Where does Bond go after Craig?

1735736737738740

Comments

  • NoTimeToLiveNoTimeToLive Jamaica
    Posts: 135
    What I'm saying is if you were to take Blofeld being Bond's brother [...] and put them in a Brosnan film, diehard Bond fans would be able to point from a mile off and tell you that it's amateurish writing and a silly, stupid idea.

    Fans did the same when it happened in a Craig movie. So I struggle to see your point.
    or the character of Madeline Swann or Nomi

    Why would fans complain about them in a Brosnan movie?
  • Posts: 695
    Oh god, the next Bond villain being a Musk-stand-in is far too on the nose for me. I expect a Bond movie to have more fresh ideas than that.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited March 30 Posts: 17,609
    Oh god, the next Bond villain being a Musk-stand-in is far too on the nose for me. I expect a Bond movie to have more fresh ideas than that.

    Yeah agreed, a bit too obvious. And I think folks have said that Dame Barbara has said, when asked if they'd put a Musk type in as the villain, "already did that in '97", and she's right.
    Also I think making some of these types into Bond villains kind of trivialises the actual real threat they present too.
  • Posts: 1,952
    Why do people keep calling this Bond 26 when it is not? Is it just laziness?
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 17,609
    What would you like to call it?
  • Posts: 6,811
    Bond 1.2?
    Nah, I think 26 is just fine.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 14,260
    Should be
    A1.

    Unless that's overused or not recognizable enough for Bond.

    9bcaaadae50d515ae6e701193b5218811256e0bf.pnj
  • Posts: 1,952
    Yep. It should be Bond A1.
  • Posts: 2,169
    Had Craig carried on for a film or so, where would the series have gone?
    Still waiting to here what Elon has done that is so terrible. Anyone?

    Move this to messages. That's where current politics are discussed.
  • edited March 30 Posts: 1,952
    Univex wrote: »
    Bond 1.2?
    Nah, I think 26 is just fine.

    How can you call it 26 and not put Casino Royale 67, NSNA and Climax theater into the mix? That would make it 29. Like I said, lazy.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,626
    I say Bond 26 because Amazon has the official rights, like Eon did.
  • edited March 31 Posts: 1,952
    echo wrote: »
    I say Bond 26 because Amazon has the official rights, like Eon did.

    And to that I say.......................McClory had the official rights to Bond when he did NSNA and Feldman did too. Now, when GL appeared as JB in the U.N.C.L.E. TV movie they did not have the official rights but I did not put that one in the mix.
  • Posts: 16,428
    At the moment I don't consider it B26 because it may not be a continuation of Eon's series.
    Is Amazon planning to follow the Eon formula and continue the classic traditions: gunbarrel, PTS, titles sequence, etc?
    For instance, it's kind of expected to wonder who will sing the title song, but maybe Amazon will go another route and do something completely different with their Bond films?
    I feel open minded to what they may bring to the table.
    Burton's BATMAN went a drastically different direction from what audiences had seen before with Adam West, and it enormously successful. I loved it just as much, but in a different way.
    On the other hand, SUPERMAN RETURNS played as a sort of late continuation of the Christopher Reeve films in terms of the titles, music etc, and yet to me it felt like something was off.

    This is a very exciting time for me as a Bond fan. The possibilities are endless. Perhap we should start a new thread called WHERE DOES BOND GO AFTER EON?





  • LucknFateLucknFate 007 In New York
    edited March 31 Posts: 1,774
    It is safe to assume, give the happy marriage of social accounts and the 007.com website so far, that Amazon very much intends to follow in Eon's step and keep most of the, come on now, recognizable branding that's been established over the last 60+ years. They'd be stupid to think they could do better without any of it, so something will stay, they will want it to feel like a natural continuation. And Eon are still producing! So, with Eon still getting some sort of production credit, how is this not... Bond 26? Calm down people. Don't make a big deal out of the forum semantics. NTTD was Bond 25 and said "James Bond Will Return" at the end, and now this is the next one. It's Bond 26. Don't be ridiculous.
  • Posts: 2,169
    Bond 26 works for me as I regard it as a continuation of the original series that survived the departure of Saltzman, Broccoli and now BB and MW. The other Bond films are "the other Bond films." I do not expect Amazon to abandon those elements traditionally associated with a Bond film. Not seeing EON and the names of Broccoli and Wilson in the credits is of no concern to me.

    Does Amazon have the opportunity to screw up things royally? Yes. But why would they? You certainly don't want your first shot at an astoundingly successful film series to be a dud. JB Fires A Blank. The name is Bezos. Jeff Bezos. I made this mess.

    If Amazon is smart, the company will do everything possible to avoid disaster. No doubt critics are already writing their negative reviews well ahead of casting, production, and release.
  • Posts: 1,952
    All I'm saying is that EON has sold the property to another studio and that ends the EON series of films and Amazon should start fresh on numbering them because 26 does not accurately reflect how many 007 films have actually been made.
  • Posts: 631
    This discussion gets at an interest semantic point. Is it 25 EON films? Well yes — but should we separate Saltzman/A. Broccoli, A. Broccoli, and B.Broccoli/Wilson? We could even separate A. Broccoli into A. Broccoli on his own or A. Broccoli with Wilson?

    My opinion is 26 is appropriate as it is a continuation of the same entity that existed before just under a different ownership structure. They still use the Bond theme, gun barrel, 007 logo etc.

    But we will see what ends up happening!

  • Posts: 1,952
    BMB007 wrote: »
    This discussion gets at an interest semantic point. Is it 25 EON films? Well yes — but should we separate Saltzman/A. Broccoli, A. Broccoli, and B.Broccoli/Wilson? We could even separate A. Broccoli into A. Broccoli on his own or A. Broccoli with Wilson?

    My opinion is 26 is appropriate as it is a continuation of the same entity that existed before just under a different ownership structure. They still use the Bond theme, gun barrel, 007 logo etc.

    But we will see what ends up happening!

    Once it gets a title it will all be a moot point.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited March 31 Posts: 17,609
    LucknFate wrote: »
    It is safe to assume, give the happy marriage of social accounts and the 007.com website so far, that Amazon very much intends to follow in Eon's step and keep most of the, come on now, recognizable branding that's been established over the last 60+ years. They'd be stupid to think they could do better without any of it, so something will stay, they will want it to feel like a natural continuation. And Eon are still producing! So, with Eon still getting some sort of production credit, how is this not... Bond 26?

    I don’t think Eon are producing, they likely won’t be involved at all. Broccoli and Wilson will still co-own the rights, but that’s more like a Danjaq situation, and the old films didn’t have ‘a Danjaq production’ on them. Eon is just another company which BB & MW own at this point, nothing to do with this film. This is a Pascal Pictures/Heyday films production.

    The new ownership of Bond between BB & MW and Amazon is curious though: presumably that’s a new company taking over from Danjaq? What’s it called?

    Quite interesting to see on Companies House that BB & MGW both resigned from B25 Ltd and their other Bond companies on 24th March and lawyer Ajay Patel (US) and accountant David Clapham (UK) took them over. They’re also associated with lots of ‘Leo’ production companies, which is presumably MGM from the name.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,779
    Well, here's hoping we get some big juicy announcements in 2 days time. B-)
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 2,407
    I believe the next reveal would be the writer/writers/director.
  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    Posts: 1,374
    mtm wrote: »
    LucknFate wrote: »
    It is safe to assume, give the happy marriage of social accounts and the 007.com website so far, that Amazon very much intends to follow in Eon's step and keep most of the, come on now, recognizable branding that's been established over the last 60+ years. They'd be stupid to think they could do better without any of it, so something will stay, they will want it to feel like a natural continuation. And Eon are still producing! So, with Eon still getting some sort of production credit, how is this not... Bond 26?

    I don’t think Eon are producing, they likely won’t be involved at all. Broccoli and Wilson will still co-own the rights, but that’s more like a Danjaq situation, and the old films didn’t have ‘a Danjaq production’ on them. Eon is just another company which BB & MW own at this point, nothing to do with this film. This is a Pascal Pictures/Heyday films production.

    The new ownership of Bond between BB & MW and Amazon is curious though: presumably that’s a new company taking over from Danjaq? What’s it called?

    Quite interesting to see on Companies House that BB & MGW both resigned from B25 Ltd and their other Bond companies on 24th March and lawyer Ajay Patel (US) and accountant David Clapham (UK) took them over. They’re also associated with lots of ‘Leo’ production companies, which is presumably MGM from the name.

    Didn't the original announcement say there would be a new entity created to hold the rights, which would be co-owned by Amazon/MGM and Eon, but the creative control was fully with Amazon/MGM? So basically a new Danjaq on top of or replacing Danjaq?

    At the end of the day, it's fun to see new schism created the fandom can argue about for the next few decades (It has to be seperated by actor! No, by lead producer! No, by licence owner! No, by my own perceived continuity! The only real deal was Connery! No, everything up to Craig! No, Craig was already a different thing; it's Connery to Brosnan, then Craig, then the new guy!), but @delfloria is right in that this is currently just a discussion about a placeholder until we have a title and from then on it will go by it's acronym, just like every other film. Which opens the fun possibily of them re-using a title (a more book acurate Moonraker?) and annoy all of us all over again.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited March 31 Posts: 17,609
    mtm wrote: »
    LucknFate wrote: »
    It is safe to assume, give the happy marriage of social accounts and the 007.com website so far, that Amazon very much intends to follow in Eon's step and keep most of the, come on now, recognizable branding that's been established over the last 60+ years. They'd be stupid to think they could do better without any of it, so something will stay, they will want it to feel like a natural continuation. And Eon are still producing! So, with Eon still getting some sort of production credit, how is this not... Bond 26?

    I don’t think Eon are producing, they likely won’t be involved at all. Broccoli and Wilson will still co-own the rights, but that’s more like a Danjaq situation, and the old films didn’t have ‘a Danjaq production’ on them. Eon is just another company which BB & MW own at this point, nothing to do with this film. This is a Pascal Pictures/Heyday films production.

    The new ownership of Bond between BB & MW and Amazon is curious though: presumably that’s a new company taking over from Danjaq? What’s it called?

    Quite interesting to see on Companies House that BB & MGW both resigned from B25 Ltd and their other Bond companies on 24th March and lawyer Ajay Patel (US) and accountant David Clapham (UK) took them over. They’re also associated with lots of ‘Leo’ production companies, which is presumably MGM from the name.

    Didn't the original announcement say there would be a new entity created to hold the rights, which would be co-owned by Amazon/MGM and Eon, but the creative control was fully with Amazon/MGM? So basically a new Danjaq on top of or replacing Danjaq?

    Yeah that's how I took it, and presumably it's a new company because it has to be something owned by both of them, it's just funny how there's no sign of what that is. I wonder if it'll be announced or we have to wait for the next IFP book or whatever and read in the small print who James Bond is being licensed to them by!
    I would also guess that all licensing would be under review as the new entity takes control, so any new Bond books or La La Land soundtracks I would have thought might be on pause, but I guess we'll have to see.
  • Posts: 4,930
    Perhaps if they announce anything tomorrow that’ll be it. Would make sense.
  • LucknFateLucknFate 007 In New York
    edited March 31 Posts: 1,774
    delfloria wrote: »
    All I'm saying is that EON has sold the property to another studio and that ends the EON series of films and Amazon should start fresh on numbering them because 26 does not accurately reflect how many 007 films have actually been made.

    They did not end the Eon series, as Eon is still in the MIX! Why is that so hard for some people to understand? They are still in the mix. They did not turn away. They changed rights but are still producers. Think of it like them getting promoted.

    You all want this to be a bigger deal than it is so it has to change every facet of fandom. It doesn't. I hope Amazon have long moved on beyond working title at this point.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,561
    I can't believe that we're seriously having a debate on what to call the next film in code. The world is doing great if this is enough to keep a conversation going.

    Look, we've been doing it like this on this forum for ages. CR was 'Bond 21', QOS was 'Bond 22', ..., and NTTD was 'Bond 25'. It's easiest to call the next one 'Bond 26' because 26 follows 25, and because most of us are used to doing it this way. No need to bring in McClory, Amazon, or whatever; that's just arguing for the sake of it.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited March 31 Posts: 17,609
    LucknFate wrote: »
    delfloria wrote: »
    All I'm saying is that EON has sold the property to another studio and that ends the EON series of films and Amazon should start fresh on numbering them because 26 does not accurately reflect how many 007 films have actually been made.

    They did not end the Eon series, as Eon is still in the MIX! Why is that so hard for some people to understand? They are still in the mix. They did not turn away. They changed rights but are still producers. Think of it like them getting promoted.

    You all want this to be a bigger deal than it is so it has to change every facet of fandom. It doesn't. I hope Amazon have long moved on beyond working title at this point.

    Eon aren't in the mix as far as I understand it: Eon is the production company which BB & MW own but that company isn't part of B26; BB & MW's involvement comes only through the new holding company (let's call them Danjaq 2 for the time being!) which they also co-own. Eon and Danjaq2 are two completely differently companies, and only the latter is part of the Bond films going forward. Happy to be corrected if I have that wrong though.
    I can well imagine BB & MW being credited as exec producers though, yeah.
  • LucknFateLucknFate 007 In New York
    edited March 31 Posts: 1,774
    Fine. We're splitting hairs on technicalities in wording we don't really understand. It's maddening to not just keep it simple and call it Bond 26. To want to do anything else is overcomplicating and overthinking it. We'll see if BB gets a producer credit or not, or if Eon is mentioned anywhere. It doesn't matter. Maybe we'll get an actual title soon.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 17,609
    LucknFate wrote: »
    Fine. We're splitting hairs on technicalities in wording we don't really understand. It's maddening to not just keep it simple and call it Bond 26. To want to do anything else is overcomplicating and overthinking it. We'll see if BB gets a producer credit or not, or if Eon is mentioned anywhere. It doesn't matter. Maybe we'll get an actual title soon.

    Oh gosh, don't get me wrong, I'm calling it Bond 26 because it is! :)

    It will be interesting to see how the credits work out on it, will it be 'Amazon MGM Studios presents..' or 'Pascal Pictures / Heyday Films presents..'? A combo of both ('Amazon presents a Pascal Pics production')?
  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    Posts: 1,374
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    I can't believe that we're seriously having a debate on what to call the next film in code. The world is doing great if this is enough to keep a conversation going.

    Look, we've been doing it like this on this forum for ages. CR was 'Bond 21', QOS was 'Bond 22', ..., and NTTD was 'Bond 25'. It's easiest to call the next one 'Bond 26' because 26 follows 25, and because most of us are used to doing it this way. No need to bring in McClory, Amazon, or whatever; that's just arguing for the sake of it.

    I assume you don't like to play pranks with the forum structure, but I'd personally love it if you renamed this whole section "Bond 1: Version 2 (the Amazon one) & Beyond" for April Fool's tomorrow...
Sign In or Register to comment.