› ›

How Many Films Should a Bond Actor Do?

124

Comments

  • GBFGBF
    Posts: 3,197
    bondjames wrote: »
    It depends on the actor of course. I'm open to 4 normally, but if I were to comment on the Bond actors from the past and present, then:

    Connery: - he could have gone on until the mid to late 80's
    Lazenby: - one is enough. It was great but so was everything about the film
    Moore: - should have stopped with OP, so 6
    Dalton: - 2 were great
    Brosnan: - I would have been ok with 1 (the first one - like OHMSS it was lightning in a bottle)
    Craig: - 3 - I think he maxed out with SF

    So if Connery had continued to make Bond films until the mid 80s, Moore could have made his first Bond film in the mid to late 80s and must have made 5 more films afterwards. And then people complain about Moore's age in AVTAK :-)
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2016 Posts: 23,883
    GBF wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    It depends on the actor of course. I'm open to 4 normally, but if I were to comment on the Bond actors from the past and present, then:

    Connery: - he could have gone on until the mid to late 80's
    Lazenby: - one is enough. It was great but so was everything about the film
    Moore: - should have stopped with OP, so 6
    Dalton: - 2 were great
    Brosnan: - I would have been ok with 1 (the first one - like OHMSS it was lightning in a bottle)
    Craig: - 3 - I think he maxed out with SF

    So if Connery had continued to make Bond films until the mid 80s, Moore could have made his first Bond film in the mid to late 80s and must have made 5 more films afterwards. And then people complain about Moore's age in AVTAK :-)
    Just to clarify, I intended for these scenarios to be mutually exclusive. So if Connery hypothetically continued into the mid to late 80's, then there would (regrettably for me) be no Moore tenure and probably no Dalton one either.
  • Some_Kind_Of_HeroSome_Kind_Of_Hero
    Posts: 6,844
    In Lennon's voice: "Imagine there's no Roger Moore. It isn't hard to do. No George Lazenby in Majesty's, and no Dalton, too."

    Disagree with the good poet there. That would be very difficult to imagine.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    DaltonCraig007 wrote: »
    3 films per 10 year tenure?!?!?! So I'll see 9 more films before I age another 30 years and reach 55? @Birdleson saw almost 17 films in a 30 year span. As a simple fan I am in no position to demand anything, but I will say bullsh*t to such idea. Daniel Craig was totally wasted in the part, he should have had 5, even 6 films in his tenure. I don't want to live in a world where we get 6+ superhero films per year, but only 3 or 4 Bond films per decade. I am not asking for endless Bond films, but please, can we get back to 1 new outing per 2 years for Bond #7?

    YES PLEASE!!

    To think I will only get another 8, maybe 9 Bond films until 2050 when I am in my mid 70's makes me angry.

    This mess of a Craig tenure must not happen again.
  • ToTheRightToTheRight
    Posts: 16,154
    BondJasonBond006 wrote: »
    DaltonCraig007 wrote: »
    3 films per 10 year tenure?!?!?! So I'll see 9 more films before I age another 30 years and reach 55? @Birdleson saw almost 17 films in a 30 year span. As a simple fan I am in no position to demand anything, but I will say bullsh*t to such idea. Daniel Craig was totally wasted in the part, he should have had 5, even 6 films in his tenure. I don't want to live in a world where we get 6+ superhero films per year, but only 3 or 4 Bond films per decade. I am not asking for endless Bond films, but please, can we get back to 1 new outing per 2 years for Bond #7?

    YES PLEASE!!

    To think I will only get another 8, maybe 9 Bond films until 2050 when I am in my mid 70's makes me angry.

    This mess of a Craig tenure must not happen again.

    In terms of years, LTK is the half way mark of the series as of 2016. Considering the quantity of Bond films since LTK has been reduced to half, I'd say at that rate it's more likely that by 2050 we'll only get 4 more Bond films.
    I agree, another mess akin to the Craig era must NEVER happen again in order for the series to survive.
  • fire_and_icefire_and_ice
    Posts: 6,432
    Four is a good number as it allows the actor to develop in the role, anything after that has to be down to the actor and there condition and passion for the part.
  • fanbond123fanbond123
    edited November 2016 Posts: 1,661
    Four. I think that's enough. Four films - one film every three years - is twelve years. Seems long enough! So that means no more Daniel Craig. Sorry, Dan, you can't do a fifth! :P
  • The_ReaperThe_Reaper
    Posts: 1,092
    fanbond123 wrote: »
    Four. I think that's enough. Four films - one film every three years - is twelve years. Seems long enough! So that means no more Daniel Craig. Sorry, Dan, you can't do a fifth! :P

    Haha. I disagree and your math is actually off.

    For example, an actor starts in 2021 with their first film. 2024, second, 2027, third, 2030, fourth, 2033, fifth. That's 5 films in 12 years. You're forgetting that their first film takes place in their first year, basically starting at 0 years in the role.
  • ToTheRightToTheRight
    edited November 2016 Posts: 16,154
    I thunk six or seven is an ideal number of films for a Bond actor. More to choose from when you're in the mood for that particular Bond. I don't often watch the Craigs or Brosnan Bonds compared to the Connery/Moores because chances are, I'd seen all of their films recently.
    Unfortunately, it looks more and more unlikely we will ever again get another actor in the role to match Connery and Moore's records.
  • The_ReaperThe_Reaper
    Posts: 1,092
    Yeah, Moore's will never be broken. It's pretty much impossible at this point for someone to do 8 films. I think Craig has a good chance of matching Connery's 6 but that's it.
  • GBFGBF
    Posts: 3,197
    It is amazing since Moore started in the role at the age of 45. That is the age when other actors (should) retire.
  • Risico007Risico007
    Posts: 9,846
    Had each actor did four films the franchise would of been very different

    Connery would of left after thunderball and been probably happier
    Lazenby would of been probably more excepted by live and let die
    Moore's tenure would be considerably weaker having only two great films and two poor films to his credit
    Dalton's also would of been a mixed bag as I am not sure how A View to a Kill would of worked with him
    Brosnan and Craig (so far) would of obviously remained he same
  • ToTheRightToTheRight
    Posts: 16,154
    I'm pretty certain Cubby's intentions were for the actor playing Bond to commit to at least a minimum of 4, but stick it out to 6. After the 6 year break he wanted Tim to plan on 4 or 5 more films. I'd bet that had he not passed on, Pierce would have remained 007 for at least 2 more films after DAD.
  • LicencedToKilt69007LicencedToKilt69007 Belgium, Wallonia
    Posts: 523
    Between 3 and 5 (max) depending on the main project with the actor.

    About the previous cases, I'd do like this :

    Connery : 5 films
    Lazenby : 2 films
    Moore : 6 films (exception here, went too far)
    Dalton : 3 films
    Brosnan : 5 films
    Craig : 3 films (I thought we've already gone too far, with 4)
  • GBFGBF
    Posts: 3,197
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Had each actor did four films the franchise would of been very different

    Connery would of left after thunderball and been probably happier
    Lazenby would of been probably more excepted by live and let die
    Moore's tenure would be considerably weaker having only two great films and two poor films to his credit
    Dalton's also would of been a mixed bag as I am not sure how A View to a Kill would of worked with him
    Brosnan and Craig (so far) would of obviously remained he same

    Well I guess that DAF and LALD would have been very different films if Lazenby had been playing Bond in them. I could however, imagine him quite well in YOLT.

    I guess Dalton would have worked very well in the last Moore films. Just get rid of all the superfluous and annoying comedy of OP and AVTAK (Tarzan yell, tuctuc chase, California Girls) and make Dalton not sleep with as many women as Moore did in these two films and he would have fit in perfectly. TLD shows how that could have worked. You can still have a few funny chase sequences. Especially in AVTAK Dalton would have been much more approriate for the love and action sequences. I just doubt he would have had much chemistry with Macnee.
  • CamCam
    Posts: 2
    'Depends on the age of the actor.

    Since Sir Sean first played the part at the age of 31, the age of the subsequent actors has risen to their 40s ( apart from Lazenby who was 29 filming OHMSS and Craig who was 37-38 filming Casino Royale ).

    Most humans cannot take the stamina and physical skills it takes to play an active MI-6 agent, so expecting middle aged guys to do stuff fit individuals 20 years their junior would have difficulty performing is a BIG ask.

    I would call it three to four movies at the most.
  • The_ReaperThe_Reaper
    Posts: 1,092
    Cam wrote: »
    'Depends on the age of the actor.

    Since Sir Sean first played the part at the age of 31, the age of the subsequent actors has risen to their 40s ( apart from Lazenby who was 29 filming OHMSS and Craig who was 37-38 filming Casino Royale ).

    Most humans cannot take the stamina and physical skills it takes to play an active MI-6 agent, so expecting middle aged guys to do stuff fit individuals 20 years their junior would have difficulty performing is a BIG ask.

    I would call it three to four movies at the most.

    It's not the age, it's the mileage. Jack LaLane was working out like a madman well into his 90s and could have buried most guys 1/4 his age. It's just a number, my friend. Craig is in better shape than most guys in their 20s. I'm almost 42 and I would crush most 20-somethings in the gym. Bond is supposed to be that kind of human being and so should the actor playing him.
  • M16_CartM16_Cart Craig fanboy?
    Posts: 541
    It's worth noting that times have changed.

    In the 60's, it was possible to do a movie every year or every two years. Production was much leaner. Film industry had less politics. Fleming's books hadn't been exhausted yet. Stunts were easier.

    I don't think there's a hard rule. Connery should have retired after 5. Moore should've ended it with Octopussy. Dalton could've done 2 or 3 more in that hiatus. Brosnan could've done one more had EON dealt him a better hand.

    I think Craig is one of the best Bond's but his heart is just not in it. We all know that Craig doesn't want it do it and EON desperately wants him enough to offer him a fortune.

    I fear if there's another Craig film, it'll just be a cash-in. I don't think he's capable of making a bad Bond film, but I'd rather not see him end on low note.
  • tanaka123tanaka123
    Posts: 4,325
    M16_Cart wrote: »
    It's worth noting that times have changed.

    In the 60's, it was possible to do a movie every year or every two years. Production was much leaner. Film industry had less politics. Fleming's books hadn't been exhausted yet. Stunts were easier.

    I don't think there's a hard rule. Connery should have retired after 5. Moore should've ended it with Octopussy. Dalton could've done 2 or 3 more in that hiatus. Brosnan could've done one more had EON dealt him a better hand.

    I think Craig is one of the best Bond's but his heart is just not in it. We all know that Craig doesn't want it do it and EON desperately wants him enough to offer him a fortune.

    I fear if there's another Craig film, it'll just be a cash-in. I don't think he's capable of making a bad Bond film, but I'd rather not see him end on low note.


    Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (2001)
    Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2002)
    Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)
    Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005)
    Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2007)
    Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009)
    Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 1 (2010)
    Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2 (2011)

    Force Awakens (2015)
    Rogue One (2016)
    Episode VIII (2017)
    Spin off (2018)
    Episode IX (2019)
    Spin off (2020)

    Very possible to release franchise films on a 1-2 year cycle in this day and age.
  • M16_CartM16_Cart Craig fanboy?
    edited December 2016 Posts: 541
    those are relatively recent franchises. they have the luxury of yearly release. but that wouldn't work for bond.

    there's already 24 bond films. i'm sure diehard bond fans would love a yearly release but most of the general public would oversaturated.

    when you have a longstanding franchise, you need time for it to cool down and you need time for the public to build its appetite. casino royale and skyfall, for example, were so successful because they were essentially a rebirth for bond after hiatus.

    look at paul mccartney for example. when his career started, people wanted him to release an album every year. but if he released an album every year in current times, half of them would go ignored.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2016 Posts: 23,883
    M16_Cart wrote: »
    casino royale and skyfall, for example, were so successful because they were essentially a rebirth for bond after hiatus.
    I'm not sure if this is necessarily true. I think they were so successful (critically and commercially) because they were both damn good films, and at least from my perspective, refreshing creatively.

    As long as the proper creative elements are in place, a more frequent release schedule shouldn't hurt.
  • GBFGBF
    Posts: 3,197
    M16_Cart wrote: »
    those are relatively recent franchises. they have the luxury of yearly release. but that wouldn't work for bond.

    there's already 24 bond films. i'm sure diehard bond fans would love a yearly release but most of the general public would oversaturated.

    when you have a longstanding franchise, you need time for it to cool down and you need time for the public to build its appetite. casino royale and skyfall, for example, were so successful because they were essentially a rebirth for bond after hiatus.

    look at paul mccartney for example. when his career started, people wanted him to release an album every year. but if he released an album every year in current times, half of them would go ignored.

    Or the writers were just forced to hand in something clever and interesting. Of course if you only keep on recycling older ideas or copy from other frachises the public is more critical.
  • tanaka123tanaka123
    Posts: 4,325
    M16_Cart wrote: »
    those are relatively recent franchises. they have the luxury of yearly release. but that wouldn't work for bond.

    there's already 24 bond films. i'm sure diehard bond fans would love a yearly release but most of the general public would oversaturated.

    when you have a longstanding franchise, you need time for it to cool down and you need time for the public to build its appetite. casino royale and skyfall, for example, were so successful because they were essentially a rebirth for bond after hiatus.

    look at paul mccartney for example. when his career started, people wanted him to release an album every year. but if he released an album every year in current times, half of them would go ignored.

    I didn't say it was preferable - just disagreeing with you that it's not possible when it clearly is.
  • tanaka123tanaka123
    Posts: 4,325
    bondjames wrote: »
    M16_Cart wrote: »
    casino royale and skyfall, for example, were so successful because they were essentially a rebirth for bond after hiatus.
    I'm not sure if this is necessarily true. I think they were so successful (critically and commercially) because they were both damn good films, and at least from my perspective, refreshing creatively.

    As long as the proper creative elements are in place, a more frequent release schedule shouldn't hurt.

    I agree with @bondjames
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    What concerns me is that,if,Craig is having surgery on his knee next year,will he be ok to be Bond in 2018 ?
    I wouldn't have thought so,which means BOND25 is pushed back to 2019,and by then I don't think DC would want to go through it all again,and would have moved on to other projects.
  • The_ReaperThe_Reaper
    Posts: 1,092
    Why on Earth would you think someone needs that long to recover from knee surgery? Harrison Ford broke his leg and he was back filming The Force Awakens within weeks and he's in his 70s!
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Five is a fine number. It is the original Connery run, and what I advocated for Craig when he came aboard. I had no idea it would take this long, though.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Birdleson wrote: »
    We’d miss out on a few good ones, but three is what I’ve said in the past and it still makes sense.

    We would have had 8 Bond actors by now, then?
  • TorgeirtrapTorgeirtrap
    edited July 2018 Posts: 17,753
    Birdleson wrote: »
    We’d miss out on a few good ones, but three is what I’ve said in the past and it still makes sense.

    Wouldn't mind that myself, either. It could probably attract a few candidates as well, as a three picture deal wouldn't feel too much to take on. Four or five, and you're probably stretching it a bit.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    We would miss FYEO with Moore and SP with Craig, in my view. But what would we gain?

    Lazenby and Dalton are the ones short-changed with that approach.
Sign In or Register to comment.