› ›

Where does Bond go after Craig?

1…180181183185186…691

Comments

  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,588
    Personally don’t need Charmain or May… wouldn’t mind Loelia, but she would be a bit redundant. And a better written Tanner…
  • CharmianBondCharmianBond Pett Bottom, Kent
    Posts: 558
    I think the Craig-era going for a more of ensemble with the MI6 squad was a good idea and I hope they bring that forward, as they're able to fit more naturally into the plot whereas I think May and Charmian work best as literary characters. However I would like to restate that if Bond 26 wanted to do a flashback with Charmian, I would totally be down for that as long she's played by Vicky McClure.
  • Since62Since62
    Posts: 1,650
    thedove wrote: »
    I'm not sure there is anything really new here, except the mention of 3 films.

    https://movieweb.com/james-bond-producers-looking-for-a-younger-actor-to-resurrect-franchise/

    Could this mean a Blofeld Trilogy is perhaps being thought of? I would love to see a longer SPECTRE arc and feel it really could be cool to see it on the big screen. I am not suggesting remakes of TB, OHMSS, YOLT. But having three films where Blofeld is the man in the shadows for the first one, becomes the main villain for the middle and the unknown villain of the last one. Course it would potentially leave things with a hell of a cliffhanger.
    thedove wrote: »
    I'm not sure there is anything really new here, except the mention of 3 films.

    https://movieweb.com/james-bond-producers-looking-for-a-younger-actor-to-resurrect-franchise/

    Could this mean a Blofeld Trilogy is perhaps being thought of? I would love to see a longer SPECTRE arc and feel it really could be cool to see it on the big screen. I am not suggesting remakes of TB, OHMSS, YOLT. But having three films where Blofeld is the man in the shadows for the first one, becomes the main villain for the middle and the unknown villain of the last one. Course it would potentially leave things with a hell of a cliffhanger.

    I thought about the same, but it would be tough were the Bond actor to participate in just the trilogy. It sets up so naturally for the beginning of Fleming's TMWTGG. As for the rest of the novel, and as indicated in the film already made, I think the novel could use some "punching up" to make for a good, spectacular Bond film, and that should be quite do-able. Again, though, it calls for the trilogy actor to return for the next film.

    Your thoughts on these aspects would be greatly appreciated.
  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    Posts: 1,351
    Isn't it pretty standard practice to sign a Bond actor to more than just one film? Now granted, "standard practice" 40 or 60 years ago doesn't have to have a lot of bearing about the future of the franchise, but I don't think it's anything out of the ordinary.

    Note also that the quote in the article (which is already like 4 steps removed from any actual source) is that they want him for three films. The aggregator than turns this into a trilogy. It could just be that they are making clear to agents that they will not sign any "one film and then we'll see whether he wants to continue and when he's available"-deals. If you want it, you have to commit to 3 films being your priority, hopefully with a rough timetable attached. Which is a very smart thing to set out outfront. And it tanks any of the "maybe they'll do a one-off" ideas many of us have been playing around with.
  • 007HallY007HallY
    edited August 2022 Posts: 4,273
    Personally, I think the series should lay off SPECTRE for a while now. There are far more interesting concepts for villains and the Craig series was far too referential anyway.

    I'm also of the opinion that the next Bond villain should be an original creation and not tied to a fictional 'supervillain' organisation such as SPECTRE or The Union. It's a bit of an overused trope in spy/action films anyway, and usually when the Bond series tries to come up with an alternative organisation it reverts to becoming another iteration of SPECTRE.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,470
    ImpertinentGoon wrote: »
    Isn't it pretty standard practice to sign a Bond actor to more than just one film? Now granted, "standard practice" 40 or 60 years ago doesn't have to have a lot of bearing about the future of the franchise, but I don't think it's anything out of the ordinary.

    Note also that the quote in the article (which is already like 4 steps removed from any actual source) is that they want him for three films. The aggregator than turns this into a trilogy. It could just be that they are making clear to agents that they will not sign any "one film and then we'll see whether he wants to continue and when he's available"-deals. If you want it, you have to commit to 3 films being your priority, hopefully with a rough timetable attached. Which is a very smart thing to set out outfront. And it tanks any of the "maybe they'll do a one-off" ideas many of us have been playing around with.

    That's true. Connery signed for 6 films and I believe the producers let him go after 5? Moore signed for 5 films. Lazenby is on record of saying he had a 7 year deal on the table which would have meant 3-4 more films. For some reason with Dalton it might have changed? I suppose I was just excited that they would plan out a story arc and I grabbed onto the Blofeld trilogy as the obvious one.

    If they are going to do a story arc with the films, for God sakes plan it out properly and lets not retcon things and change previous films to fit the new narrative.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited August 2022 Posts: 3,800
    James Bond 'set to be on screens until at least 2037 as bosses sign a new deal taking 007 to its 75th birthday'

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-11130865/amp/James-Bond-set-screen-2037-new-deal.html
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 3,154
    At least three more films then...cough...
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,243
    Lazenby had a 7 year deal? Now a days that would be 2 films at most.
  • ToTheRightToTheRight
    edited August 2022 Posts: 16,204
    That article implies Idris was fairly close to signing on as Bond then changed his mind.
    If that's the case Purvis and Wade must have written at least a first draft of the script.
    I'm curious how far in the process things really are on the next film? Didn't seem like that long ago Barbara confirmed nothing had been done on B26 yet.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,243
    If only because of age, I don’t think that Idris has ever been considered, much Less was close to signing
    This is a perpetuation of a tabloid story.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,511
    But @talos7 … he’s now on the “unofficial” deciders list!

    Idris Elba will be helping the Bond producers choose the next 007 (sarc)!

    What a load of bull, 😂!!!
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,243
    😂
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,249
    Since BODYGUARD, I have grown rather fond of the idea of Madden as Bond.
  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    Posts: 1,351
    MI6HQ wrote: »
    James Bond 'set to be on screens until at least 2037 as bosses sign a new deal taking 007 to its 75th birthday'

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-11130865/amp/James-Bond-set-screen-2037-new-deal.html

    Is it strange that this is a deal over time and not over a number of films? Couldn't this lead to a situation in which they want to sit the end of the deal out and delay a film so that they can renegotiate for it? I could see Amazon doing something like that.
    It also doesn't say who the "they" is, here. Eon or MGM? MGM have recently made an international distribution deal with WB for all their films from 2023 to 2026 with an additional two year option. To have one specific franchise tied up for an additional 10 years seems weird, doesn't it?
  • Agent_Zero_OneAgent_Zero_One Ireland
    edited August 2022 Posts: 554
    thedove wrote: »
    ImpertinentGoon wrote: »
    Isn't it pretty standard practice to sign a Bond actor to more than just one film? Now granted, "standard practice" 40 or 60 years ago doesn't have to have a lot of bearing about the future of the franchise, but I don't think it's anything out of the ordinary.

    Note also that the quote in the article (which is already like 4 steps removed from any actual source) is that they want him for three films. The aggregator than turns this into a trilogy. It could just be that they are making clear to agents that they will not sign any "one film and then we'll see whether he wants to continue and when he's available"-deals. If you want it, you have to commit to 3 films being your priority, hopefully with a rough timetable attached. Which is a very smart thing to set out outfront. And it tanks any of the "maybe they'll do a one-off" ideas many of us have been playing around with.

    That's true. Connery signed for 6 films and I believe the producers let him go after 5? Moore signed for 5 films. Lazenby is on record of saying he had a 7 year deal on the table which would have meant 3-4 more films. For some reason with Dalton it might have changed? I suppose I was just excited that they would plan out a story arc and I grabbed onto the Blofeld trilogy as the obvious one.

    If they are going to do a story arc with the films, for God sakes plan it out properly and lets not retcon things and change previous films to fit the new narrative.
    Connery was initially signed on for either two or three and then signed back on for the six. Dalton had a three film contract with the option of a fourth, same as Brosnan - it just lapsed/ran out by '94.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,470
    Thanks @Agent_Zero_One that makes sense. I know he was ready to come back for one film, but after the long break Cubby said he would have to do more and that's when he walked away. A shame because I would have liked to have seen where he took the role.
  • TheSkyfallen06TheSkyfallen06 Buenos Aires, Argentina.
    Posts: 1,122
    This Is From A While Ago, But It's Still Interesting:
    https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/james-bond-non-binary-future-producer&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwij-YXTwO35AhWmuZUCHScyDPwQFnoECAkQAg&usg=AOvVaw1n2imiacAPzgk8CGZ7IwIt
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,588
    It's a non-story. The host brought up "non-binary", and Barbara gave a non-political, non-answer.

    Fox is always going to report this kind of thing this way because of their bias.
  • Since62Since62
    Posts: 1,650
    NickTwentyTwo wrote: »
    It's a non-story. The host brought up "non-binary", and Barbara gave a non-political, non-answer.

    Fox is always going to report this kind of thing this way because of their bias.


    "Bi-ias" ? is that a sex-preference term ? Didn't see that coming...oops, sorry about that joke, too...it just slipped on in. OH ! How do I turn this darn thing off ? Remove the batteries ?
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,588
    Hah, maybe it’s “bi-ass”?
  • mattjoesmattjoes Pay more attention to your chef
    Posts: 7,056
    NickTwentyTwo wrote: »
    Hah, maybe it’s “bi-ass”?

    "When one isn't enough."
  • CrabKeyCrabKey
    Posts: 2,022
    I’d like a completely fresh perspective for the next one.[/quote]

    Yes, one in which Bond isn't related to Blofeld.

    That that relationship got the go ahead still boggles my mind. SPECTRE made clear that each Bond exists in parallel universes. They simply cannot be connected.

    I think back to FRWL when Kronsteen says to Blofeld, "Who is Bond compared to Kronsteen." Blofeld could have said, "He's my adopted brother." But he didn't say that because that relationship wasn't remotely hinted by Fleming of any of the films previous to SP and NTTD. What were they thinking? So, no. I hope they never come back.

  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,470
    CrabKey wrote: »
    I’d like a completely fresh perspective for the next one.

    Yes, one in which Bond isn't related to Blofeld.

    That that relationship got the go ahead still boggles my mind. SPECTRE made clear that each Bond exists in parallel universes. They simply cannot be connected.

    I think back to FRWL when Kronsteen says to Blofeld, "Who is Bond compared to Kronsteen." Blofeld could have said, "He's my adopted brother." But he didn't say that because that relationship wasn't remotely hinted by Fleming of any of the films previous to SP and NTTD. What were they thinking? So, no. I hope they never come back.

    [/quote]

    Slight side note, I always thought this was one of the reasons that Blofeld killed Kronsteen over Klebb. His ego thinking he was better than the adversary. A more humble servant might have said "Who is Bond compared to SPECTRE?"
  • Some_Kind_Of_HeroSome_Kind_Of_Hero
    Posts: 6,844
    CrabKey wrote: »
    I think back to FRWL when Kronsteen says to Blofeld, "Who is Bond compared to Kronsteen." Blofeld could have said, "He's my adopted brother." But he didn't say that because that relationship wasn't remotely hinted by Fleming of any of the films previous to SP and NTTD. What were they thinking? So, no. I hope they never come back.

    Kronsteen: "Who is Bond compared to Kronsteen?"
    Blofeld: "Hey, watch how you're talking about my little brother."
  • ByRoyalDecreeByRoyalDecree
    edited September 2022 Posts: 784
    I think the films that do not jump from one location to the next every 10 minutes, and manage to make them part of the story tend to be better.

    I also like the unique act structure in CR, where the poker tournament was like Its own film. A normal flick could have ended at any point after, but they kept postponing the ending and made sure to finish up every character arc and cut it at the cliffhanger with Bond finding Mr. White. (Which set up the best opening in the franchise (the car chase in QoS).
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,201
    CR’s ending wasn’t a cliffhanger.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited September 2022 Posts: 3,800
    MakeshiftPython wrote: »
    CR’s ending wasn’t a cliffhanger.
    Yes, it wasn't, Daniel Craig gave his introduction, shoots Mr. White back to basics mission, the end, he's now James Bond 007.
    Even in the book, yes, it ends with Vesper's death, but Bond already find a closure in the end with that Bitch is dead line.
  • StamperStamper
    Posts: 391
    That's all nice and fine, but in the end, I said it before, I'll say it again: the next James Bond will be Timothée Chalamet. Quote me on that going a few years back when it's official.
  • CrabKeyCrabKey
    Posts: 2,022



    thedove wrote: »
    CrabKey wrote: »
    I’d like a completely fresh perspective for the next one.



    Slight side note, I always thought this was one of the reasons that Blofeld killed Kronsteen over Klebb. His ego thinking he was better than the adversary. A more humble servant might have said "Who is Bond compared to SPECTRE?"


    Exactly. One of my favorite scenes. So many memorable moments from those earlier films.
Sign In or Register to comment.