Where does Bond go after Craig?

134689204

Comments

  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe Given the circumstances
    Posts: 7,340
    I would love to see Bond movies become standalone again. That always seemed to me to be one of the things that Bond did that different from other franchises and subsequently why it endured while others ran out of ideas. Make a Bond for around 100 million, recast and keep it around 2 hours. Infact, let's go back to before Bond was Rambo and bring back spying. Make it more a thriller than an action movie.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 5,042
    I think uncomplicated-protagonist action movies are a thing of the past; the films that did it in were Die Hard and Lethal Weapon. Movies like Taken are now the norm and Bond has followed suit since at least LTK.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited September 2015 Posts: 23,883
    I would love to see Bond movies become standalone again. That always seemed to me to be one of the things that Bond did that different from other franchises and subsequently why it endured while others ran out of ideas. Make a Bond for around 100 million, recast and keep it around 2 hours. Infact, let's go back to before Bond was Rambo and bring back spying. Make it more a thriller than an action movie.

    I agree. My favourite bits in all the recent Bond films have been the spying elements. Love it.

    CR - Bahamas in the hotel trying to locate/track Dimitrios
    QoS- Vienna TOSCA
    SF - China tracking Patrice

    I also like the one on one fights:

    CR - Obano stairwell and 'first kill' in pretitles
    QoS - Slate
    SF - Patrice

    The parts I dislike the most are the machine gun nonsense, which also tends to occur at the end.

    CR - Vienna house collapse/shootout
    QoS - finale
    SF- Home Alone finale
  • QsAssistantQsAssistant All those moments lost in time... like tears in rain
    Posts: 1,807
    I would love to see Bond movies become standalone again. That always seemed to me to be one of the things that Bond did that different from other franchises and subsequently why it endured while others ran out of ideas. Make a Bond for around 100 million, recast and keep it around 2 hours. Infact, let's go back to before Bond was Rambo and bring back spying. Make it more a thriller than an action movie.

    My thoughts exactly!
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    edited September 2015 Posts: 9,021
    Spectre will make or break the Craig-era.
    It has to be universally loved like Casino Royale.
    Then we can start saying this era is better than Brosnan's, Moore's and Dalton's.
    For surpassing Connery it'll take another two of the caliber of Casino Royale.

    If Spectre is in fact as good as CR or even better, they should continue with Mendes and Craig and plan ahead for two more movies produced and shot within two years.
    That is possible. Other studios do this all the time without any problems. It's just a matter of capable people in planning, logistics, casting, writing departments.

    Bond 25, 2018, so they have enough time.
    Bond 26, 2020 a direct sequel to Bond 25.

    6 movies, 14 years, 1 total disaster (QOS), 1 kind of mediocre bore but beloved (SF) and four movies that deserve the label "one of the very best" (CR, SP, 25, 26).

    One can dream...
  • tqbtqb
    Posts: 1,020
    I'm not sure if this has been posted yet, if so- sorry
    But i really hope craig stays on the team as a producer. He's passionate about the character and movies. I remember an interview with him around QOS where he spoke about wanting to get into directing or producing.
  • SasSas
    Posts: 45
    I hope he will stay. But it happened before and Bond is still here \m/
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    I would love to see Bond movies become standalone again. That always seemed to me to be one of the things that Bond did that different from other franchises and subsequently why it endured while others ran out of ideas. Make a Bond for around 100 million, recast and keep it around 2 hours. Infact, let's go back to before Bond was Rambo and bring back spying. Make it more a thriller than an action movie.

    My thoughts exactly!

    Agree too.
  • Spectre will make or break the Craig-era.
    It has to be universally loved like Casino Royale.
    Then we can start saying this era is better than Brosnan's, Moore's and Dalton's.
    For surpassing Connery it'll take another two of the caliber of Casino Royale.

    I'm a huge Brosnan fan and really enjoyed him in the role (I just didn't like the last half of TND, all of TWINE and all of DAD due to the script & cast), but Craig's era is already better than Brosnan & Moore's in my eyes. CR is one of my top 3 Bond films of all time, QoS isn't great, but I don't think it is as bad as people make it out to be, and I enjoyed SF - although not as much as most people seemed to. One great, one good, and one okay film are already worlds better than the mess Brosnan had to deal with (through no fault of his own) in his run as Bond. After the success of GE it was almost like the series went on autopilot until DAD was so poorly received.

    I like a lot of the Moore era as well, but it doesn't have one film that stands out to me as one of the absolute best of the series. I really would've liked to have seen him play the role more in the same manner that the played the lead in The Saint.

    I'd say Craig's is on par with Dalton's right now. SPECTRE might be able to put it over the top. Dalton's biggest issue was just that we didn't see enough of him in the role and that'll always be a huge what if.

    I think Craig's era needs another great film (which hopefully SPECTRE is) to cement itself as a clear cut number 2 to Connery's era though. Connery had 4 great films, and 2 lackluster ones. Based on the strength of DN, FRWL, GF & TB alone I don't think Connery's era will ever be topped.

  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,109
    bondboy007 wrote: »
    Based on the strength of DN, FRWL, GF & TB alone I don't think Connery's era will ever be topped.

    This, my friend is undoubtedly true.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,021
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Regardless of how SPECTRE does critically or in terms of box office, by tone and quality alone, the Craig era is already one of the high marks of the franchise. Brosnan may have starred in successful Bond films, but there was little or no talk in the press or in the public of his era being anything new or groundbreaking, or showcasing any real artistic merit (that can be said for the Moore and Dalton eras, as well). Quite the opposite with the Craig films, despite the considered weaknesses of QUANTUM OF SOLACE; it is the first time since early Connery that Bond films were not labeled just enjoyable escapism or well-received, but treated and discussed as quality filmwork.

    This is a fair and unbiased view and absolutely spot-on! =D>
  • edited September 2015 Posts: 1,653
    It's obvious where Bond goes after Craig....

    Anthony 'the horror' Horowitz takes over as writer and director. He casts himself in the role.

    The title of Bond 25 is

    Ego Forever


    (which reflects the sheer awesomeness and modesty of Mr Horowitz!)


    ;)
  • Here's my formula to explain the question "Where does Bond go after Craig":

    A. The new 2nd Bond timeline/universe as created in "Casino Royale" (2006 - present, 1st timeline being 1962 - 2002) stays intact.
    B. Like after Connery/Lazenby, the next actor will face bits of continuity/narratives that were laid out by Craig in his films.
    C. The entire MI6-team -Ralph Fiennes as "M", Ben WhishAW as "Q". Rory Kinnear as "Bill Tanner" and Naomie Harris as "Miss Moneypenny"- will not retire. They continue appearing in future Bond films, together with the 7th actor playing agent 007.
    D. Whereas Daniel Craig really was an actor that (re-)established the role, like Connery, Bond actor no# 7 will be a 'continuation' actor, like Roger Moore.
    E. The 7th Bond actor could be a bit more.....frivolous, slightly more funny and less cold-blooded.
    F. Rebooting again is not advisable I think. It would also take away the magic that was created with Daniel Craig. Just look at what Christian Bale did with Batman. Suddenly Warner has rebooted again the entire DC Comics universe with "Man Of Steel", and I have a feeling it works against the Batman-franchise.....and it doesn't do Ben Affleck any favor.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited September 2015 Posts: 23,883
    I agree with everything above except A. and possibly C. (because I think some of these actors may not want to stay on and be typecast with their most recognizable & successful role being in a Bond film - having said that, they are all quite replaceable)

    Regarding A., I think that the 2nd timeline is being forced into the 1st one. This is evident from M's office etc.

    So essentially, at some point, we are back in the original timeline, but they will ensure (hopefully) that it doesn't descend into farce again.
  • bondjames wrote: »
    I agree with everything above except A. and possibly C. (because I think some of these actors may not want to stay on and be typecast with their most recognizable & successful role being in a Bond film - having said that, they are all quite replaceable)

    Regarding A., I think that the 2nd timeline is being forced into the 1st one. This is evident from M's office etc.

    So essentially, at some point, we are back in the original timeline, but they will ensure (hopefully) that it doesn't descend into farce again.

    I disagree with you about A. I mean, timeline-wise it's now entirely explained why MI6 has got that old wooden-paneled office again. Most likely due to cost-cuts due to the destroyed Vauxhall Cross MI6 building. And this wasn't the case with DN.

    And even of the wooden-paneled office refers to old times, it's strictly coïncidential continuity-wise. Also several other narratives are more important and indicate a new timeline. "M" got his first 6 double-o agents in 1997 after the Hong Kong takeover. Bond wasn't even 007 back then (rewatch SF). So all event from, for example GE, can be forgotten. Tracy? In the new timeline Bond has never married. So Tracy doesn't exist in the new timeline.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    I agree with everything above except A. and possibly C. (because I think some of these actors may not want to stay on and be typecast with their most recognizable & successful role being in a Bond film - having said that, they are all quite replaceable)

    Regarding A., I think that the 2nd timeline is being forced into the 1st one. This is evident from M's office etc.

    So essentially, at some point, we are back in the original timeline, but they will ensure (hopefully) that it doesn't descend into farce again.

    I disagree with you about A. I mean, timeline-wise it's now entirely explained why MI6 has got that old wooden-paneled office again. Most likely due to cost-cuts due to the destroyed Vauxhall Cross MI6 building. And this wasn't the case with DN.

    And even of the wooden-paneled office refers to old times, it's strictly coïncidential continuity-wise. Also several other narratives are more important and indicate a new timeline. "M" got his first 6 double-o agents in 1997 after the Hong Kong takeover. Bond wasn't even 007 back then (rewatch SF). So all event from, for example GE, can be forgotten. Tracy? In the new timeline Bond has never married. So Tracy doesn't exist in the new timeline.

    I really think the timeline argument is moot. It was directly relevant for CR (as it was a reboot) and up to SF. It will be relevant for SP as well (given the film's title).

    However, from here on (unless they choose to make B25 a sequel to SP, like QoS was a sequel to CR) I believe that everything will blend in and mesh, unless they choose to reboot again.

    We're almost there now, with a male M, a funny (although younger) Q, a behind the desk (although black) MP, and a more ironic & laid back/humorous 007.
  • bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I agree with everything above except A. and possibly C. (because I think some of these actors may not want to stay on and be typecast with their most recognizable & successful role being in a Bond film - having said that, they are all quite replaceable)

    Regarding A., I think that the 2nd timeline is being forced into the 1st one. This is evident from M's office etc.

    So essentially, at some point, we are back in the original timeline, but they will ensure (hopefully) that it doesn't descend into farce again.

    I disagree with you about A. I mean, timeline-wise it's now entirely explained why MI6 has got that old wooden-paneled office again. Most likely due to cost-cuts due to the destroyed Vauxhall Cross MI6 building. And this wasn't the case with DN.

    And even of the wooden-paneled office refers to old times, it's strictly coïncidential continuity-wise. Also several other narratives are more important and indicate a new timeline. "M" got his first 6 double-o agents in 1997 after the Hong Kong takeover. Bond wasn't even 007 back then (rewatch SF). So all event from, for example GE, can be forgotten. Tracy? In the new timeline Bond has never married. So Tracy doesn't exist in the new timeline.

    I really think the timeline argument is moot. It was directly relevant for CR (as it was a reboot) and up to SF. It will be relevant for SP as well (given the film's title).

    However, from here on (unless they choose to make B25 a sequel to SP, like QoS was a sequel to CR) I believe that everything will blend in and mesh, unless they choose to reboot again.

    We're almost there now, with a male M, a funny (although younger) Q, a behind the desk (although black) MP, and a more ironic & laid back/humorous 007.

    Visually and story-wise, yes, we're indeed there. We have a new "M", younger "Q". And after "SPECTRE" this might be even more clear. But that doesn't change the fact that we're still in a new timeline that kicked off with "Casino Royale" and that even has some background info as well.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,021
    Here's my formula to explain the question "Where does Bond go after Craig":

    A. The new 2nd Bond timeline/universe as created in "Casino Royale" (2006 - present, 1st timeline being 1962 - 2002) stays intact.
    B. Like after Connery/Lazenby, the next actor will face bits of continuity/narratives that were laid out by Craig in his films.
    C. The entire MI6-team -Ralph Fiennes as "M", Ben WhishAW as "Q". Rory Kinnear as "Bill Tanner" and Naomie Harris as "Miss Moneypenny"- will not retire. They continue appearing in future Bond films, together with the 7th actor playing agent 007.
    D. Whereas Daniel Craig really was an actor that (re-)established the role, like Connery, Bond actor no# 7 will be a 'continuation' actor, like Roger Moore.
    E. The 7th Bond actor could be a bit more.....frivolous, slightly more funny and less cold-blooded.
    F. Rebooting again is not advisable I think. It would also take away the magic that was created with Daniel Craig. Just look at what Christian Bale did with Batman. Suddenly Warner has rebooted again the entire DC Comics universe with "Man Of Steel", and I have a feeling it works against the Batman-franchise.....and it doesn't do Ben Affleck any favor.


    A: Bullocks, if they want to stay in the "same timeline" they have to cast a 50 year old.
    With every new actor a new "timeline" was created except with Moore where we could argue against it because of his age when becoming Bond.

    B: They shouldn't refer to anything of the Craig era, would work against the new actor.

    C: All side characters have to be recast except M. Q and MP were the biggest mistakes in the Craig era, especially imbecile Q.

    D: Craig did nothing original to the role, he was more or less Connery with a bit of Dalton.

    E: The new actor should be able to be humorous unlike Craig who is unable to be witty.

    F: Rebooting was a mistake in the first place, and it just meant showing Bond's first mission and undo the good work of Cubby Broccoli with abandon the typical Bond things like the gun-barrel etc.

    If EON has any sense left, they'll stay away from rebooting or abandoning again typical Bond things and most importantly stay away from trying to link the movies together, it did not work in the Craig era why should it work in a new era.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited September 2015 Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I agree with everything above except A. and possibly C. (because I think some of these actors may not want to stay on and be typecast with their most recognizable & successful role being in a Bond film - having said that, they are all quite replaceable)

    Regarding A., I think that the 2nd timeline is being forced into the 1st one. This is evident from M's office etc.

    So essentially, at some point, we are back in the original timeline, but they will ensure (hopefully) that it doesn't descend into farce again.

    I disagree with you about A. I mean, timeline-wise it's now entirely explained why MI6 has got that old wooden-paneled office again. Most likely due to cost-cuts due to the destroyed Vauxhall Cross MI6 building. And this wasn't the case with DN.

    And even of the wooden-paneled office refers to old times, it's strictly coïncidential continuity-wise. Also several other narratives are more important and indicate a new timeline. "M" got his first 6 double-o agents in 1997 after the Hong Kong takeover. Bond wasn't even 007 back then (rewatch SF). So all event from, for example GE, can be forgotten. Tracy? In the new timeline Bond has never married. So Tracy doesn't exist in the new timeline.

    I really think the timeline argument is moot. It was directly relevant for CR (as it was a reboot) and up to SF. It will be relevant for SP as well (given the film's title).

    However, from here on (unless they choose to make B25 a sequel to SP, like QoS was a sequel to CR) I believe that everything will blend in and mesh, unless they choose to reboot again.

    We're almost there now, with a male M, a funny (although younger) Q, a behind the desk (although black) MP, and a more ironic & laid back/humorous 007.

    Visually and story-wise, yes, we're indeed there. We have a new "M", younger "Q". And after "SPECTRE" this might be even more clear. But that doesn't change the fact that we're still in a new timeline that kicked off with "Casino Royale" and that even has some background info as well.

    I still think once DC is gone we are back to the old timeline (in the sense that all actors after DC and before DC are all part of the same timeline). That's the only way I can make sense of this after the fact reboot timeline mess anyway. Timelines are all screwed up in Bond's world (excluding Craig's consistent one).

    And for the timeline junkies, let's not forget one inconvenient item: "DB5".
  • I think it is a chance to make bond a big black man. idris elber is my choice because I like to watch luther and the wire. it would be good to make it part of the story like when in you only live twice connery is made like a Chinese man this time craig could play bond in the opening sequence and they make him black to go undercover in a London gang. Idris elber would come into it for the rest of the film. this way it would make sense for his colour to change. it would give humour too because bond could have a scene where he looks in the mirror and says I cant believe I am a black man now
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    This script idea would make DAD look sensible and serious.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe Given the circumstances
    Posts: 7,340
    The problem is that once Bond goes black we won't have any hope of getting him back (white again) because the screams of 'whitewashing' will be deafening from SJWs. If Bond was black for 2 films for instance and then went back to a white guy it would be viewed as dismissive on racial grounds.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited September 2015 Posts: 23,883
    The problem is that once Bond goes black we won't have any hope of getting him back (white again) because the screams of 'whitewashing' will be deafening from SJWs. If Bond was black for 2 films for instance and then went back to a white guy it would be viewed as dismissive on racial grounds.

    Gives new meaning to the well worn saying....
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    bondjames wrote: »
    The problem is that once Bond goes black we won't have any hope of getting him back (white again) because the screams of 'whitewashing' will be deafening from SJWs. If Bond was black for 2 films for instance and then went back to a white guy it would be viewed as dismissive on racial grounds.

    Gives new meaning to the well worn saying....

    Ha ha.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    Here's my formula to explain the question "Where does Bond go after Craig":

    A. The new 2nd Bond timeline/universe as created in "Casino Royale" (2006 - present, 1st timeline being 1962 - 2002) stays intact.
    B. Like after Connery/Lazenby, the next actor will face bits of continuity/narratives that were laid out by Craig in his films.
    C. The entire MI6-team -Ralph Fiennes as "M", Ben WhishAW as "Q". Rory Kinnear as "Bill Tanner" and Naomie Harris as "Miss Moneypenny"- will not retire. They continue appearing in future Bond films, together with the 7th actor playing agent 007.
    D. Whereas Daniel Craig really was an actor that (re-)established the role, like Connery, Bond actor no# 7 will be a 'continuation' actor, like Roger Moore.
    E. The 7th Bond actor could be a bit more.....frivolous, slightly more funny and less cold-blooded.
    F. Rebooting again is not advisable I think. It would also take away the magic that was created with Daniel Craig. Just look at what Christian Bale did with Batman. Suddenly Warner has rebooted again the entire DC Comics universe with "Man Of Steel", and I have a feeling it works against the Batman-franchise.....and it doesn't do Ben Affleck any favor.




    D: Craig did nothing original to the role, he was more or less Connery with a bit of Dalton.

    That bit is entirely your opinion, Craig certainly bought more to Bond than just copying those 2, Craig managed to deliver the parts that Dalton lacked.

    I'm sick of seeing Craig owes so much to Dalton, yes he does have a little tip of the hat to Tim but Craig delivered a performance of his own that none of the other actors had done before. Granted Connery's Bond didn't really need much depth as the films weren't about that but as far as delivering a flawed human being and showing a more real 007 scarred by his lifestyle, history and experience, Craig is second to none. No this Bond will not just be the last person to play Bond like everyone regards Brosnan these days. He moved the goal post and has changed the way the character will be played from now on.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,021
    Shardlake wrote: »
    D: Craig did nothing original to the role, he was more or less Connery with a bit of Dalton.

    That bit is entirely your opinion, Craig certainly bought more to Bond than just copying those 2, Craig managed to deliver the parts that Dalton lacked.

    I'm sick of seeing Craig owes so much to Dalton, yes he does have a little tip of the hat to Tim but Craig delivered a performance of his own that none of the other actors had done before. Granted Connery's Bond didn't really need much depth as the films weren't about that but as far as delivering a flawed human being and showing a more real 007 scarred by his lifestyle, history and experience, Craig is second to none. No this Bond will not just be the last person to play Bond like everyone regards Brosnan these days. He moved the goal post and has changed the way the character will be played from now on.

    Of course it's my opinion.

    Craig has nothing to do with the fact that the character will be played differently from now on (now being 2006 to be exact).
    It is EON who decided to make a different Bond (more serious, gritty, humourless, more action, realism etc.)
    EVERY actor that would have been cast in 2005 would have played it that way, as that was what EON wanted.

    Craig is overrated. Once another actor has taken over that will be seen. (And yes, that is my opinion too).
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,021
    The problem is that once Bond goes black we won't have any hope of getting him back (white again) because the screams of 'whitewashing' will be deafening from SJWs. If Bond was black for 2 films for instance and then went back to a white guy it would be viewed as dismissive on racial grounds.

    I don't believe that. Will the USA from now on only have black presidents?
    Did Star Trek cast only black Captains after Jeremy Sisko?
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,021
    Idris Elba...



    (long pause)




    ...two words that will immediately stop the discussion: TOO OLD
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    The problem is that once Bond goes black we won't have any hope of getting him back (white again) because the screams of 'whitewashing' will be deafening from SJWs. If Bond was black for 2 films for instance and then went back to a white guy it would be viewed as dismissive on racial grounds.

    I don't believe that. Will the USA from now on only have black presidents?
    Did Star Trek cast only black Captains after Jeremy Sisko?

    Don't stoke the fire.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited September 2015 Posts: 23,883
    Craig is overrated. Once another actor has taken over that will be seen. (And yes, that is my opinion too).

    That may very well be true. It's normal for the incumbent to receive a higher rating while in the job than once he leaves. It's only once he's gone that we can actually properly look back (with the benefit of hindsight) and properly & critically assess his tenure. The rose-tinted glasses syndrome

    I'd say that Brosnan was grossly overrated during his tenure (2nd coming of Connery etc. which I found ridiculous then, and which does, with the benefit of hindsight, appear almost a joke now......at least for many).

    So yes, I think that we will look back on DC's run more critically, but that will really depend on what EON does post-DC. If they cast some uncharismatic lightweight who has limited acting capabilities (on account of new studio meddling or in order to satisfy some constituency) then we may in fact all be pleading for DC's return, even in his 50's.

    I look forward to seeing how this plays out....once the switch is made.
Sign In or Register to comment.