Where does Bond go after Craig?

1679680682684685697

Comments

  • Posts: 2,029
    @SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ - As one who says you are not necessarily a fan of Bond's womanizing, you can do without it, what then is your vision of women in a Bond film? What bothers you about Bond's womanizing?

    For me that aspect of his life is baked into the character. Though I don't share the same opinion as some who are troubled by the two often cited Connery scenes, I do understand their point. Clearly the films have evolved over time.

    What are you suggesting you'd like to see and why?
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    edited November 22 Posts: 2,187
    CrabKey wrote: »
    @SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ - As one who says you are not necessarily a fan of Bond's womanizing, you can do without it, what then is your vision of women in a Bond film? What bothers you about Bond's womanizing?

    For me that aspect of his life is baked into the character. Though I don't share the same opinion as some who are troubled by the two often cited Connery scenes, I do understand their point. Clearly the films have evolved over time.

    What are you suggesting you'd like to see and why?

    Oh @CrabKey I don't think anything bothers me about Bond's womanizing. That's why I said I'm slightly worried that Bond's behavior in NTTD might be the new way Bond behaves from here on out. But guys like @007HallY & @mtm have made brilliant contributions on the subject matter.
    I do understand your opinion on Connery's Bond, though. I think that's subjective and actually a behavior of its time and also, not saying women aren't feminine these days, but they were more feminine back then, so it gave the males more reason to behave excessively dominant. For example, I can't imagine Ava Gardner from the golden era of Hollywood, not wanting someone like Victor Mature to tell her what to do. Maybe someone like Barbara Stanwyck was one of the tougher females back then, but even at that, she was still submissive to men...in some ways.
    As for the women in Bond films and even in today's other films, they're now the independent types, which is evolution. My point is, while it's good, it shouldn't affect Bond being in-charge of women. But at the same time, I think it should be done in a way that doesn't make Bond come off as a chauvinist.
  • What about a Silva prequel?
  • Posts: 1,650
    Please not Villeneuve. His films are sleep-inducing.
  • Posts: 2,029
    CrabKey wrote: »
    @SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ -. My point is, while it's good, it shouldn't affect Bond being in-charge of women. But at the same time, I think it should be done in a way that doesn't make Bond come off as a chauvinist.

    A fine line. I doubt Bond films will ever escape being labeled as sexist and misogynist.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,703
    What about a Silva prequel?

    I like it. But I’d prefer it as a book. Plus, I have some ideas written down on a modern day Alec Trevelyan origin story. Before he turns bad.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited November 23 Posts: 8,455
    I've been doing a bit of research into David Michod in the past few days, I watched the Rover which is a brilliant little film, and along with The King one of the best films I've seen recently. The more I think about it, the more it seems like Michod could be the perfect type of director EON would be looking for, especially after Babs' comments about taking risks and being bold in uncertain times. Michod has his own distinct voice and themes he explores, but unlike Nolan or Villeneuve has never really been given the freedom of working with a big budget on an established property. Essentially he would have all of the creative talent and vision for a Bond reboot, with a fraction of the pull to force EONs hand, and that's exactly how they like it. To be honest, in terms of pushing bond into new places and taking risks, I think Michod would be the boldest choice since Peter Hunt.
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    edited November 23 Posts: 2,187
    I think while it's cool to speculate, it might be slightly unhealthy to delve too deep into thinking this or that guy is Bond 26's director. At the moment, it could be anyone. I guess, we just have to wait for an announcement from EON or get some incessant rumours at the very least that so, so guy is the director of Bond 26.
  • Posts: 4,310
    I was impressed with The King and Animal Kingdom so would be very interested if Michod was the next director. I suppose the only issue with him is he doesn't have a track record of making financially successful films, but nonetheless he has made some critically acclaimed films and is clearly very talented. I don't know how he'd hypothetically approach Bond or what his take on the character/stories would be (which really is what most of this comes down to with any Bond director), but I'd definitely be intrigued.

    But ultimately yes, he's one of many potential options, and until we get anything definitive it's all a bit up in the air.
  • Posts: 2,029
    At 81, Martin Campbell would seem not to be the best choice for a new, young Bond. But he has jump started this series twice. An interview that aired during a segment of Icons Unearthed is a reminder that he brings a lot of experience, knowledge, and creativity to the series. He might be a safe bet to set the next series in motion.
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    edited November 23 Posts: 2,187
    CrabKey wrote: »
    At 81, Martin Campbell would seem not to be the best choice for a new, young Bond. But he has jump started this series twice. An interview that aired during a segment of Icons Unearthed is a reminder that he brings a lot of experience, knowledge, and creativity to the series. He might be a safe bet to set the next series in motion.

    I've always wanted Campbell for Bond 26...so he just completes his hatrick. He's tricky with non-Bond films, but he instantly understands Bond. Also, I think with Campbell, there wouldn't be anything like "Creative differences" and all that. Maybe the best director take the day, though....even if it isn't Campbell.
  • Posts: 4,310
    It’s always worth thinking about what exactly Campbell brought to his two films. While GE boils down to a revenge obsessed super villain trying to take down Britain with a giant satellite weapon, there’s a grittiness to the direction. You get things like a pretty grounded final fight between Bond and Travelyan (no music once they get into close quarters, very visceral sound effects, plenty of sweat and blood etc). Even a scene as ridiculous as the tank chase has a certain straightforwardness to it (unlike the Glen or Gilbert films you get no music/sound gags or double taking pigeons). CR obviously leaned even more into a more grounded Bond, so asking him back made sense.

    Not to say Campbell couldn’t do it again, but ultimately I think it depends on the material and what they think a director will bring to the film. Obviously at the moment we don’t know anything about their ideas, so all we have are hypotheticals. If Campbell was asked back though I suspect there’d be a reason other than he’s done the job before.
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    edited November 23 Posts: 2,187
    Yeah, I suppose so @007HallY apart from his stellar history with Bond, there would be more to it, if he were asked back for a third and very important third time for Bond.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,624
    007HallY wrote: »
    It’s always worth thinking about what exactly Campbell brought to his two films. While GE boils down to a revenge obsessed super villain trying to take down Britain with a giant satellite weapon, there’s a grittiness to the direction. You get things like a pretty grounded final fight between Bond and Travelyan (no music once they get into close quarters, very visceral sound effects, plenty of sweat and blood etc). Even a scene as ridiculous as the tank chase has a certain straightforwardness to it (unlike the Glen or Gilbert films you get no music/sound gags or double taking pigeons). CR obviously leaned even more into a more grounded Bond, so asking him back made sense.

    Not to say Campbell couldn’t do it again, but ultimately I think it depends on the material and what they think a director will bring to the film. Obviously at the moment we don’t know anything about their ideas, so all we have are hypotheticals. If Campbell was asked back though I suspect there’d be a reason other than he’s done the job before.

    I think I’d disagree slightly there: it’s gritty in places but what really impressed me last time I watched it was how funny the tank chase is, and how assured you’d have to be as a director to do that, especially at that point of the film. It’s just the confidence that impresses me the most about GoldenEye: it just knows what it’s doing, moreso than any Glen I must say.
  • Posts: 4,310
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    It’s always worth thinking about what exactly Campbell brought to his two films. While GE boils down to a revenge obsessed super villain trying to take down Britain with a giant satellite weapon, there’s a grittiness to the direction. You get things like a pretty grounded final fight between Bond and Travelyan (no music once they get into close quarters, very visceral sound effects, plenty of sweat and blood etc). Even a scene as ridiculous as the tank chase has a certain straightforwardness to it (unlike the Glen or Gilbert films you get no music/sound gags or double taking pigeons). CR obviously leaned even more into a more grounded Bond, so asking him back made sense.

    Not to say Campbell couldn’t do it again, but ultimately I think it depends on the material and what they think a director will bring to the film. Obviously at the moment we don’t know anything about their ideas, so all we have are hypotheticals. If Campbell was asked back though I suspect there’d be a reason other than he’s done the job before.

    I think I’d disagree slightly there: it’s gritty in places but what really impressed me last time I watched it was how funny the tank chase is, and how assured you’d have to be as a director to do that, especially at that point of the film. It’s just the confidence that impresses me the most about GoldenEye: it just knows what it’s doing, moreso than any Glen I must say.

    I get what you mean. But I think it works because it’s done in such a straight manner. It’s not anywhere near as ‘wink-nudge’ as Glen’s films, even if ultimately it’s a pretty outlandish scene in concept. Again if it were a Glen or even Gilbert Bond film you’d expect elaborate gags perhaps involving a bystander making a funny face (or perhaps even from Bond) or some sort of non-diegetic music breaking the fourth wall. With the tank chase there’s this wonderful sense that while it’s absolute nonsense it’s taking said nonsense relatively seriously (which of course means there’s that nice Bondian tongue in cheek element).
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited November 24 Posts: 8,455
    My god that would be the dream wouldn't it? Campbell returning in his 80's to complete his trilogy and steady the ship one last time? I think no matter what the results were, I would have a smile on my face, and with Ridley Scott returning to Gladiator at 86 (and yet another Alien film still go come) perhaps its not as outlandish as we might believe. Campbell is another one who has a few projects already waiting to release in late 2024 - early 2025, it would be a lot less complicated to see him being roped into Bond 26 than a bigger name who is already busy over the next couple years.

    I think we might be approaching the point where something has got to give, and we will start to catch some definitive signs of movement in the coming months. Remember it was April 2019 when we got the full cast reveal at Goldeneye last time out, and that was after Boyle had already been fired from the project. The fact we don't even have a tweet to say the next film is in development yet is really quite strange.
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 2,187
    I do wonder if two directors directing a Bond film would be appropriate, though.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited November 24 Posts: 8,455
    No to Ridley Scott ^#(^ I was just using him as an example for why people in their 80's aren't necessarily incapable of directing something big like Bond.
  • edited November 24 Posts: 1,462
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    It’s always worth thinking about what exactly Campbell brought to his two films. While GE boils down to a revenge obsessed super villain trying to take down Britain with a giant satellite weapon, there’s a grittiness to the direction. You get things like a pretty grounded final fight between Bond and Travelyan (no music once they get into close quarters, very visceral sound effects, plenty of sweat and blood etc). Even a scene as ridiculous as the tank chase has a certain straightforwardness to it (unlike the Glen or Gilbert films you get no music/sound gags or double taking pigeons). CR obviously leaned even more into a more grounded Bond, so asking him back made sense.

    Not to say Campbell couldn’t do it again, but ultimately I think it depends on the material and what they think a director will bring to the film. Obviously at the moment we don’t know anything about their ideas, so all we have are hypotheticals. If Campbell was asked back though I suspect there’d be a reason other than he’s done the job before.

    I think I’d disagree slightly there: it’s gritty in places but what really impressed me last time I watched it was how funny the tank chase is, and how assured you’d have to be as a director to do that, especially at that point of the film. It’s just the confidence that impresses me the most about GoldenEye: it just knows what it’s doing, moreso than any Glen I must say.

    The tank scene reminds me of F&F movies. Even Bond flying into a plane was that kind of thing.


  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 2,187
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    It’s always worth thinking about what exactly Campbell brought to his two films. While GE boils down to a revenge obsessed super villain trying to take down Britain with a giant satellite weapon, there’s a grittiness to the direction. You get things like a pretty grounded final fight between Bond and Travelyan (no music once they get into close quarters, very visceral sound effects, plenty of sweat and blood etc). Even a scene as ridiculous as the tank chase has a certain straightforwardness to it (unlike the Glen or Gilbert films you get no music/sound gags or double taking pigeons). CR obviously leaned even more into a more grounded Bond, so asking him back made sense.

    Not to say Campbell couldn’t do it again, but ultimately I think it depends on the material and what they think a director will bring to the film. Obviously at the moment we don’t know anything about their ideas, so all we have are hypotheticals. If Campbell was asked back though I suspect there’d be a reason other than he’s done the job before.

    I think I’d disagree slightly there: it’s gritty in places but what really impressed me last time I watched it was how funny the tank chase is, and how assured you’d have to be as a director to do that, especially at that point of the film. It’s just the confidence that impresses me the most about GoldenEye: it just knows what it’s doing, moreso than any Glen I must say.

    The tank scene reminds me of F&F movies. Even Bond flying into a plane was that kind of thing.


    I wouldn't even associate Bond with that franchise in a dream. The Bondian moments in Bond films make them different from other films. Without those extra things, Bond films wouldn't standout.
  • Posts: 1,462
    If they want a new Martin Campbell they should hire Justin Lin or McQuarrie, but even they are too old school.
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 2,187
    I don't think Lin is EON's type...and I don't know, but I think McQ isn't as hot as he was years back. Also, at this point, he's been too associated with the MI films, that Barbara might fear he turns Bond to Hunt.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited November 24 Posts: 8,455
    Both Campbells films are deeper introspections on the character and reflect a more realised, tangible world. The impression I get from Michod is he has a strong and Particular thematic and emotional intent without much of a distinct directorial style to get in the way. In that sense at least there's definitely parallels.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited November 24 Posts: 3,160
    Worth looking again at the recent awards speech and remembering that Martin Campbell is only a year younger than MGW. I suspect that the chance of the hat-trick has gone, tbf.
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    edited November 24 Posts: 2,187
    Venutius wrote: »
    Worth looking again at the recent awards speech and remembering that Martin Campbell is only a year younger than MGW. I suspect that the chance of the hat-trick has gone, tbf.

    Yeah. The hat-trick would have been cool, though. It would have been such a distinctive achievement, that would have been hard for any other Bond director to attain. Well, maybe I'm even going too far...his record of launching two Bonds is already something that's yet to be broken.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    edited November 24 Posts: 8,255
    Venutius wrote: »
    Worth looking again at the recent awards speech and remembering that Martin Campbell is only a year younger than MGW. I suspect that the chance of the hat-trick has gone, tbf.

    But Campbell appears to be in far better health and condition; MGW has has serious health challenges.
    I don’t think Campbell’s is at all an issue at this point. In recent interviews he’s sharp and energetic

    The audio is horrible, but this is recent; it’s unscripted and shows that he is in top form and sharp as a tack

  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,455
    You can have all the energy in the world but at the end of the day there's simply no substitute for experience. Guys like Campbell, Ridley Scott, Scorsese, they've been doing this for longer than many of us have been alive. They've forgotten more about filmmaking than your modern hotshot hipster like fukunaga has ever learned.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,255
    You can have all the energy in the world but at the end of the day there's simply no substitute for experience. Guys like Campbell, Ridley Scott, Scorsese, they've been doing this for longer than many of us have been alive. They've forgotten more about filmmaking than your modern hotshot hipster like fukunaga has ever learned.

    Exactly, my point was that he’s not Infirmed.
  • edited November 24 Posts: 4,310
    Well, Fukunaga’s more experienced than the average director so I don’t that’s fair on him. And you can have older directors who lose a bit of their creative spark or drive later on, or even just make films which don’t match up to their previous work for whatever reason. But ultimately no, an older director isn’t a deal breaker, and I don’t think that’s a reason to discount Campbell. But it’s not always the case that the most experienced director gives you the best film (even if experience is important).

    To quote Bond, ‘Youth is no guarantee of innovation’ and ‘Age is no guarantee of efficiency’. But vice versa is true too.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,255
    I would have loved to have seen what Fukunaga could have done with a bank canvas ; in many ways he was painted int a corner by NTTD
Sign In or Register to comment.