The "cut my wrist" - comment was impulsive. When Craig said Bond25 will be his last, it was carefully planned. That's why I think Bond25 really will be his last.
I don't think he'd want to do 26. The comparison with Cruise is interesting but Cruise to me seems to be aging better.
I think the real difference is that Cruise is much more of an adrenaline junkie and he really thrives on doing those stunts and being known for that sort of thing.... it's part of his "brand" at this point. Cruise will probably continue to crank out MI films as long as he is physically able. As far as "aging" is concerned, Cruise has always looked much younger than his actual age and that's still the case. Craig on the other hand has probably had enough of the physical grind and toll making a Bond film takes, especially at his age. It's not like we will never see Craig in an action oriented film ever again, but he is probably very much ready to move on from 007 after Bond 25. Beyond the physicality of the role, Craig probably believes that he's pretty much taken the Bond character as far as he can. Craig now has the money and cache to pretty much do what he wants. I am guessing that being a big "star" isn't as important to him as being involved in plays, films, etc that interest him.
The "cut my wrist" - comment was impulsive. When Craig said Bond25 will be his last, it was carefully planned. That's why I think Bond25 really will be his last.
The "cut my wrist" - comment was impulsive. When Craig said Bond25 will be his last, it was carefully planned. That's why I think Bond25 really will be his last.
When did he say that Bond 25 will be his last?
I dont think hes outright said "it will be my last" but his "go out on a high note" comment seemed to indicate he's probably done after B25.
I don't think he'd want to do 26. The comparison with Cruise is interesting but Cruise to me seems to be aging better.
I think the real difference is that Cruise is much more of an adrenaline junkie and he really thrives on doing those stunts and being known for that sort of thing.... it's part of his "brand" at this point. Cruise will probably continue to crank out MI films as long as he is physically able. As far as "aging" is concerned, Cruise has always looked much younger than his actual age and that's still the case. Craig on the other hand has probably had enough of the physical grind and toll making a Bond film takes, especially at his age. It's not like we will never see Craig in an action oriented film ever again, but he is probably very much ready to move on from 007 after Bond 25. Beyond the physicality of the role, Craig probably believes that he's pretty much taken the Bond character as far as he can. Craig now has the money and cache to pretty much do what he wants. I am guessing that being a big "star" isn't as important to him as being involved in plays, films, etc that interest him.
I think you are right, he wants to make 25 special, but is probably more than ready to move on. Saw an interview with Hugh Jackman after Logan who was clearly delighted to not have to punish himself anymore and perhaps even eat the odd carb.
Right from the start Craig wanted his Bond to be credible physically, Cruise on the other hand seems borderline insane with the risks he takes.
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
Logan was a really great swansong for Jackman as Wolverine....and quite a bit different than the other X Men films. Hopefully Bond 25 will be as good. Re Cruise. The guy is a little whacky to say the least. A friend of mine who gets work as an extra on films when he can was in the first Jack Reacher film and said that Cruise was very nice and approachable on set to everyone, including the crew and even the extras...so while a little whacky, at least he's nice.
The "cut my wrist" - comment was impulsive. When Craig said Bond25 will be his last, it was carefully planned. That's why I think Bond25 really will be his last.
When did he say that Bond 25 will be his last?
When Colbert asked him if this was his last, he said “I think this is it.” I suppose that’s more committal than “we’ll see”, but less so than a hard “yes.” People have been pegging Craig’s replacement since about 2010, but he’s made a habit of coming back. I still feel like it could go either way after this one, but my gut says it’ll be his last.
I am reminded of Petronius, a courtier to the Emperor Nero - I am no Roman scholar but he was played memorably in the 1951 film of Quo Vadis by Leo Genn. Arrested for treason he decided to take his own life by cutting his wrists.
In the film he throws a big party before doing the deed and croaking elegantly a short time later. In reality he was enjoying talking to his friends so much and generally being the centre of attention that every now and again he bound up his wounds so that he could carry on for longer.
Not really related to DC's situation re: Bond, but it's a good story.
I'd like to see Tom hardy in the role. However, I'd hate to see Tom Hardy get typecast as the role.
Honestly, I think the whole franchise could do well if they went in a completely different direction.
I'd say:
- Remake all of the originals
- Make each one completely stand alone movie
- Each one gets a different actor for Bond
- Each one gets a different decade
Live and Let Die in the late 40's with Tom Hardy.
Moonraker (ACCURATE TO THE NOVEL!) set in the 50's with Tom Hiddleston.
Diamonds are Forever in the 70's with Idris Elba.
Goldfinger in the 80's with Benedict Cumberbatch. I imagine this with some hilarious one-liners.
At the very least, I think they could remake all of Moore's movies. Except for Live and Let Die, that one can stay.
He's great, and like Craig is almost able to make you forget how tiny he is. I think he's actually slightly shorter than Craig so he's a no go for me. Would love to see him as a villain though.
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
Hardy is listed at only 5'9". But you are right, he can make himself seem much taller. A perfect example of that is his recent TV series "Taboo" where he appears much taller and physically imposing. Like the younger Robert DeNiro, Hardy is a real chameleon and able to transform himself for a role. Not my first choice, but he could probably be a good Bond on the strength of his superior acting ability and if he was in the hands of Nolan as director. I would take issue with Craig being "tiny". I would say he's of average height. Being just under 5'5"myself, I know the difference between "tiny" and "average" height ) .
Hardy is listed at only 5'9". But you are right, he can make himself seem much taller. A perfect example of that is his recent TV series "Taboo" where he appears much taller and physically imposing. Like the younger Robert DeNiro, Hardy is a real chameleon and able to transform himself for a role. Not my first choice, but he could probably be a good Bond on the strength of his superior acting ability and if he was in the hands of Nolan as director. I would take issue with Craig being "tiny". I would say he's of average height. Being just under 5'5"myself, I know the difference between "tiny" and "average" height ) .
Point taken. :007) no slur or offence meant. Should have said short for Bond. In every other respect it is of no importance but for Bond I think it matters.
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
What do y'all think of Ben Barnes? Of late he's been playing heels and villains, but he's got that lean, dark look. . .plus, at 36, he's the right age.
What do y'all think of Ben Barnes? Of late he's been playing heels and villains, but he's got that lean, dark look. . .plus, at 36, he's the right age.
Looks plausible,but it really depends upon what they want to do next. If it's another reboot rookie story he'll be at least 40 so too old. If they go another way (which I hope they do) it opens the field.
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
I think we have to be careful about picking an actor just because he's in the public eye. I suppose you could argue an actor is well known due to their talent (after all, an actor of limited talent won't get big roles, right?) but I don't think casting Bond should come down to which actor is the most well known or getting the most high profile roles.
Craig wasn't that high profile around the time of his casting. I think Layer Cake was his biggest film in terms of getting his name out there but I don't recall Layer Cake becoming a major UK film. It wasn't like The Fully Monty or Four Weddings And A Funeral - those were major UK hits.
My gut feeling is Tom Hardy won't become Bond. I don't think his shorter statue is a deal-breaker, Bond doesn't have to be six foot plus, Craig isn't so the next guy doesn't have to be tall. People have praised Hardy's ability to play different kinds of roles so who knows, perhaps he could do a credible Bond but he doesn't really excite me enough. I suppose the ideal candidate would be someone you see and you get excited. You think: "that guy has real potential." I'm sure many Bond fans that never took to Craig never felt that excited by his casting or performances. It's just a personal thing, you can't really rationalize it. I think you go with your gut reaction and hope for the best.
Just my tuppence worth but the issues I have with Tom Hardy are;
His height - 5'8"
His Tattoos - Surely covering up such a large area would be difficult for make-up? Unless they just go with it, which for me wouldn't work.
I don't think he's good looking enough {:)
Just my tuppence worth but the issues I have with Tom Hardy are;
His height - 5'8"
His Tattoos - Surely covering up such a large area would be difficult for make-up? Unless they just go with it, which for me wouldn't work.
I don't think he's good looking enough {:)
It would be no issue to cover up all of Hardy's tattoos as its been done before in the Dark Knight Rises. Most people dont even know that Craig has multiple tattoos. Though I think Hardy is probably the best British actor of his generation (even more so then Craig) I agree that he's not the right choice for Bond. If anything his portrayal would probably be too similar to Craig's. It would be cool if he was a villain or henchman though to see him with Craig again for the first time since Layer Cake.
He is also too famous.
A Bond candidate should also ideally be younger.
I also wonder if he'd want to do it in the first place. The more I think about this the more the idea of having a new actor for each film makes sense to me, particularly with such long gaps between installments. You could cast different Bonds for different stories, Bonds age need not be constant and linear (Milenials and Post -Milenials have no problem with this timeline mularchy)
Most importantly it extends the range of possible actors to choose from. The Archetype of TDH has already been remodeled so not neccessarilly looking for the same type. So no diminishing returns searching for another Connery for example.
Cary Grant apparently declined because he did not want to commit to a series. I would have loved to see his Bond. Maybe Hardy or Hemsworth would be interested in a one shot deal.
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
He is also too famous.
A Bond candidate should also ideally be younger.
I also wonder if he'd want to do it in the first place. The more I think about this the more the idea of having a new actor for each film makes sense to me, particularly with such long gaps between installments. You could cast different Bonds for different stories, Bonds age need not be constant and linear (Milenials and Post -Milenials have no problem with this timeline mularchy)
Most importantly it extends the range of possible actors to choose from. The Archetype of TDH has already been remodeled so not neccessarilly looking for the same type. So no diminishing returns searching for another Connery for example.
Cary Grant apparently declined because he did not want to commit to a series. I would have loved to see his Bond. Maybe Hardy or Hemsworth would be interested in a one shot deal.
it was bad enough when it was a different Blofeld and a different Leiter every movie.
audiences will never buy into the character of Bond if its a different actor every movie. The character is so minimally defined as is, the personality of the actor is the only way we have of believing the continuity between films. And of course the films have strayed so far from the source material, looking more like whatever rival action franchise is fashionable at the moment.
Millennials and Post -Millennials have no problem with this timeline mularchy
what are examples of series where the same character gets recast every film, and millennials or post-millennials have no problem following that it is the same character?
They should cast someone born in the 1980's instead. In 2022 when Bond26 hopefully comes out with a new actor, someone born in 1989 will be 33. Actors born in 1980 will be 42. That's a bit "old", but it could work.
it was bad enough when it was a different Blofeld and a different Leiter every movie.
audiences will never buy into the character of Bond if its a different actor every movie. The character is so minimally defined as is, the personality of the actor is the only way we have of believing the continuity between films. And of course the films have strayed so far from the source material, looking more like whatever rival action franchise is fashionable at the moment.
Millennials and Post -Millennials have no problem with this timeline mularchy
what are examples of series where the same character gets recast every film, and millennials or post-millennials have no problem following that it is the same character?
Bond was traditionally someone who guided a story; they were rarely about him until Craig became Bond. It's the people and locations around Bond that are usually the exciting things about the films and books. Because of that, I think that Bond should be consistent and stay the same actor for as long as possible. There are enough other variables in the series; Bond is not supposed to be one of them.
Comments
I think the real difference is that Cruise is much more of an adrenaline junkie and he really thrives on doing those stunts and being known for that sort of thing.... it's part of his "brand" at this point. Cruise will probably continue to crank out MI films as long as he is physically able. As far as "aging" is concerned, Cruise has always looked much younger than his actual age and that's still the case. Craig on the other hand has probably had enough of the physical grind and toll making a Bond film takes, especially at his age. It's not like we will never see Craig in an action oriented film ever again, but he is probably very much ready to move on from 007 after Bond 25. Beyond the physicality of the role, Craig probably believes that he's pretty much taken the Bond character as far as he can. Craig now has the money and cache to pretty much do what he wants. I am guessing that being a big "star" isn't as important to him as being involved in plays, films, etc that interest him.
When did he say that Bond 25 will be his last?
I think you are right, he wants to make 25 special, but is probably more than ready to move on. Saw an interview with Hugh Jackman after Logan who was clearly delighted to not have to punish himself anymore and perhaps even eat the odd carb.
Right from the start Craig wanted his Bond to be credible physically, Cruise on the other hand seems borderline insane with the risks he takes.
When Colbert asked him if this was his last, he said “I think this is it.” I suppose that’s more committal than “we’ll see”, but less so than a hard “yes.” People have been pegging Craig’s replacement since about 2010, but he’s made a habit of coming back. I still feel like it could go either way after this one, but my gut says it’ll be his last.
In the film he throws a big party before doing the deed and croaking elegantly a short time later. In reality he was enjoying talking to his friends so much and generally being the centre of attention that every now and again he bound up his wounds so that he could carry on for longer.
Not really related to DC's situation re: Bond, but it's a good story.
Honestly, I think the whole franchise could do well if they went in a completely different direction.
I'd say:
- Remake all of the originals
- Make each one completely stand alone movie
- Each one gets a different actor for Bond
- Each one gets a different decade
Live and Let Die in the late 40's with Tom Hardy.
Moonraker (ACCURATE TO THE NOVEL!) set in the 50's with Tom Hiddleston.
Diamonds are Forever in the 70's with Idris Elba.
Goldfinger in the 80's with Benedict Cumberbatch. I imagine this with some hilarious one-liners.
At the very least, I think they could remake all of Moore's movies. Except for Live and Let Die, that one can stay.
No tall actresses need apply for Bond 26.
He's great, and like Craig is almost able to make you forget how tiny he is. I think he's actually slightly shorter than Craig so he's a no go for me. Would love to see him as a villain though.
Point taken. :007) no slur or offence meant. Should have said short for Bond. In every other respect it is of no importance but for Bond I think it matters.
Looks plausible,but it really depends upon what they want to do next. If it's another reboot rookie story he'll be at least 40 so too old. If they go another way (which I hope they do) it opens the field.
I think we have to be careful about picking an actor just because he's in the public eye. I suppose you could argue an actor is well known due to their talent (after all, an actor of limited talent won't get big roles, right?) but I don't think casting Bond should come down to which actor is the most well known or getting the most high profile roles.
Craig wasn't that high profile around the time of his casting. I think Layer Cake was his biggest film in terms of getting his name out there but I don't recall Layer Cake becoming a major UK film. It wasn't like The Fully Monty or Four Weddings And A Funeral - those were major UK hits.
My gut feeling is Tom Hardy won't become Bond. I don't think his shorter statue is a deal-breaker, Bond doesn't have to be six foot plus, Craig isn't so the next guy doesn't have to be tall. People have praised Hardy's ability to play different kinds of roles so who knows, perhaps he could do a credible Bond but he doesn't really excite me enough. I suppose the ideal candidate would be someone you see and you get excited. You think: "that guy has real potential." I'm sure many Bond fans that never took to Craig never felt that excited by his casting or performances. It's just a personal thing, you can't really rationalize it. I think you go with your gut reaction and hope for the best.
His height - 5'8"
His Tattoos - Surely covering up such a large area would be difficult for make-up? Unless they just go with it, which for me wouldn't work.
I don't think he's good looking enough {:)
A Bond candidate should also ideally be younger.
I also wonder if he'd want to do it in the first place. The more I think about this the more the idea of having a new actor for each film makes sense to me, particularly with such long gaps between installments. You could cast different Bonds for different stories, Bonds age need not be constant and linear (Milenials and Post -Milenials have no problem with this timeline mularchy)
Most importantly it extends the range of possible actors to choose from. The Archetype of TDH has already been remodeled so not neccessarilly looking for the same type. So no diminishing returns searching for another Connery for example.
Cary Grant apparently declined because he did not want to commit to a series. I would have loved to see his Bond. Maybe Hardy or Hemsworth would be interested in a one shot deal.
I disagree.
audiences will never buy into the character of Bond if its a different actor every movie. The character is so minimally defined as is, the personality of the actor is the only way we have of believing the continuity between films. And of course the films have strayed so far from the source material, looking more like whatever rival action franchise is fashionable at the moment.
what are examples of series where the same character gets recast every film, and millennials or post-millennials have no problem following that it is the same character?
Bond was traditionally someone who guided a story; they were rarely about him until Craig became Bond. It's the people and locations around Bond that are usually the exciting things about the films and books. Because of that, I think that Bond should be consistent and stay the same actor for as long as possible. There are enough other variables in the series; Bond is not supposed to be one of them.