Leave Bond alone after Craig finishes

124678

Comments

  • Posts: 11,425
    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...

    Exactly. I've always hated films that rely on hacking to explain everything - such lazy plotting. I also hope that this was the last gasp of Purvis and Wade and not something that Logan came up with.
  • edited January 2014 Posts: 11,189
    Hacking is pretty 90s anyway. At the time of GE I suppose it was relatively new in movies (The Net, Hackers) but now its a bit of a cliche.
  • Posts: 11,425
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Hacking is pretty 90s anyway. At the time of GE I suppose it was relatively new in movies (The Net, Hackers) but now its a bit of a cliche.

    It wasn't even new back then I don't think. And it also sucked in GE. Seeing Alan Cummings frozen to death was the best part of the movie.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    Hacking was done best in Mission: Impossible.
  • edited January 2014 Posts: 11,189
    Getafix wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Hacking is pretty 90s anyway. At the time of GE I suppose it was relatively new in movies (The Net, Hackers) but now its a bit of a cliche.

    It wasn't even new back then I don't think. And it also sucked in GE. Seeing Alan Cummings frozen to death was the best part of the movie.

    I can't think of any movies before the 90s that used hacking specifically as a plot device.

    Hang on. Just found this. Look what movie is in the list.

    http://netforbeginners.about.com/od/antivirusantispyware/tp/The-Best-Hacker-Movies.02.htm.

    It seems hacking was in its peak in the mid 90s/early 2000s.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    LeChiffre wrote:
    Personally I would wait 5-6 years post Dan Craig before re--introducing the character in a similar vein to the post Dalton era. Hard to follow a legend as Lazenby discovered.Anyone agree?

    i love Craig and his run as Bond thus far.... but no one actor is above the role itself - not even Connery.... Craig is great, but he is not the be all or end all of James Bond, and the success of his films have given the franchise a renewed longevity...

    the most i would wait between films is 3 years - thats plenty of time... no more 5 or 6 year gaps please... once was enough.
  • Posts: 11,425
    3 years should be the absolute max. I don't understand why they don't have a production line, like in the good old days, when they did one a year (and they were some of the best in the series)!

    They should have the plot and script for the next movie pretty much ready as the current one starts filming. And they should be looking to get directors on two or three film contracts.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    Getafix wrote:
    3 years should be the absolute max. I don't understand why they don't have a production line, like in the good old days, when they did one a year (and they were some of the best in the series)!

    They should have the plot and script for the next movie pretty much ready as the current one starts filming. And they should be looking to get directors on two or three film contracts.

    there are varying reasons why it takes longer to make the films these days..

    - production crews were smaller back then... my god, just look at the end credits to DN compared to SF

    - filming could be handled more on set then on location.. travel and logistics is always a hassle, especially when filming in different countries... thats why anything that can be done on a closed set, is..

    - today, you are dealing with varying schedules of your actors/actresses, as well as your crew... EON would've preferred that Bond 24 be out this year, but they were willing to wait until Mendes' schedule opened up - because that is the guy they wanted.... hell, Bond 23 could've been out in 2011 or 2010 if it weren't for MGM lol..


    bottom line is, the industry itself is a helluva lot bigger than it was back in the day - even back in the 90s... you got a lot more fingers in the preverbal pie (studio execs, producers, actors, directors, assistants, agents and etc.), and when your dealing with a franchise such as 007, it's going to take some time...

  • Posts: 11,425
    I know. Just seems to make no sense though, when they used to bang out films so much quicker and which were frankly a lot better.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    Getafix wrote:
    I know. Just seems to make no sense though, when they used to bang out films so much quicker and which were frankly a lot better.

    well thats the problem you run into when you got too many cooks in the kitchen lol.
  • edited January 2014 Posts: 4,622
    Getafix wrote:
    I know. Just seems to make no sense though, when they used to bang out films so much quicker and which were frankly a lot better.
    This is the irony. Good assembly line Bond adventures might be preferable than trying to crank out big budget, Oscar bait character-drama epics, once every 3-4 years.
    The Man With the Golden Gun was a perfectly excellent Bond film, and it only took a year-and-a-half to make, and get to theatres.
    Mind you its a pretty straightforward Bond-on-mission film, but so what, it's great fun to watch, with all the colourful Bond elements in place.
    Maybe it lacks deep thematic underpinnings,although it does have its own macbre dark vibe which helps distinguish its place in the canon.
    It does lack a big finish with lots of extras, but still it features a big set-piece, an exotic lair and a tense mano-a-mano Bond-Scaramanga showdown.
    Maybe less emphasis on waiting on guys like Mendes, and whatever it is that he needs to do with a Bond film to make it worth his while, and more emphasis on just getting good entertaining Bond films made with the people that are available, ie a team of inspired professionals that can crank quality movies out every couple of years.
    This could happen in a post-Craig era where there is less emphasis on each film being a dramatic masterpiece, and with a younger hungrier actor whose happy to play Bond as a Connery/Moore style action hero, and who might be content to defer being a great thespian until his post-Bond 40s.
    In the meantime, I guess we just enjoy the Craig/Mendes epic drama-Bond era for what it is, but I really do hope we can get back to Bond adventure basics in the future, with a young (early 30s) Bond, sans emotional issues, happy to fight outlandish supervillains and their fiendish organizations with Bond style, vigour, and deadly charm.
    Love live Bond!
  • daniel craig two more movies done by 2017 . a new Bond by 2022. spectre comes
    back. spends the whole decade fighting the blofeld family.
  • Posts: 1,092
    timmer wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    The Man With the Golden Gun was a perfectly excellent Bond film, and it only took a year-and-a-half to make, and get to theatres.
    Mind you its a pretty straightforward Bond-on-mission film, but so what, it's great fun to watch, with all the colourful Bond elements in place. ith Bond style, vigour, and deadly charm.
    Love live Bond!

    TMWTGG is a rushed, cheap looking mess.
  • Posts: 1,993
    The challenge is to keep the series invigorated. While we expect to see certain elements in all Bond films, there needs to be a sense of freshness, instead of a rehash of what has gone before. The first four films fit the bill, but no so much YOLT. OHMSS was a much needed shot in the arm, but only greatly appreciated years later. DAF was an example of "everything old is old again." Despite my aversion to Moore, LALD is my favorite RM film.
    During the Moore years, the formula was entrenched. Nothing felt new. So on and so on.

    Clearly, all begins with a compelling story, many of which are not that. A decision will need to be made as to whether or not character is more important than big action sequences. CR succeeds because of character.

    Producers must continually be faced with the question of "What haven't we seen?"
  • Posts: 2,341
    EON is never gonna leave Bond along. I'm sure that after Craig, the series will simply find a replacement actor to portray Bond and continue on. There will be distractors who will mourn the departure of Craig, and some will slam the new Bond actor but the series will continue.

    EON has been thru all this before....
  • Posts: 3,333
    I can think of one actor that fits the bill and might be ready for 007 when Craig hands in his notice, and that is Dan Stevens from Downton Abbey and next to be seen in the movie The Guest which looks like a fun actioner.

    Hopefully EON will have the next Bond already lined up and in their sights before Craig's last outing. And no, I don't think they should leave Bond alone for very long once his tenure is up. They need to bring out the next Bond quickly and stop these needlessly protracted periods of non-activity that are not used in the slightest to work on scripts or outlines. Full steam ahead is what I say for Bond 26 and 27.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    I was only thinking a few days ago that Stevens is a possible candidate, The Guest has been getting some real raves.

    I wouldn't balk if he got the job.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    I've never seen Stevens in 'Downton Abbey' - still have yet to watch the show - but he looks excellent in 'The Guest' and I could see him playing the part of 007. Time will tell.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,183
    Why would we leave Bond alone after Craig has finished with the series? We have barely begun. ;-)
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Why would we leave Bond alone after Craig has finished with the series? We have barely begun. ;-)

    Exactly. ;)

    If we're 50 years on and SF was the most successful Bond film at the box office, why stop here? Imagine what can be done in another 50 years. There's no sense in stopping now.
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    edited August 2014 Posts: 14,582
    Obviously this thread title is misleading (might I suggest altering it?), as the OP doesn't mean end Bond altogether:
    LeChiffre wrote:
    Personally I would wait 5-6 years post Dan Craig before re--introducing the character in a similar vein to the post Dalton era. Hard to follow a legend as Lazenby discovered.Anyone agree?

    I agree with @bondsum though- after Dan's run, just get on with the job and release the next film asap.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,718
    I hope for the next Bond actor they will make the outings more quickly. Craig has been hit with bad luck, with a 4 year wait between QOS and SF and another 3 year wait between SF and Bond 24. I really want them to stick to 2 years per film for atleast 4/5 movies.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    I think Bond 25 should come out in 2017 and for all the misuse of really giving Craig as many outings as possible he should do a 6th movie in 2019.....then have a 3 year gap in time to have the 7th Bond actor debut for the 60th anniversary in 2022.
  • Posts: 1,596
    doubleoego wrote: »
    I think Bond 25 should come out in 2017 and for all the misuse of really giving Craig as many outings as possible he should do a 6th movie in 2019.....then have a 3 year gap in time to have the 7th Bond actor debut for the 60th anniversary in 2022.

    Craig already looks like he's pushing 60 at times in Skyfall so I think Bond 24 should be his last film. He'll be 51 in 2019. And he'll look 65.

    Don't get me wrong, I like a "veteran Bond" look but within reason.

    I also agree with @Birdleson that I don't like the long breaks. I like a regular release schedule. But that's just the impatient fanboy in me.
  • MrcogginsMrcoggins Following in the footsteps of Quentin Quigley.
    Posts: 3,144
    [

    Craig already looks like he's pushing 60 at times in Skyfall so I think Bond 24 should be his last film. He'll be 51 in 2019. And he'll look 65.

    Dear god I hope I look that good when I'm 60.

  • edited August 2014 Posts: 372
    The other day I was just thinking about how they killed M, and then introduced another person within the story to play the same character. If they told me they would do that beforehand, I probably would have had a big problem with it, but oddly enough it didn't bother me while I was watching Skyfall. Now if they pull something like that with Bond himself, I probably would be upset. What's other people's opinion about this? Do you want Bond to be an immortal character who just happens to be played by a different face from time to time? Personally, I hope they won't take a break after Craig's last movie. Just the character of Bond is always what always attracted me to the series, in a lesser degree who actually portrayed him.
  • Posts: 5,745
    The other day I was just thinking about how they killed M, and then introduced another person within the story to play the same character. If they told me they would do that beforehand, I probably would have had a big problem with it, but oddly enough it didn't bother me while I was watching Skyfall. Now if they pull something like that with Bond himself, I probably would be upset. What's other people's opinion about this? Do you want Bond to be an immortal character who just happens to be played by a different face from time to time?

    Oh no, not the codename theory again..

    We should never see James Bond die (for real) in a Bond movie. Even if it's the last one.
  • edited August 2014 Posts: 372
    JWESTBROOK wrote: »
    The other day I was just thinking about how they killed M, and then introduced another person within the story to play the same character. If they told me they would do that beforehand, I probably would have had a big problem with it, but oddly enough it didn't bother me while I was watching Skyfall. Now if they pull something like that with Bond himself, I probably would be upset. What's other people's opinion about this? Do you want Bond to be an immortal character who just happens to be played by a different face from time to time?

    Oh no, not the codename theory again..

    We should never see James Bond die (for real) in a Bond movie. Even if it's the last one.

    I never heard of the that codename theory before because I'm new on this forum, but I never viewed 'James Bond' as a codename, nor as six different men who all happen to be named 'James Bond'.

    Besides Kincade knew James Bond as James Bond and he couldn't have known otherwise. You could argue that they subsituted his real name with that just for secrecy purposes but James Bond isn't about far-fetched hoo-ha like that.

    Come to think of it, back when Goldeneye came out, was there a controversy about M being played by a woman, or wasn't it an issue back then?
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    I don't see them rebooting again but anyone thinking they can bash these out, yes 4 years is too long but to expect one every 2 years, I think those days are over.

    I think people are living in dream land if they think we can go back to the rate these films came out in the 60's, 70's and 80's.

    I even think every 2 years is something you might see happen again but wouldn't guarantee it will happen consecutively, maybe the next Bond might get their 1st and 2nd entry in that time space but after that we'll probably get bigger gaps.

    It's just not the same as it used to be, Craig is far more physically involved in these films than any other actor before and I just don't think the budgets can be maintained every 2 years like they are now, people need to remember we live in a very different world and EON don't have the financial clout of the likes of Marvel.

    The only way you'd see smaller gaps between entries if the franchise was bought by the likes of Disney but do we really want something like that happening?
  • Posts: 2,341
    It would sound like a good idea but I doubt it. As long as the franchise is bringing in the bucks then it is going to continue beyond Craig. As the adage goes:
    Bond was here before DC
    He'll be around after Dc
Sign In or Register to comment.