Daniel Craig would rather 'slash his wrists' than do another 007 movie - Polidicks

Why stray from the archetypal Bond, just make another spy movie if that is what is wanted. Bond films are about Bond.

[QUOTE=karlosfandango;48857762]Why stray from the archetypal Bond, just make another spy movie if that is what is wanted. Bond films are about Bond.[/QUOTE] because the movie bonds are very different beyond just being white males?

there's no problem with non white brits playing any other role than bond!

[QUOTE=cyclocius;48856854]If someone would rather slash their wrists than take another acting job, they can't like it that much. Has he had disagreements or something with the production staff?[/QUOTE] He just knows when to quit. Granted his phrasing was a bit aggressive but he's totally right. [editline]8th October 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=wraithcat;48857587]To me it's both really. Idris Elba would be amazing as a 008 or some american CIA agent or someone not Bond. He could never be a Bond to me though. Similarly like I can't see a black or female doctor who. It just doesn't fit or mesh well with the archetype I've got in my head.[/QUOTE] Elba is a fuckton more suave than Craig I'm surprised Craig even got the role he just seems like a brick wall of emotion compared to previous Bonds.

He was the best bond in my opinion, but I preferred his role in Layer Cake.

[QUOTE=Jund;48857796]because the movie bonds are very different beyond just being white males?[/QUOTE] They still all fit the requisite for a "Bond."

[QUOTE=karlosfandango;48858469]They still all fit the requisite for a "Bond."[/QUOTE] no they don't, they're all different from fleming's original bond he even changed his bond to be more like sean connery m-muh bond

Michael Fassbender would do well as Bond. He's got all it takes, and he's become insanely popular due to the recent X-Men films.

[QUOTE=Jund;48858515]no they don't, they're all different from fleming's original bond he even changed his bond to be more like sean connery m-muh bond[/QUOTE] depends on your requisite.

Craig was a fucking fantastic Bond and his words don't change my opinion, he's just acting more like Bond imo

Daniel Craig will always look more like a Russian villain than James Bond to me.

[QUOTE=Marden;48856765]Tom Cruise[/QUOTE] That would probably make an interesting bond.

[QUOTE=spekter;48858218]Elba is a fuckton more suave than Craig I'm surprised Craig even got the role he just seems like a brick wall of emotion compared to previous Bonds.[/QUOTE] I actually liked that about Craig. His Bond hides his emotions and actually seems like someone with a traumatic past compared to the previous ones (which has been implied and built upon since Casino Royale, moreso with Skyfall and apparently concluded with Spectre); he's not a total womanizer and like someone else said actually shows fear sometimes.

Is it too late to have Clive Owen as Bond? :cry:

Has nobody noticed that he says 'now'? It seems to be 'for the forseeable future', rather than 'never again'. Not saying they won't replace him but it's not a definite.

[QUOTE=karlosfandango;48858609]depends on your requisite.[/QUOTE] stop beating around the bush, it's embarassing

Good, didn't like him much as Bond.

[QUOTE=simkas;48857419]Uhh no he can't? It wouldn't be James Bond if it's a completely different character.[/QUOTE] You do realize that James Bond is just a codename right? I'm pretty sure that's the explanation as to why there are so many different actors for James Bond. There's no reason why Bond can't be a younger character.

[QUOTE=TornadoAP;48861212]You do realize that James Bond is just a codename right? I'm pretty sure that's the explanation as to why there are so many different actors for James Bond. There's no reason why Bond can't be a younger character.[/QUOTE] That's just a fan made theory that was kinda ruined in Skyfall.

[QUOTE=Levelog;48861252]That's just a fan made theory that was kinda ruined in Skyfall.[/QUOTE] It was also kind of invalidated by the continued references to Bonds dead wife even after the actor changes. George Lazenby married her in On Her Majestys Secret Service and Roger Moore visits her grave in For Your Eyes Only, for starters. Spoiler alert for a 45 year old movie.

[QUOTE=Serial_;48861851]It was also kind of invalidated by the continued references to Bonds dead wife even after the actor changes. George Lazenby married her in On Her Majestys Secret Service and Roger Moore visits her grave in For Your Eyes Only, for starters. Spoiler alert for a 45 year old movie.[/QUOTE] james bond is like GTA, yes they are all connected, but you can also argue also that the HD universe of 4,5 is different from the older one with SA, VC and 3

I dont know about anyone else, but i feel like Craig leaving would be a good opportunity to use that old theory, turning James Bond into a codename rather than a person. Have him show up in the next movie, or die at the end of this one, and in tribute, all other 007's use the alias "James Bond" If they want to keep continuity, anyway.

[QUOTE=AaronM202;48867206]I dont know about anyone else, but i feel like Craig leaving would be a good opportunity to use that old theory, turning James Bond into a codename rather than a person. Have him show up in the next movie, or die at the end of this one, and in tribute, all other 007's use the alias "James Bond" If they want to keep continuity, anyway.[/QUOTE] I think the important thing to remember about James Bond is that they've been making these films since way before crazy fan theories had any chance to spread like they do now. They come from a time when you didn't have to give a shit about continuity, and they really don't give much a shit about it now. The fact of the matter is, if they make another James Bond film with another actor, where it drops you in without any introduction or preamble, I'm 99% sure they will just expect you to accept what is happening on screen as fact. Because James Bond films are just silly action films where stuff blows up and there are a couple of ridiculous set pieces. This is their tradition. People can have their own internal canon all they want, but the films are just made the way they are because they are truthfully. Also if you were going to use that theory, the agents would have to logically go by a different number than 007 each time. The concept of having multiple agents all using the same name and number would be a logistical nightmare that's just my two cents on the matter at least

does this mean we'll finally get the next fincher millenium film?

[QUOTE=EmilioGB;48857574]Meh. He wasn't THAT good of a James Bond actor.[/QUOTE] He was in the best films though. I just watched QoS again and it was pretty solid, it just came after the greatest Bond film of all time.

[QUOTE=evlbzltyr;48857397]Bond is supposed to have been recruited into MI6 due to years in the armed forces, the SBS, the Royal Navy, and being really good at it that shit. Having a "younger" bond would be a stupid fucking idea, since you'd have to set it in a time period where he wasn't in MI6 and therefore straight up wasn't 007.[/QUOTE] Story-wise - yeah, probably. The thing is no one gives a fuck, Bond franchise is an enormous business - you're gonna need someone who for at least 10 years will be able to shoot physically demanding films 8 months a film. In addition you'd rather have someone "who doesn't crack", at least visibly, won't age drastically in the span of few years, so he can still appeal to the widest audience.

They can go to a younger actor but just not "young". Mid 30's is a good age for Bonds.

I want a black Bond just to piss off whiny nerds.

[QUOTE=matt000024;48876002]I want a black Bond just to piss off whiny nerds.[/QUOTE] lol to me the whiny nerds are the ones constantly stamping their feet and screaming about why idris elba isnt bond yet

[QUOTE=dilzinyomouth;48876565]lol to me the whiny nerds are the ones constantly stamping their feet and screaming about why idris elba isnt bond yet[/QUOTE] How about we piss all parties off and make O.J. Simpson the next Bond?