Post-Craig speculation about rebooting
Jarvio
EnglandPosts: 4,241MI6 Agent
I am actually at a loss of what they are even going to do with the bond film series after DC leaves. I know that they have just replaced and carried on in the past, but times have changed since then and I don't think today's audiences would buy into a new actor replacing craig as if nothing ever happened, with the other characters reacting to him as such. I could be wrong, but I'm just not sure if I can see it? Q, M, and Moneypenny would all be aging, while bond gets younger? It worked then, but not so sure that audiences would accept it today, especially considering that the DC tenure is far more strict with continuity than the other tenures IMO.
Here are the possibilities of what could happen in post-craig bond:
1 - There are no more bond films ever (Hope not)
2 - Bond films are replaced with a Nomi 007 series (Hope not)
3 - At the end of craig's last bond film, he suffers from amnesia. His other half (Madeline or someone else) persuades him to get plastic surgery to ensure that he never remembers his previous life, as she desperately doesn't want him to find out who he is and go back to "that life" again. The plastic surgery could even be done without bond knowing via anesthetic? (if that's even possible?) Then, in the bond film after that, we see bond after surgery, played by a new actor, on a journey to discover his identity (yes I know it's like Bourne, but Bond did it in the books first). This is a very crazy idea on a whole, but it is an idea which would mean they don't have to reboot, and can still keep Q, M, and Moneypenny as they are.
4 - There is a reboot. Like the DC reboot, it is set in present times. But it still keeps Q, M, and Moneypenny as they are.
5 - Same as above, but with Q, M, and Moneypenny being re-cast as well.
6 - A reboot, but this one being a period piece, ie bond set in the 50's/60's. Q, M, and Moneypenny kept as they are.
7 - Same as above, but with Q, M, and Moneypenny being re-cast as well.
8 - No reboot, just re-cast bond only. Other characters don't even question it.
9 - No reboot, bond re-cast, everyone else also re-cast for some reason
Just a side note for the ones that re-cast all characters including scooby gang - Nolan usually has his own usual actors...
Anyway, what do you think they will do about the reboot? Scenarios 1-9, which is most likely?
I honestly don't know, I might have to guess later after reading what others have to say.
Here are the possibilities of what could happen in post-craig bond:
1 - There are no more bond films ever (Hope not)
2 - Bond films are replaced with a Nomi 007 series (Hope not)
3 - At the end of craig's last bond film, he suffers from amnesia. His other half (Madeline or someone else) persuades him to get plastic surgery to ensure that he never remembers his previous life, as she desperately doesn't want him to find out who he is and go back to "that life" again. The plastic surgery could even be done without bond knowing via anesthetic? (if that's even possible?) Then, in the bond film after that, we see bond after surgery, played by a new actor, on a journey to discover his identity (yes I know it's like Bourne, but Bond did it in the books first). This is a very crazy idea on a whole, but it is an idea which would mean they don't have to reboot, and can still keep Q, M, and Moneypenny as they are.
4 - There is a reboot. Like the DC reboot, it is set in present times. But it still keeps Q, M, and Moneypenny as they are.
5 - Same as above, but with Q, M, and Moneypenny being re-cast as well.
6 - A reboot, but this one being a period piece, ie bond set in the 50's/60's. Q, M, and Moneypenny kept as they are.
7 - Same as above, but with Q, M, and Moneypenny being re-cast as well.
8 - No reboot, just re-cast bond only. Other characters don't even question it.
9 - No reboot, bond re-cast, everyone else also re-cast for some reason
Just a side note for the ones that re-cast all characters including scooby gang - Nolan usually has his own usual actors...
Anyway, what do you think they will do about the reboot? Scenarios 1-9, which is most likely?
I honestly don't know, I might have to guess later after reading what others have to say.
1 - LALD, 2 - AVTAK, 3 - LTK, 4 - OP, 5 - NTTD, 6 - FYEO, 7 - SF, 8 - DN, 9 - DAF, 10 - TSWLM, 11 - OHMSS, 12 - TMWTGG, 13 - GE, 14 - MR, 15 - TLD, 16 - YOLT, 17 - GF, 18 - DAD, 19 - TWINE, 20 - SP, 21 - TND, 22 - FRWL, 23 - TB, 24 - CR, 25 - QOS
1 - Moore, 2 - Dalton, 3 - Craig, 4 - Connery, 5 - Brosnan, 6 - Lazenby
1 - Moore, 2 - Dalton, 3 - Craig, 4 - Connery, 5 - Brosnan, 6 - Lazenby
Comments
My preference is #9, which I view as the “soft reboot.”
There’s almost zero chance of #1 or #2, and if EON stays in charge I think the chance of #6 is also close to zero, but increases if someone else is making the film.
But maybe a bit too high concept? what would you yourself say if you saw this film?
There's a lot of sentiment round here that the Craig-plots have been too personal, and this proposed plot would be far more personal than anything we've seen yet, leaving little to no space for a proper villain's plot in a two hour movie.
but... I think you may be right, the switch in lead actor can no longer be done without in-story comment as it used to be. A supporting character may be recast, and noone would care, but not the lead actor who caries the franchise. The film-fan/geek community is just too hyperaware of how their fantasy world is put together, and is vocal about all their expectations and disappointments.
Even the historic re-castings in more innocent times were problematic because "Sean Connery is James Bond"
-the original Casino Royale producers were so worried they couldn't hire Connery they ended up sabotaging their own movie rather than risk a straight film with a different actor.
-Lazenby was a flop and the filmmakers knew it. Even to this day I know peple who just assume its the worst movie because they've never heard of the actor!.
-Moore was a safe choice because he was a known actor, even then it took him three films to be accepted by the public.
-Dalton was a flop, the public just gave up.
-Brosnan was another safe, established choice, and he benefited from the six year gap and the added fact so few people had actually seen the Dalton films. But there was also a major re-casting of everyone except Q, and a lot of metafictional dialog within the film commenting on the fact the very film we were watching was a reinvention of an outdated concept. It was the closest thing yet to a complete reboot, and of course the next re-casting went all the way.
I agree with this completely. More and more, I’m thinking that unless Bond 25 gets an overwhelmingly positive critical response, it will underperform at the box office. I hope I’m dead wrong, and I’m sure many of you will tell me that I’m wrong and trot out the box office take from all of Craig’s films. But if it happens we are guaranteed to see significant changes for the next entry.
I would tend to agree with that except for this:
"but right now Craig's Bond films are failing at getting people excited."
While the public does not await the next Bond film with the anticipation of the next installment of The Avengers, the box office numbers speak for themselves when it comes to the Craig films. I do understand that there are people around here who would have liked to seen Craig move on for various reasons (not everyone who would like to see a change is necessarily a Craig hater either). I think that once the first teaser trailer pops up and the pre-release publicity machine gets into gear people will get excited. Remember, the general public is not following every twist and turn in the Bond 25 production saga like those on the AJB. But I will say, every time I've been in a theater and the first Bond trailers pop up on the screen, without fail the audience always gets excited....typically more excited than other tent pole series type films because it comes more as a welcome surprise and the return of an old dependable friend.
To see where Bond is headed next, look to the trends. Right now, the various superhero franchises have been rebooted with younger casts, as Gen-Xers are now slipping into retirement years and the oldest Millennials are middle aged. Spiderman did this, and there's a new Batman film starring Robert Pattinson on the horizon. If the Bond films copy this, we'll see a new Bond series featuring a younger cast in the lead roles. If there's anything to keep Idris Elba from taking the role, it's not his race but his age.
I do feel, though we're probably looking at an even longer gap next time. Maybe a decade or more after B25 is released. It took nearly 5 years just to get this film off the ground. There will most likely be an even longer period of waiting while Eon ponder where to take the series next. Then there's the recasting process and a distribution deal again.
Oh, how remiss of me to forget, throw in an extra two or three years while Barbara and Eon pursue other non-Bond projects.
If there's a glimmer of hope that Craig might come back again, add another two years while he takes the time to make a decision.
I am being a bit sarcastic here, but honestly I found this particular gap for B25 unnecessary when compared to previous hiatuses. The real obstacle holding things up was the distribution deal, which probably could have been tended to much earlier.
They should at least keep M and Moneypenny, Q should again be an older man (than Bond).
In general, the future of the franchise is a thread worth alone. With the long hiatuses/ production issues and the current mixed received end products (last good Bond was CR), it will at least be difficult to keep up the public interest in a long term.
Doing the right thing and going a more traditional way (1962-2002) could totally make the difference.
The majority of people say they miss those times (especially non-Bond fans), so why not go back...
IG: @thebondarchives
Check it out, you won’t be disappointed
I don't see this happening because of money. So much of the Bond films' revenue comes from product placement and, despite some retro and genuinely old things in the Bond films, product placement doesn't work as well with historical films.
Assuming the earliest we’d see a Bond 26 is 2023, I would imagine a James Bond somewhere in the region of 25 to 35. That would automatically mean removing or replacing Moneypenny, who would be 47 by then. No reason why they couldn’t keep Ralph Fiennes or Ben Whishaw, although it might make greater creative sense to start with a completely fresh set of characters. But it really depends on what they want to do, and how far they want to go.
Whatever they do do, I just hope it doesn’t lead to another protracted period of stasis. Unless they have a firm idea of what they want to do already, I would imagine it’s inevitable. Clearly, what happened with Danny Boyle underpins that they’re really only interested in the creative input of a director up to a certain point. I think the next film would suit a director in the mood of Christopher Nolan who would have a very distinct creative vision for the direction he would want the franchise to go in.
#8 would be great, but it would only happen if that kind of thing becomes profitable. I could see the new fad like the Origin reboot in the 2000s, or the continuity universe of today. But don't expect Eon to be the trendsetter. Maybe if the Joker movie rakes in a ton. Of course after a decade, it would become lazy and people sickened of it.
I agree. Though Fiennes is also a legend, he’s not Dench. But he doesn’t have the kind of chemistry with Craig that Dench had with both Craig and Brosnan. We need an M that acts more like a strict parent with Bond, and that doesn’t seem to be Fiennes’ thing. He’s more of a stepdad (but not on the Blofeld side).
It really depends on what they want to do creatively. I really wouldn't discount it - same for Ben Whishaw. Both great actors so if those characters are in the next "reboot" film, and those actors are available, then why not? The only thing I'd add is that they've really woven a dramatic thread throughout all of the Craig films that they've never really done previously. So Ralph Fiennes and Ben Whishaw are more inextricably linked with the Craig era, than say Judi Dench was with Pierce Brosnan's era.
"The very words I live by."
I don't know what turn the films would take if Apple bought out MGM and partnering with EON.....but one thing I do know, EON's ongoing MGM financial aggravation will no longer be an issue.......
What about recast everyone else, but keep Craig for one more film after NTTD?
Like Doctor Who, I think people accept that the actor changes but they are all the Doctor. I’m aware it’s slightly different in that they have more distinct personality changes, so they’re different versions, and the science-fiction context makes it more ‘believable’- however, it’s not as if Bond never changed as a character. They (hopefully) won’t just cast someone who would be a Craig clone.
I think they might keep Ralph Fiennes, or if not, replace him with another older respected actor- particularly if they go for an unknown as Bond.
So I say complete reboot and re-imagining of many of the stories in the books. They could do Moonraker right.