Where does Bond go after Craig?

1677678680682683700

Comments

  • Posts: 1,475
    Let’s face it. Next guy has got almost Herculean task on his hands matching what Craig did.

    No actor was Sean Connery and the series survived.

    The actor has to be different from Craig. If you look for a clone of Craig you are DOA.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited November 15 Posts: 16,663
    I think when dealing with Multi-Million Dollar productions then everyone is under pressure in some way/shape/form, even the costume designers haha. However I think most of the pressure on Brosnan came during the production of GE. Despite being an inch away from the role 8 years prior, MGM/UA executives still weren’t entirely sure about Brosnan. According to Jeff Kleeman, they sort of saw Brosnan as someone who played 2nd fiddle to actors like Robin Williams or Warren Beatty (with Mrs. Doubtfire and Love Affair being the actors two most recent projects at that time.) Remington Steele had come and gone and really Brosnan wasn’t much of an established “star” in that sense. In addition to that, so many people were questioning the relevancy of the character and the series at large that had the film and the performance failed it would’ve been the end of the series. But I do think the pressure definitely went away once GE proved to be the massive success that it was.

    In a funny sort of way that could mean less pressure on the actor you'd think: if Bond himself was truly not relevant anymore then it's less the fault of the guy playing him than the core concept of the character which he's just being paid to read the lines of.
    I don't want to say there was no pressure on him because of course there was, and he proved a massive hit in the role, but as SecretAgentMan says, I'd say that coming after the generally perceived failure of Dalton to catch fire he perhaps had a slightly more favourable playing field than any of the others. The gap also probably helped him as folks remembered Bond as they liked him growing up rather than perhaps the Bond of the previous movie; and GE definitely aimed for that nostalgia I think by rebooting the whole thing.
    007HallY wrote: »
    I’ve gotta say, it must be an annoying job sometimes for EON. Imagine getting criticised for your films, having to make conscious course corrections/bold creative decisions for the next one (without which the series will apparently not survive each time) only to get praised for them before inevitably slipping back into audiences criticising the series and the odd critic claiming it’s not relevant anymore (again, every time and despite the fact that the series has no outright flops/continues that cycle of making successful new films that said audiences and critics like). At the very least it’s a weird cycle.

    I think it's sort of water off a duck's back by now. They know the press print a load of old rubbish about them, but I guess all publicity is good publicity, and all it proves it that people want to read about Bond.
    The thing I can imagine might get up their nose a bit is when other professionals use Bond to promote themselves, as with the Steve McQueen rumour the other day. Seems very likely someone in his camp decided to get some publicity for his new movie by saying he was perhaps up for the Bond directing job, and if that's not true I could imagine that the Brocs would be a little disappointed by a fellow professional using them in that way; certainly I think any actor who does so probably gets themselves crossed off the list pronto (hi Sam Heughan).
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited November 15 Posts: 6,403
    Mallory wrote: »
    Let’s face it. Next guy has got almost Herculean task on his hands matching what Craig did.

    Every actor has had to deal with that.

    Strongly disagree. Only Lazenby had the task that Bond #7 will have. Connery defined the role and Craig re-defined it. The others only inhabited it.
  • Posts: 1,475
    echo wrote: »
    Mallory wrote: »
    Let’s face it. Next guy has got almost Herculean task on his hands matching what Craig did.

    Every actor has had to deal with that.

    Strongly disagree. Only Lazenby had the task that Bond #7 will have. Connery defined the role and Craig re-defined it. The others only inhabited it.

    Being different from Craig is not that hard.

    A tall and handsome actor, someone who can have female fans under 30 years old...

  • edited November 15 Posts: 2,297
    echo wrote: »
    Mallory wrote: »
    Let’s face it. Next guy has got almost Herculean task on his hands matching what Craig did.

    Every actor has had to deal with that.

    Strongly disagree. Only Lazenby had the task that Bond #7 will have. Connery defined the role and Craig re-defined it. The others only inhabited it.

    Each Bond actor redefined the role in some way; that’s how the series has survived so long. It’s inaccurate to say Craig was the only one who redefined it when the likes of Moore, Dalton, and Brosnan were doing it decades before.

    Following Craig will be tough, but not the impossible task so many make it out to be, and this isn’t even remotely similar to the situation that occurred in the late 60’s.
    mtm wrote: »

    In a funny sort of way that could mean less pressure on the actor you'd think: if Bond himself was truly not relevant anymore then it's less the fault of the guy playing him than the core concept of the character which he's just being paid to read the lines of.
    I don't want to say there was no pressure on him because of course there was, and he proved a massive hit in the role, but as SecretAgentMan says, I'd say that coming after the generally perceived failure of Dalton to catch fire he perhaps had a slightly more favourable playing field than any of the others. The gap also probably helped him as folks remembered Bond as they liked him growing up rather than perhaps the Bond of the previous movie; and GE definitely aimed for that nostalgia I think by rebooting the whole thing.

    Yeah both of you and @SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ have a point. Perhaps in the eyes of the MGM/UA executives, the same ones who refused to start production on GE with Dalton in the role, Brosnan was the safest bet they could go for but still wasn’t quite a box office star. Then again neither was Connery, Moore, Dalton, or Craig before they became Bond so it kind proves that track record doesn’t matter much. If you find a good actor and give him a good script, they’ll do wonders.
  • LucknFateLucknFate 007 In New York
    Posts: 1,693
    Variety wasting time asking Lashana Lynch what's coming next... she says she has no clue. https://t.co/UTTa6rQ5vS
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited November 15 Posts: 16,663
    I guess Roger was probably the safest bet in that he was a worldwide TV star and pretty well-liked, but then he was still coming after Sean and the perceived previous failure to replace him so it was no sure thing. I guess the thing to remember is that format is king and all stars are basically replaceable in the end. I don't know if there are any roles which only one person can ever play. I suppose Indiana Jones is the one they say is that, and yet other people have played him and I suspect that a reboot would go absolutely fine if they got it right.

    I think you're right that Brosnan was the safest choice at the time, and absolutely the right one too. They also didn't really want a full box office star: I think Kleeman has said they weren't really looking at names like Mel Gibson even though they were mentioned in the press, as they needed someone not tied to any other film series.
  • 1967-1973 really is an astonishing period of flux for Bond. Yes, YOLT came at the end of Connery's tenure and his return in DAF must have felt like a course correction, but for the public that was still a run of four Bond films that each had a different actor in the title role. Moore brought the gift of stability as well as his talent and charisma.
  • edited November 16 Posts: 2,033
    Was Connery really bored during YOLT? Did he say that?

    two and a half hours later

    After posting my comment, I decided to watch YOLT again. I quite disagree. Connery does not come across as bored.
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    edited November 16 Posts: 2,199
    I think Connery, right from the start, had always had a laid-back and carefree approach to playing Bond. Even the way he lit his cigarette and hung it between his lips casually, while introducing himself with a sort of sleepy and seductive eyes in Dr. No, says a lot. He even walks casually and tips the guy at the casino door, without looking at him.
    So it's hard to really tell if he was bored or not in his subsequent Bond films or maybe he was more laid-back in his subsequent Bond films. Also, it could be that laid-back and carefree style of his, that makes people call him the best Bond ever.
    I think that laid-back style actually made him more confident. I imagine Diana Rigg would have lost it a bit, if he was Bond in OHMSS.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,663
    Connery’s best performances have him add little ideas and twinkles, he’s great to watch. In YOLT he’s not really giving that added value: he’s not bad and he’s doing all the acting required of him, but he’s only on about 80% power - he’s just not as good as he was in the previous film.
  • Ian Fleming would laugh at all this speculation if he was alive
    CrabKey wrote: »
    Was Connery really bored during YOLT? Did he say that?

    two and a half hours later

    After posting my comment, I decided to watch YOLT again. I quite disagree. Connery does not come across as bored.
    CrabKey wrote: »
    Was Connery really bored during YOLT? Did he say that?

    two and a half hours later

    After posting my comment, I decided to watch YOLT again. I quite disagree. Connery does not come across as bored.
    CrabKey wrote: »
    Was Connery really bored during YOLT? Did he say that?

    two and a half hours later

    After posting my comment, I decided to watch YOLT again. I quite disagree. Connery does not come across as bored.

    I think he does. Particularly at the end when meeting Blofeld. He looks like he’s just heard Donald Trump has been re elected. I share that sentiment!

  • Posts: 2,033
    mtm wrote: »
    Connery’s best performances have him add little ideas and twinkles, he’s great to watch. In YOLT he’s not really giving that added value: he’s not bad and he’s doing all the acting required of him, but he’s only on about 80% power - he’s just not as good as he was in the previous film.

    I'll go with 80% power. The script doesn't give him much to work with. Other than the title song, there's really nothing that stands out as memorable. Nothing iconic. The red head is such a poor followup to Fiona, my attention turns to TB rather than the film I am watching. There were so many missed opportunities to be a better film. Not a good followup to TB. We had to wait for OHMSS to see a better Bond film.

    A Bond film is always entertaining, even those I think are weak. For me the mark of a good Bond film is those memorable scenes and those iconic moments you remember about a particular film. Nothing in YOLT does that for me. But I also feel the same way about DAF.
  • Posts: 28
    CrabKey wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Connery’s best performances have him add little ideas and twinkles, he’s great to watch. In YOLT he’s not really giving that added value: he’s not bad and he’s doing all the acting required of him, but he’s only on about 80% power - he’s just not as good as he was in the previous film.

    I'll go with 80% power. The script doesn't give him much to work with. Other than the title song, there's really nothing that stands out as memorable. Nothing iconic. The red head is such a poor followup to Fiona, my attention turns to TB rather than the film I am watching. There were so many missed opportunities to be a better film. Not a good followup to TB. We had to wait for OHMSS to see a better Bond film.

    A Bond film is always entertaining, even those I think are weak. For me the mark of a good Bond film is those memorable scenes and those iconic moments you remember about a particular film. Nothing in YOLT does that for me. But I also feel the same way about DAF.

    I disagree that there's nothing memorable; the SPECTRE volcano lair is arguably the most iconic setpiece of the whole series. But a lot of the film does feel a bit like going through the motions; like Roald Dahl said, a lot of the story is based off the basic premise of Dr. NO.
  • Posts: 1,475
    The first 30 min and the last 30 min are great.
  • Posts: 2,033
    Even though the specifics weren't known, locals knew Dr. No had purchased Crab Key and was developing it. Goldfinger built a factory. No secret. But building a rocket launch pad inside a volcano, how did nobody in Japan know that was going on? How much manpower and equipment did that take without anyone noticing? Did everyone involved sign NDAs?

    Yes, I get it's fiction. You accept the story on its terms. You don't think about things like that. But for me YOLT is the first Bond film that moves from barely believable to completely preposterous and unbelievable. The more grounded films always work better for me.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,403
    CrabKey wrote: »
    Even though the specifics weren't known, locals knew Dr. No had purchased Crab Key and was developing it. Goldfinger built a factory. No secret. But building a rocket launch pad inside a volcano, how did nobody in Japan know that was going on? How much manpower and equipment did that take without anyone noticing? Did everyone involved sign NDAs?

    They were liquidated as a precaution.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,710
    itsraw wrote: »
    CrabKey wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Connery’s best performances have him add little ideas and twinkles, he’s great to watch. In YOLT he’s not really giving that added value: he’s not bad and he’s doing all the acting required of him, but he’s only on about 80% power - he’s just not as good as he was in the previous film.

    I'll go with 80% power. The script doesn't give him much to work with. Other than the title song, there's really nothing that stands out as memorable. Nothing iconic. The red head is such a poor followup to Fiona, my attention turns to TB rather than the film I am watching. There were so many missed opportunities to be a better film. Not a good followup to TB. We had to wait for OHMSS to see a better Bond film.

    A Bond film is always entertaining, even those I think are weak. For me the mark of a good Bond film is those memorable scenes and those iconic moments you remember about a particular film. Nothing in YOLT does that for me. But I also feel the same way about DAF.

    I disagree that there's nothing memorable; the SPECTRE volcano lair is arguably the most iconic setpiece of the whole series. But a lot of the film does feel a bit like going through the motions; like Roald Dahl said, a lot of the story is based off the basic premise of Dr. NO.

    I'd also like to say that DP's Blofeld is also fairly memorable with the little screen time that he has. Even if Dr. Evil is the main reason in pop culture as to why he is. Also, as for the missed opportunities, you aren't wrong in more ways than one. Remember, the original editor's 3 hour cut was poorly received. Causing the producers to basically plead with Hunt to reedit it. I'm happy that we got the film we got. At the same time, I wish we could have gotten a more faithful YOLT adaptation immediately after OHMSS. Namely Richard Maibaum writing and Peter Hunt directing. I feel that the lessons that EON learned between The Blofeld Trilogy and the Daniel Craig arc are clear. EON will be more careful with continuity and connecting stories together.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited November 17 Posts: 6,403
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    itsraw wrote: »
    CrabKey wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Connery’s best performances have him add little ideas and twinkles, he’s great to watch. In YOLT he’s not really giving that added value: he’s not bad and he’s doing all the acting required of him, but he’s only on about 80% power - he’s just not as good as he was in the previous film.

    I'll go with 80% power. The script doesn't give him much to work with. Other than the title song, there's really nothing that stands out as memorable. Nothing iconic. The red head is such a poor followup to Fiona, my attention turns to TB rather than the film I am watching. There were so many missed opportunities to be a better film. Not a good followup to TB. We had to wait for OHMSS to see a better Bond film.

    A Bond film is always entertaining, even those I think are weak. For me the mark of a good Bond film is those memorable scenes and those iconic moments you remember about a particular film. Nothing in YOLT does that for me. But I also feel the same way about DAF.

    I disagree that there's nothing memorable; the SPECTRE volcano lair is arguably the most iconic setpiece of the whole series. But a lot of the film does feel a bit like going through the motions; like Roald Dahl said, a lot of the story is based off the basic premise of Dr. NO.

    I'd also like to say that DP's Blofeld is also fairly memorable with the little screen time that he has. Even if Dr. Evil is the main reason in pop culture as to why he is. Also, as for the missed opportunities, you aren't wrong in more ways than one. Remember, the original editor's 3 hour cut was poorly received. Causing the producers to basically plead with Hunt to reedit it. I'm happy that we got the film we got. At the same time, I wish we could have gotten a more faithful YOLT adaptation immediately after OHMSS. Namely Richard Maibaum writing and Peter Hunt directing. I feel that the lessons that EON learned between The Blofeld Trilogy and the Daniel Craig arc are clear. EON will be more careful with continuity and connecting stories together.

    I wonder what would have happened in CR if they had gotten the Spectre rights back first.

    And I also wonder if, after DAD, someone at Eon (MGW himself?) pushed hard to get the rights to CR and TB back, all under one roof. These were the two missing pieces of Bond IP, and whoever did it did Cubby and Harry proud.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    edited November 17 Posts: 4,710
    echo wrote: »
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    itsraw wrote: »
    CrabKey wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Connery’s best performances have him add little ideas and twinkles, he’s great to watch. In YOLT he’s not really giving that added value: he’s not bad and he’s doing all the acting required of him, but he’s only on about 80% power - he’s just not as good as he was in the previous film.

    I'll go with 80% power. The script doesn't give him much to work with. Other than the title song, there's really nothing that stands out as memorable. Nothing iconic. The red head is such a poor followup to Fiona, my attention turns to TB rather than the film I am watching. There were so many missed opportunities to be a better film. Not a good followup to TB. We had to wait for OHMSS to see a better Bond film.

    A Bond film is always entertaining, even those I think are weak. For me the mark of a good Bond film is those memorable scenes and those iconic moments you remember about a particular film. Nothing in YOLT does that for me. But I also feel the same way about DAF.

    I disagree that there's nothing memorable; the SPECTRE volcano lair is arguably the most iconic setpiece of the whole series. But a lot of the film does feel a bit like going through the motions; like Roald Dahl said, a lot of the story is based off the basic premise of Dr. NO.

    I'd also like to say that DP's Blofeld is also fairly memorable with the little screen time that he has. Even if Dr. Evil is the main reason in pop culture as to why he is. Also, as for the missed opportunities, you aren't wrong in more ways than one. Remember, the original editor's 3 hour cut was poorly received. Causing the producers to basically plead with Hunt to reedit it. I'm happy that we got the film we got. At the same time, I wish we could have gotten a more faithful YOLT adaptation immediately after OHMSS. Namely Richard Maibaum writing and Peter Hunt directing. I feel that the lessons that EON learned between The Blofeld Trilogy and the Daniel Craig arc are clear. EON will be more careful with continuity and connecting stories together.

    I wonder what would have happened in CR if they had gotten the Spectre rights back first.

    And I also wonder if, after DAD, someone at Eon (MGW himself?) pushed hard to get the rights to CR and TB back, all under one roof. These were the two missing pieces of Bond IP, and whoever did it did Cubby and Harry proud.

    Yes, if EON had the rights to Spectre when CR was made, Craig's timeline would truly be different. As you said, Cubby and Harry would be proud, having the full Bond rights back.
  • Posts: 1,871
    Well, the Governors Ball is half way done and Daniel Craig was the presenter for the Thalberg award. He mentioned that the new Bond might be in the room but then again.....maybe not. Barbara and Michael accepted their awards and gave their speeches. Michael centered on Bond while Barbara focused on her father. There was a cool 5 min. sequence highlighting the Broccoli family and their commitment to the Bond franchise throughout the years. That said......they made no announcements regarding Bond.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,710
    delfloria wrote: »
    Well, the Governors Ball is half way done and Daniel Craig was the presenter for the Thalberg award. He mentioned that the new Bond might be in the room but then again.....maybe not. Barbara and Michael accepted their awards and gave their speeches. Michael centered on Bond while Barbara focused on her father. There was a cool 5 min. sequence highlighting the Broccoli family and their commitment to the Bond franchise throughout the years. That said......they made no announcements regarding Bond.

    That’s ok, I’m glad that they got their reward. I’m sure Bond is on their radar, for sure.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,663
    Here you go:



  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,180
    Thanks for sharing @mtm :-bd
  • edited November 18 Posts: 1,475
    Craig stole a Roger Moore's tuxedo.
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    edited November 18 Posts: 2,199
    I think Barbara Broccoli is the most beautiful producer ever. I still want her cameo for Bond 7's era... especially now that Michael's getting older.
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 14,703
    I still believe Barbara's in TLD, next to MGW at the opera.
  • Posts: 842
    Thanks for these, @mtm!

    Has anyone found video of the montage of well-wishers that followed Craig's intro? (Pierce, Lea, Javier, etc.) -- would love to see that as well if it's available.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,663
    Also here's Hugh Grant giving Richard Curtis his award. Nothing to do with Bond at all, but a lot of fun! :)

  • meshypushymeshypushy Ireland
    Posts: 146
    mtm wrote: »
    Also here's Hugh Grant giving Richard Curtis his award. Nothing to do with Bond at all, but a lot of fun! :)

    Brilliant - even funnier than I was expecting! He would be incredibly fresh as an Oscars host!
Sign In or Register to comment.