Where does Bond go after Craig?

MaxCasino

shimplyshocking007 wrote: »

Could they potentially do missions that filled in the gap between QOS and Skyfall? I never liked the premise that Bond was an "old dog" so quickly.

I always thought that Goldeneye Reloaded and Bloodstone filled out part of this gap. Quite well actually.

Reflsin2bourbons

Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »

007HallY wrote: »

Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »

peter wrote: »

Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »

CrabKey wrote: »

Yep. But their Bond was killed. Ours wasn't. In fact ours came back twice and still wasn't killed.

They hadn't tapped into the poetry of a lone man's journey yet, clearly.

Some people only know how to be destructive and are incapable of building anything positive.

Sounds just like EON productions to me, slowly taking everything that matters to Bond anyway from him one by one and then killing him before his daughter could learn his name. Where's the optimism in that? Bond had more joy squeezed into the 3 minute BMW chase around a parking lot in TND than he did in the entirety of Craigs run. Here's a novel idea to reboot the franchise, try having some fun for once, I think that could suit a franchise about a super spy saving the world, but what do I know?

Again I reiterate, what people want is not difficult to deliver, or costly (e.g. the TND car park chase), it just takes getting someone with the right sensibilities.

So do you not have any fun watching any of the Bond films past TND @Mendes4Lyfe ?

I mean, if that’s the case I’m sorry there’s a good chunk of Bond films you don’t actually like, or at least get any enjoyment out of, as seemingly many other people do. I couldn’t imagine being a Bond fan and not having fun to some degree watching any of these films, particularly the new ones (there are of course a handful of films in this franchise I’m not as keen on or have personal criticisms of, but there’s always something in them).

TND was the last time they made a real bond film IMO, and that sort of happened accidentally. It was Barbara and Micheals first time helming a Bond film on their own, there were a lot of issues during production, so they essentially had to shoot from the hip, and lean on the formula a lot out of necessity. The movie is slick as hell, and brosnans bond is probably the last time we see that unflappable hero, with his "armour on". The World Is Not Enough has the problem of being dull, and not really having an imagination capturing idea at the centre. Bond films rely on formula, but there's always that spark of uniqueness which set them apart. LALD has voodoo, TMWTGG has karate, Moonraker has space exploration, and TWINE has... OIL? There was no engaging hook, and the direction, production design, cinematography really don't live up to Bond's standards. DAD is a bizarre contrast of tones, like there's two stories fighting for supremacy over the other, but (as I described on the controversial opinions thread the other day) there's still a lot of Bond "stuff" in there, I.e. little ideas which in another film could completely work and add something to the fabric series. The sword fight, bond walking through the lobby in PJ'S dripping wet, the Aston chase on ice, bond using the accelerator of a hovercraft to dispatch the baddie against the fan and leaping out of the way etc. I have a lot of respect for Casino Royale, every so often there needs to be a Bond film which shakes things up a big way and resets things, but I think they went a bit too far than they needed to to get the point across, and as time goes by the movie feels very dated to the mid 2000's just like batman begins. There's a lot of discussion about "trust" "half monk half hitman" and "putting you armour on" and "do I look like I give a damn" which feel like meta commentary, like they're saying "look at us, we're so different". I suppose at the time we were like "wow, so serious" but 20 years later, with so many films and series that have done it since it just sticks out. Also I don't like how the film is structured, with a whole 4th act taking place on the end after Bond wakes up in hospital. Its like they forgot to establish that bond and Vesper are falling in love, or something. I know that's how the book is structured (well, are they ever really in love in the book? Not really), but this is a case where they should have changed some things in the adaptation to make it more cinematic. Most people i talk to agree that the movie feels "complete" once Le Chiffre snuffs it. QoS is a mess, but I just can't gel with films where Bond is on the lamb, vengeful, disheveled, disorientated, looks like he could fly off the handle at any moment (I don't like LTK for this reason, either). SP and Bond 25 you can probably guess my feelings on, I don't need to go into detail...

I think the take away from the craig era is that EON and the writers need to learn to trust their instincts and shoot from the hip sometimes. I don't where this idea came from that bond is some high art film franchise that you need to bring in heavyweight dramatists to correctly capture the essence and do it justice. Its completely codswallop. Fleming considered the books airport literature, something to pass the time on a long flight, he churned them out in about 2 months of the year, in his journalistic prose style. The early films that we look back on as the golden age were each churned out in a matter of months, they were basic spy plots with an added shot of imagination that arrived at the right time to explode onto the public conscienceness. There was never anything terribly profound or sophisticated about them. I think the writers should be locked in a hotel room and given 48 hours to come up with a concept, and whatever they come up with, that's the basis for the story that they build from. Not everything needs to be this considered, detailed thesis on the state of Bond in relation to the modern world. Sometimes pure escapism is enough, and that's what got bond where he is afterall, not the musings of some dramatist wheezebag. Like I said in the other thread, it's about where the bottlenecks for the series are coming from. In the early 2000's there was certainly truth to saying that keep bond as an unflappable hero was holding them back, because clearly story elements of Brosnans last 2 films had to be fairly brutally compromised so he could finish the story picking diamonds out of halle berry's belly button like a job well done. But that restriction isn't there anymore, so what's holding them back? IMO the fact that the current bond can't lean into the formula, can't let comedy drive scenes, can't be stylised and slick, can't let pure escapism speak for itself, and bond can't have fun is whats holding back the storytelling of the films (again, except for the Paloma sequence of Bond 25 which did all this brillaintly and should be the proof of concept for the next film) . Even something as simple as rolling along a trolley in a newspaper factory while the bond theme plays, or sliding down a mountain inside a cello case would probably be too much for Bond in his current state. But if you only had 48 hours to come up with a treatment, there wouldn't be time to come up with all intricate mother/brother angles, and "old ways are the best" motifs, and Bond on the lamb "back from the dead" etc. You'd just have to think on your feet, like the old boys did back in the 60's and 70's, when they were churning these things out. Bond as a brand is strong enough, there's no need to overthink it.

I mean if you define things only by the cinematic Bond's standards then sure, whatever, but that misses the point. All these films are just adaptations and continuations of original stories that involve a secret agent that didn't really "have fun" on his missions (except for his womanising). Sure you could have fun reading it in the more whimsical stories like Dr. No, Thunderball, or any of the times maybe Felix Leiter got involved, but Bond is never having fun: he's a professional doing an extravagant job.
I think it's also bizarre cinematic Bond should have some sort of aversion to revenge and revenge stories, when that is Bond's motivation for the first 5 or 6 books (specifically against SMERSH for what they've done to Vesper). Nevermind the fact that Bond's job is revenge for Her Majesty (or His in modern day stories). Fleming's "airport literature" never descended in the comedy and parody that we see in Moonraker or Die Another Day.

Even Casino Royale, one of the top three direct adaptations, has a more cinematic tone with location hopping, and a more grandiose mood than the tense one in the novel. (I mean it's also clear that Bond is very much in love in the novel. He becomes Vesper's playtoy and is at her command in a way that we've never seen in a Bond film. He also considers leaving the service for her.)

Quick comment on the "non-Bond films" since TND: since when did Bond films have a gimmick? What's the gimmick in FRWL or TLD? Never the fact one could say things like female villain (and the best villain in terms of manipulating Bond). QOS is a poorly put together film, but Bond's characterisation is very source accurate: Craig is a ruthless killer, an efficient professional with a brash streak that's also socially aware and funny. Bond's malaise in Skyfall until he is demanded to fight for his country is also directly from YOLT. Where Craig failed was taking itself too seriously over the last two films where both the plots were not serious and plot-hole ridden. (Imagine Skyfall's mood on TMWTGG or DAF!)

One thing in which I do agree is the comments on Bond's relevance. Not that it's really in doubt now (and realistically it wasn't over the past 10 years anyway). Things like industrial espionage are on the rise, and if the 2nd Cold War was brewing before it's certainly happening now. But sorry, I don't want "fun" in the next film; I want an espionage story that is pacy and atmospheric like Fleming's early novels.

Kojak007

peter wrote: »

But I don’t want a rehash of Craig, nor a Craig 2.0.

I fear if they hire Nolan or Villeneuve it will be (mostly) exactly this - a Craig 2.0.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I get the feeling that they don't want to deviate much from the Craig era in terms of style and tone.

peter

Kojak007 wrote: »

peter wrote: »

But I don’t want a rehash of Craig, nor a Craig 2.0.

I fear if they hire Nolan or Villeneuve it will be (mostly) exactly this - a Craig 2.0.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I get the feeling that they don't want to deviate much from the Craig era in terms of style and tone.

I think with a new actor come new possibilities. A new actor won’t be Craig and there are things he will want to do that exhibit his strengths. The films may still be grounded, but with a new lead in the role, new stories to tell and a new director, then it will feel fresh, because it is: seen through the eyes of the new guy… (and I doubt we will have the suicide -death of a lover as the inciting incident of the new guy’s run)…

Denbigh

peter wrote: »

Kojak007 wrote: »

peter wrote: »

But I don’t want a rehash of Craig, nor a Craig 2.0.

I fear if they hire Nolan or Villeneuve it will be (mostly) exactly this - a Craig 2.0.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I get the feeling that they don't want to deviate much from the Craig era in terms of style and tone.

I think with a new actor come new possibilities. A new actor won’t be Craig and there are things he will want to do that exhibit his strengths. The films may still be grounded, but with a new lead in the role, new stories to tell and a new director, then it will feel fresh, because it is: seen through the eyes of the new guy… (and I doubt we will have the suicide -death of a lover as the inciting incident of the new guy’s run)…

Exactly, it’s the literally the “Craig”-era. If the 22 year old Cavill got the role, it would’ve felt very different even when their idea for the tone of the era was the same.

peter

Denbigh wrote: »

peter wrote: »

Kojak007 wrote: »

peter wrote: »

But I don’t want a rehash of Craig, nor a Craig 2.0.

I fear if they hire Nolan or Villeneuve it will be (mostly) exactly this - a Craig 2.0.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I get the feeling that they don't want to deviate much from the Craig era in terms of style and tone.

I think with a new actor come new possibilities. A new actor won’t be Craig and there are things he will want to do that exhibit his strengths. The films may still be grounded, but with a new lead in the role, new stories to tell and a new director, then it will feel fresh, because it is: seen through the eyes of the new guy… (and I doubt we will have the suicide -death of a lover as the inciting incident of the new guy’s run)…

Exactly, it’s the literally the “Craig”-era. If the 22 year old Cavill got the role, it would’ve felt very different even if their idea for the tone of the era was the same.

Yes, @Denbigh … even in an alternate universe but it was Cavill in CR-NTTD, it would have been presented in a very different way to suit the actor and what he brings to the role.

Mendes4Lyfe

DarthDimi wrote: »

Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »

You'd just have to think on your feet, like the old boys did back in the 60's and 70's, when they were churning these things out. Bond as a brand is strong enough, there's no need to overthink it.

Not really. Audiences have changed quite a bit. There's an overabundance of "product" out there. Why would you go to a movie theatre when you can just stay home and binge the next TV series on Netflix? Why pay for a Bond film when it's "just" another one like the two dozen ones you've already seen? I think you also overestimate the "cool factor" Bond still has among the younger crowd. Professionally, I spend a lot of time with teens and tweens, and let me tell you, Bond is not on their minds. Neither is the MCU anymore, for that matter. You refer to someone as a "regular Q" and you can hear crickets. Yet these hearts will have to be won over by the new Bond too, lest the series sink into oblivion. "Churning out" Bond films like they did way back when, isn't going to help. You'll have to work hard to build something more appealing.

Bond isn't the only hot action type with cool explosions and breathtaking car chases anymore. Even middle-aged people are considering what to spend their money on first. There's always the option "to pick up the movie in a few months when it's streaming" or when there's money again. So unless you make the films something special, and provided you refrain from mass-producing them, you may hold just people's interest and create a successful era once again. Yes, the Bond brand is still strong, but you really need to think this through nevertheless. I'm not advocating overthinking anything, but you're underthinking things, it seems like. Just make another Bond film, and then another, and then another, ... how hard can it be, right? Well, I think it's become much harder than it was several decades ago.

I don't know why "work harder" has become synonymous with being more cerebral and less concerned with escapism. If you want to evolve the formula, you can take one simple idea you want to explore, keep everything else the same and overlay it on the standard bond formula that has existed since goldfinger, fine tune where needed and voiala! There's no need throw the baby out with the bathwater, and lose the escapist fun of Bond in order to have an story that engages a modern audience. I'm not saying it's easy, but it is possible to tell a story with a bit of depth without having to directly compromise on being an escapist thrill ride like TND. My issue isn't that bond films shouldn't have ideas, but that the formula, flow and breezy feel of a bond shouldn't take a backseat so that those ideas can work. There's no reason why that should have to be the case IMO.

IMO, Casino (but they had a good reason with this one), Quantum, Skyfall, SPECTRE and B25 all compromise or moderate their fantasy escapist bond aspect, in order to put greater emphasis on the depth of storytelling and I can see why it was justified with Casino, and even Skyfall, because their stories DID justify it, however with the other three I just don't understand, and I don't think they earned it. A engaging, modern story doesn't have to come at the expense of a fun ride with imagination and high on rewatchability factor - they should fit hand in glove.

peter

@Mendes4Lyfe , a solution may be to buy yourself Final Draft Pro, write your perfect Bond adventure, and that way, every time the fools at EoN don’t live up to your expectations, you can crack open your perfect script, read it, play out scenes and have the most wonderful Bond experience ever!!

What'd ya say?? It’s kinda win/win for all (you get to actually live out your perfect Bond film that came from your most brilliant mind, and you don’t have to come on here and complain anymore! Then perhaps you could engage in actual discussions with the other members, instead of pontificating about what “we” want. Come on! Give it a go!!)

DEKE_RIVERS

Mission impossible movies stole their thunder. They were doing "Brosnan movies" with more style.

007HallY

Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »

007HallY wrote: »

Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »

peter wrote: »

Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »

CrabKey wrote: »

Yep. But their Bond was killed. Ours wasn't. In fact ours came back twice and still wasn't killed.

They hadn't tapped into the poetry of a lone man's journey yet, clearly.

Some people only know how to be destructive and are incapable of building anything positive.

Sounds just like EON productions to me, slowly taking everything that matters to Bond anyway from him one by one and then killing him before his daughter could learn his name. Where's the optimism in that? Bond had more joy squeezed into the 3 minute BMW chase around a parking lot in TND than he did in the entirety of Craigs run. Here's a novel idea to reboot the franchise, try having some fun for once, I think that could suit a franchise about a super spy saving the world, but what do I know?

Again I reiterate, what people want is not difficult to deliver, or costly (e.g. the TND car park chase), it just takes getting someone with the right sensibilities.

So do you not have any fun watching any of the Bond films past TND @Mendes4Lyfe ?

I mean, if that’s the case I’m sorry there’s a good chunk of Bond films you don’t actually like, or at least get any enjoyment out of, as seemingly many other people do. I couldn’t imagine being a Bond fan and not having fun to some degree watching any of these films, particularly the new ones (there are of course a handful of films in this franchise I’m not as keen on or have personal criticisms of, but there’s always something in them).

TND was the last time they made a real bond film IMO, and that sort of happened accidentally. It was Barbara and Micheals first time helming a Bond film on their own, there were a lot of issues during production, so they essentially had to shoot from the hip, and lean on the formula a lot out of necessity. The movie is slick as hell, and brosnans bond is probably the last time we see that unflappable hero, with his "armour on". The World Is Not Enough has the problem of being dull, and not really having an imagination capturing idea at the centre. Bond films rely on formula, but there's always that spark of uniqueness which set them apart. LALD has voodoo, TMWTGG has karate, Moonraker has space exploration, and TWINE has... OIL? There was no engaging hook, and the direction, production design, cinematography really don't live up to Bond's standards. DAD is a bizarre contrast of tones, like there's two stories fighting for supremacy over the other, but (as I described on the controversial opinions thread the other day) there's still a lot of Bond "stuff" in there, I.e. little ideas which in another film could completely work and add something to the fabric series. The sword fight, bond walking through the lobby in PJ'S dripping wet, the Aston chase on ice, bond using the accelerator of a hovercraft to dispatch the baddie against the fan and leaping out of the way etc. I have a lot of respect for Casino Royale, every so often there needs to be a Bond film which shakes things up a big way and resets things, but I think they went a bit too far than they needed to to get the point across, and as time goes by the movie feels very dated to the mid 2000's just like batman begins. There's a lot of discussion about "trust" "half monk half hitman" and "putting you armour on" and "do I look like I give a damn" which feel like meta commentary, like they're saying "look at us, we're so different". I suppose at the time we were like "wow, so serious" but 20 years later, with so many films and series that have done it since it just sticks out. Also I don't like how the film is structured, with a whole 4th act taking place on the end after Bond wakes up in hospital. Its like they forgot to establish that bond and Vesper are falling in love, or something. I know that's how the book is structured (well, are they ever really in love in the book? Not really), but this is a case where they should have changed some things in the adaptation to make it more cinematic. Most people i talk to agree that the movie feels "complete" once Le Chiffre snuffs it. QoS is a mess, but I just can't gel with films where Bond is on the lamb, vengeful, disheveled, disorientated, looks like he could fly off the handle at any moment (I don't like LTK for this reason, either). SP and Bond 25 you can probably guess my feelings on, I don't need to go into detail...

I think the take away from the craig era is that EON and the writers need to learn to trust their instincts and shoot from the hip sometimes. I don't where this idea came from that bond is some high art film franchise that you need to bring in heavyweight dramatists to correctly capture the essence and do it justice. Its completely codswallop. Fleming considered the books airport literature, something to pass the time on a long flight, he churned them out in about 2 months of the year, in his journalistic prose style. The early films that we look back on as the golden age were each churned out in a matter of months, they were basic spy plots with an added shot of imagination that arrived at the right time to explode onto the public conscienceness. There was never anything terribly profound or sophisticated about them. I think the writers should be locked in a hotel room and given 48 hours to come up with a concept, and whatever they come up with, that's the basis for the story that they build from. Not everything needs to be this considered, detailed thesis on the state of Bond in relation to the modern world. Sometimes pure escapism is enough, and that's what got bond where he is afterall, not the musings of some dramatist wheezebag. Like I said in the other thread, it's about where the bottlenecks for the series are coming from. In the early 2000's there was certainly truth to saying that keep bond as an unflappable hero was holding them back, because clearly story elements of Brosnans last 2 films had to be fairly brutally compromised so he could finish the story picking diamonds out of halle berry's belly button like a job well done. But that restriction isn't there anymore, so what's holding them back? IMO the fact that the current bond can't lean into the formula, can't let comedy drive scenes, can't be stylised and slick, can't let pure escapism speak for itself, and bond can't have fun is whats holding back the storytelling of the films (again, except for the Paloma sequence of Bond 25 which did all this brillaintly and should be the proof of concept for the next film) . Even something as simple as rolling along a trolley in a newspaper factory while the bond theme plays, or sliding down a mountain inside a cello case would probably be too much for Bond in his current state. But if you only had 48 hours to come up with a treatment, there wouldn't be time to come up with all intricate mother/brother angles, and "old ways are the best" motifs, and Bond on the lamb "back from the dead" etc. You'd just have to think on your feet, like the old boys did back in the 60's and 70's, when they were churning these things out. Bond as a brand is strong enough, there's no need to overthink it.

I’ll take that as a ‘no’ to my question then. 😂 No worries.

Mendes4Lyfe

What I think the insightful discussion of the last fews days amounts to is that essentially the bond formula has a element added to it in the modern age, and that's an added layer of storytelling, whatever form that might take. Bond isn't simply chasing a macguffin or racing against the clock, there's some other tension happening in the background. But, at the same time, as an equal element with the preexisting aspects of bond one should not seek to override the others, and both should coexist where possible. For instance, it was not possible for Q to pop up in Casino Royale and give Bond an incredible self-righting car which manages to avoid Vesper on the road and land perfectly on 4 wheels as that would have completely flown in the face of story they were telling. Similarly, they needed to temper the happy go lucky, cheery bond for Skyfall because the whole thing rested on him being "resurrected" for the story to make any kind of sense. I can very much appreciate that, even if the stories aren't my cup of tea, they had an idea, they followed through with that plan, and the films had to be the way they were. One priority took precedence over another, and it meant certain facets of Bond had to take a breather (and others returned, in the form of Q and moneypenny). And I think in a strange way this explains why I have such a strong dislike of Craigs last 2 films in particular. Because with Casino and Skyfall, the more involved storytelling giving the boot to the raw escapism you'd usually expect from Bond is always justified by the fact that the story hinges on that being the case. You can't just pull it out, because the whole film would collapse in on itself like a game of jenga. Whereas when we get to Craigs last 2 films, I feel like the intentional lack of escapism, the slow, meandering, pacing etc. Isn't motivated by some wholistic vision that takes ultimate precedence, and very easily could be adapted or worked on to better include the preexisting james bond formula we're used to. It feels like the extra layer of storytelling (e.g. Bond and Blofeld) is only there to sell you on the idea that there's more going on, and this isn't just "more product" as @DarthDimi put it. When that's the case, and that's the only justification for staying away from embracing escapism, or appearing to, it kinda feels like the preexisting formula SHOULD take presence over the storytelling. If there's no underlying vision, then the formula, and the fantasy world Bond has established for itself over the many years SHOULD reign supreme by default. It's my personally wish and belief that one of either Bond 26 or Bond 27 shows us that you CAN indeed do a standard, straight forward, down the line, romping James Bond adventure, with a bold new version of the bond theme, and all the bells and whistles and bravado, and still have that added layer of sophistication to the script WITHOUT one cannibalising the other, and I think once they have cracked that nut they will have fertile ground to play with for the next slate of films for years to come.

Benny

Well I’m glad we’ve got that sorted.
When you put it like that, it’s so easy.
I wonder why EON haven’t already done that.

Reflsin2bourbons

Spectre does try to follow the formula though? It just takes itself seriously so we can see the holes in the formula. Where in some of the Moore films it isn't totally serious and you can just enjoy the ride

peter

@Mendes4Lyfe should really, really, really invest in Final Draft Pro and do as I suggested: write the perfect Bond film with this “formula “ you speak of.

It will come from the world’s greatest brain.

And EoN can’t possibly live up to your standards, so this way you get to read the finest screenplay ever written, you get to act the scenes out in your bedroom, and you don’t have to come on here, pontificating in a ten thousand word essay what EoN *should* be doing, not wagging your finger and telling us what *we* want.

Like I said before: win/win.

Then perhaps you can just join friendly conversation and debate with respect and maybe you won’t automatically think you’re right on everything (let alone some things)…

Mendes4Lyfe

Benny wrote: »

Well I’m glad we’ve got that sorted.
When you put it like that, it’s so easy.
I wonder why EON haven’t already done that.

@Benny I'm not sure if this is sarcasm benster, but I'll treat it as sincere - because its extremely difficult I would imagine. Trying to craft a script that balances all the existing aspects of Bond formula, which is already very complicated, and then layer some kind of subtle weightiness on top and have it all hold together nicely is not a task for the faint of heart.

Reflsin2bourbons wrote: »

Spectre does try to follow the formula though? It just takes itself seriously so we can see the holes in the formula. Where in some of the Moore films it isn't totally serious and you can just enjoy the ride

I mean, yes it does. My point is that the writers haven't cracked how to merge these two sides together yet. Once they figure out how to intergrate the sophisticated storytelling into the existing formula so that it can be applied to any kind of story, then they will have the key to unlock some great bond stories. Remember, weightiness doesn't have to come from staring out over a misty moor, or sat in your dressing gown gazing wistfully at a photo with one of the faces burnt out. You can have a story with some dramatic heft, but it's not necessarily referred to in every line of dialogue, or alluded in a poem read at a public hearing. As long as its communicated clearly, it will have the intended effect.

Scaramanga1974

Maybe time for another aquatic or ski based Bond adventure.

FoxRox

Scaramanga1974 wrote: »

Maybe time for another aquatic or ski based Bond adventure.

Skiing was one of the biggest things I missed throughout the Craig era. And we came oh so close with SP - not just having the snowy environment, but I'm pretty sure one of the original scripts had an epic skiing chase written in.

peter

Amazing creative writing, I think @Mendes4Lyfe is their source…

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-13245179/bond-film-remake-sydney-sweeney-zendaya-aaron-taylor-johnson-007.html?ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490&ito=social-twitter_mailonline

And it *could be* a remake!

And going back to the tone of the Brosnan pics!

And (sigh), pretty sad they lifted the Villeneuve rumour off of this site, 😂!!

EDIT: if they kept their lie about a secret audition to 2022, instead of now saying it happened last year when there were no writers working due to the strikes, and then the actors went on strike, it’d still be a terrible and lying piece of nonsense, but shifting the auditions where there was not one, but two strikes that killed the year (and ALMOST a third, but the DGA got out unscathed), just dropped their BS to -100 on the truth meter.

Once again, I’m not saying ATJ won’t be Bond (although I don’t think so), but this stuff, everything they’ve written is utter nonsense (and I wish I could drop a few F-bombs in there too, 😂)…

Mendes4Lyfe

Denis Villeneuve, ATJ and Syndey Sweeney? Sign me up! >:D< Hopefully we can finally get this show on the road.

peter

Yep, @Mendes4Lyfe is the source.

A more sobering report in Entertainment Weekly wrote on Friday:

“While a recent report claimed that Kraven the Hunter star Aaron Taylor-Johnson had been offered the role and would replace Daniel Craig as Bond, a source close to the situation told EW that no official offer had been made.”

https://ew.com/eiza-gonzalez-rooting-henry-cavill-next-james-bond-8621796

So the question here is is @DEKE_RIVERS and @Mendes4Lyfe going to believe what a reputable entertainment media discovered via their source, or, are they going to believe the two rags, and the only two, to say he was offered the role (and should have signed two weeks ago now)?

We already have @Mendes4Lyfe and his answer….

Mendes4Lyfe

Sydney Sweeney is like the new Monica Belluci, a Bond girl in waiting. She has a huge online following.

peter

https://lwlies.com/articles/fake-news-viral-marketing-campaigns-a-cure-for-wellness/

https://medium.com/texas-mccombs/movie-studios-build-buzz-with-fake-film-tweets-c1ad0a470f7a

. “And on the flip side of that, I know producers who are like, ‘Yeah, if I throw a pyramid with an eye on it somewhere in my film, all the crazies on YouTube come out and I get three times as many views.’”

More people talking about a movie will, almost inevitably, lead to more interest and therefore bigger box office." Forbes 2020

I've put the above links or quotes because, on a serious note, what I believe is happening here is what the film industry has been playing since about 2015 and onwards:

Studios are known, have been caught, but continue to plant fake news stories in the tabloids. These fake news stories are planted to either take down a competing film, or bring your own potential project up.

And if I was to guess where these "sources" (that are only speaking to The Sun or The Mail (because the big entertainment media will be able to vet all "sources" and would blow the cover off of this bad agents), are coming from, I'd say it's someone associated to the Kraven film. Their actor is going to sign as Bond (and when this Kraven film comes out, he will still be ready to sign, but just not yet...), and he's going to be surrounded by hot, young, "it" Euphoria actresses...

And once this film is released (but still bombs), these tabloid reports will die with it...

Once again, this isn't me saying ATJ won't be Bond , but he will win it via the appropriate chain of procedure (you need a script, director, and then call in the Big Boys)...

EDIT: And please read the first article about how lies can go viral ( people on here said about these rumours, where there's smoke, there's fire. This explains it)...

And honestly @Mendes4Lyfe , these guys have told us everything, that EoN now has NO announcement to make. Do you really think they'd let that happen?? Truthfully, don't you think they'd have got in front of the *next* article if there was any accuracy on this casting???

Just like when the wolves closed in in Craig's mum, they expedited his announcement. Well, these lies about ATJ have been going on for two weeks and, basically everything, from the suits, to the amount of films, to the colour of his underwear have been revealed. But nothing from EoN.

This is a rotten Studio plant and I'd guess it's someone from Kraven The Hunter...

Mendes4Lyfe

"peter wrote: »

And honestly @Mendes4Lyfe , these guys have told us everything, that EoN has NO announcement to make. Do you really think they'd let that happen?? Truthfully, don't you think they'd have got in front of the *next* article if there was any accuracy on this casting???

Just like when the wolves closed in in Craig's mum, they expedited his announcement. Well, these lies about ATJ have been going on for two weeks and, basically everything, from the suits, to the amount of films, to the colour of his underwear have been revealed. But nothing from EoN.

I just think EON are likely to release the film in Oct/Nov, and if we presume that 2026 is the target, then it makes sense we would start to get some credible information. The other possibility is that NOTHING is happening, the stories about Villeneuve and ATJ are false, and we aren't likely to see another Bond until 2027. :-<

peter

You didn't answer my question: if there is any accuracy in what they're writing, EoN would have stepped in, no? They want to do the announcement. And they would have done what they did with Craig: move the announcement forward.

I mean, for God's sake, they're saying the surviving Bond members are going to be at the unveiling (they won't be), so if this is true, what's left to the pomp of EoN's big announcement?

What's left?

Nothing.

Absolutely nothing.

But EoN hasn't stepped in because none of this is real. It's fake.

This is a studio plant.

The Fall Guy doesn't need any help to bolster numbers. Not at all.

But we all know what Sony has been creating recently, and with Madame Web being the latest to get annihilated, someone on Kraven is doing anything they can to have a big opening weekend.

This is all bullsh!t, none of what they've written has any accuracy.

(But yes, I still believe Villeneuve is the main candidate but not because of this article (I've been saying the Villeneuve thing since mid February, at least, and that has been gleaned by chatting with smarter people than me whom are in the thick of big productions, and then what the director himself has dropped.

And yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if some of these hacks have perused a site like this and lifted the Villeneuve storyline (it'll be about the only thing they get right).

MajorDSmythe

Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »

Sydney Sweeney is like the new Monica Belluci, a Bond girl in waiting. She has a huge online following.

Ah, the good kind of SS.

DEKE_RIVERS

peter wrote: »

Amazing creative writing, I think @Mendes4Lyfe is their source…

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-13245179/bond-film-remake-sydney-sweeney-zendaya-aaron-taylor-johnson-007.html?ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490&ito=social-twitter_mailonline

And it *could be* a remake!

And going back to the tone of the Brosnan pics!

And (sigh), pretty sad they lifted the Villeneuve rumour off of this site, 😂!!

EDIT: if they kept their lie about a secret audition to 2022, instead of now saying it happened last year when there were no writers working due to the strikes, and then the actors went on strike, it’d still be a terrible and lying piece of nonsense, but shifting the auditions where there was not one, but two strikes that killed the year (and ALMOST a third, but the DGA got out unscathed), just dropped their BS to -100 on the truth meter.

Once again, I’m not saying ATJ won’t be Bond (although I don’t think so), but this stuff, everything they’ve written is utter nonsense (and I wish I could drop a few F-bombs in there too, 😂)…

Bye, bye, Villeneuve.

Colonel_Venus

If we assume that EON really are trying to get Villeneuve to direct Bond 26, my question is: Why is EON trying to make the incredibly busy Villeneuve direct Bond 26 when Nolan, who would be an even better choice in pretty much every way has a completely empty schedule?

CrabKey

If Nolan does direct, then what? Another protracted search for another big name director for Bond 27?

Benny

Colonel_Venus wrote: »

If we assume that EON really are trying to get Villeneuve to direct Bond 26, my questins is: Why is EON trying to make the incredibly busy Villeneuve direct Bond 26 when Nolan, who would be an even better choice in pretty much every way has a completely empty schedule?

Maybe EON don't want Nolan.
Maybe Nolan doesn't like the way EON want to go.
Maybe EON and Nolan have discussed things behind closed doors, and neither could come to an agreement.
Maybe Nolan wants too much creative control.
Maybe Villeneuve has a great plan / story to bring in a new Bond era.
Maybe EON don't want Villeneuve or Nolan because Bond 26 isn't at the stage of needing a director yet.
Maybe EON haven't even started writing a script for Bond 26.
Maybe we'll get some news when EON are ready to share something worthwhile.
Maybe EON do read the pages here, and laugh and laugh and laugh.

You choose one.

Colonel_Venus

Maybe EON don't want Nolan. -> entirely possible, but it would be exceedingly unreasonable

Maybe Nolan doesn't like the way EON want to go. -> it would be a bad strategic move on EON's part to decide which way to go BEFORE hearing pitches from writers/directors

Maybe EON and Nolan have discussed things behind closed doors, and neither could come to an agreement. -> sure, it's possible, and in this case I would be siding with Nolan. He has a much better track record than EON does and I do believe he has a better understanding of Bond than they do

Maybe Nolan wants too much creative control. -> giving Nolan TOTAL creative control to make a Bond film woud be one of the least risky decisions a producer can make

Maybe EON don't want Villeneuve or Nolan because Bond 26 isn't at the stage of needing a director yet. -> you cannot get a director such as Nolan or Villeneuve without involving them in the script writing process

Maybe EON haven't even started writing a script for Bond 26. -> that would be alarming considering the last Bond film premiered over 2 years ago and was completely finished 4 years ago.

Maybe we'll get some news when EON are ready to share something worthwhile. -> we will get substantial news months before that. we always do.

Maybe EON do read the pages here, and laugh and laugh and laugh. -> hopefully they are spending their time in a more productive way, like making Bond 26

CrabKey wrote: »

If Nolan does direct, then what? Another protracted search for another big name director for Bond 27?

It doesn't need to be protracted. The gap between NTTD and Bond 26 isn't big because they have been searching for a big name director. Also, if they right now wanted Bond 26 to get made as quickly as possible, they should hire Nolan.

Nolan's next movie (whether that's Bond 26 or something else) will very likely get released in the summer of 2026. If EON hires someone other than Nolan, Bond 26 very likely won't be released before late 2026.