It wouldn't be. If you are talking about Cavill as Bond in 2006 then he is too young and he would have had little-to-no influence in meaningfully stopping what the Bond of the Craig run was like. If you are talking about Cavill as Bond in 2026 then there is no reason to think that it will not be more of the same attitude as the Craig-era - and you merely have to look at The Witcher to see Cavill's limited ability to influence direction.
Craig was the sole driving force of why the movies were shit, anon. i suggest you read up on this. he pushed all the homosexualry and grimdark. Barbara has no problem with letting Bond be Bond evident by her handling of the Brosnan era but she's still a dumb woman who let Daniel Craig be a producer and have creative control. Without Craig there to facilitate insane decisions, the movies would be better.
Exactly, anon. Which is why people need to stop doomposting about Bond 26. I am more hopeful about the franchise than ever. Craig is gone and so is the cancer he was. ATJ is an unconventional choice but having seen Bullet Train? Yeah, he could do. He won't be the James Bond we are familiar with (Sean, Pierce, Roger) but like Moore after Connery reinvented the character in tasteful ways (in his first two he only wore suits, smoked cigars and was more of a gentleman than a brawler) then so can ATJ. He'll be the successor to Brosnan style Bond. Like you said, Cavill had no presence in movies until something clicked in MI. Bullet Train was this for ATJ. He was the only one with screen presence and looked great in a suit. If he fixes his style and deepens his voice, he'll be a great 007.
Anon, why have you decided to dedicate your time on Cinemaphile to forcing this meme that charisma void Aaron Taylor Johnson will be the next Bond? What do you get from this? The second the actual casting is announced all this time and effort you've wasted into promoting ATJ will be diminished.
I hope ATJ is good and all, but it's most likely the Craig obsessed schizo coping early that the franchise can't stoop any lower when it most likely will. Again, hopefully it doesn't, but the odds are low.
3 months ago
Anonymous
It can't get any worse and you know it. NTTD went through all the pozzible pozz in one.
3 months ago
Anonymous
You're as dishonest as they come, anon. Hopefully the next trans Bond will be up your alley.
I don't care about ATJ in any way shape or form personally and I'm not shilling him. Bond 26 news are barren as hell and he's apparently the frontrunner. If you're a Bond fan, it's pretty depressing right now. Just spitballing to get some other viewpoints on his casting and hell, I think he could be good. I'm also sure he's 100 percent the guy barring my opinion of him. It just makes too much sense considering his wife and how Barbara is.
Craig only becomes a producer come Spectre, and although he had influence before that it is easy yet wrong to place blame just on him. You can see the shift in approach in the franchise as early as Casino Royale (where Craig's influence would have still been limited) and arguably even signs of what would become the Craig era were developing in the Brosnan era. Even ignore whatever influence Craig, Austin Powers or Jason Bourne had, Bond would probably still get fricked over by the trends that affected the entertainment industry at large during the 2010s.
Craig had massive influence even in CR by virtue of being the guy everyone knew but couldn't say was banging the fricking boss (Barbara) Campbell quit the franchise due to tensions with Craig. He wanted Eva to be showering naked in one scene and they have Bond have sex with her after he kills those africans. Craig refused this and instead had her sit in the shower clothed and he licks her fingers. That's just ONE Instance that's come out. I am sure that Solange was supposed to be the one to come out of the water but Craig had his way with that too. He always had insane influence and by Spectre, they didn't care to hide it and made it public he's a producer with creative control. Yes, female M and TWINE's first two drafts having Bond be a supporting character were egregious but they were just gimmicks that missed, not actual malicious subversion like gay Q, black Moneypenny, bisexual ''Bond'' and a host of other Craig era abominations. The Brosnan era had some moments even more based than Connery's stuff so clearly the franchise was still very much healthy (evident by DAD being the biggest movie of the year then)
He didn't. That poster is unironically lying about a number of those claims.
3 months ago
Anonymous
I am not. All those are things you can EASILY look up online and infer from all the politics surrounding his casting. Barbara was the only one who wanted him. The rest didn't care to even consider him and wanted Cavill who was tailor made for a new origin story Bond as confirmed very recently by a director in the mix to make CR, Matthew Vaughn. I'd tell you to disprove my claims but you can't because one quick Google search would BTFO you.
3 months ago
Anonymous
Except you can't. There is no evidence of Craig having sexual relations with Barbara, Eva didn't want the nude scene and he simply backed her up and I'm not even going to address the rest of your schizo ramblings.
I don't entirely buy the idea that you're a Bond fan and not just some weird obsessive troll.
3 months ago
Anonymous
Maybe not sexual relations (that's a big claim) but fricking LOOK at how she treats him in public appearances, how she BEGGED him to come back over and over despite the rest of EON ready to move on, the fact she was the only reason he was James Bond and that he had a producer credit. Eva not wanting the nude scene is far fetched considering it wasn't even nude (it would have been obscured in the actual movie in the shower) and that IT'S ALL SHE DOES. Secondly, the fact you didn't address them shows you have no counters and just opted out. I'm a James Bond fan all my life and it's insulting for you to claim otherwise. Why do you care, anyway? It's clear you're not even an entry level Bond fan but will butt heads with me over Craig. For what?
3 months ago
Anonymous
Eva said it herself, she didn't feel like the scene was necessary in the way it was written, SHE went to Craig with this take and he backed her up. That's it.
Craig himself has had sex scenes in other movies so it's not like he's above that kind of thing.
Bond movies are PG anyway so it's not like it would've made a huge difference, but again, Eva was the one who suggested a different take.
Each Bond film is a reflection of it's time and of it's production company, and I think it's dishonest of you to claim NTTD is as bad as it can get, knowing the kind of shit that gets released in the current year.
Finding shit to nitpick with a movie series that ended 2 years ago while finding ways to defend movies that haven't been released yet is dishonest.
I don't get the Craig hate. If you were to rate all the Bond movies fairly, the Craig ones would easily be amongst the best. It seems to me people are saying they're bad because they see other people say it. It's just pure bandwagoning. Like the prequel hate 15 years ago. Eventually, the narrative will flip and people will say Craig era was the best.
>I don't get the Craig hate. If you were to rate all the Bond movies fairly, the Craig ones would easily be amongst the best. It seems to me people are saying they're bad because they see other people say it. It's just pure bandwagoning. Like the prequel hate 15 years ago. Eventually, the narrative will flip and people will say Craig era was the best.
Please, PLEASE don't ever post about James Bond ever again. You clearly don't know what you're talking about and are as much a human as ChatGPT with the drivel you typed out. >they're popular guys, IndieWire said so, they're good because...RollingStone said so...what is this? i don't get it.. .you people are incels and are wrong because uhhh....YOU ARE!
It's one of those exclusiveCinemaphile memes like Schumacher Batman being better than Nolan Batman which got repeated so often people started assuming it's reality.
Sure, the Craig movies had some stinkers, but every Bond era did.
Critic ratings aside, even audience ratings prove Craig era was not the worst.
Vox populi vox dei. Anything else is just cope.
You could like the lowest rated Bond movies out of contrarianism but to then imply they're objectively the best won't coincide with reality.
3 months ago
Anonymous
I won't defend Diamonds Are Forever and Moonraker as being some misunderstood masterpieces but they're Bond movies through and through and not malicious subversions. Craig era is taking James Bond and raping him to death, along with his mythos. You don't care about the character so it doesn't register to you. Stop talking about stuff you don't care about.
The Last Jedi was incredibly divisive and pretty much killed the franchise. >NPC Bond
He says while he's quick to praise a Bond he hasn't seen yet (ATJ).
I often times wonder if this entire Craig meme is some kind of weird bait.
Same thing here.
3 months ago
Anonymous
You're a contrarian.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>no argument
Nice condeding.
cavill looks too cartoony to be in a serious bond film
maybe some alternate universe bond film in the comedic 70s would fit him
Much better than Craigslop. He needs to slim down a LOT and given his age, it should be easy. He looks too big for sure but he can slim down.
Say if Cavill did the get the role, I do wonder with if he has become too much of a meme casting that would negatively influence the production of the film and/or expectations of it. Sure, people were calling for Brosnan to take the role when he was Remington Steele however, that was an environment very different to the one we have with the internet and there is the whole notability (or lack of) Cavill's career.
Brosnan did absolute bottom of the barrel stuff before Bond. He's in the exact same boat as Cavill and even battered EON publicly and still got the role because no one else wanted it. If Cavill plays his cards right and distances himself from Argylle and Ministry of whateverhtefrick that movie is does well (Ritchie movies usually make money now) then he has a case to make to EON. Bond should never be under 40. 40 is the sweet spot and Cavill is perfectly at that sweet spot.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>got the role because no one else wanted it.
Is Cavill the only one that wants the role? If not then that is a big difference.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>better than craigslop even though it doesn't exist and you don't know how the writing and directing would actually be
Anti Craiggays are just dishonest.
And this TLJ comparison is incredibly forced.
I don't get the Craig hate. If you were to rate all the Bond movies fairly, the Craig ones would easily be amongst the best. It seems to me people are saying they're bad because they see other people say it. It's just pure bandwagoning. Like the prequel hate 15 years ago. Eventually, the narrative will flip and people will say Craig era was the best.
So you must think The Last Jedi was great and all criticism is void because it made money and has good reviews on NPC sites?
I've seen all the Bond movies and would never rewatch any of the Craig Bonds, but would rewatch almost all of the others even the bad ones. The Craig Bonds just are dull and have no wit or spark.
I can only imagine you are pretty young and grew up with Craig as your first Bond so you are used to him.
Craig is the NPC Bond. Anyone who likes him filters himself out as a bugman who has NEVER had an authentic human emotion or thought.
The Last Jedi was incredibly divisive and pretty much killed the franchise. >NPC Bond
He says while he's quick to praise a Bond he hasn't seen yet (ATJ).
I often times wonder if this entire Craig meme is some kind of weird bait.
I've seen all the Bond movies and would never rewatch any of the Craig Bonds, but would rewatch almost all of the others even the bad ones. The Craig Bonds just are dull and have no wit or spark.
I can only imagine you are pretty young and grew up with Craig as your first Bond so you are used to him.
they should do it and have a scene where he is about to seduce a lady then spergs about dungeons and dragons or whatever it is, and she says "im outta here..."
Say if Cavill did the get the role, I do wonder with if he has become too much of a meme casting that would negatively influence the production of the film and/or expectations of it. Sure, people were calling for Brosnan to take the role when he was Remington Steele however, that was an environment very different to the one we have with the internet and there is the whole notability (or lack of) Cavill's career.
It doesn't fricking matter anymore. None of them were unknowns. Sean did Disney movies, Lazenby only fits that but he was horrible, Roger was a globally known TV star, Pierce had Remington, Dalton had done some big movies, Craig was in Tomb Raider for frick's sake. The myth that Bond should be an unknown is idiotic and unfounded.
Brosnan's career took a massive hit from being u-turned as Bond in 1987 for Dalton and studios lost interest in him because to be cast as Bond and then dropped is quite the bad look, even if it was out of his hands. Just how israelitewood works, I'm afraid.
Cavill is working on Warhammer right now, which he cares about far more than Bond. If he signed up to play Bond that would be a 10+ year commitment to a single franchise. I seriously doubt he wants to do that.
I like Cavill but, the whole >Cavill as Bond would have prevented the franchise turning into what it did
and >Cavill will save Bond
just comes across as cope and deluded Cavill fanboying.
>le 00 origin story
What would be worse is if they try to make a shared interconnected universe with films led by characters other than Bond, especially if they try to backdoor pilot that in the very first film with a new Bond.
He needs to have gone through Casino Royale and two more missions. Say he's in year 3 of being a 00 which is why ATJ might fit. Otherwise, i'd take Dan Stevens though he's 41.
Do you want the films to have interconnectivity the same way the Craig films had? Personally, I by far prefer each Bond film being its own 'episodic' film. You can have references to previous films, even those with other Bond actors - though not the idea that it is a codename but, in the way that all Bond incarnations are the same guy and are perhaps best thought of as alternate versions that have the same background which operates on some sort of floating timeline.
Episodic. No question. The reason Bond movies are still a thing 60 years later is that premise. You can watch either without having to watch the other. So simple yet so ingenious. Even with the same actor. >are perhaps best thought of as alternate versions that have the same background which operates on some sort of floating timeline.
I've always taken them as alternate universes. The 'it's the same exact person' shtick doesn't really land in the continuity. They're all James Bond in different realities. Think of that multiverse concept in capeshit movies but not actually brought up or insinuated. You're just viewing different realities. For me, it's
1. Sean Connery (mandatory)
2. Pierce Brosnan (the only Bond to continue in Sean's spirit and come close to him, feels like the same guy from the 60s but also new)
3. Timothy Dalton (Fleming's Bond in the flesh, a wonderful actor but for me, I prefer the cinematic Bond that's more of an infallible figure)
4. Roger Moore (I preferred him as The Saint and he lasted too long but I love Sir Roger anyhow, may his soul rest in peace)
5. George Lazenby (he did his best, he looked the part on paper somewhat)
6. Daniel Craig (should have never happened and i'm glad it's over despite 20 years of lost time, we move on)
this dude is box office poison
not really. he hasn't headlined a movie as sole lead since 2013 and MOS was quite the success. this is a dumb narrative that doesn't exist.
Your career is over Henry. Closet gay
Remember Immortals?
Yeah, no one does.
Box office poison
A charisma void
Talentless
Has small feminine features (baby hands, tiny penis)
He is a disaster
Small hands
It would be a lot better than that Argylle slop
It wouldn't be. If you are talking about Cavill as Bond in 2006 then he is too young and he would have had little-to-no influence in meaningfully stopping what the Bond of the Craig run was like. If you are talking about Cavill as Bond in 2026 then there is no reason to think that it will not be more of the same attitude as the Craig-era - and you merely have to look at The Witcher to see Cavill's limited ability to influence direction.
Craig was the sole driving force of why the movies were shit, anon. i suggest you read up on this. he pushed all the homosexualry and grimdark. Barbara has no problem with letting Bond be Bond evident by her handling of the Brosnan era but she's still a dumb woman who let Daniel Craig be a producer and have creative control. Without Craig there to facilitate insane decisions, the movies would be better.
This makes sense. She might not have had the confidence to reshape Bond for the new era, and relied too much on Craig for his tainted advice.
Exactly, anon. Which is why people need to stop doomposting about Bond 26. I am more hopeful about the franchise than ever. Craig is gone and so is the cancer he was. ATJ is an unconventional choice but having seen Bullet Train? Yeah, he could do. He won't be the James Bond we are familiar with (Sean, Pierce, Roger) but like Moore after Connery reinvented the character in tasteful ways (in his first two he only wore suits, smoked cigars and was more of a gentleman than a brawler) then so can ATJ. He'll be the successor to Brosnan style Bond. Like you said, Cavill had no presence in movies until something clicked in MI. Bullet Train was this for ATJ. He was the only one with screen presence and looked great in a suit. If he fixes his style and deepens his voice, he'll be a great 007.
Anon, why have you decided to dedicate your time on Cinemaphile to forcing this meme that charisma void Aaron Taylor Johnson will be the next Bond? What do you get from this? The second the actual casting is announced all this time and effort you've wasted into promoting ATJ will be diminished.
I hope ATJ is good and all, but it's most likely the Craig obsessed schizo coping early that the franchise can't stoop any lower when it most likely will. Again, hopefully it doesn't, but the odds are low.
It can't get any worse and you know it. NTTD went through all the pozzible pozz in one.
You're as dishonest as they come, anon. Hopefully the next trans Bond will be up your alley.
I don't care about ATJ in any way shape or form personally and I'm not shilling him. Bond 26 news are barren as hell and he's apparently the frontrunner. If you're a Bond fan, it's pretty depressing right now. Just spitballing to get some other viewpoints on his casting and hell, I think he could be good. I'm also sure he's 100 percent the guy barring my opinion of him. It just makes too much sense considering his wife and how Barbara is.
Craig only becomes a producer come Spectre, and although he had influence before that it is easy yet wrong to place blame just on him. You can see the shift in approach in the franchise as early as Casino Royale (where Craig's influence would have still been limited) and arguably even signs of what would become the Craig era were developing in the Brosnan era. Even ignore whatever influence Craig, Austin Powers or Jason Bourne had, Bond would probably still get fricked over by the trends that affected the entertainment industry at large during the 2010s.
Craig had massive influence even in CR by virtue of being the guy everyone knew but couldn't say was banging the fricking boss (Barbara) Campbell quit the franchise due to tensions with Craig. He wanted Eva to be showering naked in one scene and they have Bond have sex with her after he kills those africans. Craig refused this and instead had her sit in the shower clothed and he licks her fingers. That's just ONE Instance that's come out. I am sure that Solange was supposed to be the one to come out of the water but Craig had his way with that too. He always had insane influence and by Spectre, they didn't care to hide it and made it public he's a producer with creative control. Yes, female M and TWINE's first two drafts having Bond be a supporting character were egregious but they were just gimmicks that missed, not actual malicious subversion like gay Q, black Moneypenny, bisexual ''Bond'' and a host of other Craig era abominations. The Brosnan era had some moments even more based than Connery's stuff so clearly the franchise was still very much healthy (evident by DAD being the biggest movie of the year then)
I didn't know that Graig had so much influence on Casino Royale and the franchise in general
He didn't. That poster is unironically lying about a number of those claims.
I am not. All those are things you can EASILY look up online and infer from all the politics surrounding his casting. Barbara was the only one who wanted him. The rest didn't care to even consider him and wanted Cavill who was tailor made for a new origin story Bond as confirmed very recently by a director in the mix to make CR, Matthew Vaughn. I'd tell you to disprove my claims but you can't because one quick Google search would BTFO you.
Except you can't. There is no evidence of Craig having sexual relations with Barbara, Eva didn't want the nude scene and he simply backed her up and I'm not even going to address the rest of your schizo ramblings.
I don't entirely buy the idea that you're a Bond fan and not just some weird obsessive troll.
Maybe not sexual relations (that's a big claim) but fricking LOOK at how she treats him in public appearances, how she BEGGED him to come back over and over despite the rest of EON ready to move on, the fact she was the only reason he was James Bond and that he had a producer credit. Eva not wanting the nude scene is far fetched considering it wasn't even nude (it would have been obscured in the actual movie in the shower) and that IT'S ALL SHE DOES. Secondly, the fact you didn't address them shows you have no counters and just opted out. I'm a James Bond fan all my life and it's insulting for you to claim otherwise. Why do you care, anyway? It's clear you're not even an entry level Bond fan but will butt heads with me over Craig. For what?
Eva said it herself, she didn't feel like the scene was necessary in the way it was written, SHE went to Craig with this take and he backed her up. That's it.
Craig himself has had sex scenes in other movies so it's not like he's above that kind of thing.
Bond movies are PG anyway so it's not like it would've made a huge difference, but again, Eva was the one who suggested a different take.
Each Bond film is a reflection of it's time and of it's production company, and I think it's dishonest of you to claim NTTD is as bad as it can get, knowing the kind of shit that gets released in the current year.
Finding shit to nitpick with a movie series that ended 2 years ago while finding ways to defend movies that haven't been released yet is dishonest.
I don't get the Craig hate. If you were to rate all the Bond movies fairly, the Craig ones would easily be amongst the best. It seems to me people are saying they're bad because they see other people say it. It's just pure bandwagoning. Like the prequel hate 15 years ago. Eventually, the narrative will flip and people will say Craig era was the best.
>I don't get the Craig hate. If you were to rate all the Bond movies fairly, the Craig ones would easily be amongst the best. It seems to me people are saying they're bad because they see other people say it. It's just pure bandwagoning. Like the prequel hate 15 years ago. Eventually, the narrative will flip and people will say Craig era was the best.
Please, PLEASE don't ever post about James Bond ever again. You clearly don't know what you're talking about and are as much a human as ChatGPT with the drivel you typed out.
>they're popular guys, IndieWire said so, they're good because...RollingStone said so...what is this? i don't get it.. .you people are incels and are wrong because uhhh....YOU ARE!
It's one of those exclusiveCinemaphile memes like Schumacher Batman being better than Nolan Batman which got repeated so often people started assuming it's reality.
Sure, the Craig movies had some stinkers, but every Bond era did.
Critic ratings aside, even audience ratings prove Craig era was not the worst.
>Critic ratings
>audience ratings
Why are you like this? People watched Marvelslop for a decade, their opinions and critics are worth NOTHING.
Vox populi vox dei. Anything else is just cope.
You could like the lowest rated Bond movies out of contrarianism but to then imply they're objectively the best won't coincide with reality.
I won't defend Diamonds Are Forever and Moonraker as being some misunderstood masterpieces but they're Bond movies through and through and not malicious subversions. Craig era is taking James Bond and raping him to death, along with his mythos. You don't care about the character so it doesn't register to you. Stop talking about stuff you don't care about.
Same thing here.
You're a contrarian.
>no argument
Nice condeding.
Much better than Craigslop. He needs to slim down a LOT and given his age, it should be easy. He looks too big for sure but he can slim down.
Brosnan did absolute bottom of the barrel stuff before Bond. He's in the exact same boat as Cavill and even battered EON publicly and still got the role because no one else wanted it. If Cavill plays his cards right and distances himself from Argylle and Ministry of whateverhtefrick that movie is does well (Ritchie movies usually make money now) then he has a case to make to EON. Bond should never be under 40. 40 is the sweet spot and Cavill is perfectly at that sweet spot.
>got the role because no one else wanted it.
Is Cavill the only one that wants the role? If not then that is a big difference.
>better than craigslop even though it doesn't exist and you don't know how the writing and directing would actually be
Anti Craiggays are just dishonest.
And this TLJ comparison is incredibly forced.
So you must think The Last Jedi was great and all criticism is void because it made money and has good reviews on NPC sites?
Craig is the NPC Bond. Anyone who likes him filters himself out as a bugman who has NEVER had an authentic human emotion or thought.
The Last Jedi was incredibly divisive and pretty much killed the franchise.
>NPC Bond
He says while he's quick to praise a Bond he hasn't seen yet (ATJ).
I often times wonder if this entire Craig meme is some kind of weird bait.
I've seen all the Bond movies and would never rewatch any of the Craig Bonds, but would rewatch almost all of the others even the bad ones. The Craig Bonds just are dull and have no wit or spark.
I can only imagine you are pretty young and grew up with Craig as your first Bond so you are used to him.
they should do it and have a scene where he is about to seduce a lady then spergs about dungeons and dragons or whatever it is, and she says "im outta here..."
>about to seduce a lady then spergs about dungeons and dragons or whatever it is, and he says "im outta here..."
Ftfy
Caville has even less charisma than Craig
He looks the part which goes a longer way. Plus, Craig has no charisma so that's not saying much.
cavill looks too cartoony to be in a serious bond film
maybe some alternate universe bond film in the comedic 70s would fit him
This, he's like a cartoon handsome guy. Which works for Superman, not for Bond
Say if Cavill did the get the role, I do wonder with if he has become too much of a meme casting that would negatively influence the production of the film and/or expectations of it. Sure, people were calling for Brosnan to take the role when he was Remington Steele however, that was an environment very different to the one we have with the internet and there is the whole notability (or lack of) Cavill's career.
Cavill is far far more well known than Brosnan was when he was on Remington Steele
And is that a good thing for when it comes to a James Bond actor?
It doesn't fricking matter anymore. None of them were unknowns. Sean did Disney movies, Lazenby only fits that but he was horrible, Roger was a globally known TV star, Pierce had Remington, Dalton had done some big movies, Craig was in Tomb Raider for frick's sake. The myth that Bond should be an unknown is idiotic and unfounded.
Brosnan's career took a massive hit from being u-turned as Bond in 1987 for Dalton and studios lost interest in him because to be cast as Bond and then dropped is quite the bad look, even if it was out of his hands. Just how israelitewood works, I'm afraid.
Cavill is working on Warhammer right now, which he cares about far more than Bond. If he signed up to play Bond that would be a 10+ year commitment to a single franchise. I seriously doubt he wants to do that.
after argyle, theres no chance he ever gets super spy role again.
You know what would have been a kino spy movie, the spies in disguise it looked like we were getting in the first few seconds of the trailer
Cavill simps need to get a fricking life.
Imagine how huge the cards would look in his hands.
I wonder if they'd get a hand double for those scenes.
He cant act
I like Cavill but, the whole
>Cavill as Bond would have prevented the franchise turning into what it did
and
>Cavill will save Bond
just comes across as cope and deluded Cavill fanboying.
Whoever gets the role I hope it starts with Bond as an established agent and doesn't do another le 00 origin story
They will do an origin story of when Bond and Blofeld were kids together
I'm not opposed to an origin story because there hasn't been one in quite a while and it would differentiate this Bond.
>le 00 origin story
What would be worse is if they try to make a shared interconnected universe with films led by characters other than Bond, especially if they try to backdoor pilot that in the very first film with a new Bond.
He needs to have gone through Casino Royale and two more missions. Say he's in year 3 of being a 00 which is why ATJ might fit. Otherwise, i'd take Dan Stevens though he's 41.
Do you want the films to have interconnectivity the same way the Craig films had? Personally, I by far prefer each Bond film being its own 'episodic' film. You can have references to previous films, even those with other Bond actors - though not the idea that it is a codename but, in the way that all Bond incarnations are the same guy and are perhaps best thought of as alternate versions that have the same background which operates on some sort of floating timeline.
Episodic. No question. The reason Bond movies are still a thing 60 years later is that premise. You can watch either without having to watch the other. So simple yet so ingenious. Even with the same actor.
>are perhaps best thought of as alternate versions that have the same background which operates on some sort of floating timeline.
I've always taken them as alternate universes. The 'it's the same exact person' shtick doesn't really land in the continuity. They're all James Bond in different realities. Think of that multiverse concept in capeshit movies but not actually brought up or insinuated. You're just viewing different realities. For me, it's
1. Sean Connery (mandatory)
2. Pierce Brosnan (the only Bond to continue in Sean's spirit and come close to him, feels like the same guy from the 60s but also new)
3. Timothy Dalton (Fleming's Bond in the flesh, a wonderful actor but for me, I prefer the cinematic Bond that's more of an infallible figure)
4. Roger Moore (I preferred him as The Saint and he lasted too long but I love Sir Roger anyhow, may his soul rest in peace)
5. George Lazenby (he did his best, he looked the part on paper somewhat)
6. Daniel Craig (should have never happened and i'm glad it's over despite 20 years of lost time, we move on)