› ›

Where does Bond go after Craig?

1…2728303233…697

Comments

  • QQ7QQ7 Croatia
    edited January 2020 Posts: 371
    Fiennes is the only member of the Scooby gang that I truly love. But then again, he is one of the best actors of our age, as I've said here many times.
  • GetafixGetafix
    edited January 2020 Posts: 11,425
    RC7 wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Fiennes was off to a great start with SF, but they turned him into such a whiny milquetoast in SP that my enthusiasm for his take on the. character plummeted. Let’s hope they course correct in NTTD. Then I can get excited about a future return.

    Fiennes really isn't great in the role. He's too close in age to Craig for starters. And there doesn't appear to be any real 'take'on who his M is.

    I think he’s great as Mallory, it’s only in SP - where the dynamic seems have drastically changed - that his character feels a little flaccid. Their relationship in SF builds to one of mutual respect by the final scene, with M clearly the figure of authority and Bond respectful of that. Within 15 mins of SP they’re seen together for the first time, with Bond in petulant mood and M equally abrasive. Shoe-horning Dench into proceedings is the main issue.

    It would’ve been more effective, imo, to learn (post-credits) that M himself (Mallory) had established a connection between ‘Sciarra’ and an anonymous source in MI6 - cue Bond taking off on an unsanctioned mission to Mexico City.

    On his return, rather than the slanging match in his office you have them meet at Blades. M is naturally pissed at Bond’s actions but agrees the intel was worth the fallout. From here the two of them are in it together and trust no one, even to the point where they fleetingly suspect each other. Ultimately M risks his own position because of his loyalty to Bond and we lose the protracted sense of ‘rogue-like’ behaviour where everything is designed to be done without M’s knowledge until the final act.

    Totally agree. Don't know why this stuff is so beyond the wit of EON's writers. The 'feel' for the characters has become so weak.

    Don't get me wrong I like Fiennes. Just find his M underwhelming. Too young for Craig Bond.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    QQ7 wrote: »
    Fiennes is the only member of the Scooby gang that I truly love. But then again, he is one of the best actors of our age, as I've said here many times.

    Me too. I'm not really impressed by the new Moneypenny or Q.
  • UnivexUnivex
    Posts: 6,710
    suavejmf wrote: »
    QQ7 wrote: »
    Fiennes is the only member of the Scooby gang that I truly love. But then again, he is one of the best actors of our age, as I've said here many times.
    Me too. I'm not really impressed by the new Moneypenny or Q.
    Me too.
  • ToTheRightToTheRight
    edited January 2020 Posts: 16,226
    I think with the new MI6 staff a.k.a the Scooby Gang- there's been an attempt to flesh out these characters with more scenes/screen time and plot relevance. That's fine and everything , but IMO Bernard Lee, Lois Maxwell and Desmond didn't need the bells and whistles for the audience to understand their characters.
    You can learn so much about a character from a simple line like "I never joke about my work, 007" and its delivery.
    Also I get so much more from the M scenes in DR NO and OHMSS than the more fleshed out Mallory scenes in SF and SP.
    I hope the next era, whenever that may be, goes back to keeping the Mi6 staff in the background, rather than creating entire stories around them.
  • GatecrasherGatecrasher Classified
    Posts: 265
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    I think with the new MI6 staff a.k.a the Scooby Gang- there's been an attempt to flesh out these characters with more scenes/screen time and plot relevance. That's fine and everything , but IMO Bernard Lee, Lois Maxwell and Desmond didn't need the bells and whistles for the audience to understand their characters.
    You can learn so much about a character from a simple line like "I never joke about my work, 007" and its delivery.
    Also I get so much more from the M scenes in DR NO and OHMSS than the more fleshed out Mallory scenes in SF and SP.
    I hope the next era, whenever that may be, goes back to keeping the Mi6 staff in the background, rather than creating entire stories around them.

    +1, especially to your point about keeping the Mi6 characters relegated to the background as opposed to fleshing out or creating backstories around them. I blame modern day storywriters for the laziness, to be honest; it seems like these days everything and every character needs to have some sort of origin. I wish we could keep it more simple and have the audience make inferences through well-crafted storytelling and character writing.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited January 2020 Posts: 6,387
    I'd be very surprised if they don't keep Naomie Harris...she's the Bond ambassador now.
    Minion wrote: »
    That's the healthiest approach. The timeline isn't perfect, but it's the same character.

    A truly Flemingesque timeline includes both Vesper and Tracy. :)
  • GetafixGetafix
    edited January 2020 Posts: 11,425
    echo wrote: »
    I'd be very surprised if they don't keep Naomie Harris...she's the Bond ambassador now.
    Minion wrote: »
    That's the healthiest approach. The timeline isn't perfect, but it's the same character.

    A truly Flemingesque timeline includes both Vesper and Tracy. :)

    It's true. She is a bit of a Bond ambassador. Always charming and diplomatic in interviews. You could see EON wanting to keep her on. Well she is a real Cambridge graduate.

    I agree as well that we learnt so much more in the past from much smaller scenes with M, Q and MP. You got brief glimpses of them but you could almost immediately imagine who they were. The writing was , without doubt, much better in the early films, which obviously helped.

  • Agent_47Agent_47 Canada
    Posts: 330
    Ben Whishaw is probably the only member of the scooby gang that really works for me. I believe Fiennes has it in him but he hasn't been given the opportunity to be more commanding in the role yet.
  • UnivexUnivex
    edited January 2020 Posts: 6,710
    I just love them individually and I hate the scooby gang. There was a reason each one had his or hers individual repertoire with Bond. And that worked rather nicely. But having a secretary, a quartermaster and the head of the Secret Services mingle as a team is just ridiculous. Hierarchy still existes in these settings, that’s a fact, and most of them have military background, so it just doesn’t ring true to me when they’re all cruising around in the Jag. This is not The Avengers, and M doesn’t stand for Mother (old references, I know, most won’t get them).
  • UnivexUnivex
    Posts: 6,710
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    Hierarchy still existes in these settings, that’s a fact, and most of them have military background, so it just doesn’t ring true to me when they’re all cruising around in the Jag.

    That is the visual that first inspired me to refer to them as The Scooby Kids (and the long gone Jason immediately and appropriately morphed that into The Scooby Gang). It all seemed so silly (“Reverse!”).

    It really did stand out like a sore thumb, didn’t it? That 3rd act really didn’t work at all.
  • Loque72Loque72 Swindon
    Posts: 3
    There is a film called "The Guest" starring Dan Stevens, British actor who was in Downton Abbey. He gives a terrific action performance in that movie, and would make a great Bond. Young enough too, 37, to make several films.
  • UnivexUnivex
    Posts: 6,710
    Loque72 wrote: »
    There is a film called "The Guest" starring Dan Stevens, British actor who was in Downton Abbey. He gives a terrific action performance in that movie, and would make a great Bond. Young enough too, 37, to make several films.

    I wouldn't mind Dan Stevens, if he kept his weight in check. And if they darkened his hair a bit, as most of that blonde hue he usually wears is made up. He actually has dark brown hair.
  • jetsetwillyjetsetwilly
    Posts: 3,327
    Shardlake wrote: »
    Quentin Tarantino needs to stay away from Bond, his ego wouldn't be able to cope with the constraints.

    I say this as a QT fan but are growing tired this so called idea he knows everything, especially when he mocks Kincaid and calls him a farmer in that podcast.

    QT would certainly not compromise, he wants his voice and vision stamped on everything, whereas I think Nolan could bend to it, although I question that as well. Dear QT is just in love with himself and thinks that no one knows things better than him.

    His last 3 films have stunk of self importance and tested their viewers with their pretentiousness, OUATIH I enjoyed but best screenplay, are we having a laugh?

    Better acting rang than Craig, have you seen his output, the series has never had a more versatile performer, take a look at his C.V.

    I agree about Tarantino. His only real quality films were his first 2. After that the films became gradually more self indulgent, doing what Tarantino likes rather than what the audience likes.

    I don't get the impression he is a huge Fleming fan either, wanting to return to the novels. He'd turn a Bond film into American trash, silly OTT violence, and I can imagine it would lack the elegance and British upper class elements needed.

    Nolan is the only big director I would want to direct Bond.
  • OctopussyOctopussy Piz Gloria, Schilthorn, Switzerland.
    Posts: 1,081
    jetsetwilly wrote: »
    Shardlake wrote: »
    Quentin Tarantino needs to stay away from Bond, his ego wouldn't be able to cope with the constraints.

    I say this as a QT fan but are growing tired this so called idea he knows everything, especially when he mocks Kincaid and calls him a farmer in that podcast.

    QT would certainly not compromise, he wants his voice and vision stamped on everything, whereas I think Nolan could bend to it, although I question that as well. Dear QT is just in love with himself and thinks that no one knows things better than him.

    His last 3 films have stunk of self importance and tested their viewers with their pretentiousness, OUATIH I enjoyed but best screenplay, are we having a laugh?

    Better acting rang than Craig, have you seen his output, the series has never had a more versatile performer, take a look at his C.V.

    I agree about Tarantino. His only real quality films were his first 2. After that the films became gradually more self indulgent, doing what Tarantino likes rather than what the audience likes.

    I don't get the impression he is a huge Fleming fan either, wanting to return to the novels. He'd turn a Bond film into American trash, silly OTT violence, and I can imagine it would lack the elegance and British upper class elements needed.

    Nolan is the only big director I would want to direct Bond.

    Tarantino does what Tarantino wants. Period. I would love Nolan to direct a Bond film.
  • jetsetwillyjetsetwilly
    Posts: 3,327
    Gatecrasher wrote: »
    Where does Bond go after Craig? Hopefully back into the realm of intrigue, adventure, sex, and FUN.

    Apart from Casino Royale, I never jump to any of DC’s films if I want to be entertained - that’s what Connery’s films do for me. I’m so sick and tired of the revenge-filled, self-contained, brooding, “this time it’s personal AGAIN” storylines.

    I think what I want is less modern Bond and more Fleming material in the next era, please.

    I think this is what most of us want. And you're right about the Craig era. I can stick on any 60's or early 70s Bond and I'm entertained. You can add the 2 80's Dalton's too.

    Other than CR, I find the Craig era a difficult one to re-watch,
  • jetsetwillyjetsetwilly
    Posts: 3,327
    The Scooby gang can stay on board, as long as they remain firmly in the background. I don't want to see any of them used in action sequences ever again.
  • OctopussyOctopussy Piz Gloria, Schilthorn, Switzerland.
    Posts: 1,081
    jetsetwilly wrote: »
    The Scooby gang can stay on board, as long as they remain firmly in the background. I don't want to see any of them used in action sequences ever again.

    Agreed. They're secondary characters and should remain as such.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,926
    I wouldn't place that limitation on Bond films. It always goes back to how it's done.

    What's different for Skyfall and Spectre is some of the action takes place in London. After a certain point it would be odd if MI6 HQ staff weren't directly engaged.

    Regardless, two films using London is plenty. It will be great to go other places now.

  • jetsetwillyjetsetwilly
    edited January 2020 Posts: 3,327
    RichardTheBruce wrote: »
    I wouldn't place that limitation on Bond films. It always goes back to how it's done.

    What's different for Skyfall and Spectre is some of the action takes place in London. After a certain point it would be odd if MI6 HQ staff weren't directly engaged.

    Regardless, two films using London is plenty. It will be great to go other places now.

    We had Q in the field in SP outside of London, Moneypenny and M in the field outside of London in SF.

    I think we are all bored of seeing the Scooby gang out where the action is, whether it is in London or outside the UK.

    I would be quite happy seeing their customary 5 minute roles at the beginning of a new mission like the old days, nothing more, nothing less.
  • ToTheRightToTheRight
    Posts: 16,226
    jetsetwilly wrote: »
    The Scooby gang can stay on board, as long as they remain firmly in the background. I don't want to see any of them used in action sequences ever again.

    I couldn't agree more.
  • UnivexUnivex
    Posts: 6,710
    Yep, let's have a Bond centric film again, as most are with a new actor in the role.
  • antovolkantovolk
    Posts: 3,164
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,511
    antovolk wrote: »

    Let’s hope it’s not Apple... their streaming has not been in the same league as Netflix, Amazon...
  • antovolkantovolk
    Posts: 3,164
    But for Apple this would be good as it would add a library that they currently lack compared to rivals - which is why it hasn't been in the same league as everyone else.

    I do wonder though if this is serious, whether EON is considering buying MGM's stake in the franchise so they can retain control.
  • octofingeroctofinger
    Posts: 787
    RC7 wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Fiennes was off to a great start with SF, but they turned him into such a whiny milquetoast in SP that my enthusiasm for his take on the. character plummeted. Let’s hope they course correct in NTTD. Then I can get excited about a future return.

    Fiennes really isn't great in the role. He's too close in age to Craig for starters. And there doesn't appear to be any real 'take'on who his M is.

    I think he’s great as Mallory, it’s only in SP - where the dynamic seems have drastically changed - that his character feels a little flaccid. Their relationship in SF builds to one of mutual respect by the final scene, with M clearly the figure of authority and Bond respectful of that. Within 15 mins of SP they’re seen together for the first time, with Bond in petulant mood and M equally abrasive. Shoe-horning Dench into proceedings is the main issue.

    It would’ve been more effective, imo, to learn (post-credits) that M himself (Mallory) had established a connection between ‘Sciarra’ and an anonymous source in MI6 - cue Bond taking off on an unsanctioned mission to Mexico City.

    On his return, rather than the slanging match in his office you have them meet at Blades. M is naturally pissed at Bond’s actions but agrees the intel was worth the fallout. From here the two of them are in it together and trust no one, even to the point where they fleetingly suspect each other. Ultimately M risks his own position because of his loyalty to Bond and we lose the protracted sense of ‘rogue-like’ behaviour where everything is designed to be done without M’s knowledge until the final act.

    Dammit. Make this the 100th time I've read s suggestion that would have vastly improved SP.

    What frustrates me most about that film is that it had all the potential in the world.

    Anyway, to the future of the 'Scooby Gang': I'd be happy to see all of them stay if the interval isn't too long - they're all quite talented. However, their collective salaries must hurt a bit. If EON is thinking about a 'leaner' approach to the next actor, they can't keep dropping $200 million+ on each picture. . .
  • fanbond123fanbond123
    edited January 2020 Posts: 1,661
    It's gonna go Disney. Bob Iger is so powerful in Hollywood not even Amazon/Apple/Netflix will get their hands on Agent 007!

    Yes, I can see it now... Disney casting agents are already searching for an American actor in his 20s to play James Bond in Bond 26:

    Rise Of Bond

    oh-boy-cant-wait-memegenerator-net-oh-boy-cant-wait-48948979.png
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,695
    Here’s a unique option: a character that should be introduced is May Maxwell. There’s some new material that can be done with the character.
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    octofinger wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Fiennes was off to a great start with SF, but they turned him into such a whiny milquetoast in SP that my enthusiasm for his take on the. character plummeted. Let’s hope they course correct in NTTD. Then I can get excited about a future return.

    Fiennes really isn't great in the role. He's too close in age to Craig for starters. And there doesn't appear to be any real 'take'on who his M is.

    I think he’s great as Mallory, it’s only in SP - where the dynamic seems have drastically changed - that his character feels a little flaccid. Their relationship in SF builds to one of mutual respect by the final scene, with M clearly the figure of authority and Bond respectful of that. Within 15 mins of SP they’re seen together for the first time, with Bond in petulant mood and M equally abrasive. Shoe-horning Dench into proceedings is the main issue.

    It would’ve been more effective, imo, to learn (post-credits) that M himself (Mallory) had established a connection between ‘Sciarra’ and an anonymous source in MI6 - cue Bond taking off on an unsanctioned mission to Mexico City.

    On his return, rather than the slanging match in his office you have them meet at Blades. M is naturally pissed at Bond’s actions but agrees the intel was worth the fallout. From here the two of them are in it together and trust no one, even to the point where they fleetingly suspect each other. Ultimately M risks his own position because of his loyalty to Bond and we lose the protracted sense of ‘rogue-like’ behaviour where everything is designed to be done without M’s knowledge until the final act.

    Dammit. Make this the 100th time I've read s suggestion that would have vastly improved SP.

    What frustrates me most about that film is that it had all the potential in the world.

    Anyway, to the future of the 'Scooby Gang': I'd be happy to see all of them stay if the interval isn't too long - they're all quite talented. However, their collective salaries must hurt a bit. If EON is thinking about a 'leaner' approach to the next actor, they can't keep dropping $200 million+ on each picture. . .

    "All the Potential In The World" should be the working title of every new Bond movie.
  • octofingeroctofinger
    Posts: 787
    Getafix wrote: »
    octofinger wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Fiennes was off to a great start with SF, but they turned him into such a whiny milquetoast in SP that my enthusiasm for his take on the. character plummeted. Let’s hope they course correct in NTTD. Then I can get excited about a future return.

    Fiennes really isn't great in the role. He's too close in age to Craig for starters. And there doesn't appear to be any real 'take'on who his M is.

    I think he’s great as Mallory, it’s only in SP - where the dynamic seems have drastically changed - that his character feels a little flaccid. Their relationship in SF builds to one of mutual respect by the final scene, with M clearly the figure of authority and Bond respectful of that. Within 15 mins of SP they’re seen together for the first time, with Bond in petulant mood and M equally abrasive. Shoe-horning Dench into proceedings is the main issue.

    It would’ve been more effective, imo, to learn (post-credits) that M himself (Mallory) had established a connection between ‘Sciarra’ and an anonymous source in MI6 - cue Bond taking off on an unsanctioned mission to Mexico City.

    On his return, rather than the slanging match in his office you have them meet at Blades. M is naturally pissed at Bond’s actions but agrees the intel was worth the fallout. From here the two of them are in it together and trust no one, even to the point where they fleetingly suspect each other. Ultimately M risks his own position because of his loyalty to Bond and we lose the protracted sense of ‘rogue-like’ behaviour where everything is designed to be done without M’s knowledge until the final act.

    Dammit. Make this the 100th time I've read s suggestion that would have vastly improved SP.

    What frustrates me most about that film is that it had all the potential in the world.

    Anyway, to the future of the 'Scooby Gang': I'd be happy to see all of them stay if the interval isn't too long - they're all quite talented. However, their collective salaries must hurt a bit. If EON is thinking about a 'leaner' approach to the next actor, they can't keep dropping $200 million+ on each picture. . .

    "All the Potential In The World" should be the working title of every new Bond movie.

    Quite.

    It's just that SP felt special:

    -massive amounts of public goodwill after the historic success of SF
    -all the characters introduced, a new M in place, and essentially a narrative 'blank slate' in place to run the story in any direction
    -the rights to spectre in hand again
    -the most talent ever assembled on both sides of the camera, right through cast and crew
    -a practically unlimited budget

    They had the world on a string with that one. It looks gorgeous, but it could have been so, so much better.
Sign In or Register to comment.