Where does Bond go after Craig?

17576788081681

Comments

  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited October 2021 Posts: 5,970
    slide_99 wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Answer: continuity doesn't matter all that much in the end.
    No, but killing a pop culture icon in any incarnation does matter, regardless of continuities and timelines. And I hate that even have to deal with comic book-style "timelines" now.
    To the run risk of falling into a conversation you may have already had, how was the Craig-era not a "comic-book timeline" before this?
  • HildebrandRarityHildebrandRarity Centre international d'assistance aux personnes déplacées, Paris, France
    Posts: 482
    It was definitely a comic-book timeline, but, outside of Tracy and her death (which wasn't even mentioned in the next three entries), they weren't many "events" that did affect the statu quo. Bond finally met Blofeld. The new M was a woman. Q ultimately retired and passed the torch to his assistant.
    Most of comic book series LOVE, sometimes a little too much, their huge serialized events, the ones that get one or a few characters under the spotlight for months due to some shocker, a decision that affects the characters and creates the seeds for a lot of events in the next few years of publication. It's just that they hadn't tried something similar for Bond after OHMSS (and it didn't really affect that much the next films) until Casino Royale.
  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    Posts: 737
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    People seem extremely obsessed with continuity in the Bonds. Ask yourselves, was continuity ever a thing before 2006?

    In 1985, a jokey, ageing man takes a shower with a lovely blonde. The next time we see that same man, he's a spry, energetic youth with a cynical touch, telling another man that M can fire him if he likes and that he'll thank him for it. Same boss, gadget supplier and minister of defence, yet the secretary has somehow changed from a loveable aunt into a just-out-of-college lass with the exact same name. Not sure how that works. Another funny thing is that this man continues to be young, and at some point will steer a car by remote control through a NOKIA cell phone, invented in the '90s, yet that very same man, still young, was driving the latest Aston Martin years before we landed on the moon. I regret to also point out that our man has a friend who can fix everything, including his looks, from a funny grandpa type into a rather young blonde Robert Redford wannabe, and more incarnations along the way. A master of disguise? And please, tell me where the invisible-car tech went. Could've been quite useful in missions since...

    So, why did Kirk and co go back in time to fix everything, only to forget about time travel technology in subsequent missions, when it also could have fixed everything?

    Tell me, why is Harvey Dent a black man first, and then a white man next?

    Wasn't Indiana Jones technically blessed with immortality at some point? Why worry about anything when pursuing the crystal skull then?

    And so on...

    Answer: continuity doesn't matter all that much in the end. Some people get hung up on it, most do not. Most people live from film to film, and even when they don't, muddled continuity rarely offends anyone. Film series like Saw, The Avengers, X-Men, ... rely heavily on continuity, and even they lose track of their own continuity at some point. Narrative conveniences and cool in-film moments matter more than how element x in film A relates to element y in film F. Most people care not for that, or little at best.

    And when it comes to continuity, the Bonds are not exactly the best students in the classroom. Quite the opposite. With the exception of the Craigs, continuity was never a thing. Sure, we loved to see Michael Kitchen again in TWINE, but who else noticed? Who else cares? Judy Dench as M in both the Brosnan years and the Craig years? Whoever complained? The DB5 in SF, all equipped with tricks last seen in GF and TB? That doesn't even tie in with CR, not even remotely.
    Robert Brown in NTTD???

    We may get off on continuity thingies and easter eggs and such, but who are we? Less than one per cent of all those who watch the new Bond film when it's released? And do we honestly care about lapses in continuity? Are those lapses reason enough for us to give the next Bond film the finger? I certainly hope not, because at least 20 films in our beloved series will give you serious nightmares then.

    It's not the issue of this thread, but Indiana Jones only had immortality within the cave holding the holy grail. When he leaves, he isn't immortal anymore. Had he stayed to guard the grail, he could have lived forever.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited October 2021 Posts: 7,551
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    People seem extremely obsessed with continuity in the Bonds. Ask yourselves, was continuity ever a thing before 2006?

    In 1985, a jokey, ageing man takes a shower with a lovely blonde. The next time we see that same man, he's a spry, energetic youth with a cynical touch, telling another man that M can fire him if he likes and that he'll thank him for it. Same boss, gadget supplier and minister of defence, yet the secretary has somehow changed from a loveable aunt into a just-out-of-college lass with the exact same name. Not sure how that works. Another funny thing is that this man continues to be young, and at some point will steer a car by remote control through a NOKIA cell phone, invented in the '90s, yet that very same man, still young, was driving the latest Aston Martin years before we landed on the moon. I regret to also point out that our man has a friend who can fix everything, including his looks, from a funny grandpa type into a rather young blonde Robert Redford wannabe, and more incarnations along the way. A master of disguise? And please, tell me where the invisible-car tech went. Could've been quite useful in missions since...

    So, why did Kirk and co go back in time to fix everything, only to forget about time travel technology in subsequent missions, when it also could have fixed everything?

    Tell me, why is Harvey Dent a black man first, and then a white man next?

    Wasn't Indiana Jones technically blessed with immortality at some point? Why worry about anything when pursuing the crystal skull then?

    And so on...

    Answer: continuity doesn't matter all that much in the end. Some people get hung up on it, most do not. Most people live from film to film, and even when they don't, muddled continuity rarely offends anyone. Film series like Saw, The Avengers, X-Men, ... rely heavily on continuity, and even they lose track of their own continuity at some point. Narrative conveniences and cool in-film moments matter more than how element x in film A relates to element y in film F. Most people care not for that, or little at best.

    And when it comes to continuity, the Bonds are not exactly the best students in the classroom. Quite the opposite. With the exception of the Craigs, continuity was never a thing. Sure, we loved to see Michael Kitchen again in TWINE, but who else noticed? Who else cares? Judy Dench as M in both the Brosnan years and the Craig years? Whoever complained? The DB5 in SF, all equipped with tricks last seen in GF and TB? That doesn't even tie in with CR, not even remotely.
    Robert Brown in NTTD???

    We may get off on continuity thingies and easter eggs and such, but who are we? Less than one per cent of all those who watch the new Bond film when it's released? And do we honestly care about lapses in continuity? Are those lapses reason enough for us to give the next Bond film the finger? I certainly hope not, because at least 20 films in our beloved series will give you serious nightmares then.

    It's not the issue of this thread, but Indiana Jones only had immortality within the cave holding the holy grail. When he leaves, he isn't immortal anymore. Had he stayed to guard the grail, he could have lived forever.

    :)) I almost posted this exact response as well. Otherwise I fully agree with the Sith Lord.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,413
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    People seem extremely obsessed with continuity in the Bonds. Ask yourselves, was continuity ever a thing before 2006?

    In 1985, a jokey, ageing man takes a shower with a lovely blonde. The next time we see that same man, he's a spry, energetic youth with a cynical touch, telling another man that M can fire him if he likes and that he'll thank him for it. Same boss, gadget supplier and minister of defence, yet the secretary has somehow changed from a loveable aunt into a just-out-of-college lass with the exact same name. Not sure how that works. Another funny thing is that this man continues to be young, and at some point will steer a car by remote control through a NOKIA cell phone, invented in the '90s, yet that very same man, still young, was driving the latest Aston Martin years before we landed on the moon. I regret to also point out that our man has a friend who can fix everything, including his looks, from a funny grandpa type into a rather young blonde Robert Redford wannabe, and more incarnations along the way. A master of disguise? And please, tell me where the invisible-car tech went. Could've been quite useful in missions since...

    So, why did Kirk and co go back in time to fix everything, only to forget about time travel technology in subsequent missions, when it also could have fixed everything?

    Tell me, why is Harvey Dent a black man first, and then a white man next?

    Wasn't Indiana Jones technically blessed with immortality at some point? Why worry about anything when pursuing the crystal skull then?

    And so on...

    Answer: continuity doesn't matter all that much in the end. Some people get hung up on it, most do not. Most people live from film to film, and even when they don't, muddled continuity rarely offends anyone. Film series like Saw, The Avengers, X-Men, ... rely heavily on continuity, and even they lose track of their own continuity at some point. Narrative conveniences and cool in-film moments matter more than how element x in film A relates to element y in film F. Most people care not for that, or little at best.

    And when it comes to continuity, the Bonds are not exactly the best students in the classroom. Quite the opposite. With the exception of the Craigs, continuity was never a thing. Sure, we loved to see Michael Kitchen again in TWINE, but who else noticed? Who else cares? Judy Dench as M in both the Brosnan years and the Craig years? Whoever complained? The DB5 in SF, all equipped with tricks last seen in GF and TB? That doesn't even tie in with CR, not even remotely.
    Robert Brown in NTTD???

    We may get off on continuity thingies and easter eggs and such, but who are we? Less than one per cent of all those who watch the new Bond film when it's released? And do we honestly care about lapses in continuity? Are those lapses reason enough for us to give the next Bond film the finger? I certainly hope not, because at least 20 films in our beloved series will give you serious nightmares then.

    It's not the issue of this thread, but Indiana Jones only had immortality within the cave holding the holy grail. When he leaves, he isn't immortal anymore. Had he stayed to guard the grail, he could have lived forever.

    Yeah I was trying to restrain myself from pointing that out too :D

    But I'm doing very well on not correcting Dimi on the phone actually being an Ericsson and not a Nokia. I'm a terrible Bond pedant but I'm managing to deal with it :))
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,551
    He who chooses to correct Dimi has chosen… poorly.
  • HildebrandRarityHildebrandRarity Centre international d'assistance aux personnes déplacées, Paris, France
    Posts: 482
    Wait, isn't Indy a Time Lord or a code name?
  • MinionMinion Don't Hassle the Bond
    Posts: 1,165
    I thought Indiana was a state?
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,551
    Minion wrote: »
    I thought Indiana was a state?

    No... I think the fourth state is plasma. But maybe they'll release a fifth in next year or so. ;)
  • Posts: 6,709
    Actually...it was the dog.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,183
    mtm wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    People seem extremely obsessed with continuity in the Bonds. Ask yourselves, was continuity ever a thing before 2006?

    In 1985, a jokey, ageing man takes a shower with a lovely blonde. The next time we see that same man, he's a spry, energetic youth with a cynical touch, telling another man that M can fire him if he likes and that he'll thank him for it. Same boss, gadget supplier and minister of defence, yet the secretary has somehow changed from a loveable aunt into a just-out-of-college lass with the exact same name. Not sure how that works. Another funny thing is that this man continues to be young, and at some point will steer a car by remote control through a NOKIA cell phone, invented in the '90s, yet that very same man, still young, was driving the latest Aston Martin years before we landed on the moon. I regret to also point out that our man has a friend who can fix everything, including his looks, from a funny grandpa type into a rather young blonde Robert Redford wannabe, and more incarnations along the way. A master of disguise? And please, tell me where the invisible-car tech went. Could've been quite useful in missions since...

    So, why did Kirk and co go back in time to fix everything, only to forget about time travel technology in subsequent missions, when it also could have fixed everything?

    Tell me, why is Harvey Dent a black man first, and then a white man next?

    Wasn't Indiana Jones technically blessed with immortality at some point? Why worry about anything when pursuing the crystal skull then?

    And so on...

    Answer: continuity doesn't matter all that much in the end. Some people get hung up on it, most do not. Most people live from film to film, and even when they don't, muddled continuity rarely offends anyone. Film series like Saw, The Avengers, X-Men, ... rely heavily on continuity, and even they lose track of their own continuity at some point. Narrative conveniences and cool in-film moments matter more than how element x in film A relates to element y in film F. Most people care not for that, or little at best.

    And when it comes to continuity, the Bonds are not exactly the best students in the classroom. Quite the opposite. With the exception of the Craigs, continuity was never a thing. Sure, we loved to see Michael Kitchen again in TWINE, but who else noticed? Who else cares? Judy Dench as M in both the Brosnan years and the Craig years? Whoever complained? The DB5 in SF, all equipped with tricks last seen in GF and TB? That doesn't even tie in with CR, not even remotely.
    Robert Brown in NTTD???

    We may get off on continuity thingies and easter eggs and such, but who are we? Less than one per cent of all those who watch the new Bond film when it's released? And do we honestly care about lapses in continuity? Are those lapses reason enough for us to give the next Bond film the finger? I certainly hope not, because at least 20 films in our beloved series will give you serious nightmares then.

    It's not the issue of this thread, but Indiana Jones only had immortality within the cave holding the holy grail. When he leaves, he isn't immortal anymore. Had he stayed to guard the grail, he could have lived forever.

    Yeah I was trying to restrain myself from pointing that out too :D

    But I'm doing very well on not correcting Dimi on the phone actually being an Ericsson and not a Nokia. I'm a terrible Bond pedant but I'm managing to deal with it :))

    I stand corrected. ;-) And yeah, I have the same rationale for KOTKS. I was merely trying to make a point about continuity not being of such tremendous importance to most people out there. And when next we see Bond, most people aren't going to cross their arms and cry 'BS' on the basis of how NTTD ended. They'll open up their bag of crisps, take of sip from their soft drinks and enjoy Bond 26 without looking back. We watch movies to be fooled, to be have some escapist fun, to think but not too hard. Even if the MI6 crew returned but Craig didn't, most wouldn't worry about that if the setting is different and fresh. And as soon as that new, handsome Bond walks in, and it's "007 this" and "007 that" and here's a gadget or two from Q and now go save the world, Bond, people will relax and enjoy what's given to them.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 3,333
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    People seem extremely obsessed with continuity in the Bonds. Ask yourselves, was continuity ever a thing before 2006?
    No, not until the Craig era made a point of continuity and tying everything neatly together in one neat package. It's the BCU of SP and NTTD (excluding QoS) that's brought attention to Bond no longer being about standalone adventures. You can't blame audiences for going along with it, then expect them to drop the entire concept at a moment's notice. It's sending mixed messages.

    Of course, the strong continuity could've happened with DAF had Lazenby not quit his role in '69. But when Lazenby decided to call it a day against his better judgement, the producers quickly abandoned any attempt at a direct sequel and went straight back to the standalone movie approach. That's the genuis of DAF. It can work as a soft continuation of OHMSS, but it can also work as a soft continuation of YOLT—it really doesn't matter which one you choose. Most importantly, you could've skipped OHMSS entirely, like the majority of US cinemagoers did back in '69, and still watch DAF without having missed a beat. Also, by dropping the continuation of OHMSS, it allowed the producers to give Roger Moore, Dalton and Brosnan an easy passage into their first big introductions as 007. The message was clear back then: don't worry too much about continuity. However, since Craig's Bond, that's no longer the case.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,413
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    People seem extremely obsessed with continuity in the Bonds. Ask yourselves, was continuity ever a thing before 2006?

    In 1985, a jokey, ageing man takes a shower with a lovely blonde. The next time we see that same man, he's a spry, energetic youth with a cynical touch, telling another man that M can fire him if he likes and that he'll thank him for it. Same boss, gadget supplier and minister of defence, yet the secretary has somehow changed from a loveable aunt into a just-out-of-college lass with the exact same name. Not sure how that works. Another funny thing is that this man continues to be young, and at some point will steer a car by remote control through a NOKIA cell phone, invented in the '90s, yet that very same man, still young, was driving the latest Aston Martin years before we landed on the moon. I regret to also point out that our man has a friend who can fix everything, including his looks, from a funny grandpa type into a rather young blonde Robert Redford wannabe, and more incarnations along the way. A master of disguise? And please, tell me where the invisible-car tech went. Could've been quite useful in missions since...

    So, why did Kirk and co go back in time to fix everything, only to forget about time travel technology in subsequent missions, when it also could have fixed everything?

    Tell me, why is Harvey Dent a black man first, and then a white man next?

    Wasn't Indiana Jones technically blessed with immortality at some point? Why worry about anything when pursuing the crystal skull then?

    And so on...

    Answer: continuity doesn't matter all that much in the end. Some people get hung up on it, most do not. Most people live from film to film, and even when they don't, muddled continuity rarely offends anyone. Film series like Saw, The Avengers, X-Men, ... rely heavily on continuity, and even they lose track of their own continuity at some point. Narrative conveniences and cool in-film moments matter more than how element x in film A relates to element y in film F. Most people care not for that, or little at best.

    And when it comes to continuity, the Bonds are not exactly the best students in the classroom. Quite the opposite. With the exception of the Craigs, continuity was never a thing. Sure, we loved to see Michael Kitchen again in TWINE, but who else noticed? Who else cares? Judy Dench as M in both the Brosnan years and the Craig years? Whoever complained? The DB5 in SF, all equipped with tricks last seen in GF and TB? That doesn't even tie in with CR, not even remotely.
    Robert Brown in NTTD???

    We may get off on continuity thingies and easter eggs and such, but who are we? Less than one per cent of all those who watch the new Bond film when it's released? And do we honestly care about lapses in continuity? Are those lapses reason enough for us to give the next Bond film the finger? I certainly hope not, because at least 20 films in our beloved series will give you serious nightmares then.

    It's not the issue of this thread, but Indiana Jones only had immortality within the cave holding the holy grail. When he leaves, he isn't immortal anymore. Had he stayed to guard the grail, he could have lived forever.

    Yeah I was trying to restrain myself from pointing that out too :D

    But I'm doing very well on not correcting Dimi on the phone actually being an Ericsson and not a Nokia. I'm a terrible Bond pedant but I'm managing to deal with it :))

    I stand corrected. ;-) And yeah, I have the same rationale for KOTKS. I was merely trying to make a point about continuity not being of such tremendous importance to most people out there. And when next we see Bond, most people aren't going to cross their arms and cry 'BS' on the basis of how NTTD ended. They'll open up their bag of crisps, take of sip from their soft drinks and enjoy Bond 26 without looking back. We watch movies to be fooled, to be have some escapist fun, to think but not too hard. Even if the MI6 crew returned but Craig didn't, most wouldn't worry about that if the setting is different and fresh. And as soon as that new, handsome Bond walks in, and it's "007 this" and "007 that" and here's a gadget or two from Q and now go save the world, Bond, people will relax and enjoy what's given to them.

    Yep, totally agree with this. Sorry, I hate it when folks get pedantic about minor facts instead of the overall point you're making- I was only kidding! :)
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited October 2021 Posts: 16,413
    bondsum wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    People seem extremely obsessed with continuity in the Bonds. Ask yourselves, was continuity ever a thing before 2006?
    No, not until the Craig era made a point of continuity and tying everything neatly together in one neat package.

    Well, the first five films or so were very clearly all tied together and that only really slipped away after that.
    bondsum wrote: »
    The message was clear back then: don't worry too much about continuity. However, since Craig's Bond, that's no longer the case.

    But when the new Bond appears and it's a different story, what will people do? Walk out of the cinemas? There's a new Batman film coming which doesn't appear to follow on from the last, folks are used to dealing with this.
    Even if someone like Ralph Fiennes is in it, the clue that it's a new cycle will be that James Bond is younger and looks different.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 3,333
    mtm wrote: »
    Well, the first five films or so were very clearly all tied together and that only really slipped away after that.
    GF wasn't. And the continuity of actors in the same roles wasn't a big factor either. After five films, we'd already seen 2 different Qs and 3 different Felix Leiters, not to mention Blofeld sounding completely different in his firth film. Would that have happened in Craig's era?
    mtm wrote: »
    But when the new Bond appears and it's a different story, what will people do? Walk out of the cinemas? There's a new Batman film coming which doesn't appear to follow on from the last, folks are used to dealing with this.
    Even if someone like Ralph Fiennes is in it, the clue that it's a new cycle will be that James Bond is younger and looks different.
    Of course, you're assuming that the same audience will want to go back and see Bond 26 in the theatres. If CR is anything to go by, they'll be a big drop-off in tickets sales with a new actor in the role, unless it's an heir apparent like Brosnan.

    Your Batman comparision only works if Matt Reeve's The Batman has the same actors reprising their key roles from the previous incarnations of Batman. They don't. Also, The Batman is quite clearly a cinematic reinvention made by totally different people, severing all ties to the episodic theme music, batmobile, cast, and overall production of its predecessors.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited October 2021 Posts: 5,970
    So I know I said I'd like Roger Deakins to return alongside Cary Fukunaga for Bond 26, but after watching The Batman trailer the other night (and thousands of times since then), they really should try and get Greg Fraser as the cinematographer for Bond 26. The man is an artist.

    The-Batman-2022-Trailer-2-Screenshots-58.jpg?fit=3840%2C1600&quality=80&strip=info&ssl=1
    14d080c91ec27850bddfb0d1338b881b.jpg
    gaRcHNN.png
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    edited October 2021 Posts: 12,480
    I say maybe Greg Fraiser for Bond 28. I'd happily give Cary the next two. But at least Bond 26. I hope. He did a stellar job with NTTD and no matter what the story will be, I am pretty darn confident his direction would be great for Bond 26. I don't want a different director. Yet.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited October 2021 Posts: 5,970
    I say maybe Greg Fraiser for Bond 28. I'd happily give Cary the next two. But at least Bond 26. I hope. He did a stellar job with NTTD and no matter what the story will be, I am pretty darn confident his direction would be great for Bond 26. I don't want a different director. Yet.
    Oh Greg Fraser isn’t a director, he’s just a cinematographer.
  • Posts: 15,124
    Continuity is something you can take advantage of, when it can enhance the characters and the films. During the Craig years, they emphasized callbacks and continuity, for instance by having Jeffrey Wright recurring as Leiter. When he's reunited with Bond in NTTD, he's not just the American ally that the story requires, you totally buy that the two of them would be friends, as you've seen them together for 15 years.
    Yet, at other moments, the films still indulged in the Bond mythology by bringing back the DB5, first as a regular model, then as the version seen in Goldfinger.

    And it's interesting to see that over the course of NTTD, Bond loses his DB5, his code number, his best friend, his nemesis, and ultimately his life. The nemesis doesn't hurt too much, especially because of Blofeld's botched introduction in Spectre and the uncertainty about who was responsible for the attack in Matera, but the other things matter because of the weight they had acquired during the previous films.

    I'd say Blofeld was the person responsible for the Matera attack (how he pulled it off remains a mystery). Actually he felt more threatening there, as a ghostly presence, than he ever was in SP. But I digress: I agree about what you said about continuity.

    I would not be surprised they keep Vesper in the reboot. And I think they'll keep the supporting cast for practical reasons.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    edited October 2021 Posts: 12,480
    Oh okay, cinematographer. Thanks. Now I see you were clear in your post; I was just waking up. ;) I still want Sandgren for Bond 26, so maybe Greg F for Bond 27 or so.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited October 2021 Posts: 16,413
    bondsum wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Well, the first five films or so were very clearly all tied together and that only really slipped away after that.
    GF wasn't.

    Oh I'd say it is. Even just the mentions of his Bentley or the briefcase from FRWL tie it in. And then his car reappears in TB, which is part of the Spectre story again.
    bondsum wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    But when the new Bond appears and it's a different story, what will people do? Walk out of the cinemas? There's a new Batman film coming which doesn't appear to follow on from the last, folks are used to dealing with this.
    Even if someone like Ralph Fiennes is in it, the clue that it's a new cycle will be that James Bond is younger and looks different.
    Of course, you're assuming that the same audience will want to go back and see Bond 26 in the theatres. If CR is anything to go by, they'll be a big drop-off in tickets sales with a new actor in the role, unless it's an heir apparent like Brosnan.

    CR was a bigger hit than DAD..? Inflation adjusted too.
    bondsum wrote: »
    Your Batman comparision only works if Matt Reeve's The Batman has the same actors reprising their key roles from the previous incarnations of Batman. They don't. Also, The Batman is quite clearly a cinematic reinvention made by totally different people, severing all ties to the episodic theme music, batmobile, cast, and overall production of its predecessors.

    Even if they did, would it change? Michael Gough was Alfred to three different Batmen.
    If it had Gary Oldman in it I don't think people would stand up and walk out when he eventually popped up on screen. Anyone who cares enough about that sort of thing will have read a bit of publicity gumph about it and have been educated, anyone who doesn't will barely remember him. The Elfman Batman theme popped up in Justice League: I doubt anyone got confused from that.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    edited October 2021 Posts: 4,636
    If Judi Dench can get away with it, and be treated like Bond-Royalty, the other characters and their actors should be given a chance as well. The reboot CR had more than one Bond alumni come back, Martin Campbell, Purvis and Wade, and of course the Broccoli family. Some people are staying in the Bond family, if we like it or not.

    And here’s something controversial: Judi Dench didn’t do much with the part, aside from GE and TND. Yell at Bond, say that he’s the best person they have, and take all the credit for herself. I know that’s a trademark of a Purvis and Wade script, but they can improve with Ralph Fiennes coming back without them. That’s why I like Bond and M’s relationship in TND: she trusts him, gives him the assignment, and is happy to help him, while giving him credit.
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    edited October 2021 Posts: 693
    Denbigh wrote: »
    slide_99 wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Answer: continuity doesn't matter all that much in the end.
    No, but killing a pop culture icon in any incarnation does matter, regardless of continuities and timelines. And I hate that even have to deal with comic book-style "timelines" now.
    To the run risk of falling into a conversation you may have already had, how was the Craig-era not a "comic-book timeline" before this?

    My point was that, apart from the brief deviation with YOLT>OHMSS>DAF, where the series kind of branches off with OHMSS and then comes back together with DAF, there wasn't any issue with timelines either way. Bond was just always there, like an absolute. Quibbling over continuities wasn't an issue. Now it is. I just find it really annoying.
  • Posts: 3,327
    slide_99 wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    slide_99 wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Answer: continuity doesn't matter all that much in the end.
    No, but killing a pop culture icon in any incarnation does matter, regardless of continuities and timelines. And I hate that even have to deal with comic book-style "timelines" now.
    To the run risk of falling into a conversation you may have already had, how was the Craig-era not a "comic-book timeline" before this?

    My point was that, apart from the brief deviation with YOLT>OHMSS>DAF, where the series kind of branches off with OHMSS and then comes back together with DAF, there wasn't any issue with timelines either way. Bond was just always there, like an absolute. Quibbling over continuities wasn't an issue. Now it is. I just find it really annoying.

    I think the main thing was all the Bond films before Craig were stand alone films. The storyline didn't continue into the next film (despite the brief nods to OHMSS in FYEO and LTK).

    Not that I have anything against continuing a story onto the next film, as long as its been mapped out that way beforehand. It's clear that watching the arc over the 5 Craig films, this was not defined from the outset in CR.

    I'm guessing the producers may go back to standalone missions again for the next actor, but who knows.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 3,333
    mtm wrote: »
    bondsum wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Well, the first five films or so were very clearly all tied together and that only really slipped away after that.
    GF wasn't.

    Oh I'd say it is. Even just the mentions of his Bentley or the briefcase from FRWL tie it in. And then his car reappears in TB, which is part of the Spectre story again.
    I'd argue that a subtle mention or inclusion of something which isn't intrinsic to the story of the existing movie doesn't make it a proper sequel. Yes, there's a passing reference, but it's not important to the overall plot of GF. By this, I mean there was nothing of the FRWL events which were carried over into GF. There was no return of Tatiana Romanova, Blofeld, the Lektor or even Sylvia Trench. GF was it's own standalone movie with only a fine-drawn connective tissue. In other words, the perfect Bond movie template.
    bondsum wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    But when the new Bond appears and it's a different story, what will people do? Walk out of the cinemas? There's a new Batman film coming which doesn't appear to follow on from the last, folks are used to dealing with this.
    Even if someone like Ralph Fiennes is in it, the clue that it's a new cycle will be that James Bond is younger and looks different.

    Of course, you're assuming that the same audience will want to go back and see Bond 26 in the theatres. If CR is anything to go by, they'll be a big drop-off in tickets sales with a new actor in the role, unless it's an heir apparent like Brosnan.
    mtm wrote: »
    CR was a bigger hit than DAD..? Inflation adjusted too.
    Fair point and I stand corrected on the BO. CR managed to slightly nudge ahead of DAD by roughly $7 million in the domestic box office and $3 million in the worldwide haul. Goes to show the importance of good word-of-mouth, especially in the second week.
    bondsum wrote: »
    Your Batman comparision only works if Matt Reeve's The Batman has the same actors reprising their key roles from the previous incarnations of Batman. They don't. Also, The Batman is quite clearly a cinematic reinvention made by totally different people, severing all ties to the episodic theme music, batmobile, cast, and overall production of its predecessors.
    mtm wrote: »
    Even if they did, would it change? Michael Gough was Alfred to three different Batmen.
    If it had Gary Oldman in it I don't think people would stand up and walk out when he eventually popped up on screen. Anyone who cares enough about that sort of thing will have read a bit of publicity gumph about it and have been educated, anyone who doesn't will barely remember him. The Elfman Batman theme popped up in Justice League: I doubt anyone got confused from that.
    I'm only pointing out Matt Reeve's The Batman doesn't cast any of the same actors from the previous incarnations so cannot be used as a like-for-like comparison for Bond 26. I knew Michael Gough would be mentioned, but I'd argue Kilmer's Batman was the same Batman as the one before it, especially as they hadn't killed off Keaton's Batman in the previous movie nor did he face any of the same adversaries again. In other words, it was following the old Bond template of recasting their leading character. Same thing applies to Clooney. But let's be truthful with each other, those two Joel Schumacher examples are hardly considered the crown jewels of the Batman series and prime examples of how to do Batman right, are they?

    And I'll be perfectly honest with you, I don't even remember Elfman's Batman theme get reused in the Justice League. Was it a 5 second burst or the main reoccurring theme? Besides, I think there were many other issues and problems going on with Snyder's hot mess DC movies than recycling a musical cue that didn't make a lick of sense and which I can't even recall to begin with.

    I also don't understand your inclusion of Gary Oldman as Alfred. Surely, you're endorsing my point rather than trying to diminish it? Agreed—changing the role of M to Gary Oldman wouldn't necessarily make people stand up and walk out of the theatre for Bond 26. Of course, the real trick is to get bums on seats in the first place.

    PS. I think @jetsetwilly sums it up perfectly in the post above mine.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 9,847
    Bond 26: A Momentary Lapse of Reason

    Gun barrel shot (standard)
    Iris opening to interior, night, a bedroom
    The light is turned off. An unidentified woman wakes up in shock, after experiencing an obvious nightmare. She gets up, while the light is still turned off, and goes to the bathroom, obviously to drink a glass of water. When she's in the lobby, she notices light under the bathroom door, with also some noise. We also hear her heart beating faster.

    The camera switches to POV, as she opens the door. There's a masculine silhouette standing in the bathtub behind some semi-transparent curtain. The silhouette notices that someone has entered the room.

    The woman's heart beats even faster. The shower stops. The man opens the curtain.

    It's a soapy JAMES BOND (Pierce Brosnan). He smiles

    BOND – You seem haggard, Moneypenny. Bad dream?

    The camera switches to a reverse angle. We finally see the face of the woman. It's MISS MONEYPENNY (Samantha Bond). She looks shocked and confused.

    MONEYPENNY – You're... alive?

    BOND – Well... Of course. I thought I had given you enough evidence last night. (Pauses for comical effect and blinks) But if you want more evidence, we have all the time in the world. Until this afternoon. M's retirement party. I can't believe she's actually leaving. By the way, not a word about the little comedy sketch we're putting together with Q, Tanner and Robinson. I want it to be a surprise. (pauses, looks considerate) You don't look well, actually.

    MONEYPENNY – James, I've just had the weirdest nightmare. You were suddenly a blonde, you looked rough and bulky, I was also a black woman, a former field agent who eventually shot you, but I wasn't there at the start of your missions. You fell in love, resigned, but she was a double agent and got killed, and you were reinstated. Q had learnt to use computers, and he didn't look like the guy from the ministry of silly walks. Then M died. Then you had a foster brother who was the head of a secret criminal organization. You fell in love once again, resigned, then you stopped trusting her, then Felix died, then you discovered you had a kid, then you... died!

    BOND (nodding in disapproval) – Moneypenny... Moneypenny... You know it can't be true. I've had a vasectomy. (reassuring) You know, all of this happened to the other fella. (blinks at the camera with a Roger Moore smile).

    He then hugs Moneypenny, covering her with water and soap.

    Cut to credits, accompanied by the song "A Momentary Lapse of Reason" by Ed Sheeran.

    if we are titling Bond films after Prog rock albums I would prefer Close to the Edge or Fly From here.

    As for what I want

    I want Fleming titles and honestly plots

    Many of the novels and short stories can either be done or redone in a way that it doesn't feel like a remake


    for Bond 26 the idea of using live and let dies novel plot of black market antique deals financing smersh


    could easily be updated replace Smersh with Terrorism and add the property of a lady short story and we get a really good strong plot.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited October 2021 Posts: 16,413
    bondsum wrote: »
    bondsum wrote: »

    Of course, you're assuming that the same audience will want to go back and see Bond 26 in the theatres. If CR is anything to go by, they'll be a big drop-off in tickets sales with a new actor in the role, unless it's an heir apparent like Brosnan.
    mtm wrote: »
    CR was a bigger hit than DAD..? Inflation adjusted too.
    Fair point and I stand corrected on the BO. CR managed to slightly nudge ahead of DAD by roughly $7 million in the domestic box office and $3 million in the worldwide haul. Goes to show the importance of good word-of-mouth, especially in the second week.
    [/quote]

    Where are you getting those figures? Everywhere I look CR made nearly $200million more than DAD; about £130million more inflation adjusted.


    bondsum wrote: »
    bondsum wrote: »
    Your Batman comparision only works if Matt Reeve's The Batman has the same actors reprising their key roles from the previous incarnations of Batman. They don't. Also, The Batman is quite clearly a cinematic reinvention made by totally different people, severing all ties to the episodic theme music, batmobile, cast, and overall production of its predecessors.
    mtm wrote: »
    Even if they did, would it change? Michael Gough was Alfred to three different Batmen.
    If it had Gary Oldman in it I don't think people would stand up and walk out when he eventually popped up on screen. Anyone who cares enough about that sort of thing will have read a bit of publicity gumph about it and have been educated, anyone who doesn't will barely remember him. The Elfman Batman theme popped up in Justice League: I doubt anyone got confused from that.
    I'm only pointing out Matt Reeve's The Batman doesn't cast any of the same actors from the previous incarnations so cannot be used as a like-for-like comparison for Bond 26. I knew Michael Gough would be mentioned, but I'd argue Kilmer's Batman was the same Batman as the one before it, especially as they hadn't killed off Keaton's Batman in the previous movie nor did he face any of the same adversaries again. In other words, it was following the old Bond template of recasting their leading character. Same thing applies to Clooney. But let's be truthful with each other, those two Joel Schumacher examples are hardly considered the crown jewels of the Batman series and prime examples of how to do Batman right, are they?

    And I'll be perfectly honest with you, I don't even remember Elfman's Batman theme get reused in the Justice League. Was it a 5 second burst or the main reoccurring theme? Besides, I think there were many other issues and problems going on with Snyder's hot mess DC movies than recycling a musical cue that didn't make a lick of sense and which I can't even recall to begin with.

    It's more a question of whether anyone was confused by those things. I don't think they were.
    bondsum wrote: »
    I also don't understand your inclusion of Gary Oldman as Alfred. Surely, you're endorsing my point rather than trying to diminish it? Agreed—changing the role of M to Gary Oldman wouldn't necessarily make people stand up and walk out of the theatre for Bond 26. Of course, the real trick is to get bums on seats in the first place.

    Gary Oldman was in the Bale films: my point was that if he appeared in this new one I don't think anyone would get too puzzled- those who remember him in Bale films will have already read up on this film and know it's a reboot, pretty much everyone else will have forgotten he was in the old ones (like yourself, apparently! :) ).
  • SeveSeve The island of Lemoy
    edited October 2021 Posts: 422
    According to "The James Bond Dossier"

    http://www.thejamesbonddossier.com/james-bond-films/box-office-figures-for-the-james-bond-series.htm

    Box office figures
    The figures from the table below are taken from The Numbers. Throughout this article the big assumption is that figures reported on third party websites are correct; if they’re not exact, they are likely to be pretty close. This doesn’t really tell us much other than the general trend is up and that Skyfall grossed more than any other Bond film (and SPECTRE fared less well). What it fails to account for are the effects of inflation on those figures, underlined when you simply look at how the budgets have climbed over the years.

    Inflation-adjusted figures
    To give a clearer idea of the amounts each film grossed at the box office, domestic and worldwide takings were adjusted for inflation using the US Inflation Calculator and ranked in order. This gives a very different picture of how each film performed at the box office.

    US take (inflation adjusted in brackets)

    DAD 161m (212m)
    CR 167m (197m)

    World wide (inflation adjusted in brackets)

    DAD 432m (570m)
    CR 594m (699m)
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited October 2021 Posts: 16,413
    $669 vs $543 on the inflation adjusted here: https://www.007james.com/articles/box_office.php

    A bit more than $3m.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,304
    If they want to do a loose LALD remake, which would require a lot of changes, they should set it in Africa where most of the cast would obviously be black.
Sign In or Register to comment.