How many movies is ideal for a Bond actor?
Absolutely_Cart
NJ/NYC, United StatesPosts: 1,740MI6 Agent
I'd say minimum of 3 and maximum of 6. 4 or 5 isn't bad.
If Connery retired after YOLT, he would've had a near-sterling filmography as Bond. That would also give Lazenby a chance to reprise himself in DAF.
And if Moore, who was getting old, quit at Octopussy, Dalton could have had a re-written version of A View to a Kill.
Perhaps Craig will set the standard at 5. Or if Craig's 5th film doesn't turn out well, we might revert to Brosnan's 4.
But what do you think?
If Connery retired after YOLT, he would've had a near-sterling filmography as Bond. That would also give Lazenby a chance to reprise himself in DAF.
And if Moore, who was getting old, quit at Octopussy, Dalton could have had a re-written version of A View to a Kill.
Perhaps Craig will set the standard at 5. Or if Craig's 5th film doesn't turn out well, we might revert to Brosnan's 4.
But what do you think?
Comments
And it depends on their screenplay, Connery looked a bit boring sometimes in his later films.
Craig has already set the limit at five...
We know Craig set the limit at 5.
But will future actors take 5 as the standard, or Brosnan's 4?
AJB007 Favorite Film Rankings
Pros and Cons Compendium (50 Years)
The two year cycle, that would give each actor a decade as 007.
One of the reasons why Brosnan did only 4 was that they went with the reboot, so needed to find a different and younger actor.
Nobody knows which direction EON will go in the future and there is no real "formula" for the number of movies per actor - so your question does not make sense for me.
And if they want Craig after the 5th (as far as I know his contract is 4) badly, you'll see how $$ change an actor's opinion
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
http://www.ajb007.co.uk/topic/45837/craig-no-more/
6 at a push if the actor is really into it.
Enough for the actor to get established and then explore the role a bit.
But it's not too many so the actor hopefully does not become bored with it.
In the early days, they were making about one a year. Then it became two. Then we would get gaps of time for various reasons.
With Craig, we should have had four films already by now, but the lawyers and other nitwits got involved, and we had a four-year hiatus between Quantum of Solace and Skyfall, which essentially squandered the few extra years gained by hiring a 38-year-old to play James Bond.
If Craig stays in shape, he could easily do two more after Spectre. Given that we essentially have two two-part films with Casino Royale/Quantum of Solace and Skyfall/Spectre, it will in the end really feel like Craig only made two long and uneven movies with these pairings.
So I'd like him to do at least two, if not three more than are standalones. Maybe if they do the productions faster, this can be accomplished while Daniel Craig is still functional enough to do all of the physical efforts . . . . .
I sincerely hope after the release of SPECTRE we only have to wait 12 months for the commencement of Bond 25 production. If they carry on with this 3 or even 5 year cyle between films I'll be lucky to get to Bond 28!!
"Do you expect me to talk? "No Mister Bond I expect you to die"
We should get a sense that Bond will carry the leading lady off to the bedroom for a night of sweaty passion. Not plod upstairs in his fur-lined slippers for a hot cocoa.
The retirement age for the 00 section is 45, so Bond should always be credibly below this. So Sean Connery was too old at 52 in Never Say Never. Roger Moore was, what, 57, in A View to a Kill?
Daniel Craig is 47, although to be fair he looks younger. I wish I'd looked like that when I was 47. Hell, I wish I'd looked like that at any point in my half century.
You think? Moore and Brosnan looked a lot better at that age, I'd say.
You haven't seen what I look like...!
I know plenty of people who look younger than Craig at his age, but they're not in as good shape as he is.
I very much doubt we'll see Bond 25 before 2018, although I'd be delighted if we got it a year earlier. In 2018 DC will be 50 and most likely will move on at that point. Seems highly unlikely we'll ever return to a two year cycle - DC should have completed at least one more really.
If they had pulled their finger out SPECTRE could have quite easily been a Bond 25 or even a Bond 26 release.
I'm hoping they go back to the 2 year cycle and Bond 25 is released in 2017.
If they had looked after Connery (contract wise) he could quite easily have done all the films up to and including MWTGG, in fact he still looked ok in NSNA. Octopussy was filmed that same year.
So I would say the right actor appointed at the right time, ideally when he's in his early 30's, there is no reason he couldn't do 7 or 8 Bonds if all parties are happy.
If we are now on a 3 year cycle then who knows 4 or 5 films will be the maximum.
"Do you expect me to talk? "No Mister Bond I expect you to die"
1. If Connery would have stopped at five, it would have been an ideal run. I think he was great in DAF but the film was sub-par.
2. Lazenby only did one, and there's no telling how a longer tenure might have gone. After three films, he may very well have become the established Bond in the public eye, with a fourth and fifth as the icing on the cake.
3. Moore had run out of gas by A View to a Kill. Octopussy was a fine sixth film though. I'd say he's the outlier with six, but if you take the average thus far, I'd say five is still the optimal number.
4. Dalton was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. Had LTK been more successful, Dalton going into the nineties could have worked out really well. One thing's for sure, he probably would have had a better run of films than Brosnan ended up having.
5. Brosnan's films got progressively worse, by no fault of his own. Though the tonal shift between DAD and CR was incredibly drastic, it's not that hard to imagine a slightly less drastic back-to-basics tone shift with Brosnan still in the role. If he had stayed for just one more, he could have easily bowed out gracefully and handed the reigns to Craig for CR, making a more natural transition. Plus, it would have given Brosnan the chance to return to form and really give us his best Bond before he left.
6. Craig has redefined Bond for the 21st century. He's also my favorite Bond. I gotta say though, at this point, I'd rather he bow out gracefully with one more film than fade out slowly like Moore. If Spectre is as great is it looks like it's going to be, chances are EON will be able to keep up the magic for one more (fingers crossed). This would be the perfect time to reapproach the series with a new Bond.
So, in my mind, five is the optimal number, but there are always exceptions to the rule.
https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/wish-i-was-at-disneyland/id1202780413?mt=2
At 47, roughly, Brosnan was doing TWINE and Moore was doing MWGG.
Looks are subjective. I think that after Goldeneye, Brosnan went from his Remington Steele look to more of an attractive sporty dad look. But I'd still say, in a conventional sense, he was better looking than Craig is.
It's hard to judge age due to the fact that virtually all actors use make-up (and they film at angles to bring out their best features). Craig looks younger in the Spectre trailer than in certain parts of Skyfall.
AJB007 Favorite Film Rankings
Pros and Cons Compendium (50 Years)
There was an article on morning TV with Daniel. he was saying how much he enjoyed being James Bond. He enjoyed spinning the Aston Martin around...
Sean Connery should have quit after TB
George Lazenby could have had YOLT, OHMSS and DAF
Roger Moore should have done LALD through to MR (or FYEO)
Timothy Dalton should have done the entire 80's (or starting with OP)
After that I don't really care.
1. Dalton 2. Moore 3. Connery 4. Craig 5. Lazenby 6. Brosnan
Boredom/age/popularity are the only limits to a Bond actor IMO. Brosnan could still be Bond if he didn't have to be young {[]
"Better make that two."