It's not 100% confirmed, but
it certainly looks as though Craig is out, and will surely take Waltz with him, as the latter has said he'd only return if the former does.
Deadline also says that 5'7"
Tintin actor Jamie Bell
has had discussions with 007 producer Barbara Broccoli. So, let the post-Craig era speculation begin!
Myself, I stand by what I wrote
over a year ago:
Fleming was heavily inspired by WWII for his hero's derring-do. Maybe the next series after Craig should reintroduce the character as a commando in his 20s at the height of the war, and have the first installment be a cross between a traditional Bond movie and a classic war caper like The Dam Busters, something requiring his upper-class suavity in addition to traditional soldiering grit. Said reboot could then end with the war ending, and Bond being recruited into MI6.
Because the more I think on it, the weirder Casino Royale's introduction of Bond as a late-30s rookie gets. What was he doing prior to scoring his two kills? He was a Commander in the Royal Navy... but never killed anyone? Or did military kills not count?
Bring on the period Bond, I say!
I think there's a world of difference between killing in self defence and/or during battle, and being dispatched with an 8x10 photo of someone and being told to coldly murder them. Plus I imagine it's not always easy to know if you've killed someone in the heat of battle. Maybe you only wounded them, maybe they actually died from someone else's bullet etc.. You can make an argument that its only semantics but there is a difference between assassin and solider, certainly a world of difference in how you reconcile or compartmentalise being that person.
Plus you have to consider how much combat a Royal Naval officer might have actually seen prior to Casino Royale. He wasn't a squaddie, wasn't a pair of boots on the ground unless he was SBS (which would make a lot of sense) but even then oft times special forces these days isn't so much about firefights as illuminating targets for smart bombs, so even if he was SBS he might have caused people to die rather than killing them himself.
The idea of period Bond does appeal, and starting with him in his twenties would potentially give a lot of scope for the franchise to tell a variety of stories moving forward from the 1940s to the 50s and 60s. But...
First off they've just done the rookie Bond, just spent several films showing his evolution from new 007 agent to grizzled veteran, shown how the death of Vesper screwed him up, introduced a new M and reintroduced Q and Moneypenny, so going back and telling that story again is going to seem repetitious (but then again repetition as well as evolution is one of the ways the franchise has lasted this long).
Secondly as has been indicated, a period setting might put people off. I loved the Man from UNCLE (it was certainly more fun and less bloated than Spectre) but it didn't do well. Of course then you have things like X-Men First Class and Captain America the First Avenger that prove period can sell.
Frankly I don't think they'd have the balls to do it. There's too much money tied up in the franchise for them to try something that radical. Maybe I'll be proven wrong but I doubt it.
If Craig has left I will be sad to see him go, because he has been a fantastic Bond (even if he's a grumpy sod) but it is a chance to strip down the franchise.
I wrote a blog on what I'd like to see from the next Bond film if anyone's interested
Irrespective of who the next Bond is I'd lay money that that person will be 007 from the start, maybe a younger agent but one who's been a 00 for a while, and there'll be no callbacks to Craig's era (other than Finnes, Harris, Whishaw and maybe Kinnear). So I also expect it to be set in the present day. The only thing I'm fuzzy on is whether they'll stick with the grittiness or whether they'll lighten things a tad. Given Kingsman was hands down the best spy film of 2015 I wouldn't be surprised if they tack
slightly towards a more Brosnan/Moore interpretation.
As for who the next Bond will be I think people can rule out Elba or anyone else who's already in their mid forties or even older. Yes Moore was that age but the rigours of the franchise are tougher now, people are less accepting of an old man as a super spy, plus now they seem to have segued into a three yearly pattern of films an actor will age real fast, relatively speaking. I doubt they'll go with Hiddleston because I doubt he'd tie himself down to the role, he's very much in demand and whilst I like him a lot, I can't see him as Bond, he's too posh. By contrast I think Tom Hardy's too rough, plus he's again well in demand and has a Mad Max franchise now.
Jamie Bell is a curious one, and I can see it to an extent, but he still looks too young (same with Taron Egerton and John Boyega). Yes Connery was 32 in Dr No and Lazenby only 29, but I think men just looked older younger back then!
Henry Cavill would be good, but you would really be venturing into Brosnan/Moore territory, though I have to say that might not be a bad thing. To paraphrase Harry Hart, remember when spy films were fun?
My top three picks would be Michael Fassbender (who's absolutely perfect so long as he keeps his accent consistent!) Aiden Turner (who has that whole Timothy Dalton ice cold killer/matinee idol thing going on) and my leftfield choice is Cillian Murphy.
I'm kinda hoping whoever it is is an unknown who doesn't bring any baggage though, although given how much is tied up in the franchise what I said earlier holds true, they might not have the bottle to do that these days.
)
