29 replies to this topic

[SecretAgentFan]

Ralph Fiennes reportedly has a contract for three Bond films - so he could appear in BOND 25.  But it all seems to depend on whether Daniel Craig will return.

 

http://www.denofgeek...ll-be-back-as-m

[thecasinoroyale]

So it's all going down to the Craig era, on the surface, will be abandoned after 'Bond 25' and a whole new cast brought in? I really would have liked Fiennes to be the Bernard Lee/Judi Dench type of M to carry forward with other actors.

 

It's so hard to then take and warm to new actors and their interpretations.

 

It's VERY early days I know, but I'm not liking this direction of how it sounds the whole era will be changed after Craig leaves.

[SecretAgentFan]

Fiennes does indicate that he is at least contracted for one more.  Traditionally, with the main actor changing the supporting cast stays.  No reason for firing Fiennes, Harris, Whishaw and Kinnear - and if they want to continue, their contracts will be renewed, I´m sure.

[sharpshooter]

That's true. However this time, I could possibly see a new MI6 crew after Craig is done. I'd love for them to stay though, especially Whishaw. I just want to know what Craig's decision is.

[Dustin]

I think once you have a good rapport with Eon house you have very good chances on returning to the show; they don't seem to cut off people lightly.

That said the way the films evolved over the last two decades the recurring support cast gradually became ever more important in the last two films and the series is now only one step away from turning into a modest-sized ensemble venture. This need not be a bad thing, but in the end the pressure is on to find a good scene for each of the HQ faces, involve them more prominently and give them importance beyond the mere status they had prior to the Craig era. I don't know how that will play out in the future.

[sharpshooter]

I think it could be more of a "Craig was my Bond, and I was his Moneypenny" kind of thing. Fulfilling the contract, satisfied with the era and moving on. 

[tdalton]

If Craig returns for one more, then Fiennes and company should return as well.  

 

If they recast the role for the next film, then they should recast all of the roles and start fresh.

[DisneyGets007]

If Craig returns for one more, then Fiennes and company should return as well.  

 

If they recast the role for the next film, then they should recast all of the roles and start fresh.

Indeed, If Craig leaving Bond in 2018 after the production of Bond 25 is finished; he would play The Doctor to replace Peter Capaldi for Doctor Who. i've also published the suggestions about that: https://ukidents.wor...-as-doctor-who/.

[Mr_Wint]

It would be surprising if they kicked out Ralph Fiennes already. I think he should stay for at least 2-3 more films no matter what happens with Craig.

[billy007]

Perhaps we are overlooking the obvious.

Why not have Ralph Fiennes play 007 if DC doesn't return?

Just play the role with no reference to previous appearances (Robert Brown, Joe Don Baker)  

[tdalton]

Perhaps we are overlooking the obvious.

Why not have Ralph Fiennes play 007 if DC doesn't return?

Just play the role with no reference to previous appearances (Robert Brown, Joe Don Baker)  

 

10-15 years ago, I would have been all for that idea.  

 

Given the unprecedented degree of continuity within Craig's films, it would be best if they recast everything when the next guy takes over.  At that point, while I do believe that they should continue to go in a somewhat serialized direction, they should have the MI6 team be much less integral to the films so that the actors can continue on even with a change in the actor playing Bond.

[Tiin007]

I still think it makes sense for the current MI6 team to stay on after Craig. Yes, the Craig films were considerably more continuity heavy than the previous 20 films, but that does not in any way necessitate letting go of Fiennes, Whishaw, and Harris. If they want to reduce the roles to essentially what they were pre-Craig, then just do that with the current crew. I really don't see a need to replace them, especially as I'm quite pleased with each of their interpretations of their respective characters.

 

Continuity is very important to me. That does NOT mean that I want all of my Bond film plots interconnected a la the Craig era. But it means that there should be some stability and consistency to Bond's universe, without constantly changing things for the sake of change. 

[Mr_Wint]

It is enough to keep Fiennes. Harris will probably be too old when the next actor takes over (assuming Craig does one more film). I am not a fan Whishaw's Q so I'll be happy if he leaves with Craig.

[tdalton]

I still think it makes sense for the current MI6 team to stay on after Craig. Yes, the Craig films were considerably more continuity heavy than the previous 20 films, but that does not in any way necessitate letting go of Fiennes, Whishaw, and Harris. If they want to reduce the roles to essentially what they were pre-Craig, then just do that with the current crew. I really don't see a need to replace them, especially as I'm quite pleased with each of their interpretations of their respective characters.

 

Continuity is very important to me. That does NOT mean that I want all of my Bond film plots interconnected a la the Craig era. But it means that there should be some stability and consistency to Bond's universe, without constantly changing things for the sake of change. 

 

I can't see the current crew accepting what would amount to glorified cameos.  I can't see Fiennes, Harris, and Wishaw signing up to simply give Bond a dossier, flirt with him, and then give him a new watch and then send him on his merry way.  If EON is going to hire that kind of talent to play the background characters, those characters are going to be playing a similar role to what they have over the last few films.

[SecretAgentFan]

If Craig leaves and the current Mi6-crew gets thrown out with him I would sincerely hope that the next M, Moneypenny and Q will again become bit players that can be portrayed by lesser known character actors.

 

Does a Bond film need high profile actors in these supporting roles?  I don´t think so.

[tdalton]

That would be my hope as well.  The actors who fill those parts when Bond #7 is cast should be of a much lower profile.  Ideally, you could find some respected British actors who don't have a very high profile at all, the kind who would jump at the chance to do a couple of scenes in a Bond film as a way to raise their profile without commanding the kind of screen time that actors like Judi Dench and Ralph Fiennes command.

 

Regardless, and as much as I like Fiennes as M, I do think they need to recast with the next Bond.  Whereas previous iterations of the M, Moneypenny, and Q characters kind of served in the background, not being important enough to the fabric of the films to essentially tie them to the lead actor, the current MI6 crew have been very much woven into the fabric of the Craig films, to the point that they're very much identifiable alongside Craig's Bond.

[Dustin]

If they indeed recast the familiar faces of HQ together with a new Bond the entire Craig run will become its own self-contained mini-series. In a way it is already, but up to now they have all options to keep or disregard from Craig's time whatever they want. With a new support crew they will probably also make an effort to distance themselves from the 2006 to 2015 phase.

[tdalton]

I think they've already kind of tied themselves into the idea that Craig's films are going to be their own self-contained entity.  The best thing, moving forward with Bond 25, would be to have a reboot of sorts.  It should be a fairly soft reboot, much like what we usually see when a new actor is cast in the role, but perhaps a bit more pronounced, with it being obvious that what happened between Casino Royale and Spectre does not exist.  I would absolutely avoid returning to the idea of Bond being a rookie, showing how he earns the Double-oh designation and his licence to kill, but they should essentially do what Fleming did with his Casino Royale, which is to simply pick up at a point in the life of Bond, but with as clean a slate as possible.

[SecretAgentFan]

If they go ahead not only with a new Bond but also a new Mi6-crew it will be the first time ever in the series to do so.

 

It would work for me, especially if they went back to Bond being the center and M, Moneypenny and Q only being bit players for some expositional duties.

 

However, I get the feeling that this approach would again delay BOND 25, just to put some distance between the Craig era and the new start.

[DaveBond21]

If they go ahead not only with a new Bond but also a new Mi6-crew it will be the first time ever in the series to do so.

 

It would work for me, especially if they went back to Bond being the center and M, Moneypenny and Q only being bit players for some expositional duties.

 

However, I get the feeling that this approach would again delay BOND 25, just to put some distance between the Craig era and the new start.

 

Fair points here SAF.

 

I hope they stay, but I also agree that I want to see less of them in the next movie. Bit of a paradox really!

 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

[billy007]

As both a life long 007 fan

and comic reader I have to quote Denny O'Neil regarding continuity

"Use continuity as a tool not a guide"

DC's run is self-contained,it rebooted the series.

If he leaves for whatever reason the series will carry on, hopefully using the same classic elements.

From Dr. No to Die Another Day there was continuity. Sir Sean,

 Sir Roger,Tim Dalton and PB all referenced the death of Tracy, Tthere's always been a tux,a Walther PPK,an Aston Martin,a briefing scene with M and now with Skyfall a flirting scene with Moneypenny and a tech briefing with Q has been reintroduced.

[dtuba]

Perhaps they will kill off Mallory-M in B25. Although that might just be too much emotional turmoil for Craig's Bond to go through - Losing 2 M's in less than 10 years.

[tdalton]

I would hope that they wouldn't kill off Mallory in the next one.  Losing two M's in the span of three films would be a bit of overkill.  

 

But, then again, EON is hardly a bastion of originality, so I could see them doing exactly that.

[SecretAgentFan]

If Fiennes does not want to be a bad guy he surely does not want to be killed off either.

[Odd Jobbies]

I would hope that they wouldn't kill off Mallory in the next one.  Losing two M's in the span of three films would be a bit of overkill.  

 

But, then again, EON is hardly a bastion of originality, so I could see them doing exactly that.

Losing one M is careless, but losing two...

[RMc2]

 

I would hope that they wouldn't kill off Mallory in the next one.  Losing two M's in the span of three films would be a bit of overkill.  

 

But, then again, EON is hardly a bastion of originality, so I could see them doing exactly that.

Losing one M is careless, but losing two...

 

 

He really would be the worst Bond ever, professionally speaking

[hoagy]

With regard to losing one M being careless...

 

To quote Auric Goldfinger:  "Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence.  Three times is enemy action."

 

So Bond can lose another M before we conclude it's intentional on his part ?

[Surrie]

It would be a shame if we did lose the whole MI6 squad with the new era - I like the air of continuation it brings. But, I am inclined to think that EON would like the Craig era, and all encompassed within, to remain a stand-alone era. Once Craig is surely done, then they can start the cycle again and perhaps keep some actors on even after BOND 7 leaves. 

[DaveBond21]

It would be a shame if we did lose the whole MI6 squad with the new era - I like the air of continuation it brings. But, I am inclined to think that EON would like the Craig era, and all encompassed within, to remain a stand-alone era. Once Craig is surely done, then they can start the cycle again and perhaps keep some actors on even after BOND 7 leaves. 

 

Unless they keep the new tradition of self-contained series, based on the actor. Mind you, they would probably have to choose an actor who is willing to do 4 movies across a 12 year period..

 

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

[hoagy]

As pointed out above in this series of comments, the producers changed Bonds AND rebooted and yet kept the same actor to portray M who had started with the then-new prior Bond actor, too, back in GE.  And, clearly, the CR re-boot indicated a new background and history to the relationship between Bond and M, even though the M actor was the same.  So, she started as a new M, with a new Bond, twice !  And I don't think it threw ANYONE for a loop.

 

Ralph Fiennes is so very fine an actor, as well, that he could do the same.  Which is to say -- portray M with a new Bond, starting a new history.  He could even play M in a period Bond after portraying him twice in contemporary Bond films. if the producers wanted to go back to the 50s/early 60s with the next Bond actor.  (I've discussed this elsewhere.  It would work well with a Bond actor who, either by their own age or preference, would play Bond for just, say, a trio of films.  Also -- the period approach might be quite welcome, but be well done and ready to move on after about that many films.)  If they made the Young Bonds into a series, he could play a character, recurring or not, in that !

 

This is nothing new for the films.  They've had actors play different characters before.  A wrestler in FRWL becomes a fellow British agent in TB.  British Intelligence's Henderson in YOLT becomes the VILLAIN ( !!!! ) just 4 years later, 2 films later, one return of first actor later such that they made 2 Bonds together in a row between themselves, in DAF.  And -- it was all quite OK with the audiences.  (Poor Mr. Henderson, had he just taken a well-timed jump to the right or step to the left, he might have danced his way to safety !)

 

And it is not unique to Bond.  Sergio Leone and Clint Eastwood made just 3 Man with No Name films together, and the same terrific actor (Gian Maria Volonte) played two entirely different lead villains in two of the films !  The first two of the trio -- two films in a row !  Confusing ?  Considering the similarities of the characters, their behavior, appearance, etc., yes.  But those films still were well received and are revered to this day.

 

You know what ? Get the best people you can and make a great film.  That works.  If this means Ralph Fiennes follows Dame Judi Dench's lead in playing the same character to two different Bonds, with two different histories, fine by me and -- as the examples above indicate -- would be fine by many others, too.