It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ 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
+1
Totally agree.
I guess the different elements must come together in the right combination, and then magic can happen.
http://hwcdn.libsyn.com/p/1/5/d/15d116b8d0756ccc/Nerdist_761_-_Daniel_Craig.mp3?c_id=10313708&expiration=1447858503&hwt=7d8fe05c49ee4404043b2838fc6f0e8f
But the '80s weren't austere. Everything was bigger: big hair, big neon colors...cf the title sequence of AVTAK.
Back on topic, of course Craig should come back. He is the seminal Bond: finally combining the hard-edged Connery Bond and the introspective Dalton one into the closest incarnation of Fleming's Bond. Ultimately, Lazenby, Moore, and Brosnan couldn't do it.
The 'austere' return to a more grounded, less glamorous Bond in FYEO. More suited to Dalton. That's all.
Having said that, now does seem an opportune moment for change, given the bidding war that is imminent. B25 could bring a completely different Bond, Director, Writer, Composer etc. With just M, Q, Moneypenny and tanner remaining. (I don't think they would recast those roles again, probably just reduce their screen time.)
The only thing that makes this seem unlikely is the fact that they just spent a film setting up an actor in the role of ESB. Surely that has to pay off. They didn't kill him off after all. I suppose the next Bond could continue the story from where Craig left off, but I don't think audiences would accept it nowadays (and a new studio would never agree to it).
I think the disappointing box office results of SPECTRE could be the nail in the coffin for Craig. After Skyfall, I think EON were confident that they could pull in another billion dollars by bringing back Blofeld, the evil lair, deadly henchman etc. You know, all that iconic stuff. With a budget of 300 million there is no way they weren't shooting for another billion with SPECTRE.
A potential new studio now has the upper hand. They can demand that Craig leave the role and EON's hands are tied. It would have been a different story had SPECTRE blown Skyfall out of the water at the BO. Craig is 47, it's obvious to anyone that he can only do one more before his age becomes a real issue. Why bring him back, have a wild success only to have to start again with a new actor the next time around?
But why would they get rid of Craig? Most people, especially in Hollywood, think he's the best change the series has had in decades. He's not Lazenby, Moore, Dalton, or Brosnan. He is in the top tier of Bond actors with Connery.
More likely, they'll lure Craig back for one last go-round a la Connery in DAF.
What on earth are you talking about? "Disappointing BO returns"? Say what? It's on pace to make profits in the hundreds of millions. It will be the 2nd highest grossing Bond film of all time! How is that disappointing? SF was a fluke. No way anyone wants to lose Craig at this point. His four films will have totaled over THREE BILLION dollars at the BO when it's all said and done. They will bend over backwards to get him back.
To say otherwise is crazy talk, dude.
Oh, and his age is only an issue if he looks old and can't do the stunts convincingly. He doesn't look old and he's crushing the stunts on his own. Just saying his age means nothing. It's a number, nothing more. I don't understand these complaints. Seriously, what are you talking about?
Dan's got another decade in him yet.
I think the funny thing is that despite what he says, DC loves this role more and more with each film. I'm fairly sure he'll do one more, but even two is not out of the question.
It's a shame they did the whole over the hill thing in SF - that would have made for a nice sixth instalment for Dan.
Very well said sir.
Some people stagger you on here with the inanity of their posts.
The film will still be a huge success as has been noted. Its profitability is not in the same league as SF though, from what I know about the budgets.
On an inflation adjusted basis, it could come in at 4 or 5 on the all time list for box office gross.
Bottom line - any reduction in overall box office gross for SP vs SF is not on account of Craig....not from what I have read. There are far other factors that have caused that.
Regarding his age - I don't think he can go on to his mid 50's like Moore because credibility in the action space is much more important now.....and I believe Bourne is to thank for that more than MI. I think he's got one more in him at most, and I think he knows it.
Yes, absolutely. We discussed that a few months back on the box office thread. That should have been considered though.....it really isn't a surprise about the US $, because folks in the finance industry knew that 'speculation' about a rate increase in 2015 would move the $ up, especially against commodity backed currencies. The Production team should have hedged this.
I can see where you're coming from with the age thing. All I ever seem to hear is 'Craig looks great, he could play Bond for another decade!', ' age is just a number'etc. What people forget is how age seeks up quickly. There are little hints already in SPECTRE, especially with Lea, she looks so young. I mean, if you think about it Sean still looked great in TB, but just 2 years later he was starting to show his age. Rog looked ace in TSWLM, 4 years later he was grandpa Bond, buying Bibi an ice cream.
I think people sometimes confuse looking young and being young. Just because they people age in a linear, consistent fashion (IE you are twice as old at forty than you are at twenty) doesn't mean that the effects of aging become apparent in the same way. The mistake people are making is comparing how he looks now to how he did when he started. The truth is, no one can predict this sort of thing. Sure Craig looks great now, today, but 3 years is a long time and chances are he won't be able to run around, seduce women, dive from explosions next time around. Which means that keeping Daniel limits what they can do and the stories they can tell.
To those people saying 'DC can pay Bond for a decade' see how he looks in another 3 years. I'm guessing most will have changed their minds by then. I think he can do one more, as a Swan song. Then EON seriously have to get their thinking caps on and figure out how to compete with mission impossible. That series is only getting better, Bond can't coast on iconicism alone.
so you want Blofeld to just magically escape?
Well quite.
If you ask me Connery started out looking a lot older than he actually was, he looked like he could have been pushing 40 when he did DN at a mere 31 years of age.
Moore on the other hand was an absolute baby-face until the mid 70's, by which time he was nearing 50. Brosnan also aged very well.
DC really does look like he's nearing 50, and he will be on his last legs if he does another Bond film.
My guess is we'll get a young guy (30-33) next, who can handle serious stunts for a good 10 years into his reign...