Where does Bond go after Craig?

11920222425676

Comments

  • I seen a post whereby someone was saying Olivia Coleman should play M (wholeheartedly agree if it come to it. Could be a wonderfully stern but witty character) and it got me thinking, would they ever consider gender swapping moneypenny? I mean I feel they tested the waters slightly with Villiers in Casino Royale - was a largely unnoticed observation on the fact that assistant's and secretaries these days can just as widely and ably be male or female.

    And then I thought, how could that play out? Would there be two straight males in Bond and Mr Moneypenny (doesn't quite have the same ring to it I admit) engaging in "Lad Banter" before Bond proceeds into M's office to get a dressing down. Or. Would they potentially have a gay male Moneypenny, able to test Bond in his wit and show how comfortable Bond is in a modern age with his sexuality. Whilst also potentially retaining the kind of unrequited thing in a new aspect.

    And in all the talk of characters changing, wouldn't the idea of a female Q be intriquing? Tbh I could quite see Olivia Coleman occupying that role too, being incredibly straight faced at Bond's attempts to ridicule any gadgets she prooffers with the wry observation that "women created many a thing 007, including man".

    I mean, I'm very much of the "James Bond is a man" brigade, as that would deviate too widely from the male lead character of the novels if he were not. This extends to other genres too, after all, you wouldn't suddenly get a reimagined female Harry Potter in decades time for example as that would massively change th concept. But I'd have no issue with them to keep playing with the other pieces of the chessboard to try something new. I imagine loads of people would hate these ideas potentially happening in the future of the franchise. But Thoughts?
  • edited August 2019 Posts: 1,661
    This is what I would like to see in Bond 26 (assuming Craig has left the role).

    TITLE: DEATH TO SPIES

    PLOT: SPECTRE or another evil organisation attempt to destroy the 00 division. Robots or advanced AI drones take on the 00s. The 00s all over the world on missions or on rest and recreation. The final act involves many surviving 00s teaming up with Bond to take on the villain in his/her huge base. I don't mind seeing a female 00 agent - I think it's time to see one, but it looks as if No Time To Die will show that so the idea may not seem to fresh in Bond 26.

    Ideally the tone would hark back to YOLT or TSWLM - big sets and escapist action (I'd avoid using too much sepia type camera colour and dark lighting - I'd like to see a bright colourful Bond film) - but you can still have a bit of Craig type Bond introspection. I'd try and avoid too much of "don't make it personal, Bond!" because that seems a bit of a lazy trope but I've got no problem with with a more human Bond. People seem to prefer more flawed heroes so I accept that is unlikely to change.

    Depending on how dramatic you want to go, you could end Bond 26 with the villain defeating most of the 00's - perhaps Bond doesn't win! - and Bond 27 is Bond and M trying to rebuild the division.

    I'd go with robots to push Bond into the 21st century. Bond vs robot killers or drones - this seems the way forward. I would welcome new producers and even a new studio to give the new actor a fresh start. Respect to Eon Productions for all they've done for James Bond but I feel it's time for new creativity. Bond 26 should be the biggest change since Goldeneye when Babs and MG took over.





  • ContrabandContraband Sweden
    Posts: 3,022
    Just gonna throw it out here. If he learns to speak 'brit english', how about Hugh Jackman (australian) as Bond in the future?

  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    Not likely as Jackman is 51.
  • ContrabandContraband Sweden
    Posts: 3,022
    Murdock wrote: »
    Not likely as Jackman is 51.

    He's in damn good shape. Same level as Craig. But sure, he's face might be aging.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,400
    Lets take Bond back to the early films. How about we see some charm and sophistication? An agent who knows the wines and the food. An agent who looks great in a tux and is comfortable in swanky casinos. How about a Bond that still has some charm with the ladies. A man who appreciates the beauty of a lady. A man who will be ruthless one moment and charming the next.

    For God sakes lets not play around with a Mr. Moneypenny, or a female Q (Q'ute from the Gardner books was not a great idea). Lets see an M that is clearly the boss of Bond and who Bond respects but never thumbs his nose at. Lets not have a villain that is somehow personally connected with M or with Bond.

    Lets have some villains who have colour and who are memorable. Give them scenes where we see them in action as the dastardly guys they are. Lets have treacherous women who are out to harm our man.

    Lets have a grand adventure of mindless fun. Trim down the brooding, the reflective Bond who must sit in darkened flats a look over pictures from his childhood.

    Is any of this possible? Would we like to see this, I know I would and I think others are with me.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,767
    I liked some of those touches in Spectre--the skeleton and skull mask disguise, OO7 in the collapse of a building flopping onto a conveniently placed couch, the opera lover Fiat driver, the car gadgets and ejector seat exit, Mickey Mouse dialog and the mouse interrogation, a white cat described as poooooh-see--though those items generated complaints.

  • edited October 2019 Posts: 3,327
    suavejmf wrote: »
    jake24 wrote:
    What direction will the 007 series take after Daniel's helm? Where would Bond go after the Craig era?

    Use as much unused Fleming material as possible and steer clear of any pointless PC casting choices for Bond e.g. Edris Elba etc.

    This is the obvious way to go forward. Its seems plain for everyone to see except EON.

    Firstly, cast an actor who 100% resembles Bond from the novels - dark hair, tall, blue eyes. Cillian Murphy may be a good shout. He has the acting chops and looks of a Dalton-type, yet has the charisma and toughness that exuded Connery and Craig too. Peaky Blinders proves he can play the tough guy and carry the lead.

    Secondly, use up every bit of Fleming left to weave faithfully into the script. There is probably enough material, scenes and characters left to pad into at least three movies. And we all know what novels they are that hasn't been used yet - MR, DAF, TSWLM, YOLT, TMWTGG.

    Thirdly, when the Fleming novels have all been completely exhausted, then give us faithful adaptions of the 2 Horowitz novels - Trigger Mortis and Forever and a Day, and bring in Horowitz as a script consultant to work with the writers. Heaven knows he understands Fleming's Bond world by now, and both of these novels actually use Fleming scenes too.

    No brainer. Job done!

    Next!
  • weboffearweboffear Scotland
    Posts: 51
    Cillian murphy is listed as being 5' 9 '
  • Posts: 19,339
    weboffear wrote: »
    Cillian murphy is listed as being 5' 9 '

    But,as @Torgeirtrap says,he is also 43.
    I think they will aim for a younger actor this time.
  • Posts: 17,740
    barryt007 wrote: »
    weboffear wrote: »
    Cillian murphy is listed as being 5' 9 '

    But,as @Torgeirtrap says,he is also 43.
    I think they will aim for a younger actor this time.

    Agree, @barryt007. I will be surprised if they don't go for an actor aged somewhere between 32-38.
    Thirdly, when the Fleming novels have all been completely exhausted, then give us faithful adaptions of the 2 Horowitz novels - Trigger Mortis and Forever and a Day, and bring in Horowitz as a script consultant to work with the writers. Heaven knows he understands Fleming's Bond world by now, and both of these novels actually use Fleming scenes too.
    Next!

    Can't see his novels in any way being incorporated into a Bond script. However, I would welcome Horowitz as a script writer for future Bond films. The same goes for Mark Gatiss and Steven Moffat.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,340
    barryt007 wrote: »
    weboffear wrote: »
    Cillian murphy is listed as being 5' 9 '

    But,as @Torgeirtrap says,he is also 43.
    I think they will aim for a younger actor this time.

    Agree, @barryt007. I will be surprised if they don't go for an actor aged somewhere between 32-38.
    Thirdly, when the Fleming novels have all been completely exhausted, then give us faithful adaptions of the 2 Horowitz novels - Trigger Mortis and Forever and a Day, and bring in Horowitz as a script consultant to work with the writers. Heaven knows he understands Fleming's Bond world by now, and both of these novels actually use Fleming scenes too.
    Next!

    Can't see his novels in any way being incorporated into a Bond script. However, I would welcome Horowitz as a script writer for future Bond films. The same goes for Mark Gatiss and Steven Moffat.

    I’d love to see what Moffat could come up with for Bond, yeah.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,340
    I seen a post whereby someone was saying Olivia Coleman should play M (wholeheartedly agree if it come to it. Could be a wonderfully stern but witty character) and it got me thinking, would they ever consider gender swapping moneypenny? I mean I feel they tested the waters slightly with Villiers in Casino Royale - was a largely unnoticed observation on the fact that assistant's and secretaries these days can just as widely and ably be male or female.

    And then I thought, how could that play out? Would there be two straight males in Bond and Mr Moneypenny (doesn't quite have the same ring to it I admit) engaging in "Lad Banter" before Bond proceeds into M's office to get a dressing down. Or. Would they potentially have a gay male Moneypenny, able to test Bond in his wit and show how comfortable Bond is in a modern age with his sexuality. Whilst also potentially retaining the kind of unrequited thing in a new aspect.

    And in all the talk of characters changing, wouldn't the idea of a female Q be intriquing? Tbh I could quite see Olivia Coleman occupying that role too, being incredibly straight faced at Bond's attempts to ridicule any gadgets she prooffers with the wry observation that "women created many a thing 007, including man".

    I mean, I'm very much of the "James Bond is a man" brigade, as that would deviate too widely from the male lead character of the novels if he were not. This extends to other genres too, after all, you wouldn't suddenly get a reimagined female Harry Potter in decades time for example as that would massively change th concept. But I'd have no issue with them to keep playing with the other pieces of the chessboard to try something new. I imagine loads of people would hate these ideas potentially happening in the future of the franchise. But Thoughts?

    Female Q and male Moneypenny/assistant? Sure; as you say, we already had Villiers and there was nothing weird with that. As long as they cast them well (and it must be said, I think the current MI6 team is possibly the best group of actors they’ve had in the roles) then I don’t see any issue with any of those. Having a female M didn’t make the sky fall (ho ho) and actually reinvigorated the character because the actress chosen was so good, so there’s no reason the same can’t happen there.
    As you say though, Bond is, of course, a man.
  • WhyBondWhyBond USA
    Posts: 69
    Six actors over a span of near 60 years. There is basically no more ways the new actor can innovate the character. Reading the comments it seems most want a return to the Connery era but to the mainstream public it's outdated and the proof is in the backlash over the Brosnan films because they didn't innovate and redid 007 in the Connery mold.
    I can see Bond becoming part of streaming or a period piece.
    If EON modernizes Bond too much then Bind will not be Bind anymore.
  • Posts: 19,339
    WhyBond wrote: »
    Six actors over a span of near 60 years. There is basically no more ways the new actor can innovate the character. Reading the comments it seems most want a return to the Connery era but to the mainstream public it's outdated and the proof is in the backlash over the Brosnan films because they didn't innovate and redid 007 in the Connery mold.
    I can see Bond becoming part of streaming or a period piece.
    If EON modernizes Bond too much then Bind will not be Bind anymore.

    Bind ?!

    Kinky.

  • ResurrectionResurrection Kolkata, India
    Posts: 2,541
    WhyBond wrote: »
    Six actors over a span of near 60 years. There is basically no more ways the new actor can innovate the character. Reading the comments it seems most want a return to the Connery era but to the mainstream public it's outdated and the proof is in the backlash over the Brosnan films because they didn't innovate and redid 007 in the Connery mold.
    I can see Bond becoming part of streaming or a period piece.
    If EON modernizes Bond too much then Bind will not be Bind anymore.

    In don't think it is fair to compare Brosnan era with Connery era . Connery films started on a much realistic approach.
  • Posts: 6,709
    thedove wrote: »
    Lets take Bond back to the early films. How about we see some charm and sophistication? An agent who knows the wines and the food. An agent who looks great in a tux and is comfortable in swanky casinos. How about a Bond that still has some charm with the ladies. A man who appreciates the beauty of a lady. A man who will be ruthless one moment and charming the next.

    For God sakes lets not play around with a Mr. Moneypenny, or a female Q (Q'ute from the Gardner books was not a great idea). Lets see an M that is clearly the boss of Bond and who Bond respects but never thumbs his nose at. Lets not have a villain that is somehow personally connected with M or with Bond.

    Lets have some villains who have colour and who are memorable. Give them scenes where we see them in action as the dastardly guys they are. Lets have treacherous women who are out to harm our man.

    Lets have a grand adventure of mindless fun. Trim down the brooding, the reflective Bond who must sit in darkened flats a look over pictures from his childhood.

    Is any of this possible? Would we like to see this, I know I would and I think others are with me.

    Post of the year, as far as I'm concerned, @thedove.
  • Posts: 19,339
    Univex wrote: »
    thedove wrote: »
    Lets take Bond back to the early films. How about we see some charm and sophistication? An agent who knows the wines and the food. An agent who looks great in a tux and is comfortable in swanky casinos. How about a Bond that still has some charm with the ladies. A man who appreciates the beauty of a lady. A man who will be ruthless one moment and charming the next.

    For God sakes lets not play around with a Mr. Moneypenny, or a female Q (Q'ute from the Gardner books was not a great idea). Lets see an M that is clearly the boss of Bond and who Bond respects but never thumbs his nose at. Lets not have a villain that is somehow personally connected with M or with Bond.

    Lets have some villains who have colour and who are memorable. Give them scenes where we see them in action as the dastardly guys they are. Lets have treacherous women who are out to harm our man.

    Lets have a grand adventure of mindless fun. Trim down the brooding, the reflective Bond who must sit in darkened flats a look over pictures from his childhood.

    Is any of this possible? Would we like to see this, I know I would and I think others are with me.

    Post of the year, as far as I'm concerned, @thedove.

    Add me to the members who agree wholeheartedly with @thedove post !!
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,400
    Thanks guys! I have enjoyed the Craig films for what they have been. It's time for a new direction. Why not embrace the roots of the cinematic character. Glad to know there are others that feel the same.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    I wouldn't boycott that approach if they went that way but it will depend on what BB has in mind when it comes to the next era of Bond and if she doesn't take it down that route, are you going to boycott the films?

    I don't think Barbara wants to repeat what was done when her Father was in control. She has quite successfully despite some fan's disagreement, put her stamp on the series.

    Something lighter wouldn't be a bad thing, as long as it doesn't descend into OTT silliness again.

    I don't think BB will be wanting to go back to what was done in the Brosnan era.

    The tone what has established in the DC era I think is here to stay but possibly with the personal element dialled considerably down. Bond being personally connected to the villains should never be attempted again.

    No reason why Fleming elements can't be incorporated something like a modern day FRWL, the idea of Bond being like YOLT, SWLM or MR, I think those days are gone.

    It can be escapist entertainment without chucking everything but the kitchen sink in.

    I think the next actor will most likely be a departure from DC aesthetically but I wouldn't bank on them dumping everything that has been established here.

    Maybe if someone else took over but despite some quite happily being on board with this idea I don't think it is going to happen. Quite a bit of wishful thinking because some people don't like what they are getting.

    Be thankful Bond stays with EON, it could be much worse.
  • I disagree. I don't see any reason why EON would look down on attempting something like TSWLM again. I think they will change it up after Craig, they've said it themselves you can't keep giving audiences the same, so as with every change of Bond there will be fluctuations in tone and storytelling. Besides I think Craig himself said he wanted to go back to volcano lairs after SF. They attempted something like that with SP but it was rather bland.

    I do think they might be considering the future more than they let know since it was reported they would like to woo PWB to write the next one, with or without Craig.
  • Posts: 6,709
    Shardlake wrote: »
    I wouldn't boycott that approach if they went that way but it will depend on what BB has in mind when it comes to the next era of Bond and if she doesn't take it down that route, are you going to boycott the films?

    I don't think Barbara wants to repeat what was done when her Father was in control. She has quite successfully despite some fan's disagreement, put her stamp on the series.

    Something lighter wouldn't be a bad thing, as long as it doesn't descend into OTT silliness again.

    I don't think BB will be wanting to go back to what was done in the Brosnan era.

    The tone what has established in the DC era I think is here to stay but possibly with the personal element dialled considerably down. Bond being personally connected to the villains should never be attempted again.

    No reason why Fleming elements can't be incorporated something like a modern day FRWL, the idea of Bond being like YOLT, SWLM or MR, I think those days are gone.

    It can be escapist entertainment without chucking everything but the kitchen sink in.

    I think the next actor will most likely be a departure from DC aesthetically but I wouldn't bank on them dumping everything that has been established here.

    Maybe if someone else took over but despite some quite happily being on board with this idea I don't think it is going to happen. Quite a bit of wishful thinking because some people don't like what they are getting.

    Be thankful Bond stays with EON, it could be much worse.

    I wholeheartedly agree with @Shardlake and @thedove at the same time, mainly because both make sense, and are not diametrical opposites. Lighter doesn't mean OTT nonsense. I actually don't even like the word "lighter" when trying to make that point. Going back to Fleming and to the cinematic escapism of a FRWL/OHMSS template is not going lighter. But it's also not making it all about some melodramatic note that's closer to a Spanish soap opera than to a Shakespeare play. U.N.C.L.E, even if not to the liking of some, achieved that in many degrees, for example.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    I disagree. I don't see any reason why EON would look down on attempting something like TSWLM again. I think they will change it up after Craig, they've said it themselves you can't keep giving audiences the same, so as with every change of Bond there will be fluctuations in tone and storytelling. Besides I think Craig himself said he wanted to go back to volcano lairs after SF. They attempted something like that with SP but it was rather bland.

    I do think they might be considering the future more than they let know since it was reported they would like to woo PWB to write the next one, with or without Craig.

    Possibly somewhere much further down the line but a SWLM type epic isn't likely to turn up next time round.

    Yes they did attempt it with SPECTRE and failed dismally with it. Yes you can do this kind of thing with Kingman because those films don't take themselves seriously but Bond has been there before and Austin Powers pretty much put paid to that.

    They are trying to fill the gap in that Bond films used to be like, Matthew Vaughn said as much himself. Though, I think Barbara wants to make Bond films something else.

    If they can somehow mix the idea of a contemporary Bond with these more outlandish type scenarios, although I think it is a tricky tightrope to walk and could easily go wrong.

    Yes as fans we might like the idea of it but it seems quite a bit of what some of us want is not what EON have planned for the character.

    I just think some people are setting themselves up for disappointment if they think the next era is going to go this way, this is not what I get from Barbara's plans for the character.

    I see more a doubling down on Fleming style Bond with the cinematic version but a return to the fantastical times of SWLM, I really don't see it.
  • edited October 2019 Posts: 17,740
    Although I much more would prefer the Bond films to move towards a direction somewhat closer to TSWLM, I agree with @Shardlake that this is probably unlikely to happen. Maybe sometime in the future, but not for a long time yet.

    I'm certainly not going to get my hopes up for that to happen, at least.
  • WhyBondWhyBond USA
    Posts: 69
    Actually Brosnan wanted to explore Bond's darker side thru some stuff like his dark nature with his sexual repressed desires, in other words a R rated Bond flick. Producers said no, hence Brosnans frustrations with them for playing it too safe. A lot of the hyper violence with Craig was actually what Brosnan wanted to do.

    I think it's time for Bond films to tackle the R rated aspect and put aside the family friendly action.
  • edited October 2019 Posts: 678
    Everything is always extreme with you guys.

    Making another "outlandish"/"extravaganza" type of Bond movie isn't equivalent with making a parody of the franchise. That's not what I'm expecting or asking for. Blofeld becoming a figure of parody didn't stop them from using the character again.

    And I'd counterargue that expecting them to make every movie the next OHMSS/FRWL/CR is equally unrealistic, because they always switch it up. Remember that GF also happened in the Connery era. Not to mention DAF.

    I simply think given the current trends in blockbusters atm + the need to offer something different (even slightly) after Craig could mean going back to those kind of entries. That's all.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    Well said @FrankXavier, I too want a lighter and more fun Bond film but that doesn't mean I'm asking for Moonraker 2 or Diamonds are Forever 2. I'd say aim for a GoldenEye style movie that balanced serious and lighter fair perfectly.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,400
    Yes there is a happy medium to be struck. If you look back to my post I was never against OTT action and plots. I think this brooding and introspective character is fine and I am glad it got explored. Now it's time for a change, lets go back to the cinematic roots of the character. The Bond of the movies is different from the books. This Bond quips where appropriate. Is sophisticated and suave, although that's in the novels I believe the film makers kicked this up.

    Outside of Silva, the villains have been given short stock. Le Chiffe the even gave him a bleeding eye for Christ sakes in an attempt to make him more interesting. They blew an opportunity with Blofeld. A shame cause they had a great actor but the material didn't fit him and then he was in the shadows for most of the movie and we have to believe he's this ruthless guy. I saw the meeting of Bond and Blofeld in that desert palace with the meteor as a harken back to the previous Bond meets villains but it felt empty cause we didn't see Blofeld. No scenes of his lackey's telling them their failures to get Bond. No "Kill Bond NOW!!!" I'd argue the last memorable villain was Carver in TND. We saw him being dastardly with the briefing of his different business heads. With how he interacted with Stamper.

  • Posts: 3,327

    Can't see his novels in any way being incorporated into a Bond script.

    Why not? His books are not good enough?
  • MinionMinion Don't Hassle the Bond
    Posts: 1,165
    If Craig’s tenure has shown us anything, it’s the creative minds hired by BB and MGW have a big say in the tone of the film. I could argue the tone variance from CR to SP is similar to the first four Connery and Moore flicks.
Sign In or Register to comment.