https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/5bcbc68f-561b-3f50-933b-3574828953ef/why-sony-should-replace.html
Daniel Craig’s rocky saga as James Bond has been well-documented in recent years. Following Spectre, the prevailing thought in the industry was that Craig had spent his last turn as 007, passing the torch on to a new actor. There are a whole host of reasons why Sony and Craig should move on, starting with one, unassailable fact: 1.
Is it even Sony's decision? I was under the impression that their deal with EON had concluded and nothing was set in stone about future distributors. And if Sony were to be involved with the decision then I'd imagine they'be be desperate to hang onto Craig given their recent high profile problems with rebooting and recasting in the Spider-Man and Ghostbusters franchises.
It takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place.
Sony can't do anything about that.
shareIt's not SONY's decision to make. Eon films has total creative control over the Bond films. SONY simply distributes and has a role in the finiancing.
shareWe already know that Einstein.
shareToo hard to replace.
Keep him for two more.
I'm motivated by my Duty.
Verily I say unto thee...Craig can easily be replaced by someone who would actually enjoy playing the role.
shareI think that article makes strong points. If Warner Bros, for example, take over and co-finance/distribute Bond 25 they may feel it's time for a change - time for a new, cheaper-to-hire actor. Sam Mendes said Barbara Broccoli has ultimate say over casting, though. It's her decision.
share