Would you rather EON fight the fight with Amazon OR suck it up and make a film with Amazon?

1158159160161162164»

Comments

  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited February 2 Posts: 16,936
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    I wouldn't mind the crew back, despite the evident complaints about lack of continuity that would come down like an avalanche.

    Yeah, I'm confident that they could find a new bunch of top actors as they managed it last time, but I do really like the old bunch so I'd be happy to see Whishaw as Q again, for example as he's great, and like yourself I'm happy to ignore continuity if it means we get something or someone great. But I think even ignoring the continuity thing, they'd probably just feel a bit wrong with a new Bond as they kind of grew as a team with Craig's Bond.

    To be honest, that’s exactly what I’m struggling with. On the one hand, it makes the most sense to keep the team firmly rooted in the Craig era, which is now over. On the other hand, we’ve invested time and backstory in Harris’s Moneypenny, Whishaw’s Q, and Fiennes’s M—it would be a shame to lose all of that.

    Yeah okay, that's a fair way to see it, can't argue with that.
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Or maybe I just hate the thought of losing them. Quite frankly, Harris, Whishaw, and Fiennes have many more years of great performances ahead of them. They could easily fill the shoes of Maxwell, Llewelyn, and even legends like Lee and Dench. We’re talking about seasoned, talented actors—one of whom could’ve been a Bond girl, and one of whom could’ve been Bond himself. I love the dynamic of this team; No Time to Die feels too soon to retire them.

    I don't disagree, I think they came up with a brilliant reworking of the MI6 crew which I'd probably put on an equal level with the originals. And when it comes to M, for me Dench is the best one we've had- Lee was great but she pips it. She might even be the most iconic M, because of her longevity and higher profile in her 007 movies: if you showed your average person on the street a photo of her sat behind a desk I think they'd know to call her M more than perhaps they would a photo of Lee. She's even doing a set of adverts in the UK at the moment based on her M persona.
    I think it's great that after so many years of the series they're still producing films and casting which are worthy enough of being considered the best so far.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,493
    first off, I'd say (chirping in on the discussion between @mtm and @DarthDimi ) the films always had the 'saga' quality to them. Take the reference to Bond beeing married before (Timothy's Bond). Obviously that's Tracy, but if it had been Timothy's, r he'd 've been an agent at 23 already. And a seasoned one at that.
    SO any new film would sit between the films Craig made, just as much as all the films that came before. They're just Bond's stories re-told for the current time.

    In this way, it wouldn't be a problem to keep the current crew, which, like you guy, I really like.
    Hence, for me they can stay.

    For as much as Judi Dench returning as M, she now definately is too old.

    Naomi Harris as M could actually work, she's in her early fifties now.

    I'd really like to see Ben back as Q, I just like his incarnation which has just the right amount of nod to Desmond as well as beeing his own character.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,394
    @mtm
    I agree—Dame Judi is the best M we've had so far. This isn’t a criticism of Lee, of course, but when Judi took on the role, the screenwriters provided her with far richer material. As a result, her M feels like more than just the voice delivering Bond’s orders; she becomes a catalyst for his growth as a spy, especially in the Craig films.

    I particularly agree with your final point. Setting aside the notion of 'blasphemy'—often rooted in a reverence for the original Bond films, warranted or not—I have no trouble praising many of the elements in the Craig films as the finest in the series' long history.

    @CommanderRoss
    I absolutely agree about Wishaw. Out of the three, he's the one least tied to any particular Bond film (while Eve and Mallory are a part of SF's story). He could be back. I'm sure audiences wouldn't mind. He's just a bloody good Q, different enough, and yet similar enough, to Desmond--if that makes sense. And Ben Wishaw is a very good actor. I love his voice and articulation, along with his Q's sometimes dry, sometimes clumsy humor.
  • I also have to say that I’ve grown rather fond of the new MI6 regulars. In many ways they’re the spiritual successors to the originals and whomever plays those roles next have big shoes to fill.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,314
    Eon has it’s work cut out for it; as good as past actors have been, there is a wealth of talent, in all venues of acting, who are more than capable of taking on the same roles and making them their own.

    The Craig era was a self contained one; time to move forward.
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,253
    I'd be happy to see Fiennes or Whishaw return, or one or the other.
    Having at least some link back to DN is something I'd like EON to continue.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited February 2 Posts: 16,936
    talos7 wrote: »
    Eon has it’s work cut out for it; as good as past actors have been, there is a wealth of talent, in all venues of acting, who are more than capable of taking on the same roles and making them their own.

    Yeah they did it last time so there's nothing to say they can't do it again, and they got a collection of really extraordinarily top actors last time, practically acting royalty, so the Bond films can clearly attract really high level talent. And I know there's folks who think they should get no-name jobbing actors and directors because that's what the first ones were like in the 60s but I don't really follow that logic. If you can get the best, why wouldn't you?
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,577
    Don't forget these actors will be getting their own spinoff series! Can't wait to see the Q mysteries. LOL! Sorry I couldn't resist a wee joke.

    I would love to see Fiennes return as M. Whoever pointed out that Naomi is in her fifties now, I will not hear that! LOL! But I grew so fond of her in the role of Moneypenny to see her as M wouldn't be that jarring. Would EON do this? Not sure but Harris has been a wonderful ambassador of the Bond brand keeping her involved is something I would explore.
  • Agent_99Agent_99 enjoys a spirited ride as much as the next girl
    Posts: 3,197
    I want at least one staff member from the Craig Years to be knocking around still, because we're always had at least one link to a previous era: Desmond Llewellyn sticking around for Brosnan, then Judi Dench returning for Craig.
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 14,800
    Well, the trend in music and fashion is to mix and match previous genres and decades, so for B26 we apply that to the MI6 crew and take one of each member from different mediums and bring them together for the first time! Black M ('Miles') from the comics; Nagai from the games; Loelia from the novels. Tanner doesn't need to be in every film but when he is there he's portrayed as a close mate of Bond's.

    IMO it's time that when ideas and characters are cherry-picked, it's from the whole franchise, and not just previous films and novels.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,936
    QBranch wrote: »
    Tanner doesn't need to be in every film but when he is there he's portrayed as a close mate of Bond's.

    In the last few films Moneypenny has actually been kind of playing the Bill role in that she's Bond's friend and ally in the service, and I quite like that.
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 14,800
    mtm wrote: »
    In the last few films Moneypenny has actually been kind of playing the Bill role in that she's Bond's friend and ally in the service, and I quite like that.
    Yeah, I like that angle too.

    I don't expect any of them to return, but what if Rory Kinnear got to show a bit more of his acting skills as head of MI6?
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,577
    That is an intriguing thought @QBranch Could you even have him still has Bill Tanner but he's now head of Mi6?


  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 14,800
    thedove wrote: »
    That is an intriguing thought @QBranch Could you even have him still has Bill Tanner but he's now head of Mi6?
    That's a great idea, and for me, preferable over calling him Miles Messervy (there was only one IMO).
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    Posts: 9,130
    I want an absolutely clean slate. All roles performed by different actors, as much as I liked the past ones. As much as I liked Judi Dench, keeping her as M when the 007 actor switched from Brosnan to Craig was a major irritation, since everything else loudly screamed "NEW TIMELINE!"...for those who cared and did not subscibe to the Code Name Theory. Let's not give the others any reason for pretending that this time it is otherwise.
  • M_BaljeM_Balje Amsterdam, Netherlands
    edited February 3 Posts: 4,549
    I considered Rory Kinnear for some time. That Bill Tanner (Jr) get promotion, but not to Mi6 lead but to MOD.

    rory-kinnear-the-diplomat-cast-netflix-1024x576.jpg?width=1200&quality=75&format=auto

    %2Fmethode%2Fsundaytimes%2Fprod%2Fweb%2Fbin%2F6b8fdb0c-a3cf-11e9-95c3-8511e62f8ecb.jpg?crop=1500%2C1500%2C375%2C0
    Mabey she agree with his new Role of Honour, it is only waiting of her look a like agree...

    Mabey for one movie before the promotion he can have lead Mi6 off the record, a bit like FYEO has no M because of respect to Bernard Lee/Miles Messervy.

    In earlier comment with bit of joking i said that Moneypenny should take honours from Malery, because him sitting in jail and her surname starts with M. Despite that she be named Moneypenny because she takes Money from the Casino in Skyfall. Naming her ''M'' let the name ''Eve'' dissapair and mabey stil can as sort warning signal. Where Felix stay for American Friend (Leiter as password to make contact ;) ).

    But Bond's death, made it difficult not impossible.
  • Posts: 15,346
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    I wouldn't mind the crew back, despite the evident complaints about lack of continuity that would come down like an avalanche.

    Yeah, I'm confident that they could find a new bunch of top actors as they managed it last time, but I do really like the old bunch so I'd be happy to see Whishaw as Q again, for example as he's great, and like yourself I'm happy to ignore continuity if it means we get something or someone great. But I think even ignoring the continuity thing, they'd probably just feel a bit wrong with a new Bond as they kind of grew as a team with Craig's Bond.

    To be honest, that’s exactly what I’m struggling with. On the one hand, it makes the most sense to keep the team firmly rooted in the Craig era, which is now over. On the other hand, we’ve invested time and backstory in Harris’s Moneypenny, Whishaw’s Q, and Fiennes’s M—it would be a shame to lose all of that.

    Take Mallory, for example. He was introduced as one of “the suits,” yet he didn’t hesitate to pick up a gun and confront the bad guys. He clearly didn’t give a damn about the rules when it came to stopping Silva. We were told about his past, but Skyfall actually showed us that side of him, adding depth to his character. That layer of backstory makes his mission against C in Spectre more compelling to me.

    These may seem like small details, but I’ve grown particularly fond of them. Of course, I understand that in the next Bond era, films like Skyfall and Spectre will essentially be erased from continuity, which renders my point moot. But subconsciously, I’d probably carry some of my affection for these versions of the characters into the new films, no matter what.

    Or maybe I just hate the thought of losing them. Quite frankly, Harris, Whishaw, and Fiennes have many more years of great performances ahead of them. They could easily fill the shoes of Maxwell, Llewelyn, and even legends like Lee and Dench. We’re talking about seasoned, talented actors—one of whom could’ve been a Bond girl, and one of whom could’ve been Bond himself. I love the dynamic of this team; No Time to Die feels too soon to retire them.

    But if this is the end, so be it. I’ll always treasure the charisma, freshness, and diversity they brought to their roles. Small though those roles may be, they left a lasting impression on me.

    This. Especially for Malory. I think of the whole team, only Naomie Harris might not be suitable for the next Bond actor, and only because of the age difference.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,577
    Good discussion and some valid points both ways. Interesting to see which way EON goes.

    Lets spin another one about the future:

    Would you rather EON fight the fight with Amazon OR suck it up and make the next film?

    The recent Variety article suggested that EON and Amazon are at a loggerhead. One seeing the series in one way and the other seeing the "content" that the series has. It appears we are in a stand off.

    Curious your thoughts on this. Would you rather that EON continue to hold strong and no film be made until they are sure that Amazon will let them bring their vision to the screen? OR should EON suck it up, compromise and get a film into production?

    One we get a film, although it may not be what we are used to, the other sees no film coming to light anytime soon.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited 2:36pm Posts: 3,202
    I'm conflicted on this one. Fiennes was a great M for me and I'd've liked to have seen more. Wishaw turned into a really good Q, too. But I also feel that a clean sweep's probably what's needed to give the new Bond a fair go of establishing himself in his own right. So I'm erring towards the latter.
    Unfortunately, Judi Dench was in the British press in the last couple of weeks saying that her eyesight's now so bad due to macular degeneration that she can no longer leave the house by herself. She's also 90. Judi's given enough, I'd say, and she deserves to take it easy.

    EDIT: just missed the cut off for the previous topic, sorry!
  • Posts: 4,516
    thedove wrote: »
    Good discussion and some valid points both ways. Interesting to see which way EON goes.

    Lets spin another one about the future:

    Would you rather EON fight the fight with Amazon OR suck it up and make the next film?

    The recent Variety article suggested that EON and Amazon are at a loggerhead. One seeing the series in one way and the other seeing the "content" that the series has. It appears we are in a stand off.

    Curious your thoughts on this. Would you rather that EON continue to hold strong and no film be made until they are sure that Amazon will let them bring their vision to the screen? OR should EON suck it up, compromise and get a film into production?

    One we get a film, although it may not be what we are used to, the other sees no film coming to light anytime soon.

    I think to some extent every film involves a level of compromise when making it. But I can understand EON wanting to assert as much creative control as possible and stick to the fundamentals of their approach to this franchise/character. So I suppose between the two options here I can understand them wanting to facilitate that before going ahead. But again, there’ll likely be something in there that’ll appeal to Amazon.
  • edited 3:28pm Posts: 2,179
    thedove wrote: »
    Good discussion and some valid points both ways. Interesting to see which way EON goes.

    Lets spin another one about the future:

    Would you rather EON fight the fight with Amazon OR suck it up and make the next film?

    The recent Variety article suggested that EON and Amazon are at a loggerhead. One seeing the series in one way and the other seeing the "content" that the series has. It appears we are in a stand off.

    Curious your thoughts on this. Would you rather that EON continue to hold strong and no film be made until they are sure that Amazon will let them bring their vision to the screen? OR should EON suck it up, compromise and get a film into production?

    One we get a film, although it may not be what we are used to, the other sees no film coming to light anytime soon.

    I have no desire to see the James Bond series driven into the ground just to satisfy a streaming service's desire for 'content', which has in almost all other cases actively harmed their respective franchises (see Star Wars, Marvel, Star Trek, LoTR) - how have these franchises been improved by spinning them out into a wider amount of series and films? 007 Road to a Million was bad. Leave it at that.

    Not that I particularly have much trust in EoN's creative ability (decisions taken for Spectre and NTTD do not sit well with me) but at least they want to maintain the series as event cinema.

    My mind cant comprehend that Amazon willingly spent $250m on Red One, a poor film with very limited series appeal and a poor box office run, when they have a cinematic series that always generates at least 3x its budget at the box office, has huge marketing cache through is partnerships, and has high residual value afterwards. That $250m would have been way better spent on getting a Bond film in the can, rather than that trash.
  • edited 4:37pm Posts: 1,567
    I'd rather they make a Bond movie.

    I think they should reach an agreement and make a simple James Bond movie. It may be time to resurrect James Bond JR too. It wouldn't be the end of the world.
Sign In or Register to comment.