Where does Bond go after Craig?

199100102104105675

Comments

  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,308
    Yeah, I think once there’s a ‘B26’ or the like in these results then they’re starting:
    https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/officers/S-fn_wwzDoscAiw7KWl-vIwbtD4/appointments
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited January 2022 Posts: 6,272
    I don't know at what point Broccoli and Saltzman started trading off films, definitely LALD and TMWTGG. Was OHMSS the last time everyone got along?

    Saltzman's difficulties appear to have started in 1969 when he borrowed money from a Swiss bank to buy shares of Technicolor.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Saltzman

    By the '70s, Bond had a lot of challenges, Lazenby and Connery's departures and Broccoli and Saltzman's in-fighting.

    The financial troubles with UA hadn't yet started; that emerged in the late '70s/early '80s.

    It's a miracle Bond survived. ;)
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,171
    I think it’s generally believed they started alternating after THUNDERBALL. So it goes like:

    YOLT: Cubby
    OHMSS: Harry
    DAF: Cubby
    LALD: Harry
    TMWTGG: Cubby

    Had things continued that way, TSWLM would have been run by Saltzman. Would be interesting to see how that turned out.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,308
    I'd totally forgotten about the alternating-films thing. If that pattern is correct then it's hard not to think Harry was actually getting a higher hit rate! Until TSWLM came along of course.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,308
    Why's everyone suddenly talking about race swaps?
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited January 2022 Posts: 6,272
    mtm wrote: »
    I'd totally forgotten about the alternating-films thing. If that pattern is correct then it's hard not to think Harry was actually getting a higher hit rate! Until TSWLM came along of course.

    It was news to me last year when I read Moore's LALD diary.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,546
    mtm wrote: »
    Why's everyone suddenly talking about race swaps?

    This forum in a nutshell.
  • edited January 2022 Posts: 2,264
    mtm wrote: »
    Why's everyone suddenly talking about race swaps?

    Lol how embarrassing, posted this in the wrong thread XD. Meant to post this in the “Who Should/Could Be The Next Bond” Thread after that huge paragraph someone posted there.
  • Posts: 1,629
    I’d argue that the tonal shift actually began in Goldfinger with the hiring of Guy Hamilton.[/quote]

    Quite so ! I think it is fair, though, to characterize the tonal shift in the 1970s as being much more pronounced.

  • edited January 2022 Posts: 2,264
    Since62 wrote: »
    Quite so ! I think it is fair, though, to characterize the tonal shift in the 1970s as being much more pronounced.

    Oh absolutely
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    Just imagine a Bong Joon-ho Bond movie…

  • Posts: 12,460
    matt_u wrote: »
    Just imagine a Bong Joon-ho Bond movie…


    I feel like that would either be the absolute best or worst Bond film.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,171
    I can think of worse directors.

    If Lee Tamahori and Marc Forster got the gig again, I’d be very concerned.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
  • LucknFateLucknFate 007 In New York
    edited January 2022 Posts: 1,636
    matt_u wrote: »

    Shocked he is doing this right as the movie is in a sensitive time position for awards season. I know he isn't nominated for anything, but it's hurting his coworkers' chances. To some fans, he's lucky this scene existed at all; I'd have cut anything with the characters in their personal homes. And I'm gay.

    Having Bond flirt with Silva did more for gay audiences than anything they could ever do with Q. It's the hard truth, but he needs to be aware of the role he plays and not let it distract from the greater story.

    I don't think this guarantees Ben is done, and maybe this is his way of making sure Q has more to do if he does decide to return with the next actor? This could be a warning shot from him: I want a bigger role.

    What else would they have done with his boyfriend in NTTD? Have them show up as a couple to Bond's funeral? Does anyone really want that scene?
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,308
    LucknFate wrote: »
    matt_u wrote: »

    Shocked he is doing this right as the movie is in a sensitive time position for awards season. I know he isn't nominated for anything, but it's hurting his coworkers' chances. To some fans, he's lucky this scene existed at all; I'd have cut anything with the characters in their personal homes. And I'm gay.

    Oh I enjoyed that scene. And the later one in M's office where Q feigns surprise is one of the funnier moments - I really love Bond's reaction.
    LucknFate wrote: »
    What else would they have done with his boyfriend in NTTD? Have them show up as a couple to Bond's funeral? Does anyone really want that scene?

    I guess he's thinking more in terms of it being a bit of a breakthrough moment in a 007 film (yes, I know: Wint & Kidd, but they were baddies and it wasn't an entirely progressive portrayal) rather than having a specific plot in mind.
    But it kind of makes a nice little trilogy of unseen offscreen partners after 'Penny's in Spectre and M's in CR.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    This statement by Ben really annoyed me. Bond movies don’t need “more Q”… let’s not even talk about “more Q private life”.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,308
    I don't see it's anything to be annoyed about. He said he decided against pursuing it, he just felt it would have been nice to do something with it. Most actors want their characters to have a bit more life, I'm sure.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    His comment doesn't make any sense, especially now. What did he expect? Lol. He said it was "unsatisfying". His character already has "more life" in 3 films than Benji in M:I, even if he plays a smaller role with way less action.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited January 2022 Posts: 3,147
    He's out of contract - he doesn't have to be guarded about Bond anymore. Not as funny as when Craig bit the hand that fed by saying he'd rather slit his wrists, though!
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited January 2022 Posts: 16,308
    matt_u wrote: »
    His comment doesn't make any sense, especially now.

    Yes it does. What doesn't make sense?
    matt_u wrote: »
    What did he expect? Lol.

    For it to go somewhere. He says that.
    matt_u wrote: »
    He said it was "unsatisfying". His character already has "more life" in 3 films than Benji in M:I, even if he plays a smaller role with way less action.

    Great. I'm not sure what your point is.
    He's just saying he would have liked it to go somewhere but was happy to leave it because he knew it wasn't worth raising as an issue on a film like this. I'm not sure what the problem is.
    Don't forget this isn't some big statement he's issued: it's just a passing thought in an interview which has been pulled out as a news item by another outlet.

    All Bond fans do is carp on about how awful everyone who makes the films are, from Purvis & Wade to the Broccolis to the tea ladies; but the second any of them expresses just the mildest touch of disappointment in a script themselves, they're suddenly terrible.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    edited January 2022 Posts: 4,343
    mtm wrote: »
    All Bond fans do is carp on about how awful everyone who makes the films are, from Purvis & Wade to the Broccolis to the tea ladies; but the second any of them expresses just the mildest touch of disappointment in a script themselves, they're suddenly terrible.

    Speak for yourself.
    mtm wrote: »
    Yes it does. What doesn't make sense?

    For it to go somewhere, in a Bond film.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,205
    I've no interest in the private lives of Q, Moneypenny etc. but at the end of the day, Wishaw's a well known, highly regarded actor and naturally wants to have good material to work with. From his perspective, I don't think he's out of line for hoping for more to do rather than just being someone who drives the plot.

    This is part of why I'd rather have less well-known names in those roles to begin with. Having big names makes the films want to use them more and naturally makes the actors want to do more.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,171
    Whishaw has already said this is his final appearance a few months ago. He’s not coming back. He’s not like Desmond Llewelyn where he has little else going on his career.

    This is why I concur with @CraigMooreOHMSS that EON should just hire smaller names for the MI6 crew. However, I think casting Judi Dench and John Cleese back in the 90s set a precedent for casting known names and EON isn’t gonna change that unless there’s change in management.
  • LucknFateLucknFate 007 In New York
    edited January 2022 Posts: 1,636
    If they can get a name actor in a role, they'll go for it. If it isn't Whishaw, they'll find someone else, but the role is not going to grow substantially. Whatever actor/actress would be lucky to have them return to in-depth gadget briefs with actual stakes and consequences for the gadgets later in the movie. I'd advice whoever plays the next Q. role gets very friendly with the writing teams.

    He has a right to make complaints and public comments, but it makes me question his perspective on the whole Bond family dynamic. With Eon you're smart to just want to be along for the ride, focus on the people behind it. Bond ironically objects to vanity rather efficiently. I see little value for the actor in vocalizing half-hearted sentiments so soon after the fact, for him or for me.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited January 2022 Posts: 16,308
    matt_u wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    All Bond fans do is carp on about how awful everyone who makes the films are, from Purvis & Wade to the Broccolis to the tea ladies; but the second any of them expresses just the mildest touch of disappointment in a script themselves, they're suddenly terrible.

    Speak for yourself.

    I'm not the one complaining about the person in a Bond film! :))
    matt_u wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Yes it does. What doesn't make sense?

    For it to go somewhere, in a Bond film.

    I still don't know what you're saying doesn't make sense.
    I've no interest in the private lives of Q, Moneypenny etc. but at the end of the day, Wishaw's a well known, highly regarded actor and naturally wants to have good material to work with. From his perspective, I don't think he's out of line for hoping for more to do rather than just being someone who drives the plot.

    This is part of why I'd rather have less well-known names in those roles to begin with. Having big names makes the films want to use them more and naturally makes the actors want to do more.

    I'm not sure I'd say Whishaw was a huge name beforehand, I doubt most cinemagoers in the US would have known him in 2012. He had an excellent career already, but then someone like Bernard Lee wasn't exactly new to films when the Bond series started (Dr No appears to have been his 65th film!).

    If every actor is thinking about their individual character and how to improve it then I'm not sure how that makes the film somehow worse. He quite clearly states in this interview that he'd have liked it to go somewhere but knew this film wasn't the sort of film where that could happen and he didn't pursue it. Now we've got fans having a go at him for daring to think on the set, inside his own head and nowhere else, that he'd have liked a minor plot to go somewhere.
    Sorry, I'm a bit angry about the shambles going on in a big famous house in London today, so it means I haven't really got much patience with people criticising someone for doing their job properly for a change.

    LucknFate wrote: »
    He has a right to make complaints and public comments, but it makes me question his perspective on the whole Bond family dynamic. With Eon you're smart to just want to be along for the ride, focus on the people behind it. Bond ironically objects to vanity rather efficiently. I see little value for the actor in vocalizing half-hearted sentiments so soon after the fact, for him or for me.

    Just ignore it then! :) It doesn't matter!
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    edited January 2022 Posts: 8,205
    Whishaw has already said this is his final appearance a few months ago. He’s not coming back. He’s not like Desmond Llewelyn where he has little else going on his career.

    This is why I concur with @CraigMooreOHMSS that EON should just hire smaller names for the MI6 crew. However, I think casting Judi Dench and John Cleese back in the 90s set a precedent for casting known names and EON isn’t gonna change that unless there’s change in management.

    I think you're probably right there, for better or for worse. It's not really a wrong approach either - it's just not one that interests me all that much.
    mtm wrote: »
    I'm not sure I'd say Whishaw was a huge name beforehand, I doubt most cinemagoers in the US would have known him in 2012. He had an excellent career already, but then someone like Bernard Lee wasn't exactly new to films when the Bond series started (Dr No appears to have been his 65th film!).

    Whishaw was pretty well known in the UK though, I think. Maybe not a superstar, by any means, but a respected dramatic actor. He'd even killed a future James Bond! :) I'd seen him in quite a few things before Skyfall came around. Granted, they were mostly supporting roles.
    mtm wrote: »
    If every actor is thinking about their individual character and how to improve it then I'm not sure how that makes the film somehow worse. He quite clearly states in this interview that he'd have liked it to go somewhere but knew this film wasn't the sort of film where that could happen and he didn't pursue it. Now we've got fans having a go at him for daring to think on the set, inside his own head and nowhere else, that he'd have liked a minor plot to go somewhere.
    Sorry, I'm a bit angry about the shambles going on in a big famous house in London today, so it means I haven't really got much patience with people criticising someone for doing their job properly for a change.

    Yeah, I don't think it's fair at all to have a go at Whishaw for wanting to bring something to it; that is, as you say, his job and he's very good at it. For me, it doesn't really make the film better or worse - it's just indicative of a direction that isn't really to my taste (or to put it another way, a reason why I want to see a Bond film). The Moneypenny scene in SP was a bit of a groaner for me as well, for similar reasons; although part of that was simply down to the execution of it. Of all places, in the middle of an action scene? But anyway, I digress.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited January 2022 Posts: 16,308
    mtm wrote: »
    I'm not sure I'd say Whishaw was a huge name beforehand, I doubt most cinemagoers in the US would have known him in 2012. He had an excellent career already, but then someone like Bernard Lee wasn't exactly new to films when the Bond series started (Dr No appears to have been his 65th film!).

    Whishaw was pretty well known in the UK though, I think. Maybe not a superstar, by any means, but a respected dramatic actor. He'd even killed a future James Bond! :) I'd seen him in quite a few things before Skyfall came around. Granted, they were mostly supporting roles.

    I think if we're saying they shouldn't employ respected dramatic actors then the films are going to go downhill fast! :D
    mtm wrote: »
    If every actor is thinking about their individual character and how to improve it then I'm not sure how that makes the film somehow worse. He quite clearly states in this interview that he'd have liked it to go somewhere but knew this film wasn't the sort of film where that could happen and he didn't pursue it. Now we've got fans having a go at him for daring to think on the set, inside his own head and nowhere else, that he'd have liked a minor plot to go somewhere.
    Sorry, I'm a bit angry about the shambles going on in a big famous house in London today, so it means I haven't really got much patience with people criticising someone for doing their job properly for a change.

    Yeah, I don't think it's fair at all to have a go at Whishaw for wanting to bring something to it; that is, as you say, his job and he's very good at it. For me, it doesn't really make the film better or worse - it's just indicative of a direction that isn't really to my taste (or to put it another way, a reason why I want to see a Bond film). The Moneypenny scene in SP was a bit of a groaner for me as well, for similar reasons; although part of that was simply down to the execution of it. Of all places, in the middle of an action scene? But anyway, I digress.

    Yeah I don't think it was the idea of Moneypenny having a life that was the problem with that scene, it was just in the wrong place, as you say.
    I think actors looking after their characters has always made the films better. If Desmond Llewelyn had decided to just give up on that idea that Guy Hamilton gave him of disliking Bond because he broke his gadgets and just start reading the lines aloud again, the films would have lost a bit of gold.
    As it is, crucially this is something which Whishaw didn't even ask for. He knew it wasn't right for the film and wouldn't have happened, he actually agrees with everyone criticising the idea. He'd have just liked it to satisfy himself, that's all.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,205
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    I'm not sure I'd say Whishaw was a huge name beforehand, I doubt most cinemagoers in the US would have known him in 2012. He had an excellent career already, but then someone like Bernard Lee wasn't exactly new to films when the Bond series started (Dr No appears to have been his 65th film!).

    Whishaw was pretty well known in the UK though, I think. Maybe not a superstar, by any means, but a respected dramatic actor. He'd even killed a future James Bond! :) I'd seen him in quite a few things before Skyfall came around. Granted, they were mostly supporting roles.

    I think if we're saying they shouldn't employ respected dramatic actors then the films are going to go downhill fast! :D

    Well that's fine: but for me, expanding characters that I don't have much interest in seeing expanded is another way for them to go downhill! So it's a tough one to balance.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited January 2022 Posts: 16,308
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    I'm not sure I'd say Whishaw was a huge name beforehand, I doubt most cinemagoers in the US would have known him in 2012. He had an excellent career already, but then someone like Bernard Lee wasn't exactly new to films when the Bond series started (Dr No appears to have been his 65th film!).

    Whishaw was pretty well known in the UK though, I think. Maybe not a superstar, by any means, but a respected dramatic actor. He'd even killed a future James Bond! :) I'd seen him in quite a few things before Skyfall came around. Granted, they were mostly supporting roles.

    I think if we're saying they shouldn't employ respected dramatic actors then the films are going to go downhill fast! :D

    Well that's fine: but for me, expanding characters that I don't have much interest in seeing expanded is another way for them to go downhill! So it's a tough one to balance.

    Did you think Q got a huge amount of character development in this one then? It didn't seem to be massively about him to me, he just had a bit of comedy business and it added some variety to what would have been another lab scene.
    I guess we didn't need to see M's house and that he likes butterfly collecting in OHMSS, but it seemed brief enough.
Sign In or Register to comment.