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
Daniel Craig makes the cover, four years after leaving the role of James Bond behind, to look at his role in Queer that is a world apart from his time as 007.
Just goes to show that whatever an actor does, they will always be associated with James Bond forever after.
As has often been discussed, taking on such a role is a huge life choice for the actor.
But I doubt EON would go down that route, certainly not those actors who have been in big movie franchises, most likely an Indie (not so much known) actor, so, yes, he will be associated with the Bond role forever.
With no film in the pipeline or any news to speak of, a story that concerns a former Bond actors new role can still get attention by being on the cover of a newspaper.
James Bond, can get peoples attention clearly.
Honestly, I was going to say "I don't pretend to know the different routes Eon might take" but then I read a few comments above. As a Connery fan, a black, gay or bisexual Bond would no longer be Bond to me but just another spy action hero character. Without his roots at least tied to the Fleming books I would no longer be interested in the Bond character. To me, there would be no reason to implement these kind of changes other than for the sake of arbitrarily making a change. In today's culture these changes could fly but not for this Connery fan.
Thanks for sharing. I feel the same way.
Me too. :D
Or for the sake of appeasing a loud internet minority that would instantly pump a victorious fist and then probably never care about Bond anymore.
Craig was a good Bond. But we're long past not being able to find a replacement. We've had six Bonds. There's another out there. There always is.
I'm being glib of course, and I don't think there are any alternative versions of Connery or Moore. In the same way there will never be another Craig. Personally, I don't believe there's a definitive version of the cinematic James Bond. It's only different actors (albeit a very select few) giving their interpretation of this character.
Agreed, there's someone out there and always will be.
I don't think it's Craig himself that is hard to follow, but Casino Royale as a debut Bond film.
007's mission and the involved characters can serve the same purpose story-wise to ramp things up. As Bond Girl, sacrificial lamb, or otherwise. More as standalone tales, where Bond is confronted with a compelling situation that's not his own. And he reacts.
Expect that will still be grounded. To me the Craig films had plenty of humor and fun. Open for increase of course with a new actor, or really a new direction chosen by the producers. And director.
Though Connery is still my number one Bond, CR and OHMSS occupy the top spot in my list of Bond films.
Disagree. Craig and CR are inseparable. He's that strong, out of the box. Without him, I don't know what would have happened to the series.
It's as if the universe owed us one after DAD.
That's my idea too. I cannot say for sure that no one else could have pulled it off, but at least Craig showed continued dedication despite all the bashing on the Internet and the inexcusable attitude of the press towards his announcement, despite all the setbacks (strikes, takeovers, COVID), and even though things aren't always that easy to do when one gets a little older. Craig was a fantastic Bond. Some may like to hold that "slit my wrists" remark against him, but that, too, was a sign of all the personal energy and commitment he had pumped into SP. Revisiting the Bonds as often as I do, I continue to marvel at how much Craig's presence and acting as Bond are gifts that keep giving.
So yes, having another actor step into Craig's shoes will be challenging.
I’ll go on a limb and say that the series would’ve been fine without Craig. I’m grateful for his casting of course, and I’m grateful that we received at least one great film in CR but it’s not as if the series was in jeopardy at all - quite the opposite in fact. A course correction was always going to be done after DAD and Brosnan’s popularity as Bond with audiences was still strong at that time despite the criticisms of most of his era.
The true make or break moment was Goldeneye back in 95. Had that film failed it probably would’ve been the end of Bond as a franchise; but luckily it’s monumental success allowed for the series to continue and each subsequent film (in both Brosnan and Craig’s tenures) all built off of the foundations of Goldeneye.