Where does Bond go after Craig?

1433434436438439700

Comments

  • At least Cavill had the opportunity to play a Fleming created character on screen in Napoleon Solo. That’s at least something for those who think he should be Bond.
  • Posts: 2,033
    M_Blaise wrote: »
    I find it strange when people think such a wooden actor is a "safe" choice, or that they would be better for a lighter Bond. Wooden acting wouldn't make a film more comedic unless you're laughing at him.

    I don't know if we really want a "good actor" trying to win an Oscar playing Bond.

    We need an actor who really wants to make these movies.

    And yet the first and best Bond did go on to win an Oscar. It remains to be seen if PB and DC can pull that off.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,710
    CrabKey wrote: »
    M_Blaise wrote: »
    I find it strange when people think such a wooden actor is a "safe" choice, or that they would be better for a lighter Bond. Wooden acting wouldn't make a film more comedic unless you're laughing at him.

    I don't know if we really want a "good actor" trying to win an Oscar playing Bond.

    We need an actor who really wants to make these movies.

    And yet the first and best Bond did go on to win an Oscar. It remains to be seen if PB and DC can pull that off.

    Even TD still has a chance of a Oscar. He’s still working!
  • CrabKey wrote: »
    M_Blaise wrote: »
    I find it strange when people think such a wooden actor is a "safe" choice, or that they would be better for a lighter Bond. Wooden acting wouldn't make a film more comedic unless you're laughing at him.

    I don't know if we really want a "good actor" trying to win an Oscar playing Bond.

    We need an actor who really wants to make these movies.

    And yet the first and best Bond did go on to win an Oscar. It remains to be seen if PB and DC can pull that off.

    Doesn’t matter if PB and DC can pull that off, I’m sure there are plenty of people who can thoroughly explain why they may prefer another actor as Bond over Connery, regardless of that Oscar.

    Besides, it’s not like Connery’s range as an actor was incredibly wide. If anything Craig has proven to be a more versatile actor than Connery, and it’s not like he won an Oscar.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,460
    I actually think Cavill could play a good bond in his 50's once he has leaned up a bit. I'd much rather have him than a black bond. I think his portrayal would have to be fairly comedic, but he already has man from UNCLE, MI: fallout and argyle so maybe he's all spied out...
  • Posts: 2,033
    No question. We like who we like. And it's always a matter of opinion. I'd say DC has the best chance. But you never can tell. PB may yet find that role.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,251
    I hate to say it but I think Brosnan’s most interesting years as an actor are now behind him. His peak was in the mid to late 2000s when he was doing interesting projects immediately after his dismissal like THE MATADOR, SERAPHIM FALLS, BUTTERFLY ON A WHEEL, and THE GHOST WRITER. That was a hell of a run for him, and I was thinking around that time that he might snag an Oscar if he kept it up. Losing the Bond gig seemed to have energized him into taking some big chances.

    And then the 2010s came along and he seemed resigned to doing bad DTV action thrillers and rom-coms.
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 2,197
    I think anything's possible or else Brendan Fraser wouldn't have won an Oscar, out of....practically nowhere! I don't think anyone saw that coming.
  • edited January 6 Posts: 580
    "The Hot Mic’s John Rocha is saying that he’s heard, from his sources, that talks between Christopher Nolan and Barbara Broccoli broke down as they didnt see eye to eye on the next Bond film."

    https://www.worldofreel.com/blog/2024/1/5/b7vna3tb48kt0gq101eqetelyvn8ot
    And the video in which this is apparently mentioned (don't know exactly when): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98FALdHiRW8

    If this turns out to be true, I will be very furious.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,251
    If true I’d be curious on what exactly they didn’t agree with. It wouldn’t surprise me if he suggested having Bond 26 be a period piece and Broccoli wouldn’t go for that.
  • Posts: 4,323
    If he had suggested Bond 26 be a period piece and that he do three films like that, then I suspect it's an incredibly stupid thing for him to have brought up, especially if he knows anything about the franchise/how EON work. I'd actually be surprised if Nolan was that stupid (or indeed arrogant) but one never knows.

    At the end of the day though we simply don't know if a) this is true (it may or may not be) and b) why their talks broke down if it is true (it may well have been due to a number of other reasons). There's of course the possibility that Nolan simply wasn't interested and perhaps wants to do something else for his next film that is more creatively fulfilling for him.

    But still, I maintain what I've always thought. I don't think he'll ever do a Bond film, and I doubt EON ever seriously considered him past a certain point. I must admit I didn't particularly like the way he handled questions about Bond during interviews (the stuff about wanting an unprecedented level of involvement/creative input, which seems to me an odd thing to demand publicly before you've even gone into talks for your new job).
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,251
    You gotta admire Broccoli on some level for not always going with the easiest choices. Any other studio would have given Pierce Brosnan a fifth Bond film. Any other studio would have never considered Daniel Craig for the part of Bond. Any other studio would have given Christopher Nolan carte blanch and creative control.

    But, for better or worse, she always goes by the beat of her own drum.
  • edited January 6 Posts: 580
    "You gotta admire Broccoli on some level for not always going with the easiest choices."

    I haven't had any admiration for the Bond producers for a decade. I am a Bond fan, not a Bond producer fan. And they have not served Bond the best since the release of Skyfall a decade ago, to say the least.
  • JustJamesJustJames London
    edited January 6 Posts: 220
    Of course, in the Seventies, no one wanted to watch James Bond starring The Saint….
    Oh.
    None of the Bond actors, except Lazenby, have been complete unknowns. Oddly, Brosnan was closest — Remington Steele wasn’t exactly a big thing in the UK, in fact I only saw it after they started running it *after* he got the Bond gig. And the UK is absolutely the Bond home market. In the eighties onward it even exists as this sort of odd TV/Cinema hybrid, so often is it run regularly as essentially a series on our TV (at one point there was a 007 channel on Sky where they ran in a loop) and of course the Seventies and Eighties were filled with Brit TV actors. NSNA again looks more like an ITV show than a Bond movie even. XD

    I think for the sake of commitment, expediency, and frankly — with shades of Brosnan and Dalton both — ‘man born to be Bond’ levels of being actually well suited to the actual role, rather than shaping it to him, Cavill is by far the best choice. Argyle won’t affect that (spoiler that’s obvious from the trailer, he is *not* a ‘real’ character in the film, he’s a meta character) or UNCLE (which was a very good film) any more than Brosnan going up against Michael Caine did, or Roger Moore basically being a go-to action hero for most of his career did. The influence of Superman is also overstated — people tend to see the character, not the actor, and the only actors to become truly synonymous with him were both called Reeve. Given the relative success or lack thereof as well, it would be like not giving Affleck Batman, because he had already been Daredevil. (And Jack Ryan, but there’s more Ryan’s than Bonds by now I think.)

    Man can act well enough, looks the part well enough, and ninety percent plus of all the other names touted just *look* weak. Cartoonish masculinity at best. Cavill looks just normal enough, and just ‘model’ enough. Bond is cast for the het-women in the audience. Ever has it been thus. Cavill brings that, in my limited estimation, much more than any of the possibilities often brought up, other than perhaps Aidan Turner.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,511
    JustJames wrote: »
    Of course, in the Seventies, no one wanted to watch James Bond starring The Saint….
    Oh.
    None of the Bond actors, except Lazenby, have been complete unknowns. Oddly, Brosnan was closest — Remington Steele wasn’t exactly a big thing in the UK, in fact I only saw it after they started running it *after* he got the Bond gig. And the UK is absolutely the Bond home market. In the eighties onward it even exists as this sort of odd TV/Cinema hybrid, so often is it run regularly as essentially a series on our TV (at one point there was a 007 channel on Sky where they ran in a loop) and of course the Seventies and Eighties were filled with Brit TV actors. NSNA again looks more like an ITV show than a Bond movie even. XD

    I think for the sake of commitment, expediency, and frankly — with shades of Brosnan and Dalton both — ‘man born to be Bond’ levels of being actually well suited to the actual role, rather than shaping it to him, Cavill is by far the best choice. Argyle won’t affect that (spoiler that’s obvious from the trailer, he is *not* a ‘real’ character in the film, he’s a meta character) or UNCLE (which was a very good film) any more than Brosnan going up against Michael Caine did, or Roger Moore basically being a go-to action hero for most of his career did. The influence of Superman is also overstated — people tend to see the character, not the actor, and the only actors to become truly synonymous with him were both called Reeve. Given the relative success or lack thereof as well, it would be like not giving Affleck Batman, because he had already been Daredevil. (And Jack Ryan, but there’s more Ryan’s than Bonds by now I think.)

    Man can act well enough, looks the part well enough, and ninety percent plus of all the other names touted just *look* weak. Cartoonish masculinity at best. Cavill looks just normal enough, and just ‘model’ enough. Bond is cast for the het-women in the audience. Ever has it been thus. Cavill brings that, in my limited estimation, much more than any of the possibilities often brought up, other than perhaps Aiden Turner.

    I’d wager that neither will get the role, but Aidan Turner would bring dimensions to the role that Cavill could only dream of. One is just a better actor than the other, IMO.

    I’d wager a few other things about this latest Nolan news as well. As in: it stinks to high heaven of false plants to the media, specifically to this Reel World source, 🤷‍♂️…
  • edited January 6 Posts: 1,394
    Whether a Bond actor has or will at some time win an Oscar is irrelevant as the Oscars themselves have been irrelevant for many years now.The ceremony is just a woke circle jerk amongst the hollyweird elite every year.

    There are plenty of great actors who will never win an Oscar and plenty of average to bad ones have one ( Kim Basinger won an Oscar for gods sake! ).

    As someone said earlier here,several actors who have played Bond have already been fairly well known before they got the role ( Moore,Brosnan,Craig) so I don’t see Cavills fame as an obstacle.

    The only problem with casting Cavill is if they drag their feet getting new movies out like Babs and Michael have done for the past decade.If they manage a two to three year turnaround for new Bonds, I can see them getting about four movies out if Cavill but sadly,I don’t see that happening.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,660
    peter wrote: »
    I’d wager a few other things about this latest Nolan news as well. As in: it stinks to high heaven of false plants to the media, specifically to this Reel World source, 🤷‍♂️…

    Yeah there's not enough there to make me believe it's true.
  • @peter So you are saying there is a chance Nolan is still in talks to direct Bond 26? That would be absolutely wonderful!
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,511
    @Colonel_Venus , I don't think Nolan, or anyone, is in talks at the moment.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,251
    Nolan is as likely to get the gig as Spielberg was.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    edited January 6 Posts: 16,362
    Maybe Nolan and Spielberg can team up to make a new IP. Arizona Smith: Super Spy Kind of Guy. ;))
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,403
    JustJames wrote: »
    Of course, in the Seventies, no one wanted to watch James Bond starring The Saint….
    Oh.
    None of the Bond actors, except Lazenby, have been complete unknowns. Oddly, Brosnan was closest — Remington Steele wasn’t exactly a big thing in the UK, in fact I only saw it after they started running it *after* he got the Bond gig. And the UK is absolutely the Bond home market. In the eighties onward it even exists as this sort of odd TV/Cinema hybrid, so often is it run regularly as essentially a series on our TV (at one point there was a 007 channel on Sky where they ran in a loop) and of course the Seventies and Eighties were filled with Brit TV actors. NSNA again looks more like an ITV show than a Bond movie even. XD

    I think for the sake of commitment, expediency, and frankly — with shades of Brosnan and Dalton both — ‘man born to be Bond’ levels of being actually well suited to the actual role, rather than shaping it to him, Cavill is by far the best choice. Argyle won’t affect that (spoiler that’s obvious from the trailer, he is *not* a ‘real’ character in the film, he’s a meta character) or UNCLE (which was a very good film) any more than Brosnan going up against Michael Caine did, or Roger Moore basically being a go-to action hero for most of his career did. The influence of Superman is also overstated — people tend to see the character, not the actor, and the only actors to become truly synonymous with him were both called Reeve. Given the relative success or lack thereof as well, it would be like not giving Affleck Batman, because he had already been Daredevil. (And Jack Ryan, but there’s more Ryan’s than Bonds by now I think.)

    Man can act well enough, looks the part well enough, and ninety percent plus of all the other names touted just *look* weak. Cartoonish masculinity at best. Cavill looks just normal enough, and just ‘model’ enough. Bond is cast for the het-women in the audience. Ever has it been thus. Cavill brings that, in my limited estimation, much more than any of the possibilities often brought up, other than perhaps Aidan Turner.

    Cavill is Brosnan/Moore lite, just as Turner is Connery lite.

    Bond can do better than either of these actors.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,265
    peter wrote: »
    @Colonel_Venus , I don't think Nolan, or anyone, is in talks at the moment.

    @peter You don't think, even if informally to gauge interest, that they have not reached out to various directors who may be on their wish list. Availability has to be a consideration; if there is a director in whom they have interest, securing their services before they commit to another production would seem vital, even if filming is a couple of years off.

    While no where near ready to begin production, or even formal pre-production, based on how they have operated in the past, I think a great deal more has been done than is being disclosed to the public. Minimally, writers, directors and even actors have been contacted and deep within EoN the direction for the next era brainstormed and charted.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,511
    The most important thing is the script @talos7 … and I’m sure they’ve got a wish list together of directors, but until there’s something concrete to talk about story wise (and quickly following, cast ideas (they have to likely recast all the major roles), ETA of pre production, potential shooting date etc etc) there’s just not a lot of point in engaging in serious discussions with a director.

    And I’m happy to be wrong on this, but I think they’re on a hamster wheel when it comes to the story they want to tell.

    I firmly believe that at this point there’s no story.

    Happy to be proved wrong on this, but I think we will hear more come spring— that’s my hope. Thats the ETA I’m expecting and until May or June, and if no news comes, I’ll be upset myself, 😂.

    But, it’s all story, story, story at the moment… is my assumption. And beyond that…?

  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,265
    @peter Thanks…
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    edited January 6 Posts: 2,197
    I think it might not be Bond 26, but Nolan could still direct Bond. It's about launching the next James Bond and it requires complete trust. I would say EON should give Bond 26 to Martin Campbell to launch again and complete his hatrick. Then Nolan directs Bond 27, if he isn't directing Bond 26.
  • Barbara B wouldn't be stupid enough to dismiss any decent suggestion from Nolan.
  • edited January 6 Posts: 4,323
    Barbara B wouldn't be stupid enough to dismiss any decent suggestion from Nolan.

    But presumably she's smart enough to dismiss any bad suggestions from Nolan?
  • Posts: 1,871
    At least Cavill had the opportunity to play a Fleming created character on screen in Napoleon Solo. That’s at least something for those who think he should be Bond.

    I often wonder how many people here know that Ian Fleming was involved with the creation of The Man from U.N.C.L.E. and came up with name Napoleon Solo.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,251
    If talks broke down, another possible point of contention might be an aspect of production. Nolan is known for not having a second unit production because he likes to be behind the camera even for the most minute things. It’s very possible Eon couldn’t concede to Nolan demanding total production control, and I can’t blame them for turning down Nolan if that was something he couldn’t stand down on.
Sign In or Register to comment.