Where does Bond go after Craig?

1667668670672673697

Comments

  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,511

    NTTD doesn't feel like it's in our world. It feels a little bit surreal, even with the grounded story they're trying to tell with the characters. Whereas Casino and Quantum were very much in the late-2000s. Forster in QOS directly references Blair and Sarkozy for his villain, there's the sort of cynicism about the US and UK governments that most people had at the time. Spectre even tries to capture the fear of surveillance. CR mentions 9/11, involves financial crime etc.

    To be fair there are a lot of Bond films that feel surreal, almost “dream like.” I think YOLT and Moonraker are definitely such films, and despite the grounded storytelling, I don’t think NTTD is that far off from those films in terms of tone/style.

    I wouldn’t disagree with what you, or @Reflsin2bourbons is saying.

    I’ve interpreted this film, and the way it was shot (surreal/dreamlike), as Bond seeing his last few years of life, flashing before his eyes, in the moment that the missiles hit him.

    It’s we the audience that finally catch up to him at the very end.

    It’s almost like an adult fairy tale to me, and I can understand why some may hate my interpretation, or agree with it, and still dislike it.

    To me, it was awesome.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,380
    peter wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Also don’t forget that Bond wasn’t interested in Felix’s request until M and Nomi warned him off, way too aggressively. That puts his back up and actually provokes him into action. So he’s irritated with M to start with. And then once his friend Felix is killed and his arch enemy Blofeld revealed to be involved, and then finds out M is involved with a deadly poison, what else would he do?
    There’s nothing at all wrong with this storyline.

    True, hadn't thought of that. But yes, it's all there.
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    To be fair @peter is right. In the context of this film it's what gets Bond back to MI6. He's angry about Leiter's death and needs to confront M/MI6 directly because things have gotten to that point. Otherwise as said it'd be a case of Bond and Leiter continuing the mission together, which I can understand doesn't quite have the same story possibilities.

    Leiter's death isn't something I love about NTTD, but it makes sense when you put that way. Not saying the film is perfect (or at least to my top ranking liking as a Bond movie) but it makes sense.

    But Bond feuding with M is artificial drama to begin with, only there because we need him back on a state of dejection so he can rise like a pheonix, as has been the pattern since CR.

    Well, not really. He needs to go back and confront MI6 just on a very basic plot level. It's not really to do with any greater pattern but a basic necessity of plot.

    Why does he need to confront MI6? What have they done to him? He was living on an island dejected with the world.

    Well, in this case M has sanctioned and let escape a deadly bit of tech that has led to the death of Leiter, Bond's close friend.

    Again, it's basic plot necessity and decisions in the context of writing. I'm not sure what you're talking about here otherwise.

    What I'm saying is if your justification for Felix dying in the middle of the story is that it gives a reason for Bond to return to MI6, then Bond wouldn't need a reason to return back if he wasn't artificially beefing with M to begin with. He's a spy, taking orders from M is his job. He could just hand a dossier to Bond and say "retrieve this, 007".

    So essentially you don't like the concepts of this film, and by extension the last few Craig Bond films? It's personal preference and even if it's thought out it's just not your thing even if it a Bond movie? Hence why you see it as artificial?

    Either that or you've not understood or seen the film. I think it's just a case of a badly written post though, but it's a bit hard understanding what you mean. My interpretation was it's just not a film you see as being 'Bond' as it deviates ever so slightly from those tropes.

    Fair enough! If it's not to your preference that's fine, but I'm not seeing any tangible reason for these films being awful on a basic story/plot level beyond personal opinion (including mind incidentally, even if I don't see NTTD as awful and as much as I have issues with that film).
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    To be fair @peter is right. In the context of this film it's what gets Bond back to MI6. He's angry about Leiter's death and needs to confront M/MI6 directly because things have gotten to that point. Otherwise as said it'd be a case of Bond and Leiter continuing the mission together, which I can understand doesn't quite have the same story possibilities.

    Leiter's death isn't something I love about NTTD, but it makes sense when you put that way. Not saying the film is perfect (or at least to my top ranking liking as a Bond movie) but it makes sense.

    But Bond feuding with M is artificial drama to begin with, only there because we need him back on a state of dejection so he can rise like a pheonix, as has been the pattern since CR.

    Well, not really. He needs to go back and confront MI6 just on a very basic plot level. It's not really to do with any greater pattern but a basic necessity of plot.

    Why does he need to confront MI6? What have they done to him? He was living on an island dejected with the world.

    Well, in this case M has sanctioned and let escape a deadly bit of tech that has led to the death of Leiter, Bond's close friend.

    Again, it's basic plot necessity and decisions in the context of writing. I'm not sure what you're talking about here otherwise.
    peter wrote: »
    I like watching Craig’s Bond be more relaxed and at ease too; which is why I thought NTTD did a much better job at showcasing that than SP did. I liked seeing Bond partying with Felix in Jamaica, seeing him attempt to seduce Nomi by bringing her back to his pad just to get rejected, the fun he has with Paloma in Cuba (ya know when people aren’t trying to kill him) and the peace and tranquility he has when he’s with his family for those brief moments on screen.

    I’m on the same page as you on this. I loved these scenes in No Time To Die. Nicely written, wonderfully acted and directed.

    They really were. Some of the best moments of Craig’s tenure let alone any Bond film. I found myself wanting more moments like that by film’s end, but unfortunately you can’t get everything you want 🤷‍♂️.

    My hope is that the tone/style of NTTD will continue on into Bond #7’s tenure. I’ve had enough of “gritty” Bond, I want a return to the fantastical/OTT elements that make movies like GF, TSWLM, and GE so great. NTTD proved you can still make that type of Bond film with the grounded emotional storytelling that Craig’s era established and still have it work (depending on who you ask!)

    I'd love to see a film with a story/villain's scheme like TSWLM using some of the grittiness of action from CR-SF, and perhaps some of the fatalism of NTTD. TSWLM is already a great film for me with plenty of character stakes, but I'd be so interested in seeing how that mixture of fantasy and darkness in a new Bond movie. Plus, you can't go wrong with Bond trying to thwart a villain taking over the world.

    That kind of describes Goldeneye in some ways (or at least how I view Goldeneye); it’s a dark movie in terms of it’s atmosphere and the grittier elements of the Dalton years bleed into it. It doesn’t quite have the fatalism of NTTD but its themes about the past, the themes of betrayal and the uncertainty of what lies ahead in a post Cold War world (from the perspective of Bond/MI6) add a similar depth imo.

    But yeah, anything like what you’ve described would be perfect. I think everyone tends to overthink these things because we’re all fans who obsess over this character we know/love. EON has yet to deliver a disaster on the levels of “Joker 2” and that puts a lot into perspective. Forgive my French, but there are a lot of Film Studios that, for lack of a better word, fuck up. Thankfully EON has enough power/weight behind their company to have a final say in their product. That’s the reason this series has lasted over 60 years.

    Yeah, they make mistakes but at least have some sense of what they're doing and try to be true to the character/franchise. It says a lot.

    And yes, it's not unlike GE which is a film I really like and rate highly. Not to say we'll get another GE (every Bond film is unique) but I'd love if they went into it with a similar thought process.

    What does "even if it a Bond movie" mean?

    It's artificial because it's finding a solution to a problem that Bond films don't have to begin with. M is Bond's boss, he gives him orders, there doesn't need to be another justification or reason getting him there. If your defense is "well, you just don't like the concepts of this film, its personal preference" fine, but you can say the same about any Bond film, or any film in general, so I'm not sure what point your proving with that.

    @Mendes4Lyfe , it’s been explained to you: M isn’t his boss in NTTD!

    It’s clear you missed the simplest of plot beats, or, you didn’t see the film. It’s obvious your problems with the film stem from one, or the other.

    Perhaps you should actually watch the film you so hate, before hating on it?

    Or if you have seen it, it’s clear from today, you missed just about every beat to the plot there is!!

    As an American, I see many people being insolent and disloyal toward their bosses...and M isn't even Bond's boss at this point in the story!

    I don't know if British audiences read this relationship differently and demand more loyalty from Bond even in retirement, but this changed dynamic definitely seems to be a sore point with some who watch NTTD. It's a great point that Bond just saw Leiter being killed so of course Bond is teed off!

    Also, it's dramatic and who doesn't like seeing pros like Fiennes and Craig go toe-to-toe (as they may this year at the Oscars)?

    Also, it's fiction! I'd rather have fictional drama than the real-world drama I see in my country.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,597
    The issues with NTTD have nothing really to do with the Bond-M relationship or the writing or whatever. Excluding the execution of the ending, my main problem is that it's a like Die Another Day inside Skyfall. While that's obviously a dramatisation, No Time to Die invites us to take the story seriously, with serious character beats and changes. But I always find there's a bit of ridiculousness that's hard to suspend.

    NTTD doesn't feel like it's in our world. It feels a little bit surreal, even with the grounded story they're trying to tell with the characters. Whereas Casino and Quantum were very much in the late-2000s. Forster in QOS directly references Blair and Sarkozy for his villain, there's the sort of cynicism about the US and UK governments that most people had at the time. Spectre even tries to capture the fear of surveillance. CR mentions 9/11, involves financial crime etc.

    I think that's fine; for me these films should always exist in Bondland, not our own. Somewhere more glamorous and perfect, where you arrive to casinos by personal boat with fireworks going off behind you and where beach bars are filled with attractive people playing dangerous games with scorpions.

  • NTTD doesn't feel like it's in our world. It feels a little bit surreal, even with the grounded story they're trying to tell with the characters. Whereas Casino and Quantum were very much in the late-2000s. Forster in QOS directly references Blair and Sarkozy for his villain, there's the sort of cynicism about the US and UK governments that most people had at the time. Spectre even tries to capture the fear of surveillance. CR mentions 9/11, involves financial crime etc.

    To be fair there are a lot of Bond films that feel surreal, almost “dream like.” I think YOLT and Moonraker are definitely such films, and despite the grounded storytelling, I don’t think NTTD is that far off from those films in terms of tone/style.

    Yeah well I suppose no points for guessing my least favourite Connery and Moore films. And they both have the Gilbert virus of jumping around far too much. All three are films where the fantastical of Bond brush too close to sci-fi for my tastes
    peter wrote: »

    NTTD doesn't feel like it's in our world. It feels a little bit surreal, even with the grounded story they're trying to tell with the characters. Whereas Casino and Quantum were very much in the late-2000s. Forster in QOS directly references Blair and Sarkozy for his villain, there's the sort of cynicism about the US and UK governments that most people had at the time. Spectre even tries to capture the fear of surveillance. CR mentions 9/11, involves financial crime etc.

    To be fair there are a lot of Bond films that feel surreal, almost “dream like.” I think YOLT and Moonraker are definitely such films, and despite the grounded storytelling, I don’t think NTTD is that far off from those films in terms of tone/style.

    I wouldn’t disagree with what you, or @Reflsin2bourbons is saying.

    I’ve interpreted this film, and the way it was shot (surreal/dreamlike), as Bond seeing his last few years of life, flashing before his eyes, in the moment that the missiles hit him.

    It’s we the audience that finally catch up to him at the very end.

    It’s almost like an adult fairy tale to me, and I can understand why some may hate my interpretation, or agree with it, and still dislike it.

    To me, it was awesome.

    Yes, and I'd like to mention that No Time To Die pulls off the surrealism better than the other two. I think the ending and all the logical qualm I have about it ultimately puts it bottom of the three though.
    mtm wrote: »
    The issues with NTTD have nothing really to do with the Bond-M relationship or the writing or whatever. Excluding the execution of the ending, my main problem is that it's a like Die Another Day inside Skyfall. While that's obviously a dramatisation, No Time to Die invites us to take the story seriously, with serious character beats and changes. But I always find there's a bit of ridiculousness that's hard to suspend.

    NTTD doesn't feel like it's in our world. It feels a little bit surreal, even with the grounded story they're trying to tell with the characters. Whereas Casino and Quantum were very much in the late-2000s. Forster in QOS directly references Blair and Sarkozy for his villain, there's the sort of cynicism about the US and UK governments that most people had at the time. Spectre even tries to capture the fear of surveillance. CR mentions 9/11, involves financial crime etc.

    I think that's fine; for me these films should always exist in Bondland, not our own. Somewhere more glamorous and perfect, where you arrive to casinos by personal boat with fireworks going off behind you and where beach bars are filled with attractive people playing dangerous games with scorpions.

    I don't think so. Bondland should never be divorced for our own: otherwise when the films try to appeal to the human side to the character they will fail in my eyes. How can I take the character's struggles as deeply as I should when I don't believe any of this is real?

    What of the man tired smelling sweat and smoke in the casino of a partially failed French town? Whose job half the time seems to be about stopping communist funding (and then another bit dealing? Because even with the world ending plots, Fleming was still always keeping it believable (hence the "Fleming Effect", the focus on the drinks and cars and systems).
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,693
    https://www.worldofreel.com/blog/2024/10/23/venom-the-last-dance-earns-mixed-reviews

    Minor Bond rumor.

    Also, I worked a full day. I see this thread with a ton of responses. My hopes go up about getting Bond news. BUT NOOOOOOOO! It's the same person who doesn't get filmmaking and even worse: Doesn't respect others' opinions. Just assuming we'll follow theirs as fact! Bond is one of the ultimate fantasies mixed with realism. I'd say NTTD does this at least decently. Uh-oh, I'm defending NTTD! I'd better hide from a certain someone!
  • SeveSeve The island of Lemoy
    edited October 25 Posts: 440

    quote=Seve
    Top "Traditional" Action Movies by year (i.e. not Sci-Fi or Superhero)


    There are also superhero movies.

    Yes, I have chosen to exclude them, as I wanted to look at ones where the degree of action "realism" is a factor

    Superheros movies have always ignored the rules of physics, for example. in the "real" World, Ironman would never have survived most of the crashes he endured while developing his suit in Ironman 1, but in a Superhero movie no part of the audience seems to care about that.

    Whereas there is a significant portion of action movie fans who find the Fast & Furious franchise to be ridiculous and won't watch them.

    On the other hand Fast & Furious are able to draw in Superhero movie fans instead

    Bond fans accept a certain level of "incredibility", but I believe there is a line beyond which they would become unhappy.

  • Posts: 2,026
    I do agree Bond's world tends to be glamorous and exotic. However, they are generally places one can actually visit, even if they are not shooting off fireworks when one arrives.

    I don't see NTTD as Bond's flashback while waiting for the missiles to arrive. If that was the case, his flashback was 2 hours and 43 minutes long, easily enough time to escape, and his flashback included Madeleine's flashback which feels very much like a Jorge Luis Borges short story.

    Bond films often strain reality because they've too often ventured into silliness. But I don't want a Bond film ripped from today's headlines. When I read someone saying Bond is needed more than ever because there is so much wrong in the world, I oppose that idea. Bond is an escape from reality. And in the end, a fictional character never solves problems in the real world.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,380
    The issues with NTTD have nothing really to do with the Bond-M relationship or the writing or whatever. Excluding the execution of the ending, my main problem is that it's a like Die Another Day inside Skyfall. While that's obviously a dramatisation, No Time to Die invites us to take the story seriously, with serious character beats and changes. But I always find there's a bit of ridiculousness that's hard to suspend.

    NTTD doesn't feel like it's in our world. It feels a little bit surreal, even with the grounded story they're trying to tell with the characters. Whereas Casino and Quantum were very much in the late-2000s. Forster in QOS directly references Blair and Sarkozy for his villain, there's the sort of cynicism about the US and UK governments that most people had at the time. Spectre even tries to capture the fear of surveillance. CR mentions 9/11, involves financial crime etc.

    I think for the next era there should the sort of real-world nature that surrounds the character. Smaller and more realistic stakes. The espionage game, sabotage, terrorism, something like that.

    The nanobots, essentially anticipating Covid, weren't real-world enough? I can't think of a more immediately prescient Bond movie.

    I agree that it's dreamlike, a bit like the YOLT novel.
  • edited October 25 Posts: 4,300
    It’s a bit of a paradox, but I think in order for Bond to be as escapist as it is it needs to have one foot in the door with reality. You can’t really have FRWL, TSWLM or TLD without the Cold War, GE without the fall of the Soviet Union, or CR without 9/11. That only scratches the surface incidentally. Every Bond adventure has some sort of connection to the time it was made, often as a major backdrop to the story.

    It’s still heightened reality though, and often the villains in these films are third parties/heightened versions of evil rather than those directly related with any of these political conflicts. That said I would argue it’s less complete escapism from the political/societal ills of our real world. It’s simply nice to know someone like Bond can come along, even in a world with such conflicts, and defeat such evils.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,511
    One's life flashes before his eyes doesn't last two hours, plus, @crabkey.

    You kind of took what I said a little too literally. His last few years flashing before his eyes, but we, the audience, are seeing the film version of that, and catch up with him, at the end.

    It's an interpretation. You don't have to like it, but I'm not expecting you to.

    It's the way I've interpreted this film since the first time I saw it. The way it was shot, *was* very dream-like, and like an adult fairy tale to me.

    The first words I uttered to my wife after our viewing is exactly what I wrote yesterday: the last few years of his life, flashing before his eyes, and we only catch up to him at the very end.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,597
    I must admit I don't quite get the dreamlike observation; I don't find the film to be that too much. Are there any specific parts which give you that feeling?
  • edited October 25 Posts: 4,300
    I do think NTTD is quite an impressionistic Bond film. It feels very 5 minutes into the future with the nanobot tech for me (almost like it’s too out there to be realistic, but related enough to our own time to feel real). You get some wonderfully surreal scenes such as the SPECTRE birthday with Blofeld’s mechanical eye being carried around on a cushion (the bit where it’s revealed they’re all standing behind Bond has a nightmarish quality to it, as does the moment the bots are released on them). The opening feels similarly nightmarish with heightened details like Safin’s boots crunching in the snow/on the floor, the creepy Noh mask covering his breathing etc. Even the way Matera is depicted feels heightened and you get things like the blurred edges as Bond and Madeline are first seen driving in the Aston Martin. It’s also just a pretty unusual Bond film in general with him retiring, having a kid, and dying. I must admit when I first saw it I got a sense of ‘what the heck did I just watch?’ There’s also those big tone jumps between darkness and humour - which in the case of the Cuba sequence comes really quickly.

    I wouldn’t say it’s dream-like strictly speaking (although I can understand why that’s a description being used here, and I think that’s an interesting way of looking at this film). For me it’s a bit more impressionistic and heightened stylistically than a lot of other Bond films, and of course with a very odd story.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,597
    I guess it's quite stylised; it has that repeating thing with overhead shots introducing new locations; plus we get a couple of shots where Bond is in one part of the frame, the camera pans, and then Bond jumps impossibly to another part of the frame (twice in Matera I think), but then I'd say that Skyfall and Spectre are pretty stylised too, with some very stylish visuals and stylised locations (the MI6 bunker, Bond's Macau hotel room etc. in SF aren't really in our world as such). To be honest that's how I like my Bond. I remember thinking the casino in CR looked a bit too grotty somehow for a 007 film.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,511
    mtm wrote: »
    I must admit I don't quite get the dreamlike observation; I don't find the film to be that too much. Are there any specific parts which give you that feeling?


    @mtm :
    The sunset-like purple skies throughout ; driving through the tunnel in Matera (in the PTS and at the end); the dreamy quality of the opera music, the hotel room romance, the burning of the secrets… even the opening credits and imagery. Q’s lab seemed almost nightmarish to me; the house in Finland; the shootout and kidnapping in the forest, the Poison Garden, all of it to me seemed so surreal. Every shot was filmed in a way that was a step out of reality, and into a dreamscape. To me. I thought it was beautifully shot.
  • edited October 25 Posts: 4,300
    mtm wrote: »
    I guess it's quite stylised; it has that repeating thing with overhead shots introducing new locations; plus we get a couple of shots where Bond is in one part of the frame, the camera pans, and then Bond jumps impossibly to another part of the frame (twice in Matera I think), but then I'd say that Skyfall and Spectre are pretty stylised too, with some very stylish visuals and stylised locations (the MI6 bunker, Bond's Macau hotel room etc. in SF aren't really in our world as such). To be honest that's how I like my Bond. I remember thinking the casino in CR looked a bit too grotty somehow for a 007 film.

    I love that certain scenes in the later Craig era really upped the atmosphere in terms of the filmmaking. My favourite examples are when Bond is placed into the middle of the villain's territory. I'm thinking specifically of Silva's ghost town island with all the crumbling buildings and the jaunty old French music playing over everything (which is a lovely little touch that just makes it that extra bit creepy and accentuates how archaic and again ghostly everything there is). It has this weirdness to it that makes it feel like Bond is in a dangerous situation. Same for the first bit of the SPECTRE party. That's something I feel some of the pre 2012 Bond films lack a bit for me, despite how good they are, and actually reminds me a lot of certain Fleming novels. It's that sense that Bond has stepped into an unknown world. I'd love to see that same approach in the new era.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited October 25 Posts: 16,597
    peter wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    I must admit I don't quite get the dreamlike observation; I don't find the film to be that too much. Are there any specific parts which give you that feeling?


    @mtm :
    The sunset-like purple skies throughout ; driving through the tunnel in Matera (in the PTS and at the end); the dreamy quality of the opera music, the hotel room romance, the burning of the secrets… even the opening credits and imagery. Q’s lab seemed almost nightmarish to me; the house in Finland; the shootout and kidnapping in the forest, the Poison Garden, all of it to me seemed so surreal. Every shot was filmed in a way that was a step out of reality, and into a dreamscape. To me. I thought it was beautifully shot.

    Okay cool, I see where you're coming from.

    007HallY wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    I guess it's quite stylised; it has that repeating thing with overhead shots introducing new locations; plus we get a couple of shots where Bond is in one part of the frame, the camera pans, and then Bond jumps impossibly to another part of the frame (twice in Matera I think), but then I'd say that Skyfall and Spectre are pretty stylised too, with some very stylish visuals and stylised locations (the MI6 bunker, Bond's Macau hotel room etc. in SF aren't really in our world as such). To be honest that's how I like my Bond. I remember thinking the casino in CR looked a bit too grotty somehow for a 007 film.

    I love that certain scenes in the later Craig era really upped the atmosphere in terms of the filmmaking. My favourite examples are when Bond is placed into the middle of the villain's territory. I'm thinking specifically of Silva's ghost town island with all the crumbling buildings and the jaunty old French music playing over everything (which is a lovely little touch that just makes it that extra bit creepy and accentuates how archaic and again ghostly everything there is). It has this weirdness to it that makes it feel like Bond is in a dangerous situation. Same for the first bit of the SPECTRE party.

    Yes that island is wonderfully atmospheric. I feel the same about the shots of the DB5 arriving at Skyfall: it's so wonderfully oppressive, and the music is fantastically bleak at that point too.
    I think QoS had its moments of style, but if there's something CR arguably missed it's those moments of real atmosphere being conjured. And maybe that wouldn't have been a bad thing, evoking that sense of sweat and smoke of a casino at three in the morning.
    007HallY wrote: »
    That's something I feel some of the pre 2012 Bond films lack a bit for me, despite how good they are, and actually reminds me a lot of certain Fleming novels. It's that sense that Bond has stepped into an unknown world. I'd love to see that same approach in the new era.

    Yes agreed about the pre-2012 films, it's why sometimes I think SF might just pip CR for me in terms of the Craig Bonds- SF is just a much more aesthetically stylish product in terms of sound and vision, and that's a big part of Bond for me: it should be hokum but presented in a ridiculously lush and stylish box. And that goes back to Fleming: silly adventure stories but wrapped up in all of these luxury brands and high living and Fleming's brilliant prose, giving a feel of quality it almost doesn't deserve. That's kind of half the point of 007 to me.
  • echo wrote: »
    The issues with NTTD have nothing really to do with the Bond-M relationship or the writing or whatever. Excluding the execution of the ending, my main problem is that it's a like Die Another Day inside Skyfall. While that's obviously a dramatisation, No Time to Die invites us to take the story seriously, with serious character beats and changes. But I always find there's a bit of ridiculousness that's hard to suspend.

    NTTD doesn't feel like it's in our world. It feels a little bit surreal, even with the grounded story they're trying to tell with the characters. Whereas Casino and Quantum were very much in the late-2000s. Forster in QOS directly references Blair and Sarkozy for his villain, there's the sort of cynicism about the US and UK governments that most people had at the time. Spectre even tries to capture the fear of surveillance. CR mentions 9/11, involves financial crime etc.

    I think for the next era there should the sort of real-world nature that surrounds the character. Smaller and more realistic stakes. The espionage game, sabotage, terrorism, something like that.

    The nanobots, essentially anticipating Covid, weren't real-world enough? I can't think of a more immediately prescient Bond movie.

    I agree that it's dreamlike, a bit like the YOLT novel.

    Did you just ask if EMP-proof nanobots that could target certain genotypes and races (despite races having high genetic variation) weren't real world enough? COVID wasn't a weapon, certainly did not discriminate, and if Bond sacrificed himself for the sake of his family not getting COVID then I'd be very disappointment at the waste of 2 hours for a disease that probably a quarter of the world got anyway.

    With that sort of logic gene therapy makes sense because it's just skin bleaching, hair transplants and plastic surgery.

    Never mind just that, a high-security convict probably arrested for serious terrorism and espionage charges has a bionic eye in sync with another one eyed man and is able to attend his birthday party in absentia with the rest of his criminal organisation. Never mind why the hell SPECTRE have birthday parties like they're a social club. Like I said, NTTD lacks a base feeling of reality.
    007HallY wrote: »
    It’s a bit of a paradox, but I think in order for Bond to be as escapist as it is it needs to have one foot in the door with reality. You can’t really have FRWL, TSWLM or TLD without the Cold War, GE without the fall of the Soviet Union, or CR without 9/11. That only scratches the surface incidentally. Every Bond adventure has some sort of connection to the time it was made, often as a major backdrop to the story.

    It’s still heightened reality though, and often the villains in these films are third parties/heightened versions of evil rather than those directly related with any of these political conflicts. That said I would argue it’s less complete escapism from the political/societal ills of our real world. It’s simply nice to know someone like Bond can come along, even in a world with such conflicts, and defeat such evils.

    Fair enough that these films involve rogue elements/third parties, but of course these are due to political (fear of insulting) reasons, not ever storytelling reasons.
    CrabKey wrote: »
    I do agree Bond's world tends to be glamorous and exotic. However, they are generally places one can actually visit, even if they are not shooting off fireworks when one arrives.

    Bond films often strain reality because they've too often ventured into silliness. But I don't want a Bond film ripped from today's headlines. When I read someone saying Bond is needed more than ever because there is so much wrong in the world, I oppose that idea. Bond is an escape from reality. And in the end, a fictional character never solves problems in the real world.

    Well the story doesn't need to be "ripped from today's headlines." There are interesting espionage stories and plots that have been in existence since the Second World War that would still function today. And even stuff from today's headlines wouldn't involve Bond solving real problems. It's hardly as if Bond is going to stop rampant inflation, end Russia's war in Ukraine and stop climate change in a film.

    But if Bond dealt with foreign sabotage, businessmen dodging sanctions to fund private military companies, or smuggling of natural resources from sanctioned countries, then there's a very realistic element to the film that can be developed into something fantastical and ridiculous.

    Take Licence to Kill. I wasn't around for that but I imagine the War on Drugs was mentioned in the news quite often, along with mentions of corrupt South/Central American countries helping facilitate big cartels. That's a solid basis for a story that the film uses but it ultimately doesn't stay a boring documentary about solving the drug problem. There are Hong Kong narcotics ninja involved, Q uses a broom radio, 007 waterskies away with no skis, and a man has his head blown off in a decompression chamber.
  • Posts: 4,300
    007HallY wrote: »
    It’s a bit of a paradox, but I think in order for Bond to be as escapist as it is it needs to have one foot in the door with reality. You can’t really have FRWL, TSWLM or TLD without the Cold War, GE without the fall of the Soviet Union, or CR without 9/11. That only scratches the surface incidentally. Every Bond adventure has some sort of connection to the time it was made, often as a major backdrop to the story.

    It’s still heightened reality though, and often the villains in these films are third parties/heightened versions of evil rather than those directly related with any of these political conflicts. That said I would argue it’s less complete escapism from the political/societal ills of our real world. It’s simply nice to know someone like Bond can come along, even in a world with such conflicts, and defeat such evils.

    Fair enough that these films involve rogue elements/third parties, but of course these are due to political (fear of insulting) reasons, not ever storytelling reasons.

    Not entirely wrong, but I think it plays into the idea that it's the best storytelling option and has become so over time having such villains in these films. The villains in Bond are always going to be outliers to some extent anyway (ie. Dr. No is still a fantastical villain with a God complex regardless of whether he's working for SPECTRE as in the film or the Russians as per the novel).
  • edited October 25 Posts: 2,026
    peter wrote: »
    One's life flashes before his eyes doesn't last two hours, plus, @crabkey.

    You kind of took what I said a little too literally. His last few years flashing before his eyes, but we, the audience, are seeing the film version of that, and catch up with him, at the end.

    It's an interpretation. You don't have to like it, but I'm not expecting you to.

    It's the way I've interpreted this film since the first time I saw it. The way it was shot, *was* very dream-like, and like an adult fairy tale to me.

    The first words I uttered to my wife after our viewing is exactly what I wrote yesterday: the last few years of his life, flashing before his eyes, and we only catch up to him at the very end.

    No, Peter. I didn't take your comment literally at all. We all know what it means to have one's life flash before one's eyes. I disagree with your interpretation, by having a little fun with it.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,511
    CrabKey wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    One's life flashes before his eyes doesn't last two hours, plus, @crabkey.

    You kind of took what I said a little too literally. His last few years flashing before his eyes, but we, the audience, are seeing the film version of that, and catch up with him, at the end.

    It's an interpretation. You don't have to like it, but I'm not expecting you to.

    It's the way I've interpreted this film since the first time I saw it. The way it was shot, *was* very dream-like, and like an adult fairy tale to me.

    The first words I uttered to my wife after our viewing is exactly what I wrote yesterday: the last few years of his life, flashing before his eyes, and we only catch up to him at the very end.

    No, Peter. I didn't take your comment literally at all. We all know what it means to have one's life flash before one's eyes. I disagree with your interpretation, by having a little fun with it.

    I missed the humour, but expected you wouldn’t appreciate the interpretation.
  • Posts: 2,026
    peter wrote: »
    CrabKey wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    One's life flashes before his eyes doesn't last two hours, plus, @crabkey.

    You kind of took what I said a little too literally. His last few years flashing before his eyes, but we, the audience, are seeing the film version of that, and catch up with him, at the end.

    It's an interpretation. You don't have to like it, but I'm not expecting you to.

    It's the way I've interpreted this film since the first time I saw it. The way it was shot, *was* very dream-like, and like an adult fairy tale to me.

    The first words I uttered to my wife after our viewing is exactly what I wrote yesterday: the last few years of his life, flashing before his eyes, and we only catch up to him at the very end.

    No, Peter. I didn't take your comment literally at all. We all know what it means to have one's life flash before one's eyes. I disagree with your interpretation, by having a little fun with it.

    I missed the humour, but expected you wouldn’t appreciate the interpretation.

    I don't disagree to be contentious. That I disagree with your interpretation doesn't mean I don't appreciate it. Your analysis and justifications are interesting. I am not being contradictory. I can appreciate something without liking it. For example, I do not like the sport of basketball, but I do appreciate the skill it takes to play.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,511
    CrabKey wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    CrabKey wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    One's life flashes before his eyes doesn't last two hours, plus, @crabkey.

    You kind of took what I said a little too literally. His last few years flashing before his eyes, but we, the audience, are seeing the film version of that, and catch up with him, at the end.

    It's an interpretation. You don't have to like it, but I'm not expecting you to.

    It's the way I've interpreted this film since the first time I saw it. The way it was shot, *was* very dream-like, and like an adult fairy tale to me.

    The first words I uttered to my wife after our viewing is exactly what I wrote yesterday: the last few years of his life, flashing before his eyes, and we only catch up to him at the very end.

    No, Peter. I didn't take your comment literally at all. We all know what it means to have one's life flash before one's eyes. I disagree with your interpretation, by having a little fun with it.

    I missed the humour, but expected you wouldn’t appreciate the interpretation.

    I don't disagree to be contentious. That I disagree with your interpretation doesn't mean I don't appreciate it. Your analysis and justifications are interesting. I am not being contradictory. I can appreciate something without liking it. For example, I do not like the sport of basketball, but I do appreciate the skill it takes to play.

    It’s fine, mate. I understood. I repeated yesterday that people won’t like what I’m saying, won’t like my interpretation. So I was expecting you, and others, not to appreciate , or I should have said, “like” my perspective.

    But I wasn’t really asking anyone to agree or like it, so it really is no problem.
  • Maybe the next 007 adventure should have Craig’s Bond in the afterlife having to answer for all the killing that he’s done. It could be done in the style of a jukebox musical with poorly done renditions of previous Bond songs; we can end it with Bond being sent back down to earth somehow singing either Die Another Day or You Only Live Twice before arriving back at MI6, only to be shanked by an Aaron Taylor Johnson look-alike who turns out to be the REAL 007 after all, as he straightens his cuffs while laughing manically at his own awful puns. Surely that HAS to be up everyone’s alley right?

    Btw, I have already pitched a Bond 26 titled "JAMES BOND IN HELL" and starring Daniel Craig here some time ago. Satan himself could be the main villain of the movie.
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 2,186
    Maybe the next 007 adventure should have Craig’s Bond in the afterlife having to answer for all the killing that he’s done. It could be done in the style of a jukebox musical with poorly done renditions of previous Bond songs; we can end it with Bond being sent back down to earth somehow singing either Die Another Day or You Only Live Twice before arriving back at MI6, only to be shanked by an Aaron Taylor Johnson look-alike who turns out to be the REAL 007 after all, as he straightens his cuffs while laughing manically at his own awful puns. Surely that HAS to be up everyone’s alley right?

    Btw, I have already pitched a Bond 26 titled "JAMES BOND IN HELL" and starring Daniel Craig here some time ago. Satan himself could be the main villain of the movie.

    It's already been done with Malek's Safin, though.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited October 26 Posts: 8,452
    Hollywood Reporter confirms it, Dune Messiah will be shooting in Summer 2025 for a 2026 release. Villeneuve is potentially back in the frame for Bond.
  • I’m not even convinced the next Bond actor has even been born yet! Call me cynical but it’s gonna be a while yet before any sort of announcement is likely to be made. Just saw Fall Guy last night. I was wrong. I cannot picture Aaron Taylor Johnson as Bond. Surely that was pure tabloid gossip.
  • edited October 26 Posts: 391
    Villeneuve for Bond will probably put people to sleep in theaters.
    His cinema is the equivalent of eating quaaludes. (Though of course I loved the cinematography of Blade Runner II).

    There are several things to consider for the next chapter of Bond:

    - The actor casting. Many options to choose from, one including a very young actor like Timothee Chalamet and maybe exploring Bond's youth like his Commander days. (I think MGW wrote such a script right before Dalton was cast). Or just getting someone around 37/40 wich IMHO would be safer.

    - Framing the story. I think that they could frame that everything that happened once Bond is tortured in the chair in SPECTRE and free himself, up to the ending of NTTD could be revealed as a dream. Or, he is just coming back after being officialy killed. They might start with the new actor with a different face claiming to be Bond going back to MI6 and trying to kill M like in the MWTGG book. Think about it, they can have the whole old character's cast in place, (familiarity), and then explore something new with the new actor. A Bond who needs to find out what was done to him and destroy evil (ie go from where Fleming left off). In that sense, I think the MWTGG book should be mined for the next one. Like, they are not sure this guy is Bond and send him on a suicide mission.

    - SPECTRE is I think important. All the Craig films relate to what is happening in real life to us regarding the evil characters and feels really modern. It's crazy how QOS, as mediocre as it was, was current with the water thing. We live in a world, more than before, that wealthy people are working hard to remodel into something that is lucrative to the power top, essentialy viewing humanity as culture crop (ie people just consume and make money for the top, should shut up, not be creative etc.). Even going back to the Sean era, you can see how SPECTRE relate to evil as it is enhanced today.

    - Look at what was done in the last 25 years, they killed rock'n'roll (only the old timers are left, and they are dying one by one), they killed creativity in films (Marvel, DC, F&F), and comics which aren't relevant anymore, they killed Star Wars as a brand, they killed traditions (churches are burnt, terrorism is in the rise tenfold). Institutions are crumbling. But deep inside them, there are some people still fighting to get back to normal, because you can't kill humanity. Some of that was in SPECTRE with the takeaway of MI6 with the new computerised, surveillance team.

    - Looking back on it, Bond remains strong, but the evil in the world would probably love to take away the franchise from the team, and dilute it in a series or something. Babs and MGW are the guardians of the temple. They need to frame a return that not only pushes Bond in the next chapter, but also relate even more to the chaos of today.

    Personaly, I can't wait.
  • NoTimeToLiveNoTimeToLive Jamaica
    Posts: 103
    If churches are meant to be our "normal" and "humanity", it's only positive that they're being burnt.

  • Posts: 4,300
    While I’d say I don’t think having a brainwashed Bond try to kill M is a good idea (it’d be a very odd way to introduce a new Bond, and I think it’s better to put distance between Bond 26 and the Craig era/just start afresh) I like the idea of using Fleming’s TMWTGG.

    It’s an interesting book with Bond being forced to prove himself to M (and M in turn having to prove how useful his best agent still is) by assassinating an enemy of MI6. There’s a great cat and mouse element, the villain is presented as being far too skilled to take on, and Bond is quite conflicted about killing them anyway.

    There’s loads you could do those basic concepts - M pulling the strings and trying to kill two birds with one stone (sending Bond on a dangerous mission to prove his agent to MI6, and to kill someone problematic for MI6), Bond knowing the mission is dangerous and not enjoying doing M’s dirty work (more a thing of some of the short stories like FYEO but it’s there), Bond having to go undercover to get closer to the villain perhaps. Doesn’t need to be 100% faithful but I can imagine it being a nice basic story to start a new era.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,597
    I’m not even convinced the next Bond actor has even been born yet! Call me cynical but it’s gonna be a while yet before any sort of announcement is likely to be made. Just saw Fall Guy last night. I was wrong. I cannot picture Aaron Taylor Johnson as Bond. Surely that was pure tabloid gossip.

    Yeah, he completely throws away a role which could have stolen that film. Even imagining Craig in it, it’s the opportunity for the sort of turn he did in Logan Lucky: not in it for long but makes a big comic impression. ATJ just isn’t really in the same league.
Sign In or Register to comment.