Leave Bond alone after Craig finishes

135678

Comments

  • Posts: 12,526
    Getafix wrote:
    The series is in a very good place now with Daniel Craig and Sam Mendes. It's going to be very hard for the prods to move forward after Craig finishes up with them. I'd imagine that after Bond 25 they will be in a predicament.

    I don't think they will let the series sit ideal for too many years before bringing Bond back. But we have to remember cinematic tastes change over time, what's not to say that in a few years audiences won't tire of sober 'realistic' action movies (ala The Dark Knight and Bourne) and want more comic-book escapist fare? We may well see a return of the Moore/DAD days yet.

    But following the current trend, I think once Craig leaves the prods best bet is to bring on Christopher Nolan and give him as as close to free reign as they can. Let him reboot the franchise. Though the idea of rebooting again would mean we would have to loose Harris, Fiennes and Whishaw which would upset me muchly. But then again maybe Mendes has something planned for them over the next two films to bring his arc and those characters to a natural conclusion.

    The point stands, once Craig and Mendes leave the prods need a strong director who can overhaul the machine.

    Not a bad suggestion. I think we can certainly expect a reboot once in a while now that it's so firmly established in other movies franchises. It was required for Bond and has given the series the shot in the arm that it needed. Not sure EON will accept Nolan entirely on his own terms, but I'd like to see him do one, or three. I think for the most important thing going forward is actually the writing - strong stories, characters and scripts.

    Craig yes, but I have not heard or read anywhere that Mendes was on board for Bond 25? Although if that was the case? I would not mind at all.
  • Posts: 11,425
    I think EON will cross that one when they come to it. For now they must just be happy that Mendes is back - the fist time that a director has helmed 2 Bonds in a row for 25 years! And only the second time a director has returned during that whole period. The constant change in directors is a large part of the reason why the post-Dalton era was so hit and miss for such a long time.
  • edited January 2014 Posts: 12,837
    I think when Craig finishes they need another GE. Something that doesn't actually reboot the series but does feel like a fresh new take. I'd like it if Fiennes and co stayed on for the next actor.

    Bring back Martin Campbell too. He's already shown that he's very good at introducing Bond actors.
  • Posts: 11,425
    I hope they'd raise their ambitions higher than Cambell for the next actor. It feels like Bond has reached a new level of critical and commercial success and EON should be looking at a whole new tier of directors. I don't necessarily think they need to go for big names, but there are good directors out there who would previously never have touched Bond, who might now be interested. The window of opportunity might only be small, so EON should seize it. I like CR, but going back to Cambell would seem like a backwards step. Isn't he too old any way?
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,355
    I think it's time the calls for Martin Campbell to return are retired. As much as some would like it, he would indeed be too old. He already has that record, being 62 at the time of Casino Royale.
  • Danny Boyle then, he'd be brilliant. I know he's said that he won't do it but then Mendes originally said that he wasn't doing Bond 24. Anything's possible.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    edited January 2014 Posts: 13,355
    The difference is Mendes was open to doing another at some point. Boyle has never done Bond and doesn't seem keen to, either.

    It's all so far in the future, I'm content to enjoy the next couple of years first.
  • edited January 2014 Posts: 12,837
    He did do the opening ceremony and it was Craig who bought Mendes on bought, so maybe he can persuade Boyle. Or if they want to do a more light hearted film once Craig leaves then I think Edgar Wright would be a good choice.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    edited January 2014 Posts: 13,355
    Doubtful, as he doesn't want to do it. Mendes did not take much persuading. ;)

    Many new directors could appear in the coming years so there will be lots of names flying around when the time comes to introduce the next actor.

    As for Wright, who knows?
  • Posts: 6,396
    Having had one Hollywood flop under his belt (Scott Pilgrim), it's safe to say Wright's career could be on the line with Ant-Man. If it under performs, I doubt a major studio will want to go near him again.
  • Posts: 11,425
    I reckon Ken Branagh should direct one.
  • Posts: 11,425
    It would be great to see a period Bond, without mobile phones, earpieces and electronic breadcrumbs.
  • Posts: 2,402
    Getafix wrote:
    I reckon Ken Branagh should direct one.

    He should be IN a Bond film. He'd be such a brilliant villain!
  • Posts: 6,396
    Getafix wrote:
    I reckon Ken Branagh should direct one.

    He should be IN a Bond film. He'd be such a brilliant villain!

    Having played the villain in the new Jack Ryan, I doubt we'll see him pop up in Bond anytime soon (at least not as the heavy).
  • Posts: 11,425
    I'm not a huge fan of Ken on screen, but thought he did a surprisingly good job with Thor.
  • O6GO6G
    edited January 2014 Posts: 80
    I sincerely hope the James Bond series never ends. Even if it turns bad and old fans stop enjoying it, we still have the previous movies to look to. Like Jay-z once said; "If you don't like my new shit, listen to my old shit."
  • Posts: 1,548
    Matt Damon for Bond? No one has mentioned him yet as a contender. I have now removed my tongue from my cheek!
  • Posts: 6,396
    LeChiffre wrote:
    Matt Damon for Bond? No one has mentioned him yet as a contender. I have now removed my tongue from my cheek!

    The question is, to which cheek are you referring? ;-)
  • Posts: 30
    Getafix wrote:
    It would be great to see a period Bond, without mobile phones, earpieces and electronic breadcrumbs.
    If we want to smother everything that Bond has stood for since Fleming.

    Bond is a modern man, with one foot in the future and one foot in the past. He's not "period" and the series shouldn't be turned into an ersatz Mad Men.
  • Posts: 9,843
    Siberia wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    It would be great to see a period Bond, without mobile phones, earpieces and electronic breadcrumbs.
    If we want to smother everything that Bond has stood for since Fleming.

    Bond is a modern man, with one foot in the future and one foot in the past. He's not "period" and the series shouldn't be turned into an ersatz Mad Men.

    THANK YOU
  • Posts: 2,402
    Branagh's Hamlet is one of the best films of all time and surely the best screen adaptation of Shakespeare.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Branagh's Jack Ryan film was booooring and forgettable.
  • Posts: 6,601
    I didn't feel his Thor either. Actor yes, director no.
  • edited January 2014 Posts: 11,425
    Risico007 wrote:
    Siberia wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    It would be great to see a period Bond, without mobile phones, earpieces and electronic breadcrumbs.
    If we want to smother everything that Bond has stood for since Fleming.

    Bond is a modern man, with one foot in the future and one foot in the past. He's not "period" and the series shouldn't be turned into an ersatz Mad Men.

    THANK YOU

    I just think there may come a point in the future when to reinvigorate the series they need to consider something like this. CR has blown apart what was an already slightyl shaky chronology. I personally would not have an issue if they decided at some future point to tell another chapter in a different time period.

    'Ersatz Mad Men' implies one particular take on how you could approach this. I think going back in time opens up a myriad of different ways to tell Bond's story.

    As I say, I'm not particularly advocating this right now, just saying that I think with the way that MGW and Babs have begun to think much more radically about what a Bond movie can be, that this will inevitably come up again and again as a possible option in the future. No need to be restricted to the 50 or 60s either. Period 70 and 80s Bond always a possibility too.

    CR just tore up the timeline and SF effectively set the second half of the movie in the past any way. It all just shows that these ideas are already out there and it's only a small step to going the whole hog and doing 60s Bond. It's what Tarantino suggested doing and there will be others pushing for the same direction. There's no reason why Bond could not alternate between period films and contemporary ones. Although I think this is an approach that would have to be adopted consistently with each actor. So Henry Cavill for example could be a 60s Bond, and his successor could return to the 21st century.
  • Posts: 15,106
    Branagh's Hamlet is one of the best films of all time and surely the best screen adaptation of Shakespeare.

    His Hamlet was enjoyable, sometimes great, but very uneven I think.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    From the offset, the Bond movies never prioritised continuity in a serious way. However, as broadening as the series has become, part if the series' success is to keep things moving forward. A cinematic period piece Bond movie shouldn't happen and I don't foresee it happening at least not in my life time. It's like taking every golden age/ silver age comic book character and making period pieces of said characters. I know I don't want to see a 1930s batman movie or a spider-man movie set in the 60s. Even X-men first class as good as it was has it's sequel and age of apocalypse merging and intertwining with contemporary settings and with the future respectively.
    Bond may have been created in the 50s and we got the movies from the 60s onwards but that serves the point of Bond being a man of the times, a contemporary character for the day and age in which we live.
  • Bradford4Bradford4 Banned
    edited January 2014 Posts: 152
    Bond should never die out, if you want to leave Bond alone then just take a break stop watching the movies. There should be a NEW MOVIE EVERY 2 YEARS, whether Craig is Bond or not there should be no excuse. Hollywood is a Trillion dollar industry and they can make this happen if they really wanted to, so they can cut the BS about Sam Mendes needing more time. Fire his butt and get a workman director in there. Keep the wonderful photographer Deakins, and no one will be the wiser
  • edited January 2014 Posts: 12,837
    They don't need to do a period piece but I would like it if the next Bond film was less reliant on technology. Bond should use a mobile but does he have to have an earpiece constantly? And does everything have to be solved by hacking? That was a bit ridiculous in SF.

    Purvis: "Ok, so for the plot to move forward Silva needs to attack MI6, how does he do it?"

    Wade: "I've got it. Hacking."

    Purvis: "Genius! Now, what about his escape?"

    Wade: "He could hack his way out?"

    Purvis: "You're on fire today! But how does Bond know to get to the enquiry? And how does Bond keep track of him?"

    Wade: "Well Q's back isn't he, so what if..."

    Purvis: "Q was a hacker!!!! Brilliant stuff!"

    I'm hoping that SF was mainly Purvis and Wade's film, and that Logan will ditch the earpieces and hacking in Bond 24. Could be wrong though...
  • Bradford4Bradford4 Banned
    edited January 2014 Posts: 152
    In the era of Wikileaks and Edward Snowden, purvis and Wade think they are being relevant with Silva, and all the "hacking" you see in SF but in 2013 it is cliched
  • Posts: 4,622
    Yes the search for the next Sean Connery (aged 28-32 max) must be done in time to follow very quickly off the back of Craig's departure.
    Eon should be scouting 20-something Connery-like actors, even now.
    Get the Sean ducks lined up so we can pick the most worthy.
Sign In or Register to comment.