Craig: stay or go? has SPECTRE changed any opinions?

1910111315

Comments

  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    bondjames wrote: »
    I think he's done, honestly.

    I think you are done, but we may both be wrong. I hope.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    I think he's done, honestly.

    I think you are done, but we may both be wrong. I hope.
    Nice. I like what you did there.

    I'm open to him returning, but he's set it up so he can walk away easily. He did the same at the end of SF though (that M office epilogue was a perfect set up for a new actor to take the reins). So we'll see. He seems to like to keep his options open.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Glass is half way full.
  • Posts: 503
    At this point I think Craig himself is growing weary of the role, and it really began to show in Spectre and even Skyfall. He doesn't identify with the character (which is fine), but now also it seems his tenure has lost its way and is no longer the promising reboot continuity we saw emerging with Casino Royale (Bond already being called "old and obsolete" in Skyfall).

    What I'd want is for Craig to have one more film that doesn't have any personal B.S. as we've seen in literally each of his films so far... just a standard outing that all the other Bonds except Lazenby have gotten their shake at. After that, a new younger actor, but NOT a reboot... just normal standard, non-personal outings again.
  • Posts: 4,622

    Bond wrote: »
    At this point I think Craig himself is growing weary of the rol bye, and it really began to show in Spectre and even Skyfall. He doesn't identify with the character (which is fine), but now also it seems his tenure has lost its way and is no longer the promising reboot continuity we saw emerging with Casino Royale (Bond already being called "old and obsolete" in Skyfall).

    What I'd want is for Craig to have one more film that doesn't have any personal B.S. as we've seen in literally each of his films so far... just a standard outing that all the other Bonds except Lazenby have gotten their shake at. After that, a new younger actor, but NOT a reboot... just normal standard, non-personal outings again.
    Yes, do like that last bit about a much younger actor taking over, no reboot, just get back on mission.
    But in Meantime I'd like to see DC do a couple more, battling SP, with Waltz back for at least one more.
    Then go real young with new casting and continue with the Spectre battles.
    Blofeld can be recast as needed, or fade into bg, for a bit while other Spectre types take the battle.
  • Posts: 4,615
    If he comes back against Waltz, then we get into the childhood connection stuff which has been almost universally disliked. I think if they get a new actor and just forget all the childhood stuff, it maybe the best thing
  • Posts: 1,631
    I don't see EON continuing on with the Bond/Blofeld childhood connection beyond SPECTRE. If anything, they've proven over the years that they will course correct themselves when the public has shown to have a strong dislike (or if EON even perceives the public is disgruntled) with an aspect of the films, as they did after Quantum of Solace, Tomorrow Never Dies, and a few other times prior to those films. The public has almost universally mocked the step-brother angle. EON most likely won't reference it the next time around, regardless of who plays Bond, because of the sentiment against it in SPECTRE.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    They didn't even continue the Bond/Blofeld childhood connection after Morocco. Everything is going to be fine. ;)

    Hopefully B25 will be Daniel's last film with Waltz returning one more time as Blofeld having a final confrontation that will bring the whole house down.
  • Posts: 1,631
    Murdock wrote: »
    They didn't even continue the Bond/Blofeld childhood connection after Morocco. Everything is going to be fine. ;)

    This is true. And even before that, it never seemed like Bond cared about it at all anyway. It was very strange to have a personal element that strong in the film and not pay it any attention or have one of the characters not even seem to care about it in the slightest.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,591
    dalton wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    They didn't even continue the Bond/Blofeld childhood connection after Morocco. Everything is going to be fine. ;)

    This is true. And even before that, it never seemed like Bond cared about it at all anyway. It was very strange to have a personal element that strong in the film and not pay it any attention or have one of the characters not even seem to care about it in the slightest.
    It makes sense given the many deaths of important figures in his life that Bond would be emotionally shut down.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    dalton wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    They didn't even continue the Bond/Blofeld childhood connection after Morocco. Everything is going to be fine. ;)

    This is true. And even before that, it never seemed like Bond cared about it at all anyway. It was very strange to have a personal element that strong in the film and not pay it any attention or have one of the characters not even seem to care about it in the slightest.

    Like Silva feeling up Bond's legs, I think the whole childhood connection was an attempt to hurt Bond but he clearly didn't care, it was pretty much an Ego stroke for Blofeld to introduce his new name to Bond and the world. Bond is a professional. Plus Bond was like 11 and Blofeld was in his late teens to early 20's. They probably didn't hangout much.

  • Posts: 1,631
    Murdock wrote: »
    dalton wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    They didn't even continue the Bond/Blofeld childhood connection after Morocco. Everything is going to be fine. ;)

    This is true. And even before that, it never seemed like Bond cared about it at all anyway. It was very strange to have a personal element that strong in the film and not pay it any attention or have one of the characters not even seem to care about it in the slightest.

    Like Silva feeling up Bond's legs, I think the whole childhood connection was an attempt to hurt Bond but he clearly didn't care, it was pretty much an Ego stroke for Blofeld to introduce his new name to Bond and the world. Bond is a professional. Plus Bond was like 11 and Blofeld was in his late teens to early 20's. They probably didn't hangout much.

    It was an attempt to hurt Bond, but I just don't see the point of the writers going that direction if they're just going to have Bond act with complete indifference to it. Having the greatest secret agent in the world just happen to have had a personal relationship with the supposed greatest villain ever as a focus of the film doesn't make sense unless it's there for some kind of emotional payoff. If they're going to shrink Bond's world that much, there should be some attempt at an emotional payoff because otherwise, it's just there to be there.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    dalton wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    dalton wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    They didn't even continue the Bond/Blofeld childhood connection after Morocco. Everything is going to be fine. ;)

    This is true. And even before that, it never seemed like Bond cared about it at all anyway. It was very strange to have a personal element that strong in the film and not pay it any attention or have one of the characters not even seem to care about it in the slightest.

    Like Silva feeling up Bond's legs, I think the whole childhood connection was an attempt to hurt Bond but he clearly didn't care, it was pretty much an Ego stroke for Blofeld to introduce his new name to Bond and the world. Bond is a professional. Plus Bond was like 11 and Blofeld was in his late teens to early 20's. They probably didn't hangout much.

    It was an attempt to hurt Bond, but I just don't see the point of the writers going that direction if they're just going to have Bond act with complete indifference to it. Having the greatest secret agent in the world just happen to have had a personal relationship with the supposed greatest villain ever as a focus of the film doesn't make sense unless it's there for some kind of emotional payoff. If they're going to shrink Bond's world that much, there should be some attempt at an emotional payoff because otherwise, it's just there to be there.

    Bond's world doesn't always make sense. The emotional payoff wasn't for Bond, but Blofeld. It was a personal self serving ego stroke to justify his insanity and patricide of his own father. For Bond, it's an assignment like any other. Did Connery's Bond have an emotional payoff when Blofeld revealed himself in YOLT? Nope.
  • Posts: 1,631
    I get that. My point is that, if the writers are going to shrink Bond's world that much, there should be some payoff. I get that the payoff is meant for Blofeld, but he's only in the film for three scenes, which in a film that is 2.5 hours long, isn't enough for him to really achieve the payoff that is meant for him. Bond simply doesn't care about the connection, and Blofeld isn't on screen long enough to establish enough presence to receive the payoff in any kind of satisfying way.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    Well with the production issues, sadly things couldn't be tighter in time. Could it have been better done? Of course, but as it is, it's not that bad. I've seen worst twists in Bond films. :P
  • Posts: 1,631
    Murdock wrote: »
    Well with the production issues, sadly things couldn't be tighter in time. Could it have been better done? Of course, but as it is, it's not that bad. I've seen worst twists in Bond films. :P

    True.

    Given how inconsequential the twist is to the film, once they got bogged down in production hell with the script, that's something that really should have been cut. Now, I can't say for certain because I haven't read the leaked scripts, but it does seem like something that was probably a much bigger deal in earlier drafts that just got watered down with each rewrite. It's certainly possible that that's not the case, but it does kind of come off that way.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    I haven't seen the leaked materials myself, I've seen bits and pieces of it talked about on here, From the sounds of it, it was more overdone and hamfisted. On paper the idea looks really terrible but I was fine how it was handled in the film. It didn't hit you on the head with it and that I can respect. It's sort of like how in
    Star Trek into Darkness, Khan reveals his real name and Kirk and Spock make a "What's that supposed to mean?" expression.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,205
    posted this in another thread but it fits here.

    I would have preferred had there been no connection between Bond And Blofeld other than one that evolved starting with the events of Casino Royale; Then, at some point in SPECTRE Blofeld would have said something to the effect:

    'You were nothing to me but quite by accident you kept getting in my way; you became a distraction but now Mr. Bond I'm afraid you've become a threat. Over these years, without even trying, I became the author of all your pain and now I shall put you out of my misery.'

    Or something like that
  • Posts: 1,631
    Something along those lines would have been, I think, better than what was given.

    In the end, though, they didn't make enough of a spectacle out of it for it to have been a distraction or a major strike against the film. The twist did go over much better than I expected it to going in, as it ended up not really bothering me while watching the film.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    Fortunately for me, my only gripes with the film was Newman's score and the much reused music from Skyfall.
  • TreefingersTreefingers Isthmus City, Republic of Isthmus
    Posts: 191
    I wouldn't mind him staying, but I hope they ditch the introspective angle, trying to delve into Bond's childhood and the like. Part of the character's allure is his mysterious past. I just want Craig to have a normal standalone adventure, way too many personal vendette/going rogue/being in emotional turmoil and what have you...

    And I agree with @talos7, the ccontrived connection between the two characters is more of a hinderance really. They have ruined Blofeld for the newer generations.
  • Posts: 4,622
    Birdleson wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    If he comes back against Waltz, then we get into the childhood connection stuff which has been almost universally disliked. I think if they get a new actor and just forget all the childhood stuff, it maybe the best thing

    I agree.
    I feel both of your fears, but I'm thinking maybe if they get a new director, and I think they will, then that might be enough.
    Waltz of course by his very presence will maintain the "brother" connection, but maybe it could be set aside , downplayed, and the focus instead placed on Ernst as boss of Spectre and Bond as hated nemesis.

  • AnthraxAnthrax Sweden
    Posts: 77
    I want Daniel to do one more, but I think Mendes should let someone else direct. I think 5 films is the perfect number for a Bond actor.
  • DonnyDB5DonnyDB5 Buffalo, New York
    Posts: 1,755
    Ugh, I'd feel so much better if we just had an official statement on whether or not Craig is returning. The anticipation is killing me. Especially with all the recent chatter about Waltz coming back if Craig does, plus the back-to-back shooting for B25 & B26. Please, Daniel Craig, give us another installment!
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    I'd love for Craig to come back for one more and going forward he has the advantage of hindsight. Bar Lazenby the other Bond's ended their respective runs with underwhelming outings. Craig is popular, a bankable Bond, the producers love him and he can attract some of the best people in the business. Bond 25 needs to be approached with a very clear and stringent vision, with an AMAZING and engaging script to serve as it's foundation. Character and plot need to be executed brilliantly in equal measure. Craig should definitely do Bond 25 otherwise if not he should just leave quickly and let EON get on with finding a new actor.

    However, I really do hope he ends his run with Bond 25. Hugh Jackman is doing wolverine for one last time and that's a role Jackman's been in for almost 20 years now and he prepares for and is more involved with the role than Craig has ever been with the Bond films. If Jackman can muster up the supreme physical effort to do Wolverine one last time then Craig can too.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    Yes, Spectre has changed my opinion big time.
    -On Daniel Craig
    -On Sam Mendes (as Bond director)
    -On the franchise in general

    Seeing in Spectre what Craig obviously is capable of, if allowed, I want more. One more, because he doesn't get younger.

    It will be difficult to top Spectre, though. But maybe that should not even be EON's goal.
    Instead give us something like FYEO, down to earth spy action thriller.
  • Posts: 1,970
    Stay. Im not ready for him to leave yet.
  • fjdinardo wrote: »
    Stay. Im not ready for him to leave yet.

    You sound like Boris.
  • Posts: 202
    Craig is looking a lot older now. He'd be 50 by the time Bond 25 comes out in 2018 - so I think he's probably (slightly) too old now.
  • Posts: 1,970
    50 is not old for Bond.
Sign In or Register to comment.