Jump to content


This is a read only archive of the old forums
The new CBn forums are located at https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/

 
Photo

Daniel Craig to become longest-serving James Bond?

New deal seems to suggest so!

146 replies to this topic

#31 tdalton

tdalton

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11680 posts

Posted 22 December 2011 - 10:02 AM

Since this is a generational thing it would probably work perfectly to reboot Bond again after Craig´s eight films. I doubt that there is anyone on this board who was at the movies in 1962 when Connery started out as Bond. My first Bond film as an 8 year old was THE SPY WHO LOVED ME - and I have welcomed three new and younger Bonds since then. I definitely will welcome more of them if I have the chance. And the audience which will grow up with Craig as their first Bond will happily see the character resurrected with a new timeline. Doesn´t necessarily have to be "Bond begins" again - but just a new and younger Bond. Not too young, of course. (See my rant on the other thread)


Exactly.

Going the route of having Craig explore an aging Bond as he goes along in his tenure wouldn't force a full-on reboot once his tenure was over. All that would be necessary would be a reboot of the series in so much as a new, younger actor would be taking over. There wouldn't need to be another film that details how he got his licence to kill, or the Aston Martin, or any of those kind of "Bond Begins" elements that we saw in CR. The next Bond could pretty much do what Dalton did when he took over from Moore. That wasn't a full reboot where we took things all the way back to the beginning. Rather, Dalton was simply portraying an experienced James Bond, which is all the new actor would be asked to do in this case as well.

#32 Vauxhall

Vauxhall

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10744 posts
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 22 December 2011 - 12:02 PM

I don't see Craig reaching eight movies, but it's an indication of the good health of the franchise that the producers would like him to hang around for that long!

#33 Skudor

Skudor

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9286 posts
  • Location:Buckinghamshire

Posted 22 December 2011 - 08:54 PM

I don't know, the idea of exploring an older Bond as part of the story is certainly within Craig's acting wheelhouse. It would be a problem if they just put a 57 year old Craig on screen with a 30-40 year old Bond plot.

I would very much like to see them go down this route. After 23+ films, there is only so many ways to tell a story in a Bond film where Bond is basically the same character each time out. It would be very interesting to see him deal with getting older, deal with the limitations that might put on him and other such things that getting older in such a physically demanding profession would entail.

It would indeed be very interesting. I for one would love to see that. But it would also eventually mean the end of the Bond franchise after 1 or 2 of such "ageing Bond movies": how could the producers go on filming Bond movies once Bond is definitely too old?
They could always reboot, of course, but I'm not sure the audience would fall for that trick once more.


I actually can't see this franchise ending. They've got the loyal fans who'll return again and again, starting when they are kids and ending when they bring their grand children. And each new beginning captures a new generation all by itself. Bond really should have gone away after Moore and the supposedly unsuccessful Dalton, but instead they returned in strength with Brosnan. And even earlier, Connery should really have been irreplaceable - but Lazenby did fine, and I don't need to mention Moore.

The style also changes - most recently from glossy-Brosnan-Bond to gritty-Bourne/Craig-Bond. But there's always enough of the classic Bond in there to make it work (and in a way Bond is infinitely re-inventable as he's really just a means to an end = to make an action/adventure/spy flick with certain given and accepted preconditions).

Forever is a long time - but I'm sure Movie Bond will be around for the latter, if not the former.

#34 deth

deth

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2651 posts
  • Location:Berlin, Germany

Posted 23 December 2011 - 08:02 PM

All this is interesting, considering he'd have left the role if the MGM situation had gone on much longer...

"There was that long hiatus where Bond maybe wasn't happening," Craig recalls. "I'd got it into my head that if it went another two years on top of the two-year gap we'd already had, then they should probably find someone else. And I should think about getting on with things."


from this great article:

http://www.guardian....o?newsfeed=true

#35 thecasinoroyale

thecasinoroyale

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 14358 posts
  • Location:Basingstoke, UK

Posted 06 January 2012 - 01:14 PM

I can't say I have a problem with Craig taking on the 007 role for a further 4 or 5 films at all! It'd be actually nice to get comfortable with an actor in the role, like we had with Moore and Brosnan. Settling in with an actor for a decent run of films is what we fans want, and I think Craig can deliver big bangs and his drama in his 007 run.

Here's hoping after that nice and positive article!

#36 DamnCoffee

DamnCoffee

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 24459 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 06 January 2012 - 03:22 PM

If this is the case, which I really do hope it is. I hope we follow Bond into his later life. By which I mean, publicly show his old age. It could be really interesting to follow Bond from the start right up untill the end of his career as a Double O. Bond 7 will be a reboot anyway, so they might as well use it to their advantage.

#37 Dustin

Dustin

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5786 posts

Posted 06 January 2012 - 04:07 PM

I'm not sure Bond Mark VII necessarily has to be a reboot. Not more than the switch from Connery to Moore and Moore to Dalton was at any rate. The reboot fad could see its natural end soon, and from that point there would be no reason to tell stories of origins and beginnings any more.

While I'd also like to see Bond in old(er) age I doubt that will be a focus for the series, at least not for more than one single film, if that. How many last stands can a gunslinger see? I'd wager that's not the road EON has in mind, even with an aging Craig.

#38 Skudor

Skudor

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9286 posts
  • Location:Buckinghamshire

Posted 06 January 2012 - 06:45 PM

Craig as a deliberately slightly aging Bond could be interesting if done right (although this is an aspect of a film, I don't see how you could make it the central premis or plot driver) - if they went for that very explicitly though, a reboot after that would make sense (a 'mini' reboot that is, more like Goldeneye than Casino Royale).

#39 Dustin

Dustin

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5786 posts

Posted 06 January 2012 - 07:02 PM

Craig as a deliberately slightly aging Bond could be interesting if done right (although this is an aspect of a film, I don't see how you could make it the central premis or plot driver) - if they went for that very explicitly though, a reboot after that would make sense (a 'mini' reboot that is, more like Goldeneye than Casino Royale).


The only way I could imagine the age angle being an important element was a film like NSNA, which was one big ironic in-joke wink.

#40 Germanlady

Germanlady

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1381 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 08 January 2012 - 09:12 PM

5 films alltogether would be a good number IMO..

#41 Dustin

Dustin

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5786 posts

Posted 08 January 2012 - 09:41 PM

Indeed, also probably the most realistic 'long' tenure, if such can be predicted now already.

#42 00 Brosnan

00 Brosnan

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 506 posts
  • Location:East Coast, U.S

Posted 29 January 2012 - 04:34 PM

I agree with most other users in that eight films seems excessive. I do not think Craig will surpass Roger's record. If they can get the films out every 2 years and Skyfall is a smart, modern, yet classic Bond...I'd like to see him do 3 more which brings us to 2018 for Bond 26.

I have yet to rank Craig as far as Bond's go to this point because I always wanted to give him 3 films before I judged him with the rest. I really love Casino Royale, but Quantum of Solace isn't a very good Bond film and ranks pretty low on my film list...so, a lot hinges on Skyfall.

#43 SteveBolton

SteveBolton

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 43 posts

Posted 15 March 2012 - 02:27 PM

I would love him to beat Brosnan, 5 is a all round nice number, but if he wants to carry on after that then that's great.

#44 tuttle300

tuttle300

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 38 posts
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 15 March 2012 - 05:02 PM

Yes it would be nice if he could do additional Bonds

But....

As I understand it his current contract is for 3 (Skyfall being the third film) with an option for a fourth

Now he is already pushing 50 and seeing as how these flms eat up a good 6 to 7 months of shooting time for an actor I'm sure Craig would prefer an every 3 year schedule. This way he can rest up between adventures and it would give him a chance to explore other kinds of roles in other films so that once he walks away from Bond- he can still have several decades of film work to look forward to instead of being typecast as Bond ( very much the way Connery had to struggle at first)

And we have to factor in simple economics into the mix

Currently- each Bond film costs a few hundred million dollars to make
Despite the lock Craig has on the world audience and the absolutes of a return from each of the Craig Bonds for the studio.... it takes a great deal of TIME to make each of these things. Screenplays must be written and studied and a director has to commit to the two plus year schedule etc etc

Realistically, I'm just hoping he at least agrees to two more.
With the current contract of 3 and an option, that would give us a total of 6 Bond films through, say, 2021 at which time Craig by then would be in his mid fifties and no doubt worn out by the role

I say we don't get greedy and argue over who will beat a previous record as THOSE days are gone because the times and finances were much different than they are today

Nobody, no known franchise, can hope to match Connery's old record of cranking out the number of films that he did as well as maintain a sense of quality and scope those films from the sixties achieved. Remember, Connery's first five films were written, filmed, edited and released WITHIN a seven year period!

Connery and his era were a very unique moment in history and it deserves to remain the undefeated champion for all time. His legacy deserves that much.

Edited by tuttle300, 15 March 2012 - 05:19 PM.


#45 Napoleon Solo

Napoleon Solo

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1376 posts

Posted 15 March 2012 - 07:09 PM

Nobody, no known franchise, can hope to match Connery's old record of cranking out the number of films that he did as well as maintain a sense of quality and scope those films from the sixties achieved. Remember, Connery's first five films were written, filmed, edited and released WITHIN a seven year period!

Connery and his era were a very unique moment in history and it deserves to remain the undefeated champion for all time. His legacy deserves that much.


While I don't disagree with the post, it should be noted that Warners kicked out something like eight Harry Potter features within 10 years, 2001-11 (including filming two movies at once). Again, a special set of circumstances.

#46 S K Y F A L L

S K Y F A L L

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6889 posts
  • Location:CANADA

Posted 15 March 2012 - 07:10 PM



Daniel Craig has reportedly been offered a multi-million pound deal to star in five more James Bond movies.

The mooted deal will see the 43-year-old star in a total of eight Bond pictures, overtaking
Roger Moore as the actor to have spent the longest time playing the spy.

Moore starred as James Bond a total of seven times between 1973 and 1985, starting with Live And Let Die and ending with A View To A Kill.

Craig made his debut as the iconic character in 2006's Casino Royale, which was followed by
Quantum Of Solace in 2008 and the upcoming 23rd film in the series Skyfall, due for release on October 26, 2012.

"Daniel's been a terrific Bond, a superb actor and a ­terrific man," producer
Michael G Wilson told The People. "The fans love him and I don't think there's a better actor to play the part. It's certainly something we'll be ­discussing with him once we finish shooting Skyfall."

He added: "Filming has gone very well so far and I'd love Daniel to surpass Roger's record and do eight pictures. Daniel's been an absolute pleasure to be around because he takes the role so seriously.

"There's really no-one more passionate about making these films work than him - he's a filmmaker's dream. A lot of people have said Daniel's been their favourite Bond since
Sean Connery and I can't argue with them. He's doing a great job."

Craig revealed this week that he also
wrote parts of Quantum Of Solace due to the writer's strike of 2007 and 2008.



I wrote something about that article in a thread entitled "Craig says BOND 23 is his last Bond film."
http://debrief.comma...last-bond-film/

Maybe these threads should be put together in some type of, "how many Bond films will Craig do?" I hope that is a good suggestion otherwise my bad dudes.

Edited by S K Y F A L L, 15 March 2012 - 07:11 PM.


#47 S K Y F A L L

S K Y F A L L

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6889 posts
  • Location:CANADA

Posted 15 March 2012 - 07:28 PM

The original source seems to be http://www.people.co...02039-23642989/. The reporter seems to have conjured the entire thing out of a leading question. By the looks of it, he asked Wilson if Craig would do five more films, Wilson didn't explicitly deny it, and the reporter treated this as confirmation.

Hypothetically, I would welcome a long Craig era, as long as he remains relatively well-preserved, and provided that his character is allowed to age naturally and acquire a more mature style. I'd hate to see Craig devolve into a toupee-clad, crinkly-necked spray-tanned geezer performing computer-assisted feats of athleticism and then buying ice cream for little girls. I have no doubt that Craig is the finest actor ever to have played James Bond, but superficialities cannot be ignored indefinitely.

The idea of an eight-film era is wildly optimistic given the current rate of production. Why should the producers suddenly regain the ability to stick to a two-year schedule? And even if Eon keep their end up, they can do little to prevent another financial snafu from above. An eight-film era is not remotely probable. Six films is conceivable, but very optimistic. I'm betting on five.


5 Craig films would work out great for this poster
Posted Image

I wonder if Wilson would even suggest such a thing to a publication if he hadn't already discussed the possibility with Craig and/or his agency.


I think its because the producers want to be able to say in 10 years time, "6 BONDS & 60 YEARS." The 60th Anniversary wouldn't stand up very well on its own IMO.

Only 8? I was hoping he'd do 9.


8 Craig films means they could release 4 box-sets of (00)7 films.

#48 S K Y F A L L

S K Y F A L L

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6889 posts
  • Location:CANADA

Posted 15 March 2012 - 07:38 PM

I think if he'll match Brosnan we will have been lucky. I do not see the man age well.


When I first heard they were "rebooting" the franchise I just assumed that since the first 20 films had 5 Bonds, they might try the same thing for the next 20 films but more evenly perhaps each new actor doing 4 films. I felt Brosnan set a standard for the next Bond.

#49 S K Y F A L L

S K Y F A L L

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6889 posts
  • Location:CANADA

Posted 15 March 2012 - 07:54 PM


I don't know, the idea of exploring an older Bond as part of the story is certainly within Craig's acting wheelhouse. It would be a problem if they just put a 57 year old Craig on screen with a 30-40 year old Bond plot.


I would very much like to see them go down this route. After 23+ films, there is only so many ways to tell a story in a Bond film where Bond is basically the same character each time out. It would be very interesting to see him deal with getting older, deal with the limitations that might put on him and other such things that getting older in such a physically demanding profession would entail.


Sounds Thunderballish to me. I always thought that it was interesting that when Connery left the part and Moore was introduced he was even older then Connery was. It is as if they already have gone down that road.

All this is interesting, considering he'd have left the role if the MGM situation had gone on much longer...

"There was that long hiatus where Bond maybe wasn't happening," Craig recalls. "I'd got it into my head that if it went another two years on top of the two-year gap we'd already had, then they should probably find someone else. And I should think about getting on with things."


from this great article:

http://www.guardian....o?newsfeed=true


Sounds like to me he learned something from Dalton.

I can't say I have a problem with Craig taking on the 007 role for a further 4 or 5 films at all! It'd be actually nice to get comfortable with an actor in the role, like we had with Moore and Brosnan. Settling in with an actor for a decent run of films is what we fans want, and I think Craig can deliver big bangs and his drama in his 007 run.

Here's hoping after that nice and positive article!


Hear hear

#50 S K Y F A L L

S K Y F A L L

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6889 posts
  • Location:CANADA

Posted 15 March 2012 - 08:15 PM


Nobody, no known franchise, can hope to match Connery's old record of cranking out the number of films that he did as well as maintain a sense of quality and scope those films from the sixties achieved. Remember, Connery's first five films were written, filmed, edited and released WITHIN a seven year period!

Connery and his era were a very unique moment in history and it deserves to remain the undefeated champion for all time. His legacy deserves that much.


While I don't disagree with the post, it should be noted that Warners kicked out something like eight Harry Potter features within 10 years, 2001-11 (including filming two movies at once). Again, a special set of circumstances.


It could be done if they have an actor who can completely committed to the role and not their career, as while as attempting to write a series of films instead of one at a time. Also they were able to have Moore release his first 2 films within a year to establish he is the new 007.

#51 S K Y F A L L

S K Y F A L L

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6889 posts
  • Location:CANADA

Posted 15 March 2012 - 08:25 PM

I remember hearing a rumor about Brosnan doing 8 films, I believe it was during the making TWINE.
The idea was also to release a film every 2 years, 95, 97, 99, 01, 03, 04, 05, & 2(007).

#52 tuttle300

tuttle300

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 38 posts
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 16 March 2012 - 08:30 AM

To Napoleon Solo on the Warner's Harry Potter franchise- I stand corrected to a degree (especially as the Potter films require a heavy amount of effects, something that Bond doesn't rely on) . Sill.. doing that many films on such a tight schedule just to satisfy fans or the need to make a great deal of cash from the domestic and international markets for the purpose of getting the long term package completed ( what with the initial theatrical release, cable rights, DVD & blu ray and eventually the various boxed sets of director cuts, and anniversary editions.........can tax the actors as well as the producers and the crew

We fans will always be hungry for as much product - from any genre of film be it fantasy, horror, adventure etc- as the studio can manage. But personally I would prefer a nice easy sked of every three years during this Craig era

I sympathise with popular actors in any genre of film because they always run the risk of being typed and then once the franchise runs its course and they hadn't worked hard to try other roles in between the power role... where are they? Stuck.

There are a few actors who were able to branch out and successfully beat that curse of being typed.

1 Our own beloved Connery did it after a few decades of struggle AND he ( arguably) was able to successfully return to the Bond role in Never Say Never Again and give us a glimpse at Bond in his latter years of service

2 Stallone was able to break away from the Rocky and Rambo films to a degree though it can be argued that many of the in between films weren't very successful- its only just recently that he was able to begin a whole new franchise with this EXpendable series- buit then again it can be argued that he is now stuck in a third franchise

Arguably the only two non franchise films he did that had any kind of punch to them financially were Cliffhanger and Copland

3 Shatner and Nimoy -despite their respective TJ Hooker and brief directing careers- remain stuck in the locked grip of the Star Trek franchise even after a whole new set of actors have come and claimed the same roles as their own to a whole new generation of fans nearly fifty years later!

4 And of course, Eastwood is in a class on his own and had already left the Dirty Harry series in the dust even while it was a still a hot property long before that franchise wore out its welcome with Dead Pool

(Moderator- I didn't mean to get off track just pointing out the few other actors who have tried to stay popular ( and personbally creative in other roles) outside of their respective franchises that, indeed, made them famous oin the first place)

#53 David Schofield

David Schofield

    Commander

  • Discharged
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3026 posts

Posted 16 March 2012 - 08:40 AM

Suggest that the timescale of the Potters was partly imposed by the age of the character v the age of the actors. Never read a Potter book, but I believe they are set in consecutive years at the school; wait too long before films and you cast will age on you, necessitating the need to re-cast. Can't imagine EON wacking out Bond after Bond just to ensure DC didn't grow old on 'em...

And unlike Bond, Potter has not survived multiple generations. The fans now are those who grew up with the orginal books. When they mature and move on from kids stories, will they still be Potter fans, will there be a market for new films? Hell, Rowling has stopped writing new books. With Potter, therefore, there was the need to flood the market fast and hard within a short, audience-based timeframe. Bond has, of course, evolved as its audiecnces have moved on and changed. The age range, preferences and attitudes on CBN are living proof of that.

#54 thecasinoroyale

thecasinoroyale

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 14358 posts
  • Location:Basingstoke, UK

Posted 16 March 2012 - 06:18 PM

As echoed in other threads, the thought of an actor as good as Craig allowing us to develop with his Bond, to become familiar and comfortable with him in a good run of films is something I hope we can get.

#55 Dustin

Dustin

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5786 posts

Posted 17 March 2012 - 06:32 PM

Suggest that the timescale of the Potters was partly imposed by the age of the character v the age of the actors. Never read a Potter book, but I believe they are set in consecutive years at the school; wait too long before films and you cast will age on you, necessitating the need to re-cast. Can't imagine EON wacking out Bond after Bond just to ensure DC didn't grow old on 'em...

And unlike Bond, Potter has not survived multiple generations. The fans now are those who grew up with the orginal books. When they mature and move on from kids stories, will they still be Potter fans, will there be a market for new films? Hell, Rowling has stopped writing new books. With Potter, therefore, there was the need to flood the market fast and hard within a short, audience-based timeframe. Bond has, of course, evolved as its audiecnces have moved on and changed. The age range, preferences and attitudes on CBN are living proof of that.



Indeed.

One other aspect is Potter's final scale was already decided upon by Rowland before the film rights were even optioned. It's a lot easier to have a book and a definite direction right from the start, a schedule of stories you just have to work your way along. This hasn't been the case with Bond for a long time now. EON with every entry now has to make up a new story and this often seems the hardest part. I wouldn't say it's impossible to try and get this done within the intended schedule to premiere one new Bond film every two years. But I wouldn't hold my breath, and I feel they would have to greatly change their MO and employ a team of specıalısts for preperations of Bond 24 right now. And maybe already have a rough idea about Bond 25. Not sure if this is what's happening right now. Perhaps SONY is on the job in some way?

#56 Golddragon71

Golddragon71

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 102 posts

Posted 22 May 2012 - 08:16 PM

I think Bond should (ideally) stay between his Mid 30's-Mid 40's If he gets too far beyond that it starts to look odds when he has much younger co-stars (i.e.: Lynn Holly Johnson in For Your Eyes Only)
For this reason I'm less enthusiastic about Craig doing a full Eight Films (especially with the afore-mentioned increasing gap of thee to four years between)
As it currently Stands Daniel Craig at 42 looks a good ten years older than me when he is in fact only two years older (Course I do have the fortune of still looking like a man in his late 20s rather than his early 40's :D)

#57 stamper

stamper

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2994 posts
  • Location:Under the sea

Posted 23 May 2012 - 06:53 AM

Rather than wanking over the actor's age, just look at the rate the bond actor is refreshed:

- Connery: 10 years
- Moore: 11 years
- Dalton: 9 years
- Brosnan: 9 years

I say a fourth Craig film is a possibility, that will take us to 2015/2016. I doubt about a fifth, because by then, trends will have changed, so a refresh might happen.

#58 Dustin

Dustin

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5786 posts

Posted 23 May 2012 - 07:42 AM

Rather than wanking over the actor's age, just look at the rate the bond actor is refreshed:

- Connery: 10 years
- Moore: 11 years
- Dalton: 9 years
- Brosnan: 9 years

I say a fourth Craig film is a possibility, that will take us to 2015/2016. I doubt about a fifth, because by then, trends will have changed, so a refresh might happen.


Interesting way to look at it, didn't occur to me. Agree about the likelihood of a fourth and unlikelihood of the fifth Craig film.

#59 S K Y F A L L

S K Y F A L L

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6889 posts
  • Location:CANADA

Posted 23 May 2012 - 08:12 AM

I'm hoping that we get more then 3 films this decade compared to the last 2. And maybe Barbara wants to have a few more films with M G. Wilson name on it until its just hers. DC is only 44 and he wont be as old as Brosnan in DAD for another 5 years. Look it Huge Jackman he's been an X-Man since 2000 and counting. Mission Impossible since 96 and counting. I think I read some where that the guy who plays Captain Amierca is signed on for 8 films. Long running movie series have really started popping up the last decade with Resident Evil and Fast and the Furious to name a few. I just think Barbara does want to start with a new Bond on the 60th Anniversary and I think we all want to say it;

6 Bond and 60 Years...

#60 Nikos

Nikos

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 85 posts
  • Location:Iraklio,Crete

Posted 23 May 2012 - 09:05 AM

Agree with you SKYFALL, Cruise turns 50 this year and M:I-4 was the most successful of the series. I don't think age is a serious impediment to Craig, especially when he ll have been identified with such good quality Bond films. I think 4 films are a given, especially when the next one is scheduled to come so soon, and then a fifth or even a sixth are an easy target, imo.