Besides the paycheck, not many actors would really want to play Bond at this point with Daniel Craig's series baggage.
I can't believe there's any shortage of actors who'd give their right arm to play Bond. And the right actor, such as Roger Moore, wouldn't flinch even given the legacy of Sean Connery if they have the chance to stamp their own personality on the role.
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:.........
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.
.....
I'm all in for these two options. It should be quite enough to end all this nonsense about "Bond being out of date". If this happens, my vote for the next James Bond goes to Tobias Menzies, but alas I am afraid it is not going to be.
I try to live by the wise words of James Bond: "Worry is dividend paid to disaster before its due", but current times make this very hard indeed....
"I mean, she almost kills bond...with her ass."
-Mr Arlington Beech
Just to stun the world, give us a big old reboot (guessing it will take years for EON to get "Bond 26" off of the ground so all of the primary actors for starters will be considerably older, which shouldn't matter in some cases but as was said by eng2ajd, Ralph Fiennes and Ben Winshaw, for instance, are more intrinsically tied to Daniel Craig's James Bond whereas Judi Dench somehow transcended the Pierce Brosnan iteration of the character. Brosnan felt more like a "continuation" of pre-1990s Bond--thematically he certainly was--whereas Craig's Bond feels like a newborn with Casino Royale, making M his mother figure (which they paid off in Skyfall)... But the new M can be an at-that-point-in-his-early-fifties Idris Elba. Now that would create some think pieces. Have him be frustrated with Bond a lot in their early goings with one another in "Bond 26," too! Haha.
Or not. I do think that some kind of considerable reboot feels borderline inevitable. Especially with the way that the producers are talking about No Time to Die representing a kind of "satisfying" conclusion of sorts, as though the franchise is about to take a nap and probably require a shot of adrenaline ala Bond in Casino Royale once it is time to reanimate it in the 2020s.
I think it depends on how NTTD ends. If the final reel has a strong sense of finality to it I guess there has to be some kind of harder reboot. But if it ends with all of the Scooby gang surviving and Bond and Madeline walking into the sunset I want a soft reboot. After all they kept the same timeline all the way up to and including Brosnan. I think some franchises suffer from re-boot fatigue, perhaps Siderman is an example. Hard re-boots can come too often and I sure want to see the current MI6 staff and Leiter age into the role.
I think the era of the reboot is (thankfully) coming to an end--look at the way Marvel didn't bother to reboot Spider-Man once Tom Holland got the part. My hope is that the next Bond will be introduced the way Lazenby, Moore, Dalton, and Brosnan were--a brief nod to the audience (actually Moore didn't even get that) and then on with the show!
Holland was perfect to cast as Spiderman for the long haul as he was actually young enough to easily pass for a high school student.
Holland's youth also made it possible to develop the great father figure/son chemistry that Holland had with Robert Downey/Ironman. Now that Marvel/Disney and Sony have come to some sort of agreement, Holland will more than likely be Spiderman for as long as he chooses. With regards to Bond, I think EON/MGM and especially Dana Broccoli see Craig as a hard act to follow. That opinion may not be shared by some at the AJB....but AJB'ers don't get to call the shots ) . So, given that EON is still in the driver's seat for Bond 26, what do they do? Beats the hell out of me ) . If say, Disney or Warner Bros took over, I could see them literally starting over, not just with a hard reboot but an origin story with Bond in the Navy, starting out in SBS (a nice touch of commando/Seal style action), then moving into Naval Intelligence (a little black ops maybe?) and then recruitment into MI6. Disney would do it in a more contemporary setting, Warners might actually go period back to the 50's/60's. If you are thinking what I am thinking, this all sounds like the makings of a high budget Netflix, Amazon, etc series. Interestingly, MGM has a controlling interest in and runs EPIX which is kind of a cross between Netflix/Amazon....so even if EON doesn't sell out, it is possible we could see Bond come to Premium Cable/ Streaming at some point. EPIX already has the 4K library of the Bond films available for streaming.....so who knows?
New to this thread- so I hope I'm not treading on any toes here. Just a thought- I wonder if the film's plot concerning the Human Genome Project, and genetics, and Rami Malek's character "cheating death", could pave the way for Bond to be "reincarnated" in some way using the technology, as used as a plot device in Die Another Day, and also a bit like the original idea for introducing Lazenby to the franchise, as Bond having had an accident and needing plastic surgery to alter his appearance. Could the "new" Bond, DC's successor be introduced at the end of NTTD? We have been repeatedly told that this film will change everything...
It's not too far-fetched, and we'll see where the "change everything" motto ends up. Then again, there's also the matter of knowing what will the family want to do with the franchise. Babs is fine, but Michael is not getting any younger, and I don't know whether there's a new generation able and willing to step into the business. I wouldn't rule a sale out, even if they risk it ending up a Disney SW.
Personally, I would be perfectly fine with a GoldenEye-style follow up: new Bond, new faces, done-in-one-movie missions and a general acknowledgement of the franchise past without dwelling on it.
Having seen the continuity-heavy DC movies, I can see them pulling something on the like of what Meesta Bawnd suggests. Or maybe they will embrace the codename theory and everybody's heads will explode.
"Enjoy it while it lasts."
"The very words I live by."
New to this thread- so I hope I'm not treading on any toes here. Just a thought- I wonder if the film's plot concerning the Human Genome Project, and genetics, and Rami Malek's character "cheating death", could pave the way for Bond to be "reincarnated" in some way using the technology, as used as a plot device in Die Another Day, and also a bit like the original idea for introducing Lazenby to the franchise, as Bond having had an accident and needing plastic surgery to alter his appearance. Could the "new" Bond, DC's successor be introduced at the end of NTTD? We have been repeatedly told that this film will change everything...
It's too far-fetched and wrong for the Bond franchise.
Michael Wilson is either semi-tired or on the verge of retirement. Barbara is only 59, which is not old for a film executive. Apparently there are young adult children in the fold who are getting involved in the family business, just as Michael and Barbara were groomed to do by Cubby.
Michael Wilson is either semi-tired or on the verge of retirement. Barbara is only 59, which is not old for a film executive. Apparently there are young adult children in the fold who are getting involved in the family business, just as Michael and Barbara were groomed to do by Cubby.
I would imagine that by Bond 26 MGW will be retired and we'll see Gregg's name alongside Barbara's. That is if they don't sell Bond.
...I wonder if the film's plot concerning the Human Genome Project, and genetics, and Rami Malek's character "cheating death", could pave the way for Bond to be "reincarnated" in some way using the technology, as used as a plot device in Die Another Day, and also a bit like the original idea for introducing Lazenby to the franchise, as Bond having had an accident and needing plastic surgery to alter his appearance. Could the "new" Bond, DC's successor be introduced at the end of NTTD?
Bond films do get a bit science fictional, but this is well beyond what I think they'd ever do, or what I'd want them to do.
Good idea, though, cloning Bond himself would be a good way to allow Craig a dramatic Logan-style death scene, and set up a new Bond with a new face and a new attitude to pick up the pieces in Bond26.
Keep the theories coming!
We have been repeatedly told that this film will change everything...
yeh thats gotta mean something, I'll be upset if its just a generic empty movie hype. If Bond isn't cloned, and Lashana Lynch doesn't take over as the new 007, what else could this phrase mean? any other good guesses?
(maybe it turns out CraigBond is himself the clone!!!, that'd explain some of Dench-M's awkward dialog in the first film, and indeed her presence, and some other cracks in the new timeline. Maybe both CraigBond and WaltzBlofeld are clones of the characters we first met in the 1960s series?
sci-fi inappropriateness aside, are there any logical holes in my theory?)
If they intend to reboot with every new actor, the series is going to lose its longevity.
Especially if the shooting schedule only allows 4/5 movies per actor, if that.
Say Cavill signs a 2 picture deal and doesn't want to continue, do they reboot again?
I know reboots are the fashion at the moment but I'd like to think Bond sees itself above that.
That being said - I can also see if being bought over and absolutely butchered by some studio.
I think it all depends how well the film does. We had all this last film carry on with Roger for three or four films.
I still think Craig may come back for another. I like Daniel Craig but for me his tenure has went the same way as Pierce Brosnan. Casino Royale was superb and then its just went rapidly downhill. More due to poor writing and poor films.
Comments
I can't believe there's any shortage of actors who'd give their right arm to play Bond. And the right actor, such as Roger Moore, wouldn't flinch even given the legacy of Sean Connery if they have the chance to stamp their own personality on the role.
I'm all in for these two options. It should be quite enough to end all this nonsense about "Bond being out of date". If this happens, my vote for the next James Bond goes to Tobias Menzies, but alas I am afraid it is not going to be.
I try to live by the wise words of James Bond: "Worry is dividend paid to disaster before its due", but current times make this very hard indeed....
-Mr Arlington Beech
Why didn't I see it right away!? It's so obvious what should happen!!
Bond producers should hire the people scripting Archer and go all in with booze, girls, gadgets, gags and all out outrageousness!!!
They could even bring back Judy Dench to play M (for Mother) and Lashana Lynch would have a proper role in it too!!!
I mean, Roggie did almost all of it already, he even was the Original user of Tactleneck!
Can you sing "Danger Zone"
-Mr Arlington Beech
Or not. I do think that some kind of considerable reboot feels borderline inevitable. Especially with the way that the producers are talking about No Time to Die representing a kind of "satisfying" conclusion of sorts, as though the franchise is about to take a nap and probably require a shot of adrenaline ala Bond in Casino Royale once it is time to reanimate it in the 2020s.
Holland's youth also made it possible to develop the great father figure/son chemistry that Holland had with Robert Downey/Ironman. Now that Marvel/Disney and Sony have come to some sort of agreement, Holland will more than likely be Spiderman for as long as he chooses. With regards to Bond, I think EON/MGM and especially Dana Broccoli see Craig as a hard act to follow. That opinion may not be shared by some at the AJB....but AJB'ers don't get to call the shots
The Bond Vivant - Twitter
The Bond Vivant - Facebook
The Bond Vivant - YouTube
Personally, I would be perfectly fine with a GoldenEye-style follow up: new Bond, new faces, done-in-one-movie missions and a general acknowledgement of the franchise past without dwelling on it.
Having seen the continuity-heavy DC movies, I can see them pulling something on the like of what Meesta Bawnd suggests. Or maybe they will embrace the codename theory and everybody's heads will explode.
"The very words I live by."
It's too far-fetched and wrong for the Bond franchise.
I would imagine that by Bond 26 MGW will be retired and we'll see Gregg's name alongside Barbara's. That is if they don't sell Bond.
Good idea, though, cloning Bond himself would be a good way to allow Craig a dramatic Logan-style death scene, and set up a new Bond with a new face and a new attitude to pick up the pieces in Bond26.
Keep the theories coming! yeh thats gotta mean something, I'll be upset if its just a generic empty movie hype. If Bond isn't cloned, and Lashana Lynch doesn't take over as the new 007, what else could this phrase mean? any other good guesses?
(maybe it turns out CraigBond is himself the clone!!!, that'd explain some of Dench-M's awkward dialog in the first film, and indeed her presence, and some other cracks in the new timeline. Maybe both CraigBond and WaltzBlofeld are clones of the characters we first met in the 1960s series?
sci-fi inappropriateness aside, are there any logical holes in my theory?)
Have a new actor turn up and continue the movies without ever really referencing it's a new guy?
Fashion.
Especially if the shooting schedule only allows 4/5 movies per actor, if that.
Say Cavill signs a 2 picture deal and doesn't want to continue, do they reboot again?
I know reboots are the fashion at the moment but I'd like to think Bond sees itself above that.
That being said - I can also see if being bought over and absolutely butchered by some studio.
I still think Craig may come back for another. I like Daniel Craig but for me his tenure has went the same way as Pierce Brosnan. Casino Royale was superb and then its just went rapidly downhill. More due to poor writing and poor films.