Where does Bond go after Craig?

1345346348350351680

Comments

  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,588
    talos7 wrote: »
    He was paid a record amount and he showed up out of shape, bloated and poorly groomed. I am a huge Connery fan but not only was that unprofessional but it also it did a disservice to the character and fans of his films.

    It was something completely in his control. Just look at him, 9 years later, in "The Great Train Robbery; he came in lean , fit and looking impeccable. That is what he should have brought to the set of DAF.

    One thing about Daniel, he came in prepared for all of his films; hopefully the next actor will show the same consideration.

    The worst thing about that was the total lack on enthusiasm he shows. He looks in better shape... somewhat, in NSNA. He looks redder than a radish, but otherwise better than he did in DAF.

    Did he even have time to get in shape? I don't know the time-line between getting hired back in the 11th hour and when filming commenced but it didn't seem like there was a lot of time. Besides, he and the producers didn't care. They were just happy to have him back and it was probably a case on his side of "You need me and need me now. This is what you're getting. Take it or leave it."
  • edited September 2023 Posts: 2,266
    His isn’t in the best of shape granted, but judging by the fight in the elevator, he seemed fine.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,629
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    https://www.cbr.com/report-christopher-nolan-reboot-james-bond-before-wga-strike/

    Not too open the Nolan rumors again, but there was something I thought about. What if EON is planning a opening two-parter. Better planned of course a bit better than CR and QOS. The number one way to achieve this would be hiring a director for both parts right away. The only 2 times where the director came back for that are Terence Young for DN to FRWL and Sam Mendes for SF and SP. It did feel more natural, in terms of the storylines, even for SP, in the long run.
    Mallory wrote: »
    delfloria wrote: »
    I think the real question is, where does Bond go after Eon. That day will come.

    I think i'ts pretty safe to say EON will mantain the rights to cinematic Bond for a very long time until that day happens, and when it does, i hope they wisely choose their succesor.

    That may be, but who will be running EoN?

    MGW is in his early 80s. Will he be continuing?
    Presumably BB is going to continue.
    Will Gregg Wilson be taking over from his dad?

    What will EoN do when the Bond novels become public domain in 10 years time, when anyone could make a James Bond film?

    I trust Amazon just slightly. Clearly, Gregg Wilson is being planned to take over. He’s probably either helping with casting and writing. More than location scouting and photography, now. He’s also making cameo appearances like his dad. MGW is getting too old, especially if stepbrother Blofeld was his idea. Even Cubby said enough is enough, with old age. BB needs to grow beyond DC and Purvis and Wade. She needs to stop focusing on family soap opera dramas, that feel to artsy for Bond. What I’m saying is that Bond truly needs a reset in more ways than one. The Nolan brothers could be that answer. They could introduce characters like May and Charmian Bond, like in the style of their Dark Knight trilogy. I also imagine Nolan (or any director, now) wanting to reinvent Blofeld in particular. Or another classic villain. I’d go for Goldfinger or Trevelyan, as they’re a lot of real life Goldfingers in the world now, namely politicians and CEOs. Trevelyan could be a multi story arc where he slowly becomes evil.

    As for the books going into the public domain, honestly, EON should use a continuation novel or two for a film basis. There’s quite a decent amount of great stories that aren’t Fleming, that could be set in the present day. Are we really going to get excited about another Purvis and Wade screenplay? EON doesn’t need a full time writer like them or Richard Maibaum. Always be pushing Bond forward. There’s many ways to do it. Sometimes, EON needs to step out of their comfort zone, with regular cast and crew members. There’s loyalty, and there’s too much faithfulness. BB needs to realize this like her father did with Roger Moore. At the end of the day, these are entertainment. But some people need to have their time to move on, just like Bond at the end of a adventure. Can’t be loyal to EON’s real life M forever!

    Also, I kind of wish that Amazon would buy Ian Fleming Publications, so that the books won’t be edited (hopefully). We could also have a regular novel every year, with a possible character spin-off, at the same time.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,383
    I don't know if anything's stopping IFP producing new novels that Amazon would fix. They did two last year and one this year so far; they may be ramping up to more.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,183
    mtm wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Since you’re pressing the issue, unlike in his earlier films, his eyebrows are out of control; they are bushy and massive. Reflecting the era, his sideburns are also bushy and lower. His hairpiece is also not the best and is longer.
    Now you can counter with a snide reply why you think these things don’t matter. They might not to you and some others , but Connery’s sub par appearance is frequently mentioned when discussed; it was noticed by many.

    Well I'm glad you took it in such good grace, but I suspect those things are under the purview of the makeup artists rather than Connery himself. I doubt he was conspiring with them to make himself look as bad possible ("you make shure my wig is bad, I'll put on shome weight") so it might just be the times they're in.

    I think the only say he had in the wig was that he wanted to match it with his actual greying hair, because he wanted to depict his Bond having aged, rather than try play Bond as if he’s still in his 30s by dying it all brown. I think he looks very dignified that way. It’s certainly better than the wig they gave him in NSNA.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited September 2023 Posts: 3,152
    Dunno if 'dignified' is the right word for a man in a pink tie, tbh... ;)
    And while Connery probably didn't have enough time to get in top shape for DAF, he must've had a spare 20 minutes to have those brows sorted, no?
  • peterpeter Toronto
    edited September 2023 Posts: 9,509
    Connery can be in a blue onesie, or;

    A pink tie, or;

    In a red thong and not much else…

    And still be the coolest man in the room.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,383
    mtm wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Since you’re pressing the issue, unlike in his earlier films, his eyebrows are out of control; they are bushy and massive. Reflecting the era, his sideburns are also bushy and lower. His hairpiece is also not the best and is longer.
    Now you can counter with a snide reply why you think these things don’t matter. They might not to you and some others , but Connery’s sub par appearance is frequently mentioned when discussed; it was noticed by many.

    Well I'm glad you took it in such good grace, but I suspect those things are under the purview of the makeup artists rather than Connery himself. I doubt he was conspiring with them to make himself look as bad possible ("you make shure my wig is bad, I'll put on shome weight") so it might just be the times they're in.

    I think the only say he had in the wig was that he wanted to match it with his actual greying hair, because he wanted to depict his Bond having aged, rather than try play Bond as if he’s still in his 30s by dying it all brown. I think he looks very dignified that way. It’s certainly better than the wig they gave him in NSNA.

    I always think the main problem with his 'pieces is that they only add to the top, never to the sides, and hair recedes from the sides too. So you have this unnatural-looking widescreen forehead, especially by the time of NSNA.
  • Posts: 1,986
    Actors do get old. Even Craig in his last film shows his age as compared to CR. I wonder if the criticisms of Connery in DAF might have been lessened by a better script. Other than the elevator fight (callback to FRWL), Connery isn't asked to do much. I would have loved to have been in on the script discussion when the Bambi and Thumper scene was brought up. Total nonsense. But then that's how I feel about the entire film. It's hard to imagine the writer who penned OHMSS was a co-writer of this film. Maybe the influence of Mankiewicz who does the next film and includes many of the same elements from this film: goober sheriff, multiple car crashes, three-wheelers which become boats in the next film.

    I don't have an actor in mind for the next film. I liked what the producers did with CR. They chose an actor who didn't seem an obvious choice. But Craig sold us on his Bond because the script was so good. He was given something very meaty to work with. I don't feel he ever got as good a script again, but he was Bond. I don't feel P&W are the right choice for Bond 26, even though they wrote CR. I would love to see some of the unused material from Fleming's novels penned by new writers who can move this series forward. I don't subscribe to the notion that everything old is new again. I like the idea that it's new because it's new. The potential is here to create a new and modern Bond.



  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,183
    CrabKey wrote: »

    It's hard to imagine the writer who penned OHMSS was a co-writer of this film. Maybe the influence of Mankiewicz who does the next film and includes many of the same elements from this film: goober sheriff, multiple car crashes, three-wheelers which become boats in the next film.

    You should look into the original drafts that Maibaum wrote for DAF before Mankiewicz was brought in. Suffice it to say, Mankiewicz’s rewrites were actually an improvement over what Maibaum was conjuring up.



    In one of those Maibaum drafts Blofeld gets killed by being mauled by a bunch of white cats.

  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited September 2023 Posts: 3,152
    Well, Martin Campbell brought Paul Haggis in to re-write the CR script after P & W had done their stint on it, tbf. Haggis's won Oscars for screenplays and adapted screenplays, so he probably improved the script a fair bit. But I don't think that having a great script is the main reason that Dan was so convincing as Bond right from the off - he's a genuinely world class actor and he brought that to Bond: something we'd never had before. Same script, different actor? Probably not the same impact.
  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    Posts: 942
    The script was much sharper than usual. The way that Bond was constantly aware of his surroundings and used them to his advantage was excellent, and unfortunately something that they dropped. I heard that the aborted Jinx film script was a big influence on the script, and that would make sense in the earlier part of the film, particularly when Bond is mistaken for the help.
  • Posts: 1,986
    Venutius wrote: »
    Well, Martin Campbell brought Paul Haggis in to re-write the CR script after P & W had done their stint on it, tbf. Haggis's won Oscars for screenplays and adapted screenplays, so he probably improved the script a fair bit. But I don't think that's the main reason Dan was so convincing as Bond right from the off - he's a genuinely world class actor and he brought that to Bond: something we'd never had before.

    To take nothing away from Craig, but the screenplay's the thing. Not much a great actor can do with a poorly written script. Both he and the script were on the mark.
    CrabKey wrote: »

    It's hard to imagine the writer who penned OHMSS was a co-writer of this film. Maybe the influence of Mankiewicz who does the next film and includes many of the same elements from this film: goober sheriff, multiple car crashes, three-wheelers which become boats in the next film.

    You should look into the original drafts that Maibaum wrote for DAF before Mankiewicz was brought in. Suffice it to say, Mankiewicz’s rewrites were actually an improvement over what Maibaum was conjuring up.



    In one of those Maibaum drafts Blofeld gets killed by being mauled by a bunch of white cats.



    Despite being dated and overmuch description, the novel was a much better story than the film. The addition of Blofeld, Whyte, spaceships, lasers, a moon buggy and the rest of the silliness spun out of hardly anything resembling the novel simply did not make for a good film.

  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    Venutius wrote: »
    Well, Martin Campbell brought Paul Haggis in to re-write the CR script after P & W had done their stint on it, tbf. Haggis's won Oscars for screenplays and adapted screenplays, so he probably improved the script a fair bit. But I don't think that having a great script is the main reason that Dan was so convincing as Bond right from the off - he's a genuinely world class actor and he brought that to Bond: something we'd never had before. Same script, different actor? Probably not the same impact.

    Great point @Venutius ....

    If there was the same director, same script, but say, Cavill was starring.

    I don't think I'd have had the same heart-pounding response that I had when I first watched CR. I'm sure it would have been a very good Bond... But would it have been as elevated?

    My gut says, no.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,629
    CrabKey wrote: »
    Actors do get old. Even Craig in his last film shows his age as compared to CR. I wonder if the criticisms of Connery in DAF might have been lessened by a better script. Other than the elevator fight (callback to FRWL), Connery isn't asked to do much. I would have loved to have been in on the script discussion when the Bambi and Thumper scene was brought up. Total nonsense. But then that's how I feel about the entire film. It's hard to imagine the writer who penned OHMSS was a co-writer of this film. Maybe the influence of Mankiewicz who does the next film and includes many of the same elements from this film: goober sheriff, multiple car crashes, three-wheelers which become boats in the next film.

    I don't have an actor in mind for the next film. I liked what the producers did with CR. They chose an actor who didn't seem an obvious choice. But Craig sold us on his Bond because the script was so good. He was given something very meaty to work with. I don't feel he ever got as good a script again, but he was Bond. I don't feel P&W are the right choice for Bond 26, even though they wrote CR. I would love to see some of the unused material from Fleming's novels penned by new writers who can move this series forward. I don't subscribe to the notion that everything old is new again. I like the idea that it's new because it's new. The potential is here to create a new and modern Bond.



    I agree with you on all your points. Namely that Tom Mankiewicz was a bit of a hypocrite with writing Bond and Superman. He was told to make Superman more serious, and called the original scripts campy. His Bond movies were not much different, than what Superman 3 became. They almost killed the series. Guy Hamilton was just as much to blame. Like George Lucas directing Star Wars, his first And contrary to what his ego often told him, Richard Maibaum wasn't always the right person to write Bond scripts. The solar stuff in TMWTGG is proof of this.

    As for P&W on CR, Martin Campbell wanted them fired, as he felt that they weren't giving him strong enough material. But BB and MGW demanded that they stay on. They are too trusting, honestly. I'm with you @CrabKey it would honestly be disappointing if they came back, no matter who was in the director's chair. They're like those creepy cousins that show up at family reunions, who have weird obsessions, in their case, Bond leaving MI6. Richard Maibaum was like that egoistical uncle who was always bragging about past accomplishments, and never giving others credit for his success. With maybe that one person (Sean Connery).

    I talked about EON taking risks. The writing truly needs to change. It doesn't matter who to a degree honestly, but these two are part of the problem and they need to go. I'd go with a lesser known like Craig for Bond himself. With Ralph Fiennes as Sir Miles for M. I think more action directors are needed as well.

  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,183
    CrabKey wrote: »
    Venutius wrote: »
    Well, Martin Campbell brought Paul Haggis in to re-write the CR script after P & W had done their stint on it, tbf. Haggis's won Oscars for screenplays and adapted screenplays, so he probably improved the script a fair bit. But I don't think that's the main reason Dan was so convincing as Bond right from the off - he's a genuinely world class actor and he brought that to Bond: something we'd never had before.

    To take nothing away from Craig, but the screenplay's the thing. Not much a great actor can do with a poorly written script. Both he and the script were on the mark.
    CrabKey wrote: »

    It's hard to imagine the writer who penned OHMSS was a co-writer of this film. Maybe the influence of Mankiewicz who does the next film and includes many of the same elements from this film: goober sheriff, multiple car crashes, three-wheelers which become boats in the next film.

    You should look into the original drafts that Maibaum wrote for DAF before Mankiewicz was brought in. Suffice it to say, Mankiewicz’s rewrites were actually an improvement over what Maibaum was conjuring up.



    In one of those Maibaum drafts Blofeld gets killed by being mauled by a bunch of white cats.



    Despite being dated and overmuch description, the novel was a much better story than the film. The addition of Blofeld, Whyte, spaceships, lasers, a moon buggy and the rest of the silliness spun out of hardly anything resembling the novel simply did not make for a good film.

    I don’t judge the film by how well it adapts the book.
  • CrabKey wrote: »

    It's hard to imagine the writer who penned OHMSS was a co-writer of this film. Maybe the influence of Mankiewicz who does the next film and includes many of the same elements from this film: goober sheriff, multiple car crashes, three-wheelers which become boats in the next film.

    You should look into the original drafts that Maibaum wrote for DAF before Mankiewicz was brought in. Suffice it to say, Mankiewicz’s rewrites were actually an improvement over what Maibaum was conjuring up.



    In one of those Maibaum drafts Blofeld gets killed by being mauled by a bunch of white cats.

    Much as I’d hate to admit it, you’re definitely right. I remember listening to the “James Bond Radio”
    Podcast episode where they talk with Charles Helfenstein about his Making of OHMSS book and the topic of the early Diamonds drafts came up. Always wanted to read those based on how awesome the PTS sounded alone, until I discovered what happened during the rest of that draft. Much as I may dislike DAF, I can’t imagine the original concept being any better than what we got.
  • Posts: 1,986
    It may be that Maibaum should have had more faith in the original DAF story as he did with OHMSS. Why rockets again? We got that in DN and YOLT. Fleming had also done rockets prior to writing DAF and after. Had Fleming remotely suggested diamonds in space there might have been some justification for the film story.

  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    Posts: 942
    It was the era when space was everything. America had just put a man on the moon and Bond was trying to be relevant to the trend (yet again).
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,183
    The OHMSS film was only as faithful to the book due to Peter Hunt’s insistence. Because of that, we got a strong adaptation by Maibaum, especially since the foundation is already as good as it is.

    With DAF, I don’t think there was ever really any thought given to making an adaptation as faithful as OHMSS. Cubby just wanted to make another film in the tone of GF, hire Hamilton to bring back that kind of comic book sensibility, and use whatever ideas are in the book combined with original ideas that the screenwriter comes up with. Maibaum wasn’t delivering, so new blood was brought in.
  • Posts: 1,859
    Rather have Blofeld eaten by Persian cats than him being Bond's foster brother.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited September 2023 Posts: 6,297
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Mallory wrote: »
    delfloria wrote: »
    I think the real question is, where does Bond go after Eon. That day will come.

    I think i'ts pretty safe to say EON will mantain the rights to cinematic Bond for a very long time until that day happens, and when it does, i hope they wisely choose their succesor.

    That may be, but who will be running EoN?

    MGW is in his early 80s. Will he be continuing?
    Presumably BB is going to continue.
    Will Gregg Wilson be taking over from his dad?

    What will EoN do when the Bond novels become public domain in 10 years time, when anyone could make a James Bond film?

    Is that true, though? Does the novels becoming public domain automatically mean that anyone can produce the films? I'm only asking because I honestly don't know how that works.

    I have almost zero understanding of it but I was under the assumption that anyone can tackle the world of the novels how they see fit once they enter the public domain.

    Disney enters the public domain before Bond. And they will fight it, with good coattail consequences for Bond.

    CR captured lighting in a bottle. Craig, Green, the novel, that script, and Campbell. And several MVPs in the supporting cast.

    We'll be lucky to reach those heights again anytime soon. Here's hoping.
  • Posts: 1,986
    The OHMSS film was only as faithful to the book due to Peter Hunt’s insistence. Because of that, we got a strong adaptation by Maibaum, especially since the foundation is already as good as it is.

    With DAF, I don’t think there was ever really any thought given to making an adaptation as faithful as OHMSS. Cubby just wanted to make another film in the tone of GF, hire Hamilton to bring back that kind of comic book sensibility, and use whatever ideas are in the book combined with original ideas that the screenwriter comes up with. Maibaum wasn’t delivering, so new blood was brought in.

    Back in the day I recall how disappointed I was SC left the series. I liked OHMSS, but still smarted from Connery's departure. GL wasn't Connery. But then along comes DAF and Connery is back. Only something is off. It doesn't grab me like previous Connery Bond films. In fact, the film is nowhere near as good as that one starring the other feller. After OHMSS, tonally DAF felt off. OHMSS charted a new direction. Rather than building on that film, the producers tried to recapture a previous magic and missed. In many ways the Craig series understood OHMSS best. That more serious tone begins with CR and ends with multiple nods of appreciation to a film that was initially scorned and now ranks at the top of many lists.
  • edited September 2023 Posts: 2,266
    CrabKey wrote: »
    The OHMSS film was only as faithful to the book due to Peter Hunt’s insistence. Because of that, we got a strong adaptation by Maibaum, especially since the foundation is already as good as it is.

    With DAF, I don’t think there was ever really any thought given to making an adaptation as faithful as OHMSS. Cubby just wanted to make another film in the tone of GF, hire Hamilton to bring back that kind of comic book sensibility, and use whatever ideas are in the book combined with original ideas that the screenwriter comes up with. Maibaum wasn’t delivering, so new blood was brought in.

    Back in the day I recall how disappointed I was SC left the series. I liked OHMSS, but still smarted from Connery's departure. GL wasn't Connery. But then along comes DAF and Connery is back. Only something is off. It doesn't grab me like previous Connery Bond films. In fact, the film is nowhere near as good as that one starring the other feller. After OHMSS, tonally DAF felt off. OHMSS charted a new direction. Rather than building on that film, the producers tried to recapture a previous magic and missed. In many ways the Craig series understood OHMSS best. That more serious tone begins with CR and ends with multiple nods of appreciation to a film that was initially scorned and now ranks at the top of many lists.

    Hunt and Majesty provided a new vision for the series that was criminally set aside. Instead of getting Bond films in the 70’s that were more sincere and epic in their film-making, we essentially had a decade of the series riffing off other film trends. Now as much as I may enjoy the likes of LALD and TSWLM, it’s hard to deny the 70’s were not entirely kind to the Bond series. People can say what they will about George Lazenby, but I’d imagine its hard for people to deny that losing Peter Hunt was a bit of a mistake.
  • TheSkyfallen06TheSkyfallen06 Buenos Aires, Argentina.
    Posts: 1,101
    I know that by today's standards Bond won't smoke anymore, but is there any slight chance that he can smoke again? I'm not saying he should be a compulsive smoker, but more of a casual one, you know.
  • Junglist_1985Junglist_1985 Los Angeles
    edited September 2023 Posts: 1,032
    I know that by today's standards Bond won't smoke anymore, but is there any slight chance that he can smoke again? I'm not saying he should be a compulsive smoker, but more of a casual one, you know.

    I would LOVE a casino scene with smoke so thick you can taste it for Bond 26. Why? Not just because it’s Fleming, but also because it would never happen nowadays - thus it becomes fantastical without delving into spyfi or nukes, etc
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,183
    This romanticism of the past is definitely something Bond 26 should avoid.
  • George_KaplanGeorge_Kaplan Being chauffeured by Tibbett
    Posts: 682
    I know that by today's standards Bond won't smoke anymore, but is there any slight chance that he can smoke again? I'm not saying he should be a compulsive smoker, but more of a casual one, you know.

    I would LOVE a casino scene with smoke so thick you can taste it for Bond 26. Why? Not just because it’s Fleming, but also because it would never happen nowadays - thus it becomes fantastical without delving into spyfi or nukes, etc

    I think Craig wanted to get Bond smoking again and was rejected. And Craig's been given more creative control than any other actor, so if even he couldn't make it happen, I don't think there's much hope of anyone else doing so.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,183
    Plus, we’re in the 21st century. Smoking is not the big habit it used to be 60 years ago. Plus I can image there’s a lot of companies that would not be pleased to have their brands presented in a film where the hero smokes.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,179
    In the days when Fleming made Bond a chimney, tobacco companies got away with telling people that "Doctors endorse our brand" and that it's very American for ten-year old Timmy to start smoking. We can't even begin to imagine how different the times are today. The "cool" people don't smoke anymore.
Sign In or Register to comment.