› ›

Where does Bond go after Craig?

1…102103105107108…681

Comments

  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,420
    ColonelAdamski wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    It seems bonkers that we're debating whether something is divisive in a conversation where some folks have said they like the thing and others have said they don't.

    It's a divisive subject, whether or not something is divisive. I'm sure we can all agree on that.
    Or, are some people of the opinion that's it's not divisive?

    Ha! :)) I'll never agree!
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    In the meantime Guillermo is spreading his much deep passion and appreciation for NTTD in this Q&A, praising the fact that the film is about love and loss with a superb melancholy spin. That confession scene in a nutshell…

  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,551
    mtm wrote: »
    It seems bonkers that we're debating whether something is divisive in a conversation where some folks have said they like the thing and others have said they don't.

    Some people here need to reacquaint themselves on the definition of the word I think.
  • Since62Since62
    Posts: 1,630
    I agree that there is disagreement made evident among the posts. Am I of two minds (thank you, Two-Face) about it ? No. As for me, with myself, it is not divisive. But if (here comes the Kill Bill riff) anyone else...got anything to say...NOW'S the $&($#-in' time !!!!
  • Risico007Risico007
    Posts: 9,847
    matt_u wrote: »
    In the meantime Guillermo is spreading his much deep passion and appreciation for NTTD in this Q&A, praising the fact that the film is about love and loss with a superb melancholy spin. That confession scene in a nutshell…


    Del Torro for bond 26? stranger things have happened
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited February 2022 Posts: 7,551
    Since62 wrote: »
    No. As for me, with myself, it is not divisive.

    This entirely goes against the concept of something being divisive. It’s divisive because it divides a group of people (Bond fans) people into sides (I like the emotional stuff in the Craig Bond films, vs I prefer not to have emotional stuff in my Bond films).

    Divisiveness in this context doesn’t occur within an individual person, but among a group of people.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    edited February 2022 Posts: 4,343
    I think the notion of Bond confessing his love to a woman being a divisive moment is kinda naive since he already did it within the same narrative cycle, without even mentioning the OHMSS novel. His death is a divisive moment. His 007 code being given to another agent as well. We can talk about liking or not the execution of that scene, but what’s divisive in something he already did within the same storyline in one of the most regarded Bond films ever where we witnessed arguably the best romance of the entire series?
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited February 2022 Posts: 7,551
    matt_u wrote: »
    I think the notion of Bond confessing his love to a woman being a divisive moment is kinda naive since he already did it within the same narrative cycle, without even mentioning the OHMSS novel. His death is a divisive moment. His 007 code being given to another agent as well. We can talk about liking or not the execution of that scene, but what’s divisive in something he already did within the same storyline in one of the most regarded Bond films ever?

    Because it divides fans. It's as simple as that. No idea why this concept is so difficult for people to grasp. As Bond fans, we can all be put in a group of "People who Like Bond". That's why, when something that happens in a Bond story that some people really like, and some people really don't like, I think it's fair to say it's divisive.

    I think all those things you mention in your post @matt_u are fairly divisive, to some degree. Something similar happening before doesn't really play into it.

    Google "divisive definition":
    tending to cause disagreement or hostility between people.

    Fucking simple as that. Shocking how long this conversation has gone on.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    edited February 2022 Posts: 4,343
    This forum is not divided regarding that subject. Even the member who brought up his hate towards Bond’s romantic confession said that he liked the one in CR and it’s all about the writing/execution. So he’s not against the notion, the idea. Shockingly obvious.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited February 2022 Posts: 7,551
    Listen, you're just, 1,000% right. Let's all please move on from this.

    I thought I was making a spectacularly benign comment about how some fans like that moment, and some fans don't. How it tends to cause disagreement, from the above literal definition of the word "divisive".
  • LucknFateLucknFate 007 In New York
    Posts: 1,649
    Let's all agree Bond shouldn't fall in love in 26, unless he's going to marry Moneypenny in 30.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,304
    It's not true to Fleming's last line, but for Bond #7, I wouldn't mind an "introducing Goodnight" arc over several films where he marries her in the last film.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    echo wrote: »
    It's not true to Fleming's last line, but for Bond #7, I wouldn't mind an "introducing Goodnight" arc over several films where he marries her in the last film.

    And on their wedding night, she has to stay in the closet while he is busy with the villain s girlfriend.
  • LucknFateLucknFate 007 In New York
    Posts: 1,649
    Bond 30: Goodnight, Good Luck
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,970
    Actually this might be an interesting subject to talk about. When it comes to elements of the novels that have been used but were mainly just used by name, how would you feel about EON trying to adapt those characters again albeit a different name?
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,551
    If I’m understanding you correctly, I think it would be cool, but I’d be ok with them keeping/reusing the names as well.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,217
    I'd actually like to see Mary Goodnight updated and done well, although I wonder if they'd end up just retreading Eve territory.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited February 2022 Posts: 7,551
    It's always sort of surprised me Ponsonby has never been adapted, but I suppose in the cinematic world, Moneypenny is enough. She could have had a nice moment in OHMSS when Bond went into his office early in the film.

    Caroline Bliss in my mind would have made a good Ponsonby. I wonder if it might have been cool if for Dalton's films they subbed her in instead of Moneypenny. Probably impossible.

    EDIT: After brushing up on her dossier, so to speak, I suppose Bliss wouldn't really have evoked Fleming's image for her. And apparently she was set to be in GoldenEye but didn't make it out of the final draft.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,970
    CraigMooreOHMSS wrote: »
    I'd actually like to see Mary Goodnight updated and done well, although I wonder if they'd end up just retreading Eve territory.
    I actually felt like Paloma had an updated Goodnight quality.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,551
    Denbigh wrote: »
    CraigMooreOHMSS wrote: »
    I'd actually like to see Mary Goodnight updated and done well, although I wonder if they'd end up just retreading Eve territory.
    I actually felt like Paloma had an updated Goodnight quality.

    In some alternate universe, there's a cool scene in a future Craig Bond film where Bond visits the CIA headquarters in Langley and meets with Leiter and Paloma again.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited February 2022 Posts: 5,970
    The problem with Ponsonby and May is not only are their roles unfortunately almost pointless, the roles they do play are incredibly outdated now.

    Also, on the reuse of character names @NickTwentyTwo, do you not think that maybe it'd be better for the identity of the franchise as a whole to have different names? It seems like such a small thing, considering the continued reinvention of some characters, but to see lets say Dr. No appear again in the credits of a James Bond film would feel somewhat strange to me personally.
  • Some_Kind_Of_HeroSome_Kind_Of_Hero
    Posts: 6,844
    NickTwentyTwo wrote: »
    It's always sort of surprised me Ponsonby has never been adapted, but I suppose in the cinematic world, Moneypenny is enough. She could have had a nice moment in OHMSS when Bond went into his office early in the film.

    Caroline Bliss in my mind would have made a good Ponsonby. I wonder if it might have been cool if for Dalton's films they subbed her in instead of Moneypenny. Probably impossible.

    EDIT: After brushing up on her dossier, so to speak, I suppose Bliss wouldn't really have evoked Fleming's image for her. And apparently she was set to be in GoldenEye but didn't make it out of the final draft.

    As they've already featured Goodnight in the films and Ponsonby would be a retread of the cinematic Moneypenny, they could always have Ponsonby be a lead and fill the role of Goodnight in Fleming's TMWTGG.

    But I suspect the reason the character has never appeared in the films (besides redundancy with Moneypenny) is because her name is taken from a real person. I believe that's actually why Fleming wrote her out of the novels eventually. I know there's also James Bond the ornithologist (who never seemed to mind) and Ernő Goldfinger the architect (who attempted legal action), but Ponsonby is an easier character to simply not bother with altogether.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,551
    Ah I didn’t know that about her name, very interesting, thanks. Also didn’t know that about the real Goldfinger! Cool info.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited February 2022 Posts: 6,304
    There are iconic Fleming characters so well-adapted that they should never be revisited:

    Dr. No, Rosa Klebb, Grant, Goldfinger, Oddjob, Irma Bunt, possibly Wint and Kidd

    There are characters who have been poorly adapted, or adapted radically differently, whom I'd like to see with either the same names, or with new names:

    Hugo Drax, Kissy Suzuki, Mary Goodnight, Milton Krest

    I'm indifferent to some adaptations and would be happy to see these reimagined:

    Blofeld, Tiger Tanaka, Scaramanga
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,188
    We already got Hugo Drax via Gustav Graves. In fact, Toby Stephens is pretty much who I imagine when reading MR.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited February 2022 Posts: 5,970
    Oh yeah Milton Krest is a shout. I don't think they could ever properly do The Hildebrand Rarity, but I think it's plot and the characters could definitely be better adapted and utilised in a feature length Bond film.

    Again, the name thing just stumps me cause while I think the names are great, to see them repeated along the franchise would feel slightly off.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Forget about Bond. I want to se an Achille Aubergine series instead.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,970
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    Forget about Bond. I want to se an Achille Aubergine series instead.
    00🍆
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,420
    NickTwentyTwo wrote: »
    Listen, you're just, 1,000% right. Let's all please move on from this.

    I thought I was making a spectacularly benign comment about how some fans like that moment, and some fans don't. How it tends to cause disagreement, from the above literal definition of the word "divisive".

    I commented the other day (elsewhere) about how Bond fans were made special by really spectacularly talented people like Connery/Adam/Barry working on them and someone argued with it. It is incredible what fans will argue about.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    mtm wrote: »
    NickTwentyTwo wrote: »
    Listen, you're just, 1,000% right. Let's all please move on from this.

    I thought I was making a spectacularly benign comment about how some fans like that moment, and some fans don't. How it tends to cause disagreement, from the above literal definition of the word "divisive".

    I commented the other day (elsewhere) about how Bond fans were made special by really spectacularly talented people like Connery/Adam/Barry working on them and someone argued with it. It is incredible what fans will argue about.
    mtm wrote: »
    NickTwentyTwo wrote: »
    Listen, you're just, 1,000% right. Let's all please move on from this.

    I thought I was making a spectacularly benign comment about how some fans like that moment, and some fans don't. How it tends to cause disagreement, from the above literal definition of the word "divisive".

    I commented the other day (elsewhere) about how Bond fans were made special by really spectacularly talented people like Connery/Adam/Barry working on them and someone argued with it. It is incredible what fans will argue about.

    No, it isn t .
Sign In or Register to comment.