It's four years ago, today, that we had the Spectre press conference!
In the few days before that Andrew Scott was correctly rumoured to have a role.
We're three months away from the Bond25 start of filming and possible same day press conference.
For Spectre, the three months before its press conference saw; in September, Rhianna theme tune rumours, the filming date announced, some locations confirmed, the cinematographer reported; in October, more Rhianna rumours, Lea Seydoux and Dave Batista leaked as cast members; in November, there were script polishing rumours, Christoph Waltz rumoured to be cast and Rome was said to be a location.
I've never understood why they went for the "we're both played out" theme for SKYFALL. It wasn't particularly relevant to the rest of the story: Silva's revenge, hacking, etc. The effect was to sabotage Craig's tenure thereafter. But I guess EON made a bet and it paid off bigger than anyone imagined, and they've been living with the consequences ever since.
FWIW everyone here is freaking out about Craig's age but none of us has seen the script. For all we know, the story is about an older Bond coming out of retirement. We have no clue. So how about we ease up on the before-the-fact AVTAK and DAF comparisons.
I thought it odd at the time, but wasn't the theme 'Reserection' ? I think they finessed it by the "I think you're just getting started" It did
seem a bit premature to drag him out to sea. . I guess it depends upon how you feel about QOS. We were promised that by the end of CR
That he would be fully formed. It did not work for me, so it jarred to see him as washed up at the beggining of SF.
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
For the record, I have no concerns about Craig’s age. My concern is about his appearance. Roger in AVTAK has been invoked, but Connery in DAF is the better comparison. Perhaps I’m just shallow, but to me Bond is an aspirational character. The broken-down 007 in Skyfall was a bit of a wink and a nod because, aside from a bad haircut and needing a shave for a third of the film, Craig still looked the part. That’s the difference between Craig then and Craig now.
On the bright side, we might finally be rid of the too-tight suits!
For the record, I have no concerns about Craig’s age. My concern is about his appearance. Roger in AVTAK has been invoked, but Connery in DAF is the better comparison. Perhaps I’m just shallow, but to me Bond is an aspirational character. The broken-down 007 in Skyfall was a bit of a wink and a nod because, aside from a bad haircut and needing a shave for a third of the film, Craig still looked the part. That’s the difference between Craig then and Craig now.
On the bright side, we might finally be rid of the too-right suits!
I hope you're right about the suits. Jettisoning the buzz-cut would also go a long way as well.
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
There is definitely a pattern here of people freaking out over how Craig looks between Bond films and one must admit Craig also has a pattern of not looking great in many photos taken between Bond films. Funny thing is, he looked quite good back in Bond garb in the pictures captured on the set in Spain when he was doing what appeared to most likely a new Heineken commercial. May be EON has some sort of hyperbolic Bond chamber they put him in and he comes out as James Bond.
He looked awful for his age in Skyfall. He looked great for 54, but he was 44 and should have looked 44. I don’t have much faith in him looking like a good 51 in Bond 25 because he’s already past that.
Hi all, first post here. I keep up with Bond developments here from time to time.
The Knives Out photos of Craig don’t look great. He’s going to have his work out to get Bond fit for three months. He could wing it with really intense, quick fix training and nutrition, but if this has been his approach to prepare for the role previously, it’s little wonder he hates it so much.
The problem, as I see it, is that he just doesn’t take care of himself between films. Using Statham as an example, at six months older than Craig, he always looks never less than a few workouts from top form.
Statham may be a different beast regarding knowing where he excels and maintaining physique for those roles, but any shortfall in acting ability, he makes up for in training and nutrition discipline.
Craig, I sense feels he is above Bond now, he wants to be a serious actor but Hollywood doesn’t seem interested and his work away from Bond is scattershot.
I think Craig has been a superb Bond, but all signs in the last 12 months point to a lot of papering over cracks and fixes. The Omega ads included. At best he’s been just about acceptable. It’s not unfeasable for him to rock up in a girdle at this stage!
For the rumoured deal he is on for 25, one would hope he fully commits to blowing his final film out of the water. Part of that in my opinion is not taking a film role that requires extreme weight gain directly before.
It all evokes of a man who has no hunger for the role and has already moved on, but for a pay cheque and a contractual obligation.
I hope he pulls it out of the bag, but I just don’t think he’s anywhere near the money from those photos, and citing age isn’t acceptable.
It remains to be seen, but you can’t turn up to a star in a Bond film in these times half ready. It would be embarrassing for all involved.
Three months before Spectre's start of filming we learned who would be the cinematographer in the September. And now we appear to know who will do that job on Bond25.
We have already had Canada proposed as a location, care of a former Bond crew member.
What should be next if history is repeating itself? Casting should be next, if events follow what happened in November, December 2014, for Spectre.
IMHO we'll have more theme tune singer rumours today because the nominees for the Grammys are published today, for the awards ceremony on 10 February next year.
The last few Bond films have had multiple Grammy award winners sing the theme tune, Adele and Sam Smith both being multiple Grammy award winners.
We have more than a strong indication that Norway will be a location in Bond25. Yesterday we learnt that EON applied for tax refunds for filming Bond25 in Norway in 2019. Read my recent posts in the Locations thread for more information.
"The problem, as I see it, is that he just doesn’t take care of himself between films. Using Statham as an example, at six months older than Craig, he always looks never less than a few workouts from top form.
Statham may be a different beast regarding knowing where he excels and maintaining physique for those roles, but any shortfall in acting ability, he makes up for in training and nutrition discipline."
Jason Statham (who I like) makes his living playing Jason Statham. Except somewhat for The Bank Job, he essentially plays the same character in every film. Statham was also a world class athlete (Olympic diver) prior to his acting career. An out of shape Jason Statham is essentially an out of work Jason Statham. As I said, I like Statham for what he does. Craig, while not having much of a film career box office wise other than Bond, is still a well respected actor and while his non Bond films have not fared well, it wasn't because of his performances (he was great in a comic turn in Logan Lucky). Ironically, Craig draws well as a stage actor....of course some of that can be attributed to his name recognition as Bond in the States. People's worries about how Craig will look in Bond 25 are understandable, but this has been an ongoing concern since he has been Bond to some degree. I think Craig not looking good in SF is a bit misguided. He was supposed to look haggard and grizzled after being seriously wounded and off the grid and presumed dead. A bad buzz cut and facial scruff were the culprits there as his body appeared as ripped as ever. Right now I wouldn't jump to any conclusions. Personally, I am trying to be cautiously optimistic. Movies are an illusion achieved by many means. We shall see.
Beyond the ongoing hand wringing re Craig's looks and motivations to do Bond 25, we do appear to possibly have an outstanding DP on board for Bond 25. As usual, Bond films seem to attract top DP's. Sandgren typically prefers to work on actual film using Super 35 for both scope and flat (1.85 to 1) presentations. CR and QOS were shot in Super 35. He did shoot most of La La Land using the old Cinemascope 2.55 to 1 aspect ratio. Between Fukunaga and Sandgren, Bond 25 should be at worst a great looking film.
What if the timeline jumps forward many years and he’s playing like Connery in nsna?
We have no idea and since Craig’s films are connected this could truly be intended to wrap his arc. He could ride off into the sunset like Indy, or the recent Bale Batman films. Taking advantage of his age could be much better then handling it like they have with previous actors. Plus realistically if he became a 00 at 38 or so, then he could be fighting the effects of the job for the amount of time he’s been at it.
Like Dalton and Fleming , Craig’s bond hates his job but he’s driven to do it which is how most people would I presume feel about it.
Like Fleming said and Dalton embodied and Pierce spoke “cold blooded murder s a filthy business.”
I’ve always liked how Craig is vulnerable and gets hurt and dirty and having him acknowledge that is great in my opinion.
Like the train fight in spectre where he looks completely overwhelmed and overmatched, we normally do not get that.
Taking advantage of his age could be much better then handling it like they have with previous actors. Plus realistically if he became a 00 at 38 or so, then he could be fighting the effects of the job for the amount of time he’s been at it.
But we already had that two films ago with Skyfall.
Taking advantage of his age could be much better then handling it like they have with previous actors. Plus realistically if he became a 00 at 38 or so, then he could be fighting the effects of the job for the amount of time he’s been at it.
But we already had that two films ago with Skyfall.
Unless they go back to the old ways and make a stand alone film that only references the past in more abstract terms.
Or they could do a Bond comes out of retirement for one more.
"The problem, as I see it, is that he just doesn’t take care of himself between films. Using Statham as an example, at six months older than Craig, he always looks never less than a few workouts from top form.
Statham may be a different beast regarding knowing where he excels and maintaining physique for those roles, but any shortfall in acting ability, he makes up for in training and nutrition discipline."
Jason Statham (who I like) makes his living playing Jason Statham. Except somewhat for The Bank Job, he essentially plays the same character in every film. Statham was also a world class athlete (Olympic diver) prior to his acting career. An out of shape Jason Statham is essentially an out of work Jason Statham. As I said, I like Statham for what he does. Craig, while not having much of a film career box office wise other than Bond, is still a well respected actor and while his non Bond films have not fared well, it wasn't because of his performances (he was great in a comic turn in Logan Lucky). Ironically, Craig draws well as a stage actor....of course some of that can be attributed to his name recognition as Bond in the States. People's worries about how Craig will look in Bond 25 are understandable, but this has been an ongoing concern since he has been Bond to some degree. I think Craig not looking good in SF is a bit misguided. He was supposed to look haggard and grizzled after being seriously wounded and off the grid and presumed dead. A bad buzz cut and facial scruff were the culprits there as his body appeared as ripped as ever. Right now I wouldn't jump to any conclusions. Personally, I am trying to be cautiously optimistic. Movies are an illusion achieved by many means. We shall see.
Beyond the ongoing hand wringing re Craig's looks and motivations to do Bond 25, we do appear to possibly have an outstanding DP on board for Bond 25. As usual, Bond films seem to attract top DP's. Sandgren typically prefers to work on actual film using Super 35 for both scope and flat (1.85 to 1) presentations. CR and QOS were shot in Super 35. He did shoot most of La La Land using the old Cinemascope 2.55 to 1 aspect ratio. Between Fukunaga and Sandgren, Bond 25 should be at worst a great looking film.
I might be the only one who thinks Craig looked his best in SF )
Taking advantage of his age could be much better then handling it like they have with previous actors. Plus realistically if he became a 00 at 38 or so, then he could be fighting the effects of the job for the amount of time he’s been at it.
But we already had that two films ago with Skyfall.
Yes but then he returned from an injury and recovered in spectre. In real life and the Craig films are trying to be somewhat grounded , there are highs and lows.
So skip forward 5-8 years, his relationship has failed he’s distant, part of an old guard but what else can he do?
To use your argument, then why have yolt and tswlm, or for that matter gf and avtak?
So he becomes an agent in CR, is jaded in QOS, is hurt and questions his importance in SF, redeemed in SP and then everything’s going great but it spirals down.
It’s all just speculation but it would give him a complete arc and show him that this is the life he’s chosen for better or worse.
Much better approach then having Roger at 57 and leathery and with the combover doing cartwheels and firing rocksalt in his swan song.
I love all the movies but at least this could complete one actors tenure with a complete arc.
This
could be the best send off of a long term incumbent. Nsna attempted it, Roger was clearly doubled and more acrobatic then ever in his which was unbelievable.
Dalton and Lazenby didn’t get one, and Pierce was windsurfing and killed with trying to be fancy in the effects department.
To use your argument, then why have yolt and tswlm, or for that matter gf and avtak?
Those films were not part of a continuous character arc; there was no character arc or continuous story line in Bond before Craig. Many real life villains have the same plans.
For Craig's films to tell a continuous story, I think we need a completion in his fifth film rather than a repeat of him being the aged, weak and jaded agent that he was in Skyfall.
The Moore or NSNA approach isn't going to work. With Moore they ignored his age. In NSNA, it was a point that Bond was older, but he proves that that didn't make a difference. What I'd like to see is to show that Bond is now an old man, but he's now a wiser old man and he finds ways to overcome those difficulties rather than make those issues his downfall. Of Craig's four Bond films, only Spectre is Bond on a high. His first three films are all lows in his life (a failure in CR, miserable in QOS and an old failure in SF). We need some balance in his fifth film, not a fourth film that shows him again as a weak, failing agent. The character needs to go forwards, not backwards.
Taking advantage of his age could be much better then handling it like they have with previous actors. Plus realistically if he became a 00 at 38 or so, then he could be fighting the effects of the job for the amount of time he’s been at it.
But we already had that two films ago with Skyfall.
Fleming’s Bond had an arc that involved a slow decline over the course of many brutal adventures. There is the conversation at the start of one of the early novels between Bond and M about the “dangerous age,” which both men agree Bond has not yet reached. Then there is M’s discussion with the physician at the start of Dr. No foreshadowing Bond’s eventual decline. Bond has already started making subtle mistakes on the job, one which nearly kills him in FRWL. Later, his physical condition has declined to the point where he gets sent to the clinic in Thunderball.
A similar arc could have been employed with Craig’s Bond. But they had him at the point of the literary Thunderball by the time of Skyfall, when we, the audience, had only observed one continuous mission through CR and QoS (and the actor, Craig, was still in peak physical form). Unlike the books, where we know what he has been through, in Skyfall we were only left to guess. They should be making the Thunderball/Skyfall equivalent in Bond 25. But they can’t, because they did it too soon. Then there is Spectre, where Bond is, magically, fully rejuvenated. It makes no narrative sense to send him backwards again this time. But it doesn’t feel authentic to have him play super-Bond either.
EON wants to have it both ways. Craig was to be the Fleming-esque Bond, and it started great. But by Skyfall/Spectre, they wanted to have their foot in both worlds, literary and film, and it all fell apart. Hopefully next time they decide to either give us film Bond (which is probably what most fans want to see by now due to the mixed mediums of the last couple Craig films), or full-on literary Bond. I’m good either way. But This hybrid, which they also attempted at times with Brosnan, just doesn’t work from a quality standpoint (I understand that the films make boatloads of cash).
To use your argument, then why have yolt and tswlm, or for that matter gf and avtak?
Those films were not part of a continuous character arc; there was no character arc or continuous story line in Bond before Craig. Many real life villains have the same plans.
For Craig's films to tell a continuous story, I think we need a completion in his fifth film rather than a repeat of him being the aged, weak and jaded agent that he was in Skyfall.
The Moore or NSNA approach isn't going to work. With Moore they ignored his age. In NSNA, it was a point that Bond was older, but he proves that that didn't make a difference. What I'd like to see is to show that Bond is now an old man, but he's now a wiser old man and he finds ways to overcome those difficulties rather than make those issues his downfall. Of Craig's four Bond films, only Spectre is Bond on a high. His first three films are all lows in his life (a failure in CR, miserable in QOS and an old failure in SF). We need some balance in his fifth film, not a fourth film that shows him again as a weak, failing agent. The character needs to go forwards, not backwards.
How are we arguing? This is exactly what I’m trying to express an older wiser Bond who has faults and had aged he was young and maybe reckless, injured and questioning his worth, then at the top of his game but still a cynic, who falls for a similar type of woman so now if this has failed all he has is his job that he is good at. Still he’s older and cannot do it like he did when he was younger. And he doesn’t enjoy it. He’s never really failed he just never saved the world as previous Bonds had done.
In Royale he beats Lechiffre and gets revenge with Mr. White, in Quantum he’s satisfied by leaving Greene to die and finding the lover who corrupted Vesper, in sky fall he overcomes certain demons and although loses M, he takes down Silva and finds that he’s still relevant and has an ally with the new M, then in Spectre he takes down the architect of his professional life which in turn is personal , gets the girl and helps with dismantling a corrupt growing movement in his government.
I think it’s just we see the characters different, I like all the iterations but I feel Fleming, Dalton, and Craig are most fleshed versions of the character but they don’t have the gallows humor that Connery brought to his portrayal.
In modern times Bond being a former special operator would have a more military haircut and even though he has nice things he doesn’t mind if things get trashed and he gets dirty. In literary and the times the movies started even though he’s nicely dressed many men of business dressed that way.
As things became more casual in society the character adapted by first Moore’s dressing down, Dalton’s business casual, then back with Craig’s younger portrayal.
So to modern people the older films he seems overdressed because not everyone wore a suit, and he stands out.
The adaptation of the character was just keeping with the times.
That kind of life would be hard on ones body, and psyche, so to embrace some grey hairs and being a little rickety is par for the course.
To use another comparison the Nolan Batman films once he becomes Batman he’s only Batman for maybe a year, then is gone for 8 years, then returns for maybe 2 weeks or less.
Because it’s so tough on his body.
It’s unreasonable and realistic in an arc to ignore that and just time in general.
This is a fairly interesting debate. But after a long information draught I'm a bit puzzled that the name of the new DOP has hardly been talked about. I can understand why the news about a location in western Scandinavia hasn't been talked about a lot since a certain member has mentioned that country a bit much )
Personally I think Linus Sandgren is a promising DoP. He seems like a DoP version of Fukunaga: Young, talented with covies that are both critically acclaimed and popular with the mainstream. There is also the fact that he shoots beautifully,
This is a fairly interesting debate. But after a long information draught I'm a bit puzzled that the name of the new DOP has hardly been talked about. I can understand why the news about a location in western Scandinavia hasn't been talked about a lot since a certain member has mentioned that country a bit much )
Personally I think Linus Sandgren is a promising DoP. He seems like a DoP version of Fukunaga: Young, talented with covies that are both critically acclaimed and popular with the mainstream. There is also the fact that he shoots beautifully,
EON hasn't officially confirmed Sandgren as cinematographer, and it seems up in the air at the moment, based only on an unsourced Tweet. It may end up being Sandgren, but at this point it barely rises to the level of a rumor.
EON hasn't officially confirmed Sandgren as cinematographer, and it seems up in the air at the moment, based only on an unsourced Tweet. It may end up being Sandgren, but at this point it barely rises to the level of a rumor.
Well, even if it barely qualifies as a rumor, there's no harm in discussing what Sandgren might bring to the table if he in fact ends up as DP for Bond 25.
It's not official, that's true. But the story comes from a journalist who writes about film in Variety, one of the most prestigious movie trade magazines out there, so the story can be called a believable rumour. Well worth talking about, because as a fan forum we haven't and can't restrict ourselves to only talking about official news.
The location news is official, because EON has applied to film Bond25 in Norway.
Comments
In the few days before that Andrew Scott was correctly rumoured to have a role.
We're three months away from the Bond25 start of filming and possible same day press conference.
For Spectre, the three months before its press conference saw; in September, Rhianna theme tune rumours, the filming date announced, some locations confirmed, the cinematographer reported; in October, more Rhianna rumours, Lea Seydoux and Dave Batista leaked as cast members; in November, there were script polishing rumours, Christoph Waltz rumoured to be cast and Rome was said to be a location.
Only 12 weeks to go!!
I thought it odd at the time, but wasn't the theme 'Reserection' ? I think they finessed it by the "I think you're just getting started" It did
seem a bit premature to drag him out to sea. . I guess it depends upon how you feel about QOS. We were promised that by the end of CR
That he would be fully formed. It did not work for me, so it jarred to see him as washed up at the beggining of SF.
On the bright side, we might finally be rid of the too-tight suits!
I hope you're right about the suits. Jettisoning the buzz-cut would also go a long way as well.
QOS is the only Bond film I think he looks good in! The hair wasn't quite as Bondian as I'd like, but it suited Craig.
Yes it has been the best so far.
https://mobile.twitter.com/kristapley/status/1070009375161384961
I wouldn't mind if Linus Sandgren gets the job.
LInus Sandgren on IMDB
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0761874/?ref_=nmawd_awd_nm
Here is his webpage with screenshots: http://www.linussandgren.com/
Hi all, first post here. I keep up with Bond developments here from time to time.
The Knives Out photos of Craig don’t look great. He’s going to have his work out to get Bond fit for three months. He could wing it with really intense, quick fix training and nutrition, but if this has been his approach to prepare for the role previously, it’s little wonder he hates it so much.
The problem, as I see it, is that he just doesn’t take care of himself between films. Using Statham as an example, at six months older than Craig, he always looks never less than a few workouts from top form.
Statham may be a different beast regarding knowing where he excels and maintaining physique for those roles, but any shortfall in acting ability, he makes up for in training and nutrition discipline.
Craig, I sense feels he is above Bond now, he wants to be a serious actor but Hollywood doesn’t seem interested and his work away from Bond is scattershot.
I think Craig has been a superb Bond, but all signs in the last 12 months point to a lot of papering over cracks and fixes. The Omega ads included. At best he’s been just about acceptable. It’s not unfeasable for him to rock up in a girdle at this stage!
For the rumoured deal he is on for 25, one would hope he fully commits to blowing his final film out of the water. Part of that in my opinion is not taking a film role that requires extreme weight gain directly before.
It all evokes of a man who has no hunger for the role and has already moved on, but for a pay cheque and a contractual obligation.
I hope he pulls it out of the bag, but I just don’t think he’s anywhere near the money from those photos, and citing age isn’t acceptable.
It remains to be seen, but you can’t turn up to a star in a Bond film in these times half ready. It would be embarrassing for all involved.
Three months before Spectre's start of filming we learned who would be the cinematographer in the September. And now we appear to know who will do that job on Bond25.
And also in September 2014 some locations were confirmed, and we appear to have a strong indication that Norway will be a location.
https://twitter.com/Bond25Film/status/1070090155783000066
We have already had Canada proposed as a location, care of a former Bond crew member.
What should be next if history is repeating itself? Casting should be next, if events follow what happened in November, December 2014, for Spectre.
IMHO we'll have more theme tune singer rumours today because the nominees for the Grammys are published today, for the awards ceremony on 10 February next year.
The last few Bond films have had multiple Grammy award winners sing the theme tune, Adele and Sam Smith both being multiple Grammy award winners.
Statham may be a different beast regarding knowing where he excels and maintaining physique for those roles, but any shortfall in acting ability, he makes up for in training and nutrition discipline."
Jason Statham (who I like) makes his living playing Jason Statham. Except somewhat for The Bank Job, he essentially plays the same character in every film. Statham was also a world class athlete (Olympic diver) prior to his acting career. An out of shape Jason Statham is essentially an out of work Jason Statham. As I said, I like Statham for what he does. Craig, while not having much of a film career box office wise other than Bond, is still a well respected actor and while his non Bond films have not fared well, it wasn't because of his performances (he was great in a comic turn in Logan Lucky). Ironically, Craig draws well as a stage actor....of course some of that can be attributed to his name recognition as Bond in the States. People's worries about how Craig will look in Bond 25 are understandable, but this has been an ongoing concern since he has been Bond to some degree. I think Craig not looking good in SF is a bit misguided. He was supposed to look haggard and grizzled after being seriously wounded and off the grid and presumed dead. A bad buzz cut and facial scruff were the culprits there as his body appeared as ripped as ever. Right now I wouldn't jump to any conclusions. Personally, I am trying to be cautiously optimistic. Movies are an illusion achieved by many means. We shall see.
Beyond the ongoing hand wringing re Craig's looks and motivations to do Bond 25, we do appear to possibly have an outstanding DP on board for Bond 25. As usual, Bond films seem to attract top DP's. Sandgren typically prefers to work on actual film using Super 35 for both scope and flat (1.85 to 1) presentations. CR and QOS were shot in Super 35. He did shoot most of La La Land using the old Cinemascope 2.55 to 1 aspect ratio. Between Fukunaga and Sandgren, Bond 25 should be at worst a great looking film.
https://www.grammy.com/grammys/news/61st-grammy-awards-nominations-rescheduled-dec-7
One entertainment publication is saying that Sam Smith is a possible Grammy nominee and that Ed Sheeran could be another, nominated for his duet with Beyonce.
https://www.vulture.com/2018/12/2019-grammy-nomination-predictions-cardi-b-drake-ariana.html
We have no idea and since Craig’s films are connected this could truly be intended to wrap his arc. He could ride off into the sunset like Indy, or the recent Bale Batman films. Taking advantage of his age could be much better then handling it like they have with previous actors. Plus realistically if he became a 00 at 38 or so, then he could be fighting the effects of the job for the amount of time he’s been at it.
Like Dalton and Fleming , Craig’s bond hates his job but he’s driven to do it which is how most people would I presume feel about it.
Like Fleming said and Dalton embodied and Pierce spoke “cold blooded murder s a filthy business.”
I’ve always liked how Craig is vulnerable and gets hurt and dirty and having him acknowledge that is great in my opinion.
Like the train fight in spectre where he looks completely overwhelmed and overmatched, we normally do not get that.
But we already had that two films ago with Skyfall.
Unless they go back to the old ways and make a stand alone film that only references the past in more abstract terms.
Or they could do a Bond comes out of retirement for one more.
So skip forward 5-8 years, his relationship has failed he’s distant, part of an old guard but what else can he do?
To use your argument, then why have yolt and tswlm, or for that matter gf and avtak?
So he becomes an agent in CR, is jaded in QOS, is hurt and questions his importance in SF, redeemed in SP and then everything’s going great but it spirals down.
It’s all just speculation but it would give him a complete arc and show him that this is the life he’s chosen for better or worse.
Much better approach then having Roger at 57 and leathery and with the combover doing cartwheels and firing rocksalt in his swan song.
I love all the movies but at least this could complete one actors tenure with a complete arc.
This
could be the best send off of a long term incumbent. Nsna attempted it, Roger was clearly doubled and more acrobatic then ever in his which was unbelievable.
Dalton and Lazenby didn’t get one, and Pierce was windsurfing and killed with trying to be fancy in the effects department.
Those films were not part of a continuous character arc; there was no character arc or continuous story line in Bond before Craig. Many real life villains have the same plans.
For Craig's films to tell a continuous story, I think we need a completion in his fifth film rather than a repeat of him being the aged, weak and jaded agent that he was in Skyfall.
The Moore or NSNA approach isn't going to work. With Moore they ignored his age. In NSNA, it was a point that Bond was older, but he proves that that didn't make a difference. What I'd like to see is to show that Bond is now an old man, but he's now a wiser old man and he finds ways to overcome those difficulties rather than make those issues his downfall. Of Craig's four Bond films, only Spectre is Bond on a high. His first three films are all lows in his life (a failure in CR, miserable in QOS and an old failure in SF). We need some balance in his fifth film, not a fourth film that shows him again as a weak, failing agent. The character needs to go forwards, not backwards.
Fleming’s Bond had an arc that involved a slow decline over the course of many brutal adventures. There is the conversation at the start of one of the early novels between Bond and M about the “dangerous age,” which both men agree Bond has not yet reached. Then there is M’s discussion with the physician at the start of Dr. No foreshadowing Bond’s eventual decline. Bond has already started making subtle mistakes on the job, one which nearly kills him in FRWL. Later, his physical condition has declined to the point where he gets sent to the clinic in Thunderball.
A similar arc could have been employed with Craig’s Bond. But they had him at the point of the literary Thunderball by the time of Skyfall, when we, the audience, had only observed one continuous mission through CR and QoS (and the actor, Craig, was still in peak physical form). Unlike the books, where we know what he has been through, in Skyfall we were only left to guess. They should be making the Thunderball/Skyfall equivalent in Bond 25. But they can’t, because they did it too soon. Then there is Spectre, where Bond is, magically, fully rejuvenated. It makes no narrative sense to send him backwards again this time. But it doesn’t feel authentic to have him play super-Bond either.
EON wants to have it both ways. Craig was to be the Fleming-esque Bond, and it started great. But by Skyfall/Spectre, they wanted to have their foot in both worlds, literary and film, and it all fell apart. Hopefully next time they decide to either give us film Bond (which is probably what most fans want to see by now due to the mixed mediums of the last couple Craig films), or full-on literary Bond. I’m good either way. But This hybrid, which they also attempted at times with Brosnan, just doesn’t work from a quality standpoint (I understand that the films make boatloads of cash).
How are we arguing? This is exactly what I’m trying to express an older wiser Bond who has faults and had aged he was young and maybe reckless, injured and questioning his worth, then at the top of his game but still a cynic, who falls for a similar type of woman so now if this has failed all he has is his job that he is good at. Still he’s older and cannot do it like he did when he was younger. And he doesn’t enjoy it. He’s never really failed he just never saved the world as previous Bonds had done.
In Royale he beats Lechiffre and gets revenge with Mr. White, in Quantum he’s satisfied by leaving Greene to die and finding the lover who corrupted Vesper, in sky fall he overcomes certain demons and although loses M, he takes down Silva and finds that he’s still relevant and has an ally with the new M, then in Spectre he takes down the architect of his professional life which in turn is personal , gets the girl and helps with dismantling a corrupt growing movement in his government.
I think it’s just we see the characters different, I like all the iterations but I feel Fleming, Dalton, and Craig are most fleshed versions of the character but they don’t have the gallows humor that Connery brought to his portrayal.
In modern times Bond being a former special operator would have a more military haircut and even though he has nice things he doesn’t mind if things get trashed and he gets dirty. In literary and the times the movies started even though he’s nicely dressed many men of business dressed that way.
As things became more casual in society the character adapted by first Moore’s dressing down, Dalton’s business casual, then back with Craig’s younger portrayal.
So to modern people the older films he seems overdressed because not everyone wore a suit, and he stands out.
The adaptation of the character was just keeping with the times.
That kind of life would be hard on ones body, and psyche, so to embrace some grey hairs and being a little rickety is par for the course.
To use another comparison the Nolan Batman films once he becomes Batman he’s only Batman for maybe a year, then is gone for 8 years, then returns for maybe 2 weeks or less.
Because it’s so tough on his body.
It’s unreasonable and realistic in an arc to ignore that and just time in general.
Personally I think Linus Sandgren is a promising DoP. He seems like a DoP version of Fukunaga: Young, talented with covies that are both critically acclaimed and popular with the mainstream. There is also the fact that he shoots beautifully,
EON hasn't officially confirmed Sandgren as cinematographer, and it seems up in the air at the moment, based only on an unsourced Tweet. It may end up being Sandgren, but at this point it barely rises to the level of a rumor.
Well, even if it barely qualifies as a rumor, there's no harm in discussing what Sandgren might bring to the table if he in fact ends up as DP for Bond 25.
The location news is official, because EON has applied to film Bond25 in Norway.