4014 replies to this topic

[Dustin]

I suppose a year, two at the outside. After that I don't think there is much demand for his return on both sides. I wouldn't put too much emphasis on time, the studio behind BOND 25 will very likely want to do their own thing over a few films. It sure would be splendid if they could have Craig for two films - but that's almost certainly out of the question. So if it takes another year or more...then I think they'll move without Craig. And I don't even think the public will care all that much; nowadays people are used to getting the most outrageous stuff served in their timelines.

Whoever is Bond just is it then.

[MISALA1994]

Dominic West would have been fantastic Bond a decade ago...

Edited by MISALA1994, 29 January 2017 - 02:36 PM.

[Odd Jobbies]

I suspect Bond films with Lewis Collins post-1981, OCTOPUSSY or AVTAK, would not have been so terribly different from the Moore versions. Some different stunt work, sure. But overall probably far from fundamentally reinventing Bond.

To my mind those film's plots, casts, locations - everything - could've remained the same, but with an actor that was a plausible age to be doing the kind of action they had Moore doing and sleeping with the kind of young women he did would have indeed been an entirely different legacy of 80s Bond movies. Make that a young actor like Collins who had the feral masculinity of Craig and those movies would be unrecognisable, rather than the series of unofficial Cocoon sequels/prequels we were served with.

 

Note: i feel terrible about slighting Moore so, but despite being possibly the nicest man in cinema, i'm sure he'd agree that he was getting a little long in the tooth to be Bond. And it's certainly not his fault - who'd say no to that?

[JohnnyWalker]

Dominic West would have been fantastic Bond a decade ago...

Or a really hammy one.

Edited by JohnnyWalker, 29 January 2017 - 07:39 PM.

[Dustin]

I suspect Bond films with Lewis Collins post-1981, OCTOPUSSY or AVTAK, would not have been so terribly different from the Moore versions. Some different stunt work, sure. But overall probably far from fundamentally reinventing Bond.

To my mind those film's plots, casts, locations - everything - could've remained the same, but with an actor that was a plausible age to be doing the kind of action they had Moore doing and sleeping with the kind of young women he did would have indeed been an entirely different legacy of 80s Bond movies. Make that a young actor like Collins who had the feral masculinity of Craig and those movies would be unrecognisable, rather than the series of unofficial Cocoon sequels/prequels we were served with.

Note: i feel terrible about slighting Moore so, but despite being possibly the nicest man in cinema, i'm sure he'd agree that he was getting a little long in the tooth to be Bond. And it's certainly not his fault - who'd say no to that?

It certainly would have given a somewhat different impression, both back then and in retrospect. Jim once compared these films to Flashman adventures, and though I used to think Connery would have been fine for Flashman I too detect a certain air of that in Moore's final few Bond films. It's possible Collins might have given the whole show a fresh coat of paint - but then again the bigger problem was perhaps the sheer routine. And that in turn was made a big deal less annoying by Moore's ironic approach. I'm not sure Collins could have done the same for the series.

Anyway, we won't find out now.

[SecretAgentFan]

I agree.  Moore´s ironic approach is what makes OCTOPUSSY and A VIEW TO A KILL so enjoyable.

 

I remember Collins mainly from his angry pouting - and if he had done those films they would have looked absolutely silly.  He never seemed to be in on the joke.  Moore always was.

[Dustin]

Collins would have called for a much more serious approach, yet back then you couldn't do 007 'serious' because the comedy part was one of the wheels the show was running on. This was what affected Dalton's films. And up to a point the balance of humour and thrills is still a precarious one to this day.

None of Moore's various would-be replacements - Collins, Neill, Brolin - immediately strikes me as commanding just that self confidence necessary to remain on top of the varieté act that Bond was then. One can never be sure now, of course, but my gut feeling is Moore was still the best bet for the valley of the eighties.

[Odd Jobbies]

Have another look at Who Dares Wins (apparently Kubrick was a fan). Collins did the charm and wit just fine. Difference was he could switch gear into ruthless operator (much like Craig)

[Surrie]

I believe the hiatus after LTK actually helped the franchise.

 

Audiences just had grown tired of Bond, no matter who played the role.  If Collins had taken over earlier this apathy towards Bond would have hit him as well.  Even if a new actor had taken over two years after LTK it would not have worked.  The Bond market was saturated.  People needed to develop a craving for this kind of entertainment - and that´s why GOLDENEYE worked so well.  

 

Maybe that´s even the real reason why EON is holding back BOND 25 right now.  They feel that audiences would rather shrug off "another Bond film" if it weren´t an event.

 

I really wouldn't be surprised if EON does think holding back would be the best bet. For me, the previous hiatus did wonders for the Bond cannon and perhaps it's time for another. The movie industry is saturated with action films and now more so than ever action franchises. EON need there to be a thirst for Bond from everyone, not just us fans. 

 

Plus, the longer EON hold out, maybe MGM will fold and all their problems will be solved!!

[Orion]

I think after Craig, whenever that is, if it's now, or after Bond 25, it would be best for all to have a break. I do think He more it's emphasized that the Craig era was its own thing, the better it'll be for the series to introduce Bond no7

[Dustin]

Possibly. Craig's films have been a self-contained run from the first frames of CASINO ROYALE. Perhaps it really is the best decision to leave them alone and start from scratch again. I'm not a reboot fan in general. But here evidently the traveling circus wound itself into a spiral. The obvious solution would be to start again outside the spiral before it turns entirely into a knot.

[SecretAgentFan]

Strangely, it would be pointless now in sending out CraigBond again on a mission that does not tie in to the previous four films.  After SPECTRE it would look like a loose appendix - unless Craig wanted to do BOND 26 as well.  Which judging from the time spans in between really is not feasible anymore.  So BOND 25 with Craig instead has to be about Bond returning to the service and again battling Blofeld and/or the rest of Spectre.

 

Which I would watch, of course.

 

But I actually prefer the Craig era to be tied up with SPECTRE.  It seems it was conceived that way - and the ending brings closure (even if it is not the closure I would have wanted).

 

Starting fresh, however, would not have to be - for my taste - a complete reboot.  I don´t need another origin story (or, gasp, a kind of remake of CR).

 

Just send in the new guy like you did before, EON.  Keep the current M, Moneypenny and Q - and let´s go.

[Dustin]

I doubt they will even acknowledge a possible reboot. The next actor will very likely just enter M's office and that's that. Maybe they will even recast a female M again and use the horrible Vauxhall Cross building for establishing shots; it would then look like an ordinary sequel to the Brosnan run, just with a little longer break since DAD.

[Orion]

You could send Craig out on just another mission, as long as its made clear much time has passed and really play with the notion of "What happened to Madeline?" being the elephant in the room - did the relationship just crumble sending Bond back to the one thing that seemed familiar? or did something more sinister happen to her? The film could play with that as Bond's emotional arc, especially having demonstrated in the other 4, how unwilling Craig's Bond is to talk about his past or his emotions.  

[SecretAgentFan]

I doubt they will even acknowledge a possible reboot. The next actor will very likely just enter M's office and that's that. Maybe they will even recast a female M again and use the horrible Vauxhall Cross building for establishing shots; it would then look like an ordinary sequel to the Brosnan run, just with a little longer break since DAD.

 

 

Hey, Brosnan could be brought back for one more farewell, DAF-like film instantly...

[Orion]

Brosnan hasnt aged badly enough for that. ;-)

[SecretAgentFan]

The crazy thing is: I think it could work to bring him back now for one last time and make it an event.

[Orion]

It'll never happen - but I kind of agree, give Brosnan a final hurrah worth what he always tried to give to the role, even if the script didnt deserve it. Similar reason that I want Craig to do one final film - though I do prefer the scripts Craig was given than Brosnans generally - Mostly because, with the exception of Goldeneye, Brosnan's films had great central concepts (Bond vs Rupert Murdoch, love story with the main villain, a proper version of Fleming's Moonraker) that were somewhat poorly executed. 

[Dustin]

If they were really bold they could show Ambassador Bond in some outback Ruritania where his daily duty consists of not getting drunk before noon and not catch any diseases during his field research of the local nighttime entertainment. Ever so often SIS personnel is coming to town but Bond is not to meddle in their affairs and they - usually tough peak-performance commando types - generally look down on him as a burnt out case and a has-been. Might even be interesting to have Bond kidnapped by some revolutionaries...

[DavidJones]

Regarding a break after the next Bond film...We get a long break after every Craig film. I would define a 'break' as three years instead of two. Three years is a heck of a long time. It can work with sequels to regular films because often we don't know there's going to be one until a couple of years have passed anyway. We had a four year break after Quantum, then a three year break between Skyfall and Spectre and now we're looking at another three-four year break again. It's really a good thing that Bond is such an indelible part of popular culture already because, if it was starting out now, it wouldn't have a chance to be that.

[Dustin]

Well, one assumes Craig's replacement - whenever the time comes - will likely see only two years between his first and second outings, simply because they like to establish the new face relatively fast.

But really - so much depends on which studio gets the gig, how anaemic MGM is by then, how eager a new actor is, how the audience take to him. Impossible to tell from here how it will play out if a new Bond has a shaky start.

[Odd Jobbies]

Tonight's London Evening Standard newspaper has an interview with Damien Lewis. Shen asked about Bond he replies that he'll be dead by the time they make a decision so it doesn't matter.

 

That suggests he's had a meeting of some kind, which is no biggy, but he obviously feels he's in with a chance.

[Dustin]

Need not have been a meeting as such. In the industry word gets around fast and agents are constantly ferreting for fresh morsels. This will probably stay on the cooker for some time with the relevant types - doesn't mean a lot yet.

[sharpshooter]

Hey, Brosnan could be brought back for one more farewell, DAF-like film instantly...

I'd totally be up for that. 

Strangely, it would be pointless now in sending out CraigBond again on a mission that does not tie in to the previous four films.  

Definitely agree. If Bond 25 happens with Craig, ignoring the final moments of SPECTRE would be foolish and confusing. 

[Agent 76]

The crazy thing is: I think it could work to bring him back now for one last time and make it an event.

You can count me to support this idea. It could work, and it would be a big event. Although Pierce might not be the best bond, he was a popular one and he brought 007 back to life in a way in Goldeneye.

[Surrie]

 

The crazy thing is: I think it could work to bring him back now for one last time and make it an event.

You can count me to support this idea. It could work, and it would be a big event. Although Pierce might not be the best bond, he was a popular one and he brought 007 back to life in a way in Goldeneye.

 

 

Totally agree, and could work if EON embraced it wholly. It wouldn't work if EON used it as a quick attempt to roll out a movie just for the sake of it. 

[sharpshooter]

Using Brosnan instead of Craig right now wouldn't be completely random either. Because the plotline of Bond coming out of retirement for one last mission is what we have with a hypothetical Bond 25 with Craig. It's nothing but talk among fans, but as said, I'd totally support Brosnan coming back again. It sure would be a big event.

[Tiin007]

Call me crazy, but I'd even be supportive of bringing back Brosnan's supporting cast if Brosnan were to return-- Judi Dench, Colin Salmon, Michael Kitchen, and Samantha Bond. 

 

Set it in the Brosnan timeline / continuity, and we've got ourselves an intriguing film right there. 

[SecretAgentFan]

I actually mentioned this only for amusement.  But it is interesting that the idea gets this positive feedback around here.

 

Realistically speaking: Brosnan probably would consider it, although he would be also wary of being made fun of by the press after their lovefest for Craig.  MGM, yeah, they are desperate enough to sign off on this.

 

But EON... nah, I guess they would just not okay a final Brosnan outing.  And if we´re honest: it would be better for the franchise to move forward, not backwards.

[MISALA1994]

Strangely, it would be pointless now in sending out CraigBond again on a mission that does not tie in to the previous four films. After SPECTRE it would look like a loose appendix - unless Craig wanted to do BOND 26 as well. Which judging from the time spans in between really is not feasible anymore. So BOND 25 with Craig instead has to be about Bond returning to the service and again battling Blofeld and/or the rest of Spectre.

Which I would watch, of course.

But I actually prefer the Craig era to be tied up with SPECTRE. It seems it was conceived that way - and the ending brings closure (even if it is not the closure I would have wanted).

Starting fresh, however, would not have to be - for my taste - a complete reboot. I don´t need another origin story (or, gasp, a kind of remake of CR).

Just send in the new guy like you did before, EON. Keep the current M, Moneypenny and Q - and let´s go.

Agreed, "Bond 25" have to feel a fresh like CR back then.