I hope whoever replaces Craig gets to star in a series of Bond films that go back to the classic style, and can reintroduce audiences to what was so great and timeless about the series.
Its still prob a good direction for them to have gone in - its gives diversity to the Bond catalogue. Sucks if you dont like this era but in a few years time it might be all different again - thats what I love about the series in general!
I was in the same boat on Brozzers last few - had enough of it (Love the man himself though, just the films got worse).
There is danger in that approach as I firmly believe 'that you can't get the toothpaste back in the tube' A whole movie generation have grown up with Craig as Bond, and like it or not he now defines the model in some respects. I don't mean that we need another Craig simulacra but the characterisation has to be at least consistent with his approach. Likewise I do think (or want) to go back to hollowed out Volcanoes and double taking Pigeons. It will need to be a subtle shift, perhaps with more charm and gravitas amid the mayhem, but continue the momentum and tone. If Spectre are still to play a part in the Bondinverse it needs to be done with a lot more skill and credibility. Personally I would like to see them ditch it and the lacklustre Waltz , but accept that as others have said after trying for so long to shoehorn it back in they are unlikely to let it go. Eon have proved themselves capable of resurrection. I think they have painted themselves into a tight corner, but have faith that they will Box clever.
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
Craig arguably saved the Bond franchise. Mission Impossible I had outperformed GE by $100 million dollars. MI-II had outperformed TWINE by almost $200 million. Ethan Hunt was definitely the box office favorite over James Bond. The first two Bourne films while not doing as much at the box office as the Bond films were still financially very successful and had a new, edgy take that made the Brosnan films seem stodgy and old-fashioned.
The franchise needed to be rebooted or it risked falling into a downward spiral (there's only so much demand for spy films). Craig was essential to the successful reboot.
If Craig is not returning does EON look to recast Bond just to finish up the SPECTRE/Blofeld storyline? A well paying two film deal might be what it would take to entice Michael Fassbender who will be 39 when filming most likely begins for #25 and he would be only 42 or 43 for #26. After #26, EON can do a soft reboot and cast longer term with a younger actor. With regards to Waltz coming back as Blofeld, I don't think Waltz was so much the problem as was the writing. We all know that given the right material Waltz can be great. That all being said I do think Waltz had his moments in SPECTRE, especially the meeting in Italy. A best of both worlds could be casting Dan Stevens who could fit the re-boot mold of Bond begun by Craig, finish the SPECTRE/Blofeld story and is young enough to continue on for more films.
I couldn't help but feel like Waltz collected a massive paycheck but didn't take the role seriously. I feel this way because I've seen what he can do in other roles. True, he wasn't given much with which to work, but he could have done a lot more IMO.
Accordingly, I'd like to see a new Blofeld and a more compelling SPECTRE in the next film to accompany a new Bond.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,993Quartermasters
The latest Hiddleston buzz, from The Sun, for what it's worth:
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I expect Craig to return for at least one more. He may think he's going out on a high note with Spectre, but there's at least one more film in that story arc to complete it. And unless Craig has another successful, ready-made franchise to join -- Star Wars, Star Trek -- Bond will be the Zenith of his career. He just doesn't have enough appeal beyond Bond to carry a mainstream film.
I'll add that while I've been a Craig supporter since the start, the reality is that what draws people to a Bond movie is Bond. When they have the right actor playing him and in the way the audience wants, they get mega hits. But it's still always the character more than the actor -- even Connery, who took nearly two decades to reinvent himself, struggled outside of the Bond films.
Craig has less appeal outside of Bond than Connery. For him, Bond is like Spock was for Leonard Nimoy -- the one role he was meant to play at the right time. On some level, Craig is probably riding high, as he's been involved with one of the most successful film franchises in history. A lot of that is due to him. But if he thinks he"s going to enjoy anything near that success once he walks away, he's in for a rude awakening. He may think it doesn't matter now, but like Connery, may feel differently in a few years.
Craig is rich, he's married to Rachel, he can produce his own movies if he wants to.
He's beyond needing Bond, and I don't think he's in it for the star trip.
Lots of stars are rich -- doesn't stop them from wanting more. Lots of famous people are married to other famous people. Doesn't stop them from cheating or getting divorced. Rich people all stay rich by spending other people's money, so unless Craig can drum up the financing, a lot of his movies won't get made. And it will be harder for him to do so once he walks away from Bond. He's really box office poison outside of Bond, even more so than Brosnan.
Here's the funny thing about success: People generally want more. It's not just about the money, but the attention, the perks, the power, the rush. There are a few people who can walk away, but people who want to be movie stars tend not to be among them.
Right now, Craig is tired and probably going through is midlife crisis and thinking he just wants to settle down and play with his kids. But in a few years, that will change. He will get his second wind. The issue then will be whether or not anyone is interested in working with him. All of his leverage is now, while he still is Bond.
It's possible, too, that this is just a ploy to negotiate a bigger paycheck or that the rumors are just being drummed up by the media -- Craig may well be fine with returning as Bond but is staying out of the speculation.
"Poor man wanna be rich, rich man wanna be king, and the king ain't satisfied 'till he rules everything" Bruce Springsteen/Badlands
As down to earth and not seeking the spotlight as Craig may or may not be he's an actor and a film star and to some level they tend to have an exhibitionist side to them and ego. No question that Craig outside of Bond has difficulty carrying a film based upon his name being above the titles and I am not suggesting that Craig is not a fine actor. Craig also has never fallen into the stereotype of the actor who resents having to play Bond to make a living, he truly embraced the role and took it seriously. The man just may be physically beaten down. Beyond the knee surgery during SPECTRE Craig has had more than his share of bumps, bruises, and wounds doing Bond. Getting into one's late 40's no matter what kind of shape you may be in this kind of stuff takes a toll and recovery is much slower. Bond films unlike today's comic book superhero films use CGI sparingly and while the really dangerous stuff is covered by stunt people, Craig has done more than his share of falling, jumping, running, and movie fights throughout his tenure as Bond.
Craig is rich, he's married to Rachel, he can produce his own movies if he wants to.
He's beyond needing Bond, and I don't think he's in it for the star trip.
Only time will tell, but I don't think that he will get all bitter and twisted like Sean did, although to be fair he has probably done a lot better out of it financially. I also don't think that the star trip matters much to him, he seems very comfortable in his skin and not neurotic and needy.he is a good actor, but not a 'movie star' I'm not sure if we even have those anymore. I'm willing to be corrected, but I can't think of a single actor who's name alone guarantees success. He'll be just fine with it I think.
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
Craig is rich, he's married to Rachel, he can produce his own movies if he wants to.
He's beyond needing Bond, and I don't think he's in it for the star trip.
Only time will tell, but I don't think that he will get all bitter and twisted like Sean did, although to be fair he has probably done a lot better out of it financially. I also don't think that the star trip matters much to him, he seems very comfortable in his skin and not neurotic and needy.he is a good actor, but not a 'movie star' I'm not sure if we even have those anymore. I'm willing to be corrected, but I can't think of a single actor who's name alone guarantees success. He'll be just fine with it I think.
Leonardo diCaprio's name carries a lot of weight, and he has probably been the world's biggest movie star since Titanic. He qualifies as a movie star. A few years ago I might have said Johnny Depp as well, but his popularity has tanked. Daniel Craig doesn't have enough screen presence to carry a film all by himself like Connery could, and perhaps that's one reason why M has been given a much bigger role in Craig's films. Dench and Fiennes are both incredibly accomplished and respected actors.
Tom Hanks can carry a film respectably, including a franchise. He's had some flops too, of course. And no, I'm not suggesting he'd be good casting for Bond.
IMO Craig carried CR very well without a ton of support from others. The film was pretty much all Craig as a newly minted 00. IMO, Craig has very good screen presence as Bond....maybe it's just his raw physical approach to the role; much like Connery used movement. Another actor who used the nuance of physical movement whom Craig is mindful of is Steve McQueen. The difference is of course that on screen in almost any role Connery commanded the screen like a force of nature. Ironically the role that seemed to fit Connery least IMO was that of Indiana Jone's father. Connery did his best to make it work, but I always expect at some point for Connery to take off his glasses and hat and start beating the bejeesus out of all the bad guys ala James Bond.
Maybe wishful thinking, but I think they are trying their very best to get Craig back for 1 more, and this 'new bond' stuff is just a back-up idea of theirs.
I say this because, Blofeld... It has been building up to Blofeld for almost ten years - I know they didn't have the right to Blofeld during CR/QOS, but still, he is the author of all bond's pain throughout all the DC films. And they finally build up to him. Not only is he left alive, but they also took the time and effort to give him the signature scar near the end of the film. If Blofeld returned it would HAVE to be Christoph Waltz... otherwise it just wouldn't feel right. All that buildup, only for Blofeld to be played by a different actor in the next film? I know Blofeld has been a different actor in past bond films, but I think it's different here.
And so how does this relate to DC? Well, Waltz won't return if Craig doesn't, apparently.
Daniel Craig doesn't have enough screen presence to carry a film all by himself like Connery could, and perhaps that's one reason why M has been given a much bigger role in Craig's films.
An interesting point & one which I hadn't considered before.
It's interesting, but I don't agree; I believe it has more to do with the caliber of the actors playing M than any deficit on Craig's part---if you've got an Oscar winner in the cast, you're not going to waste their talents on just two scenes. M's ubiquitous presence in the field began to increase in the Brosnan era, lest we forget...
But it didn't even begin with Brosnan, if one asserts that Bernard Lee's Act 2 presence in Hong Kong in TMWTGG, Egypt in TSWLM and Venice in MR happened because Moore couldn't carry those films on his own.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I hate to rant too much, but I do feel 10 years after Casino Royale- the re-boot was a mistake Cubby would probably have never made.
Aside from the financial success, which speaks for itself, the general public has really embraced Craig as Bond. Even if the last few films were not to your taste, it's pretty hard to defend the view that it was a mistake. Craig has definitely left the series better than he found it.
I think that is all relative. Someone else used a similar argument by claiming that the first two Mission Impossible movies took more money than corresponding 007 movies at the same time. So what? Commercial success does not make a movie good, and I do not agree with the idea that Bond movies must try to be top of the biggest-grossing list. Some of the best movies around were made on a budget and were nowhere near the top of the list. The important thing is that the movie returns the investment so that the franchise is kept viable. Quality should come first, and this is what has been lost during the Craig years, unfortunately.
There's a difference between mothering Bond throughout the film, and having M pop up throughout the film a la TB and TND. Someone mentioned that because Dench is an Oscar winner, they're taking full advantage of that - Forster is on record saying that it's one interesting male/female dynamic that's never sexual, hence why he exploited it in QOS. Thing is, admitting to that reinforces the inconsistent nature of the Craig films (except for Skyfall) - they want to focus on story, but it's never about the narrative. It's an amalgamation of ideas and then the 'story' connects the dots. IE - Parkour is great! Let's have the first action set piece in CR that. So then we need something to connect that chase, to the Miami airport chase... to then Ian Fleming's novel. Ok... But we have to think of a way to teach Bond about his ways, so M can fly all the way to the Bahamas to what? Show Bond that she disapproves of Solange getting killed? Any reason why Bond couldn't have been briefed in London, considering that Bond is headed to Europe anyway, instead of her abandoning her other entire service to see Bond? Ugh... I could go on...
I say this because, Blofeld... It has been building up to Blofeld for almost ten years
No it hasn't. It was building from about 2013, when someone thought that it would have been a good idea. They built up Blofeld and SPECTRE from DN to YOLT. That's how you build up Blofeld. NOTE: They didn't retcon GF as a SPECTRE agent in TB, YOLT, OHMSS or DAF after it...
Film: Tomorrow Never Dies | Girl: Teresa di Vicenzo | Villain: Max Zorin | Car: Aston Martin Volante | Novel: You Only Live Twice | Bond: Sir Sean Connery
Oh please! We have had a movie about SPECTRE, Blofeld got his scar, then was caught and placed behind bars. Regardless who plays Bond next, I don't want any more Blofeld and Spectre. The organisation has been destroyed along with its headquarters, and that silly idea of a personal vendetta against Bond was revealed should never come again. Ever.
Oh please! We have had a movie about SPECTRE, Blofeld got his scar, then was caught and placed behind bars. Regardless who plays Bond next, I don't want any more Blofeld and Spectre. The organisation has been destroyed along with its headquarters, and that silly idea of a personal vendetta against Bond was revealed should never come again. Ever.
Yeah, I'm totally happy with it as it is. Like I said before, a great run.
Now on to something new.
Dumb question of the day (my specialty ) -{ ): If Craig hadn't made those comments about "rather slit his wrists than do another Bond" would we even be discussing all this new Bond stuff? Back before the internet that comment would probably be long forgotten and certainly not nearly as known.
Dumb question of the day (my specialty ) -{ ): If Craig hadn't made those comments about "rather slit his wrists than do another Bond" would we even be discussing all this new Bond stuff? Back before the internet that comment would probably be long forgotten and certainly not nearly as known.
The media has been talking about a new Bond long before that. I feel like they've been talking about Idris Elba replacing Craig for quite some time.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,993Quartermasters
Since the Sony email hacks, anyway.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Dumb question of the day (my specialty ) -{ ): If Craig hadn't made those comments about "rather slit his wrists than do another Bond" would we even be discussing all this new Bond stuff? Back before the internet that comment would probably be long forgotten and certainly not nearly as known.
If I recall correctly, he made the comments weeks before the tabloids and other started droning about how he'd quit the role -- it was more an off-the-cuff remark at the conclusion of filming than a declaration that he was done with the role.
Craig quickly backtracked, too, I thought, and then fell silent, so now it is all just speculation.
Dumb question of the day (my specialty ) -{ ): If Craig hadn't made those comments about "rather slit his wrists than do another Bond" would we even be discussing all this new Bond stuff? Back before the internet that comment would probably be long forgotten and certainly not nearly as known.
If I recall correctly, he made the comments weeks before the tabloids and other started droning about how he'd quit the role -- it was more an off-the-cuff remark at the conclusion of filming than a declaration that he was done with the role.
Craig quickly backtracked, too, I thought, and then fell silent, so now it is all just speculation.
Your recollection is correct. But even if Craig had stayed totally silent, given the way SPECTRE ends, I think we'd still be having the same discussions regarding a new Bond.
Craig is rich, he's married to Rachel, he can produce his own movies if he wants to.
He's beyond needing Bond, and I don't think he's in it for the star trip.
Only time will tell, but I don't think that he will get all bitter and twisted like Sean did, although to be fair he has probably done a lot better out of it financially. I also don't think that the star trip matters much to him, he seems very comfortable in his skin and not neurotic and needy.he is a good actor, but not a 'movie star' I'm not sure if we even have those anymore. I'm willing to be corrected, but I can't think of a single actor who's name alone guarantees success. He'll be just fine with it I think.
Leonardo diCaprio's name carries a lot of weight, and he has probably been the world's biggest movie star since Titanic. He qualifies as a movie star. A few years ago I might have said Johnny Depp as well, but his popularity has tanked. Daniel Craig doesn't have enough screen presence to carry a film all by himself like Connery could, and perhaps that's one reason why M has been given a much bigger role in Craig's films. Dench and Fiennes are both incredibly accomplished and respected actors.
diCaprio is very selective about his roles, which tend to be fairly diverse (the same can be said for Daniel Day Lewis). But there's no evidence that diCaprio could carry a franchise since he's never been in a franchise movie. Frankly, I'm not sure he has the charisma.
Brad Pitt carries a movie, Dicaprio has put in some fantastic performances but also some not so good, he's never been convincing in more action related movies. Craig is not a traditional movie star but don't think he wants to be, I find him very watchable and have done since before bond, I've thoroughly enjoyed his bond run and hope for one more. The problems that DC films have are the same problems that a lot of the franchise has, it seems sometimes that Eon just mix in the ingredients of locations, women, Aston Martin a diabolical baddie and some action and that's all that's needed, oh and a story that at times loosly holds it all together. Thats not enough and a decent well thought out script which encompasses the formula ingredients is what's needed now and would do justice to the cast we now have and the viewers.
Comments
There is danger in that approach as I firmly believe 'that you can't get the toothpaste back in the tube' A whole movie generation have grown up with Craig as Bond, and like it or not he now defines the model in some respects. I don't mean that we need another Craig simulacra but the characterisation has to be at least consistent with his approach. Likewise I do think (or want) to go back to hollowed out Volcanoes and double taking Pigeons. It will need to be a subtle shift, perhaps with more charm and gravitas amid the mayhem, but continue the momentum and tone. If Spectre are still to play a part in the Bondinverse it needs to be done with a lot more skill and credibility. Personally I would like to see them ditch it and the lacklustre Waltz , but accept that as others have said after trying for so long to shoehorn it back in they are unlikely to let it go. Eon have proved themselves capable of resurrection. I think they have painted themselves into a tight corner, but have faith that they will Box clever.
The franchise needed to be rebooted or it risked falling into a downward spiral (there's only so much demand for spy films). Craig was essential to the successful reboot.
Accordingly, I'd like to see a new Blofeld and a more compelling SPECTRE in the next film to accompany a new Bond.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/7046846/Is-Tom-Hiddleston-the-new-BOND-Heart-throb-actor-is-tipped-to-take-over-007-role-from-Daniel-Craig.html?CMP=spklr-_-Editorial-_-FBPAGE-_-TheSun-thesun-_-20160403-_-Showbiz/Celebrity-_-416409495-_-Imageandlink
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Craig has less appeal outside of Bond than Connery. For him, Bond is like Spock was for Leonard Nimoy -- the one role he was meant to play at the right time. On some level, Craig is probably riding high, as he's been involved with one of the most successful film franchises in history. A lot of that is due to him. But if he thinks he"s going to enjoy anything near that success once he walks away, he's in for a rude awakening. He may think it doesn't matter now, but like Connery, may feel differently in a few years.
He's beyond needing Bond, and I don't think he's in it for the star trip.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Here's the funny thing about success: People generally want more. It's not just about the money, but the attention, the perks, the power, the rush. There are a few people who can walk away, but people who want to be movie stars tend not to be among them.
Right now, Craig is tired and probably going through is midlife crisis and thinking he just wants to settle down and play with his kids. But in a few years, that will change. He will get his second wind. The issue then will be whether or not anyone is interested in working with him. All of his leverage is now, while he still is Bond.
It's possible, too, that this is just a ploy to negotiate a bigger paycheck or that the rumors are just being drummed up by the media -- Craig may well be fine with returning as Bond but is staying out of the speculation.
As down to earth and not seeking the spotlight as Craig may or may not be he's an actor and a film star and to some level they tend to have an exhibitionist side to them and ego. No question that Craig outside of Bond has difficulty carrying a film based upon his name being above the titles and I am not suggesting that Craig is not a fine actor. Craig also has never fallen into the stereotype of the actor who resents having to play Bond to make a living, he truly embraced the role and took it seriously. The man just may be physically beaten down. Beyond the knee surgery during SPECTRE Craig has had more than his share of bumps, bruises, and wounds doing Bond. Getting into one's late 40's no matter what kind of shape you may be in this kind of stuff takes a toll and recovery is much slower. Bond films unlike today's comic book superhero films use CGI sparingly and while the really dangerous stuff is covered by stunt people, Craig has done more than his share of falling, jumping, running, and movie fights throughout his tenure as Bond.
Only time will tell, but I don't think that he will get all bitter and twisted like Sean did, although to be fair he has probably done a lot better out of it financially. I also don't think that the star trip matters much to him, he seems very comfortable in his skin and not neurotic and needy.he is a good actor, but not a 'movie star' I'm not sure if we even have those anymore. I'm willing to be corrected, but I can't think of a single actor who's name alone guarantees success. He'll be just fine with it I think.
Leonardo diCaprio's name carries a lot of weight, and he has probably been the world's biggest movie star since Titanic. He qualifies as a movie star. A few years ago I might have said Johnny Depp as well, but his popularity has tanked. Daniel Craig doesn't have enough screen presence to carry a film all by himself like Connery could, and perhaps that's one reason why M has been given a much bigger role in Craig's films. Dench and Fiennes are both incredibly accomplished and respected actors.
I was thinking about him too. He's a huge star, but he also doesn't give off that impression.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
I say this because, Blofeld... It has been building up to Blofeld for almost ten years - I know they didn't have the right to Blofeld during CR/QOS, but still, he is the author of all bond's pain throughout all the DC films. And they finally build up to him. Not only is he left alive, but they also took the time and effort to give him the signature scar near the end of the film. If Blofeld returned it would HAVE to be Christoph Waltz... otherwise it just wouldn't feel right. All that buildup, only for Blofeld to be played by a different actor in the next film? I know Blofeld has been a different actor in past bond films, but I think it's different here.
And so how does this relate to DC? Well, Waltz won't return if Craig doesn't, apparently.
1 - Moore, 2 - Dalton, 3 - Craig, 4 - Connery, 5 - Brosnan, 6 - Lazenby
It's interesting, but I don't agree; I believe it has more to do with the caliber of the actors playing M than any deficit on Craig's part---if you've got an Oscar winner in the cast, you're not going to waste their talents on just two scenes. M's ubiquitous presence in the field began to increase in the Brosnan era, lest we forget...
But it didn't even begin with Brosnan, if one asserts that Bernard Lee's Act 2 presence in Hong Kong in TMWTGG, Egypt in TSWLM and Venice in MR happened because Moore couldn't carry those films on his own.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I think that is all relative. Someone else used a similar argument by claiming that the first two Mission Impossible movies took more money than corresponding 007 movies at the same time. So what? Commercial success does not make a movie good, and I do not agree with the idea that Bond movies must try to be top of the biggest-grossing list. Some of the best movies around were made on a budget and were nowhere near the top of the list. The important thing is that the movie returns the investment so that the franchise is kept viable. Quality should come first, and this is what has been lost during the Craig years, unfortunately.
No it hasn't. It was building from about 2013, when someone thought that it would have been a good idea. They built up Blofeld and SPECTRE from DN to YOLT. That's how you build up Blofeld. NOTE: They didn't retcon GF as a SPECTRE agent in TB, YOLT, OHMSS or DAF after it...
Now on to something new.
I will miss Craig though. Another great Bond. -{
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
The media has been talking about a new Bond long before that. I feel like they've been talking about Idris Elba replacing Craig for quite some time.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Craig quickly backtracked, too, I thought, and then fell silent, so now it is all just speculation.
Your recollection is correct. But even if Craig had stayed totally silent, given the way SPECTRE ends, I think we'd still be having the same discussions regarding a new Bond.
diCaprio is very selective about his roles, which tend to be fairly diverse (the same can be said for Daniel Day Lewis). But there's no evidence that diCaprio could carry a franchise since he's never been in a franchise movie. Frankly, I'm not sure he has the charisma.