89 replies to this topic

[Moore Not Less]

How long I wan't Daniel Craig to stick around for will depend on his performance in Casino Royale. If I like what I see then I will be hoping that he sticks around for at least three films. I don't foresee Craig sticking around for any more than three even if he is very popular and successful as 007. He's the kind of actor that doesn't wan't to be typecast for too long.

[JimmyBond]

He's the kind of actor that doesn't wan't to be typecast for too long.

The same I think, could be said about Connery. And he did at lest 6 before calling it quits (not to mention coming back 13 years later and doing NSNA).

[Moore Not Less]

He's the kind of actor that doesn't wan't to be typecast for too long.

The same I think, could be said about Connery. And he did at lest 6 before calling it quits (not to mention coming back 13 years later and doing NSNA).

It's by all means possible that Daniel Craig could stick around for more than three films if Sony/Eon were willing to offer sufficient inducements and Craig himself was feeling sufficiently motivated to carry on. However, at this moment I don't foresee that happening.

Edited by Moore Not Less, 05 April 2006 - 06:34 PM.

[Publius]

I don't foresee Craig sticking around for any more than three even if he is very popular and successful as 007. He's the kind of actor that doesn't wan't to be typecast for too long.

That's for sure.

However, I don't share the sentiments of those who say how many Craig should do should be based on his CR performance (within limits, of course). Reason being I don't think it's in the best interest of the franchise as a whole to have short-lived (one or two movies) actors in the role.

Granted, I'm saying this presuming that Craig won't be any worse than mediocre, which I doubt even the reasonable skeptics here are contending. More than anything, I think those less than enthusiastic about Craig's casting are simply skeptical of the nuances of style and image he seems to promise, not so much his acting talent or credibility as a believable 007.

To that extent, their response is justifiable and tantamount to what my reaction would have been if another Roger Moore had won the part. But even if that were to happen, I would gladly live with such a scenario for three movies before clamoring for new blood. Hell, I think it would have been disastrous to lose Moore before TSWLM (and not just because it was such a hit) and even MR, and I don't much care for his interpretation.

So, barring any outright catastrophes with Craig (in terms of quality, not so much commercial success), I think even those who haven't or will never warm up to him should be willing, for the sake of the series, to ride it out for three films, or at least the equivalent in terms of time-span (i.e. another Dalton scenario).

[J.B.]

Honestly? I would prefer him be the villian in this film and Brosnan come back with a more formulistic type of film like the past minus the massive CGI stuff. I just love the way they have done these films in the past except make them more realistic.

But, realistically? If he is bad in CR, then get him out and get another Bond in there. It won't hurt things at all and would provide the perfect bounce back the franchise would need if it is all done properly.

With that said, we know he is in for three films barring a Tsunami or Hurricane at Pinewood studios. And, I think he is talented enough to pull it off for at least three. I may not be a fan of his type of Bond (we will see) but that is reality and I will still support the movie and franchise.

[MarcAngeDraco]

It's hard to be very sure how to answer this until I at least see CR.

Based on my feelings about CR at the moment, I think 3 or 4 films sounds about right. With relatively small gaps between films please (no more than two years between).

[Aussie21]

As Publius said, no matter how I feel about him in CR (barring anything completely pitiful), I think Craig should do at least 3, 4 tops

That said, if Craig dragged the franchise down with bad acting, I wouldn't be against him getting the boot before he really hurt the name of Bond. But to be honest, I can't forsee that happening. Sure none of us have seen Craig in CR yet, but I think he's proven himself as enough of an actor to at least do the role justice.

[Tiin007]

I may not be a fan of his type of Bond (we will see) but that is reality and I will still support the movie and franchise.

Good. If only all anti-Craigers could be this way.

[Pussfeller]

I like Craig, and I expect I'll like his Bond, but I don't think a Bond actor should stick around too long. Four films, for me, is enough. I wish Moore had only done four films, which would have given Dalton the chance to do four, etc. I like the franchise to change regularly, to keep things interesting.

Don't forget that EON is taking a long time to make movies now. They seem to require two or three years between each one. It might be 2015 before Craig's fourth film is released. I don't think any Bond should stick around for more than ten years, so I'd limit each to four films.

[Andrew]

I want him to do three minimun and five maximum. However this could be changed if his preformance gets stale or he simply becomes too old.

Supposedly he's contracted through 2012 so that should give us four films...

2006
2008
2010
2012

Maybe three...

2006
2009
2012

I guess we'll just have to see.

Edited by Andrew, 08 April 2006 - 09:12 PM.

[Peter Guillam 006]

I think he should do at least three but hopefully five. Craig(who i believe is contracted for 3 movies) says he became Bond because the CR script was so amazing, so I doubt he'll do more and more past his contract if the script quality diminishes. Can't wait to see his Bond!

[jake speed]

Depends on CR but given his fondness for esoteric roles and the bizarre press headlines that dog his every move the question may be how long does Daniel himself want to stick around?

[TheREAL008]

1. 2 being the max number.

[Blofeld's Cat]

Without seeing how he is as Bond, 7 movies is a nice round (sort of) figure.

Hopefully the audience will take to him and the new direction well enough to sustain a 7-picture stint.

[Tiin007]

Without seeing how he is as Bond, 7 movies is a nice round (sort of) figure.

Hopefully the audience will take to him and the new direction well enough to sustain a 7-picture stint.

The only way that would work would be if they went back to doing 1 movie per year, which I doubt they are going to do (even though I want them to). But if they do 1 movie every 2 years, then it would be 2018 (Craig would be 50) when the 7th one comes out. Craig would never stick around that long.

[Blofeld's Cat]

Why wouldn't he stick around? If it works and all concerned are happy he can make it his cash cow.

If he is 50 and still looks good when he does his last Bond we will have watched Bond mature into the agent and person we know in all the Bonds up to Die Another Day. Then Bond #7 can take over the mantle as the Bond of the 1st 20 movies.

[Tiin007]

Why wouldn't he stick around?

Craig at first was reluctant to play Bond because, just like Connery, he didn't want to be solely identified as Bond. He wanted to be recognized for other things. If he does 7, then he would probably only be known as Bond.

Then Bond #7 can take over the mantle as the Bond of the 1st 20 movies.

Not if this is a reboot.

[Pussfeller]

Yeah, I really can't see Craig sticking around that long, even if the films were made on a much quicker schedule. He doesn't absolutely need Bond, he'll probably want to get out before he hits fifty.

I'm not sure of the consensus among fans (did I just say "consensus among fans"?), but I get bored with Bond actors who stick around for a long time, even if I like their approach to the character. I like to see the role recast frequently, and taken in wildly different directions.

Incidentally, once Craig is done, I wish they'd trash the notion of franchise-spanning continuity once and for all. Or perhaps give each actor his own continuity. That would be the only possible way to bring continuity to a series whose protagonist changes his face every decade.

[Skudor]

He'll do his three - after that it's a matter of money.

[OVERLORD]

I think he'll do 3 or 4, depending on if his career takes off in the US or not. He says he wants the big bucks now.

[Qwerty]

Be kind of interesting if he managed to be in the same league as Connery or Moore with six or seven films.

[Pussfeller]

I doubt any Bond actor will stick around that long, simply because of EON's recent schedule slowdown. If, at some point in the future, they discover a way to make films more quickly, we might see the return of seven-film eras. Until then, I think Bond eras will consist of four or five.

[JimmyBond]

I can live with five, like I said before (as weird as it may sound) four seems too short, but five is just right.

[Double-0-Seven]

I would like him to stick around as long as possible. Five or six movies sounds good.

[Leon]

It's hard to say until I see his d

[DamnCoffee]

i want craig to stick around as much as he can - he will make a fantastic 007

[Live&LetDie007]

IMHO, ideally, he should pull a Dalton and should star in, at most, one or two more films. If he bombs in CR (hopefully, and probably, he won't,) I'd be happy for them to bring back Brosnan for at least one more film.

[Tiin007]

If he bombs in CR I'd be happy for them to bring back Brosnan for at least one more film.

I love Brosnan (he's my favorite Bond), but I really hope they don't pull another Sean Connery on us (especially because since CR is a reboot, what would the next Brosnan film be- old or new continuity?)

[Publius]

IMHO, ideally, he should pull a Dalton and should star in, at most, one or two more films. If he bombs in CR (hopefully, and probably, he won't,) I'd be happy for them to bring back Brosnan for at least one more film.

What's with this "pulling an XYZ" nonsense? Dalton did two because unrelated legal troubles prevented him from doing a third (and possibly a fourth). Lazenby did one because he quit, and Connery returned because they couldn't find anyone else and realized he'd be willing to do it if they threw a lot of money at him to walk around like a zombie as a borderline American Bond in a near self-spoof.

And let's be realistic. Brosnan burned his bridges more than any actor before him and would be returning a good six-seven years since his previous one and be well into his fifties by then (Connery came back after four years and was still in his forties). It's just not going to happen.

Hopefully, "pulling a Craig" will eventually come to mean starring as Bond in 3-5 high-quality films.

Edited by Publius, 11 May 2006 - 12:44 AM.

[JimmyBond]

Hopefully, "pulling a Craig" will eventually come to mean starring as Bond in 3-5 high-quality films.

Hear hear.