How Many Films Should a Bond Actor Do?

245

Comments

  • Posts: 2,341
    Most of you think Craig could do one more. I think not. It was three years between SF and SP in three years Craig will be 51. a little long in the tooth would you say?

    Consider how the final films for most of the actors actually stunk. (exception being Dalton and Laz only did one) DAF was not a worthy farewell to the original Bond, James Bond; AVTAK is constantly trashed (but I liked it) and nuff said about Brosnan's final film.

    I think Craig should hang it up. He can go out on top with a top notch film.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,360
    Well there's the issue that his story isn't really done yet. He should do one more, wrap up everything
    with SPECTRE and Blofeld then he can go out in style and have no loose ends.
  • Posts: 1,092
    OHMSS69 wrote: »
    Most of you think Craig could do one more. I think not. It was three years between SF and SP in three years Craig will be 51. a little long in the tooth would you say?

    Consider how the final films for most of the actors actually stunk. (exception being Dalton and Laz only did one) DAF was not a worthy farewell to the original Bond, James Bond; AVTAK is constantly trashed (but I liked it) and nuff said about Brosnan's final film.

    I think Craig should hang it up. He can go out on top with a top notch film.

    He doesn't look his age at all. I don't get complaining about it. 51 is just a number. Seriously. There are men decades younger than he that look worse. He could go for another decade if he wished.
  • Posts: 1,989
    IMO they can do as many as they want too as long as its in-between the age 30-60
  • LordBrettSinclairLordBrettSinclair Greensleeves
    Posts: 167
    Scenario1
    They should have continued with Mr. Brosnan until 2008 so he'd have 6.
    After DAD a change in style would have been possible, see FYEO after MR.
    Then cast another and also keeping him about 13 years with 6-7 films.

    Scenario2 (Which is possible)
    They should keep Mr. Craig for another 2-3 films, 2 is more realistic as of his age.
    When they replace Mr. Craig do 6-7 films with the new one within 13-15 years.

    Longevity is important I think. I don't want this tenure of Mr. Craig to be shortened unnecessarily. After Mr. Dalton and Mr. Brosnan shortened tenures another longterm James Bond is in order.

    I believe not continuing with Mr. Craig at this point would hurt the series. They do have to do more than 4 movies with the same actor again, it is long overdue.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,255
    The number 5 come to mind, with his age spanning 35 to 50.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited November 2015 Posts: 8,455
    Craig will be 50 in 3 years, not 51. He will probably celebrate his birthday on the set of B25 like he has done with the last two films.

  • JNOJNO Finland
    Posts: 137
    I believe nowadays 5 is just the right amount. Even five films takes over 10 years of making. It´s hard to tie anybodys hands for much longer.

    So 5 it is!



  • Posts: 582
    JNO wrote: »
    I believe nowadays 5 is just the right amount. Even five films takes over 10 years of making. It´s hard to tie anybodys hands for much longer.

    So 5 it is!

    Yeah they seem to take longer and longer to make. Brosnan's Bonds typically went into production in January of the year of release. The last two have gone into production in November of the year before release in October/November time. Astonishing to think how FRWL came out in Dec '63 and was followed by GF in Sep '64 now.
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    edited November 2015 Posts: 1,731
    2-7

    Glad to see you're taking this seriously, @Thunderfinger :>
  • Posts: 1,092
    Scenario1
    They should have continued with Mr. Brosnan until 2008 so he'd have 6.
    After DAD a change in style would have been possible, see FYEO after MR.
    Then cast another and also keeping him about 13 years with 6-7 films.

    Scenario2 (Which is possible)
    They should keep Mr. Craig for another 2-3 films, 2 is more realistic as of his age.
    When they replace Mr. Craig do 6-7 films with the new one within 13-15 years.

    Longevity is important I think. I don't want this tenure of Mr. Craig to be shortened unnecessarily. After Mr. Dalton and Mr. Brosnan shortened tenures another longterm James Bond is in order.

    I believe not continuing with Mr. Craig at this point would hurt the series. They do have to do more than 4 movies with the same actor again, it is long overdue.

    That's a really good point to make here. The average is four films per actor. No one has done more than this since Moore and that was 30 years ago! That is more than half the amount of time the series has been around. It is long overdue for a longer tenured Bond and Craig deserves to be the one to break the streak.
  • Posts: 1,989
    IMO no one will break Moores Bond record
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    AceHole wrote: »
    2-7

    Glad to see you're taking this seriously, @Thunderfinger :>

    I am serious, but you probably want more beef.

    One film is clearly too little, the actor will be known as George Who? Oh yes, the guy who only did one. Won t bother even seeing that, must be shit. Most would want to see one more with any actor as it takes a couple of films to get into the role for real. Except Connery and Craig, they nailed it right away imo. After Goldeneye, I still hoped the next would be better and that Brosnan would grow a bit more into the role. He did in a miniscule fashion, but still disappointed.

    Moore did seven and I am kind of glad he did, if only he had been younger towards the end. Nobody should break that record. Bond isn t Woverine after all, he ages.
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 613
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    IMO no one will break Moores Bond record

    Anything is possible having said that I don't see it happening anytime soon, 7 is a lot of movies for one actor nowadays.Let alone 8 too break it.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Anywhwere between 4 and 6.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,723
    If the 3 year gap between films will be the usual deal from now on, it would be 21 years for an actor to break Moore's record by making 8 films. So you'd have to cast an actor no older than 30/31 for his debut outing, and then hope he will stay along for 21 years!
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    edited November 2015 Posts: 5,131
    Moore made 7 films....As did SC if you count NSNA. That won't be beaten.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    Maybe it's the length of time that will be the new deciding factor when it comes to importance of a Bond actor in the canon.....since as has been mentioned, it's unlikely that anyone can do '7' anymore unless they do an SW thing and preplan to release them every year (which is always a possibility if they go with a younger actor and if Disney takes it on).

    DC is already on 9 yrs, and will be close to Moore if he does one more in 3 yrs.
  • Posts: 1,092
    Yes, Craig could beat the time in role record of 12 years for sure if and when he does 6 total. But he won't beat the 7 films. I doubt anyone will ever. I'm fine with that. Moore's my favorite Bond actor so I hope he keeps the title. ^#(^
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,455
    I like to think that Craig will pull a lineaker and bow out before he takes over Sir Rog in years in the role.
  • Posts: 12,526
    The 7 film record set by Moore is going to be very hard to beat!
  • 1 more for Craig- 5.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 14,003
    I think that 4 is a good number. 3 to get that all important 3rd film, then one more for the road.
  • Posts: 1,092
    Looks like 4-5 is the consensus. I agree. It's more than the standard trilogy that many film series get with one actor and that's the way it should be with Bond. 4 is the absolute minimum for me.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited December 2015 Posts: 6,390
    Connery should have had five (if he had given the DAF performance in YOLT).

    Lazenby clearly needed two (OHMSS and a completely revamped DAF as a follow-up--the title would even work as a reference to his marriage).

    Moore can have five (LALD-OP, minus TMWTGG).

    Dalton can have three (TLD, LTK, and FAVTAK/QoS since he was the king of the short story mashups).

    Brosnan can have three (GE, TND, and TWINE).

    Like Connery, Craig gets five (CR, QoS, SF, SP, and Bond 24, a mashup of YOLT and TMWTGG).

    DAD never exists in this alternate universe.
  • Posts: 1,989
    TBH as long as all their films are successful then make as many as they want
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    I have started to think that Craig will do two more.

    After DAD, Brosnan actually said he wanted to do at least eight, just to break the current record. That would have meant he would still be the incumbent Bond
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    I have started to think that Craig will do two more.

    After DAD, Brosnan actually said he wanted to do at least eight, just to break the current record. That would have meant he would still be the incumbent Bond
  • Posts: 1,092
    Him doing six would be awesome. He has it in him for sure. Still fit, strong, getting better and better in the role. Yeah, I'm all for Craig doing two more!
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2015 Posts: 23,883
    After DAD, Brosnan actually said he wanted to do at least eight, just to break the current record.
    I didn't know about this. That couldn't have helped his contract renewal negotiating position with EON.

    RE: Craig: He blew out his knee pretty badly in SP, and I think that severely impacted the design and conceptualization of some of the later action sequences which were extremely poor in Austria (just quickly overpowering two thugs in the snow before getting the plane), the Blofeld lair (conveniently shooting everyone from a distance and the gas line for the entire HQ without any hand to hand combat) & the London finale (no visceral hand to hand combat again, just easily breaking the restraints when he was captured, just showing up in the boat, no running etc. etc.) so he's not quite as fit as he looks. He's said so himself that it's getting harder for him to do credibly.

    For some reason they've been very hush hush about how bad that knee injury was and what impact it had on SP (Mendes said something along the lines of "we're not supposed to talk about it" re: the operation during the Charlie Rose interview with Craig).
Sign In or Register to comment.