Where does Bond go after Craig?

peter

No @jetsetwilly , I disagree absolutely; I too liked Dalton but the studio made the best decision for the franchise: Brosnan (my least favourite) was the best man for the job, especially for that big slice of NA box office; Dalton wouldn’t have had the breakthrough that Brosnan had. There was no appetite for Dalton in North America and Brosnan’s films clicked with audiences.

The studio made the right call in saying goodbye to him and welcoming Brosnan….
After all: The box office results of Dalton’s films vs the box office of Brosnan’s films tend to support the studio’s switch.

Matt007

peter wrote: »

Matt007 wrote: »

I think a long term plan is required to secure the long term future of the franchise

You're talking about a multi-billion dollar series that is coming off the most successful era since the 60s, and; Amazon gave up an arm and a leg to have a piece of the Bond films.

You may not have enjoyed Craig and/or the majority of his output as Bond, but I think EoN is doing A-OK as filmmakers, they're highly respected in the business and the worldwide audience continue to enjoy the films, especially the era which recently came to a close.

I actually really enjoyed Craig’s era. But I’m a 45 year old man. The demographics of who goes to watch bond is that it skews old. If that demographic doesn’t get replaced with younger audience members then the returns will diminish. Kind of like how Star Wars is largely propped up by 80s kids now. Disney for better or worse is trying to attract younger viewers to replace us when we die

peter

Matt007 wrote: »

peter wrote: »

Matt007 wrote: »

I think a long term plan is required to secure the long term future of the franchise

You're talking about a multi-billion dollar series that is coming off the most successful era since the 60s, and; Amazon gave up an arm and a leg to have a piece of the Bond films.

You may not have enjoyed Craig and/or the majority of his output as Bond, but I think EoN is doing A-OK as filmmakers, they're highly respected in the business and the worldwide audience continue to enjoy the films, especially the era which recently came to a close.

I actually really enjoyed Craig’s era. But I’m a 45 year old man. The demographics of who goes to watch bond is that it skews old. If that demographic doesn’t get replaced with younger audience members then the returns will diminish. Kind of like how Star Wars is largely propped up by 80s kids now. Disney for better or worse is trying to attract younger viewers to replace us when we die

I certainly agree they need to bring in a younger audience, and that will naturally occur with the re-casting of a new, young and interesting actor who hopefully brings buzz and excitement with him.

That’s why the casting will be very interesting.

But as far as running a massive enterprise like Bond, I do trust EoN (warts and all), to be able to steward the next guy and his upcoming adventures, over anyone else (especially fans (some of the “stories” they want to see are so small and dated— and I’m not talking about scale, but the ideas are not one that we associate with blockbuster films; a budget can be conservative with a big concept film, like Goldeneye.)).

jetsetwilly

peter wrote: »

No @jetsetwilly , I disagree absolutely; I too liked Dalton but the studio made the best decision for the franchise: Brosnan (my least favourite) was the best man for the job, especially for that big slice of NA box office; Dalton wouldn’t have had the breakthrough that Brosnan had. There was no appetite for Dalton in North America and Brosnan’s films clicked with audiences.

The studio made the right call in saying goodbye to him and welcoming Brosnan….
After all: The box office results of Dalton’s films vs the box office of Brosnan’s films tend to support the studio’s switch.

I think Brozza was also a good choice as Bond (matches Fleming's description), but I didn't like the direction his movies went in. Had they continued down the LTK route I would have much preferred that instead.

As for studios making the right choice versus what I prefer as a film, I selfishly choose what I prefer every day of the week. I never watch a film that I dislike, but think to myself `I must try and enjoy this, because the studios made the right choice commercially. This is getting bums on seats, so I have to enjoy it.'

And I'd be surprised if anyone thinks like that.

AstonLotus

Matt007 wrote: »

peter wrote: »

Matt007 wrote: »

I think a long term plan is required to secure the long term future of the franchise

You're talking about a multi-billion dollar series that is coming off the most successful era since the 60s, and; Amazon gave up an arm and a leg to have a piece of the Bond films.

You may not have enjoyed Craig and/or the majority of his output as Bond, but I think EoN is doing A-OK as filmmakers, they're highly respected in the business and the worldwide audience continue to enjoy the films, especially the era which recently came to a close.

I actually really enjoyed Craig’s era. But I’m a 45 year old man. The demographics of who goes to watch bond is that it skews old. If that demographic doesn’t get replaced with younger audience members then the returns will diminish. Kind of like how Star Wars is largely propped up by 80s kids now. Disney for better or worse is trying to attract younger viewers to replace us when we die

Yep and I’d say the returns are already diminishing.NTTDs box office was impressive but the simple fact that it’s been on a downward trend since 2012 and the budgets have been going up.

Spectre made less than Skyfall.NTTD made less than Spectre.And the Pandemic excuse doesn’t fly anymore.Spider Man:NWH made nearly 2 billion dollars despite being a Pandemic era film.

jetsetwilly

AstonLotus wrote: »

Matt007 wrote: »

peter wrote: »

Matt007 wrote: »

I think a long term plan is required to secure the long term future of the franchise

You're talking about a multi-billion dollar series that is coming off the most successful era since the 60s, and; Amazon gave up an arm and a leg to have a piece of the Bond films.

You may not have enjoyed Craig and/or the majority of his output as Bond, but I think EoN is doing A-OK as filmmakers, they're highly respected in the business and the worldwide audience continue to enjoy the films, especially the era which recently came to a close.

I actually really enjoyed Craig’s era. But I’m a 45 year old man. The demographics of who goes to watch bond is that it skews old. If that demographic doesn’t get replaced with younger audience members then the returns will diminish. Kind of like how Star Wars is largely propped up by 80s kids now. Disney for better or worse is trying to attract younger viewers to replace us when we die

Yep and I’d say the returns are already diminishing.NTTDs box office was impressive but the simple fact that it’s been on a downward trend since 2012 and the budgets have been going up.

Spectre made less than Skyfall.NTTD made less than Spectre.And the Pandemic excuse doesn’t fly anymore.Spider Man:NWH made nearly 2 billion dollars despite being a Pandemic era film.

That is good news. Hopefully it forces a change in direction.

peter

@AstonLotus … you definitely warp reality to fit your narrative: Spectre DID make less than SF , and deservedly so. But NTTD was the first big blockbuster, that skews older (as was just discussed above your post), that came out during a pandemic, a pandemic that wasn’t kind to the elderly; Spider-Man’s demographics are for kiddies and families.

Apples and oranges, and you know it. And during a Pandemic, older audience members stayed home.

@jetsetwilly … it’s the producers/studios who are trying to connect with audiences to put bums in seats. That’s their job. If they made another LTK (a film I enjoyed), it would have killed Bond, and it doesn’t matter if you and I loved it, it failed to ignite the audience imagination… The studio was absolutely correct to get rid of Dalton and start fresh.

echo

The Bond audience has skewed old since at least the '70s. That's why they keep copying current trends.

DarthDimi

ColonelAdamski wrote: »

Creative decision, my arse. It's a gimmick.

Then again, most Bond films are collections of gimmicks, set pieces, eye candy, stunts, quips, ... You can call them "creative decisions" as soon as they are ordered in to serve the film in any way whatsoever. Let's not forget that most Bond films are one half rollercoaster ride and one half spy/adventure/thriller, so even a gimmick can be part of the creative decision-making.

A couple of times now, the filmmakers have also been so bold to include a gripping death scene. And now, it was Bond's turn. I'm astonished, quite frankly, that this continues to evoke such strong emotional (often angry) responses. It's just one film in a series that barely worries about continuity at all. Most people watch the occasional Bond film in isolation. They won't mind.

Birdleson

echo wrote: »

The Bond audience has skewed old since at least the '70s. That's why they keep copying current trends.

They definitely lost that share of the market after the '70s. It was obviously to me anecdotally, going by my own acquaintances.

RichardTheBruce

There is a general feel that Babs pulled out all the stops for Craig though, desperate to bring him back for the next one at any cost, gave him a lot of creative control, had his say in who was hired, etc.

I disagree, that's not shown to be true. Beyond being unknowable, it would be wrong to personalize dislike or outright hatred of the film or its ending so directly at Daniel Craig. Decisions always go back to the main producers, they call the shots.

And in this case they were affirmed with the success for their film with critics and by box office and awards. Good on them.

ColonelAdamski wrote: »

MI6HQ wrote: »

So if the ending of NTTD came from Fleming, would they criticize it?

If Fleming wrote Bond's death, (which he never did, despite the FRWL ending), then it would surely have been the last Bond book. And even if he wrote further adventures after Bond's literary death, they'd have been placed in a time before Bond's death. This is because Fleming took care in the chronology of his character. Like all good writers.

Fleming considered killing the Bond character more than once across 14 books, and not just with his 5th novel.

Ian Fleming, Andrew Lycett, 1995.

A glance through The Times Literary
Supplement while he was still at the London Clinic suggested another idea.
In the issue of 14 April he read a leading article which put the case for
republishing books long out of print. This encouraged him to remind his
own publisher that he had several times pushed for a reprint of one of his
favourite novels, All Night at Mr Stanyhurst's by Hugh Edwards, with an
introduction he would write himself. In putting forward such ideas, Ian
was thinking about his future. As he told William Plomer, he had again
almost killed off Bond in The Spy Who Loved Me. He had decided not to,
but the appropriate time had now certainly come.

And it's an interesting notion that if Fleming himself did it, it would acceptable and workable based on his own chronology.

Contrasted by still another outlook on the film(s).

So, if Fleming wrote Bond's death, it would have made sense in the narrative.
CraigBond's death doesn't make sense, because we're being asked to accept that although Bond is dead, he's not dead. He'll be back in an alternate universe, as a different character, but still the same character.
That fudging and back-peddling of the whole fictional cinematic incarnation of James Bond is something I'm pretty damn sure Ian Fleming wouldn't never in a million years tried to do in his books.
Like all good writers, he had an obligation to the reader. His books, however outlandish, had to make sense in that way, otherwise the reader would feel cheated.

Can't agree with that in the slightest.

And I note that NTTD takes place 5 years after Bond's career as an agent. By design, the next film will be prior to that, and take place during his double-oh tenure. Very simple concept here and will not confuse any viewer unless they were looking for zombie Bond. Which is a concept I would entertain by the way.

007HallY

thelivingroyale wrote: »

Back on topic, I’ve always liked the idea of a wolf in sheep’s clothing sort of Bond. I know that’s all of them to an extent, but I mean someone who can flick between the two sides of the character (the gentleman and the killer) at their most extreme. Someone who doesn’t seem overtly dangerous, and has heaps of Moore/Brosnan style charm, but can suddenly turn into Daniel Craig when the action kicks off. Struggling to think of many actors who could pull that off though. Maybe someone like Rege Jean-Page, he’s a name who’s come up a lot who @007HallY just reminded me of on the Bond actor thread. He’s got the charming side down and he seems physically fit enough to match the handier Bonds in the fight scenes, with the right training.

Jean-Page isn't implausible. I think he'd make a good Moore-esque Bond, quite gentlemanly (ironically he's starring in a reboot of The Saint which means he most likely won't be able to commit to Bond).

I get what you mean though. I personally think after Craig we'll get a very different approach to the role from the new actor. I've talked much about how Bond 26 could evoke The Batman in terms of plot, but it could also be a similar situation in terms of the lead actor's performance. Like Bale's Batman, Craig's Bond was a force of nature - he bulked up for CR, he committed to the actions scenes and even broke bones for the role. Despite that, for all his attempts to make Bond more 'human' I never got the sense he had read that much Fleming or cared for the novels. Like Pattinson's approach to Batman, I suspect (and hope) the new Bond actor will instead revisit the source material, try to understand the character, put their own spin on it and ignore things like working out, getting the six pack, doing all their own stunts etc. It'd work in the context of a more low key but still fantastical film.

slide_99

There are certain aspects of Fleming-Bond's character that Craig nailed, namely his gallows humor, his laconic outlook on life, and his ability to take tons of physical damage and keep going. But I think that was all undermined by the series continually copying Batman and Marvel, putting Craig's Bond in situations that don't belong in Bond movies, making him say and do things (and wear things, like that awful duster in NTTD) that I can't see Fleming's Bond doing, and giving him emotional beats that don't jive with the character, like weeping over M dying, for example. Getting Bond right is half the battle. Getting Bond's world right is just as important, and I think they really botched the latter, and were only occassionally successful at the former, especially post-QOS.

007HallY

slide_99 wrote: »

There are certain aspects of Fleming-Bond's character that Craig nailed, namely his gallows humor, his laconic outlook on life, and his ability to take tons of physical damage and keep going. But I think that was all undermined by the series continually copying Batman and Marvel, putting Craig's Bond in situations that don't belong in Bond movies, making him say and do things (and wear things, like that awful duster in NTTD) that I can't see Fleming's Bond doing, and giving him emotional beats that don't jive with the character, like weeping over M dying, for example. Getting Bond right is half the battle. Getting Bond's world right is just as important, and I think they really botched the latter, and were only occassionally successful at the former, especially post-QOS.

Skyfall was where Craig came across as most Fleming-esque for me. I can even forgive him crying over M's death (to be fair, Fleming's Bond wasn't beyond crying or the occasional shows of emotion on particular occasions). NTTD is his least Fleming inspired performance in the sense Bond goes from being a 'stiff upper lip' type into being more impulsive and chatty (whether you like this or not is subjective by the way, and it somewhat works for the film). Even in CR and QOS he's prone to going against orders to complete his mission, which is very much unlike Fleming's blunt instrument in the novels.

There's much to explore with Fleming's Bond going forward in a future script. His odd relationship with death and killing - heck, his near inability to do so in cold blood which the films tend to show him doing carefree. His rather disgusting and overt sexism in CR, the fact that he tends to fall in love with various women later on and has this sort of 'St. George complex' of wanting to save or reform them. His snobbishness is another element which also didn't quite come out in the Craig era (his particularity on certain foods, drinks, clothes etc). Such an interesting, flawed and human character. Even the Craig films haven't scratched the surface of what could be done with Bond as a character going from the novels.

FoxRox

https://consequence.net/2022/04/paul-verhoeven-no-time-to-die-bond-comments/amp/

Given the emphasis on Bond and Madeleine’s relationship in NTTD, it can be excused for not having this usual emphasis. B26 will be the real test to see if the franchise is fully shying away from it or will do more again.

thelivingroyale

Do we know how set in stone the product placement deals are? I like the idea of shifting to a different automaker, like when Moore had Lotus setting him apart from Connery. The new Astons are gorgeous, but they do all have quite a similar shape. If they stuck the next guy in a Vantage for example, it’d be hard not to picture Craig and the DB10. But at this point, I’m not sure AM would let Bond go, and I’m not sure EON would want to risk switching it up anyway. That partnership has been very good for both their brands.

peter wrote: »

@thelivingroyale … I’ve only seen clips of Bridgerton… Do you think Page has big screen charisma?

I’d love to see him without the beard and in a film…

I think so. I watched Bridgerton just for the sake of seeing what he could do, and he does have a charming sort of leading man presence. I can’t really picture him playing a Connery/Craig sort of Bond, but I think a Bond who’s a bit less rugged and a bit more gentleman could feel like a nice change of pace.

peter wrote: »

Matt007 wrote: »

peter wrote: »

Matt007 wrote: »

I think a long term plan is required to secure the long term future of the franchise

You're talking about a multi-billion dollar series that is coming off the most successful era since the 60s, and; Amazon gave up an arm and a leg to have a piece of the Bond films.

You may not have enjoyed Craig and/or the majority of his output as Bond, but I think EoN is doing A-OK as filmmakers, they're highly respected in the business and the worldwide audience continue to enjoy the films, especially the era which recently came to a close.

I actually really enjoyed Craig’s era. But I’m a 45 year old man. The demographics of who goes to watch bond is that it skews old. If that demographic doesn’t get replaced with younger audience members then the returns will diminish. Kind of like how Star Wars is largely propped up by 80s kids now. Disney for better or worse is trying to attract younger viewers to replace us when we die

I certainly agree they need to bring in a younger audience, and that will naturally occur with the re-casting of a new, young and interesting actor who hopefully brings buzz and excitement with him.

That’s why the casting will be very interesting.

Yeah exactly, they’ve got the perfect chance to recapture the attention of young people, and I’m sure they’re they’re business savvy enough to know that’s something they need to do. Getting Billie Eillish for the theme song last time was a good indicator that the issue is on their minds (I reckon it’ll be a hip hop or grime artist doing the next one, I think that’s been a long time coming).

That’s why I think the fans hoping for a return to tradition may be disappointed. The next Bond will be the millenial Bond. And while we have no idea how that will look yet, I’d put money on it being worlds away from the Bond of the 50s and 60s. I think an electric car is quite likely for example.

TripAces

007HallY wrote: »

thelivingroyale wrote: »

Back on topic, I’ve always liked the idea of a wolf in sheep’s clothing sort of Bond. I know that’s all of them to an extent, but I mean someone who can flick between the two sides of the character (the gentleman and the killer) at their most extreme. Someone who doesn’t seem overtly dangerous, and has heaps of Moore/Brosnan style charm, but can suddenly turn into Daniel Craig when the action kicks off. Struggling to think of many actors who could pull that off though. Maybe someone like Rege Jean-Page, he’s a name who’s come up a lot who @007HallY just reminded me of on the Bond actor thread. He’s got the charming side down and he seems physically fit enough to match the handier Bonds in the fight scenes, with the right training.

Jean-Page isn't implausible. I think he'd make a good Moore-esque Bond, quite gentlemanly (ironically he's starring in a reboot of The Saint which means he most likely won't be able to commit to Bond).

I get what you mean though. I personally think after Craig we'll get a very different approach to the role from the new actor. I've talked much about how Bond 26 could evoke The Batman in terms of plot, but it could also be a similar situation in terms of the lead actor's performance. Like Bale's Batman, Craig's Bond was a force of nature - he bulked up for CR, he committed to the actions scenes and even broke bones for the role. Despite that, for all his attempts to make Bond more 'human' I never got the sense he had read that much Fleming or cared for the novels. Like Pattinson's approach to Batman, I suspect (and hope) the new Bond actor will instead revisit the source material, try to understand the character, put their own spin on it and ignore things like working out, getting the six pack, doing all their own stunts etc. It'd work in the context of a more low key but still fantastical film.

I can only go off of what my wife and her friends say. None of them are huge Bond fans and they only go because the husbands drag them.

BUT...

Any suggestion that Page could be the next Bond arouses their, uh...interest considerably.

Page is young, sexy, and brings ethnic diversity to the role. I would not at all be shocked if he's the man.

AstonLotus

echo wrote: »

The Bond audience has skewed old since at least the '70s. That's why they keep copying current trends.

I don’t know where this comes from.Most people get into Bond as kids.Lots of kids enjoy Bond films.There are older fans as well as young ones.Although I think it’s fair to say Bonds fan base tends to skew towards males given that he’s a male fantasy figure.

Matt007

I do think the production values are the highest we’ve ever had…

But just returning to kid appeal. Kids emulate their heroes in films. Who would want to emulate Craig’s bond? Pick a scene that isn’t parkour.

But yes I prefer this era to brosnan, but when I introduced my kids to bond, it was spy, tomorrow never dies and avtak, not Qos

Jimjambond

Skewing a younger audience doesn't seem legit to me. Does anyone have the age demographics that made up the cinema going audience for NTTD? The film was a financial success in the midst of a pandemic, making over $700Million and critically acclaimed, following CR and SF.

Bond doesn't need to go out if it's way to appeal to younger audiences. Bond needs to just tell fun, exciting and engaging films. Look at CR and SF, especially the former. We need Bond to be who he is and for his stories to be told well. I want to look at the screen and smell the atmosphere of which ever location he's in. I want to feel educated by the culture he interacts with. I want to feel immersed in the world of glitz, glamour, sex and danger. These are components the likes of Young and Campbell excelled at tremendously and needs to return. Wearing a cool suit, scouling and seemingly in a perpetual bad mood and who dies because he can't live I'm a world without a woman he barely knew for 5 minutes isn't why and how Bond has survived and dominated public interest for 60 bloody years.

I find it difficult to understand how a film series has the first 4 Bond films, OHMSS, LALD, TSWLM, TLD, GE, CR, QoS and SF can stray so far from the magic that makes Bond films so captivating.

Suspense, intrigue, spycraft, proper investigative work, paranoia and a compelling story furnished with inventive out of the box action set pieces. No need for anything overly complicated. Just make the films interesting AND exciting.

LucknFate

The films were never and are never meant for children and we shouldn't be asking for that. It's simply that adults used to be more fun.

Birdleson

Jimjambond wrote: »

I find it difficult to understand how a film series has the first 4 Bond films, OHMSS, LALD, TSWLM, TLD, GE, CR, QoS and SF can stray so far from the magic that makes Bond films so captivating.

That's about a perfect list.

thelivingroyale

@Jimjambond Bond’s audience does tend to skew older in America. I think being British it’s easy to forget that it’s not as big everywhere else as it is here. This article breaks down NTTD’s demographics a bit.

https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/movies/story/2021-10-10/no-time-to-die-box-office-opening-weekend

And this is way more anecdotal, but I found this Reddit thread to be interesting reading at the time for giving me a different perspective. That website is mostly dominated by millenial/Gen Z Americans, and some of them offered their opinions on why they don’t think Bond is as popular with their demographic.

https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/q5tu3l/comment/hg85gj9/

LucknFate wrote: »

The films were never and are never meant for children and we shouldn't be asking for that. It's simply that adults used to be more fun.

How old were you when you first saw a Bond film? Do you not remember the toys they used to make? The books were meant for adults, the films have always been for kids too.

Birdleson

I was 3. I actually remember quite a bit of the experience.
GF/Dn double-feature at the drive-in. My parents bought me the Odd Job and Bond plastic toy figures.

I read the books at 12 or 13 years of age.

ImpertinentGoon

I’m an old man yelling at clouds, so I’m obviously biased to want things targeted at me, but Hollywood is already making enough films for 14-20 year-olds and those that still behave as if they were that age. I obviously don’t want Bond to become Kramer vs. Kramer, but a well-produced action franchise that takes its adult audience seriously seems almost like a market niche at the moment.

jetsetwilly

TripAces wrote: »

007HallY wrote: »

thelivingroyale wrote: »

Back on topic, I’ve always liked the idea of a wolf in sheep’s clothing sort of Bond. I know that’s all of them to an extent, but I mean someone who can flick between the two sides of the character (the gentleman and the killer) at their most extreme. Someone who doesn’t seem overtly dangerous, and has heaps of Moore/Brosnan style charm, but can suddenly turn into Daniel Craig when the action kicks off. Struggling to think of many actors who could pull that off though. Maybe someone like Rege Jean-Page, he’s a name who’s come up a lot who @007HallY just reminded me of on the Bond actor thread. He’s got the charming side down and he seems physically fit enough to match the handier Bonds in the fight scenes, with the right training.

Jean-Page isn't implausible. I think he'd make a good Moore-esque Bond, quite gentlemanly (ironically he's starring in a reboot of The Saint which means he most likely won't be able to commit to Bond).

I get what you mean though. I personally think after Craig we'll get a very different approach to the role from the new actor. I've talked much about how Bond 26 could evoke The Batman in terms of plot, but it could also be a similar situation in terms of the lead actor's performance. Like Bale's Batman, Craig's Bond was a force of nature - he bulked up for CR, he committed to the actions scenes and even broke bones for the role. Despite that, for all his attempts to make Bond more 'human' I never got the sense he had read that much Fleming or cared for the novels. Like Pattinson's approach to Batman, I suspect (and hope) the new Bond actor will instead revisit the source material, try to understand the character, put their own spin on it and ignore things like working out, getting the six pack, doing all their own stunts etc. It'd work in the context of a more low key but still fantastical film.

I can only go off of what my wife and her friends say. None of them are huge Bond fans and they only go because the husbands drag them.

BUT...

Any suggestion that Page could be the next Bond arouses their, uh...interest considerably.

Page is young, sexy, and brings ethnic diversity to the role. I would not at all be shocked if he's the man.

I bet you any money he isn't.

Jimjambond

The reality is any reasonably attractive looking actor will do well in the role as long as the film's good. Case in point, Lazenby and Craig. Lazenby had the looks and wasn't even an actor. Craig isnt traditionally handsome and was regard as "fugly" (I hate that word so much) but he can act and got himself into great shape. Lastly, the actor established or not could have been born yesterday for all we care and it wouldn't make that much of a difference because people font got to Bond films to see the actor playing him they go to see James Bond.

TripAces

jetsetwilly wrote: »

TripAces wrote: »

007HallY wrote: »

thelivingroyale wrote: »

Back on topic, I’ve always liked the idea of a wolf in sheep’s clothing sort of Bond. I know that’s all of them to an extent, but I mean someone who can flick between the two sides of the character (the gentleman and the killer) at their most extreme. Someone who doesn’t seem overtly dangerous, and has heaps of Moore/Brosnan style charm, but can suddenly turn into Daniel Craig when the action kicks off. Struggling to think of many actors who could pull that off though. Maybe someone like Rege Jean-Page, he’s a name who’s come up a lot who @007HallY just reminded me of on the Bond actor thread. He’s got the charming side down and he seems physically fit enough to match the handier Bonds in the fight scenes, with the right training.

Jean-Page isn't implausible. I think he'd make a good Moore-esque Bond, quite gentlemanly (ironically he's starring in a reboot of The Saint which means he most likely won't be able to commit to Bond).

I get what you mean though. I personally think after Craig we'll get a very different approach to the role from the new actor. I've talked much about how Bond 26 could evoke The Batman in terms of plot, but it could also be a similar situation in terms of the lead actor's performance. Like Bale's Batman, Craig's Bond was a force of nature - he bulked up for CR, he committed to the actions scenes and even broke bones for the role. Despite that, for all his attempts to make Bond more 'human' I never got the sense he had read that much Fleming or cared for the novels. Like Pattinson's approach to Batman, I suspect (and hope) the new Bond actor will instead revisit the source material, try to understand the character, put their own spin on it and ignore things like working out, getting the six pack, doing all their own stunts etc. It'd work in the context of a more low key but still fantastical film.

I can only go off of what my wife and her friends say. None of them are huge Bond fans and they only go because the husbands drag them.

BUT...

Any suggestion that Page could be the next Bond arouses their, uh...interest considerably.

Page is young, sexy, and brings ethnic diversity to the role. I would not at all be shocked if he's the man.

I bet you any money he isn't.

Well, I chose my words carefully. I didn't predict it. I only said I wouldn't be shocked if it happened.

jetsetwilly

TripAces wrote: »

jetsetwilly wrote: »

TripAces wrote: »

007HallY wrote: »

thelivingroyale wrote: »

Back on topic, I’ve always liked the idea of a wolf in sheep’s clothing sort of Bond. I know that’s all of them to an extent, but I mean someone who can flick between the two sides of the character (the gentleman and the killer) at their most extreme. Someone who doesn’t seem overtly dangerous, and has heaps of Moore/Brosnan style charm, but can suddenly turn into Daniel Craig when the action kicks off. Struggling to think of many actors who could pull that off though. Maybe someone like Rege Jean-Page, he’s a name who’s come up a lot who @007HallY just reminded me of on the Bond actor thread. He’s got the charming side down and he seems physically fit enough to match the handier Bonds in the fight scenes, with the right training.

Jean-Page isn't implausible. I think he'd make a good Moore-esque Bond, quite gentlemanly (ironically he's starring in a reboot of The Saint which means he most likely won't be able to commit to Bond).

I get what you mean though. I personally think after Craig we'll get a very different approach to the role from the new actor. I've talked much about how Bond 26 could evoke The Batman in terms of plot, but it could also be a similar situation in terms of the lead actor's performance. Like Bale's Batman, Craig's Bond was a force of nature - he bulked up for CR, he committed to the actions scenes and even broke bones for the role. Despite that, for all his attempts to make Bond more 'human' I never got the sense he had read that much Fleming or cared for the novels. Like Pattinson's approach to Batman, I suspect (and hope) the new Bond actor will instead revisit the source material, try to understand the character, put their own spin on it and ignore things like working out, getting the six pack, doing all their own stunts etc. It'd work in the context of a more low key but still fantastical film.

I can only go off of what my wife and her friends say. None of them are huge Bond fans and they only go because the husbands drag them.

BUT...

Any suggestion that Page could be the next Bond arouses their, uh...interest considerably.

Page is young, sexy, and brings ethnic diversity to the role. I would not at all be shocked if he's the man.

I bet you any money he isn't.

Well, I chose my words carefully. I didn't predict it. I only said I wouldn't be shocked if it happened.

Fair enough.

AstonLotus

LucknFate wrote: »

The films were never and are never meant for children and we shouldn't be asking for that. It's simply that adults used to be more fun.

I first got into Bond watching The Spy Who loved Me during a Bond season on tv.I was seven years old.I bought the Marvel comics adaptation of FYEO, and got the Lotus Esprit remote control toy as a gift for Christmas round the same time.I watched every single Bond film ever made up to that point before I was ten.