BOND POLLS 2017: Craig stays or leaves? Choose one of the four options [RESULTS, page 12]

1235713

Comments

  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    It is obvious now that it will be C.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Option B is rather interesting. I wouldn't have considered it.
  • Posts: 4,813
    I haven't been keeping up with this thread enough- is option A out of the question at this point? :((
  • I do sort of want Craig back for one more but B might be more in order. If Craig comes back he will have his AVTAK, I'm sure of it.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,480
    Not easy for me to figure out these choices, but it looks like A is really my top choice.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    i think it will Option B as well...

    i think they continue on, with only passing references moving forward - just like they've always done...

    what will be interesting is if any (or none) of the current supporting cast returns if Craig doesn't... i would like to see them all continue on - EON will no doubt extend the offers for them to return.
  • SuperintendentSuperintendent A separate pool. For sharks, no less.
    Posts: 871
    When Craig leaves, I would like a new supporting cast as well (M, Moneypenny, Tanner, Q, Felix). I think it would be much more interesting that way. Many new faces to see and things to compare. Those roles should be given to good, but less prominent actors, their screen time should be limited to few scenes, and focus should entirely be on Bond and his mission (not on his past and personal issues).
  • edited May 2016 Posts: 11,119
    bondjames wrote: »
    Option B is rather interesting. I wouldn't have considered it.

    For me it becomes a very interesting option too.

    Let's not forget that "SPECTRE"s ending was completely tailored to Daniel Craig's needs/wishes.

    But all other aspects were introduced for the very first time: Crime syndicate S.P.E.C.T.R.E. and Ernst Stavro Blofeld. And EON Productions spent a lot of time and effort to re-introduce these two creations of Ian Fleming again.

    Now I can't see that they shelve these pivotal antagonists again....just for the sake of another full-fledged reboot.

    Let's not forget that in essence all the actors that followed Sean Connery's footsteps more or less were the same James Bond....within the same Bond timeline/continuity. From references to Tracy Bond (TSWLM, FYEO, LTK) to mentioning/showing Judi Dench's predecessor Bernard Lee (GE and TWINE).

    Tom Hiddleston as agent 007? I.......kinda like the idea. IF he's going to be 'Roger Moore' of our era! I'd love that idea. But.....let's keep the timeline intact that was introduced with Daniel Craig. And made some occasional references to those films. A standalone film for Tom Hiddleston, that is neither a full-reboot or soft-reboot, but that takes place in the current timeline.

    Regarding the MI6-team? I'd love to see all of them return again. I don't buy it that much if we also reboot the MI6-team completely. We barely have a new 'M', 'Q' and Moneypenny. So it would only be confusing for audiences if we 'delete' them entirely for new actors. But......let's give 'M' and Moneypenny less screentime. 'Q' however....he was the best part of "SPECTRE". Audiences like Ben Wishaw. And I.....need him :-P!

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    Option B is rather interesting. I wouldn't have considered it.

    For me it becomes a very interesting option too.

    Let's not forget that "SPECTRE"s ending was completely tailored to Daniel Craig's needs/wishes.

    But all other aspects were introduced for the very first time: Crime syndicate S.P.E.C.T.R.E. and Ernst Stavro Blofeld. And EON Productions spent a lot of time and effort to re-introduce these two creations of Ian Fleming again.

    Now I can't see that they shelve these pivotal antagonists again....just for the sake of another full-fledged reboot.

    Let's not forget that in essence all the actors that followed Sean Connery's footsteps more or less were the same James Bond....within the same Bond timeline/continuity. From references to Tracy Bond (TSWLM, FYEO, LTK) to mentioning/showing Judi Dench's predecessor Bernard Lee (GE and TWINE).

    Tom Hiddleston as agent 007? I.......kinda like the idea. IF he's going to be 'Roger Moore' of our era! I'd love that idea. But.....let's keep the timeline intact that was introduced with Daniel Craig. And made some occasional references to those films. A standalone film for Tom Hiddleston, that is neither a full-reboot or soft-reboot, but that takes place in the current timeline.

    Regarding the MI6-team? I'd love to see all of them return again. I don't buy it that much if we also reboot the MI6-team completely. We barely have a new 'M', 'Q' and Moneypenny. So it would only be confusing for audiences if we 'delete' them entirely for new actors. But......let's give 'M' and Moneypenny less screentime. 'Q' however....he was the best part of "SPECTRE". Audiences like Ben Wishaw. And I.....need him :-P!
    I am open to Option B give how you've put it. This may actually be the cleanest option of them all and would actually be unexpected (even though it was the modus operandi for so many years) given the reboot craze of the last decade or so.
  • Posts: 11,119
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Option B is rather interesting. I wouldn't have considered it.

    For me it becomes a very interesting option too.

    Let's not forget that "SPECTRE"s ending was completely tailored to Daniel Craig's needs/wishes.

    But all other aspects were introduced for the very first time: Crime syndicate S.P.E.C.T.R.E. and Ernst Stavro Blofeld. And EON Productions spent a lot of time and effort to re-introduce these two creations of Ian Fleming again.

    Now I can't see that they shelve these pivotal antagonists again....just for the sake of another full-fledged reboot.

    Let's not forget that in essence all the actors that followed Sean Connery's footsteps more or less were the same James Bond....within the same Bond timeline/continuity. From references to Tracy Bond (TSWLM, FYEO, LTK) to mentioning/showing Judi Dench's predecessor Bernard Lee (GE and TWINE).

    Tom Hiddleston as agent 007? I.......kinda like the idea. IF he's going to be 'Roger Moore' of our era! I'd love that idea. But.....let's keep the timeline intact that was introduced with Daniel Craig. And made some occasional references to those films. A standalone film for Tom Hiddleston, that is neither a full-reboot or soft-reboot, but that takes place in the current timeline.

    Regarding the MI6-team? I'd love to see all of them return again. I don't buy it that much if we also reboot the MI6-team completely. We barely have a new 'M', 'Q' and Moneypenny. So it would only be confusing for audiences if we 'delete' them entirely for new actors. But......let's give 'M' and Moneypenny less screentime. 'Q' however....he was the best part of "SPECTRE". Audiences like Ben Wishaw. And I.....need him :-P!
    I am open to Option B give how you've put it. This may actually be the cleanest option of them all and would actually be unexpected (even though it was the modus operandi for so many years) given the reboot craze of the last decade or so.

    *high five* ;-) (doesn't happen very often)
  • Posts: 11,119
    Anyone else care to weigh in?
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    My money is still on A.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    still on A 2
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Always and forever A.
  • edited May 2016 Posts: 12,837
    Option C but Wishaw carries on across reboots ala Dench's M.

    I feel like SP was the natural conclusion to his tenure (complete with visual and dialogue callbacks to every film in his era) and his films were so personal and all linked together, it'd just feel wrong to have another actor step into his shoes. The Craig era is basically the Bond equivalent to the Dark Knight trilogy. A self contained reinvention. I think for the next actor, soft reboot, ala GE. We don't need to see another origin story or anything but there should be no reference to Madeline, Blofeld, etc. Just introduce the new guy, send him on a mission.

    I'm open to the idea of a fifth Craig film but they can't just ignore Spectre if he comes bacl and as much as I loved that film, the idea of a continuation of that story doesn't sound enthralling to me at all, I can't see many interesting options. I REALLY hope they don't kill Madeline off as some have been suggesting. A fifth Craig film could be great but I'm really worried the writers would take a safe boring route (ie, Blofeld kills Madeline, Bond goes for revenge) rather than do something interesting (someone on here came up with the idea of Bond being stricken by PTSD due to Blofeld drilling into his brain in the torture sequence, that's a fantastic idea imo).
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,194
    C If a new Bond is in the cards, start with a clean slate with no hold overs. Bond should be between 33 to 37, an established agent, no origin story. The story and mission would be a stand-alone. The organization SPECTRE could be used but it would be established that MI-6 is aware of them and they aware of Bond. Blofeld and Bond are not related. :P
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    talos7 wrote: »
    C If a new Bond is in the cards, start with a clean slate with no hold overs. Bond should be between 33 to 37, an established agent, no origin story. The story and mission would be a stand-alone. The organization SPECTRE could be used but it would be established that MI-6 is aware of them and they aware of Bond. Blofeld and Bond are not related. :P

    Agreed.

    Well... I'd keep Naomi Harris though.... :D
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    talos7 wrote: »
    C The organization SPECTRE could be used but it would be established that MI-6 is aware of them and they aware of Bond. Blofeld and Bond are not related. :P
    Don't you think this would be tricky, given they only just established the long lost family connection? They may have to let SPECTRE lie for a while, after their misstep in SP. If not, I can just hear someone asking in the theatre, confused: "but mummy, aren't they supposed to be brothers?"
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    edited May 2016 Posts: 8,194
    Not at all. Craig's universe would be self contained; that incarnation ended when Craig exited at the end of SPECTRE, This would be a completely new, fresh take on Fleming's character. As I see it there have been three, separate "universes" Connery, Lazenby, Moore. The Bond of Dr. No is the Bond in AVTAK. Dalton, Brosnan. The Bond of LD is the same Bond of DAD. Then there is Craig's. If a much younger Bond is to be cast, he cannot exist in the same "universe's as Craig's; too much has been made about age in that one. Also to maintain the current timeline would tie the future filmmakers to elements of the Craig world that they may not want to keep.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2016 Posts: 23,883
    Fair explanation @talos7. I can see that working. Sort of like what they did with Wayne in BvS. Reimagine the universe, while keeping familiar elements.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,194
    Yep.
  • Posts: 11,119
    talos7 wrote: »
    Not at all. Craig's universe would be self contained; that incarnation ended when Craig exited at the end of SPECTRE, This would be a completely new, fresh take on Fleming's character. As I see it there have been three, separate "universes" Connery, Lazenby, Moore. The Bond of Dr. No is the Bond in AVTAK. Dalton, Brosnan. The Bond of LD is the same Bond of DAD. Then their is Craig's. If a much younger Bond is to be cast, he cannot exist in the same "universe's as Craig's; too much has been made about age in that one. Also to maintain the current timeline would tie the future filmmakers to elements of the Craig world that they may not want to keep.

    There are plentiful explanations why the era 1962 - 2002 in fact has been the same timeline. And in fact, that's how I see it:

    --> FRWL: Blofeld mentions the events from Dr Julius No (DN)
    --> GF: Bond mentions the fact that Dr No almost captured Felix Leiter in Jamaica (DN)
    --> OHMSS: One important scene where Bond recollects the events from DN (Honey's knife), FRWL (Grant's watch) and TB (mini oxygen breather)
    --> DAF: Revenge on Blofeld for the murder of Bond's wife Tracy (OHMSS)
    --> TSWLM: Any Amasova mentions Bond's private life, including his murdered wife Tracy (OHMSS)
    --> FYEO: Bond survived DAF, and now he gets his final attempt to kill Blofeld. And that happens after Bond visited Tracy's grave (OHMSS)
    --> LTK: Felix and Della talk to each other and mention -again- Bond's murdered wife (OHMSS)
    --> GE: Bond mentions that 'M's predecessor ('M' as played in DN until LTK, except for FYEO) kept some cognac in the cupboard (DN-LTK)
    --> TWINE: Another mention to 'M's predecesor via a huge painting of Bernard Lee (DN-MR)
    --> TWINE: Elektra King asks Bond if he had lost a loved one before, referencing Tracy (OHMSS)

    Yes, the above examples don't connect these Bond films as strongly as the more elaborate connections from the Craig era of Bond films. But the connections are there. And should never be ignored. Most of the time, in the case of all the numerous Tracy references, they really showed off some emotional gravita from all the actors involved in that. They are not nerdy fan references or cheap hommages. They were real narrative references, and did inject some continuity in the franchise until DAD.

    People name the example of Judi Dench re-appearing in "Casino Royale" as an example that CR was perhaps following the narrative of DAD. But I find that flawed reasoning. In CR there is never any textual reference that Dench's 'M' from CR until SF is the very same 'M' as played in GE until DAD. Never.

    Therefore for me, there's one big timeline that spans from DN (1962) until DAD (2002). And no matter how many actors played Bond during that period. It's one and the same Bond. And that's not the case with the 6th actor playing the character. Daniel Craig is part of a 2nd universe/continuity/timeline.

    And to be honest, to pay respect to Daniel Craig, I would love to see this timeline/continuity to continue...albeit in a more loose, less tight way.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,194
    All of what you listed above can be explained while keeping my theory. . References from the Dalton/Brosnan timeline only allude to characters that are constant in any incarnation in any "universe". The references in LTK, GE and TWINE need not connected to the Connery to Moore era, only to similar characters and events in the Dalton/Brosnan timeline.

    Also, The ages of the actors also come into play. The Bond of Dr No would have been 72 years old in 2002, 75 if I use Moore's age.

    As far as Dench and her playing M in different "universes" this supports my contention above that references to a character, or event, does not mean that character or event is the same in both. In short, The M portrayed by Dench in the Brosnan films is not the same person as the one played in the Craig era. I can see why some are confused by this which is why I say no carry overs if a re-boot is done.

  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    I view very little interconnectedness amongst the tenures of the Bond actors. It's nearly nonexistent really, outside of Connery's films leading into Lazenby's sole outing, and that's only because the filmmakers made a point of lacing in all kinds of winks to the past.

    I view each Bond (distinguished by each actor) as having experienced the same sort of main events in their lives, but what would change in those universes is how their own personalities affected how those events developed. Sean and Roger's Bonds both met a Honey or a Tatiana, for example, but I view their interpretations as alternate timelines filled with the same rough events and happenings, with changes here and there due to who they are as men and how the times changed with each Bond actor.

    All the Bond actors are so different in how they play 007 that it only makes sense to view each actor's era as a new alternate timeline for Bond, five different versions of a man who roughly experienced the same sorts of life happenings, but altered by changing times and their own unique personalities.

    Because Dan's era is packed with so much meaty continuity and has taken on a life of its own, far greater than just an alternate timeline of Bond's life, I think it's only right to end his Bond's story and, as I've proposed and outlined recently, tell the last Bond adventure with Dan in the role. Give actual finality to the character, then let the series breathe for a while before recasting the roles and finding new stories to tell in yet another timeline with its own continuity, led by a new actor.

    Dan's films are so sacred to me that I don't want a future string of films led by another actor to step on what he helped build, or worse, cock it all up. I don't see any way where EON can effectively just recast and keep going with a new actor playing Dan's version of Bond. He has so much ownership of the character now that it would feel like a slap in the face and beyond artificial. Wrapping up the story of Dan's Bond would allow EON to do what they've never been able to explore before (who is Bond post-MI6 and can he be happy settling down), and truly roll credits on what has been the most interesting and captivating adaption of the character yet put to the screen.
  • MansfieldMansfield Where the hell have you been?
    Posts: 1,263
    It's strange, I'm a big fan of Craig and truly enjoy his films among my favorites in the series, but I think his time is over. This is not the impression I got at the release of Spectre. As time goes on, it just becomes more apparent that his character's story is over. I'd much like to see a reboot of the character with a truly connected narrative spanning several films. It's what they wanted to do with Craig, but they didn't have the rights or writers to accomplish a collective masterpiece.
  • Posts: 11,119
    Still, after so many months of rumors, I still hope....pray...that Daniel Craig gets onboard for a 5th outing :-(. I just think that any actor following Craig will have more difficulty being accepted for his rendition of the titular character, as compared to Craig following Brosnan's footsteps.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    Still, after so many months of rumors, I still hope....pray...that Daniel Craig gets onboard for a 5th outing :-(. I just think that any actor following Craig will have more difficulty being accepted for his rendition of the titular character, as compared to Craig following Brosnan's footsteps.

    @Gustav, my feelings as well. It's going to be a killer search for a new actor.
  • edited June 2016 Posts: 4,813
    Personally I'd love for Craig to do one more. My only worry is with all the replacement talk, will the general public be so used to the notion of having a new Bond, that they could actually be disappointed to see Craig return?? I hope not.

    But most of the casual moviegoers I've talked to seem to be under the impression that Craig is done. Even though we all know it's not official yet!
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Personally I'd love for Craig to do one more. My only worry is with all the replacement talk, will the general public be so used to the notion of having a new Bond, that they could actually be disappointed to see Craig return?? I hope not.

    But most of the casual moviegoers I've talked to seem to be under the impression that Craig is done. Even though we all know it's not official yet!

    The sad thing is that many misinformed media outlets are outright reporting that he has turned down the role and left the franchise. So much for research in journalism, eh?
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    Craig must have a good code on his phone, otherwise the papers would have
    The full story. ;)
Sign In or Register to comment.