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
I'm pretty sure they shot the Austria scenes before Mexico City.
Do you have a source for all of this speculation?
Exactly. Three is just not enough. It's too fast, not enough time in the real world for that person playing Bond. It's a nice feeling knowing a Bond actor will be around for a while, still waiting to go on another adventure/spy outing. If each era was only three each it would feel cheap and much too fast. This is Bond, it's supposed to have some more longevity and be different from other franchises.
Look at all the ones where people have played the role more than 3 times:
Gibson in Lethal Weapon (4)
Willis in Die Hard (5, soon to be 6)
Cruise in MI (5, soon to be 6)
Damon in Bourne (3, soon to be 4)
Hamill and Ford in Star Wars (4 and counting)
Ford as Indy (4, soon to be more?)
Stallone as Rambo (4, soon to be more?)
Plus all the Marvel people who will play their heroic characters close to ten times!
Bond actors should be counted among these icons. 4 is the minimum.
Mexico City's fight was mainly close quarters in the helicopter and I don't recall much heavy running in that scene either, unlike his work on CR, QoS or even SF.
Regarding the knee surgery - yes, that's a fact. It was a bad injury and he's having surgery for it next year - it was mentioned on the Charlie Rose show. the injury occurred during the Bautista train fight.
He is already the 2nd longest serving (consecutive time in the role) actor, in a market that is increasingly competitive from an action standpoint. The Roger Moore scenario was different as that was a different time.
I think Craig has one more in him and he should pack it in after that. He may take Rog's record for time served if they release it in 2018.
As much as possible yes. And as much as plausible. I'm a great admirer of Craig's work as Bond. The best since Connery and I'd dare say in some aspects maybe better. I even want him to coach his successor. I hope he does another one. But only if it's possible.
Connery (8 stories including Never Say Never Again and 2005's From Russia with love)
Moore (7 Stories as the Atari games I am not counting)
Lazenby (1story)
Dalton (2 Stories one could argue 3 if we include James Bond the duel but since Dalton did nothing for the game we shall not same with Atari)
Brosnan (5 stories Yes his likeness was in Nightfire but he actually did voice work for Everything or nothing which I am countioning)
Craig (6 stories and counting I am not counting Legends as he did nothing in that game however I am including 2010's Goldeneye)
Of course this could all change if for argument sake Ubisoft gets the bond licence and does a proper Spy who loved me Game with Moore providing voice work.
However in terms of how many they should have
and just using the 6 actors (so it doesn't become Ultimate bond time line) I still say it should vary
Connery Dr.No -Thunderball (he would of ended on a far better note)
Lazenby YOLT-Diamonds are forever and NSNA (three films would of been fine and had he gotten acting lessons and out of his own way and ego something filming in Japan would of done wonders for him with all the girls complaining he isn't connery his ego would of been shot to hell very quickly which would of lead to a more relaxed and better OHMSS and Diamonds are forever however I also feel he should of been the rival bond in Never Say never Again)
Moore Live and let die-For Your Eyes only personally even though I liked him in Octopussy and feel the title was made for him I still maintain that 5 films would of been perfect
Dalton Octopussy-Licence to kill(while I would of preffered a 5th film in 1991 this I believe is about just looking at the 24 films and 6 actors.)
Brosnan 4 films ( look the brosnan era could of been vastly better had they kept Janus around for a few films but fro some reason they created a cool organization and ended it in one film. and I really didn't want him in either LTK or Casino Royale)
Craig 6 films (ok I am cheating here but with the ramifications of Spectre the movie it only makes sense for him to do two more.)
Yes! I hope Lazenby makes four more, Dalton three more and Craig at least one more,
Too bad Niven is dead.
Five does seem like a nice number, allowing the actor to establish their Bond and have him grow into the position and evolve with enough time for closure at the end. Wink wink Daniel Craig!
That's an interesting thought @Birdleson. I wouldn't mind a one-off period piece to bridge the time between actors. You could still have the Mi6 regulars if they have more reserved screentime like in the past.
In my own mind of the JB timeline Connery through Moore is one continuous timeline with Dalts and Broz being the "Lost Episodes" that you can fit anywhere within the timeline. This would be similar.
I'm generally oppose to a one-off Bond actor, but it could be done well under the right circumstances.
In fact I'd say it could even be four depending on how long it takes to make them. I would've loved a fifth Brosnan film in 2004 for example but I'm not so enthused about a fifth DC outing. This is because he's already been Bond for ages: when Bond 25 is released, it'll have been at least 13 years since CR comes out, and Spectre wrapped things up nicely anyway, so I think that as brilliant as he is, maybe some fresh blood is what the series needs at the minute.
Having said the idea of Dalton staying on and doing a film every two years from LTK up until 2002 is the stuff of wet dreams for me so I guess if an actor really impresses me, and it doesn't necessarily feel like the story is done (like it does now with Spectre's ending) I'd be open to more.
Moore 7
Lazenby 1
Brosnan 5
Dalton 5
I like your thinking for the most part, however I'm tempted to make a minor and probably insanely controversial adjustment: Dalton 2
Here's my reasoning. Dalton wanted to return for just one more Bond film in the early 90s and call it quits. Cubby wanted Dalton to be Bond through the 90s. No middle ground could be found and we're left with what we have today: Dalton's impeccable double-banger.
Had Dalton remained Bond through the 90s, we would not have had Brosnan in GoldenEye, Tomorrow Never Dies or The World Is Not Enough, all films in which I enjoy him immensely. So what about a third and final film for Dalton in the early 90s? His Property of a Lady perhaps to round out a nice trilogy? Sounds good on paper, then again, that paper also allegedly contained Dalton's Bond fighting robots which sounds decidedly not good. What would we think and say today if Dalton's third and final go had been his Die Another Day?
Licence to Kill was a helluva film and ended on a beautiful note. Dalton made two and they were both great. No tarnish on his legacy apart from a little sporadic goofy Moore-era residue. Some things are best left as is.
Similarly, I've considered how awesome an early 70s, George Lazenby-powered Diamonds Are Forever revenge flick would have been. Maybe it would have been awesome. Maybe it would have stunk to high and glitzy Las Vegas heaven. The world will never know. Lazenby debuted and departed in one exquisite and unparalleled masterpiece. Again, maybe some things are best left as is, untarnished.
Brosnan, however, direly needed and deserved his fifth. His Everything or Nothing. His "we goofed, now here's the real deal." (Either that or three-and-out, which really may have been the better way to go.)
Moore 6 - Too old after FYEO
Lazenby 3 - I'd like to see a few more from him after the brilliant OHMSS
Brosnan 1 - It went downhill after GE
Dalton 3 - The first 2x were class.
Craig 4 + 2 more
It is not only the decision of the producers but also decided by the actor. What can we do if George lost interest because of his manager telling him that there is no future for spy films?
Of course from today's point of view the franchise is really stable and each film of the last 20 years had been a big hit at the box office. Especially, the last two. Meanwhile it is much easier to make such strategic decisions by saying that a particular actor should make two or four or six films. I personally find that 4 is enough since the gap between each film is simply to long. So if an actor starts at the age of 35 and there is an avaerage time gap of three years between the films, then he will be 44 when his final film is made. That is the perfect age to retire - for a field agent as well as the actor who plays the field agent.
Connery, Craig: as many as they want!
Lazenby: 2
Moore: 5
Dalton: 3
Brosnan: 2
Moore - 6
Brosnan - 7
Craig - 5
I feel it’s better to look at years instead of number of films. For instance in 17 years, Bernard Lee starred in 11 films. During the same amount of time Judi Dench was able to appear in 7 movies. However, I feel she was equally as established in the role of M as Lee despite completing less films.
Looking over the history of the franchise, I feel an actor has to commit to the role for 10 years. A decade in the role is long enough to really take ownership of the role and cement your legacy – give or take a year.
If that actor only gets to complete 3 or 4 films during that time - then that’s fine. But I feel 10 years is the appropriate level.
In terms of the franchise’s history that is a substantial slice of the pie. For instance, Craig’s tenure amounts to a fifth of Bond’s entire cinematic legacy – which is longer than Connery ever committed to the part. The number of films is slowly growing irrelevant.
However…………….I do think it’s important that if an actor plays Bond they get to play the role more than twice. Ideally, three times. The fact Dalton only did two was criminal. When SF was in peril during the MGM bankrupty fiasco it was shocking to think that Craig’s tenure would have ended with QOS. On the other hand, if he did bail after SF I wouldn’t have been too disappointed. That would be have fallen in a round Craig’s sixth year in the role.
3 films in 10 years is the minimum I feel.
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