@Private:
Think it was just the difficulty of finding a relationship based storyline that did not too closely resemble recent successes. Bond does get the girl at the end and if the next film builds on that relationship, rather than replacing it, we might have something interesting.
I thought Craig was done being Bond. (http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/08/entertainment/daniel-craig-james-bond-feat/) If so, does that mean that they have to start all over again? Do they have to get rid of Ben Whishaw, Naomie Harris and Ralph Fiennes? I rather liked them all as a cast and the potential for the future, but it seems like the conventional Bond form is to have all new actors for a new series.
it seems like the conventional Bond form is to have all new actors for a new series.
No, Judi Dench as M was carried over from the Pierce Brosnan era.
Incidentally, in the new movie Bond isn’t the only major action hero on the good-guy side: the new M himself, his chief of staff Bill Tanner, the rebooted Moneypenny (introduced in Skyfall), and Ben Wishaw’s Q are all out there in the field at the film’s climax, racing against time to defeat the villains in scenes involving car chases, gun battles and hand-to-hand combat. Traditionally, these characters were pretty much confined to an office environment.
@CWO:
it seems like the conventional Bond form is to have all new actors for a new series.
No, Judi Dench as M was carried over from the Pierce Brosnan era.
Incidentally, in the new movie Bond isn’t the only major action hero on the good-guy side: the new M himself, his chief of staff Bill Tanner, the rebooted Moneypenny (introduced in Skyfall), and Ben Wishaw’s Q are all out there in the field at the film’s climax, racing against time to defeat the villains in scenes involving car chases, gun battles and hand-to-hand combat. Traditionally, these characters were pretty much confined to an office environment.
Oh, I sort of just figured they cleaned house when a new Bond was cast. Man… having some actors the same, but the main guy different would really annoy me; being someone who likes continuity. I hated it when Nolan had to use Maggie Gyllenhaal as Rachel Dawes instead of keeping Katie Holmes. Not even just because of the continuity but because Holmes is a far better actress and really fit the role. I hate scheduling conflicts.
Again, it just seems incredibly strange if Craig were to just be done and they continue on with a new actor for Bond as if absolutely nothing had changed. I would find that hard to deal with.
Sean Connery is signed up to do the next series of Bond movies while in his wheelchair. The good thing is it has lots of special gadgets. The bad thing is he can walk or run after criminals and gets pushed around by his caretaker on the streets.
Sir Connery was the best Bond for me.
I appreciate that they tried some new things with Daniel Craig. But Sir Connery was the classy one.
Again, it just seems incredibly strange if Craig were to just be done and they continue on with a new actor for Bond as if absolutely nothing had changed. I would find that hard to deal with.
It feels wrong I agree Hoff - but they’ve made it work time and again over however many changes of Bond across so many films. Bond is sufficiently fixed in the mind of the audience regardless of the actor playing him - a strength of the franchise - and a weakness.
Marc is right about the other characters getting involved in the action. It had not struck me that this is a change. A welcome one as it allows more complex finales.
