Who should/could be a Bond actor?

16676686706726731231

Comments

  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    Posts: 737
    Denbigh wrote: »
    What do you guys think about an actor doing a "one off" movie?

    I guess artistically, it could be interesting, it might open the door for very high level actors who might not want to sign long term (Bale, Hardy, Fassbender), and for actors who are a bit older.

    On the other hand, it goes against the way the franchise has worked until now. And it is probably not something Eon would want to do, as long as they don't have a problem getting an actor they like. And the trend in movies is long franchises and connected series of movies.
    The issue with it (for me anyway) is the role will no longer belong to an actor, meaning they don't get to play around with the role and sink their teeth in as much as they may like - considering how long it can take for actors to get comfortable in the role.

    It also means that success would constantly fluctuate, and not to mention that if people really like one actor, it doesn't really matter cause they're probably gonna recast anyway.

    And I understand you could argue that occasionally someone plays him for one film... but then to me that's just wasting time and money until someone properly commits to it.

    If they are going to aim for a 2023, 2025, 2027 release schedule then I agree with you. If they are going to piss about like they have done then it doesn't make a difference and they may as well just do one-offs.

    Either way, unless they try to get back to making something both children and adults can get into there's little future for the franchise anyway. Not sure how many 8 year olds loved the Craig films, or how many younger fans are coming through. The MI films and the F&F franchise has over taken Bond as the go-to PG level action franchise over the last few years.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Denbigh wrote: »
    What do you guys think about an actor doing a "one off" movie?

    I guess artistically, it could be interesting, it might open the door for very high level actors who might not want to sign long term (Bale, Hardy, Fassbender), and for actors who are a bit older.

    On the other hand, it goes against the way the franchise has worked until now. And it is probably not something Eon would want to do, as long as they don't have a problem getting an actor they like. And the trend in movies is long franchises and connected series of movies.
    The issue with it (for me anyway) is the role will no longer belong to an actor, meaning they don't get to play around with the role and sink their teeth in as much as they may like - considering how long it can take for actors to get comfortable in the role.

    It also means that success would constantly fluctuate, and not to mention that if people really like one actor, it doesn't really matter cause they're probably gonna recast anyway.

    And I understand you could argue that occasionally someone plays him for one film... but then to me that's just wasting time and money until someone properly commits to it.

    +1.

    I prefer the idea of an ‘era’ with an actor. It’s commercially sensible too, as Eon clearly realise.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited July 2020 Posts: 5,970
    @FatherValentine I agree with what you're saying, but I think what's more important is that balance you hint at. Bond needs to balance what these other films are achieving with more of the depth and exploration that the Craig-era was giving. Casino Royale and Skyfall proved it can work and be successful, but I suppose when it doesn't work and the consistency fluctuates people lose interest or struggle to keep up. I think this franchise has the advantage of being more than just blockbuster spectacle, but they still need to embrace it.
  • GadgetManGadgetMan Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 4,247
    Craig's era is stellar. but I think in a way, it was a bit of an experimentation. The most important thing Eon needs to do when Choosing Bond 7 is, knowing early if they want to serialize the era or not. So we don't have some plot elements looking contrived again.

    But personally, I would prefer Standalone adventures....Possibly focusing more on Bond's Naval status, Military escapades with suspense and showing us his espionage side again. But if they ignore this and decide to continue with serializing the films, let it be handled properly from the actor's very first film.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    edited July 2020 Posts: 5,131
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    Craig's era is stellar. but I think in a way, it was a bit of an experimentation. The most important thing Eon needs to do when Choosing Bond 7 is, knowing early if they want to serialize the era or not. So we don't have some plot elements looking contrived again.

    But personally, I would prefer Standalone adventures....Possibly focusing more on Bond's Naval status, Military escapades with suspense and showing us his espionage side again. But if they ignore this and decide to continue with serializing the films, let it be handled properly from the actor's very first film.

    Craig’s era was stellar from 2006 - 2012 IMO.

    Connery’s first 5 films were loose sequels and that worked very well. But ‘shoe horning’ the Craig era together within SPECTRE was too much serialisation for me.....and unfortunately NTTD looks set to do the same to ‘conclude the arc.’

    The tone of SP doesn’t sit well against CR either.

    So, what I am saying is, I’d want loose sequels or ‘stand alone’ films. Not direct sequels.

    But either way....the same actor for at least 3 films is needed.
  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    Posts: 737
    Denbigh wrote: »
    @FatherValentine I agree with what you're saying, but I think what's more important is that balance you hint at. Bond needs to balance what these other films are achieving with more of the depth and exploration that the Craig-era was giving. Casino Royale and Skyfall proved it can work and be successful, but I suppose when it doesn't work and the consistency fluctuates people lose interest or struggle to keep up. I think this franchise has the advantage of being more than just blockbuster spectacle, but they still need to embrace it.

    Sure. My rant wasn't a dig at the individual films. But I know from my own family that young lads who are fans of MI and F&F and who in the past would have been the core audience for Bond simply don't care about it. No momentum has been built up between films. The films themselves lack interesting action (it's fine, but the set pieces don't compete in terms of their core elements with what MI is doing), and are conspicuously aimed at an older audience. Fine for me. But the problem is twofold; they aren't making enough of them, and it has lost its relevance for younger people. This is a problem when it comes to the future of the franchise.

    And the worst thing is that they have done this to themselves. I personally can't see a way out of it. If I am being pessimistic, I think the franchise as we know it is dead. NTTD is likely to change things irrevocably. There's as good a likelihood as there has even been that it will never come back.

  • Posts: 9,846
    in a perfect world there would be no corona No time to die would of wowed audiences and this fall to capatlize on the 60th anniversary Michael Fassbender would be announced as the 7th Bond actor to do a trilogy of bond films the first one coming out in 2022 the second in 2024 and the third in 2026

    going back to the old school way the titles would be announced at the end of each film and given fleming titles

    The property of a lady in 2022
    The Diamond Smugglers in 2024
    The Hildebrand Rarity 2026

    sigh
  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    Posts: 737
    Risico007 wrote: »
    in a perfect world there would be no corona No time to die would of wowed audiences and this fall to capatlize on the 60th anniversary Michael Fassbender would be announced as the 7th Bond actor to do a trilogy of bond films the first one coming out in 2022 the second in 2024 and the third in 2026

    going back to the old school way the titles would be announced at the end of each film and given fleming titles

    The property of a lady in 2022
    The Diamond Smugglers in 2024
    The Hildebrand Rarity 2026

    sigh

    No reason other than a lack of desire that they couldn't still do that. Push back the first one a year till 2023 to allow for industry changes and it's all there for them. Studios and Audiences would lap it up.

    They won't though.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Risico007 wrote: »
    in a perfect world there would be no corona No time to die would of wowed audiences and this fall to capatlize on the 60th anniversary Michael Fassbender would be announced as the 7th Bond actor to do a trilogy of bond films the first one coming out in 2022 the second in 2024 and the third in 2026

    going back to the old school way the titles would be announced at the end of each film and given fleming titles

    The property of a lady in 2022
    The Diamond Smugglers in 2024
    The Hildebrand Rarity 2026

    sigh

    +1.

    But I’d prefer ‘Risico’ in 2024!
  • GadgetManGadgetMan Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 4,247
    suavejmf wrote: »
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    Craig's era is stellar. but I think in a way, it was a bit of an experimentation. The most important thing Eon needs to do when Choosing Bond 7 is, knowing early if they want to serialize the era or not. So we don't have some plot elements looking contrived again.

    But personally, I would prefer Standalone adventures....Possibly focusing more on Bond's Naval status, Military escapades with suspense and showing us his espionage side again. But if they ignore this and decide to continue with serializing the films, let it be handled properly from the actor's very first film.

    Craig’s era was stellar from 2006 - 2012 IMO.

    Connery’s first 5 films were loose sequels and that worked very well. But ‘shoe horning’ the Craig era together within SPECTRE was too much serialisation for me.....and unfortunately NTTD looks set to do the same to ‘conclude the arc.’

    The tone of SP doesn’t sit well against CR either.

    So, what I am saying is, I’d want loose sequels or ‘stand alone’ films. Not direct sequels.

    But either way....the same actor for at least 3 films is needed.

    Yeah, Good points. True, SP just feels odd....albeit, not enough to ruin Craig's magnificent run.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited July 2020 Posts: 7,547
    The Diamond Smugglers would be an interesting idea for a title, but like Thrilling Cities, maybe lacks the mysteriousness/cleverness/intrigue of a proper Bond title.

    I like A World Without Want, which is if I recall correctly, a pub in Moonraker the novel.
  • MSL49MSL49 Finland
    edited July 2020 Posts: 395
    I think Jamie Bell is a interesting, he worked with Barbara Broccoli in the past.
  • Posts: 17,756
    MSL49 wrote: »
    I think Jamie Bell is a interesting, he worked with Barbara Broccoli in the past.

    He is also very short…
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    MSL49 wrote: »
    I think Jamie Bell is a interesting, he worked with Barbara Broccoli in the past.

    He is also very short…

    5ft 7in....very short indeed.
  • Anyone else interested in Matthew Lewis as a candidate? I can't remember if I've seen his name in this thread before or not. 31 years old, 6'0, and has the looks for Bond, for me at least.

    MatthewLewis.jpg

    et_longbottom_0521_lands.jpg

    The-Independent-Charlie-Forgham-Bailey-photoshoot-matthew-lewis-35571188-533-800.jpg

    GettyImages-647475662-1488557038.jpg

    Keep in mind that he's only 25 I think in the first two pictures and 24 in the third picture. I wonder how good of an actor he is though. I've never watched one second of a Harry Potter movie, which is what he's mainly known for, and he hasn't seem to have gotten any leading roles since then.
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,136
    I think I've touted Matthew Lewis a long long time ago. He has the right look. However since the end of the Harry Potter series, he's really not done much.
    Yes he has time on his side, but without a career to build on, it's unlikely he'd even be on the radar.
  • Posts: 9,846
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Risico007 wrote: »
    in a perfect world there would be no corona No time to die would of wowed audiences and this fall to capatlize on the 60th anniversary Michael Fassbender would be announced as the 7th Bond actor to do a trilogy of bond films the first one coming out in 2022 the second in 2024 and the third in 2026

    going back to the old school way the titles would be announced at the end of each film and given fleming titles

    The property of a lady in 2022
    The Diamond Smugglers in 2024
    The Hildebrand Rarity 2026

    sigh

    +1.

    But I’d prefer ‘Risico’ in 2024!
    Let me keep The Hildebrand Rarity and I will let you have Risico

    Also remember the good old days where Risico and The Property of a lady were rumored for each bond film I think they sadly stopped around no time to die (when everyone and their brother was saying how it would be Shatterhand)
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    Craig's era is stellar. but I think in a way, it was a bit of an experimentation. The most important thing Eon needs to do when Choosing Bond 7 is, knowing early if they want to serialize the era or not. So we don't have some plot elements looking contrived again.

    But personally, I would prefer Standalone adventures....Possibly focusing more on Bond's Naval status, Military escapades with suspense and showing us his espionage side again. But if they ignore this and decide to continue with serializing the films, let it be handled properly from the actor's very first film.

    Craig’s era was stellar from 2006 - 2012 IMO.

    Connery’s first 5 films were loose sequels and that worked very well. But ‘shoe horning’ the Craig era together within SPECTRE was too much serialisation for me.....and unfortunately NTTD looks set to do the same to ‘conclude the arc.’

    The tone of SP doesn’t sit well against CR either.

    So, what I am saying is, I’d want loose sequels or ‘stand alone’ films. Not direct sequels.

    But either way....the same actor for at least 3 films is needed.

    Yeah, Good points. True, SP just feels odd....albeit, not enough to ruin Craig's magnificent run.

    Craig’s era splits into 2 era for me

    Pre Mendes era (casino royalE and Quantum of solace) which are 2 of my favorite Bond films

    Then mendes era Skyfall and Spectre... gone is the dark flemingesque bond from the last two movies and we almost wind up in Roger Moore territory with the jokes except Moore could make a flat line dance Daniel Craig can’t.

    No time to die looks to be more in the Casino Royale Quantum of Solace range which is why I am slightly pissed it doesn’t have a Fleming title but oh well
  • Posts: 15,117
    Anyone else interested in Matthew Lewis as a candidate? I can't remember if I've seen his name in this thread before or not. 31 years old, 6'0, and has the looks for Bond, for me at least.

    MatthewLewis.jpg

    et_longbottom_0521_lands.jpg

    The-Independent-Charlie-Forgham-Bailey-photoshoot-matthew-lewis-35571188-533-800.jpg

    GettyImages-647475662-1488557038.jpg

    Keep in mind that he's only 25 I think in the first two pictures and 24 in the third picture. I wonder how good of an actor he is though. I've never watched one second of a Harry Potter movie, which is what he's mainly known for, and he hasn't seem to have gotten any leading roles since then.

    Off topic, but on the third picture he really looks like my brother. Not sure I can see him as Bond based on these pics alone, maybe because I cannot imagine my brother as Bond.
  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    Posts: 942
    suavejmf wrote: »
    I still think 43 year Michael Fassbender could be a great Bond.

    Fassbender has managed to balance dramatic roles in smaller films with huge blockbusters, much like Craig.

    While Bond doesn’t necessarily need an actor with as much range and talent as Fassbender, I think he’d bring an interesting emotional dynamic to the character.

    Also, Craig has already ‘raised the stakes’ with regards to acting quality within the role.
    Quite possibly the best Bond we never had. Very magnetic actor, good looking, highly regarded... probably too old for more than two films at the rate they film them at now,though. I would have loved to see him in the role. His performances in X-Men:First Class and Inglourious Basterds really put him in my mind for 007. He could have been great.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Risico007 wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Risico007 wrote: »
    in a perfect world there would be no corona No time to die would of wowed audiences and this fall to capatlize on the 60th anniversary Michael Fassbender would be announced as the 7th Bond actor to do a trilogy of bond films the first one coming out in 2022 the second in 2024 and the third in 2026

    going back to the old school way the titles would be announced at the end of each film and given fleming titles

    The property of a lady in 2022
    The Diamond Smugglers in 2024
    The Hildebrand Rarity 2026

    sigh

    +1.

    But I’d prefer ‘Risico’ in 2024!
    Let me keep The Hildebrand Rarity and I will let you have Risico

    Also remember the good old days where Risico and The Property of a lady were rumored for each bond film I think they sadly stopped around no time to die (when everyone and their brother was saying how it would be Shatterhand)
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    Craig's era is stellar. but I think in a way, it was a bit of an experimentation. The most important thing Eon needs to do when Choosing Bond 7 is, knowing early if they want to serialize the era or not. So we don't have some plot elements looking contrived again.

    But personally, I would prefer Standalone adventures....Possibly focusing more on Bond's Naval status, Military escapades with suspense and showing us his espionage side again. But if they ignore this and decide to continue with serializing the films, let it be handled properly from the actor's very first film.

    Craig’s era was stellar from 2006 - 2012 IMO.

    Connery’s first 5 films were loose sequels and that worked very well. But ‘shoe horning’ the Craig era together within SPECTRE was too much serialisation for me.....and unfortunately NTTD looks set to do the same to ‘conclude the arc.’

    The tone of SP doesn’t sit well against CR either.

    So, what I am saying is, I’d want loose sequels or ‘stand alone’ films. Not direct sequels.

    But either way....the same actor for at least 3 films is needed.

    Yeah, Good points. True, SP just feels odd....albeit, not enough to ruin Craig's magnificent run.

    Craig’s era splits into 2 era for me

    Pre Mendes era (casino royalE and Quantum of solace) which are 2 of my favorite Bond films

    Then mendes era Skyfall and Spectre... gone is the dark flemingesque bond from the last two movies and we almost wind up in Roger Moore territory with the jokes except Moore could make a flat line dance Daniel Craig can’t.

    No time to die looks to be more in the Casino Royale Quantum of Solace range which is why I am slightly pissed it doesn’t have a Fleming title but oh well

    Any Fleming Bond title is good with me mate.

    I agree with your points, but I fear that NTTD will just be a direct SP sequel with some ‘Marvel style’ humour.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    suavejmf wrote: »
    I still think 43 year Michael Fassbender could be a great Bond.

    Fassbender has managed to balance dramatic roles in smaller films with huge blockbusters, much like Craig.

    While Bond doesn’t necessarily need an actor with as much range and talent as Fassbender, I think he’d bring an interesting emotional dynamic to the character.

    Also, Craig has already ‘raised the stakes’ with regards to acting quality within the role.
    Quite possibly the best Bond we never had. Very magnetic actor, good looking, highly regarded... probably too old for more than two films at the rate they film them at now,though. I would have loved to see him in the role. His performances in X-Men:First Class and Inglourious Basterds really put him in my mind for 007. He could have been great.


    +1.
  • edited July 2020 Posts: 9,846
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Risico007 wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Risico007 wrote: »
    in a perfect world there would be no corona No time to die would of wowed audiences and this fall to capatlize on the 60th anniversary Michael Fassbender would be announced as the 7th Bond actor to do a trilogy of bond films the first one coming out in 2022 the second in 2024 and the third in 2026

    going back to the old school way the titles would be announced at the end of each film and given fleming titles

    The property of a lady in 2022
    The Diamond Smugglers in 2024
    The Hildebrand Rarity 2026

    sigh

    +1.

    But I’d prefer ‘Risico’ in 2024!
    Let me keep The Hildebrand Rarity and I will let you have Risico

    Also remember the good old days where Risico and The Property of a lady were rumored for each bond film I think they sadly stopped around no time to die (when everyone and their brother was saying how it would be Shatterhand)
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    Craig's era is stellar. but I think in a way, it was a bit of an experimentation. The most important thing Eon needs to do when Choosing Bond 7 is, knowing early if they want to serialize the era or not. So we don't have some plot elements looking contrived again.

    But personally, I would prefer Standalone adventures....Possibly focusing more on Bond's Naval status, Military escapades with suspense and showing us his espionage side again. But if they ignore this and decide to continue with serializing the films, let it be handled properly from the actor's very first film.

    Craig’s era was stellar from 2006 - 2012 IMO.

    Connery’s first 5 films were loose sequels and that worked very well. But ‘shoe horning’ the Craig era together within SPECTRE was too much serialisation for me.....and unfortunately NTTD looks set to do the same to ‘conclude the arc.’

    The tone of SP doesn’t sit well against CR either.

    So, what I am saying is, I’d want loose sequels or ‘stand alone’ films. Not direct sequels.

    But either way....the same actor for at least 3 films is needed.

    Yeah, Good points. True, SP just feels odd....albeit, not enough to ruin Craig's magnificent run.

    Craig’s era splits into 2 era for me

    Pre Mendes era (casino royalE and Quantum of solace) which are 2 of my favorite Bond films

    Then mendes era Skyfall and Spectre... gone is the dark flemingesque bond from the last two movies and we almost wind up in Roger Moore territory with the jokes except Moore could make a flat line dance Daniel Craig can’t.

    No time to die looks to be more in the Casino Royale Quantum of Solace range which is why I am slightly pissed it doesn’t have a Fleming title but oh well

    Any Fleming Bond title is good with me mate.

    I agree with your points, but I fear that NTTD will just be a direct SP sequel with some ‘Marvel style’ humour.

    one of these days I feel Like I should watch all 4 craig films again because at least with Skyfall I geneuinely feel like I am missing something because everyone says its so fantastic and I just dont see it


    also minor thing but I want to see if there is anything redeeming about Spectre... besides Monica Bellucci in that outfit lmao


    ALSO Also

    if they did one film every other year Fassbender could do at the very least a duology if not a trilogy of films not saying it will happen or even if it should as once they "ran out" of fleming ideas it became hard to do one film every other year (even though Me and various others proved with the right imagination throwaway sentences from fleming can turn into full 2.5 hour films that will excite and entertain audiences)
  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    Posts: 737
    Given the did one film every other year with the recent Star Wars, as well as LOTR, and the Marvel films, there isn't an excuse as to why they can't do one every other year. They just don't want to. That's fine, but it's not because it can't be done. They just favour taking their time.

    Personally, I don't think you should have to wait longer for the next Bond film than you do for the World Cup. And even that is tempered by the Euros coming in between.
  • Posts: 9,846
    Given the did one film every other year with the recent Star Wars, as well as LOTR, and the Marvel films, there isn't an excuse as to why they can't do one every other year. They just don't want to. That's fine, but it's not because it can't be done. They just favour taking their time.

    Personally, I don't think you should have to wait longer for the next Bond film than you do for the World Cup. And even that is tempered by the Euros coming in between.
    Given the did one film every other year with the recent Star Wars, as well as LOTR, and the Marvel films, there isn't an excuse as to why they can't do one every other year. They just don't want to. That's fine, but it's not because it can't be done. They just favour taking their time.

    Personally, I don't think you should have to wait longer for the next Bond film than you do for the World Cup. And even that is tempered by the Euros coming in between.

    a large reason for the gap was trying to persuade Craig to come back which only time will tell if that was the right call or not then of course there was Covid 19
  • Agent_OneAgent_One Ireland
    edited July 2020 Posts: 280
    To think, if Babs, MGW and Craig had gotten off their arses just SLIGHTLY earlier, the film would've been out and made money already.
  • Posts: 9,846
    Agent_One wrote: »
    To think, if Babs, MGW and Craig had gotten off their arses just SLIGHTLY earlier, the film would've been out and made money already.

    oh trust me I am thinking the same thing had it reached it's intial release dat of Febuary 14th it would of been out
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited July 2020 Posts: 5,970
    Marvel have fifty million different characters and stories to work with, and they have different people working on it at different times, meaning they can get their projects out as quickly as possible.

    You can't do that with James Bond. Star Wars rushed everything and created low quality films, and is actually now gonna be taking a break because it wasn't successful as they would've liked, and LOTR is irrelevant because they were trilogies based on books. Pretty easy to get those out quick.

    James Bond is one character. One timeline, with a commitment to making each film as good as possible - which means taking your time. They also don't really have anymore material to adapt, which is why it was originally so easy to create these stories so quickly.

    No Time to Die has some unique problems, but all them worthwhile imo. Any film that has had the problems they had would be in the same position.

    Once you've seen the film, none of this will matter.
  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    Posts: 737
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Marvel have fifty million different characters and stories to work with, and they have different people working on it at different times, meaning they can get their projects out as quickly as possible.

    You can't do that with James Bond. Star Wars rushed everything and created low quality films, and is actually now gonna be taking a break because it wasn't successful as they would've liked, and LOTR is irrelevant because they were trilogies based on books. Pretty easy to get those out quick.

    James Bond is one character. One timeline, with a commitment to making each film has good as possible - which means taking your time. They also don't really have anymore material to adapt, which is why it was originally so easy to do so.

    No Time to Die has some unique problems, but all them worthwhile imo. Any film that has had the problems they had would be in the same position.

    I know. And by sticking to this, they still managed to produce SP. So it's not as if it's a full proof scheme.

    And as for it taking so long because they wanted to persuade Craig to stay...well, it wasn't worth it in my opinion. No actor should be bigger than the franchise.

  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    Posts: 737
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Given the did one film every other year with the recent Star Wars, as well as LOTR, and the Marvel films, there isn't an excuse as to why they can't do one every other year. They just don't want to. That's fine, but it's not because it can't be done. They just favour taking their time.

    Personally, I don't think you should have to wait longer for the next Bond film than you do for the World Cup. And even that is tempered by the Euros coming in between.
    Given the did one film every other year with the recent Star Wars, as well as LOTR, and the Marvel films, there isn't an excuse as to why they can't do one every other year. They just don't want to. That's fine, but it's not because it can't be done. They just favour taking their time.

    Personally, I don't think you should have to wait longer for the next Bond film than you do for the World Cup. And even that is tempered by the Euros coming in between.

    a large reason for the gap was trying to persuade Craig to come back which only time will tell if that was the right call or not then of course there was Covid 19

    It still would have been 5 years without Covid.

    No actor is worth waiting that long for. Especially not in a franchise that has changed lead multiple times successfully.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited July 2020 Posts: 5,970
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Marvel have fifty million different characters and stories to work with, and they have different people working on it at different times, meaning they can get their projects out as quickly as possible.

    You can't do that with James Bond. Star Wars rushed everything and created low quality films, and is actually now gonna be taking a break because it wasn't successful as they would've liked, and LOTR is irrelevant because they were trilogies based on books. Pretty easy to get those out quick.

    James Bond is one character. One timeline, with a commitment to making each film has good as possible - which means taking your time. They also don't really have anymore material to adapt, which is why it was originally so easy to do so.

    No Time to Die has some unique problems, but all them worthwhile imo. Any film that has had the problems they had would be in the same position.
    I know. And by sticking to this, they still managed to produce SP. So it's not as if it's a full proof scheme.
    Yes, but when the same amount of time has produced films such as Casino Royale and Skyfall, I'll let them take their time.

    And as for waiting for Craig - I mean I imagine it was either that or try and cast someone new which they knew would probably take them even longer, and delay Bond 25 even further. Also, all the delays have been for a good enough reason so I don't see any reason to get annoyed at them.
Sign In or Register to comment.