Jump to content


This is a read only archive of the old forums
The new CBn forums are located at https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/

 
Photo

A Hiatus After Craig's Tour Of Duty?


35 replies to this topic

#1 Trevelyan 006

Trevelyan 006

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 820 posts
  • Location:Antenna Cradle

Posted 05 May 2015 - 09:02 PM

As the dark day approaches and Daniel Craig must sadly step away from the role, I have a hunch we won't see James Bond on the big screen for a prolonged amount of time. A colleague of mine argued that it'll only be a handful of years after Craig is done before a new Bond reemerges. On the other hand, I feel as though we'll be looking at nearly/around a decade without Bond, just so the franchise's batteries are able to fully recharge and Craig's portrayal doesn't directly sabotage the next actor to be cast in the role.

 

With both sides in mind, I turn the bitter question over to you, ladies and gentlemen. 

 

With the inevitable upon us, how long do you think it'll be before we see a new James Bond on the big screen?


Edited by Trevelyan 006, 05 May 2015 - 09:04 PM.


#2 tdalton

tdalton

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11680 posts

Posted 05 May 2015 - 09:07 PM

There's now way that there will be a decade without Bond.  Even when the franchise was at its lowest point, it was only gone for six years.  

 

It'll be four at the maximum.  EON has finally gotten the critical acclaim (and the overinflated box office to go with it) that they've desperately craved.  There's no way that they're going to put that on the back burner for an extended period of time.  



#3 Trevelyan 006

Trevelyan 006

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 820 posts
  • Location:Antenna Cradle

Posted 05 May 2015 - 09:19 PM

There's now way that there will be a decade without Bond.  Even when the franchise was at its lowest point, it was only gone for six years.  

 

It'll be four at the maximum.  EON has finally gotten the critical acclaim (and the overinflated box office to go with it) that they've desperately craved.  There's no way that they're going to put that on the back burner for an extended period of time.  

That's the only point that makes me think against my own prediction. The films make too much money to be gone for so long...



#4 Simon

Simon

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5884 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 05 May 2015 - 09:38 PM

Doomsayer and worry mongerer.

 

All will be fine.

 

Close the thread..



#5 tdalton

tdalton

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11680 posts

Posted 05 May 2015 - 09:42 PM

Doomsayer and worry mongerer.

 

All will be fine.

 

Close the thread..

 

Pretty much agreed.

 

If nothing else, MGM won't allow it to fade away.  Their survival all but depends on the Bond franchise.



#6 Harmsway

Harmsway

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 13293 posts

Posted 05 May 2015 - 11:47 PM

A hiatus might be nice for *creative* reasons, but in franchise-driven Hollywood, there's no way Bond stays out of the limelight very long.



#7 DaveBond21

DaveBond21

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 18026 posts
  • Location:Sydney, Australia (but from the UK)

Posted 06 May 2015 - 02:32 AM

I can imagine a 4 year gap.



#8 David_M

David_M

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1064 posts
  • Location:Richmond VA

Posted 06 May 2015 - 02:35 AM

When the Nolan Batman trilogy ended, all the talk on the internet was about how impossible it would be to follow them with any other interpretations, and how no one would be crazy enough to touch Batman again for years.  In reality, Bale had barely hung up the cape before Warner Bros was fitting Affleck for it.

 

As long as these franchises make money, they'll keep going, and Craig, while very good, is no more "irreplaceable" than any of the guys who preceded him.

 

That said, it's funny how practically since the day Craig was cast, I've seen threads on here in the nature of "Who do you want for Bond #7?", "Who's next after Craig?" and "What happens when Craig's gone?"  For a guy who's as popular as Craig is, a lof of people seem obsessed with getting him out the door.



#9 SecretAgentFan

SecretAgentFan

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9055 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 06 May 2015 - 07:13 AM

Exactly.

 

And while I love Craig as Bond I do think - especially now during my re-watch sessions - that every Bond era, as everything else, naturally loses some of its urgency after... well, four films.  And every film featuring a new actor brings a welcome fresh and different attitude.

 

So I´d rather have Craig leave at the top of his game than plodding through, enjoying job security, unless people are desperate for him to move on. 



#10 Trevelyan 006

Trevelyan 006

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 820 posts
  • Location:Antenna Cradle

Posted 06 May 2015 - 05:07 PM

Not that I am desperate for Craig to go, I'm just not disillusioned either. The day that Craig steps away approaches. It is as simple as that. With that in mind, is it not a rational question to ask how long everyone thinks it'll be before another film pops up with a new actor in the role? But, I digress. It is also worth noting that I do not believe Craig to be irreplaceable, but for many casual fans today, it may take a bit longer of a break. Needless to say he has been a great and memorable Bond, fresh in our minds. It would only be fair to Craig and movie-goers to create some space in between. Besides, space between actors becomes almost like a marketing strategy, as anticipation becomes heightened.

  

Just as a guide and reminder too, here is a list of the number of years it took before a new actor appeared as James Bond:

 

After Connery left - 2

After Lazenby left - 2

After Connery left - 2

After Moore left- 2

After Dalton left - 6

After Brosnan left - 4

 

If after Craig leaves his gap isn't to be the longest, where do you think he'll fall? Somewhere in the middle, perhaps? No way it is only two years...



#11 tdalton

tdalton

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11680 posts

Posted 06 May 2015 - 05:25 PM

It'll be 3-4 years, closer to 4 though.  Of course it won't be two years, because I doubt we ever see Bond films released in that short of a span ever again from the current leadership at EON.  If they're going to continue courting top-shelf talent like Mendes, Craig, and so on, they're going to need longer breaks in there so that the well respected artists they seek to sign up will be able to go off and do other things rather than be tied down to a franchise.



#12 DavidJones

DavidJones

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 347 posts

Posted 06 May 2015 - 07:11 PM

I can't wait for Craig to leave. But it will be 2021 at the earliest till we get a new Bond.



#13 George Kaplan

George Kaplan

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 118 posts

Posted 06 May 2015 - 07:32 PM

Yeah, I pretty much agree with tdalton on this.  3-4 years turn around.  Pretty much the money at the theater is being made by franchise films and smaller surprise films; I can't see Bond being allowed to rest much longer than 4. I'd figure we'd hear casting news halfway through the second year, filming in third, release in year four.



#14 Guy Haines

Guy Haines

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3075 posts
  • Location:"Special envoy" no more. As of 7/5/15 elected to office somewhere in Nottinghamshire, England.

Posted 07 May 2015 - 12:06 AM

The change from Connery to Moore was seamless because with DAF the series had already started to change. Connery could have appeared in LALD, Moore in DAF, if you catch my drift. The Craig films - unless something drastic happens with Spectre and/or Bond 25 - have been built around Craig's interpretation of Bond which hasn't really changed at all. A little lighter in SF, but not much. If Craig finishes in, say, 2017/18 and the next film is two years later I wonder how the film makers could carry off a dramatically different change in the portrayal of Bond - unless the portrayal isn't really dramatically different. On the other hand if a drastic change in direction is considered desirable would audiences be ready to accept it? Timothy Dalton's all too brief tenure as Bond springs to mind. I approved, but some didn't.



#15 plankattack

plankattack

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1385 posts

Posted 07 May 2015 - 01:15 AM

From a studio standpoint, four years at the most. Bond is a moneymaker, and studios want to make money.

Creatively, I think it all depends on how everything comes together. How long does the right script take? Do they have the right director, the right actor? Do EON feel that there is a compelling direction to take things? Babs and Mike have slowly moved away from the "every other year" timetable that powered the franchise. Yes, the incredible commercial success of Bond post '95 has given them that leverage, but I also suspect that there has been a greater sense of "self" in terms of the need to treat the character and the franchise with a bit more care (unlike, say Sony/Columbia/Marvel with Spiderman, where frankly it appears that the character's value is entirely defined by it's ability to sell tickets).

So how long before the next incarnation, well the answer is the result of some equation of the two factors above. You know, x = a + b squared, if you get my drift.

And I understood there would be no math.....

#16 SecretAgentFan

SecretAgentFan

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9055 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 07 May 2015 - 01:59 PM

I wonder whether EON would consider at some point doing a tv series, another version of Bond on HBO or Netflix - escaping the boundaries of bigscreen blockbuster entertainment.

 

It wouldn´t necessarily diminish the franchise but add to it if it were done in a completely different, gritty way - offering adaptations of Fleming´s novels in sequence, maybe with a limited number of episodes per adaptation.

 

In an age of universe building and tv and cinema working together... what do you think?



#17 Call Billy Bob

Call Billy Bob

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2917 posts
  • Location:Lawrence, Kansas, USA

Posted 07 May 2015 - 03:19 PM

I wonder whether EON would consider at some point doing a tv series, another version of Bond on HBO or Netflix - escaping the boundaries of bigscreen blockbuster entertainment.
 
It wouldn´t necessarily diminish the franchise but add to it if it were done in a completely different, gritty way - offering adaptations of Fleming´s novels in sequence, maybe with a limited number of episodes per adaptation.
 
In an age of universe building and tv and cinema working together... what do you think?

I'd love a Bond tv anthology, with the novels in their proper order (and in the appropriate time period as well).

#18 David_M

David_M

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1064 posts
  • Location:Richmond VA

Posted 07 May 2015 - 03:28 PM

I could see the Netflix option working for "Young Bond."  Although I wouldn't really recommend either show, there is a precedent in the form of "Smallville" and "Gotham," both shows that deal with the youth and "back stories" of established adult heroes.  In the case of YoungBond, there would be the added attraction of "period" costumes and settings, although that might also be a strike against it, as it'd be hard to explain how a kid could grow up in that era and end up as the 2015 Craig edition.

 

Another possibility -- using Marvel's "Daredevil" or "Agents of SHIELD" model -- might be to do a show about the adventures of the rest of the Double-O section, building off of and setting up events in the big-screen 007 adventures, and maybe with the occasional cameo by Bond himself.



#19 Dustin

Dustin

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5786 posts

Posted 07 May 2015 - 03:38 PM

I would say anything is at least thinkable. They would be ignorant not to look at the possibilities quality TV can offer today. That said, I suspect the chances for TV Bond would have been better if Jeffery Deaver's 'reboot' novel or the two 60s continuations had met with greater resonance. With TV productions so much seems to depend on the right time, the right set of circumstances - on top of having a quality budget and the right cast and crew. Bond, in the harsh realities of present-day TV productions, would have to prove his weekly appeal first. All and sundry queue up to see Bond at theatres every few years, it's not a given they are all willing to tune in weekly. Without the benefit of extensive promotion and campaigning it's doubtful the last few lit-Bond efforts would have been noticed by the public. A Bond TV series would definitely be a major event. But it also would have to stand on its own legs after the first episode. Difficult with stories that are effectively well-known and more or less regularly on TV.

Netflix, with its get-the-whole-season-NOW! appeal would perhaps be a different matter. But the basic hurdle for TV-Bond is something else. TV productions in nearly all cases have to provide their thrills on a fraction of the budget a blockbuster can burn per minute. That's not a bad thing, but it means the writing has to put the emphasis on different qualities - if you don't want to get stuck in endless shootouts and repeat torture scene after torture scene as 24 ended up doing. Since Fleming's stories are more concerned with suspense than action he would actually be good material for TV - if it just wasn't for the early films that already were pretty close to the source.

The best candidate for a period mini-series would be MOONRAKER in my view. Supposedly Fleming already had some kind of adaptation in mind when writing it, it's also one of the books that were filmed in a way that would not rival a faithful period adaptation for TV. Early 1950s London could be relatively easy done with CGI today, the same holds true for Drax' rocket base and the Moonraker itself. It should be possible to do this in two or three episodes, depending on runtime.

After that however I would try and set up an original story introducing Blofeld, possibly with some short story and/or the anecdote from TSWLM at the core. Leading then to YOLT, of course. Always provided the whole show isn't canceled after the first hour of men-talking-across-desks and men-playing-cards of MOONRAKER...

#20 Double-Oh Agent

Double-Oh Agent

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4325 posts

Posted 09 May 2015 - 08:51 AM

I also agree with tdalton. It will be 3 or 4 years between Daniel Craig's last 007 film and James Bond #7's first one. If EON wants to take an extended break it will be four years. If they are willing to get right back to it, it will be three. I'm afraid anything less is highly unlikely nowadays with 3-year gaps between films seeming to be the norm. And anything more would be too long a gap as well as the likelihood of MGM wanting to get its coffers restocked. With the way Craig has been liked by the critics and fans and has had a good relationship with EON, I imagine Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson will want to take a break and recharge their batteries for the new 007's tenure which would probably mean a four year gap.



#21 Emrayfo

Emrayfo

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 193 posts
  • Location:Severnaya

Posted 12 May 2015 - 12:22 AM

 

I wonder whether EON would consider at some point doing a tv series, another version of Bond on HBO or Netflix - escaping the boundaries of bigscreen blockbuster entertainment.
 
It wouldn´t necessarily diminish the franchise but add to it if it were done in a completely different, gritty way - offering adaptations of Fleming´s novels in sequence, maybe with a limited number of episodes per adaptation.
 
In an age of universe building and tv and cinema working together... what do you think?

I'd love a Bond tv anthology, with the novels in their proper order (and in the appropriate time period as well).

 

 

 

I could definitely see a period-piece TV Bond happening based on the novels, in order. Done right it would not compete with the films at all, a bit like the parallel existence of the Guy Ritchie Sherlock Holmes films and the two Sherlock-based TV shows.



#22 DaveBond21

DaveBond21

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 18026 posts
  • Location:Sydney, Australia (but from the UK)

Posted 12 May 2015 - 01:32 AM

 

 

I wonder whether EON would consider at some point doing a tv series, another version of Bond on HBO or Netflix - escaping the boundaries of bigscreen blockbuster entertainment.
 
It wouldn´t necessarily diminish the franchise but add to it if it were done in a completely different, gritty way - offering adaptations of Fleming´s novels in sequence, maybe with a limited number of episodes per adaptation.
 
In an age of universe building and tv and cinema working together... what do you think?

I'd love a Bond tv anthology, with the novels in their proper order (and in the appropriate time period as well).

 

 

 

I could definitely see a period-piece TV Bond happening based on the novels, in order. Done right it would not compete with the films at all, a bit like the parallel existence of the Guy Ritchie Sherlock Holmes films and the two Sherlock-based TV shows.

 

 

It has come to the point where I wouldn't mind this. One movie every 3 years is not enough for some fans anymore!

 

-



#23 agentbug

agentbug

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 122 posts
  • Location:UK

Posted 12 May 2015 - 12:45 PM

On the subject of the TV show, the main problem I see is casting. How difficult it must be to cast a TV Bond knowing for sure he'll be great in the role and there's no way you'll want him for the film incarnation instead / as well... I know if it was my responsibility to cast both the pressure would make me think it almost wasn't worth it.


Edited by agentbug, 12 May 2015 - 12:46 PM.


#24 SecretAgentFan

SecretAgentFan

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9055 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 12 May 2015 - 01:56 PM

It would have to be so different from the film series that it would be worth it.  And it would be a part actors would LOVE to raise their profile with.



#25 Call Billy Bob

Call Billy Bob

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2917 posts
  • Location:Lawrence, Kansas, USA

Posted 12 May 2015 - 03:15 PM

I'd say strive to cast a TV Bond that matches Fleming's description as best they can. Since the film 007s have been of the suave and debonair variety, seeing the scar on his right cheek and the cruel, cold look described in the novels would be a nice distinction.

#26 SecretAgentFan

SecretAgentFan

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9055 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 12 May 2015 - 03:28 PM

If Jon Hamm could pull off a British accent...



#27 Call Billy Bob

Call Billy Bob

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2917 posts
  • Location:Lawrence, Kansas, USA

Posted 12 May 2015 - 03:29 PM

If Jon Hamm could pull off a British accent...

Spot on, SAF!

#28 Emrayfo

Emrayfo

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 193 posts
  • Location:Severnaya

Posted 13 May 2015 - 06:15 AM

I'd say strive to cast a TV Bond that matches Fleming's description as best they can. Since the film 007s have been of the suave and debonair variety, seeing the scar on his right cheek and the cruel, cold look described in the novels would be a nice distinction.

 

Agreed. This, and as period pieces. That kind of interpretation would be sufficiently distinct from the films that there would not be viewer confusion and it could be a lot of fun.



#29 DaveBond21

DaveBond21

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 18026 posts
  • Location:Sydney, Australia (but from the UK)

Posted 13 May 2015 - 07:30 AM

 

I'd say strive to cast a TV Bond that matches Fleming's description as best they can. Since the film 007s have been of the suave and debonair variety, seeing the scar on his right cheek and the cruel, cold look described in the novels would be a nice distinction.

 

Agreed. This, and as period pieces. That kind of interpretation would be sufficiently distinct from the films that there would not be viewer confusion and it could be a lot of fun.

 

 

Exactly. The combination of extremely Flemingian and also set in the 1950s for example, could work. But they could even go all "Roger Moore" on us in Series 4 if they wanted!

 

_



#30 dtuba

dtuba

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 573 posts
  • Location:Tacoma, WA, USA

Posted 21 May 2015 - 02:40 AM

If the internetz had been around in the late 90's you can bet that there would have been a whole slew of pages and threads obsessing over what would happen after Pierce left the role and who would replace him.

Probably mostly started by myself.