Where does Bond go after Craig?

1110111113115116675

Comments

  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,171
    To be fair, Craig Bond wasn’t dwelling on Vesper after QOS. He came across a videotape and then had both Blofeld and Madeleine bring it up when he claimed he was “past that”.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited February 2022 Posts: 16,308
    Revelator wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Fleming has Bond visit Vesper’s grave in another country every year whereas Craig’s Bond visits it only once, and that’s in order to say goodbye and never visit again.

    The more significant point is that Fleming did no more than briefly mention Vesper twice in the books that followed Casino Royale, whereas Vesper had a significant presence in three of Craig's subsequent films. Fleming's Bond didn't spend large sections of later novels trying to get over Vesper.

    And yet it clearly stayed with him more than any of his other adventures up to that point.
    The significant point is that there's enough in the books to base the story of the films on.

    And a brief look at a videotape with a label with her name on it cannot be called "a significant presence" in a film no matter how you look at it! :))
    Revelator wrote: »
    It's not even clear if Bond would still visit Vesper's grave if it wasn't in Royale-les-Eaux.

    Well no, that's not what Fleming says: “there had been a drama and a poignancy about that particular adventure that every year drew him back to Royale and its casino and to the small granite cross in the little churchyard that simply said ‘Vesper Lynd. R.I.P.”

    He literally says he is drawn back to the town, its casino and her grave. If you think it's unclear whether he'd visit the grave if it wasn't there, then it's equally unclear if he would visit the casino if it wasn't where Vesper's grave is.

    To be fair, Craig Bond wasn’t dwelling on Vesper after QOS. He came across a videotape and then had both Blofeld and Madeleine bring it up when he claimed he was “past that”.

    And that was (depending on the time gap between Venice and Mr White's villa) only a matter of days or weeks after Vesper's death, so not exactly ridiculous.
  • Posts: 1,858
    mtm wrote: »
    Fans really despise the thing they're fans of, don't they?

    It's complicated.
  • Posts: 1,073
    mtm wrote: »
    He literally says he is drawn back to the town, its casino and her grave. If you think it's unclear whether he'd visit the grave if it wasn't there, then it's equally unclear if he would visit the casino if it wasn't where Vesper's grave is.

    Isn't it hard work for you, always looking for things to contradict?


  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,308
    mtm wrote: »
    He literally says he is drawn back to the town, its casino and her grave. If you think it's unclear whether he'd visit the grave if it wasn't there, then it's equally unclear if he would visit the casino if it wasn't where Vesper's grave is.

    Isn't it hard work for you, always looking for things to contradict?


    Revelator was replying to me.
    If you can't discuss the subject at hand then please don't bother to reply.
  • edited February 2022 Posts: 2,914
    mtm wrote: »
    The significant point is that there's enough in the books to base the story of the films on.

    Not without lots of creative work by the screenwriters. The significant point is that Vesper simply didn't have as much of a heavy presence in the books as in the films. She gets two brief references and no significant story time in the post-CR novels, unlike the films.
    And a brief look at a videotape with a label with her name on it cannot be called "a significant presence" in a film no matter how you look at it!

    Her picture is also prominently displayed in the climax of the film and meant to remind the audience of her love affair with Bond and how it's tied into Blofeld being the author of all of Bond's pain. If she doesn't have a significant presence in Spectre, then she's certainly referenced twice and tied into the film's plot.
    He literally says he is drawn back to the town, its casino and her grave. If you think it's unclear whether he'd visit the grave if it wasn't there, then it's equally unclear if he would visit the casino if it wasn't where Vesper's grave is.

    Her grave comes last in the reasons Bond gives for returning to Royale-les-Eaux, where we see Bond at the casino rather than at her graveside. If Vesper hadn't been buried in the town, Bond would have probably still returned there because of his memories and the town and casino. Bond's reason for returning is rooted in nostalgia (likely prompted by the 10th anniversary of the series), rather than any need to get over unresolved feelings for Vesper.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited February 2022 Posts: 16,308
    Revelator wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    The significant point is that there's enough in the books to base the story of the films on.

    Not without lots of creative work by the screenwriters. The significant point is that Vesper simply didn't have as much of a heavy presence in the books as in the films. She gets two brief references and no significant story time in the post-CR novels, unlike the films.

    The significant point is there’s enough there in the books to base the story of the films on. The Craig films are not supposed to be a perfect representation of the novels, not least because most of the novels have already been made into films! They’re adaptations, with story points elaborated upon and built out. He drives an Aston Martin more in the films than he does in the books too.
    Doing lots of creative work is not a bad thing.
    Revelator wrote: »
    And a brief look at a videotape with a label with her name on it cannot be called "a significant presence" in a film no matter how you look at it!

    Her picture is also prominently displayed in the climax of the film and meant to remind the audience of her love affair with Bond and how it's tied into Blofeld being the author of all of Bond's pain. If she doesn't have a significant presence in Spectre, then she's certainly referenced twice and tied into the film's plot.

    Yes, that’s not a significant presence. It’s a mention as part of his story: it’s not only her hanging over the whole thing. It’s a label and a quick glimpse of a photo. Likewise in NTTD she’s a starting point for the rest of the story to spring from.
    Revelator wrote: »
    He literally says he is drawn back to the town, its casino and her grave. If you think it's unclear whether he'd visit the grave if it wasn't there, then it's equally unclear if he would visit the casino if it wasn't where Vesper's grave is.

    Her grave comes last in the reasons Bond gives for returning to Royale-les-Eaux, where we see Bond at the casino rather than at her graveside. If Vesper hadn't been buried in the town, Bond would have probably still returned there because of his memories and the town and casino. Bond's reason for returning is rooted in nostalgia (likely prompted by the 10th anniversary of the series), rather than any need to get over unresolved feelings for Vesper.

    Only if you think lists in dramatic writing are actually done in order of decreasing importance like a shopping list! :D Quite often the last item will be the most important, left until last in order to underline it and give it resonance. I’m not quite sure why he would place the casino as a site of greater personal importance to Bond than the grave of a woman he loved.
    If you’re saying it’s for no other reason than being ten years later then I think you’re giving Fleming far less credit as being a good writer than he deserves.

    I don’t honestly see the problem with Vesper having some emotional significance for Bond. It’s certainly not contrary to the books, much as you’re trying to play it down.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,171
    I think it’s pretty clear that Vesper means something to Fleming’s Bond, it’s just not something that concerns the post-CR stories too greatly. And aside from QOS, I don’t think it does for Craig either.
  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    Posts: 1,351
    So, for something else I was looking into the UK Company House database and it seems like there still is no company set up for the next film. "B26 Limited" and "Bond 26 Limited" exist but seem to have no connection to EON/Barbara Broccoli/Michael G. Wilson (or the film industry in general). So it could be that they chose a different name and all of this is pointless. The database is a bit opaque with multiple entries per person, but there doesn't seem to be anything new with BB, MGW and/or John Roebuck, Andrew Noakes etc. as Directors.

    Given that these accounting things usually happen well in advance of the "official" start of production (B25 for NTTD in May 2015, all of B22 through B24 in 2007!) and that from what I understand they use these companies basically for every expense, hire, contracting work, insurance, union paperwork etc. related to the film, there really seems to be nothing going on except for internal idea sharing and inofficial (meaning unpaid) talks (if that).
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited February 2022 Posts: 16,308
    So, for something else I was looking into the UK Company House database and it seems like there still is no company set up for the next film. "B26 Limited" and "Bond 26 Limited" exist but seem to have no connection to EON/Barbara Broccoli/Michael G. Wilson (or the film industry in general). So it could be that they chose a different name and all of this is pointless. The database is a bit opaque with multiple entries per person, but there doesn't seem to be anything new with BB, MGW and/or John Roebuck, Andrew Noakes etc. as Directors.

    Given that these accounting things usually happen well in advance of the "official" start of production (B25 for NTTD in May 2015, all of B22 through B24 in 2007!) and that from what I understand they use these companies basically for every expense, hire, contracting work, insurance, union paperwork etc. related to the film, there really seems to be nothing going on except for internal idea sharing and inofficial (meaning unpaid) talks (if that).

    Yes the name of the company seems a tricky one but if you look at Barbara Broccoli's appointments (and there are several different entries for her) there's still nothing likely to be B26, or even which has been set up since B25. As you say, usually they do this before the previous one has even released, so it makes me believe her when she says that they haven't started on the next film or casting the next guy yet. After all as you say, those are all billable jobs that you have to pay professional people to do, and they must set these companies up in order to put a budget against them, therefore they're not paying anyone to work on B26 yet. Anything internal would have to be pretty much just with the producers you'd imagine: even Purvis & Wade are freelance I'm sure.

    I guess maybe it's a combination of the MGM sale not being complete yet and probably they do want a break: after all NTTD's release dragged on for a year longer than planned.
  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    Posts: 1,351
    mtm wrote: »
    I guess maybe it's a combination of the MGM sale not being complete yet and probably they do want a break: after all NTTD's release dragged on for a year longer than planned.

    I personally think MGW will announce after the Oscars - which they seem to have set as the end of NTTD's lifecycle as the "current" Bond film - that he will take a step back from the day-to-day of the productions and they are either still working through how a new leadership looks and works or they don't want to leak that through a filing at company house where he doesn't appear as a Director of the company.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,308
    Yes that makes sense.
  • LucknFateLucknFate 007 In New York
    Posts: 1,636
    I liked the moment in QoS where Bond was at a bar quietly reflecting on Vesper to himself, when it was still raw, and then Mathis comes up and they talk about how Bond will one day learn to live with it. That scene felt like they would eventually move on from Vesper, and maybe they should have.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,641
    LucknFate wrote: »
    I liked the moment in QoS where Bond was at a bar quietly reflecting on Vesper to himself, when it was still raw, and then Mathis comes up and they talk about how Bond will one day learn to live with it. That scene felt like they would eventually move on from Vesper, and maybe they should have.

    That's a great scene, I love the way Arnold weaves the Vesper theme into the background. I always thought between this moment and Bond throwing the necklace at the end of QOS, it would be the end of the Vesper story
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 3,147
    Well, it was the end of it until he fell in love again many years later and it just happened to be with a woman who was connected to the man behind Vesper's death. That's bound to stir the silt in anyone's mindtank, man! ;)
  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T. and the M.G.'s
    Posts: 7,020
    At least for me, in NTTD, going back to the Vesper story felt repetitive. While it helped to justify Bond's lack of trust in Madeleine when told she had betrayed him, if the filmmakers were intent on separating those two characters, I wish they had done it in a different way.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited February 2022 Posts: 6,272
    I love the Vesper scene, but I agree that it doesn't need to be there. "Forgive her, forgive yourself, forgive me, spare the audience!" Enough Vesper already. In retrospect, that story should have ended with CR.

    It could have been Bond shopping for a wedding ring for Madeleine when chaos breaks out.
  • edited February 2022 Posts: 1,220
    I thought it was really well handled. For all intents and purposes the Vesper story was finished at the end of QoS, but it's obvious that the baggage would manifest itself again if he ever had to commit to a relationship, let alone one with the daughter of a crime lord. I thought there was just the right amount of Vesper references/influence in NTTD, any more wouldn't have been necessary, any less probably would not have done that aspect of Bond's emotional journey justice, which is important as it's the crux of the whole film.

    After my first viewing I felt as though Safin wasn't the primary villain of NTTD, he's Madeleine's villain almost as Medrano was to Camille. The actual antagonist is Bond himself and his inability to trust and let go of the past rather than falling into the same toxic cycle over and over again. Safin is just a manifestation of that, dressed up as a Dr. No-esque supervillain.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 3,147
    Superbly put, Battleship.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,194
    I’m not familiar with his work, any thoughts?

    https://screenrant.com/james-bond-movie-mark-gatiss-sherlock-interest/
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited February 2022 Posts: 5,970
    talos7 wrote: »
    I’m not familiar with his work, any thoughts?
    I only know his specific writing work from Doctor Who which isn't very popular from what I know. I'm not sure which episodes of Sherlock he's contributed to.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T. and the M.G.'s
    Posts: 7,020
    If they wanted a nod to Vesper, I think they could have done it through dialogue between Bond and Madeleine. Something she said could have prompted Bond to quietly remember Vesper, much like in TWINE, when Elektra asks Bond if he has ever lost a loved one. I feel that would have been enough.

    The filmmakers came up with a good scene in and of itself, but I find the whole idea of Bond needing to seek closure is treading old ground.

    After my first viewing I felt as though Safin wasn't the primary villain of NTTD, he's Madeleine's villain almost as Medrano was to Camille. The actual antagonist is Bond himself and his inability to trust and let go of the past rather than falling into the same toxic cycle over and over again. Safin is just a manifestation of that, dressed up as a Dr. No-esque supervillain.
    In fact, if I remember correctly, Fukunaga himself pointed out the villain of the film was deliberately de-emphasized in the film.
  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    Posts: 1,351
    Denbigh wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    I’m not familiar with his work, any thoughts?
    I only know his specific writing work from Doctor Who which isn't very popular from what I know. I'm not sure which episodes of Sherlock he's contributed to.

    Eh. It seems like he is more interested in using Bond to Trojan Horse his own projects into development. If it fits, that can be great, but it can also lead to some disconnect.
    From the little stuff of his I’ve seen, I think he is a very „clever“ writer and I don’t necessarily mean that positively. Easter eggs, twists and turns that put a bow on everything , that kind of stuff. Again, that can work, if done really well, but can also be kind of grating. I used to love Sherlock and now see it as a bit too gratuitous in the writing, if that makes sense. The writers think they are fantastically clever and really want to prove it to the viewer.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,308
    Denbigh wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    I’m not familiar with his work, any thoughts?
    I only know his specific writing work from Doctor Who which isn't very popular from what I know. I'm not sure which episodes of Sherlock he's contributed to.

    He was the co-creator so pretty much all of them to some extent, but he also generally wholly wrote one episode a series I think. Bond even gets a bit of a nod at one point when Mycroft (who works at MI6) hints that one of his colleagues prefers to use blunt instruments :)
    He's done plenty more besides and he is a good writer, I wouldn't be averse to it.

    It's not a surprise that he's a fan either:
  • mattjoes wrote: »
    If they wanted a nod to Vesper, I think they could have done it through dialogue between Bond and Madeleine. Something she said could have prompted Bond to quietly remember Vesper, much like in TWINE, when Elektra asks Bond if he has ever lost a loved one. I feel that would have been enough.

    The filmmakers came up with a good scene in and of itself, but I find the whole idea of Bond needing to seek closure is treading old ground.

    After my first viewing I felt as though Safin wasn't the primary villain of NTTD, he's Madeleine's villain almost as Medrano was to Camille. The actual antagonist is Bond himself and his inability to trust and let go of the past rather than falling into the same toxic cycle over and over again. Safin is just a manifestation of that, dressed up as a Dr. No-esque supervillain.
    In fact, if I remember correctly, Fukunaga himself pointed out the villain of the film was deliberately de-emphasized in the film.

    If that’s the case (which wouldn’t surprise me), I feel like they did the film a disservice by trying to hype up Safin as the ultimate villain. I get that the needed to capitalize on Rami’s rising star power, but it set the wrong expectations narratively.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    talos7 wrote: »
    I’m not familiar with his work, any thoughts?

    https://screenrant.com/james-bond-movie-mark-gatiss-sherlock-interest/

    No thanks! The writing for Dracula was abysmal. Give me Pervis and Wade over him and Moffatt any day.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,308
    Dracula was excellent. It’s just that the final episode was the weakest.
  • LucknFateLucknFate 007 In New York
    Posts: 1,636
    I'm really afraid to ever return to Sherlock. I liked it at the time, I remember waiting months for new seasons to come out and watching with my friends, roommate, and even my mom all separately. I wonder what I'd think of it now. As for him and Bond, I don't want a BBC-level production, is all I can think.
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    Posts: 690
    If EON were under different leadership and Amazon wasn't involved, I'd want Bond 26 to just take up the original floating timeline again by treating Bond as an ever-present character with no set beginning or ending. Basically, Bond 21 as opposed to Bond 26. However, seeing as how EON will most likely just continue making deconstructive satires of Bond movies, it's safer for them to just do another self-contained reboot that doesn't retroactively mess with the first 20 movies.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    @slide_99 ... If you saw NTTD, you'd see it wasn't a satire.

    Actually, none of the Craig films were "deconstructive satire"s.... Can you please define what that means and how it relates to this era?
Sign In or Register to comment.