Kristatos wrote:I'd rather have a soft reboot when we get a new Bond. New M, new Q, new Moneypenny, new Leiter, and no references to Brofeld or M dying. That way, the Craig films can exist in their own pocket universe, and Bond 26 can be a continuation of the real Bond franchise.
Very, very much agreed.
Omega wrote:Not sure what will be left of the franchise when craig leaves. What I’m truly afraid of is babs will buy the digital rights to Craig’s image and keep stuntmen acting out his scenes with cgi Craig in the lead. If he stays on as a producer it’d be just as bad.
There's going to be more and more of this as the tech improves and gets cheaper and faster. For iconic actors, part of me thinks it's great, but another part is thinking because it's not really them driving the facial expressions, motions and tones of voice, it's something of a travesty. I expect AI will get very good at copying the mannerisms of the original actors. This has already been achieved to some extent, but it's not seamless yet. It worked well with Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jeff Bridges but in both cases they still had the original actors (and their blessing). If Babs was seriously going to attempt to do this with Craig's likeness then why not a virtual Sean or Roger instead? Still, if it was scripted, produced and directed as a Craig-Bond, just with Sean's or Roger's likenesses, what a hideous insult that would be!
Maybe fifty years from now people will just choose which of their favorite actors they want to drop in to the latest movie when they watch it!
Omega wrote:But the odds of it happening are slim and the odds of a soft reset would be hard to do in anyone’s hands but a master story teller.
I agree the odds are slim but it's easy enough to do. At least in the classic movies, each Bond story was pretty self-contained, so actors and details could just change without explicit reference to the fact that they had.