4014 replies to this topic

[Orion]

It comes from the Sun and the Daily Mail, so much like the Daniel Craig turning down a 68 million two film deal, I dont believe a word of it. Having said that Bell, though not the first person I would've thought of, is a fantastic actor so could do great things with the role if he ever actaully is a contendor. I would imagine that, given Craig's contract is allowing him first refusal on Bond 25 and they still don't have primary financial backer, that it'll be a while before we hear anything either way. EON are probably shooting names around privatly so that they arent quite at square one in the event Craig decides it isn't for him when the film actually has funding to start production with, but until then, we will probably remain in this limbo state we're currently in. Could be an even longer wait if Craig sticks to his remark of treating it like any other role and making his decision based on the script and who he's working with- both of which would require a director and writing staff being hired first.

[Pushkin]

 

 

'See you next week, Peter' and close the door behind himself.

I feel like I am probably asking the obvious but.... what is the "Peter" reference?

In his Authorised Biography Pearson mentions Bond's elder brother Henry. I never particularly liked that idea, Bond having a brother - or remnants of a family at all - but if Bond is anything, then he's a fantasy version of Fleming. In this case it would just be fitting for him to have a version of Peter as real elder brother. And since it's fantasy - and quite a bit of meta-fiction indulgence - it would be fitting that here the elder brother takes the exit into a fantasy world. It would even be interesting to leave open how far this went. Did maybe all of Bond's adventures just happen in his brother's fantasy?

 

 

Thanks... I actually have never read the Pearson biography but perhaps I should now.

[Dustin]

It's a great 'sideways' approach to a continuation. I don't like everything about it, some things to me are simply 'off'. But if you accept the basic premise it gives you a satisfying fresh version of Bond, both Fleming's and the 'real' one. Some consider it among the very best continuations.

[Dustin]

...I would imagine that, given Craig's contract is allowing him first refusal on Bond 25 ...

Has this actually anywhere been reported or confirmed, this idea of 'first refusal' for Craig?

[Orion]

 

...I would imagine that, given Craig's contract is allowing him first refusal on Bond 25 ...

Has this actually anywhere been reported or confirmed, this idea of 'first refusal' for Craig?

 

Reported, can't remember where, mi6hq.com mentioned it a few months ago, and Craig mentioned after Skyfall, I think in an interview with Esquire, that his contract extension covered 24 and 25, but I don't think EON ever confirmed it (and probably never will)

 

Also I don't know how a current lack of major financial backing affects the contracts, suppose it depends if Craig's contract was with Sony or EON 

[Orion]

Bit of research later. Hollywood reporter first stated it in 07 then confirmed in 12, Craig has mentioned it several times in different interviews (ones where he was in a more amiable mood apparently) http://www.slashfilm...es-bond-future/being the latest I can find. This was just before SPECTRE's release. However this is all based on what kind of contract it is and who it's with - if it's for the film with EON he has to do it if they want him, if it's first refusal Craig can walk if he wants and if its a contract with Sony it's now void (assuming Sony don't back Bond 25) 

[Cody]

Gillian Anderson and Priyanka Chopra both say they're ready to take on the role if Craig doesn't return.

[SecretAgentFan]

Jamie Bell?

 

Well, he does look a bit like a younger Daniel Craig.  But I would prefer Hiddleston.

[sharpshooter]

Gillian Anderson and Priyanka Chopra both say they're ready to take on the role if Craig doesn't return.

Good for them.

[S K Y F A L L]

Tom Hiddleston would be nothing more then Craig 2.0. 

Guess I'm the only one who feels he looks just like Craig.

 

He is 35 now, would be 38 in 2018 and that is only if EON get off their a####.

Connery was like 32 in DN. Dare I suggest that is a great age for any new Bond?

 

Why are there so many lists of who could take over the roll featuring actors in their late 30s and even 40s? WTF?

[Tiin007]

 

Why are there so many lists of who could take over the roll featuring actors in their late 30s and even 40s? WTF?

 

I too have wondered why the media are constantly touting actors in their 40s, some of whom are around 45. Even though Dalton and Brosnan were each 42 in their debut films (and Moore was 46), I doubt EON will hire someone that age for the foreseeable future, given that they'd get maybe three films before the actor turns 50. 

[Surrie]

I agree with this. Someone early 30s would be a good place to start for BOND 7. 

[SecretAgentFan]

Not for me.  Bond needs to be a seasoned veteran.  Connery, with all due respect, looked much older than 32 when he started.

 

For me, Bond is not a rookie - and I don´t want to see another "here´s how he got his 00-licence"-story.

[Surrie]

Not for me.  Bond needs to be a seasoned veteran.  Connery, with all due respect, looked much older than 32 when he started.

 

For me, Bond is not a rookie - and I don´t want to see another "here´s how he got his 00-licence"-story.

 

Craig wasn't early 30s when he started his '00-licence' story - so can't imagine them doing this story with a younger actor. I would be happy with an early 30s actor if it meant we got more than 4 films out of him! Just because he is early 30s doesn't mean he has to look early 30s on screen.

[S K Y F A L L]

Not for me.  Bond needs to be a seasoned veteran.  Connery, with all due respect, looked much older than 32 when he started.

 

For me, Bond is not a rookie - and I don´t want to see another "here´s how he got his 00-licence"-story.

Nobody wanted to see it done poorly in CR either. 

I'd say the same thing about Craig to. 

You are a fan of the books right, wasn't there a mandatory retirement age?

[univex]

Not for me.  Bond needs to be a seasoned veteran.  Connery, with all due respect, looked much older than 32 when he started.

 

For me, Bond is not a rookie - and I don´t want to see another "here´s how he got his 00-licence"-story.

 

Hear, hear!!!

[Revelator]

Gillian Anderson and Priyanka Chopra both say they're ready to take on the role if Craig doesn't return.

 

Good, but not as progressive as a gender-queer vegan trans-woman Bond with a graduate degree in post-colonial studies.

On a message board that will remain unnamed I saw someone argue that the next Bond needed to be a woman because gender is socially constructed; he later admitted he had very little familiarity with or interest in the series.

 

I think Craig will probably return for a last hurrah. As for the age of who will follow him, I also think early to mid-30s is a good age to shoot for--Fleming repeatedly describes Bond as "young" and "strong", so you want someone who has a note of youth but looks tough, so no baby-faced DiCaprio types. It's also in the filmmakers' interest to maximize the amount of time the actor can look convincing in the role by casting someone at the right age. Connery, Lazenby, and Dalton are all good examples. Moore was a special case, since he initially looked younger than his age, but he did at least one Bond film too many. On the other hand, even without AVTAK he would have tied Connery for official Bonds.
 

[Odd Jobbies]

Jamie Bell?

 

Well, he does look a bit like a younger Daniel Craig.  But I would prefer Hiddleston.

Maybe the Bell rumour is intended to make us all grateful for Hiddleston

[Tiin007]

From Deadline:

 

"There have been no negotiations on where the Bond movie will land (Sony or Warner Bros. are out front on this) and although it was thought that negotiations might start after the first quarter 2016, parties are not likely to engage in negotiations until later this year. There is no workable script yet and the creative elements have yet to come into place. It has also been widely reported (and confirmed by Deadline) that Jamie Bell has discussed the Bond role with his Film Stars Don’t Die movie producer Barbara Broccoli (who has long produced the Bond movies). Craig has been very vocal about not wanting to do another Bond. After Spectre, he said publicly that he would rather slash his wrists than do another in the franchise."

 

http://deadline.com/...ons-1201763020/

 

Does this make the rumor more reliable? 

[glidrose]

From Deadline:
 
"There have been no negotiations on where the Bond movie will land (Sony or Warner Bros. are out front on this) and although it was thought that negotiations might start after the first quarter 2016, parties are not likely to engage in negotiations until later this year. There is no workable script yet and the creative elements have yet to come into place. It has also been widely reported (and confirmed by Deadline) that Jamie Bell has discussed the Bond role with his Film Stars Don’t Die movie producer Barbara Broccoli (who has long produced the Bond movies). Craig has been very vocal about not wanting to do another Bond. After Spectre, he said publicly that he would rather slash his wrists than do another in the franchise."
 
http://deadline.com/...ons-1201763020/
 
Does this make the rumor more reliable?

 
 
"With that kind of TV schedule for Craig, it seems improbable that he would suit up anytime soon for Bond, but nothing has been determined and like Ian Fleming has said never say never again."

[Dustin]

In a way it supports both the Hiddleston/Bell rumours and the BBC piece about no imminent decision on MGM's side.

Some talk is being made about how the industry media didn't - up to now - pick these things up. Well, the answer is that there are two parties and that they are not necessarily on the same page about everything.

Eon and Craig are on good enough terms to not endlessly play games. If it was simply about some figure - whatever million $ - Craig would have named his price. That Mail piece just claimed he refused flat out. I believe Craig is done. And if Eon believe the same they simply have to cover their bases either way. It's what they would have had to do in the near future anyway.

MGM on the other hand has to negotiate a difficult partnership. For them this isn't business-as-usual, for them it's crucial. Their entire future - what future MGM may have left - depends on a distribution joint venture that keeps them afloat. From MGM's point-of-view it's important to point out the strengths of their property, namely Craig here. They may already know - as may others - that he's unlikely to return. But as long as there may be a single studio interested to do a Bond film with Craig MGM is wise to point out he's still the current James Bond. If only to keep one more bidder in the race.

[DaveBond21]

In this article http://www.mirror.co...ie-bell-8043861they include the note:-

 

"Of the rumours, an Eon spokesman said: “Barbara regularly speaks to lots of actors and nothing has been decided yet on Bond.”

[SecretAgentFan]

And Daniel Craig is getting busy with another high profile role: http://www.hollywood...-joining-897669

 

With the tv project and this Soderbergh film he seems to be filling up his schedule for the next two years, and I suspect there will be other roles he is going for right now.  Another Bond film with Craig seems impossible within the next three to four years.

[Surrie]

I think Craig will probably return for a last hurrah. As for the age of who will follow him, I also think early to mid-30s is a good age to shoot for--Fleming repeatedly describes Bond as "young" and "strong", so you want someone who has a note of youth but looks tough, so no baby-faced DiCaprio types. It's also in the filmmakers' interest to maximize the amount of time the actor can look convincing in the role by casting someone at the right age. Connery, Lazenby, and Dalton are all good examples. Moore was a special case, since he initially looked younger than his age, but he did at least one Bond film too many. On the other hand, even without AVTAK he would have tied Connery for official Bonds.

 

 

 

Amen. 

Edited by Surrie, 27 May 2016 - 08:41 AM.

[RMc2]

And Daniel Craig is getting busy with another high profile role: http://www.hollywood...-joining-897669

 

With the tv project and this Soderbergh film he seems to be filling up his schedule for the next two years, and I suspect there will be other roles he is going for right now.  Another Bond film with Craig seems impossible within the next three to four years.

 

Good point, seems we can rule out a 2018 Craig Bond film. But we may still get one more Craig Bond, if the Deadline article is accurate. No MGM deal being negotiated until later this year? Sounds like even a Bond 7 debut wouldn't shoot until 2018 either.

[Odd Jobbies]

I was suggesting Craig for Bond after seeing him in Love Is The Devil back in the 90s, so while the majority were decrying the announcement that he'd been hired i was celebrating. My point is that i'm certainly not in the camp of the Bond actor having to fulfil specific aesthetic criteria. It's about acting chops, attitude and screen presence.

 

Bell has paid his dues in the acting chops stakes, honing his craft in many good performances that went under the radar (often because he's not a show-off actor, but gets the job done very well).

 

But, and it's a major but,  he does not have the rare particular dominant presence that authenticates the rather 'F***-you' attitude/posturing required to convince us he's Bond.

 

--note: It's a complex mannered 'F***-you' which requires considerable acting chops alongside an innate dangerous quality in order to achieve two opposite characteristics simultaneously (manners & attitude) without making it seem contrived/trying too hard. Only Connery and Craig managed it - the others could switch from one to the other but not do both at the same time in that nonchalant manner which Connery made essential to the role (with the exception of the Xenia/Bond sauna tussle in the second act of Goldeneye). It gives the character that aura of explosive unpredictability - a calm surface hiding danger below

 

Like his other good performances Bell would make Bond a character piece alone, absent the 'almost-a-super-hero-that-bleeds' fantasy element that Fleming, Connery and even Craig imbue the character with; paradoxically a real person and a symbolic archetype. Lazenby also managed it, although that was due in large part to the very emotive storyline, but to his credit he served the highs and lows of that storyline very well.

 

I digress... It's this twin nature of the character that makes him a joy to watch, rather than the endurances of watching a character suffer. In short and to paraphrase: Men want to be Craig and women want to sleep with him. I don't think that will be the case with Bell - as fine an actor as he is, i don't see him ever engendering this response, however you dress him, light him, have him kill or F***.

 

I have a great deal of respect for Bell as an actor, he improves everything he's in. But Bond he is not.

 

 

Caveat: He's next playing an SAS serviceman in a forthcoming movie about the 1980 siege of the Iranian embassy in London. I'd be delighted if the part allowed him to prove everything i've just said to be wrong. I doubt it, but we should watch with interest.

 

 

     Btw, Maybe there's a neat symmetry in Bell's SAS movie being based upon the same siege as the 1982 Lewis Collins vehicle Who Dares Wins (an underrated movie with a great score from Roy Budd, who also scored Get Carter - apparently Kubrick was a fan of the movie!). But IMO as well as being a great movie, it is also a sad epitaph to the missed opportunity in not hiring Collins as Bond in the early 80s (apparently he was a handful on set, fighting and such) but hey-ho!

[SecretAgentFan]

I must say I´m starting to get irritated by Craig´s apparent disinterest in Bond.

 

It´s perfectly fine if he wants to move on with his career.  He has given a lot, he was great, and it´s maybe everything he can do in that role.

 

But what´s this business with "not making a decision before there´s a script and a director which he has to approve"?

 

C´mon. If you´re Bond, you should want to be Bond.  Of course, EON won´t hire an idiot to direct, and, of course, everybody involved will strive for a great script.  Naturally, and Craig has experienced this, every great script that people get excited about will have to weather the stormy process of development and actual production, often resulting in a subpar film.  

 

So, saying: "Guys, I won´t say anything before I approve of director, script (and certainly female co-star and male counterpart)" - that´s what a pampered star would say.  Not someone who remembers that he was a nobody looking for jobs and finally getting the chance of a lifetime.

 

The way EON has treated Craig so far should have built up enormous trust and loyalty.  But right now, it seems Craig has conveniently forgotten all that and gone... well, Hollywood.

[Odd Jobbies]

...But what´s this business with "not making a decision before there´s a script and a director which he has to approve"?

Makes perfect sense to me. It's how every other role works so why should Bond be any different. You think Eon would hire an actor without auditioning him first?

[Surrie]

I must say I´m starting to get irritated by Craig´s apparent disinterest in Bond.

 

It´s perfectly fine if he wants to move on with his career.  He has given a lot, he was great, and it´s maybe everything he can do in that role.

 

But what´s this business with "not making a decision before there´s a script and a director which he has to approve"?

 

C´mon. If you´re Bond, you should want to be Bond.  Of course, EON won´t hire an idiot to direct, and, of course, everybody involved will strive for a great script.  Naturally, and Craig has experienced this, every great script that people get excited about will have to weather the stormy process of development and actual production, often resulting in a subpar film.  

 

So, saying: "Guys, I won´t say anything before I approve of director, script (and certainly female co-star and male counterpart)" - that´s what a pampered star would say.  Not someone who remembers that he was a nobody looking for jobs and finally getting the chance of a lifetime.

 

The way EON has treated Craig so far should have built up enormous trust and loyalty.  But right now, it seems Craig has conveniently forgotten all that and gone... well, Hollywood.

 

Tragically, you are probably right. Surely, he should have some faith and trust with BB, MGW and team by now. 

 

 

...But what´s this business with "not making a decision before there´s a script and a director which he has to approve"?

Makes perfect sense to me. It's how every other role works so why should Bond be any different. You think Eon would hire an actor without auditioning him first?

 

 

Bond is different. In my opinion as soon as you sign the contract for the role, then he is an employee. After all he is being paid to play this character - and as far as I'm aware the creative license should remain with the production team. Yes he was credited with 'Exec. Producer' recently, but is that really necessary?! His job is to play Bond, not dictate the movie he is happy to play Bond in. 

[Odd Jobbies]

Tragically, you are probably right. Surely, he should have some faith and trust with BB, MGW and team by now. 

Sure, 'cos SPECTRE was a resounding success, right?