It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
I agree with most said but I don't think we need a new actor.
In terms of the franchise having written itself in a corner, I agree too, to an extent. However, I think that if Craig returns, it would just be a matter of having a situation in the story like something going wrong on a mission after Bond has returned to the service following the death of Madeline, as a result of Bond becoming too complacent in his job position. M could tell him so. In fact, the death of Madeline, before Bond even returns to the service due to Bond's carelessness of not having been weary enough of his old foes due to the "soft life" (see the Fleming books), would be enough to turn Craig's Bond into that cold, driven ruthless agent again that the masses loved. I knew as soon as they said that Bond would be more light hearted in Spectre, that it wouldn't generally go down well with the mainstream audience.
If Craig returns, I think that Madeline and Blofeld (played by the same actors) should return. Bellucci too. Her talents were wasted in Spectre. Madeline shouldn't be kidnapped though. I think that is too cliched and cheesy. In fact, having Madeline end up paralysed in hospital would be a unique dark thing to do with the franchise. I think this would be better than killing her off or maybe she could die in the hospital bed later on in the story. Gardner did this with "Flick" in either COLD or SeaFire.
I'm not that keen, if I'm being honest. If anything we need to move away from the character driven stuff and focus on a really strong plot for once. This doesn't sound too dissimilar to the rest of the Craig era to me. I just want a tight standalone mission in the style of FRWL/DN. Don't overthink it: perfect is the enemy of good, as they say. :)>-
Sure we haven't had anything like a lost love revenge plot set up by SP before now. Maybe Bond can go rogue ...that would be cool and new.
Kidding aside regardless whether one liked SP or not they still set up B25 as potentially boring sequel.
"I honestly don't know how people can't see the majesty that would come from Dan doing a last Bond film where the character deals with life after the bullets and blood, something we haven't seen before, mind you. Bond would be questioning his life purpose after all the missions and killing, trying to come to grips with what his identity is after MI6 and if he can truly settle down when those duties became more than just a part of him. The film would be unlike anything else in the Bond catalogue, its own separate story that explored a part of Bond unseen previously, just like OHMSS did way back in 69.
We've never seen the last Bond story told before, where a Bond actor gets to tie off their era in a movie with actual finality to it before another actor comes along. Bond 25 told as the last Bond story would give us content we've never come close to seeing before on the big screen, and with Dan at the center of it all, you can't tell me that isn't tantalizing. The film would wrap up what was left in SP, give a concrete conclusion to Dan's era, and focus more on character and overall narrative strength over action and big budget thrills, which is something we obviously need to step away from. Tell a strong, character-centric Bond adventure that really digs deep into who he is as a man, and what his life after MI6 would be, pulling no punches."
I agree and they went to all this trouble to set up Spectre and bring in these great actors who typically in the Bond universe, weren't given enough room to stretch their acting muscles, so they should return. The masses would eat it up and and the franchise would earn greater credibility again.
An older James Bond questioning the decisions he made throughout his life is not something that would make sense to me, nor would I find any appeal in it, let alone majesty.
Content we´ve never come close to seeing before on the big screen is in no way a guaranty for quality, nor is it even necessary. Tantalizing would be if we got a really good film, no matter what actor plays whom.
If Craig leaves or not for me it's not the point. Craig it's still James Bond, as far as we know. If he'll leave, they will start all over again with a fresh start, but if Craig won't leave the role EON must come to a fair conclusion to Dan's Bond story arc. They can't just ignore what they've done in the last four (mind blowing) installments.
The main concept behind Skyfall was to face the fact that Bond is obsolete (both as a franchise and both thematically). They showed us an obsolete weapon (until the last act of the movie) and only by the end there's a comeback to a familiar set up. Skyfall was a success, artistically and financially, so we can say that no, Bond is not obsolete. In Spectre the main concept (as a character story arc) was if Bond should continue the life he's always choose. If Bond should not stop. On the other hand, tonally, Spectre is a retro(spective) Bond movie in which the past cannot be ignored. Blofeld kills his past and C - the cocky little arrogant young bastard who doesn't even know in how many days Rome was built- betrays it. They both lose. Spectre is a celebration of the value of tradition, both thematically and artistically.
In my opinion, now, it's pivotal to close this story arc to a really fair conclusion. They settled up a continuity that needs to come to a real conclusion, because the truth is that Bond cannot live a normal life. He must come back. I don't know if they should bring back Madeleine and Blofeld, "I'm not a screen writer", but I feel the need of a last DC movie in which Bond faces the fact that for him the only way he could live is doing his job as a spy. I feel the need of a (relatively) smaller, shorter Bond, closer to reality, stylish but not retro. IMO it would be awesome if they'll finish the next movie with Bond losing his memories after a deadly mission. Cursed to be a blunt instrument for the times to come. After that they should start all over again with another actor.
(If I made some grammar mistakes, excuse me). :P
I think more often than not, Bond completely avoids his identity. He hides his past, shares very little of himself, as if he's scared of what he'll see, and his entire life is predicated on doing other people's bidding with very little say or reward in return. It's of great curiosity why he lives the life he does, when it does so little to benefit him, and more often than not complicates his life beyond belief. And yet still, what is his life without MI6? If he wasn't being dangerous and putting himself on the line, what else would he be doing? Bond was destined, it seems, to be a deadly instrument mucking up his boots as a pawn of other people's agendas, for better or worse. Who knows how he identifies himself, though, or if he even believes in such a thing. He'd probably scoff at it, I imagine.
sexy lady. :x
Yep, she'll be taking over as Bond as soon as Clive Owen is done
Other than making a serious mess of a fifth Craig film, it might be better if Bond #7 makes his debut. Unless of course they can write a damn good thriller to send Craig off in a manner to which he deserves.
Though I think SP did that perfectly. I love the ending of SP. Bond and Madeleine in the DB5, the Bond theme blaring. Perfect.
Rather than an all out action film that most Bonds debut with, Sir Rog, Timothy and Pierce, all started in action heavy movies, I'd prefer a more story driven spy thriller. Tone the action down, and give us good characters and a great script. And if we have to have action let it take place naturally. I love my action set pieces, but because they've been done over and over they seem to have run out of ideas. Nothing wrong with going with what's been done before. Sometimes, less is more after all.
Whatever happens at this point, Daniel Craig is still James Bond (until official confirmation from himself or EON), and without a distributor, Bond 25 is not going into production anytime soon. Unfortunately it's the same old waiting game. Tick-tock.
I think we did already have that with SP @patb. The wrist slash comments were in the press prior to SP's release and were spun by the press to suggest Craig was done. The general public definitely heard about that. Us diehards had the script leaks and rumour/discussion that took place for almost a year on whether he was done or not (there were active discussion threads on this subject on this forum). So we got close to that already. Certainly SP as delivered is more of a definite ending than any other Bond actor has had so far.
I think it was also known that DAF would be Connery's last, although I'm not sure.
At the end of the day, I think this comes down to what one thought of SP. If one enjoyed that film, bought into and liked the retcon and the new characters (including the Blofeld conceptualization) then I think one is more looking forward to Craig returning.
If one didn't enjoy the film all that much, or thought poorly of the new characters (I'm amongst that crowd), or thinks they wrapped it up nicely enough with the finale, then I think one prefers a change of actor in order to get back to straight missions without the continuity. Personally, the longer this drags out, the more I want a reset and a change. If B25 comes out in 2017 for instance, then I'm more open to a continuation story.
And why?
First of all, I'm very much against another full reboot like we witnessed with "Casino Royale". I think reboots have become a cheap and uncreative 'story reset button' ever since Marvel and DC Comics took over Hollywood.
One can see what happened with the new reboot "Batman vs. Superman" in which Ben Affleck follows Christian Bale's footsteps.
And I strongly believe that the ending of "SPECTRE" is way too...harsh and radical. By doing so -by listening to what Daniel Craig wanted- the Bond producers effectively created a problem to continue the entire Bond franchise. That is, if you are against a new reboot, like I am.
My desired situation would be one in which Bond #25 tries to effectively explaining a relationship break-up between Bond and Madeleine at the first half of the movie (Think about how the novel "FRWL" followed the events of Tiffany after "DAF"). This goes for Bond's remaining background history as well. Settle all this personal stuff within the first half of the film.
By doing so, you can still create continuity with regard to the villain-part, the villain scheme of the film: S.P.E.C.T.R.E. and Blofeld. And, opposed to what I think of Bond, it's not a bad idea to actually let the personal background history of Blofeld return. In short: Make Bond story-wise a bit more boring near the end of the film, and story-wise put more gravita in the character of Blofeld....or the 'character' of crime syndicate S.P.E.C.T.R.E.
In the end you then can execute a desired wish from many Bond films: Send off Daniel Craig with a plain, solid 'bed scene' with a Bond girl in which the Bond girl moans "Oooowh Jamesss!". It hasn't been done with any of the Craig films. And to make the film more interesting we can close the film with some exciting finale in which Blofeld swears revenge on Bond or MI6. And obviously that Bond can be a different actor!
And after that? After Bond #25? We hire a new actor. For Bond #26 we basically continue in the same Bond timeline that we once started with "Casino Royale", but with a difference! We reduce the amount of continuity in Bond #26 and future Bond films in such a way that only a few lines of text remind us of the events from the era of Daniel Craig (Think in terms like S.P.E.C.T.R.E./Blofeld swearing for revenge in "FRWL" for the assassination of Dr. Julius No in "Doctor No").
I personally think that's the best way for the ongoing future of the Bond franchise. I think it's better that the Bond franchise follows my idea, because in that way you are not copy-pasting anymore from superhero franchises (Marvel & DC Comics). By doing so you don't limit yourself to the flawed 'reboot-button'. And you give yourself more breathing space to enter a situation again where the Bond films story-wise slowly become more 'standalone' again.
I also believe that it doesn't make any sense to give the next Bond actor such a heavy burden with regard to the personal (story) background of the character. People underestimate Daniel Craig's legacy heavily here. Every future Bond actor will be scrutinized to death after the immensely successful portrayal of Bond by Daniel Craig (And Craig's portrayal is perhaps only equaled by the great Sir Connery). Even more so than when Brosnan followed Dalton's footsteps, or when Dalton followed Moore's footsteps. So perhaps the next Bond actor must be willing to portray a much simpler and traditional Bond, with less personal complexities but with more humor like Pierce Brosnan and especially Roger Moore.
So my desired option would be one more portrayal of Bond by Daniel Craig. But in the way I described above.
I think Craig going to the more formulatic Bond last two films is just the end of the arc which would have happened at any time.
From Rookie agent almost spoiled brat and a bitt naive to think he can quit the service and trusts so easily to a mature professional who learned he can really trust almost no one and the second time he falls is with more certainty this girl is really innocent and wouldn't betray him.
He slowly transformded into the Bond we all love. His Bond is someone who went through a process and that's fine by me.
Now we will know if the arc truly ended with Spectre. If they switch actor i think they will make us believe he did ended up his arc and we could start right away with standalone missions and films going back to the Brosnan era.
Not too dark but not too light either but always following the formula closer with more by the numbers films.
But if Craig stays we will have one or two more personal missions where Madeline could be killed and Bond will take his revenge against Blofeld so when his 6th film ends he will realize he can't fall in love in any single way but has finally learned to enjoy his job with great hotels, luxury and being with beautiful woman but without telling i love you to any of those.
So i have a feeling that at the end will a bet if Craig leaves or stays.
If he stays the films will keep going with the arc till his number 6th where he will kill Blofeld if he leaves we go straight back to the formula at its fullest.
I don't see the problem at all. If you want to continue with Craig, you can. If you want to make a clean break, you can. You simply cast a new actor and deliver a new standalone film in which the world is fresh and unrelated to those that have gone before. Bond is an agent, no rookie, no veteran, just an agent working for Her Majesty's government. Populate it with a cracking villain and give it a distinct flavour and away you go. I think you're over-thinking the continuity aspect.
"I thought you'd gone ?" Could simply be , Q thinking Bond had left on leave ? :)
I agree! The producers didn't recast M when Daniel Craig took the part. They kept with Judi Dench's M. If Bond actor #7 is to star in Bond 25 the producers/writers can do a 'soft' reboot. Just start fresh with no mention of the SPECTRE linked four Craig Bond films. You can still retain Ralph Fiennes as M and Naomie Harris as Moneypenny.
In Bond 26 Blofeld can be reintroduced, perhaps with some brief mention of his escape from prison or perhaps It's a full reboot of Blofeld and a third version of SPECTRE. It might be better to keep Blofeld for Bond 26, not Bond 25. Keep the audience waiting and build up the expectation.
There's no reason to stick with Craig Bond continuity if a new actor is cast. The new guy won't want to feel like he's making SPECTRE part 2. He'll want to put his own mark on the franchise and the best way to do that is a soft reboot. ;)
We fully, but really, we 200% disagree ;-).
Let's say of we follow your advice, then we could also say that we are overthinking continuity. I mean, you don't utter the words 'reboot', but it sounds like you are proposing that (correct me if I'm wrong?). And then, as we are not overthinking continuity, why can't we bring back Craig one more time in a more standalone fashion.
I think the chances of this are zero quite frankly, given how they have gone out of their way to create continuity, a linear timeline, and tie everything together for his tenure. It's a concerted effort, and one that was unnecessary. A choice that they made. When one does that, the chances of then doing a creative 360 degree and delivering a standalone with the same actor is highly unlikely, but I'll admit that it's not impossible - after all, SF was a 'standalone'........until it wasn't.
The only way I see a Craig standalone is if it's a business decision. A 'stub' film that they put out there to give us a requisite Bond film while MGM figures out what its options are post-reported IPO.
I can only see this if it's a one film studio distribution deal rather than a multi-picture one.