› ›

Should Craig only do a trilogy of films?

jamesdutjamesdut
edited March 2011 in Skyfall Posts: 95
I think bond 23 should be craigs last. This is not because i don't think he's a great bond (because he is a great bond) but because i would like to see craigs story wraped up in a triolgy as his films have had a running theme that needs a conclusion without dragging it on. If you look at chris nolans batman films he has said he wont be doing any more as his story will have been told. Chris bale also wont play batman again. The same with Sam Ramie Spiderman triolgy as his story was complete, and Toby miguie wont return passing on to a new actor to carry the role on in his direction. If you look at christpher reeve as superman his story ended with two squeezing a third that was fun and a forth they should never had made. reeve himself said afterwards he should of walked away after two. So if craig can make a good third and final film and walk away then i beleive he will be consirdered to have made a great contribution to bond without overstaying his stay.
«13

Comments

  • PrinceKamalKhanPrinceKamalKhan Monsoon Palace, Udaipur
    edited March 2011 Posts: 3,262
    If Bond 23 is like Bond 22, I say yes. In retrospect, it may have been a good thing that Dalton only had 2(the excellent TLD and the good LTK) and Lazenby only had 1(excellent. Can't beat a perfect record). This same-style "short but sweet" tenure might be a good thing for Craig as well with one excellent film(CR) and one bitter disappointment(QOS) so far.
  • jaguar007jaguar007
    Posts: 638
    I want to see Craig do some stand alone adventures, not all part of one big storyline
  • AgentJamesBond007AgentJamesBond007 Vesper’s grave
    Posts: 2,634
    I don't think DC is going to end on B23, no matter how bad it is. He most likely will continue to bring the series into an edge where fans enjoy. But that is just a guess.
  • dragonskydragonsky
    Posts: 2,491
    it would be good to make atleast 4 but i would be ok with 3 too
  • LudsLuds MIA
    Posts: 1,986
    I personally would like Craig to complete his Quantum trilogy and return for a stand alone Bond epic, something lighter and more fun that he's been thrown into with the first two movies of the trilogy. I'd like to see him portray a Bond which isn't just about revenge.
  • ChuckChuck
    Posts: 212
    I would hope that Craig keeps going for a few more films after Bond 23. I'd like to see EON fully explore where they can take the Bond character while they've got an actor of Daniel Craig's quality in the role.
  • saunderssaunders Living in a world of avarice and deceit
    Posts: 987
    Is it confirmed that the Quantum themed storyline will only be a trilogy? My view is the QUANTUM organisation is the modern equivalent of SPECTRE who in their time managed to be involved in seven story lines (and possibly a PTS). I hope both QUANTUM and Craig continue as it was clearly getting difficult for the writers to keep introducing and establishing original villains and villainous schemes towards the end of the Brosnan era and regardless of this, Craig is the best thing to happen to the Bond franchise for decades, why on earth would we want him to stop?
  • Fairbairn-SykesFairbairn-Sykes
    Posts: 54
    What's a triolgy?
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    edited March 2011 Posts: 15,169
    Quoting Fairbairn-Sykes:
    What's a triolgy?

    Edited title so obvious questions like these don't need to be asked.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited March 2011 Posts: 4,399
    no no and no...

    I think it's already been confirmed that Bond 23 will be a stand alone adventure - much in the way Goldfinger was stand alone after DN and FRWL...

    I get tired of trilogies these days - everything needs to be a god forsaken trilogy..... it's taxing...

    let them build up and legitimize QUANTUM into a force that Bond must face in future films - and not kill it prematurely.... we are in the middle of the closest that the series has come to feeling like the Connery era Bond films - with an aggressive no nonsense Bond vs a secret evil organization... the last thing i want to see, is it end before it even has a chance to get started..
  • ChuckChuck
    Posts: 212
    Quoting haserot: let them build up and legitimize QUANTUM into a force that Bond must face in future films - and not kill it prematurely.... we are in the middle of the closest that the series has come to feeling like the Connery era Bond films - with an aggressive no nonsense Bond vs a secret evil organization... the last thing i want to see, is it end before it even has a chance to get started..
    Absolutely agreed.

    With the exception of Dalton's two films, Daniel Craig's tenure in the role has been the most exciting time for the franchise since Connery was in the role, and I'd be disappointed if they decided to cut the Quantum arc short by fitting it into a trilogy rather than having Bond face that particular enemy for a few more films.
  • GeorgeLazenbyGeorgeLazenby
    Posts: 295
    I think he should do 4. That seems to me to be the magic number.
  • BondBond
    edited March 2011 Posts: 503
    I don't want Bond 23 to be part of a trilogy, I want it to be a stand-alone film. I also would like it to be Craig's last. I think we need a much younger actor, maybe early 30s or even late 20s to come in and refresh the series.

    We already have the reboot continuity in place, so a younger actor will fit perfectly. Maybe then we can even do what some folks on the IMDb forums are suggesting—bring in Timmy Dalton as M or a villain. That would be exquisite.
  • Mr_SterlingMr_Sterling
    Posts: 99
    He's made two great films so far so i say let him continue until he feels he's had enough, or he gets too old for the role. Lets not have the same with Craig that we had with Connery, Moore and Brosnan where they each made one film too many.
  • Sir_Hilary_BraySir_Hilary_Bray
    Posts: 57
    Quoting Bond: I don't want Bond 23 to be part of a trilogy, I want it to be a stand-alone film. I also would like it to be Craig's last. I think we need a much younger actor, maybe early 30s or even late 20s to come in and refresh the series.
    Exactly my thought and Dalton as M would be fun too haha

    To me Craig can not communicate any humour at all, there are a few attempts in CR, but they fail miserably. Bond needs humour, without it the whole fictional character fails miserably because they try to make it too serious. A too serious Bond=a caricature of himself (I'm not talking about silly jokes here, but great oneliners, just look at Connery)
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    No,i think Craig should go on for as long as he convinces in the role and feels he can give it his all.
    The Bond films need consistency now and Craig has been accepted very very well,and if Bond 23 is going to be as good as i hope it will be then long may he continue.
  • Mr_SterlingMr_Sterling
    Posts: 99
    However Hilary, for his first two films (two of his best), Connery didn't run about firing off one liners. The humour was subtle to nearly rare.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,356
    No way! If another actor gets what Lazenby and Dalton got I'll personally hunt down BB and MW. We need consistency and I hope Craig can give us that for at least another three maybe even four films.

    As for the trilogy idea, I would guess Quantum will either be featured at bit or a lot in all of Craig's films, so the 'standalone' element is allowed to come through but Quantum always has a presence.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,584
    Craig will be there for as long as he, the producers or Father Time himself dictates otherwise.
    If the films make money and Craig is happy then it will be upwards and onwards until his knees give out. Or I hope so.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,999
    I'm going to bite the bullet and say, yes. Give him Bond#23, and then get looking for Bond #7.
  • BondBond
    Posts: 503
    Quoting MajorDSmythe:
    • I'm going to bite the bullet and say, yes. Give him Bond#23, and then get looking for Bond #7.
    Agree. But continue on in the reboot continuity, with a younger actor to better represent a new, fresh Bond. Then would be a perfect time to bring in Q and Moneypenny as well.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,999
    Quoting Bond: Agree. But continue on in the reboot continuity, with a younger actor to better
    represent a new, fresh Bond. Then would be a perfect time to bring in Q and
    Moneypenny as well.
    Even though a younger Bond would put most of my choices out of the running, yes, just what I was thinking.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited March 2011 Posts: 4,399
    Well, it's always been the actor's call on when to leave the role - the producers have never fired/removed an actor as Bond - they've always let the actor himself make that choice..

    They let Connery bow out..

    Lazenby just F'd up by listening to his managers..

    They brought back Connery (as a last resort), and let him bow out again..

    Moore they let go until he was 58 - until he found it right to retire the 00 status..

    Dalton quit after production (on what would be Goldeneye) was taking forever..

    and Brosnan walked away from the role...

    i don't recall the producers ever firing their current Bond actor.. so, it's all Mr Craig's call - it's his job for as long as he wants it..
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    edited March 2011 Posts: 13,999
    I believe Brosnan was the fist to be pushed. And they did it over the phone. :-c
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    if he was "pushed" this would be the first i heard of it...

    how i remember it going down, was the producers were happy with the money Die Another Day made, but weren't too keen on the direction that the series has taken - and the really wanted to scale the next film back.... meanwhile, they just recently attained the rights to film Casino Royale, which they would use in a reboot - something that going back to the 80s had been an idea of Cubby's to do with Dalton replacing Moore.... so they were anxious to get that going... and Pierce had even expressed interest in doing a more character driven Bond movie

    meanwhile, Pierce is being bombarded with question after question about "are you going to retire?" "have you been fired?" - for a few months... and rather than listen to it any longer, he came right out and said something along the lines of "Yes, I am walking away from the role, I feel like it's the right time to do so.." - now, either to save face or at the producers wish, he never mentioned anything about being forced to retire or being fired.... Pierce only started raising a fuss after the fact, when they were going ahead with a more character driven plot with what would be the reboot Casino Royale - something that he really wanted to do.... then came his accusations of being fired.... which i chalked up to sour grapes - since he didn't get what he wanted..
  • jaguar007jaguar007
    edited March 2011 Posts: 638
    Brosnan and EON were in "negotiations" for his 5th Bond and he was asking for something like $20million. EON decided to drop the negotiations and go a different directions. Then Pierce started whining and back peddling hinting that he would take less money but EON had made their decision to go a different direction. I have also heard that Brosnan and Broccoli never really got along well.

    As far as Dalton in concerned, no he was not fired by EON, but John Calley, CEO of MGM at the time refused to greenlight GE if Dalton was attached. Dalton left the role so MGW and BB could get GE made. So really, Dalton was shown the door by MGM.
  • AgentJM7AgentJM7
    Posts: 421
    Should Craig only do a trilogy? No. One sequel was enough.

    I'm not saying that we should just forget about Quantum or a backstory, but simply that it shouldn't play a major role in Bond 23. Let's just try and make it the best standalone film that we can:)
  • jamesdutjamesdut
    Posts: 95
    The thing is that there is too much to tie up for it to be a stand alone film. First we know off the exsitance of Quantum and need to explore that more, plus Vesper boyfriend was at the end of Quantun and as far as i know was signed on to bond 23? Of course with such a big delay in the film all could change. And don't forget Q and moneypenny have to be introduced to complete James bond being settled in with all the familiar charcters.
  • BondBond
    Posts: 503
    I'll support Craig doing a fourth film if it's released in 2014. No more of this 4-year delay bullcrap. If there's another lengthy delay until Bond 24, I'd want a new, younger actor.
  • jamesdutjamesdut
    Posts: 95
    i think delay in big budget films these days is normal to the length of time and money needed to make them. Thats why a lot of big films shoot more than one at once due to cost Hobbit, harry potter, matrix etc. I think over 2 years could be highly possible for bond 24 due to this
Sign In or Register to comment.