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
http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/12987/daniel-craig-says-he-doesn-t-want-to-do-another-bond-spectre-may-be-his-last#latest
----
1. He is not returning post-SP
2. He will move on to the Dragon Tattoo or other smaller fare including theatre and be much happier for it
3. EON will get a new studio backer (Warner or someone else). Sony are done
4. The new studio backers and EON will find a way to re-imagine the Bond universe in a sustainable way (meaning for at least 3 more films), so one of two things will happen:
a) they will not continue on directly from the DC one......so we won't have a Connery to Moore transition, but more a Moore to Dalton or Dalton to Brosnan style situation - i.e. a soft reboot, or:
b) they will reboot to a period piece
So there will be no hard reboot (unless they do a period piece) but no direct continuation either. A soft reboot is most likely. The DC period will be remembered as a 'self-contained' origin era (like Nolan's Batman).
5. The new actor may be someone we've heard of before but who is not all that famous for a similar role (eg. Hiddleston rather than Cavill) or he will be someone very few of us have heard of before (this is more unlikely despite EON's previous modus operandi........due to the new studio insistence for someone semi-bankable).
6. They will hire a director who will do more than one film and that will be a contractual obligation
7. They will make the first two films with the new actor in quicker succession (likely 2 yr gap).
8. The next title song will be much more upbeat than WOTW (no brainer).
That is my view....controversial or not. Keep in mind, it's not necessarily what I want. Just what I think will happen.
And I don't think your opinions are even slightly controversial bondjames, as your points cover a multitude of options and some of them are bound to be right.
No problem @NicNac, I did not mean to suggest that it should be the other way around. It's just that once the thread is closed the conversation history sort of disappears because people are less likely to refer to a closed thread. It was interesting, at least from my perspective, although I'm sure many are a little tired of it too (particularly DC die-hards).
Maybe by closing it, this never ending 2015 discussion of DC leaving/staying may die off (I doubt it though.........).
Fascinating post! Wow - lot of politics behind making Bond films. I guess that's why it's called show BUSINESS!
:D
Having seen Mad Max:Fury Road, I like the idea of a Warner Bros produced James Bond film. Perhaps they could offer some new ideas to EON and take the franchise in a new-ish direction. That might necessitate a new Bond actor and new director.
I would be gutted if Craig quits.
Are you looking forward to SPECTRE?
Craig wasn't semi-bankable. Hardly anyone knew him!
Cavill's UNCLE kinda flopped thereby reducing any bankability clout. Indeed, you could argue there are no actors with bankable credentials. Well no British ones. If you were to study the US box office, there are zero British actors with box office bankability. British actors are widely admired in the US but none are genuine box office stars.
And even actors like Chris Hemsworth (an Aussie) have had major bombs outside of Thor. Blackhat, starring Mr Hemsworh, one of the biggest flops of the year. It's scary how bad that film did (given Chris Hemsworth's alleged film star status). No female fans of Hemsworth turned up to see him. DOA - that film.
It's a media myth about bankability of stars. Doesn't exist. Name a new-ish actor that can guarantee a large opening for most of their films. There is none. You could cast a complete unknown as Bond - even a George Lazenby type- and I doubt it would damage the film's potential box office. OHMSS was the second highest grossing film world wide of 1969 - based on what I've read online! A lot of stuff in Hollywood is made up nonsense, certainly bankability of actors. Look at Johnny Depp, all his recent films have flopped. He is still a star but is he bankable outside of Pirates... films? Nope!
I think there is a distinction between an actor making films that get wide theatrical release stateside and those films making sufficient box office. Jason Staham's films must make some profit because he doesn't make straight to DVD releases .
Statham's most successful film - with him as the star, the lead, is
Transporter 2 - worldwide gross: $43,095,856
The rest 20 - 30 million grossers. He's been in bigger films like the Expendables franchise which made more money but he's never made a US film - with him as the star - that reached 50/60 or more million dollars.
If Daniel Craig quit the role tomorrow, which actor would Eon/Sony pick based on their bankability?
I can't think of any.
Hugh Jackman? CHAPPIE and PAN - both starring roles - underperformed. Both got awful reviews too!
Idris Elba? Well hands up who's seen the trailer, let alone this film?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2515034/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_8
I haven't. Never heard of it until I just checked his IMDB page!
Has Tom Hardy had any hit films which weren't part of a franchise (like Batman or Mad Max)? I don't think so.
I can't imagine the next Bond actor will have much or any pre-existing bankability. He'll get the role based on his acting, price and availability at the time!
(edited post!)
Yes, you're correct about bankability. It's becoming more difficult for anyone to be truly 'bankable' any more. Certainly not like the 80's/early 90's.
Having said that, studios are risk averse, and a Bond film is a huge multi-year and multi-$$$ undertaking.
I realize that very few knew DC prior to CR, but that was a different time. In a higher risk environment (for big budget films) these days, Bond is one of the few guarantees left. Hence, I'm quite sure that any new studio will insist that the star at least have some evident bona fides........EON in contrast will insist on the actor being up to snuff.....and a happy medium will ensue.
I agree on Cavill. My point is it will definitely not be him due to Uncle (he has played a too similar part). Hiddleston is more likely (familiar, but for a different role) but even he is not guaranteed.
This will be interesting, but if I'm a betting man, I think the new studio, EON and even DC will say it's best that he move on at 47 having made his mark and on a high.....rather than come back at 50 for one more when the new studio will then have to reimagine from scratch after that with even more risks.
There is only one deciding factor that leads to casting the new Bond:
If BB has the hots for him;)
You closed what seemed to be the most active thread here recently? Oh. Damn. I sort of see your point, some of the conversation was overlapping, but is that such a big deal? (You might close trailer thread because it overlaps with the production timeline thread?) I still think closing it was unfortunate and unnecessary. Closed threads are dead and get buried fast. I already considered if I'd bother to go over there to get a couple of things to quote and comment on here, but... nah...
Yes, the conversation history will disappear. I also thought it was interesting. Those who were tired of the thread didn't have to read it. I don't read most threads here, and wouldn't mind one bit if all endless ranking and elimination games threads were closed while I was sleeping... ;)
---
Oh well.
All I asked is why does disliking Craig make one a Brosnan fan? How does that work exactly, when I rank Brosnan 5th and Craig 6th? I'll break my response(s) down into points?
- Who is the childish comment aimed at exactly? Could it be me? My opinion of Craig wasn't really formed until after i'd seen QOS. That means that when he was announced (10 years to the day I make this post), I didn't write him off. I saw two of his films before I decided he wasn't Bond for me, and a further one more before I decided that I didn't want to see any more of his films in the cinema.
- Good or bad, whatever else they may be, Craig's films are not spy thrillers. They are more like an awkward marriage of action films and dramas.
- I am no more having a go at Craig, than his fans are jumping to his defense at a seconds notice, as if a member of their own family has been insulted, claiming it is everyone else's fault that they don't get his "sense of humour". And it isn't as if I bash Craig on a constant basis. I don't post as much as I used to, and fewer still do I mention Craig.
- I haven't let the tabloid headlines drive my opinions As I said in my first point, my opinion on Craig hasn't changed since 2008. Surely if my opinion of Craig were controlled by the press, it would be a constant change between love and hate. I see that he has been carrying out UN duties. Well that doesn't change my opinion of him as an actor. I know nothing of Daniel Craig the father/husband, so I won't comment on those aspects of him.
- Craig isn't the only Bond to have to contend with rumours of who's next. Dalton had it far worse (albeit without the internet) with Brosnan. Not helped with the "take this job and shove it" interview with Brosnan. That was worse, as Brosnan was look on as the natural successor to Moore as Bond. Not to mention Brosnan's attempt to align with McClory to make a rogue Bond film in 1989.
Ha ha. Ditto.
But nothing drastic. All this is just pre-release jitters I honestly believe.
"- Who is the childish comment aimed at exactly? Could it be me? My opinion of Craig wasn't really formed until after i'd seen QOS. That means that when he was announced (10 years to the day I make this post), I didn't write him off. I saw two of his films before I decided he wasn't Bond for me, and a further one more before I decided that I didn't want to see any more of his films in the cinema".
You made my point for me, you came on posting about how Craig should behave, and really you have your own perception of what Bond should be and Craig does not fit that therefore you used the recent comments to have a rant about Craig's behaviour. When really Craig's remarks were taken out of context, you say you did not let tabloids form your opinion. So you therefore agree the tabloids twisted the quotes to make them seem like he was being serious. In which case your original comments about Craig were wrong?
Based upon the popularity of Daniel as Bond based upon the Skyfall figures alone http://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Skyfall#tab=summary
There are very few who don't follow your views on Craig as Bond.
You say "I saw two of his films before I decided he wasn't Bond for me" what was not for you, that it was not more of the same?
Then you say " Good or bad, whatever else they may be, Craig's films are not spy thrillers. They are more like an awkward marriage of action films and dramas"
Most media outlets, critics and IMDB manage to list the film as Action, Adventure, Thrillers. And personally I think 1. Dan's Bond films have been full of action, there have been adventures across the globe and have thrilled the audiences who turned up in their millions to see them. (I will give you QOS for some part, but considering the writer strike, studio problems and going over budget that hampered the film this was more Marc Fosters failings and considering all of that Daniel still gave a great performance.
You are the minority, and the films will follow the trends of their times and the other films drawing audiences that influence the future films. I.E CR - Bourne, Skyfall - The Dark Knight Rises. Craig I do not feel will be truly appreciated until years from now, as they are timeless story telling and the style and have been made with more care and though that anything that came through the Dalton and Brosnan era,
How Craig's tenure will be seen in 15 years depends highly on how Spectre will be seen and a possible Bond 25.
Had he stopped at SF it would be viewed as a mediocre legacy over all.
Highest grossing mediocre legacy you mean. What a div comment. away back under your rock Jason.
The billion dollar arguments gets old.
It has nothing to do with the quality of a movie.
Craig has yet to have a second movie that belongs to the group of the truly greats like GF FRWL OHMSS.
CR is such a movie.
Neither has any Bond since Connery. That arguments simple they were all Fleming novels, he was also alive and having input in to how his character would appear on screen. Nobody wrote Bond like his creator.
In your mind. And financial sujccess does tell a story about audiences satisfied with a result. And before you say it, yes, that is even the case with movies, many would say stink. Obviously they found their audiences and in the end, tha is what counts. Many people seeing a film and enjoying it.
The DC area had lots of that.