› ›

Where does Bond go after Craig?

1…712713715717718…726

Comments

  • 007HallY007HallY
    Posts: 4,674
    DEKE_RIVERS wrote: »
    At least hippies liked free love.

    They do today in many circles. Bond is far more tame and always has been.
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    edited February 3 Posts: 757
    Those comments from Cameron are pretty ironic, seeing as how True Lies is every bit as misogynistic as any Bond movie. I don't recall Bond ever forcing a woman to do a striptease for him. Not to mention how Cameron's been married to five different women throughout his life.

    But where does it say that heroes need to be squeaky-clean moral paragons to begin with? George Lucas undermined Han Solo's arc by making Greedo shoot first, so instead of Han being an amoral outlaw who becomes a hero, he's just a hero who becomes more heroic.

    You don't need to totally identify with a character in order to empathize with him. Hollywood writers should take that into consideration, otherwise every character will just become a self-insert.
  • 007HallY007HallY
    Posts: 4,674
    Bond's had a funny history at times in his cinematic form, but overall I think they've done a great job at depicting his vices along with his virtues, especially in recent years. His womanising, gambling, love of cars, and drink are on one level all part of the adventure/escapism of the series, but they're also depicted as double edged swords (just look at how many women have died in the series as a result of getting involved with Bond, for example). It all goes with his profession/way of living. On the other hand he's always been a character with a sense of duty and bravery, and ultimately he always does what's right and for the greater good.

    So yeah, essentially that comes down to a flawed hero, but a hero nonetheless. I really can't understand how anyone can say Bond's an anti-hero.
  • ArapahoeBondFanArapahoeBondFan Colorado
    edited February 4 Posts: 89
    bondywondy wrote: »
    One thing is certain... James Cameron won't be directing a future Bond film. He described Bond as a scumbag!
    This is something that James Cameron has expressed concern over, describing his issues with the franchise and the scope of masculinity that is explored, saying, “The James Bond films are rotten at their core. The guy’s a womanizing drunk. He’s a complete scumbag, he really is. It’s male fantasy: I’m married and faithful but I’d really like to be that guy and have a different woman every other night. If you’re going to do a comedy, you don’t just send up the gadgetry. What you send up is the moral centere or the immoral centre of it. What would it really be like to try and live that fantasy? It ain’t going to work because that’s not who most men really are.”

    https://faroutmagazine.co.uk/the-one-character-james-cameron-hates-with-a-passion/

    One of the main reasons I've always loved Bond is because of his masculine sexist traits. Connery and Moore's Bond was the archetypal sexist, womanising, yet gentlemanly, secret agent.

    The first woke Bond was Timothy Dalton. His Bond was in reaction to the AIDS crisis in the 1980s and he was portrayed as a one woman type of guy. That portrayal was ditched in the Brosnan era but Craig's Bond was a one woman type having strong feelings/falling in love with Vesper and Madeleine. Unlike Craig's Bond, Connery and Moore's Bond would never get in a shower to comfort a crying woman. They'd be in there with other things on their mind. ;)

    I've always felt the definitive James Bond is the Cubby Broccoli era 1962 to 1989 (accepting Dalton's Bond was less promiscuous ). The Connery/Moore version is the universal standard image of the very confident, often arrogant, promiscuous man with a licence to kill. It's almost guaranteed that version of Bond will never return because times have changed and people like James Cameron view the original movie version of Bond as representing toxic masculinity. I would argue that is perversely why Bond was a success. He wasn't meant to a do-gooder boy scout! I think James Cameron doesn't get the nature of Bond and why it's appealing to many book readers and film goers.

    Bond is essentially a 20th century sexist womanizing hero. He's not ideally suited to the 21st century because women are no longer dependent on men for resources and don't want to submit to them. This is why it was reported someone in Amazon's film department didn't think Bond was the hero!

    Cameron faithful? Is anyone in Hollywood? I jest but, I find it incredibly asinine.
    I'd like to say Cameron peaked but, somehow he's enticing a bunch of brainless cyborgs who tow the line of "oh, pretty!" to the most predictable film series (even though there's only two) I have ever seen. Nothing ever felt at stake in the space opera version of Dances with Wolves, Ferngully and Pocahontas, and many more...The CGI I found to be...boring and not worth my time no matter how good the technology is.
    He can kick rocks.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,683
    Scaramanga1974 wrote: »
    Wright will probably have retired by the time EON get round to making Bond 26

    Its been 175 weeks and we don't even have a domain yet. It's time to give up hope and just accept that no Bond movies will be made for at least another 4 or 5 years.
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,300
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    Scaramanga1974 wrote: »
    Wright will probably have retired by the time EON get round to making Bond 26

    Its been 175 weeks and we don't even have a domain yet. It's time to give up hope and just accept that no Bond movies will be made for at least another 4 or 5 years.

    Haven’t you said something on a similar vein before?
    :-?
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,513
    Newly-conceived fetus will be
    James Bond 007
    in
    Beyond Hope

    Coming summer 2055.
  • bondywondybondywondy Uk
    edited February 4 Posts: 481
    My suggestion for 2025...

    If there is zero Bond 26 news by December - Eon has not started any work on Bond 26 - Amazon should file a lawsuit for unreasonable delay and breach of contract. It will be crazy to go through 2025 with both sides not moving forward.

    I'm not suggesting a lawsuit to be harsh on Eon. I'm not pro Amazon and anti Eon but I think December 2025 should be the red line. If no script in development, no locations scouted, no studio space planned, no agreements by December then Amazon file the lawsuit and let the court resolve the impasse. Litigation may delay Bond 26 even longer (!) - however, if Amazon win then Eon will have to pay damages to Amazon and proceed with production of Bond 26 or sell their share to a rival studio such as Disney and then Amazon will have have to deal with a rival studio. That is very problematic.

    I don't think Barbara Broccoli can outflank Amazon. They're impossiblly rich and powerful so she'll have to compromise or face litigation. I'm surprised Amazon hasn't filed a lawsuit against Eon/Danjaq but I assume that would not help their working relationship (!) but you can't let the impasse drag on and on.
  • DEKE_RIVERSDEKE_RIVERS
    Posts: 1,637
    They are going to remake CCBB. I don't think the relationship with Amazon is that bad.


  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 17,192
    bondywondy wrote: »
    My suggestion for 2025...

    If there is zero Bond 26 news by December - Eon has not started any work on Bond 26 - Amazon should file a lawsuit for unreasonable delay and breach of contract. It will be crazy to go through 2025 with both sides not moving forward.

    What contract are you saying they're in breach of?
  • 007HallY007HallY
    edited February 4 Posts: 4,674
    I can’t find any reference to such a contractual obligation. I don’t know for sure but unless EON don’t deliver after the film has been commissioned/scheduled (short of anything beyond their control) I’m not sure if such a lawsuit could happen in this way. Which is likely a major reason they’re sitting on the Bond film franchise for a bit - namely because they can. But I’d be interested to know if clause does exist (although to me it seems like it would have been a big part of the recent WSJ article. In fact if BB’s ‘did you read the contract’ response to Amazon pitching spin off Bond content is to believed EON have a lot of leverage and stipulations with the Bond property to their benefit).

    They also have films being made for them, so there’s some sort of working relationship there. I suspect Amazon would also want to avoid a lawsuit (publicly it wouldn’t make them look good, and I don’t think there’s much benefit for them doing so).
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,659
    We all know the disconnect between EON and Amazon. I seriously wonder if EON is flat out refusing to make another Bond film with Amazon attached to the project. I'm unsure of the contractual obligations regarding this. It could just be a flat out game of who blinks first.

    Hypothetically, could they just sever ties and go their own way? Probably not since I don't see Amazon giving up their MGM rights. Unless EON breaks away from the MGM umbrella all together. That probably won't happen either since it's been a working relationship for 50-60 years.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited February 4 Posts: 17,192
    Eon simply can't legally make a Bond film without MGM/UA, all thanks to Cubby and Harry.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited February 4 Posts: 8,683
    The other day the "on set with Bond 25 Jamacia" video popped into my youtube recommended feed and I was shocked that this year it will be 6 years since the movie was filmed. I think by the time the next one is released the camera tech and cinematography will have moved on so much that it will feel like a big jump, similar to what was felt between LTK and Goldeneye.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 17,192
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    The other day the "on set with Bond 25 Jamacia" video popped into my youtube recommended feed and I was shocked that this year it will be 6 years since the movie was filmed.

    You literally just said that. Are you a bot?
  • DewiWynBondDewiWynBond
    Posts: 1,056
    Lol times are getting weirder.
  • 007HallY007HallY
    edited February 4 Posts: 4,674
    The amount of day counting and arbitrary doom deadlines from this page is incredible today! It’s ok guys, just relax. For obvious reasons there will be a delay, but none of us know 100% what we’re taking about when it comes to predicting Bond’s future 😉 At least as of now.
  • CrabKeyCrabKey
    Posts: 2,133
    Is there a problem with @Mendes4Lyfe repeating himself within a couple of posts?
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited February 5 Posts: 8,683
    Good morning all, just check this out it appears that Logan, the writer for a few of the Bond films wrote an article a few years back and said that the Amazon purchase of MGM would be Bad for the series, saying that Bond is not just another franchise and he even uses the phrase "Bond's not content". I just think it's interesting because everything he said back in 2021 seems to match up perfectly with everything we now know about the struggles and production stalemate between EON and Amazon today.

  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 17,192
    Is there a limited company for Chitty Bang Bang? They still have Chitty (UK) Ltd. running, presumably for the stage play, but that doesn't seem to be down as being for motion pictures in the nature of business; would that work for the film?
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    edited February 5 Posts: 2,700
    I posted this in the Who could be Bond thread but I'll post it here too.

    2005 Casino Royale screentests/reads for Henry Cavill, Sam Worthington, Rupert Friend and Antony Starr.









    It's been awhile, it's good to be back
  • CrabKeyCrabKey
    Posts: 2,133
    Bond needs to be fully formed and experienced when he arrives on screen. Not a newby. Not an angry, mistake making young man with something to prove. Not a disillusioned cynic. But someone who is true to his country in spite of its flaws and is committed to the mission. The adventure and danger are his oxygen and his drug. As the actor ages, don't include that as part of Bond's story. I want a Bond who's not as rough around the edges as Craig, but not effete like Moore.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,683
    I love that Babs talks about having to take risks with the next film. I just watched the new Jurassic World: Rebirth trailer and I think if Amazon had their way that would be the Bond films we would be getting everytime, a rehash of the same general concept, stock cardboard characters and uddles of marketing hype to tell us how "this time" its different. Zero risks taken, just the same mildly satisfying, familiar slop and empty spectacle.
  • DEKE_RIVERSDEKE_RIVERS
    Posts: 1,637
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    I posted this in the Who could be Bond thread but I'll post it here too.

    2005 Casino Royale screentests/reads for Henry Cavill, Sam Worthington, Rupert Friend and Antony Starr.









    It's been awhile, it's good to be back

    OMG. Horrible hairstyles. Don't actors have money?
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    edited February 6 Posts: 8,382
    Between films a lot of actors let their hair grow; their next role may require longer hair.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 17,192
    That does make good sense, never thought of that.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited February 6 Posts: 3,225
    Welcome back, Jordo!
    I've always suspected that Bond was Dan's for the asking and everyone else was really auditioning for the sub's bench in case he turned it down. Seeing these clips makes me wonder all over again if Cubby would've hired Cavill over Craig on looks alone, though. Can't help suspecting that he might, especially if it's true that he'd previously vetoed Sean Bean because he didn't have 'the look'.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 17,192
    Thank heavens it wasn't up to him then!
  • 007HallY007HallY
    edited February 6 Posts: 4,674
    The issue with Cavill I find is that he’s got the ‘look’ I guess (although to me he looks more like Action Man/Superman than what I’d say Bond is fundamentally) but between seeing him audition here and in films like UNCLE and Argyle, it always feels like him as Bond would have been a bit superficial and flat. It’s a very similar sense I get seeing ATJ in the 10 minutes of Kraven (and a good chunk of his other roles unfortunately).

    It’s impossible to say who Cubby would have gone with in ‘05, but I’d say he did have a sense of that X factor needed for this role. After all, he hired Connery due to his walk and presence (both qualities BB saw in Craig incidentally), and he went with Moore who was a bit of a change from Connery. Even Lazenby had something to him in terms of natural charisma and presence even if he wasn’t the strongest actor (you can apply that to Brosnan too to a lesser extent, although I’d say he’s a much stronger actor).

    I’d also say Craig looks more quintessentially Bondian than many give him credit for with his icy blue eyes and cruel mouth. So who knows ultimately? I’d like to think Craig was a strong enough candidate to make Cubby notice him.
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    Posts: 757
    DEKE_RIVERS wrote: »
    OMG. Horrible hairstyles. Don't actors have money?

    The shaggy surfer hair look was very popular for teenagers and young men in the mid-late 2000s. That and Craig's crew cut from the same era.
Sign In or Register to comment.