Reboot? Remake? Retro? Which direction should the series take next?

That is good to hear.

The films I have seen with those three just do not make me believe they could pull off Bond, and two or three years ageing will not remedy the problem.

Are they good actors? Yes, I would say so. But you see their youth in their faces, and their acting inexperience.

But Connery and Lazenby…?

Connery was such a special talent, exuding charisma off the charts.

And Lazenby also had a special something which the camera loved, although Hunt had to work so hard at getting a performance he could edit around. That kind of difficulty no series of films can afford in the long run.

The sheer magneticism combined with acting experience Moore brought was exactly what made his Bond so perfect. Brosnan had and has that, too.

Dalton had the acting quality but his charisma was maybe too stage bound, too controlled.

In contrast to all who came before him, Craig did not look like Bond when he was cast, but his intensity and acting ability jumped off the screen in every role he played before Bond already.

So, those qualities are essential for Bond. Even if Amazon‘s temptation right now might be to concentrate on the younger demographic - hiring a Bond who is not mature enough, who we do not believe that he has been in many trials of fire before, would turn him into a different character.

7 Likes

It was this way when they were casting for Casino Royale also. At some point, virtually every actor that fits the most vague of criteria for Bond will be mentioned as being up for the part.

Every choice that Amazon has made so far with this film has been good. I can’t imagine that they would go out and get all of these qualified people on board to make the film, one of which was instrumental in bringing us Daniel Craig and Casino Royale, and then throw it away on making an outright terrible casting decision for Bond. Until Amazon and the powers-that-be that they have put in charge of making this film actually make a poor decision regarding this upcoming film, I’m going to give them the benefit of the doubt because I’ve liked everything they’ve done with it to this point.

5 Likes

Dont read the comments. It’ll depress you on humanity and make you think Stromberg was actually the hero of TSWLM.

5 Likes

He wasn’t?

10 Likes

I’ll happily be one of those nameless henchmen behind a monitor as you carry out your plan.

3 Likes

As long we don’t get flown out by helicopter.

4 Likes

Question is whether Amy Pascal did more than keep BB happy doing that.

Would she have chosen Craig and the choices made for CR if BB had said: we could go for Brosnan again?

I doubt it. And what did Pascal do during the SPECTRE problems? Was she really a creative partner? The leaked comments did not suggest that but underlined rumours about her behaviour, especially her terrible ones about Obama‘s favourite picture being surely „Django Unchained“.

I‘m just trying to put the affection for her into perspective. What she brings to the table is her business relationship with BB, and I suspect that’s what handed her the job.

The saviour and supporter of Bond, I‘m afraid, she is not.

1 Like

She could have easily have said “no” to Craig. That probably would have been the easier call to make.

She’s made plenty of mistakes, granted. But I’d rather have someone who has participated in a successful search for a new Bond and launch of that Bond than someone who hasn’t.

3 Likes

Difficult to say how ‘creative’ Pascal’s influence is/was. From experience these executive level figures are not necessarily always the most innovative or even technically qualified - but their qualities often lie in juggling the experts and creative minds with the demands of the top brass and money people. That’s not necessarily hugely creative as such - but the results could look a lot different if these buffers were not in effect.

I’m talking about administration, tax law, economics and politics, evidently. But I suppose it’s not so different from show biz (or making sausages). :man_shrugging:t3:

2 Likes

I will say i dont think Craig was entirely creative for her vote, so much as represeinting Sony, so men who were Sony leads in films that made them money would have her backing. I can see her putting Tom Holland down for similar reasons, given it’s her production company that makes his Spider-man films along with Marvel studios.

2 Likes

In this business it’s all about powerful relationships.

Pascal made the right move back then to form an alliance with BB, especially when the distribution deal with Sony was short-term.

What was she supposed to do: say no to the favourite of the head of the franchise she desperately wanted to keep?

If CR had been a failure Pascal would have been sacked. Sometimes the gamble pays off.

I wonder whether BB thanked Pascal by suggesting her to take over as producer (maybe even keep that line open to suggest things?)

Maybe BB is furious, though, that Pascal is now taking over, having charmed Bezos.

There is such a wealth of secrets which could be part of a tell-all book sooner or later…

3 Likes

Interesting. I have to say that I totally disagree with Owen Gleiberman’s opinion on the two Bond films he mentions that he doesn’t like as well as his top pick for James Bond #7. I love GoldenEye, and while I also am not the fan of Skyfall that most seem to be, I can, nevertheless, see its appeal. But his choice of Josh O’Connor for 007? Horrible choice.

But having said that, the rest of the article was pretty solid and I largely agree with him.

3 Likes

Much as I hate to say it, I think that the Daniel Craig series, after the sophistication and modified time-machine glory of “Casino Royale,” became a chain of disappointing follow-ups. The series kept chugging along, but that’s all it did. I, for one, am beyond tired of seeing routine James Bond films.

A curious observation - yet one many CBners seem to share in one form or another.

I would argue of Craig’s five films CASINO ROYALE is easily the most traditional, safest Bond film by a mile. Afterwards we get Bond figuring out why Vesper betrayed him (QOS), Bond as a supporting character (SF), Bond as secret step brother of the villain (SP) and Papa Bond sacrificing himself for his family of four minutes and a half. After Craig’s debut I’d say the audience could never be sure what they would get in the next Bond box of chocolates.

And yet, it’s true that what Craig’s Bonds didn’t deliver was an ordinary fun adventure, a FOR YOUR EYES ONLY or MOONRAKER escapade that just sits there to entertain its audience. Everything was about Bond’s character arch, even SKYFALL, where he’s the bit player between M and Silva, sees him pondering his fate above Whitehall’s Union Flag bedecked roofs in a bit of on-the-nose symbolism.

I confess* I used to be a member of the explore-Bond’s-character faction for many decades. I often felt him absent during the years - or attempts to address his character as contrived, GOLDENEYE comes to mind. Getting some glimpses of it in CASINO ROYALE was a welcome change - but it probably should have been kept at glimpses and not made up the entire story of a Bond over consecutive films.

Once they put Bond at the centre it becomes sadly obvious there’s not much character there to explore. It beggars belief he’s meeting with a childhood acquaintance, even under dubious circumstances, and right away has no other interest than to kill them (or vice versa). Or that he would fall for such an obvious ploy as Oberhauser’s call to Madeleine’s phone after what they’ve been through together - or even as she sits right beside him as the hoods shell the car.

In such moments it’s clear Bond’s character, explored deeper, is a mess and best only touched sparingly on for the purposes of the Bond films.

*No real news to most here.

11 Likes

“I, for one, am beyond tired of seeing routine James Bond films.”

In an essay that calls for Bond to be like it was…

This is just the traditional part of the new Bond. Say the previous guy was hated, a just cookie cutter Bond, and this new era can be the best since Connery.

10 Likes

Gleiberman is back to his contrarian-provoke anybody-pose.

Then we have this in THR:

And this…

3 Likes

Indeed. I pay no attention to these articles. One author from a mainstream media masthead speaking for the populace? Nope. They’re just speaking for themselves. His opinion is no more valid than mine.

I for one think Casino Royale, Skyfall and No Time To Die are excellent James Bond films. The more I see new names being bandied about I think just how good Daniel Craig actually was and how hard it will be to follow him up. I rank him third, only after Sean and Roger. I think that’s very high praise. I’m sure the series will go on just fine, but I won’t pretend it’s going to be easy, and that everything from the previous era was rubbish.

9 Likes

I think the colossal mistake that was made after “Casino Royale” was deciding that Bond, at the end of that film, had gone cold inside, so there was nothing left for him to engage in but his missions.

This man hasn’t got a clue what Bond is all about. I’ve read the discussion before I read the piece, otherwise I would have stopped after two paragraphs.

6 Likes

Makes one wonder what Bond films he even watched.

5 Likes

Slightly reductive…

2 Likes

How can you show a guy like that today?

Just show him.

If some small clusters of the audience cry out, so be it. He is who he is. And - surprise - that’s why he endured and remains beloved.

5 Likes