Not many, some even cut short (hi, Divergent movies series). Christopher Nolan’s Batman films certainly had a definitive beginning and end, that worked out well for them. Harry Potter. And now Daniel Craig’s Bond.
News Daniel Craig signs up for Bond 25, Christopher Nolan in talks to direct
- Thread starter Mach5
- Start date
How do these relate to your Iron Man example?
They had a beginning and end, much like RDJ as Iron Man from 2008-2019.
But with a huge difference. Iron Man was always meant to be one part of a much larger project. Those movies and that character were designed with such a project in mind. Bond is not like that. Very different.
I’m talking about character evolution, which is not unique to Iron Man (that’s why I brought up the other examples like Bale’s Batman). Craig’s Bond is clearly designed to show growth throughout the films. In CR he’s at the start of his career and is a diamond in the rough. By SP, he’s fully grown into the more sophisticated secret agent we’re familiar with in older films, casually strolling the rooftops of Mexico City before performing a hit, and when he prevents Lucia from being assassinated he acts as if it’s just a stroll through the park. “What a lovely view”
Exactly, character evolution. It makes sense to evolve Tony Stark because there only has to be one Tony Stark. When you develop a character you tend to have an endpoint, and that’s great in the MCU since you can go through all that development and then lose the character when they’re done. Time to move on. You can even have a new ‘Iron Man’ who is not Tony Stark.
Bond isn’t like that. I think it’s a mistake to say that film series aren’t where they were and then point to the MCU.
You’re reading me wrong. I’m NOT talking about cinematic universes. I’m strictly talking about the character journey over the course of several films, which is NOT unique to Iron Man.
When Broccoli and Wilson made the choice to do a hard reboot to the Bond series and character with Casino Royale, they opened themselves up to this sort of character development. Given how conservative they've been with trying to chart a very narrow course between keeping the series true to itself and evolving to meet changing audience tastes, the character arc of Craig's Bond is something they wanted to happen. I have no idea what arc they'll explore with his successor; a lot of that probably depends on who they cast. But I think the days of sort of handwaving that it's been the same man from Dr. No through Die Another Day are over.
You used Iron Man in your main example when taking about how film series have changed, and the cinematic universe aspect is what makes their approach to that character’s development work. Of course developing a character over the course of several movies isn’t new, but in other instances those movie series are planned to end at some point, or else they simply do so naturally when the money stops coming in. Again, Bond isn’t really like that and cannot be like that. It’s always been it’s own unique thing.
Funnily Wilson says he views them as all different Bonds, they just have similar backgrounds and histories but are very much their own. Think of each actor as a soft reboot of sorts. It’s better than trying to claim Brosnan Bond once foiled Dr. No in 1962.
The older Bonds weren’t like that, certainly. But Craig’s Bond is unique from his predecessors that way.
I get that, and certainly the change in tone from actor to actor (though the campy Diamonds are Forever kind of fed into overall tone of the Moore era) would suggest that, yet they're all connected by Tracy (with direct references in The Spy Who Loved Me, For Your Eyes Only, and Licence to Kill, and an oblique one in The World Is Not Enough), something that Craig's Bond doesn't share.
But then Casino Royale ends with Bond being Bond. He walks into frame with a big gun and delivers the franchise’s most well-known line. Im not saying they weren’t open to changes, but that first movie very deliberately ended with the Bond we already knew. It’s not like a character arc was set up so strongly beyond that opening movie, but when they saw it was popular they just seemed to keep going back to it.
Unique in the way he was developed, but not so much in the other ways. This is still a franchise that’s apparently supposed to keep going forever with James Bond as the main character. And look, I’m not opposed to the idea of what they did. Mainly I just don’t think it was very well planned. What I disagree with is the idea that Bond can’t now have standalone movies because of what other movies are doing or due to changing tastes or what have you.
The Bond movies may run long after Craig is done, but Craig’s Bond is actually getting a conclusion. That’s never happened for previous Bonds due to the nature of their stand-alone format.
They won’t continue. They’ll start a whole new arc of some sort instead.
I’ll miss Craig obviously but I’ll also be sad to see Fiennes, Harris, Kinnear and Wishaw go. I suppose it’s possible that they’ll keep them on like Dench remained after Brosnan went, but I’m inclined to think they won’t.
Yeah, as much as I enjoy Craig, I enjoy the supporting cast (Wright, too!) a lot more and will miss them even more than Craig.
Do we know for sure that they're going to replace the supporting cast for Bond 26?
No, I’m just speculating; I mean, if it’s a sort of soft reboot, they could keep them in place around a new 007, just like Bernard Lee, Lois Maxwell, Desmond Llewelyn etc. And even in a clear reboot, they could come back a la Dench (though the Tanner of the Brosnan era was replaced).
But if NTTD is set to mark a definite ending to the Craig-Bond’s arc, my best guess is that these supporting characters, whose respective first encounters and ensuing relationships with this Bond we’ve seen, are likely to be recast with a new supporting cast. Happy to be proven wrong, of course.
Whishaw, for his part, has said that he signed a three-picture deal with Skyfall and doesn't expect to do another.