BOND POLLS 2017: Craig stays or leaves? Choose one of the four options [RESULTS, page 12]

1246713

Comments

  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 7,460
    First off, my answer is A. On condition that:
    - Madeleine does not return and at best is mentioned as 'couldn't in the end cope with this kind of life'.
    - Blofeld is safely locked up. Bond goes on a regular mission and perhaps, out of his sight but mentioned to him at the end of his mission, he hears Blofeld has escaped. Blofeld allready has killed off his 'true love' in Vesper, no need for another one in Madeleine. I'd much prefer her fate to be that of Honey in the books. 'Last he heard she was with an American docter'or something like that.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    First off, my answer is A. On condition that:
    - Madeleine does not return and at best is mentioned as 'couldn't in the end cope with this kind of life'.
    - Blofeld is safely locked up. Bond goes on a regular mission and perhaps, out of his sight but mentioned to him at the end of his mission, he hears Blofeld has escaped. Blofeld allready has killed off his 'true love' in Vesper, no need for another one in Madeleine. I'd much prefer her fate to be that of Honey in the books. 'Last he heard she was with an American docter'or something like that.

    This is probably the best we can hope for but I'e be surprised if Blofeld doesn't feature more prominently.
  • Posts: 1,680
    Spectre was an overall good & entertaining Bond film, It was a small step down from Skyfall in some ways.

    But the problem isnt Craig or Waltz. They only had so much to work with in terms of the script. Spectre would have beem on CR/SF level if the script was better & had Mendes been a little sharper with some of the finer details.

    The little news we have that came from EON today on B25 indicates that they want Craig & Waltz back & are looking at new/fresh concepts & an overall better plot.
  • Posts: 150
    A, please
  • Posts: 37
    I'd go for A. I would like them to do a story where Bond is retired, but split up with Madeline, so we don't go for a revenge style story. There is a real world threat, and Raph Fiennes "M" calls on Bond to come out of retirement one last time, for queen and country. Ideally I'd love Daniel to do 2 more, but one final film before they reboot again would be great.
  • Actually I have had enough Daniel Craig's era. I mean it's good but that's enough. We need some new back-to-basics films with a new actor and a tacit reboot. Never liked most of Blofeld anyway (only Pleasance).
  • Posts: 11,119
    I think option B) also need to be reconsidered more seriously....
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe Given the circumstances
    edited May 2016 Posts: 7,346
    I just want them to go back to making standalone adventures, without Craig. I don't want another reboot/origin story where Bond is at the start of his career, nor do I want the new actor to continue the Craig continuity on. I'm not sure which category this falls under, so I'll just say E. ^#(^
  • Posts: 1,052
    C is the closest option for me, not really looking for a reboot as such, just a new lead actor, don't really care about the current supporting cast at the moment I can take or leave them.

    Fresh approach and standalone adventures!
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    A)...CONTINUE the current 'Bond Universe/Timeline' that was initiated with the 2006 reboot "CASINO ROYALE". Daniel Craig RETURNS as agent James Bond 007 for a 5th time.
  • edited May 2016 Posts: 11,119
    Depending on the outcome of who will be Bond for adventure no# 25, Daniel Craig or someone else, the only valid options for me are A) or B).

    And why?

    First of all, I'm very much against another full reboot like we witnessed with "Casino Royale". I think reboots have become a cheap and uncreative 'story reset button' ever since Marvel and DC Comics took over Hollywood.

    One can see what happened with the new reboot "Batman vs. Superman" in which Ben Affleck follows Christian Bale's footsteps.

    And I strongly believe that the ending of "SPECTRE" is way too...harsh and radical. By doing so -by listening to what Daniel Craig wanted- the Bond producers effectively created a problem to continue the entire Bond franchise. That is, if you are against a new reboot, like I am.

    My desired situation would be one in which Bond #25 tries to effectively explaining a relationship break-up between Bond and Madeleine at the first half of the movie (Think about how the novel "FRWL" followed the events of Tiffany after "DAF"). This goes for Bond's remaining background history as well. Settle all this personal stuff within the first half of the film.

    By doing so, you can still create continuity with regard to the villain-part, the villain scheme of the film: S.P.E.C.T.R.E. and Blofeld. And, opposed to what I think of Bond, it's not a bad idea to actually let the personal background history of Blofeld return. In short: Make Bond story-wise a bit more boring near the end of the film, and story-wise put more gravita in the character of Blofeld....or the 'character' of crime syndicate S.P.E.C.T.R.E.


    In the end you then can execute a desired wish from many Bond films: Send off Daniel Craig with a plain, solid 'bed scene' with a Bond girl in which the Bond girl moans "Oooowh Jamesss!". It hasn't been done with any of the Craig films. And to make the film more interesting we can close the film with some exciting finale in which Blofeld swears revenge on Bond or MI6. And obviously that Bond can be a different actor!

    And after that? After Bond #25? We hire a new actor. For Bond #26 we basically continue in the same Bond timeline that we once started with "Casino Royale", but with a difference! We reduce the amount of continuity in Bond #26 and future Bond films in such a way that only a few lines of text remind us of the events from the era of Daniel Craig (Think in terms like S.P.E.C.T.R.E./Blofeld swearing for revenge in "FRWL" for the assassination of Dr. Julius No in "Doctor No").


    I personally think that's the best way for the ongoing future of the Bond franchise. I think it's better that the Bond franchise follows my idea, because in that way you are not copy-pasting anymore from superhero franchises (Marvel & DC Comics). By doing so you don't limit yourself to the flawed 'reboot-button'. And you give yourself more breathing space to enter a situation again where the Bond films story-wise slowly become more 'standalone' again.

    I also believe that it doesn't make any sense to give the next Bond actor such a heavy burden with regard to the personal (story) background of the character. People underestimate Daniel Craig's legacy heavily here. Every future Bond actor will be scrutinized to death after the immensely successful portrayal of Bond by Daniel Craig (And Craig's portrayal is perhaps only equaled by the great Sir Connery). Even more so than when Brosnan followed Dalton's footsteps, or when Dalton followed Moore's footsteps. So perhaps the next Bond actor must be willing to portray a much simpler and traditional Bond, with less personal complexities but with more humor like Pierce Brosnan and especially Roger Moore.


    So Option A) or B). Nothing else for me :-).
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe Given the circumstances
    Posts: 7,346
    I think it makes sense from a marketing point of view to have a new actor for B25. 25 films, 007th actor just has a nice ring to it. Similar to when they delayed production on DAD so they could have the 40 year/20 films slogan.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 6,523
    People underestimate Daniel Craig's legacy heavily in here. Every future Bond actor will be scrutinized to death after the immensely successful portrayal of Bond by Daniel Craig

    Thank you Gustav
  • Posts: 11,119
    I think it makes sense from a marketing point of view to have a new actor for B25. 25 films, 007th actor just has a nice ring to it. Similar to when they delayed production on DAD so they could have the 40 year/20 films slogan.

    I slightly adjusted my lengthy, though necessary comment above.

    But to respond to you @Mendes4Lyfe....I think it depends how you look at it from a marketing point of view. Yes, a new Bond actor could be desirable for the very short-term (read: Less than 4 years). But I do think it has its dangers for the long-term longevity...and very existence of the Bond franchise.

    Bond films now already appear once every 3/4 years, whereas competing spy franchises finish a complete production within 2,5 years. So we need to work slowly towards a situation where we can produce 'standalone' Bond films again.

    Also, people tend to forget that by hiring a new Bond actor immediately for Bond #25, you are limiting yourself hugely to the flawed 'reboot-button'. So again, let's bring Craig back for Bond #25....or at least make sure that we keep the current Bond continuity/timeline alive....and reduce the complexities of this continuity slowly once we get to Bond #26...and a new Bond actor.
  • Posts: 11,119
    peter wrote: »
    People underestimate Daniel Craig's legacy heavily in here. Every future Bond actor will be scrutinized to death after the immensely successful portrayal of Bond by Daniel Craig

    Thank you Gustav

    Exactly. Hence why I think the next Bond actor should perhaps play a more simpler and less complex Bond. And, if you ask me, a new Bond actor should be introduced in Bond #26, not Bond #25.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe Given the circumstances
    Posts: 7,346
    I think it makes sense from a marketing point of view to have a new actor for B25. 25 films, 007th actor just has a nice ring to it. Similar to when they delayed production on DAD so they could have the 40 year/20 films slogan.

    I slightly adjusted my lengthy, though necessary comment above.

    But to respond to you @Mendes4Lyfe....I think it depends how you look at it from a marketing point of view. Yes, a new Bond actor could be desirable for the very short-term (read: Less than 4 years). But I do think it has its dangers for the long-term longevity...and very existence of the Bond franchise.

    Bond films now already appear once every 3/4 years, whereas competing spy franchises finish a complete production within 2,5 years. So we need to work slowly towards a situation where we can produce 'standalone' Bond films again.

    Also, people tend to forget that by hiring a new Bond actor immediately for Bond #25, you are limiting yourself hugely to the flawed 'reboot-button'. So again, let's bring Craig back for Bond #25....or at least make sure that we keep the current Bond continuity/timeline alive....and reduce the complexities of this continuity slowly once we get to Bond #26...and a new Bond actor.

    I appreciate the response GG. My main rebuttal would be that you can revamp the franchise without rebooting completely. Look at the transition from Moore to Dalton. There were no fan fare, no winks, no "this never happened to the other fella". They just changed direction and it FELT new and fresh. A reboot isn't needed in my opinion.
  • Posts: 11,119
    I think it makes sense from a marketing point of view to have a new actor for B25. 25 films, 007th actor just has a nice ring to it. Similar to when they delayed production on DAD so they could have the 40 year/20 films slogan.

    I slightly adjusted my lengthy, though necessary comment above.

    But to respond to you @Mendes4Lyfe....I think it depends how you look at it from a marketing point of view. Yes, a new Bond actor could be desirable for the very short-term (read: Less than 4 years). But I do think it has its dangers for the long-term longevity...and very existence of the Bond franchise.

    Bond films now already appear once every 3/4 years, whereas competing spy franchises finish a complete production within 2,5 years. So we need to work slowly towards a situation where we can produce 'standalone' Bond films again.

    Also, people tend to forget that by hiring a new Bond actor immediately for Bond #25, you are limiting yourself hugely to the flawed 'reboot-button'. So again, let's bring Craig back for Bond #25....or at least make sure that we keep the current Bond continuity/timeline alive....and reduce the complexities of this continuity slowly once we get to Bond #26...and a new Bond actor.

    I appreciate the response GG. My main rebuttal would be that you can revamp the franchise without rebooting completely. Look at the transition from Moore to Dalton. There were no fan fare, no winks, no "this never happened to the other fella". They just changed direction and it FELT new and fresh. A reboot isn't needed in my opinion.

    I think it's more difficult than you think. I mean, Christoph Waltz and Ralph Fiennes are already referring to a possible departure of their roles as Blofeld and "M". And what IF they leave? Then how would you try to get Ben Whishaw and Naomie Harris onboard? I think that would inevitably make a new Bond film with a new Bond actor less stronger.

    Secondly, again we should not underestimate how huge Craig's legacy is now. It could be problematic for a new Bond actor. And personally, to me "Casino Royale" seems way way fresher than "Live And Let Die" or "The Living Daylights". "Casino Royale" was a pivotal turning point in the history of the franchise ever since Connery became the big man.

    So I do think it's better to gradually outphase the Craig-era instead of drastically hiring a new Bond actor with all its undesirable complications and difficulties.
  • Posts: 1,052
    The reboot was never necessary before Casino Royale.
    Moore replaced Sean, there was no need to reference anything. A new man was playing Bond, with a different approach but he was still the same character etc, likewise when Dalton took over and the same with Brosnan.

    Surely people can handle just having a new actor take over without the need to refresh the whole thing?
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    @Gustav_Graves

    You are right it will be option B)
    I don't see how EON would lose the opportunity to continue with what must be the best supporting cast ever.
    Fiennes, Whishaw, Kinnear and Harris are all long accepted and well received. It would create some buzz if they return to welcome a new Bond. It will happen that way I'm certain.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe Given the circumstances
    Posts: 7,346
    The reboot was never necessary before Casino Royale.
    Moore replaced Sean, there was no need to reference anything. A new man was playing Bond, with a different approach but he was still the same character etc, likewise when Dalton took over and the same with Brosnan.

    Surely people can handle just having a new actor take over without the need to refresh the whole thing?

    Exactly. They didn't need to reboot in the first place, it was just a fad at the time and Bond jumped on the bandwagon.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    The reboot was a mistake. I'm biased though as I immediately hated it that they abandoned the gun-barrel, Moneypenny and Q and other beloved iconic Bond things.

    If they had not done this, the Craig-era would be even better as it has turned out to be.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,487
    They can reboot all they want as long as I get a good film and a good Bond. I prefer that they don t do it until Bond 26.
  • Posts: 12,436
    DC to stay for one final movie.
  • Posts: 108
    Surely people can handle just having a new actor take over without the need to refresh the whole thing?

    You're right, but it would indeed have to be a new actor, and in a standalone story. Which might be a good thing, since I think the Craig-Bond has come full circle in SP; and I think the entire production team has put too much effort in the character development of the Craig-Bond, from CR to SP, to now just leave it where it is and give us the same Craig-Bond as in SP.

    For me, SP ends appropriately enough to introduce a new actor - Craig drives into the dawn with Madeleine and Blofeld has been put in jail. Case closed. Nothing prevents Blofeld to return in Bond27 or 28 with a new Bond-actor.

    I would however keep the supporting cast. Bernard Lee was there for 3 Bond actors, just like Lois Maxwell and Bernard Llelewyn worked with 5 Bond actors. So I see no reason to replace the supporting cast because the Bond actor changes.

    Also, I will never be easy replacing Craig, let alone after yet another Craig-Bond. Only if it would prove to be one too many, or after a long hiatus might it be somewhat easier.

    That was C, wasn't it?
  • Wait till the 100th anniversary at least for another reboot thanks...
  • Posts: 4,325
    I think it makes sense from a marketing point of view to have a new actor for B25. 25 films, 007th actor just has a nice ring to it. Similar to when they delayed production on DAD so they could have the 40 year/20 films slogan.

    I slightly adjusted my lengthy, though necessary comment above.

    But to respond to you @Mendes4Lyfe....I think it depends how you look at it from a marketing point of view. Yes, a new Bond actor could be desirable for the very short-term (read: Less than 4 years). But I do think it has its dangers for the long-term longevity...and very existence of the Bond franchise.

    Bond films now already appear once every 3/4 years, whereas competing spy franchises finish a complete production within 2,5 years. So we need to work slowly towards a situation where we can produce 'standalone' Bond films again.

    Also, people tend to forget that by hiring a new Bond actor immediately for Bond #25, you are limiting yourself hugely to the flawed 'reboot-button'. So again, let's bring Craig back for Bond #25....or at least make sure that we keep the current Bond continuity/timeline alive....and reduce the complexities of this continuity slowly once we get to Bond #26...and a new Bond actor.

    I appreciate the response GG. My main rebuttal would be that you can revamp the franchise without rebooting completely. Look at the transition from Moore to Dalton. There were no fan fare, no winks, no "this never happened to the other fella". They just changed direction and it FELT new and fresh. A reboot isn't needed in my opinion.

    Yes,'reboot' is very much a 00s cinematic term. I imagine they'll just carry on with the next guy - i.e. just as when they started Dr. No it wasn't the start of Bond's career it just went straight into it. You could argue that each new Bond is a 'reboot' in the sense that it's a new take on the character.
  • edited May 2016 Posts: 32
    I don't even know if I'd go and see the next movie if they rebooted. It was my least favourite part of Casino Royale and has yet to prove anything other than an artistically lazy way to rehash old stories or take a shortcut out of difficult continuity rather than doing so through good writing. The original Bond did it perfectly: very casual continuity, but there in the background so you knew you were always watching the same character. Made it fun to spot all the small nods to time passing, especially when used as effectively as in Licence To Kill, where Tracy's death is an unspoken motivation for Bond after Leiter and Della are murdered on their wedding night. I don't mind, even like, big character stories for Bond every now and then - OHMSS, LTK - but they work best as impactful exceptions rather than the rule.

    Long story short, I'm going for B. Craig seems to want to leave, so let him go - even if the rumours are exaggerated, his performance in Spectre was veering into late period Connery phoning-in at times - but keep the continuity as far as it's needed (so keep as many of the surrounding cast who'll stay, don't turn Q old or Moneypenny/Felix white, etc). Frankly, we may need one more story to wrap up the Madeleine thing, but after that, at least a few one-and-done adventures would be very welcome.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    Option D sans Craig.
  • Posts: 11,119
    After today's news, I have a feeling option B) might very well turn into reality:

    B)...CONTINUE the current 'Bond Universe/Timeline' that was initiated with the 2006 reboot "CASINO ROYALE". Daniel Craig RESIGNS, and a NEW, 7th actor takes over the Bond mantle.
    Further consequences of option B):
    - The 25th film and other future films will be LESS HEAVY on character background, chronology and continuity
    - (Some) the other actors from the MI6-family RETURN: Ralph Fiennes, Ben Whishaw, Naomie Harris, Rory Kinnear (Jeffrey Wright)
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 38,241
    If Option B ends up turning into reality, then there was only one member here who chose it months back, before we got this slew of rumors and confirmations.
Sign In or Register to comment.