72 replies to this topic

[FlemingBond]

i'm surprised how he sounds done with the role

[tdalton]

i'm surprised how he sounds done with the role

 

He sounds that way all the time.  It's the schtick that he relies on while promoting the film in very much the same way that Brosnan had to bash the previous film in order to promote the new one. 

[Gobi-1]

That fact that Craig is now a co-producer indicates he probably isn't going anywhere.

[DaveBond21]

That fact that Craig is now a co-producer indicates he probably isn't going anywhere.

 

Yes, that is true. I do think he will do one more in 2018 and be heavily involved again, working closely with the director, and I think he will be involved in the choice of the director too.

[Single-O-Seven]

That fact that Craig is now a co-producer indicates he probably isn't going anywhere.

Yes, that is true. I do think he will do one more in 2018 and be heavily involved again, working closely with the director, and I think he will be involved in the choice of the director too.

Would it be possible for him to stay on in that capacity, even once he's left the role? Maybe have some continuing oversight in the series and its direction? I suspect he wouldn't stay, if only to avoid stepping on the toes of his replacement.

[tdalton]

 

 

That fact that Craig is now a co-producer indicates he probably isn't going anywhere.

Yes, that is true. I do think he will do one more in 2018 and be heavily involved again, working closely with the director, and I think he will be involved in the choice of the director too.

Would it be possible for him to stay on in that capacity, even once he's left the role? Maybe have some continuing oversight in the series and its direction? I suspect he wouldn't stay, if only to avoid stepping on the toes of his replacement.

 

 

I would certainly hope that he wouldn't stay.  That would be monumentally unfair to his successor to have him looming over the franchise like that.  The co-producer thing, in and of itself, is already a bit over the top.  I wouldn't want to see that continue into Bond #7's tenure.

[DaveBond21]

 

 

 

That fact that Craig is now a co-producer indicates he probably isn't going anywhere.

Yes, that is true. I do think he will do one more in 2018 and be heavily involved again, working closely with the director, and I think he will be involved in the choice of the director too.

Would it be possible for him to stay on in that capacity, even once he's left the role? Maybe have some continuing oversight in the series and its direction? I suspect he wouldn't stay, if only to avoid stepping on the toes of his replacement.

 

 

I would certainly hope that he wouldn't stay.  That would be monumentally unfair to his successor to have him looming over the franchise like that.  The co-producer thing, in and of itself, is already a bit over the top.  I wouldn't want to see that continue into Bond #7's tenure.

 

 

I like it if it means the movies are better. That the Bond actor has a say in it. While you're not personally a fan of Skyfall, many people are, and Daniel was greatly involved in that one too. If Skyfall and SPECTRE both end up successes then having Daniel Craig as Co-producer is one of the reasons.

 

Also Daniel was also really a co-scriptwriter on QOS when it comes down to it; re-writing the script with Marc Forster as they went along.

 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

[Guy Haines]

Daniel Craig as co-producer suggests to me that he may be around as Bond a while longer than recent press reports and interviews have suggested, unless this new status - a first for a Bond actor, surely? - is a one off arrangement, for whatever reason.

I do think, though, that once the next Bond actor is in place it might be a bit awkward if his immediate predecessor was still there on the production side. It's one thing to be judged against six other Bonds by the audiences and the critics, but to work on the film knowing the man you succeeded is still involved in some way might be too much.

(Sean Connery wanted some kind of "co-equal" status with Messrs. Salzman and Broccoli, allegedly, but would that have carried on into Roger Moore's tenure, or beyond that? We'll never know)

[dtuba]

Perhaps if he does have some creative control over the role he will feel more comfortable coming back for a 5th Bond, EON could give him free rein in picking scripts, directors, etc. Could be interesting.

[Hockey Mask]

I think he commits to one last one and convinces Mendes to complete his trilogy.

[coco1997]

Craig has to come back for one more to maintain the trend of each actor doing a different number of films from the others. That means Bond #7 will either do three or eight films.

[tdalton]

EON could give him free rein in picking scripts, directors, etc. Could be interesting.

 

I would certainly hope that they don't go this route.  

[Orion]

In fairness, if I had been working solidly at something almost a year (and had to have knee surgery) and was just starting on a bit of the job that I really hate, I wouldn't want to be thinking about the next time I'd be doing it either. I think Craig and Mendes will be back for one final film after having a break.

[Guy Haines]

Exactly the point I've made before. How many of us have moments when we hate the job we're doing, but think differently afterwards? I know I have.

The "co-producer" status he now enjoys - unless it's a one off arrangement for this current movie - suggests Daniel Craig may be around as Bond for a while yet. Whether Sam Mendes will return for "25" is another matter.

[coco1997]

I think Craig and Mendes will return if and only if Bond 25 is an extension of SPECTRE and a logical conclusion to Daniel Craig's era as Bond. I seem to recall Christopher Nolan stating that even though his Batman films were always planned as a trilogy, his decision to return each time was never set in stone. EON has never outright stated that SKYFALL and SPECTRE are part of a trilogy, but it's certainly starting to feel that way and it would be a shame for Craig and Mendes to not finish what they started. 

[Guy Haines]

I hope Mendes makes a comeback next time. Maybe Craig's involvement on screen and off will encourage him to do so. But we'll see.

[Syndicate]

All I can say is Craig should do at least 7 Bond films or the last time he does Bond movie is age 53. Not beyond that age, seeing people had viewed Roger Moore when he did A View To Kill.

[Silva25]

Isn't he already signed on for one more at least?  I'm pretty sure that he is.  And actors being kind of "wishy washy" in interviews is hardly an uncommon occurance, so I don't put much stock in what they say anyway.  If I had to guess, I think that Daniel will walk away after Bond 25:

 

-5 films is a good run.

-He's proven a lot of the skeptics wrong.

-He'll be just on the cusp of getting too old for the part (I don't want to see a repeat of Moore and Brosnan at the end of their runs in that regard).

 

 

Still, if Bond #7 dons the tuxedo for the first time in Bond 25, I really hope EON retains Fiennes, Whishaw, Harris, and Kinnear. They've got a great ensemble with the MI6 crew, and I am dreading the possibility of another reboot this soon. Let's at least keep this timeline / continuity going. 

 

I doubt it. The continuity between the Craig films is really closely knit and keeping the cast and changing the Bond would be very odd IMO. Especially as Craig says that SP is "the denouement to the story that began with Casino: Bond’s determination to confront his past and figure out his place in the world, and MI6’s place in the world, and whether he might be able to fashion a life away from all that. "  4 films with Craig with this central story starting with CR and concluding with SPECTRE is fine by me.

 

And I don't quite see why people are dreading another reboot - Craig's era as Bond has been going on longer than Nolan's Batman trilogy for chrissakes! And now they've rebooted with Affleck as Batman and a whole new supporting cast - no problem. If anything, continuing on the timeline with a different actor as Bond and the same cast would ruin what they tried to do with these 4 films, I feel. And remember - they don't have to do another origin story. New Bond, new MI6 crew - just throw him into a new mission plain and simple!

 

 

I hear your point, but I also firmly believe that there is something to be said about maintaining at least some semblance of (a loose) continuity. One of the great things about the classic Bond movies was that you could basically watch any of them, regardless of the Bond actor, and you'd be treated to the same familiar MI6 crew- Lee, Llewelyn, and Maxwell. All the way through Licence to Kill, there was never a Bond film with a change in more than one of the actors playing these characters. I very much appreciate the fact that we have yet to have a single Bond film with a complete overhaul in the cast. 

 

Additionally, I thought that EON provided a great setup / transition in introducing Cleese as Llewelyn's replacement. Then the reboot, and after one film as Q, he was discarded as quickly as he was introduced. 

 

So what are you proposing for the future of the franchise-- that every time there is a new Bond actor, there should likewise be a complete overhaul of the cast of MI6 regulars? 

 

I don't need an intricate and deep continuity between films. I'd just like it if the series was able to maintain some sense of stability when it comes to the supporting cast. 

 

Also, I am nervous that a complete overhaul will result in a new introduction / backstory of SPECTRE each time they recast Bond. That would get redundant awfully fast.

 

Not to mention that there were little nods to the previous films littered throughout the films.  Familiar props, the repeated mentions/references (either directly or indirectly) of Tracy in Post-OHMSS films, the ongoing threat of Blofeld/SPECTRE, etc.  "Loose continuity" is the perfect way to describe it.

I agree. CR 2006 was a one off opportunity to re-start everything, with the curious exception of M, unless Judi Dench was playing a different character, which many believe.

But now we have Bond re-established, along with the characters we expect. Why change all of them? Ralph Fiennes' M has barely got behind that large wooden desk in M's office!

Bond is effectively rebooted as a character every time a new actor assumes the role. Audiences accept that and have done for decades. That actor's tenure as Bond stands or falls on his performance in the role, not whether everything else around him has changed as well.
Post script to the above - Daniel Craig's Esquire interview is all over the media this morning, with every other columnist online having an opinion - including the contributor to Radio 4's "Thought for the Day", which is normally five minutes of comment about religious matters!

Daniel Craig has described Bond as "mysoginist". I would disagree - Bond doesn't hate women, rather he loves them a bit too much, but can't cope with long term relationships - save two, Vesper and Tracy, and both were cut tragically short.

 

He uses women as "disposable pleasures" and often has no great feeling towards them, even if they die tragically.  In the older films, he openly belittled them, smacked them around/abused them at times, and even on several occasions got dangerous close to the dreaded R-word territory.

 

Yes, there has always been a misogynistic element to his character.

[DaveBond21]

 

 

-He'll be just on the cusp of getting too old for the part (I don't want to see a repeat of Moore and Brosnan at the end of their runs in that regard).

 

If he does one more, he will be 49, the same age Brosnan was for Die Another Day.

[tdalton]

Brosnan wasn't too old when he hung it up. He looked good as Bond and, as many have noted, may have turned in his best performance in the role, even if everything else going on around him was a complete train wreck. An actor continuing on with the role into his 50s isn't a problem, IMO, so long as they age well. Brosnan could have probably gotten another film done before he would have needed to hang up the role, maybe two depending on the gaps between films.

[AMC Hornet]

But we need our YOLT , aka Shatterhand. To complete the three Sam Ss - Skyfall, SPECTRE, Shatterhand.

 

I was convinced that John Gardner's third book would be called "By Royal Appointment" because it sounded so right after "Licence Renewed" and "For Special Services". This was before the internet, so I had no way of influencing Glidrose/Cape.

 

I learned to live with the disappointment (easily). Will you?

[Double-Oh Agent]

Brosnan wasn't too old when he hung it up. He looked good as Bond and, as many have noted, may have turned in his best performance in the role, even if everything else going on around him was a complete train wreck. An actor continuing on with the role into his 50s isn't a problem, IMO, so long as they age well. Brosnan could have probably gotten another film done before he would have needed to hang up the role, maybe two depending on the gaps between films.

Totally agree. And yes, Pierce Brosnan could have easily done one or two more if given the chance. I'd say up to 55 would be an acceptable 007 performing age provided the actor had aged well. After all Roger Moore started looking older at 54 but still looked pretty good in For Your Eyes Only and he still didn't look bad at 56 for Octopussy. It was only at 58 with A View To A Kill where his age really started showing and he wasn't as believable as he used to be.

[Walecs]

After watching The November Man, I'm 100% sure he could have done two more Bond movies and still be very believable.

[dtuba]

I really doubt that Craig will pass up the opportunity to be in the 25th film. That will be a landmark and the chance for him to go out on a high note.

[thecasinoroyale]

Yeah, if Craig has the passion and drive for the character and series as a whole, I'd suspect 'SPECTRE' is going to be ended in a way we can accept Craig's 007 bowing out. I may be wrong, but I'd think this will set up something mighty for 'Bond 25' where, if he can then acknowledge it's his last one, give him some closure at least for the might journey he's taken us on so far.

[RMc2]

I think he commits to one last one and convinces Mendes to complete his trilogy.

 

I really hope Craig returns for Bond 25 - I really, really do! But I'm not sure I want Mendes back. I personally like the change in directors since 95, and I think there are enough similarly talented directors out there to follow the arcs in SF and SPECTRE well. 

 

Also, if we're going to be really paranoid, historically Bond directors stumble on their third films: John Glen with A View To A Kill, Lewis Gilbert with Moonraker. Guy Hamilton's (LALD) and Terence Young's (TB) are more debatable, but there's no doubting their best Bond work was not their third film.

 

I dunno, I just doubt a third Mendes Bond film will have enough good, fresh ideas. That's assuming SPECTRE is as incredible as we hope. We'll see when it comes out, whether or not Mendes has enough mojo left for a third.

[Hockey Mask]

Those third movies by directors is a bit scary. You may have a point.

[AMC Hornet]

If you extend that reckoning to the number of appearances by the leading man, then SPECTRE will either be Craig's Thunderball, Moonraker or Die Another Day, making B 25 either his YOLT or FYEO.

 

Or could SPECTRE break such cycles,as other films in the series have done (including the ones mentioned above)?

[RMc2]

So far I'd say all the clues point to SPECTRE being Craig's Thunderball... 

[Guy Haines]

So far I'd say all the clues point to SPECTRE being Craig's Thunderball... 

Well, TB did feature SPECTRE number 1 and number 2. The question in this new movie; which number has been allocated to Franz Oberhauser?