in shambles" Then came the signing of Daniel; he was not initially, universally, embraced by both fans and casual viewers. Then came Casino Royale and all was right in the world. :)
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    edited November 2015 Posts: 7,942
    Also, how do you continue the timeline created with CR when the characters age and time on the job have been made such an issue. I'm not against him coming back, but when he does go I want a whole new timeline with a younger Bond.
  • JohnHammond73JohnHammond73 Lancashire, UK
    Posts: 4,151
    I definitely want him to stay but I feel that the ending to SP leaves it open either way.
  • Posts: 1,092
    They made it that way on purpose. I walked out thinking, great movie of course but also that it could go either way and it would be fine. There's more story to tell but he could walk away as well.
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 11,119
    talos7 wrote: »
    Many thought that when Pierce was shown the door that the franchise was " begotten and in shambles" Then came the signing of Daniel; he was not initially, universally, embraced by both fans and casual viewers. Then came Casino Royale and all was right in the world. :)

    With all due respect, but the ending of "DAD" was like any other Bond film up to then:

    --> Bond beds the girl
    --> One last sexy line uttered by the girl "Ooowh James!"
    --> The End

    The Brosnan films were not knitted together with tight continuity/chronology. Everything could have been done without many -narrative- problems. Showing Pierce the door. Keeping Pierce. Introduce some continuity. Follow the same 'stand-alone-film' route that has been going on since 1962. Or really really fiercefully reboot the series, which was done with "CR". Everything was possible with not too many big consequences.

    That however is slightly different after "SPECTRE". For me the ending of "SPECTRE" is dragging too much 'weight' on the Bond franchise. And how easy it may look to you to continue the Bond franchise, it actually isn't that easy anymore. Please let me elaborate that with three possibilities:

    A) There is the possibility of "SPECTRE" being the very last film in this "Craig-Quadrilogy". A wonderful send-off for Craig so to say. Good for him. But what about his successor then? And the future of the franchise? We continue with every character from "SPECTRE" --Lucia Sciarra, 'M', Madeleine Swann, 'Q', Blofeld, Tanner, Hinx & Moneypenny-- and use them in Bond #25, but only re-cast the role of Bond? So that the new Bond is way more a replacement in the same Craig-timeline? Making the actual film look rather...unbelievable?? A bit like how George Lazenby was cast as a 'Connery 2.0'? In my opinion an undesirable possibility.

    B) Then there is the possibility of -again- radically rebooting the franchise entirely, similar to what DC Comics is doing with The Joker and Batman in the upcoming "Batman vs. Superman". Frankly, ignoring the Batman from "The Dark Knight Trilogy" for me looks weird and unsettling. It's like "hoppa, let's reboot again!", and I'm getting a bit tired of this concept in moviemaking. Moreover, introducing a new Bond played by a new actor, set in a completely rebooted timeline is way more risky to the Bond franchise. There is no larger cinematic universe for the world of Bond, in which you can create several spin-off's or focus on several 00's. There's only Bond....and no one else. So despite the fact that a new Bond actor would welcome a similar treatment like the one Daniel Craig got, it's another undesirable possibility for the Bond franchise. I think it'll actually weaken the continuity of the Bond franchise.

    C) Last possibility is actually bringing back Daniel Craig one more time, in a film that continues the open-ended storylines from "SPECTRE", but with less prominent continuity/chronology when the movie proceeds (after the main titles). Make Craig's 5th film one in which the entire screentime of the MI6-team will be dramatically reduced. Just one big storyline, that's entirely written around Bond's mission against an evil scheme. Kill off Madeleine perhaps in the PTS, let Blofeld and Lucia Sciarra/Bunt/Klebb go underground, so that there roles are much more like cameo's, just a quick mission-briefing from M (also to make MI6 a more credible secret service again) and drastically enhance Daniel Craig's screentime. It sounds traditional, but there are SO many ways to make this look like a very fresh film. With action for instance, there are so many more ways I think you can say "This is wow! First time that we see this in an action film!". Think about Formula-One, Jerry Brückheimer's "Grand Prix", Steve McQueen's "Bullett", but also about GoPro actionfilming (paragliding, skiing). Or real-life space content from the ISS. And the end? Bond beds a girl, girl says "Ooowh James!". And there you have a way more typical Bond ending, that carries less consequences with it. And now it becomes way easier to cast a new Bond that can 'play around' in the same Daniel Craig universe.

    That last option C) is my preference. That choice has my support. And I think it's the most logical choice. It's the best send-off for Daniel Craig. It hasn't got too many negative implications for the future of the Bond franchise. And by doing so you can also downscale the production of the 26th Bond film a bit, with more 'unknown European actors'. And Barbara and Michael are more fiercefully in the driver's seat again for choosing a new, young, unknown Bond actor (Those damned Sonyleaks, please not again!).
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    talos7 wrote: »
    Many thought that when Pierce was shown the door that the franchise was " begotten and in shambles" Then came the signing of Daniel; he was not initially, universally, embraced by both fans and casual viewers. Then came Casino Royale and all was right in the world. :)

    With all due respect, but the ending of "DAD" was like any other Bond film up to then:

    --> Bond beds the girl
    --> One last sexy line uttered by the girl "Ooowh James!"
    --> The End

    The Brosnan films were not knitted together with tight continuity/chronology. Everything could have been done without many -narrative- problems. Showing Pierce the door. Keeping Pierce. Introduce some continuity. Follow the same 'stand-alone-film' route that has been going on since 1962. Or really really fiercefully reboot the series, which was done with "CR". Everything was possible with not too many big consequences.

    That however is slightly different after "SPECTRE". For me the ending of "SPECTRE" is dragging too much 'weight' on the Bond franchise. And how easy it may look to you to continue the Bond franchise, it actually isn't that easy anymore. Please let me elaborate that with three possibilities:

    A) There is the possibility of "SPECTRE" being the very last film in this "Craig-Quadrilogy". A wonderful send-off for Craig so to say. Good for him. But what about his successor then? And the future of the franchise? We continue with every character from "SPECTRE" --Lucia Sciarra, 'M', Madeleine Swann, 'Q', Blofeld, Tanner, Hinx & Moneypenny-- and use them in Bond #25, but only re-cast the role of Bond? So that the new Bond is way more a replacement in the same Craig-timeline? Making the actual film look rather...unbelievable?? A bit like how George Lazenby was cast as a 'Connery 2.0'? In my opinion an undesirable possibility.

    B) Then there is the possibility of -again- radically rebooting the franchise entirely, similar to what DC Comics is doing with The Joker and Batman in the upcoming "Batman vs. Superman". Frankly, ignoring the Batman from "The Dark Knight Trilogy" for me looks weird and unsettling. It's like "hoppa, let's reboot again!", and I'm getting a bit tired of this concept in moviemaking. Moreover, introducing a new Bond played by a new actor, set in a completely rebooted timeline is way more risky to the Bond franchise. There is no larger cinematic universe for the world of Bond, in which you can create several spin-off's or focus on several 00's. There's only Bond....and no one else. So despite the fact that a new Bond actor would welcome a similar treatment like the one Daniel Craig got, it's another undesirable possibility for the Bond franchise. I think it'll actually weaken the continuity of the Bond franchise.

    C) Last possibility is actually bringing back Daniel Craig one more time, in a film that continues the open-ended storylines from "SPECTRE", but with less prominent continuity/chronology when the movie proceeds (after the main titles). Make Craig's 5th film one in which the entire screentime of the MI6-team will be dramatically reduced. Just one big storyline, that's entirely written around Bond's mission against an evil scheme. Kill off Madeleine perhaps in the PTS, let Blofeld and Lucia Sciarra/Bunt/Klebb go underground, so that there roles are much more like cameo's, just a quick mission-briefing from M (also to make MI6 a more credible secret service again) and drastically enhance Daniel Craig's screentime. It sounds traditional, but there are SO many ways to make this look like a very fresh film. With action for instance, there are so many more ways I think you can say "This is wow! First time that we see this in an action film!". Think about Formula-One, Jerry Brückheimer's "Grand Prix", Steve McQueen's "Bullett", but also about GoPro actionfilming (paragliding, skiing). Or real-life space content from the ISS. And the end? Bond beds a girl, girl says "Ooowh James!". And there you have a way more typical Bond ending, that carries less consequences with it. And now it becomes way easier to cast a new Bond that can 'play around' in the same Daniel Craig universe.

    That last option C) is my preference. That choice has my support. And I think it's the most logical choice. It's the best send-off for Daniel Craig. It hasn't got too many negative implications for the future of the Bond franchise. And by doing so you can also downscale the production of the 26th Bond film a bit, with more 'unknown European actors'. And Barbara and Michael are more fiercefully in the driver's seat again for choosing a new, young, unknown Bond actor (Those damned Sonyleaks, please not again!).

    I agree with a lot of what you say except they have painted themselves into a corner by opening up the whole Blofeld can of worms up to the point where they sort of have to get Craig to do at least one more because to have introduce a new Bond is hard enough as it is. To do it with all the emotional baggage left over from SP such as Madeline and Blofeld (especially with the misguided Oberhauser shite it's now even more personal) is a really tricky thing to pull off with a new Bond.

    I really wish they could've held back with ESB on SP rather than spunking their entire wad the moment they got their hands on Mcclory's rights. Spectre need to be dealt with in at least a trilogy. Now it seems unlikely to me (given that Craig will probably only do one more) that Blofeld won't survive the next film.

    Plan it all out properly:

    In SP we reveal the shadowy organisation Spectre with Blowers just shown in silhouette and have C as the main villain in a sort of Largo role (perhaps with Blofeld overseeing and ordering Hinx about but not crucially in this film not actually meeting Bond).

    In B25 if Craig leaves the new actor already had the building blocks in place and you can cast Christoph Waltz as Blofeld then. If Craig stays you have a YOLT (film) type story where Bond comes face to face with Blofeld (and gives him the scar if you like) finally.

    B26 it all comes together. Madeline (who you introduce in B25 is killed) and then we have a final showdown a la YOLT (novel).

    The problem with where are now and the trilogy outlined above is that Craig would not do all three so personally I'd have held back with even mentioning Spectre until the new guy starts in the role or at least make sure the first mention of Spectre is at the end of Craig's final film. Then the new actor gets time for a full trilogy battling Spectre.

    In their hastiness to use their newly acquired rights they have spunked all their Spectre and Blofeld reveals in one go and don't really have anywhere to go but kill Blofeld in the next film.

    It took Sean 4 films to come face to face with him. But here he goes from 'never having heard of him' to 'nicked' in the space of one film.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 7,942
    Whenever a new Bond is brought in, he has to have a new "universe" Age and world-weariness are too much a part of Daniel's to cast a young buck in his place as the same Bond in the current timeline.
  • talos7 wrote: »
    Whenever a new Bond is brought in, he has to have a new "universe" Age and world-weariness are too much a part of Daniel's to cast a young buck in his place as the same Bond in the current timeline.

    That's very simply put. But you do know that every Bond actor in the period 1962-2002 were more or less operating in the same Bond universe no? They didn't rebooted the franchise with Lazenby. They didn't reboot the franchise with Moore. Or with Dalton. Or with Brosnan. With Craig the most radical reboot took place in the history of the franchise. Everything got re-introduced completely. It's like a similar clean sheet that Sean Connery had when he started the franchise in 1961.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 7,942
    I see it a bit differently. I see the first universe from 62 to 85. The Bond in Dr. No is the Bond in AVTAK. the next universe is from 87 to 02; the Bond in LD is the same Bond as in DAD, even with the nods to past films. Finally we have the third universe started with Daniel.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    talos7 wrote: »
    I see it a bit differently. I see the first universe from 62 to 85. The Bond in Dr. No is the Bond in AVTAK. the next universe is from 87 to 02; the Bond in LD is the same Bond as in DAD, even with the nods to past films. Finally we have the third universe started with Daniel.
    That sounds plausible actually. I always saw Moore as a continuation of Connery. Dalton was too young to imagine that, and plus, he had a new M and a new MP. Only Q stayed constant (like Dench for DC).
  • talos7 wrote: »
    I see it a bit differently. I see the first universe from 62 to 85. The Bond in Dr. No is the Bond in AVTAK. the next universe is from 87 to 02; the Bond in LD is the same Bond as in DAD, even with the nods to past films. Finally we have the third universe started with Daniel.

    Not plausible, as for both Bond's, Moore and Dalton, their late wife Tracy was referenced: In TSWLM, FYEO and LTK. Moreover in GE and TWINE they start openly referencing to Judi Dench' predecessor, who was Bernard Lee...as Miles Messervy.

    But that's beside the point. The implications of the reboot with Craig's introduction as Bond in CR were way bigger than every single introduction of a new Bond actor before him.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    edited November 2015 Posts: 7,942
    Yes, even with a couple of the same actors playing the same roles it is an entirely different timeline. That does make it a bit confusing. As I see it the character of M portrayed by Judy Dench is not the same character portrayed in Daniels films. So, advancing my take on it, hypothetically, if the producers decided to make a one off with Pierce as his Bond, Dench could appear because in that timeline, M could still be alive.
Sign In or Register to comment.