Would you rather run into Fields at the airport OR Paloma at a bar?

Venutius

Yes, indeed. 'We look at the last film and then decide where to go with the next one,' as MGW said. It's wise to keep that flexibility, I think.

mtm

Yeah that makes more sense to me as an approach to be honest. You make the film the audience wants at that point.

007HallY

I wouldn't mind seeing the new Bond's character develop a bit over the course of their films. Nothing too on the nose or out of the precedent of the character. I like how, for example, in SP Bond comes back from the events of SF quite invigorated, relaxed, and a bit more humorous. It's very fitting considering what Bond overcomes in the previous film. It'd be cool seeing a similar change in Bond's attitude from one film to another. Less a sense that he's now back to A after a certain film, but is perhaps a bit different from the last (again, so long as it's fitting for the story/character).

It's the sort of thing that'll come with the method of taking each film at a time as was said, rather than something elaborately mapped out (I agree by the way, I don't think pre-planning everything well in advance is a particularly good method).

mtm

Yeah I loved how he developed into the relaxed, more at ease version in SP. I've seen some folks say he's 'out of character' in some of his films, but I'd disagree with that a lot: he just ages and matures.

ColonelSun

mtm wrote: »

Yeah I loved how he developed into the relaxed, more at ease version in SP. I've seen some folks say he's 'out of character' in some of his films, but I'd disagree with that a lot: he just ages and matures.

Craig's character arc across five films, from arrogant blunt instrument to a man burdened by duty and guilt (particularly Vesper's death) and seeking peace with himself, is very powerful and, IMO, he never puts a foot wrong in terms of his performances.

mtm

That's very well-put =D>

j_w_pepper

Now I'm among those who love both SF and NTTD better than most, but I would have preferred them not going so quickly from "rookie" double-O in CR to semi-retired almost-wreck in SF. And then come back to battle someone who turns out to be his foster brother, I can't help adding. And then being retired again, apparently for good, in NTTD. I would have preferred something between the rookie and the retirement period. Craig didn't age THAT much over the 15 years or so.

peter

ColonelSun wrote: »

mtm wrote: »

Yeah I loved how he developed into the relaxed, more at ease version in SP. I've seen some folks say he's 'out of character' in some of his films, but I'd disagree with that a lot: he just ages and matures.

Craig's character arc across five films, from arrogant blunt instrument to a man burdened by duty and guilt (particularly Vesper's death) and seeking peace with himself, is very powerful and, IMO, he never puts a foot wrong in terms of his performances.

@ColonelSun — nailed it, as always.

And @j_w_pepper , I’m with you on the love for these films, especially NTTD (which crashed into my number one slot).

ColonelSun

j_w_pepper wrote: »

Now I'm among those who love both SF and NTTD better than most, but I would have preferred them not going so quickly from "rookie" double-O in CR to semi-retired almost-wreck in SF. And then come back to battle someone who turns out to be his foster brother, I can't help adding. And then being retired again, apparently for good, in NTTD. I would have preferred something between the rookie and the retirement period. Craig didn't age THAT much over the 15 years or so.

Well, we can imagine Craig's Bond had a mission or two in between QOS and SF. Plenty of time there -- perhaps we might read about those "missing" missions at some point?

j_w_pepper

ColonelSun wrote: »

j_w_pepper wrote: »

Now I'm among those who love both SF and NTTD better than most, but I would have preferred them not going so quickly from "rookie" double-O in CR to semi-retired almost-wreck in SF. And then come back to battle someone who turns out to be his foster brother, I can't help adding. And then being retired again, apparently for good, in NTTD. I would have preferred something between the rookie and the retirement period. Craig didn't age THAT much over the 15 years or so.

Well, we can imagine Craig's Bond had a mission or two in between QOS and SF. Plenty of time there -- perhaps we might read about those "missing" missions at some point?

Not really the same thing for me, I guess...

thedove

I am in agreement with you @j_w_pepper Adding to my frustration with SF is that they seemingly abandon the losing his edge part of the story and suddenly he's in fantastic shape and mentally sharp. I would love a proper SPECTRE trilogy but the angle needs a rest, so I would welcome a Brosnan type series of films. The character is there and doesn't need to be de-constructed again. Have a returning set of characters (allies) who can show some development.

I don't think they should mine Bond falling in love again. I would like an agent who evolves and changes as he goes along but not over arching movie series.

007HallY

I think it’s worth saying that Bond in CR isn’t a rookie. He’s a professional agent in his mid 30s who’s basically been promoted to the top of MI6’s secret service. By SF it’s years later, and we see in the PTS he’s been hit very hard (the fact that he’s still alive after two bullet wounds is amazing, especially considering his drinking as well). I always say he’s more or less the equivalent of Brosnan’s Bond in GE career wise - he’s been around a while, is very much ‘the old guard’, but isn’t old in general (unless one counts early 40s as old), merely on the older/mid career side for a 00.

thedove

The film seems to tease something different though @007HallY when he has the shakes. He can't hit the target without going within a few feet of the silhouette. He is seen having trouble with the physical tests. Then suddenly he's taking out Silva's goons on the island and the guys at the casino. It is an interesting space and an angle that hasn't really been seen before. But the script tends to lean into it and then drop it.

Same with TWINE, Bond has this weak shoulder and in a manner of days it's healed. They had something and then it seems the story forgets it and we don't see Bond struggling.

007HallY

thedove wrote: »

The film seems to tease something different though @007HallY when he has the shakes. He can't hit the target without going within a few feet of the silhouette. He is seen having trouble with the physical tests. Then suddenly he's taking out Silva's goons on the island and the guys at the casino. It is an interesting space and an angle that hasn't really been seen before. But the script tends to lean into it and then drop it.

Same with TWINE, Bond has this weak shoulder and in a manner of days it's healed. They had something and then it seems the story forgets it and we don't see Bond struggling.

I think it’s done very well in SF. We see Bond not being able to shoot straight when he’s being scrutinised by MI6 and even Silva (so essentially being watched by unfriendly eyes). It’s mainly physical (he obviously has been shot twice in the PTS and quite badly in his shoulder) but it’s also partially mental. It’s when Bond overcomes Silva’s traps/gets to Parliament in time and shoots with his father’s rifle on his home turf that he gets his aim back (ie. When he’s taking control of the situation). I think it’s a wonderful character progression.

I think what sells Bond slowly becoming physically more able is the fact that we see him doing countless pull up and press ups during his evaluation. He’s not at his best but he’s still James Bond, a man with an extraordinary level of fitness and training. He’s not a wreck as such (you can’t really have a Bond film where he’s completely physically incapacitated).

mtm

007HallY wrote: »

thedove wrote: »

The film seems to tease something different though @007HallY when he has the shakes. He can't hit the target without going within a few feet of the silhouette. He is seen having trouble with the physical tests. Then suddenly he's taking out Silva's goons on the island and the guys at the casino. It is an interesting space and an angle that hasn't really been seen before. But the script tends to lean into it and then drop it.

Same with TWINE, Bond has this weak shoulder and in a manner of days it's healed. They had something and then it seems the story forgets it and we don't see Bond struggling.

I think it’s done very well in SF. We see Bond not being able to shoot straight when he’s being scrutinised by MI6 and even Silva (so essentially being watched by unfriendly eyes). It’s mainly physical (he obviously has been shot twice in the PTS and quite badly in his shoulder) but it’s also partially mental. It’s when Bond overcomes Silva’s traps/gets to Parliament in time and shoots with his father’s rifle on his home turf that he gets his aim back (ie. When he’s taking control of the situation). I think it’s a wonderful character progression.

Yes indeed, I've never seen the issue with this aspect. It's all there in the film.

007HallY

mtm wrote: »

007HallY wrote: »

thedove wrote: »

The film seems to tease something different though @007HallY when he has the shakes. He can't hit the target without going within a few feet of the silhouette. He is seen having trouble with the physical tests. Then suddenly he's taking out Silva's goons on the island and the guys at the casino. It is an interesting space and an angle that hasn't really been seen before. But the script tends to lean into it and then drop it.

Same with TWINE, Bond has this weak shoulder and in a manner of days it's healed. They had something and then it seems the story forgets it and we don't see Bond struggling.

I think it’s done very well in SF. We see Bond not being able to shoot straight when he’s being scrutinised by MI6 and even Silva (so essentially being watched by unfriendly eyes). It’s mainly physical (he obviously has been shot twice in the PTS and quite badly in his shoulder) but it’s also partially mental. It’s when Bond overcomes Silva’s traps/gets to Parliament in time and shoots with his father’s rifle on his home turf that he gets his aim back (ie. When he’s taking control of the situation). I think it’s a wonderful character progression.

Yes indeed, I've never seen the issue with this aspect. It's all there in the film.

It works emotionally at the very least. If a film can be believable in that way it generally works for me. Ok, maybe realism isn’t exactly 100% here (Bond has after all been shot twice, but can still do countless push ups, press ups, can run, and only breaks down a bit when others leave the room). But it’s a James Bond film after all.

thedove

I will have to agree to disagree. I don't find this to be well executed. Sure Bond films are meant to be realistic and are entertainment. But Bond is seen as this shell of a man. It is articulated that he has failed every test given to him. Yet somehow he is able to just start right back where he left off. There is no real struggle here, though we do get a sense that taking the shot at the Severine. But maybe that is due to the unethical nature of what Silva is asking him to do. Still am bothered how that character is treated within the film. For all the talk of being more progressive with female leads and characters she is discarded and has a rather tragic story arc.

We are drifting off track, so I will end by saying there is a bit of Fleming that hasn't been fully explored and that is Bond being sent to Shrublands for a rehab. In TB he is there, but we never really know why he has been sent there. Perhaps a future film can show M sending him there for the rehab he needs. Course modern day Bond doesn't show as many vices as the literary Bond had.

007HallY

Well, to each their own. But I think there’s a sense of ‘thinking about this a bit too much’ rather than going with the film. The whole idea is that Bond slowly improves with each scene, getting to a point where not only is he back to his previous physicality but where he’s playing the situation on his own terms. And he certainly struggles, albeit in a way he’s clearly trying to power through it (ie. Having to take a breather after swimming, not being able to hold the lift bar, not shooting straight during the Silva encounter etc.) He fails each evaluation, but it comes off less as Bond being decrepit, and more him not quite being able to match the very high threshold an agent needs. Again, we see him running, doing pull ups, sit ups, even swimming at a pretty past pace.

I like TB’s rehab subplot as well, but for me what’s interesting about it is Bond’s attitude to his situation. He has quite a carefree attitude to his smoking and drinking, even if he somewhat understands it could kill him down the road. It’s slightly different to the brief existential crisis Bond goes through in SF. I’d like to see a Bond film where Bond’s lack of fitness plays into his recklessness as an agent/that being something he has to navigate a bit in the story.

But I digress, I’m probably getting a bit off topic!

CrabKey

Actually I don't trust the judgment of the producers. Citing their successes doesn't make them infallible. I have always preferred to imagine Bond through his various iterations as the same Bond we first saw in 1962. I ignore the fact that Bond would be well over a hundred years old. I find that idea no less preposterous than imagining a new Bond in a new timeline that essentially means all previous Bonds and their stories never existed.

If we're referring to a long dragged out Craig-style arc forget it. If you're setting up something with a knockout punch, NTTD wasn't it. The continuity can be provided through the bond theme, the name is Bond, and the MI6 crew. Casual mention of events in the previous film work, but let's not play "who's the villain behind the curtain" for four films with a dud reveal. Sometimes the old ways are the best ways.

mtm

That's literally how the series started, talk about old ways.

j_w_pepper

007HallY wrote: »

I think it’s worth saying that Bond in CR isn’t a rookie. He’s a professional agent in his mid 30s who’s basically been promoted to the top of MI6’s secret service. By SF it’s years later, and we see in the PTS he’s been hit very hard (the fact that he’s still alive after two bullet wounds is amazing, especially considering his drinking as well). I always say he’s more or less the equivalent of Brosnan’s Bond in GE career wise - he’s been around a while, is very much ‘the old guard’, but isn’t old in general (unless one counts early 40s as old), merely on the older/mid career side for a 00.

Of course he's had some kind of career in MI6 before CR. However, he only becomes a double-O there (it takes two kills, and he had none before the pre-credits encounter in the men's room), so in that sense he is a "rookie" in CR, and consequently also in QOS...who suddenly more or less retires just one movie later, though that doesn't last.

007HallY

j_w_pepper wrote: »

007HallY wrote: »

I think it’s worth saying that Bond in CR isn’t a rookie. He’s a professional agent in his mid 30s who’s basically been promoted to the top of MI6’s secret service. By SF it’s years later, and we see in the PTS he’s been hit very hard (the fact that he’s still alive after two bullet wounds is amazing, especially considering his drinking as well). I always say he’s more or less the equivalent of Brosnan’s Bond in GE career wise - he’s been around a while, is very much ‘the old guard’, but isn’t old in general (unless one counts early 40s as old), merely on the older/mid career side for a 00.

Of course he's had some kind of career in MI6 before CR. However, he only becomes a double-O there (it takes two kills, and he had none before the pre-credits encounter in the men's room), so in that sense he is a "rookie" in CR, and consequently also in QOS...who suddenly more or less retires just one movie later, though that doesn't last.

Well, it takes him killing two specifically assigned people (so assassinations). Presumably Bond’s had to kill people before that.

I just don’t get ‘rookie’ off of him. He’s a trained professional who’s now at the top of the ladder. Certainly all the stuff he does in CR and QOS isn’t a ‘two weeks basic training’ thing. By SF he’s a Bond in his mid career (which makes sense as it’s effectively Craig’s mid point in the role anyway). He’s disillusioned because of what we’ve seen in the PTS so him going off grid makes sense.

echo

I want total and utter continuity. Nothing less will suffice.

I want lines like Moneypenny saying, "James, where is that blue shirt you wore before your last mission briefing?"

And "James, how did you get your hair cut so fast? Last time, I looked it was still 2006, not 2008!"

And "What do you mean the office looks completely different? Don't you know it's all virtual reality? Whoopsiedaisy, I really stepped in it mentioning VR. Ha ha ha!"

Venutius

There's at least three barnstorming Bond-at-the-height-of-his-powers mission movies between QOS and SF. Er, in my head, anyway! With SF, it's worth remembering that he's not just been shot, he's been shot by depleted uranium bullets and he begins to get back up to speed after the frags that've been leaking toxins into him have been removed.

mtm

He’s also self-medicating, isn’t he? Not unlike book Bond. Coming off those would help.

007HallY

Oh yeah. Shot twice, fell off a high bridge, and was likely drinking the equivalent to a bottle of vodka a day with pain meds on top of that during his months of exile. Can’t fault Bond though, he pushes through it. Other mere men would have died of the bullets (or at least the drink dependence).

As I said, it’s in the realm of nonsense taking it on the basis of strict realism, but very much in line with movie and Fleming’s Bond. We see him struggle and have to overcome these issues, so emotionally it works.

CommanderRoss

j_w_pepper wrote: »

007HallY wrote: »

I think it’s worth saying that Bond in CR isn’t a rookie. He’s a professional agent in his mid 30s who’s basically been promoted to the top of MI6’s secret service. By SF it’s years later, and we see in the PTS he’s been hit very hard (the fact that he’s still alive after two bullet wounds is amazing, especially considering his drinking as well). I always say he’s more or less the equivalent of Brosnan’s Bond in GE career wise - he’s been around a while, is very much ‘the old guard’, but isn’t old in general (unless one counts early 40s as old), merely on the older/mid career side for a 00.

Of course he's had some kind of career in MI6 before CR. However, he only becomes a double-O there (it takes two kills, and he had none before the pre-credits encounter in the men's room), so in that sense he is a "rookie" in CR, and consequently also in QOS...who suddenly more or less retires just one movie later, though that doesn't last.

In qos he's definitely not a rookie anymore. In fact, he's dedicated to the job, he's so dedicated even m doubts it is possible ('you'd have to be a real col harted b if you wouldn't want revenge for the one you loved').


My choice: jetpack

And loose continuity. For me, the films are all sagas about the same man, the same idea in different times. Id like to get back to thet, so all new films 'fall' between cr and nttd

thedove

Audio Commentaries on physical media have been one of the things that differentiate them over streaming. Many cinephiles enjoy hearing the commentaries by the stars, directors and crew as a way to hear the stories behind the film.

Sir Roger recorded them for his films and many love the insights and things he shared. Sadly we didn't get one from Sir Sean. Pierce did a commentary for DAD and then did a live stream commentary for GE. The live stream had moments of awkwardness and yet was also endearing.

For the sake of discussion, I wonder the following:

Would you rather commentaries from Pierce on his films OR Daniel on his films?

Pierce would be providing commentaries on GE, TND, TWINE while Daniel would be providing commentaries on all 5 of his films. Which actor would offer better stories and insights into their films?

SIS_HQ

While both would be good, but I think Daniel has a lot to share because he had contributed to some of his Bond films, like when he helped wrote the script for QoS because of the Writers' Strike, for example, or the stunts that he did (something that we didn't get that much from Pierce), especially that story about how Craig almost injured Dave Bautista in the train fight scene in SP, he had a lot more involvement regarding what's going on behind the scenes more than Pierce was, the BTS moments were also more interesting in the Craig Era, so I think those would be interesting to hear from Daniel himself, so Daniel Craig for me.

I just think that Daniel has a lot more stories to share than Pierce, but I would also be paying to hear Pierce discuss his Bond films too, of course.

Torgeirtrap

Since the Craig era ran simultaneously with the growth of social media, meaning we saw a lot more production content (at least for the later films) and online interviews with cast and crews as part of it, I'd rather hear Pierce talk about his films, from which I've heard few stories.