It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
This. SPECTRE was the big, #1 issue with the Craig era for me. They should have waited to carefully construct an arc with them for the start of the next era and left Craig's alone instead of trying to unconvincingly explain away they had been responsible for everything.
Nor do I want to see the Aston Martins of Connery, Lazenby, Dalton, Brosnan, and Craig. I don't want to play "which Bond are we calling back to?"
Bond's name, the names of all his MI6 colleagues, and the Bond theme will be continuity enough for Bond 26.
If subsequent Bond films need to make reference to Bond 26 fine, but that can easily be done in stand alone films.
A mix of both. Have certain characters that could be set up for future movies (I could see Blofeld working again this way, but have one actor commit to the role. Also, EON don't play stupid with the audience again. If Blofeld is a character, just call him Blofeld). I could also see Alec Trevelyan working this way as well, he starts good, and slowly becomes a villain. If doing continuity, don't be afraid to film films back-to-back. Or plan ideas in advance, EON.
I initially thought Craig was supposed to be the Bond who eventually becomes the character from the first 20 films. I don't know how much further back we can go without ruining the character's mystery.
Did those first 20 films come between QoS and SF?
That would be kind of like how Marvel used Thanos for phase 1 or was it 2? LOL!
But a shadowy figure who eventually says "I guess I am going to have to do it myself." I would love that, course they would need to plan ahead and cast the right actor, or do what Cubby and Harry did and shoot just his hands and back of head.
If they hadn't killed Bond in NTTD, I wouldn't have minded that
I never bought her as the same M from the Brosnan era.
I didn't get the impression that the question posed by the topic meant continuity with previous incarnations, including Craig's: I took it as meaning should the films of the next era be linked by recurring story elements and characters or should each film be a stand alone story unrelated to the previous film
Clearly not when they reintroduced Blofeld and SPECTRE. But I assumed CR and QOS were about Craig's Bond becoming the character we'd known since the beginning, so I don't know what could be gained by going even further back.
Look at the convoluted mess Craig's era ended in. CR into QOS (I actually liked that), then SF into SP (although I personally actually enjoyed the mess that was SP) into NTTD (in which there was indeed TTD). In the OLD DAYS a Bond movie could do a call back (OHMSS, FYEO, GE) without needing to do a WHOLE MOVIE dwelling on, or trying to be rooted in it.
Quite right @talos7 I meant that the next set of films be a continuity like Craig's or more of the traditional EON approach to the first 20 films. That is the question, not a debate or discussion on who is in a continuity or whether Craig's continuity layers into the first 20 films.
IMO, they horribly failed with the Craig arc continuity and unless the continuity is really, really, REALLY well thought out, I just rather not.
Yes, new films that only reference themselves and not previous films. That's how I read it as well.
I like the continuity idea with Craig era but they retconned it to death by the end, everybody Bond met had a connection to his past or a connection to a person in his life, his world felt so small by NTTD.
I must admit the idea of having an ex main Bond girl appear as a secondary character doesn't really appeal to me and I'm kind of glad they didn't. It would sort of underline that James is done with her now and has moved onto the next one, and feels like a demotion in a way.
I don't think there's much point in deferred pleasure: if you've got a big cool toy then get it out now, there's no point in waiting for ten years.
Yeah I think that's what we'll get, and it's what we have been getting as well: maybe QoS was the only one you really need to have seen the previous one to follow but even that wouldn't have been hard to pick up if you hadn't.
+1
Exactly. CR'06 is a near excellent standalone Bond film but I wish the same attention to care and quality that EON put into Craig's debut film had been used in its sequels. Instead of being a well thought out multi-film arc it went from a terrific start into a "let's make things up as we go along" disappointment. So standalone with a certain amount of continuity like the Connery/Lazenby era works for me.
That's the thing. Personally, I think there should be a certain level of continuity between movies: recurring characters (not only MI6 staff), gadgets, references to previous movies, ideally a recurring villain. Bond should not live in a vacuum, taken out every time he has a mission.
Also, regardless of one's preferences, continuity is pretty much the norm now for every franchise, whether for movies or TV series. Bottle shows are now the exception.
Okay time for another one!
Would you rather the next film have a femme fatale OR a return of a creative hulking henchman?
By my count the last true femme fatale was in TWINE with Electra King and before her Xenia Onnatopp. I always thought that it was a good idea to have an evil female batter Bond. The sexual tension, the back and forth dialogue it usually adds up to a memorable character for Bond to battle.
The creative hulking henchman was last used in SP when Hinx showed up and made life terrible for James. I always enjoyed Bond having to use his wits to battle a physically superior opponent. OddJob, Jaws come to mind in this category.
So for the next film which would you rather see a femme fatale or a hulking henchman?
This is would you rather! LOL!
What would you rather?
Can you not read? Both.
I can read otherwise I wouldn't have commented. You are supposed to pick which one you would rather. But we have members that straddle the line and say both! I always try to encourage people to pick! I will respect you saying both!
I would love to see a capable female villain who works with an imposing male henchman as a team.
I answered the way I felt. You are being anal and demanding that I reply in a certain way. I really couldn’t care less about meeting your expectations . Loosen up .