Leave Bond alone after Craig finishes

123468

Comments

  • edited December 2014 Posts: 4,619
    Hoult isn't much more well known than Craig was before CR and casting him would definitely be a left field choice.
  • Hoult isn't much more well known than Craig was before CR and casting him would definitely be a left field choice.

    I think he's alot more known. The X-Men films, Jack the Giant Slayer, being the Jennifer Lawrence's ex. Plus he's too effeminate and looks like too much of a pretty boy. Craig has raised the bar in terms of physicality and doubt Hoult will be able to follow him.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,554
    Murdock wrote: »
    I find Jai Courtney to be bland and wooden. He was awful in Die Hard 5.

    I'll grant you DH, but I don't find him bland or wooden at all.

  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    Getafix wrote: »
    I personally never liked GE, but that's mainly down to Brosnan, the script, and Eric Serra. But CR is well done, if perhaps a bit flabby/overlong in parts.

    Cambell is okay, but I'm in no hurry to see him return. His films perhaps look better than John Glen's, but I don't think he brings the same tension and drama to the screen as Glen managed.

    I agree with your first paragraph but not the second. Glen was sub par at best. Slow pace sloppy ...third grade blocking and oh yeah no clue on acting. Just my opinion.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Jai Courtney is also attached to the new terminator films as Kyle Reese so that alone would rule him out. Tbh the only thing I liked him in was in the Spartacus tv show other than that, he's mediocre at best.
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    Posts: 2,138
    I think after 25 the studio will want to keep momentum going. I expect Bond 25 November 2017 and post dan Bond to arrive on screen by 2020. I grew up through a painful period between Dalton and Brosnan and the uncertainty of the franchise. I say press on full steam ahead. In my honest opinion, I think Daniel will struggle to walk away the directors and stars now being drawn to the franchise are keeping him content. The films are getting great reviews, its making him wealthy. He still looking in great shape, still looks miles younger than Sean or Roge at the end of their tenure. We could see him go on.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,694
    Craig hasn't aged that much since Layer Cake, IMO he just looks more fit and mature. I'm sure if he continues to age the same he has a good 2, maybe even 3 films left in him after SPECTRE if they manage to make them every 2 years.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,571
    I believe Craig is quite a proud man. He won't keep doing Bond if he feels he can't be at the peak of fitness. His 5th will coincide with the back end of his 40s, and I wouldn't see him carry on beyond that. It's the end of his contract and I believe he will go and most likely his co-stars will go with him.

    Then the franchise will be re-invigorated once more as everyone prepares for a new actor.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    About a week or so ago many people here were getting hysterical and saying that SPECTRE would be his last and that how it's likely he renegotiated his contract to not fulfil his contracted 5th movie...I couldn't believe what I was reading from some people. All sense of rationality and reason had been tossed to the way side. Craig will definitely do his 5th and even in a worst case senario of 3 year gaps the man can still do a 6th movie.
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    Posts: 2,138
    Money talks Nic Nac. Barbs will do all she can to keep him, she has said that before.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,571
    I'm a huge Craig fan, but even I don't want him to do more than 5. We don't want another AVTAK situation.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Craig's craggy look at 38 won't make him look much older at even 58.
  • edited December 2014 Posts: 4,619
    doubleoego wrote: »
    About a week or so ago many people here were getting hysterical and saying that SPECTRE would be his last and that how it's likely he renegotiated his contract to not fulfil his contracted 5th movie...I couldn't believe what I was reading from some people. All sense of rationality and reason had been tossed to the way side. Craig will definitely do his 5th and even in a worst case senario of 3 year gaps the man can still do a 6th movie.

    I am saving this post. Don't be so sure about a 5th movie with Craig. Anything can happen. If I had to bet, I would say that Bond 25 will be released around 2020, will feature a new actor and will be directed by Christopher Nolan.
  • People seem to be forgetting that not even 2 years ago, before Craig renegotiated his contract for 5 films, that EON reportedly wanted to get him to sign on for 8. I don't know about everyone else but that tells me that Wilson and Broccoli are no rush to end their business relationship with Daniel Craig. If he's signed on for 5 movies than he'll be in 5 movies.
    doubleoego wrote: »
    Craig's craggy look at 38 won't make him look much older at even 58.

    Exactly. Craig has a certain set look and IMO he didn't look that much older at the SP press conference than he did at the CR press conference 9 years ago. The reason he looked older in SF was that unflattering hairstyle and the fact that he walks around for a third of the movie with grey stubble. And like I've said before I believe it was their intention to make Craig look a bit worn out in SF.

    And even if Craig plays the role into his fifties, I wouldn't necessarily mind an older Bond along as they acknowledge it and incorporate it into the story, which as evidenced by SF, they're not afraid to do.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,571
    doubleoego wrote: »
    About a week or so ago many people here were getting hysterical and saying that SPECTRE would be his last and that how it's likely he renegotiated his contract to not fulfil his contracted 5th movie...I couldn't believe what I was reading from some people. All sense of rationality and reason had been tossed to the way side. Craig will definitely do his 5th and even in a worst case senario of 3 year gaps the man can still do a 6th movie.

    I am saving this post. Don't be so sure about a 5th movie with Craig. Anything can happen. If I had to bet, I would say that Bond 25 will be released around 2020, will feature a new actor and will be directed by Christopher Nolan.

    You tell us 'anything can happen' then say you're prepared to put money on Craig leaving, the release date and the director of the next film? :))
  • Posts: 4,619
    NicNac wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    About a week or so ago many people here were getting hysterical and saying that SPECTRE would be his last and that how it's likely he renegotiated his contract to not fulfil his contracted 5th movie...I couldn't believe what I was reading from some people. All sense of rationality and reason had been tossed to the way side. Craig will definitely do his 5th and even in a worst case senario of 3 year gaps the man can still do a 6th movie.

    I am saving this post. Don't be so sure about a 5th movie with Craig. Anything can happen. If I had to bet, I would say that Bond 25 will be released around 2020, will feature a new actor and will be directed by Christopher Nolan.

    You tell us 'anything can happen' then say you're prepared to put money on Craig leaving, the release date and the director of the next film? :))

    You missed the part where I wrote "If I had to bet"... Doebleoego wote that " Craig will definitely do his 5th". I did not write anywhere in my post that Nolan will definitely direct the next one or that the next one will definitely be released in 2020...
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,571
    It's ok PP, I wasn't serious - I understood your point. I just hope to God you are wrong.
    ;-)
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    doubleoego wrote: »
    About a week or so ago many people here were getting hysterical and saying that SPECTRE would be his last and that how it's likely he renegotiated his contract to not fulfil his contracted 5th movie...I couldn't believe what I was reading from some people. All sense of rationality and reason had been tossed to the way side. Craig will definitely do his 5th and even in a worst case senario of 3 year gaps the man can still do a 6th movie.

    I am saving this post. Don't be so sure about a 5th movie with Craig. Anything can happen. If I had to bet, I would say that Bond 25 will be released around 2020, will feature a new actor and will be directed by Christopher Nolan.

    Well, I'm usually a gracious man but in this instance I vehemently look forward to telling you I told you so when Craig comes back for his 5th movie. Also 2020 for Bond 25??? There's no way you can be serious about that. It makes no financial or creative sense at all.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,554
    I think there is a difference between "predicting" DC will leave after SP and suggesting he "might" leave after SP. As a big DC fan, I would want him to do ten more, if he could! I think Nic Nac is right. He won't do a fifth if he doesn't think he can do it RIGHT. And by that, he means doing most of his own stunt work. If there is a 2-3 year gap between SP and Bond 25, he'll likely do it. But there certainly can't be a 4-year gap (as with QoS and SF), or else I do think DC would pass.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,694
    Craig is what, 46 years old? I'm sure he can stay until 52-53 years old. Look at Tom Cruise, he's 52 years old, looks 40 and does stunts so insane most people half his age wouldn't be able to do.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,554
    Craig is what, 46 years old? I'm sure he can stay until 52-53 years old. Look at Tom Cruise, he's 52 years old, looks 40 and does stunts so insane most people half his age wouldn't be able to do.

    This is true. But DC isn't Tom Cruise. And he's not Liam Neeson, either, who's also doing this stuff at an older age. Only DC can know what his body can and can't do--or, more importantly, what he desires to do. DC is not a fitness fanatic (by his own admission). Cruise does this stuff because it makes money. I'm not sure DC is in it all for the money. But whether or not he can, I think DC wants to get on with the rest of his life, post-Bond, sooner rather than later. He's a wonderful actor and deserves that much.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    edited December 2014 Posts: 13,905
    Cruise does look younger than his 52 years. I can't say the same for Craig, who looks older than he is. I'm not a DC fan, so the thought of him doing 8 (or anywhere near that) fills me with despair.

    I would rather EON not leave Bond alone after Craig leaves. They could recast Bond and carry on with the original timeline.
  • Posts: 4,619
    I really don't know why people keep referring to the 1962-2002 era as the "original timeline". There is NO original timeline! (Or if you really want to pretend there is one, then it ended in 1971 the latest.) Moore's Bond was clearly not the same guy as Connery's Bond, Dalton's Bond has never been to space, Brosnan's Bond was not a secret agent back in the 60s, etc.

    Yes, Casino Royale is the first Bond movie that is CLEARLY a reboot but that doesn't mean it was the first reboot of the franchise.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,905
    Original series, then. Actors came and went, the films kept moving forward but they all felt part of the same series.

    Casino Royale was a departure (too much if you ask me) sweeping aside all that went before, setting up it's own timeline/series/whatever term you want to use.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,554
    I really don't know why people keep referring to the 1962-2002 era as the "original timeline". There is NO original timeline! (Or if you really want to pretend there is one, then it ended in 1971 the latest.) Moore's Bond was clearly not the same guy as Connery's Bond, Dalton's Bond has never been to space, Brosnan's Bond was not a secret agent back in the 60s, etc.

    Yes, Casino Royale is the first Bond movie that is CLEARLY a reboot but that doesn't mean it was the first reboot of the franchise.

    I have always viewed Bond as the same character on a continuous timeline from DN through LTK. There are references in FYEO to Traci's death...so too in LTK. I assume that timeline continues with Brosnan's films. Different actor, but same character.

    When DC came on board, EON seemed to wipe the slate clean and start over. There is no Traci, never was (to this Bond). It is a reboot in the strictest fashion, just as Batman Begins was a reboot. It's almost like a remake, starting from scratch.

    If it had been up to me, I would have reset CR in the 50s (which was Tarantino's idea) and made all Bond films thereafter set in the 50s/60s time period, without any sense that the character is aging. They would all be period pieces, in that era, stuck there. Think MAD MEN without the time progression. But my guess is that it just becomes too expensive and difficult to continuously find locations to fir the period.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    TripAces wrote: »
    If it had been up to me, I would have reset CR in the 50s (which was Tarantino's idea) and made all Bond films thereafter set in the 50s/60s time period, without any sense that the character is aging. They would all be period pieces, in that era, stuck there. Think MAD MEN without the time progression. But my guess is that it just becomes too expensive and difficult to continuously find locations to fir the period.

    Bond films are and always have been a product of their time. Going 'period' would kill the franchise. The only reason we're still watching Bond films in 2014 is because the producers understood this.
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    edited December 2014 Posts: 2,138
    Original series, then. Actors came and went, the films kept moving forward but they all felt part of the same series.

    Casino Royale was a departure (too much if you ask me) sweeping aside all that went before, setting up it's own timeline/series/whatever term you want to use.

    Evolution. It was what the franchise needed to continue. There are more Bond fans now than there ever was before. Barbara Broccoli made tough decisions but the right ones to reignite interest. I think she is a worthy custodian shes done her daddy proud. IMO
  • edited December 2014 Posts: 4,619
    RC7 wrote: »
    Bond films are and always have been a product of their time. Going 'period' would kill the franchise. The only reason we're still watching Bond films in 2014 is because the producers understood this.

    I agree that Bond films should generally be set in the present, but how about just a few films set in the past? How about a Bond movie trilogy set in the 60s? Or three movies set in the late 50s/early 60s acting as a prequel to the Connery era?

    Making a limited number of Bond films set in the past after the Craig era and THEN returning to making Bond films set in the present would really keep the franchise fresh, I believe.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Bond isn't a period piece character. He never was and should never be. I think after 50 odd years fans should wise up to what the films have been doing and that is, expecting audiences to not pay too much attention to the idea of continuity; you'll just end up giving yourself an unnecessary headache. Bond is a man of the times, obviously which ever actor is in the role ages but to an extent where the time period of all his missions are taking/took place in that particular era but modified to relate said era. So for example, when Electra asks Bond if he's loved someone and Bind hesitates, alluding to Tracy, her death although originally is 1969 wouldn't be 1969 during the time of TWINE, her death date would be at some point during the late 70s/early 80s. Take DAD for instance when Bond is playing with Klebb ' s shoe or the jet pack, Brosnan's Bond obviously didn't encounter those in '63 and '64 respectively....I think you get the gist. The trick is just to go with it, the one thing that cannot be refuted though is, these 6 actors EON cast are all playing the exact same man.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    RC7 wrote: »
    TripAces wrote: »
    If it had been up to me, I would have reset CR in the 50s (which was Tarantino's idea) and made all Bond films thereafter set in the 50s/60s time period, without any sense that the character is aging. They would all be period pieces, in that era, stuck there. Think MAD MEN without the time progression. But my guess is that it just becomes too expensive and difficult to continuously find locations to fir the period.

    Bond films are and always have been a product of their time. Going 'period' would kill the franchise. The only reason we're still watching Bond films in 2014 is because the producers understood this.

    BINGO!
Sign In or Register to comment.