BOND POLLS 2017: Craig stays or leaves? Choose one of the four options [RESULTS, page 12]

Comments

• Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator

  January 2016 Posts: 40,976

  Personally, since I'm sure both Spectre and Blofeld will return, I'd have to go with A. I would pick D, because both result in Craig returning to do battle against Blofeld, which would have a better feel for me (since he first encountered them in SP after such a long period of time) than hiring a new actor for such a plot would, but having said that, I don't want to simply ignore everything that happened in the past and retire away some of the characters. Give them smaller roles? Absolutely, but we just got the gang back and I don't want them inexplicably disappearing again.
  
  Now, my overall preference would be for Craig to return, give the 'MI6 family' much smaller roles, and let Bond tackle some straight forward mission. Handle the return (or departure, though hopefully it wouldn't result in her death) of Swann however is needed, sideline Blofeld for a film (he's locked up and has no influence; could possibly allow for audience reaction into having/not having him return, which would be a good indicator for what 'Bond 26' may unveil), and let Bond do what he does best.
• Gustav_Graves

  January 2016 Posts: 11,119

  I would go for A) as well. But option A) needs some damn good writing. For example, how do we get 'rid' of Madeleine in a dramatic, though original and quick fashion? A la Tiffany Case in "FRWL"? Or Pussy Galore in "TRIGGER MORTIS"? It's perhaps also better to use Blofeld sparingly. Perhaps only as a cameo in the very end of the film. Let Blofeld be a pivotal cameo, and use a Largo-esque villain who's the new show-stealer. Then you can bring back Waltz full-throttle in Bond #26.
• jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator

  January 2016 Posts: 10,591

  I'm in the A camp as well.
• Thunderfinger Das Boot Hill

  January 2016 Posts: 45,489

  Option A. We gaven t gotten any closure the way I see it. Craig and Waltz both need to return.
• Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator

  January 2016 Posts: 40,976

  @Birdleson, if you could only have one of the supporting characters return, who would you prefer? Perhaps a story that's detached from the allies at MI6 where Bond and Felix have to work together? I'd enjoy seeing Leiter return in person and not in name, like he did in SP.
• TheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'

  January 2016 Posts: 9,117

  Well quite clearly A.
  
  I have no desire to see Craig resign so given that eliminates B&C immediately it is a choice between A&D.
  
  Continuing on from SP, clunky as I'm sure it will be, seems to be the only viable way to go. To just forget about everything that has gone before after they have just tied themselves in knots connecting it all would make no sense.
  
  The only hope (admittedly quite a forlorn one) is that the make a better job of it this time round.
  
  Personally I'd go for a YOLT ending with Bond with amnesia but Blofeld alive.
  
  Then if Craig comes back one last time have the M assassination attempt and then a final showdown with Blofeld. If it's a new actor in B26 you can either just start afresh or have the assassination attempt and a scrap with Blofeld who you let live on for a few more films if you so desire.
• MayDayDiVicenzo Here and there

  January 2016 Posts: 5,080

  C. I'm all for some fresh blood.
• Gustav_Graves

  January 2016 Posts: 11,119

  Results so far:
  
  A: 5
  B: 0
  C: 2
  D: 0
  
• pachazo Make Your Choice

  January 2016 edited January 2016 Posts: 7,314

  Well, given the choices above, I'd have to go with C.
  
  I'd be sad to see Craig go but at this point I have absolutely no desire to see a sequel to SP. And come on, how silly would it be to have only Craig return and ignore everything that happened before? That's not really a viable option. Besides, the more I think about it, SP had quite the suitable ending for the DC era. He finally ends up with the girl he loves and rides off and quits his job. Perfect.
  
  I think that option B would be the worst of both worlds for me. We'd lose Craig and have to continue on with the SP nonsense. However, if I had to bet on it, I'd put my money on us getting option A.
• Murdock The minus world

  January 2016 Posts: 16,351

  A for me. :)
• Crazysoul95

  January 2016 Posts: 3,336

  A for me aswell
• CigaretteLeiter United States

  January 2016 Posts: 108

  A for me
  
• Gustav_Graves

  January 2016 Posts: 11,119

  Any B's or D's :-P? Hehehehe
• dalton

  January 2016 Posts: 1,631

  pachazo wrote: »

  Well, given the choices above, I'd have to go with C.
  
  I'd be sad to see Craig go but at this point I have absolutely no desire to see a sequel to SP. And come on, how silly would it be to have only Craig return and ignore everything that happened before? That's not really a viable option. Besides, the more I think about it, SP had quite the suitable ending for the DC era. He finally ends up with the girl he loves and rides off and quits his job. Perfect.
  
  I think that option B would be the worst of both worlds for me. We'd lose Craig and have to continue on with the SP nonsense. However, if I had to bet on it, I'd put my money on us getting option A.

  
  I'd have to agree. It's option C for me as well.
  
  I'd rather they just start over from square one and move forward, hopefully learning a lesson from Spectre and never deciding to force continuity into the franchise where it doesn't fit. If Bond is going to be serialized, it needs to be done with planning in advance, not by retconning like they did with Spectre.
  
  
• jbtwine84

  January 2016 Posts: 19

  D. Send him on a regular mission! A la every other film non Craig. It would be a breath of fresh air. And maybe they won't take a $300 million loss in revenue again.
• DonnyDB5 Buffalo, New York

  January 2016 Posts: 1,755

  A hands down...
• JohnHammond73 Lancashire, UK

  January 2016 Posts: 4,151

  It's a difficult choice as I'd like to see Bond on a regular mission rather than go down the Blofeld route, but then, I'd like to see a follow up to Spectre. I'd probably have to go with option A, get this story finished and, more than likely, end Craig's tenure as 007.
  
  I really am on the lookout for a standalone mission though, at some point.
• tanaka123

  January 2016 Posts: 4,325

  Option A, no question. I want Craig to do another so that rules out B and C. And it would seem odd continuing with Craig and disposing of the current timeline, so that rules out D.
• zebrafish <°)))< in Octopussy's garden in the shade

  January 2016 Posts: 4,341

  I will go with A, but get rid of the lightness. Craig is more believable without funny quips. And we need a good script, where the last act does not fall flat. Collapsing houses are OK, but please no more explosions.
• Gustav_Graves

  January 2016 edited January 2016 Posts: 11,119

  Results so far:
  
  A]...71%..(12 voters)
  B]...00%..(00 voters)
  C]...24%..(04 voters)
  D]...05%..(01 voters)
  
  The biggest problem I have with a firm re-boot, either with or without Daniel Craig, is that it's the 'law of the land' in Hollywood. It tires me a lot. And at times the re-boot button seems to be used because of an absence of inventive storytelling and lack of creativity.
  
  What's wrong with maintaining the Craig-timeline, and then slowly make the films less heavy on chronology and personal background stuff? That's what has been done with the Bond franchise during the entire period 1962 until 2002.
  
  Moreover, the Bond franchise is unique. Very unique...in that it's an old franchise (almost 54 years) and it has 24 films. So the films thrived on that aspect. Yes, there were occasional references to Tracy, or Judi Dench's predecessor. But that's about it.
  
  If you start re-booting the franchise every time that a new actor comes onboard, then I think it could endanger the longevity of the franchise on the very long-term (20 to 40 years from now). Bond is no Marvel. Bond is Bond.
  
  Hence why I prefer option A). And if that's not possible, then I think option B) should also be considered seriously.
• Murdock The minus world

  January 2016 Posts: 16,351

  Like with Quantum of Solace, whenever some don't like a Bond film, they want the events of the Bond film they didn't like promptly swept under a rug with no mention again as if it didn't happen. There is always room for improvement. Plus I really like Craig's Bond and don't want the ride to abruptly end yet. ;)
• RC7

  January 2016 edited January 2016 Posts: 10,512

  Gustav_Graves wrote: »

  Results so far:
  
  A]...71%..(12 voters)
  B]...00%..(00 voters)
  C]...24%..(04 voters)
  D]...05%..(01 voters)
  
  The biggest problem I have with a firm re-boot, either with or without Daniel Craig, is that it's the 'law of the land' in Hollywood. It tires me a lot. And at times the re-boot button seems to be used because of an absence of inventive storytelling and lack of creativity.
  
  What's wrong with maintaining the Craig-timeline, and then slowly make the films less heavy on chronology and personal background stuff? That's what has been done with the Bond franchise during the entire period 1962 until 2002.
  
  Moreover, the Bond franchise is unique. Very unique...in that it's an old franchise (almost 54 years) and it has 24 films. So the films thrived on that aspect. Yes, there were occasional references to Tracy, or Judi Dench's predecessor. But that's about it.
  
  If you start re-booting the franchise every time that a new actor comes onboard, then I think it could endanger the longevity of the franchise on the very long-term (20 to 40 years from now). Bond is no Marvel. Bond is Bond.
  
  Hence why I prefer option A). And if that's not possible, then I think option B) should also be considered seriously.

  
  You don't even have to call it a reboot, you just say we've done our Craig thing, we're going back to the Bond sans baggage. Chalk up DC's tenure as an experiment, it's own truncated journey from rookie to retired. No need to reboot every time, but no point sticking with a timeline that is acutely personal to Craig's portrayal. In one breath you're saying 'less focus on character background, chronology and continuity' and in the next you're saying 'let's maintain the Craig timeline'. You can't just phase out something intrinsically tied to his portrayal it's utterly pointless. Once he's done, a clean break is the most sensible and creatively freeing option. Go back to a Bond who echoes the traditional cinematic archetype, he's not a rookie, neither is he a veteran, he's an agent slap bang in the middle of his career, then keep him there for a good four or five films.
• MajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator

  January 2016 Posts: 13,978

  I would like to see the current timeline scrapped, and a return to the original timeline with a new actor. But seeing as that isn't an option, i'll take option C. The Craig era doesn't stand up well to close inspection. I'm a bit hesitant but another fresh start, but I would give the film a chance if they planned it out rather than make it up as they went along, and cast a new Bond. So, option C.
• Gustav_Graves

  January 2016 Posts: 11,119

  MajorDSmythe wrote: »

  I would like to see the current timeline scrapped, and a return to the original timeline with a new actor. But seeing as that isn't an option, i'll take option C. The Craig era doesn't stand up well to close inspection. I'm a bit hesitant but another fresh start, but I would give the film a chance if they planned it out rather than make it up as they went along, and cast a new Bond. So, option C.

  
  What do you mean with 'original timeline'?
• RC7

  January 2016 Posts: 10,512

  Gustav_Graves wrote: »

  MajorDSmythe wrote: »

  I would like to see the current timeline scrapped, and a return to the original timeline with a new actor. But seeing as that isn't an option, i'll take option C. The Craig era doesn't stand up well to close inspection. I'm a bit hesitant but another fresh start, but I would give the film a chance if they planned it out rather than make it up as they went along, and cast a new Bond. So, option C.

  
  What do you mean with 'original timeline'?

  
  He means 62-02.
  
• Gustav_Graves

  January 2016 Posts: 11,119

  RC7 wrote: »

  In one breath you're saying 'less focus on character background, chronology and continuity' and in the next you're saying 'let's maintain the Craig timeline'. You can't just phase out something intrinsically tied to his portrayal it's utterly pointless.

  
  I disagree. It's not that black-and-white. With 'less focus on character background, chronology and continuity' I actually mean to make references of past Bond films inferior to the plot. So in the strictest sense you are maintaining the Craig timeline, but there's less focus on all the aspects that come with that timeline.
  
  Two examples:
  
  Example #1: In "From Russia With Love" Kronsteen references the death of Dr Julius No in "Doctor No" and how S.P.E.C.T.R.E. can avenge that death. Is it a continuation of the timeline created in "Doctor No"? In the strictest sense: Yes. But is that bit of continuity crucial to the plot and is it part of the character backgrounds of, for example, Bond? No. So there is less focus on character background as opposed to all previous four Craig-films.
  
  Example #2: In "The World Is Not Enough" we see in MI6's safe house in Scotland a portrait of Bernard Lee's 'M'. On top of that, James Bond tells the new 'M' in "GoldenEye": "Your predecessor kept some cognac there...". So in a way these two Brosnan outings are continuations of the timeline set in "Doctor No" (1962). So "Yes" it is a continuation of the timeline created in "Doctor No". But is that bit of continuity crucial to the plot and is it part of the character backgrounds of, for example, Bond? No. So there is less focus on character background as opposed to all previous four Craig-films.
  
  This is my point really. You can perfectly slow down all the complicated and too densely written personal background stuff and continuity of events from previous films in an upcoming screenplay of Bond #25. Make the continuity references inferior to the main plot.
  
  By doing so you still have the Craig-quadrilogy in place, Daniel Craig can return in a 5th film that isn't really part of the quadrilogy, Craig returns in a Bond film in which the character Bond is now even more firmly established as opposed to "SPECTRE", and you make it easier for the screenplay writers to come up with a true mission-story, without all the blabla from the past.
• RC7

  January 2016 Posts: 10,512

  Gustav_Graves wrote: »

  RC7 wrote: »

  In one breath you're saying 'less focus on character background, chronology and continuity' and in the next you're saying 'let's maintain the Craig timeline'. You can't just phase out something intrinsically tied to his portrayal it's utterly pointless.

  
  I disagree. It's not that black-and-white. With 'less focus on character background, chronology and continuity' I actually mean to make references of past Bond films inferior to the plot. So in the strictest sense you are maintaining the Craig timeline, but there's less focus on all the aspects that come with that timeline.
  
  Two examples:
  
  Example #1: In "From Russia With Love" Kronsteen references the death of Dr Julius No in "Doctor No" and how S.P.E.C.T.R.E. can avenge that death. Is it a continuation of the timeline created in "Doctor No"? In the strictest sense: Yes. But is that bit of continuity crucial to the plot and is it part of the character backgrounds of, for example, Bond? No. So there is less focus on character background as opposed to all previous four Craig-films.
  
  Example #2: In "The World Is Not Enough" we see in MI6's safe house in Scotland a portrait of Bernard Lee's 'M'. On top of that, James Bond tells the new 'M' in "GoldenEye": "Your predecessor kept some cognac there...". So in a way these two Brosnan outings are continuations of the timeline set in "Doctor No" (1962). So "Yes" it is a continuation of the timeline created in "Doctor No". But is that bit of continuity crucial to the plot and is it part of the character backgrounds of, for example, Bond? No. So there is less focus on character background as opposed to all previous four Craig-films.
  
  This is my point really. You can perfectly slow down all the complicated and too densely written personal background stuff and continuity of events from previous films in an upcoming screenplay of Bond #25. Make the continuity references inferior to the main plot.
  
  By doing so you still have the Craig-quadrilogy in place, Daniel Craig can return in a 5th film that isn't really part of the quadrilogy, Craig returns in a Bond film in which the character Bond is now even more firmly established as opposed to "SPECTRE", and you make it easier for the screenplay writers to come up with a true mission-story, without all the blabla from the past.

  
  You miss my point and simultaneously undermine your own. The original films had no 'character' continuity, they referenced instances such as those you mentioned, but Bond as a character had no discernible journey. That's completely different with Craig. There is a character arc that doesn't exist with any other portrayal of the character, so to suggest you can simply toss that aside and instead whimsically allude to arbitrary plot points or lines of dialogue from his previous four films makes no sense.
  
  DC is now tied to the events of his four films and they all inform each other, and I'm not talking about plot I'm talking character and the journey. From rookie to seasoned, from blunt instrument to finely tuned assassin, from unstoppable wrecking ball to burnt out has-been, from cold unemotional hitman to broken hearted. All these things were never experienced by any other Bond because Bond remained relatively steady while the films evolved around him. In these films this man has evolved and his experiences have shaped him. It's like continuing Nolan's Batman trilogy - no point. It was character-led and you taint its impact.
  
  The two options for me are finish his journey or make a clean break.
  
  
• tanaka123

  January 2016 edited January 2016 Posts: 4,325

  There's a lot of talk about the 'orginal timeline' - chronology has always been pretty vacant in the Bond films. 1962-02 - I see each Bond as a reimagining of the character, but certain things still remain true to the character - eg. Moore's and Dalton's Bond had still being married to Tracy. How loosely do we define what a 'reboot' is. That term is very recent - if you define it broadly then each time a new actor plays Bond and brings their thing to it you could argue it is a 'reboot'. If you define it very strictly to me it seems to mean going back to the start - an origins of sorts. In a way you could see GE as negating the Dalton era, it starts in 1986. After Craig I imagine there won't be much reference to continuity. It'll just be a new Bond actor in a new Bond film.
  
  Incidentally they seem to be 'rebooting' 24 with a new character.
• RC7

  January 2016 Posts: 10,512

  tanaka123 wrote: »

  There's a lot of talk about the 'orginal timeline' - chronology has always been pretty vacant in the Bond films. 1962-02 - I see each Bond as a reimagining of the character, but certain things still remain true to the character - eg. Moore's and Dalton's Bond had still being married to Tracy. How loosely do we define what a 'reboot' is. That term is very recent - if you define it broadly then each time a new actor plays Bond and brings their thing to it you could argue it is a 'reboot'. If you define it very strictly to me it seems to mean going back to the start - an origins of sorts. In a way you could see GE as negating the Dalton era, it starts in 1986. After Craig I imagine there won't be much reference to continuity. It'll just be a new Bond actor in a new Bond film.
  
  Incidentally they seem to be 'rebooting' 24 with a new character.

  
  All good points and I agree with you. The trick is to abandon this idea of timelines. The only timeline that really exists is Craig's. The way I've explained it in the past is the idea of looking through a prism and with each turn you're seeing a different take on Bond. There are some things that feel connected, others that don't, there are tonal shifts, narrative inconsistencies, but each film is a different skew on the myth. They're all standalone to me. In reality it's not a million miles from comic book lore, the core values and identity remains constant but the style, tone and narrative can lurch this way and that.
• Gustav_Graves

  January 2016 Posts: 11,119

  RC7 wrote: »

  Gustav_Graves wrote: »

  RC7 wrote: »

  In one breath you're saying 'less focus on character background, chronology and continuity' and in the next you're saying 'let's maintain the Craig timeline'. You can't just phase out something intrinsically tied to his portrayal it's utterly pointless.

  
  I disagree. It's not that black-and-white. With 'less focus on character background, chronology and continuity' I actually mean to make references of past Bond films inferior to the plot. So in the strictest sense you are maintaining the Craig timeline, but there's less focus on all the aspects that come with that timeline.
  
  Two examples:
  
  Example #1: In "From Russia With Love" Kronsteen references the death of Dr Julius No in "Doctor No" and how S.P.E.C.T.R.E. can avenge that death. Is it a continuation of the timeline created in "Doctor No"? In the strictest sense: Yes. But is that bit of continuity crucial to the plot and is it part of the character backgrounds of, for example, Bond? No. So there is less focus on character background as opposed to all previous four Craig-films.
  
  Example #2: In "The World Is Not Enough" we see in MI6's safe house in Scotland a portrait of Bernard Lee's 'M'. On top of that, James Bond tells the new 'M' in "GoldenEye": "Your predecessor kept some cognac there...". So in a way these two Brosnan outings are continuations of the timeline set in "Doctor No" (1962). So "Yes" it is a continuation of the timeline created in "Doctor No". But is that bit of continuity crucial to the plot and is it part of the character backgrounds of, for example, Bond? No. So there is less focus on character background as opposed to all previous four Craig-films.
  
  This is my point really. You can perfectly slow down all the complicated and too densely written personal background stuff and continuity of events from previous films in an upcoming screenplay of Bond #25. Make the continuity references inferior to the main plot.
  
  By doing so you still have the Craig-quadrilogy in place, Daniel Craig can return in a 5th film that isn't really part of the quadrilogy, Craig returns in a Bond film in which the character Bond is now even more firmly established as opposed to "SPECTRE", and you make it easier for the screenplay writers to come up with a true mission-story, without all the blabla from the past.

  
  You miss my point and simultaneously undermine your own. The original films had no 'character' continuity, they referenced instances such as those you mentioned, but Bond as a character had no discernible journey. That's completely different with Craig. There is a character arc that doesn't exist with any other portrayal of the character, so to suggest you can simply toss that aside and instead whimsically allude to arbitrary plot points or lines of dialogue from his previous four films makes no sense.
  
  DC is now tied to the events of his four films and they all inform each other, and I'm not talking about plot I'm talking character and the journey. From rookie to seasoned, from blunt instrument to finely tuned assassin, from unstoppable wrecking ball to burnt out has-been, from cold unemotional hitman to broken hearted. All these things were never experienced by any other Bond because Bond remained relatively steady while the films evolved around him. In these films this man has evolved and his experiences have shaped him. It's like continuing Nolan's Batman trilogy - no point. It was character-led and you taint its impact.
  
  The two options for me are finish his journey or make a clean break.
  

  
  Dear lovely sweet and respected @RC7. You equally don't read very well what I wrote down. And if I closely read your post then we actually agree on certain things :-)!
  
  In my opinion there IS a 1st timeline, a 1st universe with certain -very loose- elements of continuity. That is the era from 1962 until 2002. The examples I mentioned refer to that.
  
  But I ALSO said that these examples were NEVER truly part of an extensive character exploration or story arc :-). Even if you count all the Tracy-references (TSWLM, FYEO, LTK), the events were never made part of the main plot, the villain's scheme or the entire main story of the film. Never. Kristatos never emotionally blackmailed Bond with pictures of his late wife Tracy. There is no hidden message in the portrait of Bernard Lee's portrait in "TWINE" that is meant for Bond to trace down. We NEVER saw that.
  
  And YES, I fully agree that this is entirely different with the four Craig-films. In there the continuity and chronology go well beyond only a few references ;-). They drive the plot, by making them part of Bond's background. Hence you say Craig is tied within these four films to all the events. So I agree.
  
  But my point now really is: Lower down all that stuff, all these complex character connections for Bond #25 :-)! Don't make them part of the main plot or villain's scheme anymore in entry #25. Don't attach a complete new mission for Bond with his past. Buttt, I still think that it is entirely possible to at least refer to some past events correctly, to maintain a certain chronology. Chronology or Continuity does not necessarily say something about how extensive that Chronology/Continuity is written in the main story. They can appear as small cameo lines (TSWLM) or as extensive plot developments (SP).
  
  So again, for Bond #25 I prefer a TSWLM-like approach: Daniel Craig returns, small reference to how Bond broke up with Madeleine, chronological timeline stays intact, but no complex personal backgrounds a la SP. Option A) that is.