Cumberbatch has thrown his hat in the ring now! And Ive read today that tom hardy is the new favourite. Way too short in my opinion and Cumberbatch is way too English.
I'd probably be okay with Fassbender, Tom Hardy, Hiddleston or Turner in that order. One thing I'd hope about casting a new Bond would be the motivation to get 3 films out at a more reliable pace. I'd love to go back to 2 years- or at least a reliable three. These days it's so up in the air, it could be 2022 by the time another film comes out.
I know a lot of people say Tom Hardy, but can you explain to me why? The others I can all understand. I can't see Tom Hardy because he's shorter than Craig and I've only seen he play unrefined characters.
Tom Hardy is such a good actor and very chameleon-like in his ability to transform into different characters that he could probably pull it off despite his height (listed at 5'9") and less than classically handsome looks. Hardy did just turn 39 so age might be against him. Cumberbatch is also a very fine actor but he's just not Bond to me....plus he is now part of the Marvel Universe with the Doctor Strange film on the way. My gut tells me there might be validity to the "if Craig chooses not to return, Tom Hiddleston is being paid to be on stand-by to take over".
If Craig returns for 25 there's no reason why the film could not begin with Bond and Madeleine off somewhere on holiday in the DB5, Craig uttering the "We have all the time in the world" line (but in a jovial throw away manner) and then being ambushed with an exciting car chase ensuing and Bond believing for an instant that he had evaded the attackers when he discovers Madeleine dead in the passenger seat, a single bullet wound to the head. Atop a hill in the distance we see Mr. Hinx (in a neckbrace of course) with a sniper rifle fleeing the scene, Bond in pursuit and emptying his PPK but out of range. Bond returns to the DB5, cradles Madeleine in his arms and in a teary eyed whisper "We have all the time in the world" camera pulls back to a shot of the bullet hole in the windscreen which becomes the SPECTRE Octopus and into the titles.
Tom Hardy is such a good actor and very chameleon-like in his ability to transform into different characters that he could probably pull it off despite his height (listed at 5'9") and less than classically handsome looks. Hardy did just turn 39 so age might be against him. Cumberbatch is also a very fine actor but he's just not Bond to me....plus he is now part of the Marvel Universe with the Doctor Strange film on the way. My gut tells me there might be validity to the "if Craig chooses not to return, Tom Hiddleston is being paid to be on stand-by to take over".
Meryl Street is also a good actor and very chameleon-like in her ability to transform into different characters, but Bond isn't her casting. Same with Hardy. Great actor, but he's not the right fit.
If Craig returns for 25 there's no reason why the film could not begin with Bond and Madeleine off somewhere on holiday in the DB5, Craig uttering the "We have all the time in the world" line (but in a jovial throw away manner) and then being ambushed with an exciting car chase ensuing and Bond believing for an instant that he had evaded the attackers when he discovers Madeleine dead in the passenger seat, a single bullet wound to the head. Atop a hill in the distance we see Mr. Hinx (in a neckbrace of course) with a sniper rifle fleeing the scene, Bond in pursuit and emptying his PPK but out of range. Bond returns to the DB5, cradles Madeleine in his arms and in a teary eyed whisper "We have all the time in the world" camera pulls back to a shot of the bullet hole in the windscreen which becomes the SPECTRE Octopus and into the titles.
No thanks. Having Craig's Bond lose another girl would be just as stupid as linking all the terror in the world back to him. Not to mention the fact that Bond has already lost his wife in similar circumstances in the series, and that they need to start veering away from gimmicky homages that don't serve the story - or anything for that matter.
Move on from Craig. Move on from SPECTRE (film). Move on from Waltz' 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
I agree. But the producers have put themselves into a corner here. They wanted to have a new Bond, but they also knew that people liked the old Bond, so they kept many elements from the pre-reboot era. It won't be easy to undo it now.
There's a difference between bringing back the DB5, gadgets, martinis, lairs, etc. and pissing on iconic moments such as Tracy dying, the golden girl scene in GF, etc.
Film: Tomorrow Never Dies | Girl: Teresa di Vicenzo | Villain: Max Zorin | Car: Aston Martin Volante | Novel: You Only Live Twice | Bond: Sir Sean Connery
Again, I generally agree, but that difference is not always clear-cut, and is often in the eye of the beholder. Once you start with the vodka martinis and DB5, how do you know how far you can go? It's a continuum, and the producers have pushed the borders and gone too far already. It's OK for Bond movies to be self-referential to an extent, but it should always be only a light touch, and even lighter after a reboot. Bringing back SPECTRE and Bloefeld was bad enough, and I certainly don't want to see Tracy dying again, even under a different name.
Bringing back SPECTRE and Blofeld is fine, given the organisation and villain appear in multiple novels and films. It was the deplorable rewriting of his character as Oberhauser. The Bond producers did a pretty fine job of not self referencing until DAD, so I'm sure they can manage it in the future. Martinis are part of Bond's makeup, not a self reference or an homage...
Film: Tomorrow Never Dies | Girl: Teresa di Vicenzo | Villain: Max Zorin | Car: Aston Martin Volante | Novel: You Only Live Twice | Bond: Sir Sean Connery
I was wondering what Daniel Craig's motivation is for this upcoming "Bond and Beyond" interview. If it's not to confirm his departure from Bond or to say he's doing another 007 film, they why do it? He always comes across as if he hates being interviewed and yet he has this event set up.
I think he hates the grind of junket interviews, often conducted by semi-professional bloggers, more than "being interviewed." When it's someone who knows their stuff, he seems more than game. Combine that with a live audience, and maybe Craig is just excited to be on stage again?
I agree. But the producers have put themselves into a corner here. They wanted to have a new Bond, but they also knew that people liked the old Bond, so they kept many elements from the pre-reboot era. It won't be easy to undo it now.
Just my own two cents worth here (I respect everyone's opinion here) but...........
I think you guys are over thinking all this stuff and overeacting a bit to a film that appeared to have much promise but ultimtely disappointed. I don't believe that EON and MGM see SPECTRE as the disaster that some on this site see it to be. It wasn't Skyfall but it did very, very well at the box office and reviews in the UK were much kinder than the USA. Rumors are rumors, but I believe that EON, et al would very much prefer to have Craig back for at least another. With Craig back, the "problems" created by SPECTRE can be rectified....a new director, a good script, etc can work magic and put things back on course. Remember continuity in Bond films is easily sacrificed for the sake of "art". If Waltz returns as Blofeld, EON needs to bring in writers who can take the shackles off Waltz and allow him to be at his charming, unhinged, frightening best. If Craig ultimately chooses not to return (which is a very good possibility) then EON should do a soft re-boot, establish the new actor as Bond in a stand alone adventure and just write off the Blofeld character and the SPECTRE organization as a bit of a missed opportunity. I don't think it neccessary for Bond to always be going up against a vast criminal empire.....good writers should be able to come up with Bond worthy villains.
I was wondering what Daniel Craig's motivation is for this upcoming "Bond and Beyond" interview. If it's not to confirm his departure from Bond or to say he's doing another 007 film, they why do it? He always comes across as if he hates being interviewed and yet he has this event set up.
I was thinking, given 'Othello' isn't that far away, and he hasn't been on stage since 2013, he may want to get the feel of being in front of a live audience again, and just loosening up a bit.
I think he hates the grind of junket interviews, often conducted by semi-professional bloggers, more than "being interviewed." When it's someone who knows their stuff, he seems more than game. Combine that with a live audience, and maybe Craig is just excited to be on stage again?
This does seem to be the case. When he was interviewed for the Nerdist podcast, he seemed really relaxed and sounded like he had a great time!
Bringing back SPECTRE and Blofeld is fine, given the organisation and villain appear in multiple novels and films. It was the deplorable rewriting of his character as Oberhauser. The Bond producers did a pretty fine job of not self referencing until DAD, so I'm sure they can manage it in the future. Martinis are part of Bond's makeup, not a self reference or an homage...
Agree with your points 100%. They went way too far with the Oberauser/ murdered Bond's parents/ foster brother stuff. The basic premise of Quantum being taken over by Blofeld and morphing into the more cold blooded SPECTRE and being beyond even the moral compass of Mr. White was good enough. I don't even have an issue with the inclusion of White's daughter (it humanizes and adds depth to the character of White). I just think the role should have been cast with a slightly more mature actress; more in the Diana Rigg mold. Actually, the real Mrs. Craig, Rachel Weisz or Mélanie Laurent would have been great casting. Léa Seydoux is beautiful and can act, but it looked like Bond was dating the nanny.
...If Waltz returns as Blofeld, EON needs to bring in writers who can take the shackles off Waltz and allow him to be at his charming, unhinged, frightening best...
this is a good point, room for optimism
maybe Waltz deliberately underplayed his role first time out?
in Fleming's You Only Live Twice, Blofeld is a raving looney, who no longer needs any material goal to wreak mayhem
hopefully Waltz underplayed the character in film 1, so as to contrast with his interpretation of raving looney Blofeld in the inevitable sequel?
...and maybe the whole foster brother thing was a hypnotic suggestion, done with his patented Christopher Waltz hypnotic charm superpowers, with the deliberate goal of freaking Bond out
Forgive me oh keepers of the sacred Bond flame but I must again evoke the name that should never be said relative to anything Bond. ) Maybe they could bring in Tarantino to write Waltz's dialogue or write the whole script. Tarantino brings out the best in Waltz.
The fact that Craig is doing the interview at all would seem to point to him actually having something significant to say about whether he will return as Bond. It would be very disappointing if any discussion of Bond 25 was off limits.....but it wouldn't surprise me.
The fact that Craig is doing the interview at all would seem to point to him actually having something significant to say about whether he will return as Bond. It would be very disappointing if any discussion of Bond 25 was off limits.....but it wouldn't surprise me.
I would really be surprised if Craig is saying anything about his future as Bond tonight. If he chose to make a public announcement about that, it would probably be on a talk show where everyone can hear it directly from him. He's probably going to be talking about his entire career and his future. I work for a place that does these kinds of celebrity interview events, though usually celebrities come to promote a current project. Since Daniel Craig has nothing going on, this event likely happened as a result of someone calling in a favour.
I'm looking forward to learning about it. I wonder which Daniel we will get ? Charming and relaxed, or taciturn and pouty? My guess is it will be the charming edition on this occassion.
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
Comments
You think a bigger gap than LTK-GE is possible?
1 - Moore, 2 - Dalton, 3 - Craig, 4 - Connery, 5 - Brosnan, 6 - Lazenby
I hate to admit it, but yes I do. Hopefully, though not likely.
1 - Moore, 2 - Dalton, 3 - Craig, 4 - Connery, 5 - Brosnan, 6 - Lazenby
I know a lot of people say Tom Hardy, but can you explain to me why? The others I can all understand. I can't see Tom Hardy because he's shorter than Craig and I've only seen he play unrefined characters.
I had no idea of that last bit of original dialogue! I wish they used it, that would have changed the tone of the ending so much.
Meryl Street is also a good actor and very chameleon-like in her ability to transform into different characters, but Bond isn't her casting. Same with Hardy. Great actor, but he's not the right fit.
No thanks. Having Craig's Bond lose another girl would be just as stupid as linking all the terror in the world back to him. Not to mention the fact that Bond has already lost his wife in similar circumstances in the series, and that they need to start veering away from gimmicky homages that don't serve the story - or anything for that matter.
Move on from Craig. Move on from SPECTRE (film). Move on from Waltz' Blofeld.
Just my own two cents worth here (I respect everyone's opinion here) but...........
I think you guys are over thinking all this stuff and overeacting a bit to a film that appeared to have much promise but ultimtely disappointed. I don't believe that EON and MGM see SPECTRE as the disaster that some on this site see it to be. It wasn't Skyfall but it did very, very well at the box office and reviews in the UK were much kinder than the USA. Rumors are rumors, but I believe that EON, et al would very much prefer to have Craig back for at least another. With Craig back, the "problems" created by SPECTRE can be rectified....a new director, a good script, etc can work magic and put things back on course. Remember continuity in Bond films is easily sacrificed for the sake of "art". If Waltz returns as Blofeld, EON needs to bring in writers who can take the shackles off Waltz and allow him to be at his charming, unhinged, frightening best. If Craig ultimately chooses not to return (which is a very good possibility) then EON should do a soft re-boot, establish the new actor as Bond in a stand alone adventure and just write off the Blofeld character and the SPECTRE organization as a bit of a missed opportunity. I don't think it neccessary for Bond to always be going up against a vast criminal empire.....good writers should be able to come up with Bond worthy villains.
I was thinking, given 'Othello' isn't that far away, and he hasn't been on stage since 2013, he may want to get the feel of being in front of a live audience again, and just loosening up a bit.
This does seem to be the case. When he was interviewed for the Nerdist podcast, he seemed really relaxed and sounded like he had a great time!
Bond on the Box - Website | Twitter | Facebook | Instagram | LetterBoxd | YouTube
Agree with your points 100%. They went way too far with the Oberauser/ murdered Bond's parents/ foster brother stuff. The basic premise of Quantum being taken over by Blofeld and morphing into the more cold blooded SPECTRE and being beyond even the moral compass of Mr. White was good enough. I don't even have an issue with the inclusion of White's daughter (it humanizes and adds depth to the character of White). I just think the role should have been cast with a slightly more mature actress; more in the Diana Rigg mold. Actually, the real Mrs. Craig, Rachel Weisz or Mélanie Laurent would have been great casting. Léa Seydoux is beautiful and can act, but it looked like Bond was dating the nanny.
maybe Waltz deliberately underplayed his role first time out?
in Fleming's You Only Live Twice, Blofeld is a raving looney, who no longer needs any material goal to wreak mayhem
hopefully Waltz underplayed the character in film 1, so as to contrast with his interpretation of raving looney Blofeld in the inevitable sequel?
...and maybe the whole foster brother thing was a hypnotic suggestion, done with his patented Christopher Waltz hypnotic charm superpowers, with the deliberate goal of freaking Bond out
1 - Moore, 2 - Dalton, 3 - Craig, 4 - Connery, 5 - Brosnan, 6 - Lazenby
Is it on TV at that time? Or will it be shown later?
1 - Moore, 2 - Dalton, 3 - Craig, 4 - Connery, 5 - Brosnan, 6 - Lazenby
I would really be surprised if Craig is saying anything about his future as Bond tonight. If he chose to make a public announcement about that, it would probably be on a talk show where everyone can hear it directly from him. He's probably going to be talking about his entire career and his future. I work for a place that does these kinds of celebrity interview events, though usually celebrities come to promote a current project. Since Daniel Craig has nothing going on, this event likely happened as a result of someone calling in a favour.