Where does Bond go after Craig?

12627293132677

Comments

  • edited January 2020 Posts: 1,469
    Where does Bond go after Craig?

    "James Bond Will Return...in..."

    Remember those days? The benefit of having an ongoing plan in story material, even if the Bond actor changed. Instilling confidence in the brand.
    Roadphill wrote: »
    One would hope, after Craig, normal sevice would be resumed.

    By that, I mean a standalone mission, every three years or so. Hopefully devoid of much of the melodrama we have seen in recent years.
    Totally agree. And I agree with others wanting to see Fleming material used or dipped into, even perhaps material from Bond novels. Also I say dump P&W and Waller-Bridge "with immediate effect"; they must be able to find better writers with some fresh ideas or thinking more aligned with Fleming's, or there must be some writers like that just itching to get on board--and stay away from woke feminist baloney.

    Quentin Tarantino directing is an interesting idea. I can see how he could tell the story well and get good direction and good-looking shots, but I get the impression he goes for too much emotion, whereas I hope to see the absolute bare minimum of emotion in a Bond film. And I get the idea he'd monkey around with the dialogue too much, making it sound like Bond on acid. Still, it's an idea.

    Bond actor: white, preferably British, hopefully not from outside the UK, dark hair. Much as I've liked Craig, better personality or acting range than Craig, like how Connery (or almost all other Bond actors) had better chemistry or interactions with women (was it their attitude? Probably not more testosterone but a different attitude, perhaps like not caring as much, though Craig has had some of that, not caring. And like how Connery was able to toss off one-liners...and like Moore, who had at least some of these abilities but also some sophistication or refinement, which also shone through in Moore's mental acuity. Tricky finding a balance though, to not lose Bond's hard, blunt edge.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    Quentin Tarantino needs to stay away from Bond, his ego wouldn't be able to cope with the constraints.

    I say this as a QT fan but are growing tired this so called idea he knows everything, especially when he mocks Kincaid and calls him a farmer in that podcast.

    QT would certainly not compromise, he wants his voice and vision stamped on everything, whereas I think Nolan could bend to it, although I question that as well. Dear QT is just in love with himself and thinks that no one knows things better than him.

    His last 3 films have stunk of self importance and tested their viewers with their pretentiousness, OUATIH I enjoyed but best screenplay, are we having a laugh?

    Better acting rang than Craig, have you seen his output, the series has never had a more versatile performer, take a look at his C.V.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,277
    Thrasos wrote: »
    Where does Bond go after Craig?

    "James Bond Will Return...in..."

    Remember those days? The benefit of having an ongoing plan in story material, even if the Bond actor changed. Instilling confidence in the brand.
    Roadphill wrote: »
    One would hope, after Craig, normal sevice would be resumed.

    By that, I mean a standalone mission, every three years or so. Hopefully devoid of much of the melodrama we have seen in recent years.
    Totally agree. And I agree with others wanting to see Fleming material used or dipped into, even perhaps material from Bond novels. Also I say dump P&W and Waller-Bridge "with immediate effect"; they must be able to find better writers with some fresh ideas or thinking more aligned with Fleming's, or there must be some writers like that just itching to get on board--and stay away from woke feminist baloney.

    Quentin Tarantino directing is an interesting idea. I can see how he could tell the story well and get good direction and good-looking shots, but I get the impression he goes for too much emotion, whereas I hope to see the absolute bare minimum of emotion in a Bond film. And I get the idea he'd monkey around with the dialogue too much, making it sound like Bond on acid. Still, it's an idea.

    Bond actor: white, preferably British, hopefully not from outside the UK, dark hair. Much as I've liked Craig, better personality or acting range than Craig, like how Connery (or almost all other Bond actors) had better chemistry or interactions with women (was it their attitude? Probably not more testosterone but a different attitude, perhaps like not caring as much, though Craig has had some of that, not caring. And like how Connery was able to toss off one-liners...and like Moore, who had at least some of these abilities but also some sophistication or refinement, which also shone through in Moore's mental acuity. Tricky finding a balance though, to not lose Bond's hard, blunt edge.

    Let's see the film first.
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    I hope that they won't reboot the series again.

    I'm all for a miniseries, but they should not get rid already of Whishaw, Fiennes & Naomie Harris.

  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    JamesCraig wrote: »
    I hope that they won't reboot the series again.

    I'm all for a miniseries, but they should not get rid already of Whishaw, Fiennes & Naomie Harris.

    Craig's timeline is too explicit, I will be most surprised if they don't reboot.

    They may well keep some of the other cast but this film is almost definitely a full stop.
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    edited January 2020 Posts: 3,497
    Shardlake wrote: »
    JamesCraig wrote: »
    I hope that they won't reboot the series again.

    I'm all for a miniseries, but they should not get rid already of Whishaw, Fiennes & Naomie Harris.

    Craig's timeline is too explicit, I will be most surprised if they don't reboot.

    They may well keep some of the other cast but this film is almost definitely a full stop.

    We shall see how NTTD ends.

    The only thing that's certain is that this will be DC's final outing.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Shardlake wrote: »
    JamesCraig wrote: »
    I hope that they won't reboot the series again.

    I'm all for a miniseries, but they should not get rid already of Whishaw, Fiennes & Naomie Harris.

    Craig's timeline is too explicit, I will be most surprised if they don't reboot.

    They may well keep some of the other cast but this film is almost definitely a full stop.

    Definitely. They might hold over some of the actors, but the DC tenure is strictly contained in terms of character.
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    RC7 wrote: »
    Shardlake wrote: »
    JamesCraig wrote: »
    I hope that they won't reboot the series again.

    I'm all for a miniseries, but they should not get rid already of Whishaw, Fiennes & Naomie Harris.

    Craig's timeline is too explicit, I will be most surprised if they don't reboot.

    They may well keep some of the other cast but this film is almost definitely a full stop.

    Definitely. They might hold over some of the actors, but the DC tenure is strictly contained in terms of character.

    How is that diffrerent from what I said? This arc is over, yes, but all depends on how NTTD ends.

    IF he retires, yes, then it would be not very wise to "lure" him back in. But even with a marriage the "current" Bond could still be back.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    edited January 2020 Posts: 4,043
    JamesCraig wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Shardlake wrote: »
    JamesCraig wrote: »
    I hope that they won't reboot the series again.

    I'm all for a miniseries, but they should not get rid already of Whishaw, Fiennes & Naomie Harris.

    Craig's timeline is too explicit, I will be most surprised if they don't reboot.

    They may well keep some of the other cast but this film is almost definitely a full stop.

    Definitely. They might hold over some of the actors, but the DC tenure is strictly contained in terms of character.

    How is that different from what I said? This arc is over, yes, but all depends on how NTTD ends.

    IF he retires, yes, then it would be not very wise to "lure" him back in. But even with a marriage the "current" Bond could still be back.

    If it ends with him getting married for forget it, this isn't Mission Impossible.

    I'd get ready for a clean slate for Bond, possibly with hold overs as @RC7 said but they might just recast entire.

    They only kept Dench because of her pedigree and how she was so well received in the role, Craig was fairly unknown and they probably thought it wise to have a recognisable face in the role of M despite a new timeline.

    I have a lot of time for Fiennes and think he was terrific in SF but served with poor material in SP, I hope he gets some good scenes, although this looks like he'll be office bound for the most part.

    Though Fiennes is not acting royalty like Dench is so if they go down the route of recasting even M I won't be surprise.

    Though one thing is very sure DC's timeline is done, if it isn't I'll eat my hat.
  • Posts: 16,149
    Shardlake wrote: »
    JamesCraig wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Shardlake wrote: »
    JamesCraig wrote: »
    I hope that they won't reboot the series again.

    I'm all for a miniseries, but they should not get rid already of Whishaw, Fiennes & Naomie Harris.

    Craig's timeline is too explicit, I will be most surprised if they don't reboot.

    They may well keep some of the other cast but this film is almost definitely a full stop.

    Definitely. They might hold over some of the actors, but the DC tenure is strictly contained in terms of character.

    How is that different from what I said? This arc is over, yes, but all depends on how NTTD ends.

    IF he retires, yes, then it would be not very wise to "lure" him back in. But even with a marriage the "current" Bond could still be back.

    If it ends with him getting married for forget it, this isn't Mission Impossible.

    I'd get ready for a clean slate for Bond, possibly with hold overs as @RC7 said but they might just recast entire.

    They only kept Dench because of her pedigree and how she was so well received in the role, Craig was fairly unknown and they probably thought it wise to have a recognisable face in the role of M despite a new timeline.

    I have a lot of time for Fiennes and think he was terrific in SF but served with poor material in SP, I hope he gets some good scenes, although this looks like he'll be office bound for the most part.

    Though Fiennes is not acting royalty like Dench is so if they go down the route of recasting even M I won't be surprise.

    Though one thing is very sure DC's timeline is done, if it isn't I'll eat my hat.

    This may sound closed minded, but IMO the only person we should ever see Bond marrying is Tracy.

    If Bond is indeed married to Madeleine in this film, I think it tampers with that well known bit of Bond history too much. Just would seem wrong to me.
    I have a feeling the film may have an ending similar to either CR or SF where Bond is essentially the Bond we know and love. Just a hunch.
    I'm really torn as to whether I'd want the Scooby Gang version of MI6 to continue after Craig.
    A hard re-boot may be in order. Personally I'd prefer a recast of the traditional MI6 staff: M being Sir Miles as opposed to Mallory. Moneypenny not being named Eve, and Major Boothroyd as Q.
  • Posts: 11,425
    The next Bond director has to be Quentin Tarantino. Once upon a Hollywood has assured me of that decision. He would make an absolute sumptuous Bond film. Remember those shots of Brad Pitt driving around LA in his blue Chevrolet? They had the same energy as a Connery film. They were priceless.


    And lol no at Nolan. The bloke is much too sexless and joyless to be directing any Bond movie. Keep him away.

    Tarantino should have directed Brosnan as Bond. I have zero doubt it would have been highly entertaining and salvaged Brosnan's reputation. It would have been a great fit.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    JamesCraig wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Shardlake wrote: »
    JamesCraig wrote: »
    I hope that they won't reboot the series again.

    I'm all for a miniseries, but they should not get rid already of Whishaw, Fiennes & Naomie Harris.

    Craig's timeline is too explicit, I will be most surprised if they don't reboot.

    They may well keep some of the other cast but this film is almost definitely a full stop.

    Definitely. They might hold over some of the actors, but the DC tenure is strictly contained in terms of character.

    How is that diffrerent from what I said? This arc is over, yes, but all depends on how NTTD ends.

    IF he retires, yes, then it would be not very wise to "lure" him back in. But even with a marriage the "current" Bond could still be back.

    Won’t happen.
  • RC7RC7
    edited January 2020 Posts: 10,512
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I'd like to go back to that murky continuity between Bond actors. We go straight to a fully formed Bond, bring over a few of the regulars for tradition sake, but don't overtly commit to any prior continuity. Have obscure references to the Craig Era now and then, and do the same with the Classic Era (maybe a vague reference to his dead wife, but without mentioning Tracy by name, or some inference to Silva at some point, better yet; have both Bernard Lee and Judi Dench's portraits hanging at Whitehall), but nothing to be a slave to.

    They should reference the pre-Craig era but not the Craig era. It’s quite clear they are two different things.
  • GatecrasherGatecrasher Classified
    Posts: 265
    Where does Bond go after Craig? Hopefully back into the realm of intrigue, adventure, sex, and FUN.

    Apart from Casino Royale, I never jump to any of DC’s films if I want to be entertained - that’s what Connery’s films do for me. I’m so sick and tired of the revenge-filled, self-contained, brooding, “this time it’s personal AGAIN” storylines.

    I think what I want is less modern Bond and more Fleming material in the next era, please.
  • Posts: 7,653
    An advise from Daniel Craig to the next James Bond:
    Just make sure you're great. You've ot to push yourself as far as you can. But it's worth it. It's James Bond -
  • edited January 2020 Posts: 1,469
    Gatecrasher (great username), I agree with most of what you say, though I enjoy DC's films almost equally as many of the others. They certainly include Roger Moore's, though some here might say Moore didn't totally fit Fleming's ideal for Bond. And the current producers might want a Bond who's more modern than what Fleming intended, but I was just refamiliarizing myself with some things Fleming said about Bond (not including sources but lifted from various internet pages including Wikipedia). Some of you Fleming readers no doubt know a lot more of this than I.

    On Connery being chosen and how the first film Dr. No was progressing, Fleming wrote, "The man they have chosen for Bond, Sean Connery, is a real charmer -- fairly unknown but a good actor with the right looks and physique". In the book Casino Royale, Vesper says, 'He is very good-looking. He reminds me rather of Hoagy Carmichael, but there is something cold and ruthless in his ... ' (photo below). In the book Moonraker, Gala Brand thinks, "...he was certainly good-looking. Rather like Hoagy Carmichael in a way. That black hair falling down over the right eyebrow. Much the same bones. But there was something a bit cruel in the mouth, and the eyes were cold".

    Wikipedia quotes Fleming as saying Bond "was a compound of all the secret agents and commando types I met during the war". Bond is a heavy smoker and sometimes takes benzedrine. "Throughout Fleming's books, Bond expresses racist, sexist and homophobic attitudes." Fleming had gay friends but said his books were "written for warm-blooded heterosexuals." Fleming: "I don't think that he is necessarily a good guy or a bad guy. Who is? He's got his vices and very few perceptible virtues except patriotism and courage, which are probably not virtues anyway ... But I didn't intend for him to be a particularly likeable person."...and..."James Bond is a healthy, violent, noncerebral man in his middle-thirties, and a creature of his era. I wouldn't say he's particularly typical of our times, but he's certainly of the times." And he was not intended to be an infallible superman type.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Bond#/media/File:Hoagy_Carmichael_-_1947.jpg
  • Agent_47Agent_47 Canada
    Posts: 330
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I'd like to go back to that murky continuity between Bond actors. We go straight to a fully formed Bond, bring over a few of the regulars for tradition sake, but don't overtly commit to any prior continuity. Have obscure references to the Craig Era now and then, and do the same with the Classic Era (maybe a vague reference to his dead wife, but without mentioning Tracy by name, or some inference to Silva at some point, better yet; have both Bernard Lee and Judi Dench's portraits hanging at Whitehall), but nothing to be a slave to.

    THIS!

    Never thought of introducing Craig's tenure into the floating timeline that was Connery through Brosnan. Continuity be damned, this would be the best way forward I think.

    You're a bloody genius @Birdleson
  • Posts: 11,425
    Agent_47 wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I'd like to go back to that murky continuity between Bond actors. We go straight to a fully formed Bond, bring over a few of the regulars for tradition sake, but don't overtly commit to any prior continuity. Have obscure references to the Craig Era now and then, and do the same with the Classic Era (maybe a vague reference to his dead wife, but without mentioning Tracy by name, or some inference to Silva at some point, better yet; have both Bernard Lee and Judi Dench's portraits hanging at Whitehall), but nothing to be a slave to.

    THIS!

    Never thought of introducing Craig's tenure into the floating timeline that was Connery through Brosnan. Continuity be damned, this would be the best way forward I think.

    You're a bloody genius @Birdleson

    Totally agree. It's all part of the same timeline, even when it isn't. What EON made fairly clear from the start was that the continuity of the novels was a very secondary concern for them. I sort of see Craig Bond in CR as pre dating Dr. NO.
  • Agent_47Agent_47 Canada
    Posts: 330
    Getafix wrote: »
    Agent_47 wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I'd like to go back to that murky continuity between Bond actors. We go straight to a fully formed Bond, bring over a few of the regulars for tradition sake, but don't overtly commit to any prior continuity. Have obscure references to the Craig Era now and then, and do the same with the Classic Era (maybe a vague reference to his dead wife, but without mentioning Tracy by name, or some inference to Silva at some point, better yet; have both Bernard Lee and Judi Dench's portraits hanging at Whitehall), but nothing to be a slave to.

    THIS!

    Never thought of introducing Craig's tenure into the floating timeline that was Connery through Brosnan. Continuity be damned, this would be the best way forward I think.

    You're a bloody genius @Birdleson

    Totally agree. It's all part of the same timeline, even when it isn't. What EON made fairly clear from the start was that the continuity of the novels was a very secondary concern for them. I sort of see Craig Bond in CR as pre dating Dr. NO.

    Exactly. Some contradictions, sure, but the series is already chock full of them. Would hardly make a difference.
  • MinionMinion Don't Hassle the Bond
    Posts: 1,165
    That's the healthiest approach. The timeline isn't perfect, but it's the same character.
  • OctopussyOctopussy Piz Gloria, Schilthorn, Switzerland.
    Posts: 1,081
    The next Bond director has to be Quentin Tarantino. Once upon a Hollywood has assured me of that decision. He would make an absolute sumptuous Bond film. Remember those shots of Brad Pitt driving around LA in his blue Chevrolet? They had the same energy as a Connery film. They were priceless.


    And lol no at Nolan. The bloke is much too sexless and joyless to be directing any Bond movie. Keep him away.

    I'm a huge Tarantino fan, but wouldn't want him to direct a Bond.

    I'd take Nolan over Tarantino in a heartbeat. It's been a while since I watched a vintage Tarantino film, but the last was Once Upon a Time in Hollywood and I found the pacing really off-putting. Nolan's Batman Trilogy solidified in my mind that he should direct a Bond film. It's clear Nolan's a Bond fan having been inspired by OHMSS for the final dream in Inception. Nolan would make a sleek Bond film, IMO.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Octopussy wrote: »
    The next Bond director has to be Quentin Tarantino. Once upon a Hollywood has assured me of that decision. He would make an absolute sumptuous Bond film. Remember those shots of Brad Pitt driving around LA in his blue Chevrolet? They had the same energy as a Connery film. They were priceless.


    And lol no at Nolan. The bloke is much too sexless and joyless to be directing any Bond movie. Keep him away.

    I'm a huge Tarantino fan, but wouldn't want him to direct a Bond.

    I'd take Nolan over Tarantino in a heartbeat. It's been a while since I watched a vintage Tarantino film, but the last was Once Upon a Time in Hollywood and I found the pacing really off-putting. Nolan's Batman Trilogy solidified in my mind that he should direct a Bond film. It's clear Nolan's a Bond fan having been inspired by OHMSS for the final dream in Inception. Nolan would make a sleek Bond film, IMO.

    Plus Nolan lifted virtually the entirety of the LTK PTS in Batman. Although the fact he loves Bond doesn't mean he's right for Bond. Having said that I'd like to see Nolan given a go at it.
  • I've said this before, but I don't think the next actor can go any darker. Craig has taken that about as far as it can go for now, I think.
    My vote for the way forward would be to take just a bit of Moore's lighter touch, globetrotting, and romance. Add that to Craig's more visceral physicality and I think it could really work.
    I still think Hiddleston could do this - The Night Manager feels like a good template. But dammit EON, you need to move faster before everyone ages out of these roles!
  • QQ7QQ7 Croatia
    Posts: 371
    One of the best things about Bond 26 is the fact that we will get rid of Scooby gang.
  • DeerAtTheGatesDeerAtTheGates Belgium
    Posts: 524
    QQ7 wrote: »
    One of the best things about Bond 26 is the fact that we will get rid of Scooby gang.

    How do you know for sure? Are you EON's secretary? ;)

    As far as the MI6 regulars go, I'd envision at least some of them staying. Wishaw's Q is popular with a younger demographic, so if he's up for it, he's probably staying.
    Fiennes is a Bond fan and likes playing M. He filmed his scenes for NTTD spread out over a long period because of other projects. So if EON is okay with that method and is okay with paying Fiennes a hefty sum, I don't think he'll go out that quickly.
    Harris is something else. As Moneypenny, I suppose it's essential the actress has some chemistry with the man playing Bond. So that's to be determined.
    And Kinnear... Well, he won't be missed hugely if he's not in Bond 26. If the script calls for Tanner, he'll probably reprise his role. I mean, why recast?
  • Posts: 11,425
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Fiennes was off to a great start with SF, but they turned him into such a whiny milquetoast in SP that my enthusiasm for his take on the. character plummeted. Let’s hope they course correct in NTTD. Then I can get excited about a future return.

    Fiennes really isn't great in the role. He's too close in age to Craig for starters. And there doesn't appear to be any real 'take'on who his M is.
  • Posts: 6,709
    Getafix wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Fiennes was off to a great start with SF, but they turned him into such a whiny milquetoast in SP that my enthusiasm for his take on the. character plummeted. Let’s hope they course correct in NTTD. Then I can get excited about a future return.

    Fiennes really isn't great in the role. He's too close in age to Craig for starters. And there doesn't appear to be any real 'take'on who his M is.

    Maybe his iteration for the new Bond will be better, just like Dench’s was re imagined for the Craig era. He’s the only current actor I’d keep for Bond26. Then again he is one of my all time favourite actors, so I would rally for it, wouldn’t I? 😉
  • ResurrectionResurrection Kolkata, India
    Posts: 2,541
    Fiennes is my all time favorite actor as well. It wasn't his fault in SP imo.
  • RC7RC7
    edited January 2020 Posts: 10,512
    Getafix wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Fiennes was off to a great start with SF, but they turned him into such a whiny milquetoast in SP that my enthusiasm for his take on the. character plummeted. Let’s hope they course correct in NTTD. Then I can get excited about a future return.

    Fiennes really isn't great in the role. He's too close in age to Craig for starters. And there doesn't appear to be any real 'take'on who his M is.

    I think he’s great as Mallory, it’s only in SP - where the dynamic seems have drastically changed - that his character feels a little flaccid. Their relationship in SF builds to one of mutual respect by the final scene, with M clearly the figure of authority and Bond respectful of that. Within 15 mins of SP they’re seen together for the first time, with Bond in petulant mood and M equally abrasive. Shoe-horning Dench into proceedings is the main issue.

    It would’ve been more effective, imo, to learn (post-credits) that M himself (Mallory) had established a connection between ‘Sciarra’ and an anonymous source in MI6 - cue Bond taking off on an unsanctioned mission to Mexico City.

    On his return, rather than the slanging match in his office you have them meet at Blades. M is naturally pissed at Bond’s actions but agrees the intel was worth the fallout. From here the two of them are in it together and trust no one, even to the point where they fleetingly suspect each other. Ultimately M risks his own position because of his loyalty to Bond and we lose the protracted sense of ‘rogue-like’ behaviour where everything is designed to be done without M’s knowledge until the final act.
  • SuperintendentSuperintendent A separate pool. For sharks, no less.
    Posts: 871
    RC7 wrote: »
    It would’ve been more effective, imo, to learn (post-credits) that M himself (Mallory) had established a connection between ‘Sciarra’ and an anonymous source in MI6 - cue Bond taking off on an unsanctioned mission to Mexico City.

    On his return, rather than the slanging match in his office you have them meet at Blades. M is naturally pissed at Bond’s actions but agrees the intel was worth the fallout. From here the two of them are in it together and trust no one, even to the point where they fleetingly suspect each other. Ultimately M risks his own position because of his loyalty to Bond and we lose the protracted sense of ‘rogue-like’ behaviour where everything is designed to be done without M’s knowledge until the final act.

    Big 👍 for this.

Sign In or Register to comment.