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 can only hope that this is just further tabloid rumour, and we are just in a holding pattern until the studio negotiations are completed, when an announcement either way will be made.
I wish Mendes would ha
I don't believe that ...I do believe pushed back to 2018 but that's more due to finding a new studio.
Craig I believe will decide when sees script and possible director.
Anything else is just conjecture right now. But I believe the producers would move on with or without Craig.
Studio will have say too.
But then the Hinx fight itself (so visceral and almost QoS/CR like) contradicts that.
Maybe they had to keep that one in because it was so good, and it would have been a shame to exclude it after all the pain DC suffered on account of it. I'm running out of excuses now....
But you're right, bondjames, no one is bigger than the franchise. It will go on long after Craig (however, I wonder if I'll personally have any interest in another actor replacing the man I think best exemplifies the character (my opinion only), or will I just hibernate in the stories of Ian Fleming?).
Saying that, the producers probably want to hold onto Craig for as long as he can realistically pull off the role, for a couple of reasons:
1. he's their Golden Boy (money talks).
2. when Craig does go, they (producers) will have to seriously consider what to do with the role. I think they will be in an even worse position than they were after DAD. Why? Because the Craig era (whether you love or hate them) is rigidly defined by this actor-- much moreso than the other actors of the series. So they can't possibly continue with a new actor in this timeline.
And I don't think they'll want to do a hard re-boot either. Why would they? CR was not only a great 007 film, it was arguably one of the best action-thrillers made in the last decade. Why make another re-boot that will inevitably be compared to their first official re-boot?
Plus a hard re-boot and you may be playing with fire; I call it the Spiderman-Reboot-Fatigue Syndrome.
When the time comes, and to keep the franchise fresh and viable, they will have to do something quite radical. The new actor, and his stories, will have to identify his time in the role as much as DC's identifies him.
What that radical concept will be, I have no idea. On first impulse, I'd say take the franchise back to the post war era. However, from a filmmaking point of view, I don't think that's a viable alternative. Period pieces are expensive to begin with. An action period piece even moreso. And I don't think this idea has legs. We're so technologically advanced and our world is so much more complex than in the 50s, that I don't think this idea would capture the public's imagination, and certainly not on a global scale (which is something the filmmakers have to always consider: how their film will play across Europe, NA, Asia).
I don't envy the producers, and when the time comes, they are going to have to dig deep, find a new hook to hang this character on, and one that will have global appeal, all the while charting a course that differs from Craig.
Hell, the most radical approach may be to temporarily resign the character for a good long time, let the dust settle from the Craig era, and resurrect themselves when they have something truly unique to offer the worldwide audiences (who are much more sophisticated now than at any other time in film history).
If I were them, I'd just cast the most charismatic, best actor they can find and press forward in a slightly different vein to the Craig era. Eg. try to do what Moore did to Connery rather than try to capture the Craig era again (we've already seen a pastiche era once, and it didn't work imho).
As others have said, the most important thing is the scripts. Get a good story with a decent hook, cast superb actors, give the film some charisma & heart, and you're set. SF proved that.
Difficult to argue with any of those points. I feel when Craig bows out they will quite probably have a 4 or 5 year hiatus while they wonder what to do next. MGW will retire and (for better or worse) Babs will start priming the Wilson sons to run the show.
This is why I'd like them to give Dan some space for at least a year but get his verbal agreement (along with Waltz) that they work on two scripts back to back - one a largely standalone mission in which Blofeld takes a bit of a back seat and then an adaptation of YOLT to bring it all to a head - with release dates in 2018 and 2020.
Really hope we can hang on to Dan for 2 more. I know it's unlikely but the next actor will be up against it both in competing with Dan's legacy and because EON will be struggling what to do as a follow up.
The obvious solution would be in 2020 when Dan is gone to give Nolan carte balance to do a trilogy although I am rather in two minds about this.
And lambast me but I think Craig lost the casual audience with SP. That audience will whether right or wrong associate the jabs against SP with Craig.
Can just hear them saying "yeah, Craig is alright but not as good... " or "yea, I don't really like his films..."
The enthusiasm for Bond and Craig gained by SF in NA has been lost with SP.
I disagree. A Nolan trilogy now could redeem the franchise.
I agree
Can't hurt and Nolan big in NA. Can just here the press. Nolan saves Bond
ouch....
(spot on)
Let's link arms and walk out together.
That'd make for a full year plus of filming steady, which would be absolutely ballistic. Dan and co. would look like zombies while shooting the scenes of the second film. It's best to take one massive shoot at a time. Otherwise it becomes an acting, editing, directing, producing nightmare, etc.
No-one but Daniel Craig's mum had heard of him prior to his casting so it wasn't as if the world was desperate for the guy to be Bond. Sure, Craig is popular but the next guy can be as popular. I think the studio need to think longer term, not just about 2018. SPECTRE felt like the right time to move on, Bond appeared to find his new love, Blofeld was captured. Bond 25 is the ideal film to introduce a new Bond actor.
The problem is that the last four films have been the same origin story repeated. EON clearly has no idea what to do next with the character/franchise so best just to stall for time before starting from scratch with a new actor. It's the same thing they did with Roger after Moonraker. Once a new tread becomes popular EON will recast and have a new direction. At the moment they're stuck in limbo.
And who's to say these 2 parters both have to be action back. Have part 1 be the slow and steady part a build up and then have part 2 be the heavy jam packed action film.
Dan and EON work their butts off preparing and shooting these films; asking more of them in that regard would be insane. They would suffer, the product would suffer, and our enjoyment would suffer.
Got it in one Brady .
Didn't say that I necessarily wanted it just meant that with an ageing MGW and Babs and a moribund writing team it would very easy in their position to just hand it all over to Nolan to do what he wants for 3 films.
The studio would lap that up and so probably would the public. From everyone's point of view it's a no lose scenario. If it goes well fantastic. If it goes badly blame it all on Nolan.
Well in answer to your questions no. But that's where we are these days. It's all about continuity and sending the character on a journey.
So either we continue with Craig and the Blofeld story - which IMO after the botch that was SP can't be completed in one film - or we wipe the slate clean and start from scratch with a new Bond.
When you've got a popular (and more crucially bankable) Bond it makes sense not to change. Although the series has got past a change in actor it's a bit of a risk. George saw a drop in box office, at the start Rog struggled and Dalton didnt set the world on fire.
And when I say back to back I mean write the scripts back to back instead of this desperate retconning. No need to film them back to back- a 2 year gap is fine - but if the 2nd one is already written then Dan can have a year off and then come back for his final fling.
If they can persuade Dan to stay for two more then B25 really needs to be an Empire Strikes Back scenario with Blofeld showing why he's Bond's nemesis and the end being a real downer before Bond triumphs in B26 and Dan goes out on a high.
The reason I'm so keen for a two parter is because of the shambles they made of Blofekd and SPECTRE in SP. Ideally B25 would be YOLT and end Dan's tenure with Bond's amnesia but the problem is to have YOLT you first need the set up of OHMSS and they haven't come anywhere near that in SP so once again they would be shoehorning too much in to make it work.
I can't remember ever feeling so trepidatious about a Bond script as I will be going into B25.
Not at all @Germanlady. We're just debating in general the best way of digging themselves out of the mire they've got themselves into by filming a half written script.
I don't think there's anyone on here or at EON who have ever considered 2017 to be possible.