›

The James Bond Debate Thread - 336 Craig looks positively younger in SP than he does in SF.

1…5859616364…190

Comments

  • VolanteVolante
    Posts: 774
    I disagree for the simple reason that I don't want to wait 4 years for a new Bond movie.
  • Baltimore_007Baltimore_007
    Posts: 5,634
    I don't think four years is maybe correct, I mean to re adjust to a new Bond actor, right off the bat, I like to see Bond every two years like they used to for the most part, the longer the wait, the harder it can be sometimes, we are all Bond enthusiasts, the waiting around can be painful sometimes even if it's out of our control. We had a new Bond 2 years after Connery (before he returned), 2 years after that in 1973, another 2 years after Moore in '87, but the wait after Dalton was considerably longer. Craig took over in 2006, four year wait after Brosnan, so these actor duration changes are a bit mixed all said. Just saw the above post and have to agree four years seems a bit long all said, so will disagree with last thesis. Two or three years is ample time really
  • Master_DaharkMaster_Dahark
    Posts: 4,813
    Thesis 083-
    Disagree. It's a tricky question, simply because we've already waited four years between films during the Craig era.
    But if the movies are good, people will always be anxious to see the next one. SkyFall could have come out in 2010 and I'd be just as excited as I am now

    As for the change in actors being an issue (topic says after the Craig era), don't forget, back in the day, they went from Connery to Lazenby to Connery to Moore, all without skipping a beat!
    Anyone who lived through that, I'm curious to know: was that annoying or exciting? Would you rather have waited a few years after DAF to get to LALD?

    Me personally, I liked having a Bond movie every two years, and when Craig is done, I don't want to have to wait around for the next one too long
  • 00130013
    edited April 2012 Posts: 1,817
    T83: Disagree.
    They don't need it... It could happen but it will depend more on the last outing of Craig. Which makes me ask if there's a discussion about what we think will be the future of the franchise...
  • DoubleOhhSevenDoubleOhhSeven
    Posts: 1,778
    0013 wrote:
    T83: Disagree.
    They don't need it... It could happen but it will depend more on the last outing of Craig. Which makes me ask if there's a discussion about what we think will be the future of the franchise...

    You might be right about that. After DAD a longer break was definalty needed as DAD and CR are pretty much as opposite as you can get in the Bond series. The drastic change would've been too jarring in only 2 years.
  • JWESTBROOKJWESTBROOK
    Posts: 5,745
    Possible topic: What if every new Bond was brought in as a 'rookie' in their debut?

    Don't think I'd like that, but on to thesis 83:

    Disagree. It all depends on who the new guy is. Whoever is cast will generate enough interest, I'm sure. It doesn't need to be four years, but that number seems logical considering their search for Bond and setting up for the film.
  • DoubleOhhSevenDoubleOhhSeven
    Posts: 1,778
    JWESTBROOK wrote:
    Possible topic: What if every new Bond was brought in as a 'rookie' in their debut?

    Don't think I'd like that, but on to thesis 83:

    Disagree. It all depends on who the new guy is. Whoever is cast will generate enough interest, I'm sure. It doesn't need to be four years, but that number seems logical considering their search for Bond and setting up for the film.

    The search for Bond doesn't actually take that long. Timothy Dalton resigned in April 1994 and then Pierce Brosnan was announced as the new James Bond that June, only 2 months later. Lazenby, Moore, and Dalton were all cast in between the standard 2 year gap. It was only Daniel Craig's casting that took unusually long and that was mostly due to EON sorting stuff out.
  • JWESTBROOKJWESTBROOK
    edited April 2012 Posts: 5,745
    DoubleOhhSeven wrote:
    JWESTBROOK wrote:
    Possible topic: What if every new Bond was brought in as a 'rookie' in their debut?

    Don't think I'd like that, but on to thesis 83:

    Disagree. It all depends on who the new guy is. Whoever is cast will generate enough interest, I'm sure. It doesn't need to be four years, but that number seems logical considering their search for Bond and setting up for the film.

    The search for Bond doesn't actually take that long. Timothy Dalton resigned in April 1994 and then Pierce Brosnan was announced as the new James Bond that June, only 2 months later. Lazenby, Moore, and Dalton were all cast in between the standard 2 year gap. It was only Daniel Craig's casting that took unusually long and that was mostly due to EON sorting stuff out.

    Yes, but

    Brosnan, like Dalton, had been in the producer's heads for quite some time;
    Lazenby was stumbled upon, after Moore had already been reviewd;
    when Moore opened up, he got the gig...
    and like said earlier, Dalton had been eyed ahead of time.

    So, while Craig is a special case, I doubt the producers have anyone in mind currently (supposedly offering Craig five more films). Also, I believe Craig will leave on his terms, when he doesn't feel devoted to the project anymore, so it won't be the producers choice and they wont be as prepared.
  • DoubleOhhSevenDoubleOhhSeven
    edited April 2012 Posts: 1,778
    JWESTBROOK wrote:
    DoubleOhhSeven wrote:
    JWESTBROOK wrote:
    Possible topic: What if every new Bond was brought in as a 'rookie' in their debut?

    Don't think I'd like that, but on to thesis 83:

    Disagree. It all depends on who the new guy is. Whoever is cast will generate enough interest, I'm sure. It doesn't need to be four years, but that number seems logical considering their search for Bond and setting up for the film.

    The search for Bond doesn't actually take that long. Timothy Dalton resigned in April 1994 and then Pierce Brosnan was announced as the new James Bond that June, only 2 months later. Lazenby, Moore, and Dalton were all cast in between the standard 2 year gap. It was only Daniel Craig's casting that took unusually long and that was mostly due to EON sorting stuff out.

    Yes, but

    Brosnan, like Dalton, had been in the producer's heads for quite some time;
    Lazenby was stumbled upon, after Moore had already been reviewd;
    when Moore opened up, he got the gig...
    and like said earlier, Dalton had been eyed ahead of time.

    So, while Craig is a special case, I doubt the producers have anyone in mind currently (supposedly offering Craig five more films). Also, I believe Craig will leave on his terms, when he doesn't feel devoted to the project anymore, so it won't be the producers choice and they wont be as prepared.

    Believe me they always have people in mind. EON is not dumb. They realise things change but the Bond series must go on. Lazenby certainly wasn't on anyone's mind and the process of casting the new Bond after YOLT was probably an even bigger challenge seeing as how at that point Connery was the only James Bond. Craig's still contracted for 2 more films after Skyfall but around Bond 25, assuming Craig doesn't sign that 3 film extension, Im pretty certain Wilson and Brocolli will already be looking for replacements just in case Craig has had enough with the role. When that much money is on the line they don't leave things to chance.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Well put @DoubleOhhSeven. =D>
  • DoubleOhhSevenDoubleOhhSeven
    edited April 2012 Posts: 1,778
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:
    Well put @DoubleOhhSeven. =D>

    Thankyou good sir. I aim to please :D
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,715
    DoubleOhhSeven wrote:
    Not necessarly. Maybe if Dalton debuted in 1988 audiences would've had more time to get Roger Moore out of their heads and Dalton's Bond would've been better recieved. Plus that would mean LTK would've been released in 1990 instead of 1989 and avoided all the stiff competition it had to deal with that summer.
    MajorDSmythe wrote:

    Why would he make only one film? He'd come back for a second, a third and possibly a fourth maybe even a fifth too (if CR had been aquired and not yet used).

    Are you guys forgetting the MGM legal problems ? Even if TLD was released in 1988, it wouldn't have stopped the legal problems.... and now we'd have a hiatus of 7 years (1988-1995).
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,978
    DaltonCraig007 wrote:
    Are you guys forgetting the MGM legal problems ? Even if TLD was released in 1988, it wouldn't have stopped the legal problems.... and now we'd have a hiatus of 7 years (1988-1995).


    That's if TLD had been released in 1988. Maybe there wouldn't be any legal problems. Dalton could sail the good ship Bond into the 1990's handing over to James Purefoy for a 2000 or 2002 debut.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,715
    MajorDSmythe wrote:
    DaltonCraig007 wrote:
    Are you guys forgetting the MGM legal problems ? Even if TLD was released in 1988, it wouldn't have stopped the legal problems.... and now we'd have a hiatus of 7 years (1988-1995).


    That's if TLD had been released in 1988. Maybe there wouldn't be any legal problems. Dalton could sail the good ship Bond into the 1990's handing over to James Purefoy for a 2000 or 2002 debut.

    Sorry Major, but I think the legal problems were inevitable.....

  • RogueAgentRogueAgent
    Posts: 12,526
    Alot will depend on how long it will take to find DC's replacement. I for one am not even thinking about it, what's the point? So i would have to disagree with this thesis. For all we know? Broccoli and Wilson may have some targets for the future in their own minds but obviously have kept them private?
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,169
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 084</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>Spielberg would have alienated seasoned fans from the Bond series, had he directed a Bond film in '81.</b></font>
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,978
    I don't know if i'd say alienated and i'd need to know more about his 1981 Bond film, such as who he would have cast.
  • identigraphidentigraph
    Posts: 1,052
    Well, Spielberg was at his peak around this time, so I don't see why this would be a bad thing, we know he can handle action etc. I believe in Rog's book he mentions talking to Spielberg at a party and he said he would like to direct one but Cubby wasn't keen because of the cost.
  • PrinceKamalKhanPrinceKamalKhan Monsoon Palace, Udaipur
    Posts: 3,262
    DarthDimi wrote:
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 084</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>Spielberg would have alienated seasoned fans from the Bond series, had he directed a Bond film in '81.</b></font>

    I don't think so. However, I'm glad it didn't happen because we wouldn't have gotten Raiders Of The Lost Ark which Spielberg made instead.

  • SaintMarkSaintMark
    Posts: 7,653
    DarthDimi wrote:
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 084</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>Spielberg would have alienated seasoned fans from the Bond series, had he directed a Bond film in '81.</b></font>

    Not sure why anybody would think that. So disagree.

  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 12,837
    081- I doubt it.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,355
    Absolutely not is my answer to this thesis.
  • Master_DaharkMaster_Dahark
    Posts: 4,813
    Debate 084-
    Completely disagree- a Spielberg Bond movie would have been nothing short of perfection. I would pity whichever director came after him!

    Of course, then he may not have done Raiders of the Lost Ark (my all time favorite movie) and I certainly can't have that.... God forbid Lucas directs ROTLA....
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    I don't think so. Nowadays he would come back for a second time behind the director's seat, ruin the franchise, and try to make 3D sound like a fully acceptable and integral part of the filmmaking process a la Indy 4. The alliterative nickname Sellout Spielberg comes to mind.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,355
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:
    I don't think so. Nowadays he would come back for a second time behind the director's seat, ruin the franchise, and try to make 3D sound like a fully acceptable and integral part of the filmmaking process a la Indy 4. The alliterative nickname Sellout Spielberg comes to mind.

    Indy 4 wasn't in 3D.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    edited April 2012 Posts: 12,837
    Master_Dahark wrote:
    Debate 084-
    Completely disagree- a Spielberg Bond movie would have been nothing short of perfection. I would pity whichever director came after him!

    Of course, then he may not have done Raiders of the Lost Ark (my all time favorite movie) and I certainly can't have that.... God forbid Lucas directs ROTLA....

    Coming 2012... ROTLA ultra mega edition! With new effects, in 3D! and the entire cast has been digitally replaced by ewoks.
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:
    I don't think so. Nowadays he would come back for a second time behind the director's seat, ruin the franchise, and try to make 3D sound like a fully acceptable and integral part of the filmmaking process a la Indy 4. The alliterative nickname Sellout Spielberg comes to mind.

    I'm guessing you say this because of this film...



  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Samuel001 wrote:
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:
    I don't think so. Nowadays he would come back for a second time behind the director's seat, ruin the franchise, and try to make 3D sound like a fully acceptable and integral part of the filmmaking process a la Indy 4. The alliterative nickname Sellout Spielberg comes to mind.

    Indy 4 wasn't in 3D.

    I'm not referring to Indy 4 on my 3D comment. I was however referring to Indy 4 with my comment on Spielberg returning and ruining the franchise. My 3D comment was aimed at both him and James Cameron's arguments that 3D should be apart of film. Sorry for misleading you.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,355
    Spielberg said 3D show be part of films made today? As in, it's integral? I hope not...

    Lucas on the other hand..."watching a movie in 3D is simply a better way to watch a movie"!
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Samuel001 wrote:
    Spielberg said 3D show be part of films made today? As in, it's integral? I hope not...

    Lucas on the other hand..."watching a movie in 3D is simply a better way to watch a movie"!

    I can't root into his brain and shuffled through his thoughts, but by the way he supports it and markets it I do get that impression. Same with Cameron, the imperfect perfectionist of film.
  • RogueAgentRogueAgent
    Posts: 12,526
    Impossible to say really? And we will now never know? So will have to disagree with the thesis.
Sign In or Register to comment.