Empire's new Bond cover

David Schofield wrote:

Cavill is the only one I can think of who is classically 'pretty' and Bond-like, however unimaginative that may be. Ask any member of the public for their standard Bond image and it is more akin to Cavill than, say, Fassbender.

Every time I've thought that the series was dead, they somehow manage to bring it back, so I should never underestimate EON's ability to "reinvent" Bond. However, replacing Craig will be a difficult prospect (and keep in mind as I'm saying that that I don't really care for him all that much; he's probably my least favorite 007) because in all likelihood, unless there is some major miscalculation, his films will not only all be box office hits, but most importantly, they will have been made in such a hard-edged, realistic style that I'm afraid EON will find it difficult to return to the escapist-type adventures of years before. EON went back to the adventure/fantasy well, so to speak, after Dalton because Dalton's films didn't do as well as was hoped, so it was an easier decision to make. But in this case, the style of film that was set out for with Dalton has finally been successfully achieved according to SONY and EON's bankers, and that's going to be a hard line to pull back from.

I honestly don't know where the series goes from after Craig leaves. I'd love for it to scale back and do period pieces set in the times in which Fleming wrote them, but with the recent glut of period-piece television shows and movies set back in the 50's and 60's (some hits, some not so much), I don't know how EON can manage that without looking like they're copying others or pulling off a gimmick, and I think Babs is too politically liberal and wedded to her feminism to allow that version of Fleming's Bond to hit the big screen.

Quote :

I just think that might be important a selling point for EON next time round (though I do accept Babs unusual tastes and Fassbender's cock might come into it).

Not going to touch that.

tiffanywint wrote:

If the Connery Bond is lost, it's only because Connery may have been that great an actor, that others simply can't pull off Bond with the same combination of panache and menace. Connery may simply be a giant among Bonds. He may have set the bar so high, that it's unreachable for others.

Connery a great actor???

You must have seen his other career disasters?

Connery was lucky enough to resemble the Fleming original, have his hand held by Terence Young, be the first so he had no one else to compete with, and chucked in a bit of his own personality.

Other than Bond, his career was a huge failure. Without Fleming and Young, he's carrying spears for the BBC in the 60s, that's all

Lazenby was as convincing as IF's Bond. And he sold cars and chocolate bars for work experience.

David Schofield wrote:

tiffanywint wrote:

If the Connery Bond is lost, it's only because Connery may have been that great an actor, that others simply can't pull off Bond with the same combination of panache and menace. Connery may simply be a giant among Bonds. He may have set the bar so high, that it's unreachable for others.

Connery a great actor???

You must have seen his other career disasters?

Connery was lucky enough to resemble the Fleming original, have his hand held by Terence Young, be the first so he had no one else to compete with, and chucked in a bit of his own persoanlity.

Other than Bond, his career was a huge failure. Without Fleming and Young, he's carrying spears for the BBC in the 60s, that's all

Clearly you are suffering from scarlett fever? the plague? dementia? or maybe :drunken:

Just to be safe though:

http://www.alz.co.uk/withdementia/younger-dementia

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Every time I've thought that the series was dead, they somehow manage to bring it back, so I should never underestimate EON's ability to "reinvent" Bond. However, replacing Craig will be a difficult prospect (and keep in mind as I'm saying that that I don't really care for him all that much; he's probably my least favorite 007) because in all likelihood, unless there is some major miscalculation, his films will not only all be box office hits, but most importantly, they will have been made in such a hard-edged, realistic style that I'm afraid EON will find it difficult to return to the escapist-type adventures of years before.

Yes, this angle is interesting, definitely worth pondering, but I think it ultimately is easily overcome. The response is simply to continue to do quality Bond films. Even Craig is not so far removed from the archetype character as established by Connery, that his films aren't recognizable as Bond films. Stay true to the Bond persona. Move the timeless persona through the ages and our great-grandchildren's grandchildren will be enjoying their owncontemporary Bond films, whilst also paying homage to Sean's iconic legacy

Bond is bigger than Craig, bigger than Babs. When they are both dust, Bond will live on.

Bond will out-live us all. The 50th anniversary is special, but the millenial anniversary should really be something. I can envision a giant rendering of futuristic holographic artwork, displayed across the skies of the world, proudly portraying Sir Sean the original,an inconic historical figure, surrounded by the 100 or so other Bonds that continued his great legacy, down through the centuries. Awesome.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

David Schofield wrote:

Cavill is the only one I can think of who is classically 'pretty' and Bond-like, however unimaginative that may be. Ask any member of the public for their standard Bond image and it is more akin to Cavill than, say, Fassbender.

Every time I've thought that the series was dead, they somehow manage to bring it back, so I should never underestimate EON's ability to "reinvent" Bond. However, replacing Craig will be a difficult prospect (and keep in mind as I'm saying that that I don't really care for him all that much; he's probably my least favorite 007) because in all likelihood, unless there is some major miscalculation, his films will not only all be box office hits, but most importantly, they will have been made in such a hard-edged, realistic style that I'm afraid EON will find it difficult to return to the escapist-type adventures of years before. EON went back to the adventure/fantasy well, so to speak, after Dalton because Dalton's films didn't do as well as was hoped, so it was an easier decision to make. But in this case, the style of film that was set out for with Dalton has finally been successfully achieved according to SONY and EON's bankers, and that's going to be a hard line to pull back from.

I think that if the producers want to go lighter in tone, they can. They weren't above changing tone between MR and FYEO, in spite of retaining the lead actor and in spite of MR being a success to almost rival TB. In spite of Roger Moore being popular with audiences, they weren't afraid to take things in quite a different direction with Timothy Dalton (indeed, it's arguable that Dalton suffered from comparison with Moore's widely popular light approach). So if EON want to go lighter, I don't see what's stopping them. Just because the trend in franchise movies now is go "intense", "personal", and "grittty" hardly means that that will remain the approach forever. It's often surprising how quickly tastes change, whether it's in fashions or in entertainment.

Not that I'm saying EON will go lighter, but I think it's much more likely than not at some point. Eventually, audiences will wear with the current approach and want something more buoyant. And then things will change.

right idea, wrong pussy wrote:

I think that if the producers want to go lighter in tone, they can. They weren't above changing tone between MR and FYEO, in spite of retaining the lead actor and in spite of MR being a success to almost rival TB. In spite of Roger Moore being popular with audiences, they weren't afraid to take things in quite a different direction with Timothy Dalton (indeed, it's arguable that Dalton suffered from comparison with Moore's widely popular light approach). So if EON want to go lighter, I don't see what's stopping them. Just because the trend in franchise movies now is go "intense", "personal", and "grittty" hardly means that that will remain the approach forever. It's often surprising how quickly tastes change, whether it's in fashions or in entertainment.

Not that I'm saying EON will go lighter, but I think it's much more likely than not at some point. Eventually, audiences will wear with the current approach and want something more buoyant. And then things will change.

I agree with everything you said, but I think the point I was trying to make (and maybe didn't make it) was that the catalyst for the change, the cause or reason for the trend of going back to something lighter and more adventurous, will probably be dictated by outside forces. By "outside forces" I mean: EON will see what other similar franchises are doing and will simply follow their lead rather than being proactive and pushing the envelope. When EON saw Jason Bourne become popular, and reboots of other series take off (such as Batman Begins), they decided to ditch Brosnan and go in a different direction (i.e. a direction dictated by what they assumed were market trends that they needed to follow). I was initially opposed to the idea of getting rid of Brosnan, but thought that a "reboot" may not be a bad idea if done right. I wouldn't say the reboot was done wrong, but it sure hasn't been what I thought it could have been.

If Casino Royale = Batman Begins, Quanturd of Solace certainly did not equal The Dark Knight. Skyfall really needs to be a grand slam, or else I'll think the entire "reboot" has been a squandered opportunity. I've never really bought into Craig as a rookie agent; he looked too experienced, too grizzled to be believable as an agent just learning how to earn his 00-status. Trust me, if Casino Royale had been played by Henry Cavill instead of Daniel Craig, I'd probably be singing Casino Royale's praises to high heaven. Somehow the path Craig's Bond takes in CR would seem more believable by a guy who was much younger. And as "reboots" go, too much is crammed into CR's pre-title sequence. What about Bond's life prior to the events of CR? If you're going to do a reboot, a retelling of Bond's origins, why not go whole-hog? I guess CR was more of a reboot than an origin story, so that potential story line still exists to be told, I would imagine.

In that respect, I actually find Jeffrey Deaver's reboot of James Bond in CARTE BLANCHE a much more entertaining and believable story than Craig's version of Bond in Casino Royale.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

If Casino Royale = Batman Begins, Quanturd of Solace certainly did not equal The Dark Knight.

Never could. The Dark Knight drew upon Batman's most infamous arch-enemy, the Joker, arguably one of the most recognised fictional villains of the last 100 years.

Syphillis Solace, in stark contrast, drew upon a complete unknown with the intimidation factor of a tree-stump (and who probably took ax swinging lessons from Rose in Titanic). It should have been Blofeld begins.

Mrs Aural Sects wrote:

Solace, in stark contrast, drew upon a complete unknown with the intimidation factor of a tree-stump (and who probably took ax swinging lessons from Rose in Titanic). It should have been Blofeld begins.

I seem to recall reading somewhere that the producers deliberately chose not to give Greene fighting skills. They wanted him to be a threat to Bond in the axe fight, but not because he suddenly showed a mastery of fighting with an axe when there was nothing to indicate he even knew how to use one beforehand. Instead, they had him attacking in anger, making him unpredictable and a danger to both Bond and himself (as he did manage to split his own foot in two).

Cavill? No thanks. Fassbender? No thanks. I don't know who I want after Craig (frankly, I can't see past Craig at this point), but I definitely don't want Cavill or Fassbender. The former is all wrong for anything other than a Young Bond's First Mission(TM) reboot (and, c'mon, Eon is hardly gonna give us another of those any time soon), while the latter is too intense, to ac-torly and too much of a Craig & Dalton composite. If it must be one of those guys, then it should definitely be Fassbender over Cavill, but I have a feeling that Eon will surprise us with Bond #7 - it seems probable that his name hasn't even been mentioned (much) on Bond fansites.

Well, I don't know why anyone would say "no thanks" to Fassbender--he'd be a splendid choice--but I doubt he'll get the role after Craig's gone. And not because he's an ac-tor, but just because I think the window will have passed (I don't think EON is going to care about anyone being too ac-torly after Craig's success).

But Cavill is a quite poor choice.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

Mrs Aural Sects wrote:

Solace, in stark contrast, drew upon a complete unknown with the intimidation factor of a tree-stump (and who probably took ax swinging lessons from Rose in Titanic). It should have been Blofeld begins.

I seem to recall reading somewhere that the producers deliberately chose not to give Greene fighting skills. They wanted him to be a threat to Bond in the axe fight, but not because he suddenly showed a mastery of fighting with an axe when there was nothing to indicate he even knew how to use one beforehand. Instead, they had him attacking in anger, making him unpredictable and a danger to both Bond and himself (as he did manage to split his own foot in two).

I remember reading something similar; I believe in an interview with Amalric. I don't recall if he claimed he had the idea, or if the producers did, or someone else (screenwriters, Forster). Regardless, it was an idea that could have had promise - IF QOS hadn't suffered the action movie overload that the Bond films have increasingly had in recent years (TND and DAD had the same problem). I'm referring to the tendency of the filmmakers to stuff too many things happening at once into one climax. It's striking to watch YOLT and to see how (whatever the movie's other faults), everything builds up to a climax based around Bond blowing up the SPECTRE capsule. Everything else (ninjas, Hans, Blofeld) is just helping or hindering Bond in his quest. Even LTK, which had a very strong Bond girl, kept a laser-like focus on Bond's pursuit of Sanchez. Pam appears only as she is needed to help Bond keep going.

The problem, increasingly (especially in TND, DAD and QOS) is that the female lead has to have equal importance in the climax with Bond. So the intercutting between them lessens the impact of what either is doing. When you add all the other clutter that was added to the hotel fight in QOS, Greene just comes across as a girl with an axe. To the extent he seems even momentarily dangerous, it's just because the constant explosions are rocking both him and Bond around (and distracting Bond). Making Greene an unconventional fighter might have been an interesting idea had it actually been worked with. As it is, it's done so fast and intercut with so many other things at once (the weirdly exploding hotel, Camille fighting Medrano) that it barely registers.

Though if the idea was simply to make Greene just plain bad at fighting (as opposed to operating on blind rage as opposed to any kind of training) then that is a daft idea. It would be like having Bond fight pre-schoolers or septugenarians.

Harmsway wrote:

Well, I don't know why anyone would say "no thanks" to Fassbender--he'd be a splendid choice--

Admittedly, he might have been good for CASINO ROYALE (don't remember his name coming up much in the Bond #6 discussions seven years ago, although I'd be amazed if he wasn't one of the actors whom Eon looked at very closely), but I think he'd be too much like Craig to follow Craig. The series needs a Roger Moore type after Craig - assuming that such a thing as a Roger Moore type even exists nowadays. Benedict Cumberbach, maybe?

I think Fassbender would be a more "fun" Bond than Craig. I don't see him as too much like Craig.

Loomis wrote:

Admittedly, he might have been good for CASINO ROYALE (don't remember his name coming up much in the Bond #6 discussions seven years ago, although I'd be amazed if he wasn't one of the actors whom Eon looked at very closely), but I think he'd be too much like Craig to follow Craig.

Going by his INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS performance, I think Fassbender would make a splendid "gentleman Bond," with a strong emphasis on elegance and humor. I think he'd be sufficiently distinct from Craig to be viable. (He's not Tom Hardy, for cryin' out loud.)

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Trust me, if Casino Royale had been played by Henry Cavill instead of Daniel Craig, I'd probably be singing Casino Royale's praises to high heaven.

Me, too. Cavill would have been the perfect actor for that particular story. Everything was in place. Too bad Craig didn't have his blue snuggers when Layer Cake was being shot. If he'd been them wearing them, Babs may not have lost her mind over his bare bum, and Cavill might have got the job instead. Cruel fate.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

I actually find Jeffrey Deaver's reboot of James Bond in CARTE BLANCHE a much more entertaining and believable story than Craig's version of Bond in Casino Royale.

Yes, Deaver's backstory and context for Bond was ok. Way more believable than Craig in CR, however Deaver ruined it all by writing Bond as such a do-gooder ninny.

right idea, wrong pussy wrote:

Though if the idea was simply to make Greene just plain bad at fighting (as opposed to operating on blind rage as opposed to any kind of training) then that is a daft idea. It would be like having Bond fight pre-schoolers or septugenarians.

Yes the whole idea was absurd. Just another Forster conceit. eg. "Wouldn't this be interesting...blah blah blah....Bond will fight a guy that swings an axe "like Rose from Titanic""

I don't care who replaces Craig as Bond, as long as said actor, has the right look, and is YOUNG. He then must swear on a stack of Fleming novels, that he will bring honor to the tradition of cinema-Bond as created by Messers Connery and Young. I do solemnly swear. Then we are good to go.

By the time Craig hangs up the blue trunks though, Fassbender will be too old and IMO Cavill will be too old as well to be debuting. The next Bond I figure,should be attending his senior prom this spring. Zac Ef might even be too old, when the time comes.

I could live with Mchael F.



"Fassbender's the name, bending fass is my game."

I am really not understanding this sudden love for Cavill at all. :| Fassbender at least has talent.

David Schofield wrote:

tiffanywint wrote:

If the Connery Bond is lost, it's only because Connery may have been that great an actor, that others simply can't pull off Bond with the same combination of panache and menace. Connery may simply be a giant among Bonds. He may have set the bar so high, that it's unreachable for others.

Connery a great actor???

You must have seen his other career disasters?

Connery was lucky enough to resemble the Fleming original, have his hand held by Terence Young, be the first so he had no one else to compete with, and chucked in a bit of his own personality.

Other than Bond, his career was a huge failure. Without Fleming and Young, he's carrying spears for the BBC in the 60s, that's all

Lazenby was as convincing as IF's Bond. And he sold cars and chocolate bars for work experience.

Are we talking about the same Connery who starred in the classic Man Who Would Be King, who pulled off a masterclass in acting in The Offence, who Spielberg was desperate to get for his third Indy movie, and who, lest we forget, who an Oscar for The Untouchables....?

Yeah, real career disaster........

The only disaster in Connery's career was retiring after LEAGUE OF EXTRAORDINARY GENTLEMEN.

Why? Because he retired? Because he made that film in the first place? Because that was his last film? Or all of the above?

jet set willy wrote:

David Schofield wrote:

tiffanywint wrote:

If the Connery Bond is lost, it's only because Connery may have been that great an actor, that others simply can't pull off Bond with the same combination of panache and menace. Connery may simply be a giant among Bonds. He may have set the bar so high, that it's unreachable for others.

Connery a great actor???

You must have seen his other career disasters?

Connery was lucky enough to resemble the Fleming original, have his hand held by Terence Young, be the first so he had no one else to compete with, and chucked in a bit of his own personality.

Other than Bond, his career was a huge failure. Without Fleming and Young, he's carrying spears for the BBC in the 60s, that's all

Lazenby was as convincing as IF's Bond. And he sold cars and chocolate bars for work experience.

Are we talking about the same Connery who starred in the classic Man Who Would Be King, who pulled off a masterclass in acting in The Offence, who Spielberg was desperate to get for his third Indy movie, and who, lest we forget, who an Oscar for The Untouchables....?

Yeah, real career disaster........

A supporting role to Mike Caine?
A lousy Richard Burton OTT impersonation in THE OFFENCE he was never asked to repeat?
A sympathy Oscar for the worst accent ever on film?
Working with Spielberg in a popcorn franchise hit?

And these are the highlights.

Christ, only Hitch even made Connery work hard - and I supsect that was because Connery was terrified of Hitch, propably the last time he was ever afraif of a film maker after he knew he could dominate Terence Young after Bond became a hit. After that, it was the standrd Sean Connery character in everything.

Not seen SHALAKO, THE MOLLY MAGUIRES, THE NEXT MAN, THE MAN WITH THE DEADLY LENS , FORRESTER, etc?

Connery's career, Bond aside, for all his good fortune and opportunity available to him as a result of Bond, was, I maintain, a disaster, creatively at least. I conceed, however, he has made a LOT of money.

Everyone's forgetting Connery's best movie.

*points to avatar*

CJB wrote:

Everyone's forgetting Connery's best movie.

*points to avatar*

Yes, I had forgotten it.

Even if Connery's role in THE MAN WHO WOULD BE KING was a supporting one to Caine, Huston still got a terrific performance out of the man. Likewise with Lumet in THE HILL. Likewise, I was also impressed by his more tender work in ROBIN AND MARIAN, THE RUSSIA HOUSE, and FIVE DAYS ONE SUMMER.

Sure, he's no master of accents, but then neither were Richard Burton, Peter O'Toole, or George C. Scott. That doesn't take away any of the conviction they lent to their parts over the decades. While unlike those three, Sean Connery's not a great actor, but a good one. He is however a great star.

Re: LAST CRUSADE. The film being a popcorn flick doesn't preclude it from having a fine performance from Connery.

Fassbender's almost as old as Craig (and me). Probably a deal-breaker.