› ›

What next for Madeleine Swann

13567…15

Comments

  • SarkSark Guangdong, PRC
    Posts: 1,138
    When someone says they want a new Bond and re-boot what exactly do they mean? Do we have to go through Bond becoming James Bond again?

    I don't see why it really needs addressed beyond an offhand comment. If I see someone after a year and they ask about a woman I'll say things didn't work out and give a short explanation as necessary. She doesn't have to die.
  • antovolkantovolk
    Posts: 3,164
    dalton wrote: »
    antovolk wrote: »
    Considering that it's likely that B25 will the the last of the Craig era, my two cents/idea would be obviously a modern YOLT adaptation - sort of taking a similar approach to the material as Campbell and Co did with CR and tying the main story arc in.

    As some already suggested before - open with something like Blofeld escaping or, as one interesting theory I saw elsewhere suggested, have someone from higher up (Haines maybe?) force M to release Blofeld when he threatens to blackmail. Then Bond/Madeleine in an idyllic location and then she is kidnapped by SPECTRE operatives - probably when someone from MI6 like Tanner visits him and then they'd be also killed. Roll title sequence and only after, when Bond returns to MI6 does M 'reveal' to him that Madeleine is dead (so Bond doesn't go off looking for her) and urges Bond not to go off hunting for revenge like he did after Vesper. He then assigns Bond a seemingly unrelated mission in Japan and off we go with YOLT...obviously with changes to fit today's perspectives I.e. not have Bond disguise him self as a Japanese worker etc. As that plot is running, we can then have the B-plot of M, Moneypenny and Q working together to find and rescue Madeleine, who is actually alive.

    Then at the end, have her go with the MI6 team to Japan to reuinte with Bond once he defeats Blofeld, but then Bond will have lost his memory....which actually thinking about it would be a chilling callback to the torture scene in SP - "he dies not knowing who you are", and then end the Craig era with the rest of MI6 apart from M, MP and Q, believing him dead, while he lives an idyllic life with Madeleine as he does with Kissy in the book.

    I like this idea. It's a creative way around the corner they painted themselves into with Spectre.

    One tweak I might make to it would be for Bond to actually be the one to go after Madeleine and leave Q, M, and Moneypenny back in London. Maybe it's tweaked in a way where Bond veers off his current assignment because he finds some reason to believe that Madeleine is alive in Japan, giving him reason to disobey the mission given to him by M because he's believed her to be dead based on what M has told him.

    I'm not sure how it would ultimately go, haven't given it that much thought, but Bond's pursuit of Madeleine would lead him to Blofeld and his castle and garden of death. Bond could free Madeleine and kill Blofeld but sustain the injuries that lead to his amnesia and the ending that you've described, with Bond not recognizing her and them being forced to either move forward under that new reality or go their own separate ways in an extremely heartbreaking fashion. This way, in the course of events in the film, he'd know that Madeleine was alive, therefore adding to the heartbreak of the ending.

    I like that last point about Bond eventually finding out that Madeleine is alive, maybe Blofeld would reveal that his people never killed Madeleine, only captured her....because to be honest, all things considered, it would prevent Bond going rogue AGAIN, and obviously in the eyes of today's audiences and the filmmakers it's better to get the 'MI6 team' somehow involved, rather than just sitting around in London. I'd certainly be interested in seeing that.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Sark wrote: »
    When someone says they want a new Bond and re-boot what exactly do they mean? Do we have to go through Bond becoming James Bond again?

    I can't speak for others, but a reboot to me would be leaving the Craig continuity to one side and returning to a 007 unburdened by the events of the last four films. Everybody knows the character of James Bond, a new film would have him as a fully formed agent sans any very specific narrative from CR thru SP. It makes total sense to me and I hope it's what they do.
  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    Posts: 3,157
    RC7 wrote: »
    Sark wrote: »
    When someone says they want a new Bond and re-boot what exactly do they mean? Do we have to go through Bond becoming James Bond again?

    I can't speak for others, but a reboot to me would be leaving the Craig continuity to one side and returning to a 007 unburdened by the events of the last four films. Everybody knows the character of James Bond, a new film would have him as a fully formed agent sans any very specific narrative from CR thru SP. It makes total sense to me and I hope it's what they do.

    This.
  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    Posts: 11,119
    RC7 wrote: »
    Sark wrote: »
    When someone says they want a new Bond and re-boot what exactly do they mean? Do we have to go through Bond becoming James Bond again?

    I can't speak for others, but a reboot to me would be leaving the Craig continuity to one side and returning to a 007 unburdened by the events of the last four films. Everybody knows the character of James Bond, a new film would have him as a fully formed agent sans any very specific narrative from CR thru SP. It makes total sense to me and I hope it's what they do.

    For me it doesn't make any sense at all. It would be the very same thing as what Warner Bros. currently is doing with Ben Affleck's new Batman. Obviously the film will be a success, but again I would dub it as an uncreative reboot, set in a new DC Comics universe. And make no mistake, even if a new actor becomes Bond in adventure #25, the story for such a film needs to at least shortly highlight the introduction of a new actor....and how he fits in the plot.

    Moreover, what do you do with Naomie Harris, Ralph Fiennes, Christoph Waltz, Ben Wishaw, and Rory Kinnear. The very inclusion of all these actors already establish an ungoing continuity. Do you fire them? Or will you include them, by letting all of these actors completely ignore the Daniel Craig continuity? I find the latter far from....effective and plausible.

    So again, I prefer a 007 that is "unburdened by the events of the last four films" solely based on writing skills, on a damn good story, and not on a rather flawed and uncreative swap of actors. And I think you can do it. Just look at my previous post. Highlight Madeleine Swann briefly, in a still well-written, dramatic cameo. And don't try to infuse the personal backgrounds and continuity from start to finish, like Mendes did in "SPECTRE". Just briefly highlight it.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Sark wrote: »
    When someone says they want a new Bond and re-boot what exactly do they mean? Do we have to go through Bond becoming James Bond again?

    I can't speak for others, but a reboot to me would be leaving the Craig continuity to one side and returning to a 007 unburdened by the events of the last four films. Everybody knows the character of James Bond, a new film would have him as a fully formed agent sans any very specific narrative from CR thru SP. It makes total sense to me and I hope it's what they do.

    For me it doesn't make any sense at all. It would be the very same thing as what Warner Bros. currently is doing with Ben Affleck's new Batman. Obviously the film will be a success, but again I would dub it as an uncreative reboot, set in a new DC Comics universe. And make no mistake, even if a new actor becomes Bond in adventure #25, the story for such a film needs to at least shortly highlight the introduction of a new actor....and how he fits in the plot.

    Moreover, what do you do with Naomie Harris, Ralph Fiennes, Christoph Waltz, Ben Wishaw, and Rory Kinnear. The very inclusion of all these actors already establish an ungoing continuity. Do you fire them? Or will you include them, by letting all of these actors completely ignore the Daniel Craig continuity? I find the latter far from....effective and plausible.

    So again, I prefer a 007 that is "unburdened by the events of the last four films" solely based on writing skills, on a damn good story, and not on a rather flawed and uncreative swap of actors. And I think you can do it. Just look at my previous post. Highlight Madeleine Swann briefly, in a still well-written, dramatic cameo. And don't try to infuse the personal backgrounds and continuity from start to finish, like Mendes did in "SPECTRE". Just briefly highlight it.

    My reply had nothing to do with Madeleine Swann. I'm talking about when they recast. It's absolutely viable to make a clean break. If they have to ditch the MI6 regulars so be it, but that's another discussion. A reboot as I defined it above is completely practical and creatively freeing. It's a blank canvas on which you can redefine Bond with a new lead.
  • SarkSark Guangdong, PRC
    Posts: 1,138
    For me it doesn't make any sense at all. It would be the very same thing as what Warner Bros. currently is doing with Ben Affleck's new Batman. Obviously the film will be a success, but again I would dub it as an uncreative reboot, set in a new DC Comics universe. And make no mistake, even if a new actor becomes Bond in adventure #25, the story for such a film needs to at least shortly highlight the introduction of a new actor....and how he fits in the plot.

    Moreover, what do you do with Naomie Harris, Ralph Fiennes, Christoph Waltz, Ben Wishaw, and Rory Kinnear. The very inclusion of all these actors already establish an ungoing continuity. Do you fire them? Or will you include them, by letting all of these actors completely ignore the Daniel Craig continuity? I find the latter far from....effective and plausible.

    Gustav...it's exactly what EON did for the first five Bonds. They cast a new man for the role and kept the cast at MI6 basically the same (only replacing people as needed, not just because a new Bond was cast). Lois Maxwell flirted with three actors as James Bond, and Judi Dench was the boss to two. What's the problem?
  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    edited January 2016 Posts: 11,119
    RC7 wrote: »
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Sark wrote: »
    When someone says they want a new Bond and re-boot what exactly do they mean? Do we have to go through Bond becoming James Bond again?

    I can't speak for others, but a reboot to me would be leaving the Craig continuity to one side and returning to a 007 unburdened by the events of the last four films. Everybody knows the character of James Bond, a new film would have him as a fully formed agent sans any very specific narrative from CR thru SP. It makes total sense to me and I hope it's what they do.

    For me it doesn't make any sense at all. It would be the very same thing as what Warner Bros. currently is doing with Ben Affleck's new Batman. Obviously the film will be a success, but again I would dub it as an uncreative reboot, set in a new DC Comics universe. And make no mistake, even if a new actor becomes Bond in adventure #25, the story for such a film needs to at least shortly highlight the introduction of a new actor....and how he fits in the plot.

    Moreover, what do you do with Naomie Harris, Ralph Fiennes, Christoph Waltz, Ben Wishaw, and Rory Kinnear. The very inclusion of all these actors already establish an ungoing continuity. Do you fire them? Or will you include them, by letting all of these actors completely ignore the Daniel Craig continuity? I find the latter far from....effective and plausible.

    So again, I prefer a 007 that is "unburdened by the events of the last four films" solely based on writing skills, on a damn good story, and not on a rather flawed and uncreative swap of actors. And I think you can do it. Just look at my previous post. Highlight Madeleine Swann briefly, in a still well-written, dramatic cameo. And don't try to infuse the personal backgrounds and continuity from start to finish, like Mendes did in "SPECTRE". Just briefly highlight it.

    My reply had nothing to do with Madeleine Swann. I'm talking about when they recast. It's absolutely viable to make a clean break. If they have to ditch the MI6 regulars so be it, but that's another discussion. A reboot as I defined it above is completely practical and creatively freeing. It's a blank canvas on which you can redefine Bond with a new lead.

    I think it can be equally creative if you write a good story, without another reboot and another introduction of a new Bond actor.

    I know, continuity and creating timelines/universes is the 'new land' in Hollywood. But that's because continuity IMO sometimes goes too far. Writers are too busy infusing personal backgrounds from start to end. And every character needs to have this background. And then it should all be written in a chronologically sound way.

    I think you can maintain continuity and personal backgrounds, by simply referring too them shortly...in just a few mins. And then when the story/film progresses you stop dwelling on it.

    A bit like.....a 45 sec reference to Bond's wife in "TSWLM".

    Right now I agree that there's a 50/50 chance Daniel Craig will return as Bond. Personally, I would like him to return. Especially since I prefer a Bond film for Craig with raving reviews as a proper send-off.


    And to accomodate to Craig's irritations regarding the filming/shooting schedule, there's another option: Start shooting earlier, and extend the shooting schedule from 8 months to perhaps 12 months. With in between plentiful breaks, so poor Craig can do this more often:
    big.jpg
    Daniel-Craig-and-his-wife-Rachel-Weisz-attend-the-world-premiere-of-the-new-James-Bond-007-film-Spectre.jpg
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Sark wrote: »
    When someone says they want a new Bond and re-boot what exactly do they mean? Do we have to go through Bond becoming James Bond again?

    I can't speak for others, but a reboot to me would be leaving the Craig continuity to one side and returning to a 007 unburdened by the events of the last four films. Everybody knows the character of James Bond, a new film would have him as a fully formed agent sans any very specific narrative from CR thru SP. It makes total sense to me and I hope it's what they do.

    For me it doesn't make any sense at all. It would be the very same thing as what Warner Bros. currently is doing with Ben Affleck's new Batman. Obviously the film will be a success, but again I would dub it as an uncreative reboot, set in a new DC Comics universe. And make no mistake, even if a new actor becomes Bond in adventure #25, the story for such a film needs to at least shortly highlight the introduction of a new actor....and how he fits in the plot.

    Moreover, what do you do with Naomie Harris, Ralph Fiennes, Christoph Waltz, Ben Wishaw, and Rory Kinnear. The very inclusion of all these actors already establish an ungoing continuity. Do you fire them? Or will you include them, by letting all of these actors completely ignore the Daniel Craig continuity? I find the latter far from....effective and plausible.

    So again, I prefer a 007 that is "unburdened by the events of the last four films" solely based on writing skills, on a damn good story, and not on a rather flawed and uncreative swap of actors. And I think you can do it. Just look at my previous post. Highlight Madeleine Swann briefly, in a still well-written, dramatic cameo. And don't try to infuse the personal backgrounds and continuity from start to finish, like Mendes did in "SPECTRE". Just briefly highlight it.

    My reply had nothing to do with Madeleine Swann. I'm talking about when they recast. It's absolutely viable to make a clean break. If they have to ditch the MI6 regulars so be it, but that's another discussion. A reboot as I defined it above is completely practical and creatively freeing. It's a blank canvas on which you can redefine Bond with a new lead.

    I think it can be equally creative if you write a good story, without another reboot and another introduction of a new Bond actor.

    I know, continuity and creating timelines/universes is the 'new land' in Hollywood. But that's because continuity IMO sometimes goes too far. Writers are too busy infusing personal backgrounds from start to end. And every character needs to have this background. And then it should all be written in a chronologically sound way.

    I think you can maintain continuity and personal backgrounds, by simply referring too them shortly...in just a few mins. And then when the story/film progresses you stop dwelling on it.

    A bit like.....a 45 sec reference to Bond's wife in "TSWLM".

    Right now I agree that there's a 50/50 chance Daniel Craig will return as Bond. Personally, I would like him to return. Especially since I prefer a Bond film for Craig with raving reviews as a proper send-off.

    The DC era is too personal imo. It shows an agent go from rookie to seasoned, in effect it's a truncated version of Bond's complete trajectory. It's intrinsically tied to DC because his age has become a very definite issue. This isn't loose continuity as it was in the previous 20 films, featuring a primarily ageless Bond, it's a tightly connected narrative that drives the films. As Mendes said, his films are about character, not plot. Unless you cast a bloke in his 50's maintaining continuity is pointless. Having a clean slate post DC is far more appealing.
  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    Posts: 11,119
    RC7 wrote: »
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Sark wrote: »
    When someone says they want a new Bond and re-boot what exactly do they mean? Do we have to go through Bond becoming James Bond again?

    I can't speak for others, but a reboot to me would be leaving the Craig continuity to one side and returning to a 007 unburdened by the events of the last four films. Everybody knows the character of James Bond, a new film would have him as a fully formed agent sans any very specific narrative from CR thru SP. It makes total sense to me and I hope it's what they do.

    For me it doesn't make any sense at all. It would be the very same thing as what Warner Bros. currently is doing with Ben Affleck's new Batman. Obviously the film will be a success, but again I would dub it as an uncreative reboot, set in a new DC Comics universe. And make no mistake, even if a new actor becomes Bond in adventure #25, the story for such a film needs to at least shortly highlight the introduction of a new actor....and how he fits in the plot.

    Moreover, what do you do with Naomie Harris, Ralph Fiennes, Christoph Waltz, Ben Wishaw, and Rory Kinnear. The very inclusion of all these actors already establish an ungoing continuity. Do you fire them? Or will you include them, by letting all of these actors completely ignore the Daniel Craig continuity? I find the latter far from....effective and plausible.

    So again, I prefer a 007 that is "unburdened by the events of the last four films" solely based on writing skills, on a damn good story, and not on a rather flawed and uncreative swap of actors. And I think you can do it. Just look at my previous post. Highlight Madeleine Swann briefly, in a still well-written, dramatic cameo. And don't try to infuse the personal backgrounds and continuity from start to finish, like Mendes did in "SPECTRE". Just briefly highlight it.

    My reply had nothing to do with Madeleine Swann. I'm talking about when they recast. It's absolutely viable to make a clean break. If they have to ditch the MI6 regulars so be it, but that's another discussion. A reboot as I defined it above is completely practical and creatively freeing. It's a blank canvas on which you can redefine Bond with a new lead.

    I think it can be equally creative if you write a good story, without another reboot and another introduction of a new Bond actor.

    I know, continuity and creating timelines/universes is the 'new land' in Hollywood. But that's because continuity IMO sometimes goes too far. Writers are too busy infusing personal backgrounds from start to end. And every character needs to have this background. And then it should all be written in a chronologically sound way.

    I think you can maintain continuity and personal backgrounds, by simply referring too them shortly...in just a few mins. And then when the story/film progresses you stop dwelling on it.

    A bit like.....a 45 sec reference to Bond's wife in "TSWLM".

    Right now I agree that there's a 50/50 chance Daniel Craig will return as Bond. Personally, I would like him to return. Especially since I prefer a Bond film for Craig with raving reviews as a proper send-off.

    The DC era is too personal imo. It shows an agent go from rookie to seasoned, in effect it's a truncated version of Bond's complete trajectory. It's intrinsically tied to DC because his age has become a very definite issue. This isn't loose continuity as it was in the previous 20 films, featuring a primarily ageless Bond, it's a tightly connected narrative that drives the films. As Mendes said, his films are about character, not plot. Unless you cast a bloke in his 50's maintaining continuity is pointless. Having a clean slate post DC is far more appealing.

    I respectfully disagree :-). And it's a matter of taste also.

    Yes, I agree that continuity drives the four Craig films. And I loved it. But what I still miss, is a final 'plain, solid mission' without all the personal ties. I think Craig deserves a film that is 'more plot, ánd character', but with simply less background stuff. Make Craig's 5th movie simply less personal.

    Then again, let's agree to disagree hehe. I think the story should be the pivotal driving force of Bond #25, regardless of bringing back Craig or bring in a new Bond actor.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Sark wrote: »
    When someone says they want a new Bond and re-boot what exactly do they mean? Do we have to go through Bond becoming James Bond again?

    I can't speak for others, but a reboot to me would be leaving the Craig continuity to one side and returning to a 007 unburdened by the events of the last four films. Everybody knows the character of James Bond, a new film would have him as a fully formed agent sans any very specific narrative from CR thru SP. It makes total sense to me and I hope it's what they do.

    For me it doesn't make any sense at all. It would be the very same thing as what Warner Bros. currently is doing with Ben Affleck's new Batman. Obviously the film will be a success, but again I would dub it as an uncreative reboot, set in a new DC Comics universe. And make no mistake, even if a new actor becomes Bond in adventure #25, the story for such a film needs to at least shortly highlight the introduction of a new actor....and how he fits in the plot.

    Moreover, what do you do with Naomie Harris, Ralph Fiennes, Christoph Waltz, Ben Wishaw, and Rory Kinnear. The very inclusion of all these actors already establish an ungoing continuity. Do you fire them? Or will you include them, by letting all of these actors completely ignore the Daniel Craig continuity? I find the latter far from....effective and plausible.

    So again, I prefer a 007 that is "unburdened by the events of the last four films" solely based on writing skills, on a damn good story, and not on a rather flawed and uncreative swap of actors. And I think you can do it. Just look at my previous post. Highlight Madeleine Swann briefly, in a still well-written, dramatic cameo. And don't try to infuse the personal backgrounds and continuity from start to finish, like Mendes did in "SPECTRE". Just briefly highlight it.

    My reply had nothing to do with Madeleine Swann. I'm talking about when they recast. It's absolutely viable to make a clean break. If they have to ditch the MI6 regulars so be it, but that's another discussion. A reboot as I defined it above is completely practical and creatively freeing. It's a blank canvas on which you can redefine Bond with a new lead.

    I think it can be equally creative if you write a good story, without another reboot and another introduction of a new Bond actor.

    I know, continuity and creating timelines/universes is the 'new land' in Hollywood. But that's because continuity IMO sometimes goes too far. Writers are too busy infusing personal backgrounds from start to end. And every character needs to have this background. And then it should all be written in a chronologically sound way.

    I think you can maintain continuity and personal backgrounds, by simply referring too them shortly...in just a few mins. And then when the story/film progresses you stop dwelling on it.

    A bit like.....a 45 sec reference to Bond's wife in "TSWLM".

    Right now I agree that there's a 50/50 chance Daniel Craig will return as Bond. Personally, I would like him to return. Especially since I prefer a Bond film for Craig with raving reviews as a proper send-off.

    The DC era is too personal imo. It shows an agent go from rookie to seasoned, in effect it's a truncated version of Bond's complete trajectory. It's intrinsically tied to DC because his age has become a very definite issue. This isn't loose continuity as it was in the previous 20 films, featuring a primarily ageless Bond, it's a tightly connected narrative that drives the films. As Mendes said, his films are about character, not plot. Unless you cast a bloke in his 50's maintaining continuity is pointless. Having a clean slate post DC is far more appealing.

    I respectfully disagree :-). And it's a matter of taste also.

    Yes, I agree that continuity drives the four Craig films. And I loved it. But what I still miss, is a final 'plain, solid mission' without all the personal ties. I think Craig deserves a film that is 'more plot, ánd character', but with simply less background stuff. Make Craig's 5th movie simply less personal.

    Then again, let's agree to disagree hehe. I think the story should be the pivotal driving force of Bond #25, regardless of bringing back Craig or bring in a new Bond actor.

    For the record, I am not talking about Bond 25. I'm talking specifically about whichever film is the debut of a new actor. Yes, the story should be the driving force of any film and launching a new actor would benefit greatly from having a blank canvas.
  • IGUANNAIGUANNA
    Posts: 1,296
    I want Hinx to return and kidnap Madelene again.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2016 Posts: 23,883
    IGUANNA wrote: »
    I want Hinx to return and kidnap Madelene again.
    This is rather predictable, which means it may probably happen, sadly.

    I'm for a soft reboot like they've done for every other actor prior to Craig, once he decides to pack it in. Cast a younger actor, sack all the MI6 folks and start over. The only one who's really left a bit of an impression on me is Whishaw anyway, so if they really want they can keep him, like they kept Llewelyn during the Brosnan years. I've really not been impressed with Fiennes or Harris, and the less said about doormat Kinnear the better.

    Assuming it's Craig again for one more, then If they really must continue with their SP story for B25 (I'd much prefer they do a QoS and forget about it for now really) then let Swann show up briefly, and then brush her away. Cast a new girl and have a new unrelated story. Come back to Blofeld in the future with a new actor.
    RC7 wrote: »
    The DC era is too personal imo. It shows an agent go from rookie to seasoned, in effect it's a truncated version of Bond's complete trajectory. It's intrinsically tied to DC because his age has become a very definite issue. This isn't loose continuity as it was in the previous 20 films, featuring a primarily ageless Bond, it's a tightly connected narrative that drives the films.
    I agree.
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    For me it doesn't make any sense at all. It would be the very same thing as what Warner Bros. currently is doing with Ben Affleck's new Batman.
    Yes, and this is what I want. With the new Supes vs Bats movie, they may not execute well, but that is different from the approach, which is the right one in my view, and also the right one for Bond. Warner knew there was no other way to successfully follow Nolan's trilogy, and EON will likely take the same approach post-DC reboot & origin story.
  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    Posts: 11,119
    bondjames wrote: »
    Yes, and this is what I want. With the new Supes vs Bats movie, they may not execute well, but that is different from the approach, which is the right one in my view, and also the right one for Bond. Warner knew there was no other way to successfully follow Nolan's trilogy, and EON will likely take the same approach post-DC reboot & origin story.

    Alright, your wish ;-). But then again:
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    I think the story should be the pivotal driving force of Bond #25, regardless of bringing back Craig or bring in a new Bond actor.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2016 Posts: 23,883
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    I think the story should be the pivotal driving force of Bond #25, regardless of bringing back Craig or bring in a new Bond actor.
    Yes, I agree, but not just story, but rather, 'story + meaningful and credible characterizations and motivations'. I think audiences expect that from Bond films now, especially post-Craig, and that is where, for some (myself included), SP failed to deliver properly.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Yes, and this is what I want. With the new Supes vs Bats movie, they may not execute well, but that is different from the approach, which is the right one in my view, and also the right one for Bond. Warner knew there was no other way to successfully follow Nolan's trilogy, and EON will likely take the same approach post-DC reboot & origin story.

    Alright, your wish ;-). But then again:
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    I think the story should be the pivotal driving force of Bond #25, regardless of bringing back Craig or bring in a new Bond actor.

    You're confusing two different things.
  • TroyTroy
    edited January 2016 Posts: 342
    They have really boxed themselves in.

    Option 1: Madeleine dies, Bond out for revenge. Not again...
    Option 2: Blofeld has Madeleine killed. Bond out for revenge. As above plus repeating OHMSS
    Option 3: Bond settled down with Madeleine. WTF Bond in a happy relationship? Just how is this aligned with the classic Bond character that Craig was supposed to be building to? What next - married with children living in a nice starter home in Croydon, late for briefing with M because of signal failure at Clapham Junction?
    Option 4: Madeleine dumps Bond. What next? Bond loses a fist fight? Bond loses money in casino? Bond accumulates gambling debts?

    I think the only credible way is a repeat of the FRWL/Goldfinger/Thunderball continuity. Forget Madeleine. Assume the relationship ran its course over the last 2-3 years. Let Bond go back to doing what he's paid for - being a govt employee acting as an agent provocateur

    Forget Madeleine and Spectre in the next film, then bring back Spectre in the film after that.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2016 Posts: 23,883
    Troy wrote: »
    Forget Madeleine and Spectre in the next film, then bring back Spectre in the film after that.
    This.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited January 2016 Posts: 9,117
    bondjames wrote:
    the less said about doormat Kinnear the better.

    This.
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    For me it doesn't make any sense at all. It would be the very same thing as what Warner Bros. currently is doing with Ben Affleck's new Batman. Yes, and this is what I want. With the new Supes vs Bats movie, they may not execute well, but that is different from the approach, which is the right one in my view, and also the right one for Bond. Warner knew there was no other way to successfully follow Nolan's trilogy, and EON will likely take the same approach post-DC reboot & origin story.

    So what? Every time there's a new actor we reboot from scratch?

    I'm sorry but that's bollocks. God only knows what Cubby would be thinking but I fear with Swann/Blofeld they have painted themselves into a corner they have no idea to get out of.
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,314
    If they know going into it that its Craig's last film then I hope they choose to ignore continuity and just try to come up with the best story possible.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    pachazo wrote: »
    If they know going into it that its Craig's last film then I hope they choose to ignore continuity and just try to come up with the best story possible.

    They should be doing this regardless.

    I'm not really interested in seeing Swann again. Lesser Bond girls have created a bigger impact and resonated a greater sense of significance for me. The good thing is, it's not hard to move on from Swann, her absence can be conveyed through a facial expression from Bond and we'll know all we need to know things didn't work out. Bond's sense of duty to his country is too overwhelming for him to ignore so he's constantly pulled back into the life of a spy/assassin that doesn't fit in with the life that Swann envisions and as such, they part and Bond is back to doing his job. Let's get in a new female lead and let's experience a thrilling story worth telling.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2016 Posts: 23,883
    doubleoego wrote: »
    pachazo wrote: »
    If they know going into it that its Craig's last film then I hope they choose to ignore continuity and just try to come up with the best story possible.

    They should be doing this regardless.

    I'm not really interested in seeing Swann again. Lesser Bond girls have created a bigger impact and resonated a greater sense of significance for me. The good thing is, it's not hard to move on from Swann, her absence can be conveyed through a facial expression from Bond and we'll know all we need to know things didn't work out. Bond's sense of duty to his country is too overwhelming for him to ignore so he's constantly pulled back into the life of a spy/assassin that doesn't fit in with the life that Swann envisions and as such, they part and Bond is back to doing his job. Let's get in a new female lead and let's experience a thrilling story worth telling.
    Yes, I agree. They even telegraphed this in SP anyway. Bond and Swann would likely have moved on if not for his and her capture by Blofeld. He didn't seem too hung up on it then, so I don't see why he would be in B25. All that's needed is a mission important enough for him to come back. In SF that was the MI6 attack, and they'll have to find something suitable enough for him to want to return in B25. It doesn't necessarily have to be a Blofeld escape. I'd rather they let that sleeping dog lie.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,798
    EON, get off your collective arses & just cast Dan's WIFE as the next Bond girl!! He'd certainly come back and Swann can bow out due to PTSD or something.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    chrisisall wrote: »
    EON, get off your collective arses & just cast Dan's WIFE as the next Bond girl!! He'd certainly come back and Swann can bow out due to PTSD or something.

    That's not such a far fetched possibility, especially if we're looking at Craig's final Bond film. I could see EoN being on board with casting Rachel.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2016 Posts: 23,883
    doubleoego wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    EON, get off your collective arses & just cast Dan's WIFE as the next Bond girl!! He'd certainly come back and Swann can bow out due to PTSD or something.

    That's not such a far fetched possibility, especially if we're looking at Craig's final Bond film. I could see EoN being on board with casting Rachel.
    The thing is (and no offence to Mrs. Craig) he just totally outclasses her in acting. I noticed it in Betrayal on Broadway, although admittedly theatre is not the same as film.

    Additionally, they don't have a great record together (a bit like Jlo-Fleck with Gigli), as I saw a film they made some years back called Dream House which was horrid (I turned it off half way through).
  • patbpatb
    Posts: 4,615
    The fact that this thread is so long and there is a broad consensus is a good indication that the MS character is a real issue. It's as if the script writers had no respect or care for the poor so and so's who have to pick up the batton and come up with a new and exciting script. As others have said, they are in a very tight corner and a new Bond seems to be one of the the easier options. It would be a real shame if DC does have one more movie left in him but he cant come back as MS presents such issues. Its another black mark against Spectre for me (and look how wonderfully SF set up the next movie with all the characters in place but so much room for imaginative, fresh plot lines)
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    patb wrote: »
    The fact that this thread is so long and there is a broad consensus is a good indication that the MS character is a real issue. It's as if the script writers had no respect or care for the poor so and so's who have to pick up the batton and come up with a new and exciting script. As others have said, they are in a very tight corner and a new Bond seems to be one of the the easier options. It would be a real shame if DC does have one more movie left in him but he cant come back as MS presents such issues. Its another black mark against Spectre for me (and look how wonderfully SF set up the next movie with all the characters in place but so much room for imaginative, fresh plot lines)
    @patb, reading your post makes me recall a poster from a few months back on the leaks thread who claimed to know Mendes, and who suggested that Mendes told him that he and Craig devised an approach that would make it difficult for Craig to return. I'm not saying this is true, but your post just made me recall that poster's statement.
  • daltondalton
    Posts: 1,631
    I'm actually glad that they left the Madeleine situation off the way that they did. The rest of the story, I thought they did very poorly, but I liked Madeleine. Take her away from Spectre and I'd probably rank it very, very low on the list. I'm all in favor of bringing her back, just not to be killed off in the opening minutes to set up yet another revenge story.
  • patbpatb
    edited January 2016 Posts: 4,615
    If she is not killed off, then what does she do? Either she drives the plot (kidnapping? yawn) or she is just baggage, you cant have Bond with a girlfriend in the background ("sorry, dear, going to be home late, don't wait up"), writing a really good Bond script is obviously very very hard but they have made it ten times harder with the situation that we have been left with.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    patb wrote: »
    If she is not killed off, then what does she do? Either she drives the plot (kidnapping? yawn) or she is just baggage, you cant have Bond with a girlfriend in the background ("sorry, dear, going to be home late, don't wake up"), writing a really good Bond script is obviously very very hard but they have made it ten times harder with the situation that we have been left with.

    Precisely.

    Logic dictates that she needs to die but that has been flogged to death in the Craig era so they really can't do that.

    So what options are they left with?

    The second best option is for her to leave Bond like Gala at the end of MR but they already pissed that option away in the final act of SP.

    So how about having her be the main Bond girl and surviving to the end? Extremely unsatisfactory IMO as we don't want Bond with a bird in tow and no matter how hot Lea is we want new Bond girls for him to shag.

    I'm coming to think that the best (and only) option available is to totally ignore her or just have a couple of lines saying it didn't work out.

    Trouble is I can't see them doing this. Continuity seems to be everything these days so I fully expect Lea to return along with Christoph.
Sign In or Register to comment.