12 replies to this topic

[J.B.]

It has been awhile since being on these forums but in the past few days I have been thinking alot about CR and the new film Quantum of Solace. I am looking forward to November and the big debut! I am particularly curious about how they merge the last film with no Bond-ian traits to this one when Craig becomes more all around Bond. I enjoyed CR so much even though I fall into the camp that thinks it is more Bourne than Bond. This also drives the curiosity to see how the second one will be different. But all of this brings about this concern of mine.

I dont know how long Craig has signed on for with Bond. I have heard 3 films but I have also heard in many articles him saying that he didnt want typecasting with Bond and he acted as though it was no big deal to be Bond a few years and then just move on. If this is true it becomes a problem for me.

What has contributed to my love of Bond as opposed to other series of character films is that one actor played Bond a long time. Connery 6 times, Moore 7, Brosnan 4 (yet many wanted him to do more and him leaving was riotous to some), Dalton, like Brosnan was cut short too soon and hurt some folks, Lazenby was a disaster that I wish hadnt happened.

But my point is this, I dont want Bond to become like Batman, Superman, or others where a different actor comes in and takes their turn to play the role. I want continuity and someone who will play the part that loves being the role. It contributes so much to the way the film plays out on screen when you can see the actor loving the role and getting into it. Then as each film is produced with this actor everything grows including the people watching the film. You begin to look forward to seeing this actor again come back and continue the role.

I felt that way with Craig. Granted, I have difficulty with him in looks and style but I saw his authenticity. He was believable as Bond. So, if they are going to stay with him, do what it takes to keep him around a long time. Let's stay with one guy for 10 years. Not start changing folks all the time.

There is a danger of Bond becoming like all other series where nothing is continuous and there are no elements that you can count on. I feel this is the worst thing that could happen to the Bond series.

I hope that this makes sense. What are your thoughts on this?

[sharpshooter]

If you want the series to continue, you have to cast a replacement in the role of Bond. It doesn't happen that often. If they started having Lazenby stints I would not be pleased at all. Dalton's situation couldn't be helped, it was out of is hands. A Bond should stay for a good tenture once cast.

[J.B.]

That's true. But a span of three films for a Bond character is too short. I mean, I remember when Brosnan's fourth film came out. I couldnt wait to see it and when it was over I was ready for a fifth. The reason for this was largely the person playing the role. The same was true for the Moore era. There was a familiarity with the actor in the role that made you want to go back. With a constant change in actors after 2 or 3 films, it puts folks in the position of having to cross the barrier of getting to know the actor in the role. I think longevity is crucial for this series and it long term success with this new era.

Q is another example. With CR, I could easily see where they could have put him in there but just not make a whole scene for him as in past films. The scene where Craig scans his whole arm could have been the Q scene. Just add a line in there addressing Q by M or by Craig (Bond). But instead they took him out completely for the sake of change with no knowledge if they will ever bring him back.

[Turn]

First of all, I disagree that this series will be in danger of losing its continuity. The Bonds have had the unique position of having continuity and not having it all at once, if that makes sense. You have references to Tracy with two different actors and refer to the old relics in DAD and returning characters and such as examples of continuity.

But this series has never been dependent on knowing the past adventures to enjoy each succeeding film as a stand-alone. QOS has the unique position of being the first film in several years to follow up to its predecessor. I can accept these are all part of the same series.

The Superman series, going on 30 years now, has restarted twice, as has the Batman series, only 19 years, going so far as to repeat origin material more than once. That's where things get slippery. Except for occasional gaps, the Bond series has been able to reinvent itself several times without major overhauls. Remember that CR was a risky move following the very successful box office of DAD.

As far as an actor loving the role for continuity's sake, personally I'd rather have a couple of good/great Dalton films and 3-4 good/great Craig filmsor one great one from Lazenby than the mixed bag Connery, Moore and Brosnan have. Quality, not quantity, to be a bit cliched.

[Single-O-Seven]

First of all, I disagree that this series will be in danger of losing its continuity. The Bonds have had the unique position of having continuity and not having it all at once, if that makes sense. You have references to Tracy with two different actors and refer to the old relics in DAD and returning characters and such as examples of continuity.

But this series has never been dependent on knowing the past adventures to enjoy each succeeding film as a stand-alone. QOS has the unique position of being the first film in several years to follow up to its predecessor. I can accept these are all part of the same series.

The Superman series, going on 30 years now, has restarted twice, as has the Batman series, only 19 years, going so far as to repeat origin material more than once. That's where things get slippery. Except for occasional gaps, the Bond series has been able to reinvent itself several times without major overhauls. Remember that CR was a risky move following the very successful box office of DAD.

As far as an actor loving the role for continuity's sake, personally I'd rather have a couple of good/great Dalton films and 3-4 good/great Craig filmsor one great one from Lazenby than the mixed bag Connery, Dalton and Brosnan have. Quality, not quantity, to be a bit cliched.

I'd have to agree with your last paragraph here (though I'm assuming the second time you mention Dalton here you actually mean Moore). A strong actor who gives strong films, even if only a couple of them, is far more memorable to me than an actor who over-stays his tenure, and only delivers a handful of enjoyable, but not overly strong Bond films.

[jaguar007]

On the flip side there is danger of an actor staying in the role too long. Examples are Connery in DAF (should have been Laz's 2nd Bond) and Roger Moore's last film (or even last couple), he just went on too long, or Pierce Brosnan's 4th film, just went on too long (in all fairness, no actor could have saved the later half of DAD).

[tdalton]

I think that the constant changing of actors in the role is, at this point, fairly unavoidable, especially if EON wants to continue in the style that they're going with right now where they are hiring the big name, Oscar-caliber directors, writers, and actors. Serious, artistically driven actors in this day in age like Daniel Craig are most likely not going to want to stick around in the role for as long as Sean Connery and Roger Moore did (not to say that they're not good actors) for fear of being typecast in the way that Connery and Moore were.

[Single-O-Seven]

I think that the constant changing of actors in the role is, at this point, fairly unavoidable, especially if EON wants to continue in the style that they're going with right now where they are hiring the big name, Oscar-caliber directors, writers, and actors. Serious, artistically driven actors in this day in age like Daniel Craig are most likely not going to want to stick around in the role for as long as Sean Connery and Roger Moore did (not to say that they're not good actors) for fear of being typecast in the way that Connery and Moore were.

Though they may go on to other successful roles, an actor only has to play Bond but once to be forever typecast. So even if DC jumps ship early, he'll still always be known as OO7 to everybody and anybody who ever sees him in another film. I'm not saying he'll only play Bondian roles, or that the typecasting will be unshakeable and make him unwatchable in anything else, I'm just saying that once his face appears onscreen in another movie all viewers will have a fleeting memory of Bond.

[tdalton]

I think that the constant changing of actors in the role is, at this point, fairly unavoidable, especially if EON wants to continue in the style that they're going with right now where they are hiring the big name, Oscar-caliber directors, writers, and actors. Serious, artistically driven actors in this day in age like Daniel Craig are most likely not going to want to stick around in the role for as long as Sean Connery and Roger Moore did (not to say that they're not good actors) for fear of being typecast in the way that Connery and Moore were.

Though they may go on to other successful roles, an actor only has to play Bond but once to be forever typecast. So even if DC jumps ship early, he'll still always be known as OO7 to everybody and anybody who ever sees him in another film. I'm not saying he'll only play Bondian roles, or that the typecasting will be unshakeable and make him unwatchable in anything else, I'm just saying that once his face appears onscreen in another movie all viewers will have a fleeting memory of Bond.

That's true, but I do think that if someone were to only play Bond in one film, that he would be able to shake the typecast easier than someone who played him seven times, which would probably be an incentive for an actor to get out of the role before he went on to be a major institution in the franchise like Connery and Moore were.

I also think that we'll see shorter tenures in the future if EON continues down this route because there is just more interesting and more artistically satisfying work out there for actors than the Bond franchise, especially as the franchise continues down the road and begins to get towards the 30 film mark. I would think that the so-called "serious" actors that will be on the scene in the next decade or so would probably look at their options as "Do I take this really great, well written role that could possibly get me an Oscar, or, do I become the seventh or eighth actor to play the role of Bond in the thirtieth movie in an action franchise?".

[Eddie Burns]

I think someone's missing Brozza...and whats the point of giving Q a two minute scene where he serves no purpose whatsoever, just so the audience can say...'Hey, there's Q!'? I think the character deserves a better introduction than that, especially in this Haggis/Craig era of Bond movies. Sorry, but I never understood this uproar for Q and Moneypenny. If you combine the minutes both characters are on screen throughout the series, I doubt it amounts to even an hour. I'm sure the producers have plans for both characters to return, and i'm sure they'll be improved on when they do. Saying that, i've yet to see someone leave the theater after the Q/Moneypenny scenes, with them having got their fix and all.

As for the actor changing, if my dreams come true, Henry Cavill will take over from DC and considering he'll still be young, play the role for a good 15 years where we'll have a complete Bond tenure by an actor (Young-Old Bond), meaning we see him grow before our eyes. I understand what J.B. is saying. It would be great to have an actor play the role for his whole career with enthusiasm provided the stories stay good. No worries about typecasting or anything. I think if Brosnan got the Role in 1985 we would have had that, but it wasn't meant to be.

I see Craig's tenure as providing a strong base for Cavill's 7th explosive, dynamic, and complete portrayal of the spy which if it does last 15 years would probably end up being the last. 007

[J.B.]

First of all, thanks all for your responses to this thread! In one sense Eddie proves my point and misses it at the same time. (No offense here.) My comments about Q only come from the big deal EON made about not having Q in CR due to the zanyness of the Monty Python actor playing the role. Yet, they did have a Q character in the movie and could have just made reference to him when he was in the scene. That's all. Nothing more than that. Continuity would have been nice for the crowd wanting that.

Now, the comments about Cavill playing Bond prove exactly what I am saying. Continuity with an actor playing Bond for several films is what added to the popularity and the successful continuity of the Bond series overall. Referring to earlier comments, Connery came back as Bond in DAF because of the public's outcry for him to come back. That is what made Saltzman/Broccoli ask him back. Don't blame the film's poor quality on the actor. If the actor(s) exceeded his prime then, at that point change him out. But dont start changing actors as fast or as much as we change the oil in our cars.

The Bond series for many became like a TV Series when you looked at the lead actors. You wouldnt get a different actor to play Jack Bauer each season of 24. It wouldn't survive even if one actor played 2 seasons before leaving. People get used to people in a role, they become hooked on the portrayal and they look forward to the actor's continuation of that portrayal (if it is done well).

Look at the past bond films. I think a case can be made that the publics like or dislike of an actor who played Bond had a role in the success regardless of how good the movie itself was. DAD is an example for many. People in the forum rip this movie yet it was the top gross Bond film until CR. DAF was another big gross despite the poor script. The actor can and I think does make a huge difference. The long tenure of Moore occurred because the films were successes. Okay, they all werent blockbusters but the money take went up and down. If Moore wasnt a success I think the money would have just gone straight down and they would have replaced him.

Lastly, Dalton also proves this. If his two films were so great then why was he replaced? He didnt connect with the public to the point that the money wasnt there. Personally, I liked Dalton but I am just stating the fact that people need time to connect with a franchise like Bond and the continuity is what they expect.

Thus, my overall request: I hope that Craig stays for the long haul. Let's get to know him in this role and watch the character mature under his watch so that we can "bond" with his portrayal of 007 and add quality to the whole franchise. Shifting actors every 2 to 3 films will do nothing but make this like the Superman, Batman (especially), and other "superhero" franchises where actors "take their turn" playing the superspy 007. And if this series becomes like these other franchises, it will lead me to ask the question of when George Clooney will take his turn playing Bond. UGGH.

Edited by J.B., 24 March 2008 - 05:10 AM.

[DaveBond21]

My comments about Q only come from the big deal EON made about not having Q in CR due to the zanyness of the Monty Python actor playing the role. Yet, they did have a Q character in the movie and could have just made reference to him when he was in the scene. That's all

Yes, that's fair enough.

[Dell Deaton]

Interesting debate.