By today's standards, Craig doing one more Bond at 51 or so is not such a big deal. Contemporary male action stars have a long shelf life these days. Craig's age might be more of an issue with some of us on the AJB than the general public. Of course, EON's feelings (and of course what Craig wants to do) certainly will be the deciding factor.
It works when the action star still looks young (like Tom Cruise) or is supposed to be old (like Sylvester Stallone). Craig does not look good for his age and looks more like he's in his mid-50s in his last two films. Bond being and looking 57 in A View to a Kill didn't really work, and I don't think Craig can make it work either.
By today's standards, Craig doing one more Bond at 51 or so is not such a big deal. Contemporary male action stars have a long shelf life these days. Craig's age might be more of an issue with some of us on the AJB than the general public. Of course, EON's feelings (and of course what Craig wants to do) certainly will be the deciding factor.
It works when the action star still looks young (like Tom Cruise) or is supposed to be old (like Sylvester Stallone). Craig does not look good for his age and looks more like he's in his mid-50s in his last two films. Bond being and looking 57 in A View to a Kill didn't really work, and I don't think Craig can make it work either.
I thought he looked fine in SPECTRE. Roger Moore and Craig is a bad comparison IMO.....Moore was a very traditional classically handsome almost "pretty boy" type while Craig is the unconventional rugged type. IMO, Moore looked like he needed a stunt man to run around the block for him in AVTAK; Craig looks like he can still still kick plenty of ass.
That all being said, I'd take Cavill as Bond in a minute. I wonder if Cavill was hedging his bets in that interview based upon the really bad critical reception "Batman V Superman" received. Alas, despite the critics slagging "Batman V Superman" is a big hit so I think we can take Cavill out of the Bond sweepstakes.
Daniel Craig needs to be the one that finishes off Blofeld!
Am I the only one who thinks this? In the rebooted timeline, Blofeld is the author of all bond's pain. For Craig to kill Blofeld in a 5th and final film would be the ideal ending to his tenure. For any other actor to finish off Blofeld would seem very out of place to me, and not as satisfying.
I really, really, REALLY hope Craig does 1 more. Just finish Blofeld off in The Garden Of Death with Craig already, then we can think about a new actor. People are saying that SPECTRE seems like a good farewell to Craig, but I disagree, because BLOFELD DOESN'T DIE!
As for Craig's age... I don't see how it's a problem. But then again I was never bothered by Moore's age in his later bond films.... but put it this way, Craig's age is nowhere near the extreme of Harrison Ford returning as Indy in his late 70's! (Great actor, but late 70's for an action hero??)
If there has to be a replacement, then out of the ones mentioned I vote Tom Hiddleston, because he seems to have a lot of character, whereas some of the other candidates (Tom Hardy and Michael Fassbender) I find quite forgettable/generic tbh. Aiden Turner seems too much like Brosnan to me... Tom Hiddleston may be skinny, but that just reminds me of Lazenby, who was also skinny - maybe he could be an improved Lazenby.
But above all, Craig needs to return for 1 more IMO.
Do EON really want to kill off Blofeld though after finally regaining the rights????????????
I see your point, but I'm worried that we won't see any new, original bond villains (main villains that is) because of Blofeld. I could be wrong however, and Blofeld could not be the "main" villain in several films... But I just think it would be so cool if Craig finishes off Blofeld considering Craig's arc.
Also, as mentioned another reboot could work. I have mixed feelings regarding that though, on one hand it is way too soon to reboot again. But on the other hand, a different bond actor, but still the same M, Q, and Moneypenny would not feel right. I know it's been done with all the other bond actors before, but Craig's tenure seems different in that all his films are connected and there is more emphasis on continuity. If that makes sense.
I read earlier on the MI6 site and commanderbond site that MGM anticipates 3-4 years being the norm. There is no rush to get the studio partnership resolved anytime soon. If that's the case I doubt Craig will come back at all, and whoever replaces him will only get 2 or 3 films during their era.
Here's more detail:
Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer said this week that James Bond movies will come out on a “three-to-four year cycle” and it’s not hurrying to strike a new 007 distribution deal.
The disclosures were made by MGM chief Gary Barber during the question-and-answer portion of the company’s fourth-quarter and year-end earnings conference call.
Six years ago, when the studio was in bankruptcy, it produced a plan calling for Bond films to again come out on an every-other-year basis. After Skyfall came out, Barber began backpedaling during a November 2012 investor call. This week, he made clear an every-other-year 007 schedule is never going to happen.
The 007 films have “been on a cycle of every three to hour years and I anticipate it will be on that same three-to-four year cycle,” Barber said.
A four year gap would make Craig's return less likely, perhaps. I reckon so.
Not if he was, say, exhausted and very vocal about needing a break. He's been on this 3-4 year schedule since 2008.
I don't think MGM has much control over how often Bond films come out. Three years or more is kind of normal by today's blockbuster standards. As far as a new distribution deal, I'm sure they are going to make sure they cut the best deal possible to maximise their profits. It's amazing to think that Harry Saltzman sold his interest in Bond to UA/MGM for (cue Austin Powers voice) "One million dollars".
I think Blofeld returning to the series is a good thing and I agree that it would be difficult to see how they could continue with Blofeld without DC as Bond since they threw the foster brother connection into the mix.
This is an example of the current craze of fan w@nk creeping into the series and the only way to move on is to reboot. Bring Blofeld back but with a totally new back story, new Bond actor and a new Blofeld.
New bond, couple of years after spectre Bond left service, works in private spectre didn't work out with Swan so returns to service and Blofeld died in prison or none of the events of DC tenure are mentioned after all it's been done before. Do hope when we get a new Bond there is no family/ personnel elements to the story or going rogue just separate missions for separate films
If they get a new Bond actor and want to keep the old continuity, they could just explain that Bond looks younger and refreshed because he had been on holiday.
New bond, couple of years after spectre Bond left service, works in private spectre didn't work out with Swan so returns to service and Blofeld died in prison or none of the events of DC tenure are mentioned after all it's been done before. Do hope when we get a new Bond there is no family/ personnel elements to the story or going rogue just separate missions for separate films
Couldn't agree more. This personal story arc I think should remain in the Craig era as sort of an experiment....never to be attempted again. I'd like for the next Bond to go back to the original timeline- having been married to Tracy and so forth. Standalone films. No more Bond going rogue. That got old films and films ago.
I watched Spectre again over the weekend with an open view on whether it felt like Craigs last Bond and I have to say sadly it did, or at least it felt like EON may have been covering themselves in case he didn't return. There were just too many references to him not coming back for my liking.
From the way the film played out it really does feel like its a good time to start everything afresh, in particular the 00 program starting back up again that was shut down during the film, Q asking why Bond he was there at the end and Bond implying he just came to pick up his Aston Martin before finishing up etc.
I also watched the final Night Manager. Some media publication likened the finale to Hiddleston's on screen Bond audition. I particularly enjoyed the crass attempt when I heard Hiddleston's character order a Vodka Martini (I believe off camera).
When I look back at Craig's Bond announcement he too was quite scrawny (by today's Bond standard) and not very Bond looking at all so perhaps Hiddleston is a possibility.
I see him as a completely different Bond though more of a ladies man with little of the on screen brutish aggression that Craig carries with him. I'd see a Hiddleston Bond being more about the plot than action, I'm not sure if I'd like that as I get a sinking feeling it might be a tad boring. I think Hiddleston would have made a great Bond back in the 80's/90's but I'm not sure he fits the genre now (if EON wanted to follow a similar direction from Craig).
It's funny because when Craig showed up all muscle bound and stocky looking everyone complained that he didn't look like Bond at all and now people are saying Hiddleston is too slight to play Bond. Infact, apart from hair colour, Hiddleston is probably more literary Bond in appearance than most of the candidates, even down to cold eyes and a cruel mouth.
Literary Bond and cinema Bond are two different animals. A new Bond may not neccessarilly be like Craig but for the sake of credibility the one physical trait that will continue is Bond looking physically formidable. As I said before, Hiddleston may not be my first choice but I have no doubt that he would put his all into preparing for the role which would include transforming himself physically into a believable contemporary Bond.
Literary Bond and cinema Bond are two different animals. A new Bond may not neccessarilly be like Craig but for the sake of credibility the one physical trait that will continue is Bond looking physically formidable. As I said before, Hiddleston may not be my first choice but I have no doubt that he would put his all into preparing for the role which would include transforming himself physically into a believable contemporary Bond.
As media commentators and others here have noted The Night Manager is like a multipart Bond audition. Hiddleston to me at least has proved that he can do cruel, nasty, and physical. The Hamiid kill was chilling and truly 'Bondian'. From a physique perspective a little upper body work perhaps, but his long limbed lean thing is pure Fleming, and translatable for a contemporary audience brought up with Daniel as Bond without too much adjustment. If I have a concern it's that at 35 he may be pushing it if filming does not start for three years. I hope not. He is already possibly too famous already. Eon may like to surprise us again with someone who is currently not on the Radar. Interesting times...
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
Anyone wanting Bond to look tall, dark and handsome will always moan if someone less tall, less dark and less handsome is hired but I think the average film goer is not in that group! Craig's casting proves it.
Bond is the last true British action hero. The actor's face is part of the Bond product. Ideally you'd want someone with a good face to sell around the world. I think that's the best reason why Bond should be reasonably good looking. It promotes the franchise in a more flashy way. Most people like to look at attractive things. I always felt Craig looked rough in Skyfall and EON sold the Bond look a bit short but the film was a huge hit proving that most people are not bothered how Bond looks! I think Hiddleston would get about 30 percent major dislike, the other 70 percent of the potential audience wouldn't care.
And on the plus side, Hiddleston is tall. Over six foot. So that's one reason not to moan.
Anyone wanting Bond to look tall, dark and handsome will always moan if someone less tall, less dark and less handsome is hired but I think the average film goer is not in that group! Craig's casting proves it.
Bond is the last true British action hero. The actor's face is part of the Bond product. Ideally you'd want someone with a good face to sell around the world. I think that's the best reason why Bond should be reasonably good looking. It promotes the franchise in a more flashy way. Most people like to look at attractive things. I always felt Craig looked rough in Skyfall and EON sold the Bond look a bit short but the film was a huge hit proving that most people are not bothered how Bond looks! I think Hiddleston would get about 30 percent major dislike, the other 70 percent of the potential audience wouldn't care.
And on the plus side, Hiddleston is tall. Over six foot. So that's one reason not to moan.
All excellent points. I think they purposely had Craig look rougher than usual in Skyfall to fit the story; he looked much better in SPECTRE IMO.
With a Bond actor, it's not just being able to do charming and cruel (albeit they are very important attributes) but Bond must also be believable as tough and able to handle themselves well in fight scenes. So what we need to strive for is the complete package.
Age aside, Fassbender certainly checks off all the boxes. Regarding Hiddleston, if they can give him the right look (hair style/color; more lean muscle; a bit of a tan); a good coach/choreographer for the physical (he apparently played Rugby in college so my assumption is he has some toughness and athletism); he already has the ability to do cruel and charming with a nice dose of dark sarcasm (a valuable screen Bond trait that Connery literally invented IMO) may be he could be the guy....or not.
Bbc must be doing the auditions for Babs and co, we have had 3 great ones, Tom Hiddlston in night manager, Aiden Turner in Then there were none and my favorite Tom Hughes in the Game.
When I first saw Daniel Craig introduced as Bond, I was appalled. I thought they'd lost it. Then I saw Casino Royale and my mind was immediately changed. This time around, I'll have an open mind about whoever they choose and will wait for the film.
In any event, if I had to guess, the nextbactor to play Bond probably isn't someone that's gotten any attention to date.
When I first saw Daniel Craig introduced as Bond, I was appalled. I thought they'd lost it. Then I saw Casino Royale and my mind was immediately changed.
I must have been one of the few who was the opposite. I like the idea of a Bond who was my height and had my hair colour. I never felt so much like James Bond as when he was announced, so I was excited! Then I saw him in CR and I was very disappointed.
On first viewing news footage of his announcement, I thought " What's Occuring ".
Although I think the Producers know what they're doing ( I've thought all their choices
For actors have been great)
I still remember the feeling on leaving the cinema after seeing CR. I was floating on
air. Bond was dangerous again ! Current and cool again ! -{
Once again only my opinion, not saying anyone elses is wrong.
So I trust the Producers to make a good choice next time too. After all this is their
Livelihood, I doubt they want to mess it up.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Comments
It works when the action star still looks young (like Tom Cruise) or is supposed to be old (like Sylvester Stallone). Craig does not look good for his age and looks more like he's in his mid-50s in his last two films. Bond being and looking 57 in A View to a Kill didn't really work, and I don't think Craig can make it work either.
EON / MGM appear to not be in any rush and DC not keen on returning
I guess that could work for DC if he wants a break and they throw a shitload of cash at him, unless of course they are now def moving on
Do EON care about his age / looks with the money Skyfall and SPECTRE generated? They can play on the age thing anyhow with any actor
I thought he looked fine in SPECTRE. Roger Moore and Craig is a bad comparison IMO.....Moore was a very traditional classically handsome almost "pretty boy" type while Craig is the unconventional rugged type. IMO, Moore looked like he needed a stunt man to run around the block for him in AVTAK; Craig looks like he can still still kick plenty of ass.
That all being said, I'd take Cavill as Bond in a minute. I wonder if Cavill was hedging his bets in that interview based upon the really bad critical reception "Batman V Superman" received. Alas, despite the critics slagging "Batman V Superman" is a big hit so I think we can take Cavill out of the Bond sweepstakes.
Am I the only one who thinks this? In the rebooted timeline, Blofeld is the author of all bond's pain. For Craig to kill Blofeld in a 5th and final film would be the ideal ending to his tenure. For any other actor to finish off Blofeld would seem very out of place to me, and not as satisfying.
I really, really, REALLY hope Craig does 1 more. Just finish Blofeld off in The Garden Of Death with Craig already, then we can think about a new actor. People are saying that SPECTRE seems like a good farewell to Craig, but I disagree, because BLOFELD DOESN'T DIE!
As for Craig's age... I don't see how it's a problem. But then again I was never bothered by Moore's age in his later bond films.... but put it this way, Craig's age is nowhere near the extreme of Harrison Ford returning as Indy in his late 70's! (Great actor, but late 70's for an action hero??)
If there has to be a replacement, then out of the ones mentioned I vote Tom Hiddleston, because he seems to have a lot of character, whereas some of the other candidates (Tom Hardy and Michael Fassbender) I find quite forgettable/generic tbh. Aiden Turner seems too much like Brosnan to me... Tom Hiddleston may be skinny, but that just reminds me of Lazenby, who was also skinny - maybe he could be an improved Lazenby.
But above all, Craig needs to return for 1 more IMO.
1 - Moore, 2 - Dalton, 3 - Craig, 4 - Connery, 5 - Brosnan, 6 - Lazenby
I'm guessing they would just reboot everything again when there's a new Bond actor.
I see your point, but I'm worried that we won't see any new, original bond villains (main villains that is) because of Blofeld. I could be wrong however, and Blofeld could not be the "main" villain in several films... But I just think it would be so cool if Craig finishes off Blofeld considering Craig's arc.
Also, as mentioned another reboot could work. I have mixed feelings regarding that though, on one hand it is way too soon to reboot again. But on the other hand, a different bond actor, but still the same M, Q, and Moneypenny would not feel right. I know it's been done with all the other bond actors before, but Craig's tenure seems different in that all his films are connected and there is more emphasis on continuity. If that makes sense.
1 - Moore, 2 - Dalton, 3 - Craig, 4 - Connery, 5 - Brosnan, 6 - Lazenby
Not if he was, say, exhausted and very vocal about needing a break. He's been on this 3-4 year schedule since 2008.
This is an example of the current craze of fan w@nk creeping into the series and the only way to move on is to reboot. Bring Blofeld back but with a totally new back story, new Bond actor and a new Blofeld.
Otherwise, it'll all go wrong.
From the way the film played out it really does feel like its a good time to start everything afresh, in particular the 00 program starting back up again that was shut down during the film, Q asking why Bond he was there at the end and Bond implying he just came to pick up his Aston Martin before finishing up etc.
When I look back at Craig's Bond announcement he too was quite scrawny (by today's Bond standard) and not very Bond looking at all so perhaps Hiddleston is a possibility.
I see him as a completely different Bond though more of a ladies man with little of the on screen brutish aggression that Craig carries with him. I'd see a Hiddleston Bond being more about the plot than action, I'm not sure if I'd like that as I get a sinking feeling it might be a tad boring. I think Hiddleston would have made a great Bond back in the 80's/90's but I'm not sure he fits the genre now (if EON wanted to follow a similar direction from Craig).
although I'd also be happy with Aidan Turner or Tom Hughes. Luckily we are spoilt for choice.
As media commentators and others here have noted The Night Manager is like a multipart Bond audition. Hiddleston to me at least has proved that he can do cruel, nasty, and physical. The Hamiid kill was chilling and truly 'Bondian'. From a physique perspective a little upper body work perhaps, but his long limbed lean thing is pure Fleming, and translatable for a contemporary audience brought up with Daniel as Bond without too much adjustment. If I have a concern it's that at 35 he may be pushing it if filming does not start for three years. I hope not. He is already possibly too famous already. Eon may like to surprise us again with someone who is currently not on the Radar. Interesting times...
Bond is the last true British action hero. The actor's face is part of the Bond product. Ideally you'd want someone with a good face to sell around the world. I think that's the best reason why Bond should be reasonably good looking. It promotes the franchise in a more flashy way. Most people like to look at attractive things. I always felt Craig looked rough in Skyfall and EON sold the Bond look a bit short but the film was a huge hit proving that most people are not bothered how Bond looks! I think Hiddleston would get about 30 percent major dislike, the other 70 percent of the potential audience wouldn't care.
And on the plus side, Hiddleston is tall. Over six foot. So that's one reason not to moan.
All excellent points. I think they purposely had Craig look rougher than usual in Skyfall to fit the story; he looked much better in SPECTRE IMO.
With a Bond actor, it's not just being able to do charming and cruel (albeit they are very important attributes) but Bond must also be believable as tough and able to handle themselves well in fight scenes. So what we need to strive for is the complete package.
Age aside, Fassbender certainly checks off all the boxes. Regarding Hiddleston, if they can give him the right look (hair style/color; more lean muscle; a bit of a tan); a good coach/choreographer for the physical (he apparently played Rugby in college so my assumption is he has some toughness and athletism); he already has the ability to do cruel and charming with a nice dose of dark sarcasm (a valuable screen Bond trait that Connery literally invented IMO) may be he could be the guy....or not.
In any event, if I had to guess, the nextbactor to play Bond probably isn't someone that's gotten any attention to date.
I must have been one of the few who was the opposite. I like the idea of a Bond who was my height and had my hair colour. I never felt so much like James Bond as when he was announced, so I was excited! Then I saw him in CR and I was very disappointed.
Although I think the Producers know what they're doing ( I've thought all their choices
For actors have been great)
I still remember the feeling on leaving the cinema after seeing CR. I was floating on
air. Bond was dangerous again ! Current and cool again ! -{
Once again only my opinion, not saying anyone elses is wrong.
So I trust the Producers to make a good choice next time too. After all this is their
Livelihood, I doubt they want to mess it up.