Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
Craig: stay or go? has SPECTRE changed any opinions?
talos7
New Orleans
Prior to seeing SPECTRE I was 100% in favor of Daniel Craig returning for another. Now, having seen it, I'm not so sure. It really is a perfect way to end his run.
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Rather risking another Skyfall than potentially missing another Spectre.
PS: yes, changed my mind, after SF I couldn't care less for Craig and Mendes
Do you think he has too much input to the films? Just read an interview and it sounds like he has a say on casting, story, etc.
Certainly a stand alone film, which I hoped SPECTRE would be. And I think I'm not enjoying it as much as I could because of this tying all previous DC Bonds together. Yet my friend who is a casual Bond fan thought that idea was brilliant! We're all different I guess.
Would you be more in favor of him staying if the film was completely unrelated to the last four?
This is Craig Bond meets Cinematic Bond, and boy does he pull it off well.
He should do one more. After that, age will be against him.
Well said, I agree.
Casting younger once Craig is finished is a given, however, I think Craig being cast at 38 was a good age. It just sucks that the MGM crisis robbed him of having done 5 films by now instead of 4.
I agree. More please.
There was something about his performance in SP though that made me think it would be his last. I know it's called 'acting' but that last scene where he chose the woman over the job seemed to be as much about Craig as it was for Bond.
I had the same feeling on first viewing. I thought 'there he goes, end of Craig'.
He's done what he can with the role. Brought it full circle. Given us 4 very good films. If B25 is a direct sequel then stay and finish it. Otherwise, let's have a younger Bond.
Also, if we're leaning more towards the slightly more glib Bond of old (which is where I think they're taking us) there are other actors who can do it just as well if not better. DC is best with real 'depth' like in SF/CR, and not with casual fare. It's really not his forte. Although he did a good enough job with the lighter fare in SP, he is no Connery, or even Moore when it comes to this sort of thing.
(I'm leaving out Connery for Lazenby as he quit and everyone knew SC was returning just for one more)
How I see it:
1. Lazenby for Connery - SC had made it clear during the filming of YOLT that it would be his last one so the public had been set up well in advance there would be a new face at the helm. EON's decision: Go for a looky-likey and pretend nothing had changed...
2. Moore for Connery - Again, the public knew SC was only doing the one film before handing over to someone else. EON's decision: Choose someone who had already been mentioned as a possible 007 and was well known to the public playing similar characters, a no-brainer really...
3. Dalton for Moore - While RM was much loved, it was clear to everyone - RM included - that by AVTAK he as far too old for the role. There was a clear understanding commercially and artistically that the series needed to adapt to survive. EON's decision: Bring in a classically-trained actor for a more grounded approach and a return to Fleming's character...
4. Brosnan for Dalton - The long gap in production and the under-performance of LTK in the US meant this was a pretty easy one to sell to the public. By the time GE was announced there were probably a lot of people who couldn't even name the actor currently playing Bond. EON's decision: Bring in an actor that was well known in the US, good-looking, a little bit SC, a little bit Moore, who suited the repackaging of old ideas they were going for.
5. Craig for Dalton - Possibly the most difficult replacement to date, particularly with all the 'Bond Not Blond' brouhaha. The public were reassured though that this was a complete fresh start and here was the guy to deliver something tougher and more human, a blessed relief after the end of Brosnans's tenure....
So here we are James..
6. Craig for..Hardy? Fassbender? Whoever? - I think this could be tough for EON as they've made the Craig films effectively one long story. We've seen his first kills to gain 00 status and the raw, unrefined early days. Before we knew it, he was a bit over the hill and ripe for replacement by computers.
So EON's decision...do they try to continue Bonds' story and exploration of his past but now with a clearly younger man? or forget about it and move on? or go back in time and show us some of his earlier missions? Do they continue the rougher tougher Craigf version by casting someone like Hardy? Or switch tack to a more urbane slicker Bond like Fassbender? Or something else entirely?
Like I say, could be tricky...
But I think the two-parter plan was abandoned and it was all squashed up into one movie: SP. A bit like The Dark Knight being originally planned to end at the Joker's incarceration with part 2 then dealing with his trial and disfigurement of Harvey Dent. I'd guess Part 1 of SP was to end with Blofeld's reveal of who he really is and his part in all of Bond's previous woes.
:-\"
How have you not seen TDK after 7 years?