I've always seen Bond as just a job for Daniel Craig. It's a job he's usually given his best, but for him it's not his dream. It's not like it was for Pierce Brosnan, who always wanted to play James Bond. But Daniel Craig did say that if he came back to Bond again it would just be for the money. That would imply that he was doing Bond for reasons other than just a job before.
I've always seen Bond as just a job for Daniel Craig. It's a job he's usually given his best, but for him it's not his dream. It's not like it was for Pierce Brosnan, who always wanted to play James Bond. But Daniel Craig did say that if he came back to Bond again it would just be for the money. That would imply that he was doing Bond for reasons other than just a job before.
It seems like there is a split between Bond actors - those who do it as a job, and grow tired of it (Connery and Craig), and then those who see it as a dream fulfilled and quite enjoy it (Moore and Brosnan).
It seems like there is a split between Bond actors - those who do it as a job, and grow tired of it (Connery and Craig), and then those who see it as a dream fulfilled and quite enjoy it (Moore and Brosnan).
I wonder how the two most rumored to be the next Bond would feel about it? Hiddleston is a bigger name at this time than either Connery or Craig was before Bond. I can't quite get a handle on Turner's place on the star spectrum. I know he's a much bigger name in Great Britain than the US primarily through the Poldark television series. I would think that despite his success on television it would be a bigger career break for Turner. Hiddleston, who is part of the Marvel films and has a big role in the new Kong film seems to be much further along in his theatrical film career and has a decent chance at stardom without Bond.
I wonder how the two most rumored to be the next Bond would feel about it? Hiddleston is a bigger name at this time than either Connery or Craig was before Bond. I can't quite get a handle on Turner's place on the star spectrum. I know he's a much bigger name in Great Britain than the US primarily through the Poldark television series. I would think that despite his success on television it would be a bigger career break for Turner. Hiddleston, who is part of the Marvel films and has a big role in the new Kong film seems to be much further along in his theatrical film career and has a decent chance at stardom without Bond.
Hiddleston is a HUGE Bond fan. There were reports of him during shooting of SKULL ISLAND going to see SPECTRE and excitedly humming the Bond theme in his seat. He might be the first dyed-in-the-wool Bond fanboy to play Bond.
I wonder how the two most rumored to be the next Bond would feel about it? Hiddleston is a bigger name at this time than either Connery or Craig was before Bond. I can't quite get a handle on Turner's place on the star spectrum. I know he's a much bigger name in Great Britain than the US primarily through the Poldark television series. I would think that despite his success on television it would be a bigger career break for Turner. Hiddleston, who is part of the Marvel films and has a big role in the new Kong film seems to be much further along in his theatrical film career and has a decent chance at stardom without Bond.
Hiddleston is a HUGE Bond fan. There were reports of him during shooting of SKULL ISLAND going to see SPECTRE and excitedly humming the Bond theme in his seat. He might be the first dyed-in-the-wool Bond fanboy to play Bond.
I'm sure he'll get tired of it at some point. Any actor would given how Bond film shooting times are like.
What I've read suggests that Moore got tired of playing Bond after FYEO (Moore No. 5) but came back twice more because Cubby Broccoli kept offering more and more money.
I wonder how the two most rumored to be the next Bond would feel about it? Hiddleston is a bigger name at this time than either Connery or Craig was before Bond. I can't quite get a handle on Turner's place on the star spectrum. I know he's a much bigger name in Great Britain than the US primarily through the Poldark television series. I would think that despite his success on television it would be a bigger career break for Turner. Hiddleston, who is part of the Marvel films and has a big role in the new Kong film seems to be much further along in his theatrical film career and has a decent chance at stardom without Bond.
Hiddleston is a HUGE Bond fan. There were reports of him during shooting of SKULL ISLAND going to see SPECTRE and excitedly humming the Bond theme in his seat. He might be the first dyed-in-the-wool Bond fanboy to play Bond.
I think th could get pretty close to literary bond......given half a chance and a decent story to work with.
It is realistic to think that any Bond actor, no matter how dedicated to or as much they may love playing Bond or covetted the role will tire of it eventually. Whether it's the physical toll, boredom, more freedom to pursue other roles, etc.
Ironically, I think Moore when he took on the role was: a) very realistic about his own talent level and career at the time and knew that Bond would be the very pinnacle and he was gonna ride that horse until it dropped and b) despite starting in his 40's, Moore (unless someone can dispute this) had better physical longevity because he did significantly less stuntwork himself and didn't take the physical beating that other Bond actors did, especially Craig.
With regards to Tom Hiddleston, the fact that he really wants to be Bond (well portray Bond) and is a true fanboy doesn't guarantee that he'll be a great Bond.....but it certainly doesn't hurt. One thing that Craig did as Bond is set the bar high for properly prepping for the role, physically and mentally. I think EON and whoever is next is well aware of this also so I don't believe we will ever see a Bond who is not in tip top shape or a physical specimen or who doesn't look convincing using a firearm or his fists.
Yeah, for Craig I can understand that perhaps now he's gotten over being James Bond since he's been Bond for over 10 years now, most things will get boring after awhile, even being Bond I assume.
It is realistic to think that any Bond actor, no matter how dedicated to or as much they may love playing Bond or covetted the role will tire of it eventually. Whether it's the physical toll, boredom, more freedom to pursue other roles, etc.
Ironically, I think Moore when he took on the role was: a) very realistic about his own talent level and career at the time and knew that Bond would be the very pinnacle and he was gonna ride that horse until it dropped and b) despite starting in his 40's, Moore (unless someone can dispute this) had better physical longevity because he did significantly less stuntwork himself and didn't take the physical beating that other Bond actors did, especially Craig.
With regards to Tom Hiddleston, the fact that he really wants to be Bond (well portray Bond) and is a true fanboy doesn't guarantee that he'll be a great Bond.....but it certainly doesn't hurt. One thing that Craig did as Bond is set the bar high for properly prepping for the role, physically and mentally. I think EON and whoever is next is well aware of this also so I don't believe we will ever see a Bond who is not in tip top shape or a physical specimen or who doesn't look convincing using a firearm or his fists.
What I've read suggests that Moore got tired of playing Bond after FYEO (Moore No. 5) but came back twice more because Cubby Broccoli kept offering more and more money.
Yes I have heard Roger say in interviews in recent years that he always enjoyed pay day. He has also joked that nobody else would come as cheap as him.
What I've read suggests that Moore got tired of playing Bond after FYEO (Moore No. 5) but came back twice more because Cubby Broccoli kept offering more and more money.
Yes I have heard Roger say in interviews in recent years that he always enjoyed pay day. He has also joked that nobody else would come as cheap as him.
Roger is a very grounded and self-aware individual. He always worn his fame well and to good purpose for the less fortunate.
When we look at how Spectre ended I become more convinced that it is the end of DC's run.
All the previous villains are tied up together as being linked to Spectre, Blofeld appears and is captured, and Bond leaves the service with Madeline. There can be no sensible follow on other than an OHMSS based revenge style story.
A new Bond and probably a reboot is probably the sensible option now. Blocked can then be kept as a character but without the foster brother angle.
When we look at how Spectre ended I become more convinced that it is the end of DC's run.
All the previous villains are tied up together as being linked to Spectre, Blofeld appears and is captured, and Bond leaves the service with Madeline. There can be no sensible follow on other than an OHMSS based revenge style story.
A new Bond and probably a reboot is probably the sensible option now. Blocked can then be kept as a character but without the foster brother angle.
Exactly this, I don't really see the point in Craig returning.
Hard to say how they will handle a new actor in the new script. I don't expect a reboot just because Craig left. They didn't have to do it when any of the other actors took over and it didn't seem to bother anyone. Yes they brought in Judy Dench and new HQ staff actors but audiences seemed to accept it as part of keeping the series fresh and continuing. Though doing the big reboot with Craig showing 007's beginning and tying up all his films with the last one (though I really wish they had not used that "Blofeld behind everything" storyline) was a larger change, I believe they will just have a new story and may not even reference SP since it was the previous film. They've mention Tracy's death in succeeding films with the other actors but that was only after a number of years passed. Somehow with a new actor I can't see them mentioning Madeleine or Blofeld because it would have people immediately thinking of Craig and seem a bit strange - it would to me anyway. No, they'll probably make a clean sweep of Craig's storyline into the DVD vault and not even acknowledge it in the next film. In the one following it they may mention Bond's history in passing (his dead parents or Skyfall) but if that is three or more years from now I don't think it would be a problem. My issue is the HQ building. By blowing it up they've totally seperated the series from contemporary reality, so it seems that they will never be able to again acknowledge it still exists, so It should be interesting to see what exterior establishing shots for a new MI6 they're planning to use. They showed Craig standing on the roof of the building M's office is supposed to be in SF, but that's it. In fact, that whole scenario is a bit confusing to me. Is the bulk of the new HQ supposed to remain underground while M's office is in the seperate building? I thought the underground facility was only temporary until they found new above ground digs.
The smart play is to film the next two at the same time and release them apart, with Craig as Bond and Waltz as Blofeld. But they take so long to make the films -- and I still don't know why because they never seem as developed or epic as the 60s ones -- that too many details get mixed up. It's amazing what an arduous process it is to make a relatively pedestrian product. That may be a big reason why Craig is so ready to leave. So if they could speed the production process up, perhaps he would stay instead.
The smart play is to film the next two at the same time and release them apart, with Craig as Bond and Waltz as Blofeld. But they take so long to make the films -- and I still don't know why because they never seem as developed or epic as the 60s ones -- that too many details get mixed up. It's amazing what an arduous process it is to make a relatively pedestrian product. That may be a big reason why Craig is so ready to leave. So if they could speed the production process up, perhaps he would stay instead.
They had novels to adapt against the backdrop of the Cold War, so they didn't have to think about a potential threat, and then develop it and flesh it out. Hence why they came out quicker.
And no, the smart move is to move on from Craig and Waltz's Blofeld. It's disappointing to lose such a talent in Waltz, but we can thank the film makers behind SPECTRE for that, for shoehorning in a ludicrous personal connection between Bond and Blofeld.
Film: Tomorrow Never Dies | Girl: Teresa di Vicenzo | Villain: Max Zorin | Car: Aston Martin Volante | Novel: You Only Live Twice | Bond: Sir Sean Connery
The smart play is to film the next two at the same time and release them apart, with Craig as Bond and Waltz as Blofeld. But they take so long to make the films -- and I still don't know why because they never seem as developed or epic as the 60s ones -- that too many details get mixed up. It's amazing what an arduous process it is to make a relatively pedestrian product. That may be a big reason why Craig is so ready to leave. So if they could speed the production process up, perhaps he would stay instead.
They had novels to adapt against the backdrop of the Cold War, so they didn't have to think about a potential threat, and then develop it and flesh it out. Hence why they came out quicker.
And no, the smart move is to move on from Craig and Waltz's Blofeld. It's disappointing to lose such a talent in Waltz, but we can thank the film makers behind SPECTRE for that, for shoehorning in a ludicrous personal connection between Bond and Blofeld.
The smart play is to film the next two at the same time and release them apart, with Craig as Bond and Waltz as Blofeld. But they take so long to make the films -- and I still don't know why because they never seem as developed or epic as the 60s ones -- that too many details get mixed up. It's amazing what an arduous process it is to make a relatively pedestrian product. That may be a big reason why Craig is so ready to leave. So if they could speed the production process up, perhaps he would stay instead.
They had novels to adapt against the backdrop of the Cold War, so they didn't have to think about a potential threat, and then develop it and flesh it out. Hence why they came out quicker.
And no, the smart move is to move on from Craig and Waltz's Blofeld. It's disappointing to lose such a talent in Waltz, but we can thank the film makers behind SPECTRE for that, for shoehorning in a ludicrous personal connection between Bond and Blofeld.
Rod Serling personally turned out 92 of 156 Twilight Zone episodes, all while hosting the show and overseeing its production. The Man from UNCLE, The Avengers, The Wild, Wild West, and other spy craze television shows were produced weekly, and they are still watched today. When they've been reimagined with bigger budgets and more time, they've been disasters. It's talent, not time, and the inclination to be expeditious that turns out a quality product.
The Bond productions are bloated and top heavy. They trudge along at a leisurely pace, retread concepts done before, and still end up pretty underwhelming in most cases. Lots of people get rich off of them, so they're in no hurry to get off the gravy train. Because Bond is a brand, they're pretty much guaranteed to be a success no matter how dodgy the final product is -- it's just a question of how successful they will be.
Moving on from Craig and Waltz won't change that. Right now, the series at least can say it attracts better talent than any other era except the 60s, and rounding out Craig's tenure with two films would allow for both a cash grab and a chance to cap the best critically and popularly acclaimed era since the 60s. Starting all over would be starting all over. Not very smart at all. From what I can see, Craig's problem is not the character but the cumbersome, drawn-out productions. I'm with him on that.
When we look at how Spectre ended I become more convinced that it is the end of DC's run.
All the previous villains are tied up together as being linked to Spectre, Blofeld appears and is captured, and Bond leaves the service with Madeline. There can be no sensible follow on other than an OHMSS based revenge style story.
A new Bond and probably a reboot is probably the sensible option now. Blocked can then be kept as a character but without the foster brother angle.
Exactly this, I don't really see the point in Craig returning.
I disagree. Blofeld can escape or another villan can be .... eh ..... the villan. Bond has left the service and returned before, so that's no problem. Madeline was the first Bond girl to still be around at the end of a Craig Bond movie - it's not like he married her.
The way I see it the end of SPECTRE ending was made in such a way that Craig could leave elegantly if he wants to, but there is plenty of ways for him to continue.
If Blofeld did come back with Craig (or without), they could easily just ignore that he's Bond's brother. He could escape, do criminal activity with better motivations than silly revenge, and Bond could stop him just as he would stop any other villain. Or they could have the villain win yet again.
From what I can see, Craig's problem is not the character but the cumbersome, drawn-out productions. I'm with him on that.
I agree. The elaborate action pieces are the reason it takes so long to film the modern Bond movies. That's also why the films cost so much money to make. That's also why the roll has taken such a physical toll on Craig. If they really want him back, they should limit the action pieces and set the film up more as a character-driven thriller. That would also cut costs and increase profit. But there's no chance of that happening because EON is convinced that fans of the series demand big explosions and outrageous set pieces.
Comments
It seems like there is a split between Bond actors - those who do it as a job, and grow tired of it (Connery and Craig), and then those who see it as a dream fulfilled and quite enjoy it (Moore and Brosnan).
I wonder how the two most rumored to be the next Bond would feel about it? Hiddleston is a bigger name at this time than either Connery or Craig was before Bond. I can't quite get a handle on Turner's place on the star spectrum. I know he's a much bigger name in Great Britain than the US primarily through the Poldark television series. I would think that despite his success on television it would be a bigger career break for Turner. Hiddleston, who is part of the Marvel films and has a big role in the new Kong film seems to be much further along in his theatrical film career and has a decent chance at stardom without Bond.
Hiddleston is a HUGE Bond fan. There were reports of him during shooting of SKULL ISLAND going to see SPECTRE and excitedly humming the Bond theme in his seat. He might be the first dyed-in-the-wool Bond fanboy to play Bond.
I'm sure he'll get tired of it at some point. Any actor would given how Bond film shooting times are like.
Ironically, I think Moore when he took on the role was: a) very realistic about his own talent level and career at the time and knew that Bond would be the very pinnacle and he was gonna ride that horse until it dropped and b) despite starting in his 40's, Moore (unless someone can dispute this) had better physical longevity because he did significantly less stuntwork himself and didn't take the physical beating that other Bond actors did, especially Craig.
With regards to Tom Hiddleston, the fact that he really wants to be Bond (well portray Bond) and is a true fanboy doesn't guarantee that he'll be a great Bond.....but it certainly doesn't hurt. One thing that Craig did as Bond is set the bar high for properly prepping for the role, physically and mentally. I think EON and whoever is next is well aware of this also so I don't believe we will ever see a Bond who is not in tip top shape or a physical specimen or who doesn't look convincing using a firearm or his fists.
+1.
Yes I have heard Roger say in interviews in recent years that he always enjoyed pay day. He has also joked that nobody else would come as cheap as him.
Roger is a very grounded and self-aware individual. He always worn his fame well and to good purpose for the less fortunate.
All the previous villains are tied up together as being linked to Spectre, Blofeld appears and is captured, and Bond leaves the service with Madeline. There can be no sensible follow on other than an OHMSS based revenge style story.
A new Bond and probably a reboot is probably the sensible option now. Blocked can then be kept as a character but without the foster brother angle.
There might be obstacles in that direction....
We guessed.it happens to all of us
They had novels to adapt against the backdrop of the Cold War, so they didn't have to think about a potential threat, and then develop it and flesh it out. Hence why they came out quicker.
And no, the smart move is to move on from Craig and Waltz's Blofeld. It's disappointing to lose such a talent in Waltz, but we can thank the film makers behind SPECTRE for that, for shoehorning in a ludicrous personal connection between Bond and Blofeld.
I could not agree more...
The Bond productions are bloated and top heavy. They trudge along at a leisurely pace, retread concepts done before, and still end up pretty underwhelming in most cases. Lots of people get rich off of them, so they're in no hurry to get off the gravy train. Because Bond is a brand, they're pretty much guaranteed to be a success no matter how dodgy the final product is -- it's just a question of how successful they will be.
Moving on from Craig and Waltz won't change that. Right now, the series at least can say it attracts better talent than any other era except the 60s, and rounding out Craig's tenure with two films would allow for both a cash grab and a chance to cap the best critically and popularly acclaimed era since the 60s. Starting all over would be starting all over. Not very smart at all. From what I can see, Craig's problem is not the character but the cumbersome, drawn-out productions. I'm with him on that.
I disagree. Blofeld can escape or another villan can be .... eh ..... the villan. Bond has left the service and returned before, so that's no problem. Madeline was the first Bond girl to still be around at the end of a Craig Bond movie - it's not like he married her.
The way I see it the end of SPECTRE ending was made in such a way that Craig could leave elegantly if he wants to, but there is plenty of ways for him to continue.
I agree. The elaborate action pieces are the reason it takes so long to film the modern Bond movies. That's also why the films cost so much money to make. That's also why the roll has taken such a physical toll on Craig. If they really want him back, they should limit the action pieces and set the film up more as a character-driven thriller. That would also cut costs and increase profit. But there's no chance of that happening because EON is convinced that fans of the series demand big explosions and outrageous set pieces.