Where does Bond go after Craig?

1674675676677678680»

Comments

  • Posts: 1,336
    Let’s face it. Next guy has got almost Herculean task on his hands matching what Craig did.

    No actor was Sean Connery and the series survived.

    The actor has to be different from Craig. If you look for a clone of Craig you are DOA.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited 5:21pm Posts: 16,373
    I think when dealing with Multi-Million Dollar productions then everyone is under pressure in some way/shape/form, even the costume designers haha. However I think most of the pressure on Brosnan came during the production of GE. Despite being an inch away from the role 8 years prior, MGM/UA executives still weren’t entirely sure about Brosnan. According to Jeff Kleeman, they sort of saw Brosnan as someone who played 2nd fiddle to actors like Robin Williams or Warren Beatty (with Mrs. Doubtfire and Love Affair being the actors two most recent projects at that time.) Remington Steele had come and gone and really Brosnan wasn’t much of an established “star” in that sense. In addition to that, so many people were questioning the relevancy of the character and the series at large that had the film and the performance failed it would’ve been the end of the series. But I do think the pressure definitely went away once GE proved to be the massive success that it was.

    In a funny sort of way that could mean less pressure on the actor you'd think: if Bond himself was truly not relevant anymore then it's less the fault of the guy playing him than the core concept of the character which he's just being paid to read the lines of.
    I don't want to say there was no pressure on him because of course there was, and he proved a massive hit in the role, but as SecretAgentMan says, I'd say that coming after the generally perceived failure of Dalton to catch fire he perhaps had a slightly more favourable playing field than any of the others. The gap also probably helped him as folks remembered Bond as they liked him growing up rather than perhaps the Bond of the previous movie; and GE definitely aimed for that nostalgia I think by rebooting the whole thing.
    007HallY wrote: »
    I’ve gotta say, it must be an annoying job sometimes for EON. Imagine getting criticised for your films, having to make conscious course corrections/bold creative decisions for the next one (without which the series will apparently not survive each time) only to get praised for them before inevitably slipping back into audiences criticising the series and the odd critic claiming it’s not relevant anymore (again, every time and despite the fact that the series has no outright flops/continues that cycle of making successful new films that said audiences and critics like). At the very least it’s a weird cycle.

    I think it's sort of water off a duck's back by now. They know the press print a load of old rubbish about them, but I guess all publicity is good publicity, and all it proves it that people want to read about Bond.
    The thing I can imagine might get up their nose a bit is when other professionals use Bond to promote themselves, as with the Steve McQueen rumour the other day. Seems very likely someone in his camp decided to get some publicity for his new movie by saying he was perhaps up for the Bond directing job, and if that's not true I could imagine that the Brocs would be a little disappointed by a fellow professional using them in that way; certainly I think any actor who does so probably gets themselves crossed off the list pronto (hi Sam Heughan).
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited 5:49pm Posts: 6,290
    Mallory wrote: »
    Let’s face it. Next guy has got almost Herculean task on his hands matching what Craig did.

    Every actor has had to deal with that.

    Strongly disagree. Only Lazenby had the task that Bond #7 will have. Connery defined the role and Craig re-defined it. The others only inhabited it.
  • Posts: 1,336
    echo wrote: »
    Mallory wrote: »
    Let’s face it. Next guy has got almost Herculean task on his hands matching what Craig did.

    Every actor has had to deal with that.

    Strongly disagree. Only Lazenby had the task that Bond #7 will have. Connery defined the role and Craig re-defined it. The others only inhabited it.

    Being different from Craig is not that hard.

    A tall and handsome actor, someone who can have female fans under 30 years old...

  • edited 6:22pm Posts: 2,266
    echo wrote: »
    Mallory wrote: »
    Let’s face it. Next guy has got almost Herculean task on his hands matching what Craig did.

    Every actor has had to deal with that.

    Strongly disagree. Only Lazenby had the task that Bond #7 will have. Connery defined the role and Craig re-defined it. The others only inhabited it.

    Each Bond actor redefined the role in some way; that’s how the series has survived so long. It’s inaccurate to say Craig was the only one who redefined it when the likes of Moore, Dalton, and Brosnan were doing it decades before.

    Following Craig will be tough, but not the impossible task so many make it out to be, and this isn’t even remotely similar to the situation that occurred in the late 60’s.
    mtm wrote: »

    In a funny sort of way that could mean less pressure on the actor you'd think: if Bond himself was truly not relevant anymore then it's less the fault of the guy playing him than the core concept of the character which he's just being paid to read the lines of.
    I don't want to say there was no pressure on him because of course there was, and he proved a massive hit in the role, but as SecretAgentMan says, I'd say that coming after the generally perceived failure of Dalton to catch fire he perhaps had a slightly more favourable playing field than any of the others. The gap also probably helped him as folks remembered Bond as they liked him growing up rather than perhaps the Bond of the previous movie; and GE definitely aimed for that nostalgia I think by rebooting the whole thing.

    Yeah both of you and @SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ have a point. Perhaps in the eyes of the MGM/UA executives, the same ones who refused to start production on GE with Dalton in the role, Brosnan was the safest bet they could go for but still wasn’t quite a box office star. Then again neither was Connery, Moore, Dalton, or Craig before they became Bond so it kind proves that track record doesn’t matter much. If you find a good actor and give him a good script, they’ll do wonders.
  • LucknFateLucknFate 007 In New York
    Posts: 1,646
    Variety wasting time asking Lashana Lynch what's coming next... she says she has no clue. https://t.co/UTTa6rQ5vS
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited 6:31pm Posts: 16,373
    I guess Roger was probably the safest bet in that he was a worldwide TV star and pretty well-liked, but then he was still coming after Sean and the perceived previous failure to replace him so it was no sure thing. I guess the thing to remember is that format is king and all stars are basically replaceable in the end. I don't know if there are any roles which only one person can ever play. I suppose Indiana Jones is the one they say is that, and yet other people have played him and I suspect that a reboot would go absolutely fine if they got it right.

    I think you're right that Brosnan was the safest choice at the time, and absolutely the right one too. They also didn't really want a full box office star: I think Kleeman has said they weren't really looking at names like Mel Gibson even though they were mentioned in the press, as they needed someone not tied to any other film series.
  • Posts: 36
    1967-1973 really is an astonishing period of flux for Bond. Yes, YOLT came at the end of Connery's tenure and his return in DAF must have felt like a course correction, but for the public that was still a run of four Bond films that each had a different actor in the title role. Moore brought the gift of stability as well as his talent and charisma.
Sign In or Register to comment.