Where does Bond go after Craig?

1111112114116117675

Comments

  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited February 2022 Posts: 3,147
    Agreed - no arc with a set beginning or end for NewBond, just a series of films that're set in a sort of permanent present.
  • Posts: 1,858
    Venutius wrote: »
    Agreed - no arc with a set beginning or end for NewBond, just a series of films that're set in a sort of permanent present.

    Though this would be fine with me, my gut tells me that audiences today want serialized stories over several films when they are following a continuing character.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited February 2022 Posts: 3,147
    Yeah, I think you're right. And EON always have their eye on prevailing movie trends, so that's the way they'll go, I reckon.
  • Posts: 1,629
    They still can have an arc, in terms of plot, characters, storyline, etc., without having a deeply intensive, brooding, psychologically and/or emotionally damaged Bond...though I expect there would be SOMETHING about such an arc in terms of Bond himself, going beyond the story arc. They just DID it, so...do it again ? Entertainment-wise, it seems not. When it comes to actors like Hardy (whom I mention only because others have), Fassbender (who showed in Inglourious Basterds, in a very tense scene, how well he could play in a Bond film), won't they want something to chew on ? Perhaps not, or perhaps not to the depth and breadth I first would have thought. Hardy has done Venom films - which have some psychologically interesting aspects but is mostly light, fantastic entertainment, and the same for Fassbender in X-Men films. I think an arc can be done without going into a deep pysch./emo. path. Just some. I supposed I sound like the emperor in Mozart criticizing a composition for having "too many notes" but I think it is time for a change in tone, and either you change the tone to brighter and more entertainment-focused, or you - to not merely repeat the past 5 films - go into a REALLY damaged psychotic killer character. Given the choice - I say Tone ! But, yeah, an arc can be done even in that style.
  • Posts: 1,629
    By the way, Venutius, I am not disagreeing. Just expounding and exploring.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited February 2022 Posts: 3,147
    No worries, I see just what you mean. Craig's left the series in a really good place, where an actor can get stuck into the character and the drama and have a ball with it, so I'm sure there's a whole range of different kinds of actors who'd be interested and plenty of options open to EON regarding how they want to play it. Obviously, it's too soon to gauge which way they'll go and they'll probably make further adjustments along the way, anyway - deciding which elements to emphasise depending on the actor they choose and the response to the first film, etc. It's going to be an intriguing next few years.
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    Posts: 690
    peter wrote: »
    @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?

    I mean that Craig's last 3 movies were meta commentaries on the creation of Bond movies rather than canonical Bond movies. Not a popular opinion, but it's mine.
  • Posts: 2,161
    It may resonate more than you think.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,592
    I think Sean Connery would have done more Bond if Broccoli and Saltzman gave him more creative control. I also think that if they both would have left the series, Connery would have returned if asked. Look at Never Say Never Again or the From Russia With Love video game. EON gave Daniel Craig too much creative control, with a mixed bag. He chose Marc Forster and Sam Mendes as directors, for starters. Pierce Brosnan in particular didn’t get enough creative say. That’s one of the biggest missed opportunities for EON. For the next Bond EON, don’t bow down too everything that they want (RM, DC), but give them a decent say in direction (SC, PB).
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited February 2022 Posts: 16,309
    slide_99 wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    @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?

    I mean that Craig's last 3 movies were meta commentaries on the creation of Bond movies rather than canonical Bond movies. Not a popular opinion, but it's mine.

    Blofeld is Michael Wilson?
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,592
    mtm wrote: »
    slide_99 wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    @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?

    I mean that Craig's last 3 movies were meta commentaries on the creation of Bond movies rather than canonical Bond movies. Not a popular opinion, but it's mine.

    Blofeld is Michael Wilson?

    Apparently, it was his idea to make him and Bond stepbrothers.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    slide_99 wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    @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?

    I mean that Craig's last 3 movies were meta commentaries on the creation of Bond movies rather than canonical Bond movies. Not a popular opinion, but it's mine.

    From deconstructive satires to meta commentaries? Which is it?

    In the end, the era is done. Take some solace in that. Plus, lumping a film you didn't even see with the others and you're a bit of a cheat aren't you? I mean, when one goes full on, sulking and complaining about Craig and his films, shouldn't you see the entire collection to be a real expert in your dislike of this era?

    In the end, I feel your pain, but at least I saw all of the Brosnan films, 😂
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited February 2022 Posts: 16,309
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    slide_99 wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    @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?

    I mean that Craig's last 3 movies were meta commentaries on the creation of Bond movies rather than canonical Bond movies. Not a popular opinion, but it's mine.

    Blofeld is Michael Wilson?

    Apparently, it was his idea to make him and Bond stepbrothers.

    Right...? It was John Barry's idea to put a slide whistle in TMWTGG, what does that make him? Rosa Klebb? :))
    peter wrote: »
    slide_99 wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    @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?

    I mean that Craig's last 3 movies were meta commentaries on the creation of Bond movies rather than canonical Bond movies. Not a popular opinion, but it's mine.

    From deconstructive satires to meta commentaries? Which is it?

    Yes it doesn't really make sense, does it.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 3,147
    Yeah, I reviled and belittled Purvis and Wade for years over Brofeld - then someone told me it was actually MGW's idea! :)) Guess no one dared say no. Or 'Goldmember'...
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,309
    Venutius wrote: »
    Yeah, I reviled and belittled Purvis and Wade for years over Brofeld - then someone told me it was actually MGW's idea! :)) Guess no one dared say no. Or 'Goldmember'...

    I honestly can see how it makes sense. They took the basis of the story from Fleming: his Octopussy has Bond going after the murderer of his childhood mentor Oberhauser, and then they decided to combine that with bringing back Blofeld. So they made Blofeld Oberhauser's son who commited patricide... I mean, as a story it makes sense.
    But what they didn't seem to do is take a step back and realise they'd just made James Bond and Blofeld foster brothers. And that somehow these two kids had somehow both grown up to be players in the world of international spies. Even in a Bond film it's a bit tough to swallow that sort of thing (but then again I guess Fleming does have Bond and Blofeld just bump into each other by sheer chance in Japan!). But I can totally see how, on one level, it's a story which added up.
  • LucknFateLucknFate 007 In New York
    edited February 2022 Posts: 1,636
    mtm wrote: »
    Venutius wrote: »
    Yeah, I reviled and belittled Purvis and Wade for years over Brofeld - then someone told me it was actually MGW's idea! :)) Guess no one dared say no. Or 'Goldmember'...

    I honestly can see how it makes sense. They took the basis of the story from Fleming: his Octopussy has Bond going after the murderer of his childhood mentor Oberhauser, and then they decided to combine that with bringing back Blofeld. So they made Blofeld Oberhauser's son who commited patricide... I mean, as a story it makes sense.
    But what they didn't seem to do is take a step back and realise they'd just made James Bond and Blofeld foster brothers. And that somehow these two kids had somehow both grown up to be players in the world of international spies. Even in a Bond film it's a bit tough to swallow that sort of thing (but then again I guess Fleming does have Bond and Blofeld just bump into each other by sheer chance in Japan!). But I can totally see how, on one level, it's a story which added up.

    I have viewed Skyfall and Spectre in the same light as George Lucas' prequel trilogy since they came out. Pandering, breaks the logic established in the canon, and lazy plots full of holes with bits of retreaded familiar Bond beats mangled into a very pretty, loud soap opera. If it was MGW's idea for Spectre's Blofeld plot, maybe he has the same depleted story well as George Lucas.
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    edited February 2022 Posts: 690
    peter wrote: »
    slide_99 wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    @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?

    I mean that Craig's last 3 movies were meta commentaries on the creation of Bond movies rather than canonical Bond movies. Not a popular opinion, but it's mine.

    From deconstructive satires to meta commentaries? Which is it?

    In the end, the era is done. Take some solace in that. Plus, lumping a film you didn't even see with the others and you're a bit of a cheat aren't you? I mean, when one goes full on, sulking and complaining about Craig and his films, shouldn't you see the entire collection to be a real expert in your dislike of this era?

    In the end, I feel your pain, but at least I saw all of the Brosnan films, 😂

    I'm saying that because the producers were so obsessed with continually deconstructing Craig's Bond- by asking questions about his legitimacy, being irrelevant in the modern world, questioning his masculinity and purpose, etc- that the movies became satires unintentionally. Every one of Craig's entries was about him having to get over some personal issue to really "become" Bond at the end, only for the next movie to knock him back to square one and have him repeat the process over again, meaning it feels like he never actually got the chance to just be James Bond, but was always the guy becoming James Bond. It became farcical. I don't mean in a funny sense, but it felt like that the producers had such a big hit with CR's origin story that they did it 5 times in a row even though it didn't make sense.

    I'm not saying that they set out to do this, I'm saying they had no clear idea of what to do with Craig's Bond after CR, and it just turned out this way. It was a combination of different things coming together- neurosis over Bond being seen as too old-fashioned by sensitive modern audiences, worrying too much about what other franchises are doing, letting Craig have too much creative control, and maybe some unwarranted embarrassment over previous Bond eras and going too hard in the other direction. An odd combination of disdain for past Bonds and reverence for them.

    Ultimately I just think they made a ton of bad decisions and the fact that all of Craig's movies had a strict continuity only made it worse, because then you couldn't really ignore the retcons each new movie made.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,309
    The Brosnan films were the ones that questioned his place on the modern world, the Craig films didn’t really go there. It was part of Skyfall, but only a small part. And C obviously tried to make out that his time was done, but we knew he was a baddie from the start.
  • edited February 2022 Posts: 1,220
    This could be largely subjective but I see the Craig series as an interpretation that takes the general character/arc of Fleming’s novels (with some liberties and modernization obviously) and fuses it with the cinematic iconography of the EON Productions franchise to create the definitive “Legend” of Bond. There are elements of satire and meta-commentary for sure. Spectre and Skyfall, respectively, are pretty prime examples of both of those elements but I don’t think the 5 films as are completely one thing or the other.

    The Craig films are pretty monumental in the sense that they can effectively serve as an entry point into both the cinematic and literary worlds of Bond. The latter is quite the achievement because the team managed to do the one thing Fleming didn’t get a chance to, which is actually construct an ending to his story. Regardless of how we feel about them now, we’ll be looking back on the past 5 films as some of the most important in the history of Bond.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    edited February 2022 Posts: 9,509
    The Brosnan films were the ones that questioned his place on the modern world, the Craig films didn’t really go there. It was part of Skyfall, but only a small part. And C obviously tried to make out that his time was done, but we knew he was a baddie from the start.

    Absolutely…. Thank you.

    The Craig films are pretty monumental in the sense that they can effectively serve as an entry point into both the cinematic and literary worlds of Bond. The latter is quite the achievement because the team managed to do the one thing Fleming didn’t get a chance to, which is actually construct an ending to his story. Regardless of how we feel about them now, we’ll be looking back on the past 5 films as some of the most important in the history of Bond.

    Beautifully said. Thank you.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,970
    Some great words there @battleshipgreygt :)
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    edited February 2022 Posts: 690
    mtm wrote: »
    The Brosnan films were the ones that questioned his place on the modern world, the Craig films didn’t really go there. It was part of Skyfall, but only a small part. And C obviously tried to make out that his time was done, but we knew he was a baddie from the start.

    Only GE and DAD did, and only in one brief scene in each, both involving M. Neither movie was molded around questioning Bond's place the way the last 3 Craig movies were. The best way to justify Bond's character is to simply make good Bond movies. If you keep raising the question of Bond's relevancy pretty soon audiences are going to start to think he's irrelevant because the produces keep bringing it up. But ultimately that's not my main beef with the Craigverse, the overall storytelling is.
  • Posts: 1,073
    Some great posts, yes. And I also think Slide_99 has some very well considered views on the series, which I think others are a bit too eager to scoff at.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited February 2022 Posts: 5,970
    Some great posts, yes. And I also think Slide_99 has some very well considered views on the series, which I think others are a bit too eager to scoff at.
    As someone who thinks, despite some bumps in the road which aren't really that severe considering other problems films and franchises have faced, that the Craig-era is very accomplished and enjoyable, I find it hard to fully be on board with the more negative takes on the era as a whole.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    slide_99 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    The Brosnan films were the ones that questioned his place on the modern world, the Craig films didn’t really go there. It was part of Skyfall, but only a small part. And C obviously tried to make out that his time was done, but we knew he was a baddie from the start.

    Only GE and DAD did, and only in one brief scene in each, both involving M. Neither movie was molded around questioning Bond's place the way the last 3 Craig movies were. The best way to justify Bond's character is to simply make good Bond movies. If you keep raising the question of Bond's relevancy pretty soon audiences are going to start to think he's irrelevant because the produces keep bringing it up. But ultimately that's not my main beef with the Craigverse, the overall storytelling is.

    @slide_99 … you didn’t watch the last film of the era- I can’t even take what you say seriously. Why don’t you just enjoy the previous 20 films and forget Craig? Forget it! It was a success with most Bond fans and was a hit with general audiences. But not to you— fine. But this is a series and more films with other actors are on the way.
    So leave it. Never watch another Craig film. Pick up with the next guy. Move on. All your pissing and moaning won’t change the fact that Bond died in NTTD. So, better to move on, enjoy the other films and hope that the next guy, and his journey, is more to your liking.
    How old are you?
  • Posts: 1,073
    Denbigh wrote: »
    As someone who thinks, despite some bumps in the road which aren't really that severe considering other problems films and franchises have faced, that the Craig-era is very accomplished and enjoyable, I find it hard to fully be on board with the more negative takes on the era as a whole.

    Yes, I understand that. But Slide_99 has at least offered up a reasoned argument, and still continues to do so, despite the majority here trying to tear him apart.
    He's so obviously not a troll, yet I think he gets treated like one. I think that's a shame.

  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,757
    What is a troll.

  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited February 2022 Posts: 5,970
    Denbigh wrote: »
    As someone who thinks, despite some bumps in the road which aren't really that severe considering other problems films and franchises have faced, that the Craig-era is very accomplished and enjoyable, I find it hard to fully be on board with the more negative takes on the era as a whole.
    He's so obviously not a troll, yet I think he gets treated like one. I think that's a shame.
    I don't think anyone would call them a troll, they obviously care a lot, but I'm sure you can also understand why others struggle with the opinion when the person is yet to actually see the piece of media they are tearing into. I wouldn't say thats particularly reasoned. It can feel like someones disliking something because they told themselves they wouldn't rather than because they actually experienced it. I'm not saying the opinion would change, I just think others would consider it to be more reasoned if they'd experienced it as we all have.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    @Denbigh speaks a very simple truth.

    It’s difficult to take someone seriously when they haven’t seen the thing they are ripping into.

    Seeing NTTD may never change @slide_99 and their opinion: but at least they can continue criticism based off of observations. Their criticisms thus far are based on what? Wikipedia and the angry babies on Mi6? Watch the film and discuss like an adult.
  • edited February 2022 Posts: 2,914
    The Craig films are pretty monumental in the sense that they can effectively serve as an entry point into both the cinematic and literary worlds of Bond.

    I think the best entry point into both the cinematic and literary worlds of Bond is still the first three Bond films. I grant that modern viewers who dislike watching old movies are better off with the Craig Bonds, but even those still take their cues from the founding trio of Bond films, which were also faithful to Fleming.
    The latter is quite the achievement because the team managed to do the one thing Fleming didn’t get a chance to, which is actually construct an ending to his story.

    I don't think Fleming ultimately wanted to do that. He flirted with ending Bond in FRWL, threatened to kill him off on several more occasions but desisted, and then stated repeatedly that TMWTGG would be the final Bond novel. He lived long enough to revise parts of the book, including the final paragraph--and that intentionally left the series open-ended.
    Regardless of how we feel about them now, we’ll be looking back on the past 5 films as some of the most important in the history of Bond.

    Isn't every era of Bond important though? One can say that the Craig era stands out because the series enjoyed greater-than-ever critical and popular success during it.
Sign In or Register to comment.