› ›

Where does Bond go after Craig?

1…707708709710711713»

Comments

  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 3,200
    Removing the speargun shots in NTTD robbed us of some classic imagery, for sure.
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 2,237
    Venutius wrote: »
    Removing the speargun shots in NTTD robbed us of some classic imagery, for sure.

    Yeah, that's one of the things that made the trailer exciting. Directors like Mendes or Campbell would have left it in. They understood that little Bondian moments, sparks interest. I'm not sure Fukunaga really understood that side of Bond.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,886
    I do wonder how that bit worked. Did they reshoot it? Or did he pick the gun up from an outhouse or something and held the speargun before he got there?
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,431
    LOL. Where does one store a speargun?
  • Since62Since62
    Posts: 1,670
    echo wrote: »
    LOL. Where does one store a speargun?

    With the gum...the...spearmint gum.
  • DragonpolDragonpol Writer @ https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,407
    echo wrote: »
    LOL. Where does one store a speargun?

    One of those cardboard tubes for posters would be perfect.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,431
    007HallY wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Yeah, I think the most we can say is that she's a relative fresh take on a Bond woman character, and more of those would be good. Not done in the same way, just more fresh takes.
    I guess also some fun, light characters which don't jar with the the rest of the film; these are also good. But not Paloma v2.0.

    But they got it right. That's a good sign, not a failing of the films.
    007HallY wrote: »
    In terms of Bond girls going forward, I wouldn’t personally want another quite like Paloma, great as she is. Especially not as a main Bond girl (again, there’s just not enough to her for that type of role, and it’s because she was never intended to be the main Bond girl). Engaging and colourful doesn’t necessarily always look like a character as broadly comedic as Paloma. I’d say Pussy Galore fits that description. Even a character like Severine with her sleek, dark dress/looks, long fingernails, and thin lady’s cigarette has an otherworldliness to her.
    Yes, in Bond 26, we need something like that, not a copy of Paloma of course, but a Bond Girl who could be lighthearted without being jarring, something like a contrast to Bond's personality, if Bond is quiet and serious, it's quite a bit interesting to see him work with a free and high spirited woman who has a positive outlook on life, and has a sense of humor or witty that could make audiences enjoy her as a character, just like Paloma, but not exactly a copy of her.

    I'm personally over serious and emotionally traumatized characters, I just want to see like how other world would collide with Bond's world or something like that.

    We need something like this in Bond 26, a charismatic, positive and light character, not the whole film itself needs to be lighthearted, sometimes one character needs have it alone but doing it right without bordering on parody.

    It really depends on what the film needs and how well this hypothetical Bond girl is portrayed. To be honest, I think the best Bond girls have a lot of darkness in their backstories, even in the films. In a lot of cases to create a compelling character you can't really avoid it. Honey, for example, kills her rapist, Tracy is suicidal when she and Bond first meet, Natalya's whole goal in GE is based around seeing the mass murder of her co-workers, Domino is the unhappy mistress of a man who killed her brother etc. I don't think the Craig era women are any more emotionally traumatised than what we've seen in the past (ie. is Camille any more emotionally traumatised or serious than Melina? Or Severine in comparison to Andrea? They're all cut from the same cloth). Again, it's why Paloma's a supporting character and not used for very much of the film - she's an interesting, unique character, but beyond a point wouldn't be compelling as she is when used sparingly. I personally think it's best to avoid 'flat character' main Bond girls anyway.

    Maybe they could try and do the 'rogue' Bond girl outline again (ie. someone like Pussy Galore or Octopussy - Bond girls who operate outside the law and might even be involved with the villains in some form. Their arc is that they generally come round to helping Bond by the end of the story. Even then you get someone like Fleming's Tiffany Case who broadly fits that mould and has one of the darkest backstories in the entire franchise. She even carries that trauma more overtly in the book than most others do).
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    The other reason is because Paloma’s a supporting Bond girl. She’s fun and colourful because of how brief her appearance is. She stops short of being one dimensional due to the subversion of her actually being a competent agent, but even then there’s not actually much to her.
    mtm wrote: »
    Very good analysis- if Paloma had been onscreen more she couldn't just have stayed the comedic relief and kept doing the same gags over and over again for the next two hours- we'd need a bit more depth or at the very least a progression of her character.

    May as well put these two quotes together as they seem to cover the same thing. I don't understand where this notion of "there not being much to her" being a problem comes from, but to me bond films work just fine as "empty calories", e.i. primarily escapist fun. I mean don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that a Bond film needs to be that way, or necessarily should be, but it doesn't make or break a film for me if its a bit surface- level, nor do I see that particularly being a problem for general audiences looking for an enjoyable way to pass a couple hours. I mean sure, give characters a goal or a history if you want and if the story calls for it, but don't add in needless "depth" where it isn't called for. For me, story is tantamount in this regard. You say, "well, she'd need more depth in a leading role, she'd need to be more dimensional", I say "well, that really depends on the story you're telling, doesn't it?" Anything can be a hindrance in the wrong place, right? If you're saying her character needs to be a certain way prior to even the basics of a story being formulated IMO that's putting the cart before the horse. The story should act as a fountian head, with everything else flowing from it, not preceeding it. Again, I'm not saying necessarily characters should be one dimensional, but in the right story I don't really see why it's an issue that they are, either. I don't really know who Wai Lin is or what her goals in life are beyond she's resourceful and committed to doing her job, and I don't really need more than that. It works well enough to serve the story, and that's what's important. Adding in "depth" just for the sake of it is basically the mission statement of the last 2 Bond films, and that just smacks of insecurity to me. If you have a "Casino Royale" or a "On Her Majestys Secret Service" or even a "Skyfall" on your hands, great, have at it, be as moody and character driven as you want, but if you don't and you're just telling a meat and potatoes Bond adventure at least be straightforward and honest about it, otherwise you're just getting in the way of a better story that could be.

    But you don't add 'depth' to a character for the sake of it. You do it for the sake of the broader story. That's what all the Craig films did with their Bond girls (ie. Severine is trapped by Silva, which in turn leads her to ask for Bond's help, and this leads him to finally confront Silva. Bond confronts White, who in turn asks him to protect his daughter who also has information. That drives the plot and story. Madeline's past with Saffin also does this. There's nothing superfluous there).

    Part of the audience getting that entertaining two/three hours of escapism is creating compelling characters in whatever form. That's just the way it is.
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I wouldn’t really call Paloma a ‘typical’ Bond girl for a few reasons. Firstly because there’s a wide range of Bond girls, and it’s not unheard of for them to have tragic backstories or elements to them - Honey, Tracy, Domino, Andrea, Melina, Stacy, Lupe, Paris, Vesper (to name a handful). If anything Severine reminds me of Andrea from TMWTGG, and Camille Melina from FYEO. Their backstories use pretty typical Bond girl tropes in that sense.

    My bad, I should have really said "stereotypical" instead of "typical". Basically what the average non-bond fan thinks of when they think "Bond Girl", which to my mind means tough, plucky and resourceful, if a bit naive at times. For examples I'd cite, Honey, Tatiana, Tilly Masterson, Aki and Kissy, Tiffany Case, Triple XXX, Octopussy, Kara Milovy, Pam Bouvier, Natalya, Wai Lin, Christmas Jones, Jinx, Paloma etc.

    I'm not really sure if Anya, Octopussy, Pam, Wai Lin, Jinx, or even Jones fit your description there to be completely honest with you (at least the naive bit). Even Natalya's a bit debatable in that respect.

    Going back to this post...I recall reading in drafts of Octopussy, she was originally supposed to be involved with Spectre and out for revenge for Bond for her father's death.

    I wonder if they will revisit this idea in future films. We know Eon can't resist using ideas from discarded scripts (e.g. the Acrostar jet in OP which was slated for MR, Spectre taking over Quantum, which sounds like the Burgess TSWLM script, etc.).
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited January 28 Posts: 16,886
    Although going out for revenge for her father's death when Bond was basically out for revenge to start with when he went after her father all gets a bit tortuous! :D
    Bear in mind Spectre used the Oberhauser killer revenge thing, so they kind of have revisited it already.

    I'm glad they did the Smythe thing the way they did in the film, it's a nicely unexpected note that she respects him for it and a nice character note about her being very tough about death but honourable.
  • StamperStamper
    Posts: 394
    Here I am again, to remind you that Timothée Chalamet who is currently Bob Dylan, is going to be the next Bond. When the news will land, I want everybody on this forum to give me one buck for my prediction.
  • DragonpolDragonpol Writer @ https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,407
    Stamper wrote: »
    Here I am again, to remind you that Timothée Chalamet who is currently Bob Dylan, is going to be the next Bond. When the news will land, I want everybody on this forum to give me one buck for my prediction.

    I'm afraid I'll have to owe you...if you're right.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,886
    I think he's already too big to be Bond to be honest.
  • StamperStamper
    Posts: 394
    Not really. Now is just the time! Plus, he hasn't played Remington Steele yet.
  • Since62Since62
    Posts: 1,670
    mtm wrote: »
    I think he's already too big to be Bond to be honest.

    Really ? I'd have thought the knock against Chalamet would be that he's too small.
  • 007HallY007HallY
    Posts: 4,485
    Timothee Chalamet being the next Bond would be extraordinarily strange. Firstly he's American which doesn't work in his favour. Secondly I don't there's much that's Bondian about him.
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,245
    Stamper wrote: »
    Here I am again, to remind you that Timothée Chalamet who is currently Bob Dylan, is going to be the next Bond. When the news will land, I want everybody on this forum to give me one buck for my prediction.

    If Timothee Chalamet is the next EON James Bond, then I'll send you $100!
  • DragonpolDragonpol Writer @ https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,407
    mtm wrote: »
    I think he's already too big to be Bond to be honest.

    No doubt Eon will go with A Complete Unknown instead.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,886
    Nice work :)
  • Scaramanga1974Scaramanga1974
    Posts: 773
    If Timothee Chamomet is the next Bond I will dress as Donald Trump! Fake tan included. Good actor but too big and name. And doesnt look tough enough.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,302
    TDS is strong here…
  • 007HallY007HallY
    Posts: 4,485
    talos7 wrote: »
    TDS is strong here…

    Tendency deposit scheme? 🤔 no…

    The Latin medical abbreviation doctor’s use for take three times a day? No… 🤔

    I give up. What’s TDS in this context? 😂
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,245
    Not a Star Wars fan then @007HallY ?
  • DragonpolDragonpol Writer @ https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,407
    007HallY wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    TDS is strong here…

    Tendency deposit scheme? 🤔 no…

    The Latin medical abbreviation doctor’s use for take three times a day? No… 🤔

    I give up. What’s TDS in this context? 😂

    It stands for Timothy Dalton (Is) Sublime. :)
  • 007HallY007HallY
    edited January 29 Posts: 4,485
    Benny wrote: »
    Not a Star Wars fan then @007HallY ?

    I’m not actually, haha!
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,245
    The
    Dark
    Side

    TimotheeChalametDefinetlyNotBondOrIWillGetVeryCross.com

    You heard it here first.

  • 007HallY007HallY
    Posts: 4,485
    Fair enough, went over my head!

    I’d also say that Timothee Chalamet playing Willy Wonka felt strange enough to me. Him as Bond would be a whole different level.
  • 007ClassicBondFan007ClassicBondFan
    Posts: 2,336
    I’m less repulsed by the idea of Timothy Chalamet as Bond than I am Tom Holland. Still both are extremely poor choices hahaha.
    007HallY wrote: »
    Fair enough, went over my head!

    I’d also say that Timothee Chalamet playing Willy Wonka felt strange enough to me. Him as Bond would be a whole different level.

    Chalamet playing Bob Dylan sure feels like a strange choice; dare I say a bit uninspired?
  • 007HallY007HallY
    edited January 29 Posts: 4,485
    007ClassicBondFan wrote: »
    I’m less repulsed by the idea of Timothy Chalamet as Bond than I am Tom Holland. Still both are extremely poor choices hahaha.
    007HallY wrote: »
    Fair enough, went over my head!

    I’d also say that Timothee Chalamet playing Willy Wonka felt strange enough to me. Him as Bond would be a whole different level.

    Chalamet playing Bob Dylan sure feels like a strange choice; dare I say a bit uninspired?

    Oh, I’m a fan of Bob Dylan’s music. I’ve even sat down for Martin Scorsese’s excellent (roughly 4 hour long) Dylan documentary No Direction Home. I refuse to pay to see the new Chalamet film. It’s an uninspired idea for a film in general. It’s the sort of thing where I know exactly what they’re going to do (it’ll only be about Dylan’s career in the 60s and will end just before his motorcycle crash in ‘69 for instance).

    Chalamet can be an excellent dramatic film actor (he was really good in Beautiful Boy) but Willy Wonka is a role that requires that innate quirkiness, and even a good deal of comedic timing (more Gene Wilder than Johnny Depp). It’s a similar case with Bond - just not the right fit. I’m sure he’s good in A Complete Unknown, although if I’m being cynical it seems a bit Oscar Baity.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited January 29 Posts: 16,886
    007HallY wrote: »
    Fair enough, went over my head!

    I’d also say that Timothee Chalamet playing Willy Wonka felt strange enough to me. Him as Bond would be a whole different level.

    Yeah, I think he was pretty good in Wonka, but still managed to be less charismatic than a CG bear (it's basically a Paddington movie in everything but name). I did really enjoy it though, it's a good film for Christmas.
  • CrabKeyCrabKey
    Posts: 2,090
    I never disliked Dylan, but I was never a fan. The film I very much enjoyed and Chalamet was fine. I especially appreciated a film that wasn't the same old, same old mind numbing comic superhero stuff or something about computer animated stuffed animals in space.

    So, I await the next Bond film. Even if it isn't everything I hope it will be, it will be better than most of the stuff it will compete with. There are no bad Bond films; just some are better than others.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,546
    One small thing I'd like to see again in Bond 26 is a return of the Bond swell in music to signify threat is imminent and get the pulse racing, similar to the ski chase in TSWLM.
Sign In or Register to comment.