Where does Bond go after Craig?

1394395397399400679

Comments

  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,641
    @peter cheers mate. Hopefully things progress and then Bond 26 can get on track
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited October 2023 Posts: 3,787
    JustJames wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    JustJames wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    Denise Richards was convincing as a Nuclear Physicist, as Barbara Bach was, as a (Russian) Human Being or Tanya Roberts as a Government Geologist.
    CrabKey wrote: »
    Not for a second did I buy DR in the role. For me it comes down to this. Of all the actresses known and those unknown, she was the best choice? Even if every known actress wanted was unavailable, she was still the best?

    Yes, there are a lot of actresses that could've pull the Scientist aspect off, but again, if that's how the role was written, even if you put Oscar Winning Actresses in there, there's no way it could've still worked.

    That Lara Croft outfit was even written in the script (described as "Khaki Sports Bra", similar shorts and heavy boots, in the script), she's also meant to be a French Polynesian, and described as a girl in her mid twenties, shortish hair and "hot right now", like really, there's no other way that character could've worked it would still turned out over the top as it is, Denise Richards just added a lot more insult to the injury, she just made the situation worse.

    Here's the full script, regarding Christmas Jones' description

    fyrlx0hir3561.png



    It works with Lara Croft.

    It was the nineties. We had accepted that being ‘hot’ was not anti-ethical to also being ‘smart’ and it that it was a choice. Kind of a sixties rerun thing, like much at the tail end of that decade.
    I ain’t big on Christmas Jones, or on Denise Richards, but it was of its time and no more inherently ridiculous or sexist than Bond getting out of the sea in his speedos.
    Bond himself is always sexualised, and that is something that increases as the franchise goes on — it is a mistake to stop also sexualising the ‘Bond Girl’, and the real sexism is in the opinion that characters like Jones are unrealistic, particularly in the context of a Bond movie.

    You need to sexy to balance out the violence, otherwise you may as well just go and watch whatever Hollywood Blockbuster is doing the rounds. Bond is British, and a particular kind of European even. Always has been, on page and screen, with screen being more balance tbh.

    Bond being sexualized is accepted, since it's like a Red Sparrow type of thing, it involves Sexpionage, using sex for intelligence, that's alright, and the Bond films being sexualized is a fine thing for that.

    But Christmas Jones as a character is just silly and ridiculous, it's already there in the script that she's made that way, it's just pure cartoonish, almost Austin Powers territory type of camp, she's just there because???? I know her purpose regarding the plot, but her description was simply out of place, sure it's not being sexy (there are sexy professionals, just like Miss Universe candidates that were also professionals), but the way she's written like she's explicitly being sexy of wearing such an outfit that's not fitting for a workplace, that's just wrong.

    It makes Stacey Sutton more plausible as a State Geologist, because at least her outfits and the way she acted throughout the film really fits with what she was as a character, a Geologist, so, I don't expect her to be a fighter, so I don't get the criticisms regarding her shouting because she's a Geologist and she's a civilian, and there's Holly Goodhead, and she's also convincing as an Astrophysicist and a CIA Agent, and yet those women are beautiful and sexy too.

    It's one of the same reasons why I don't buy Anya Amasova as a tough KGB agent, one of the best Agents that Russia could offer, when in reality, she doesn't do anything, and I don't even for a second buy her killing just a mosquito, let alone punch a bad guy, she's more of a Domino type of Bond Girl to me, Barbara Bach just happened to made the situation more worse because she gave a bad performance, wooden acting.

    As for Denise Richards, well the description was a Scientist, and she played it like a sassy schoolgirl more than a Professional one, but is it her fault? No, she's just cast in such a badly written role.

    She starts out in a hazmat suit, no?
    I think deciding what outfit suits a workplace has always been… difficult, and very subjective.

    But literally wearing a sexy outfit in the middle of a Nuclear Testing Base, with a sports bra and mini shorts? That's not an appropriate thing to wear in such an event.

    And for all of that, she's just dragged along by Bond, she's actually not necessary after the detonation of the bomb in the Pipeline, I think it would've been better had her role ended after that detonation scene, she had no use in the Submarine climax either, she just became another damsel in distress, by the climax, her role just worked as an obligatory Bond Girl, more than the one whose essential to the plot.
    Richards was not smart enough. Zeta Jones o Jolie were better options.

    It's like Sam Jones as Flash Gordon. He is not Christopher Reeve and you need someone like Reeve.

    Well, like what I've said, it's more in the script, that's actually Christmas Jones, she's written that way, Denise Richards just did what's written in the script.

    It's like Jinx, no matter whom you cast, it would still be the same as what we've got, and Halle Berry won an Oscar at that time.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,970
    It is a shame because I feel if the character was taken more seriously in the writing process, we could have had a really interesting Bond girl in the vein of Natalya Simonova, and should of been more of that type of Bond girl as opposed to the one we got.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    TWINE was almost 25 years ago... I don't think we have to worry about Christmas Jones and what she wore in that film,anymore...
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,173
    TWINE has bigger problems than Denise. In fact, I rather like her in the film. She brings a bit of energy the film is sorely lacking otherwise. I regret that she is often mistaken for the character she plays. I'd say she did very well performing what was on the page for her.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited October 2023 Posts: 5,970
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    TWINE has bigger problems than Denise.
    One of my biggest issues with TWINE is the cinematography, which I think applies to all of Brosnan's films, but this leads me onto a more discussion appropriate idea that, while he's really busy and probably won't be free, I'd love to see Greig Fraser (Dune, The Batman, Rogue One) do the cinematography for Bond 26.

    http://greigfraser.com/work/
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,173
    Denbigh wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    TWINE has bigger problems than Denise.
    One of my biggest issues with TWINE is the cinematography, which I think applies to all of Brosnan's films, but this leads me onto a more discussion appropriate idea that, while he's really busy and probably won't be free, I'd love to see Greig Fraser (Dune, The Batman, Rogue One) do the cinematography for Bond 26.

    001.png
    Main_Page-3-6-scaled.jpg
    ROGUE001-scaled.jpg

    I applaud your suggestion. Fraser could bring an interesting look to a Bond film.
  • Posts: 561
    Denbigh wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    TWINE has bigger problems than Denise.
    One of my biggest issues with TWINE is the cinematography, which I think applies to all of Brosnan's films, but this leads me onto a more discussion appropriate idea that, while he's really busy and probably won't be free, I'd love to see Greig Fraser (Dune, The Batman, Rogue One) do the cinematography for Bond 26.

    http://greigfraser.com/work/

    I like Fraser's work on "Mary Magdalene", but I don't know — his style is so ubiquitous in big, brand-name movies these days it would feel too safe and conformist.
  • Posts: 1,859
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    JustJames wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    Denise Richards was convincing as a Nuclear Physicist, as Barbara Bach was, as a (Russian) Human Being or Tanya Roberts as a Government Geologist.
    CrabKey wrote: »
    Not for a second did I buy DR in the role. For me it comes down to this. Of all the actresses known and those unknown, she was the best choice? Even if every known actress wanted was unavailable, she was still the best?

    Yes, there are a lot of actresses that could've pull the Scientist aspect off, but again, if that's how the role was written, even if you put Oscar Winning Actresses in there, there's no way it could've still worked.

    That Lara Croft outfit was even written in the script (described as "Khaki Sports Bra", similar shorts and heavy boots, in the script), she's also meant to be a French Polynesian, and described as a girl in her mid twenties, shortish hair and "hot right now", like really, there's no other way that character could've worked it would still turned out over the top as it is, Denise Richards just added a lot more insult to the injury, she just made the situation worse.

    Here's the full script, regarding Christmas Jones' description

    fyrlx0hir3561.png



    It works with Lara Croft.

    It was the nineties. We had accepted that being ‘hot’ was not anti-ethical to also being ‘smart’ and it that it was a choice. Kind of a sixties rerun thing, like much at the tail end of that decade.
    I ain’t big on Christmas Jones, or on Denise Richards, but it was of its time and no more inherently ridiculous or sexist than Bond getting out of the sea in his speedos.
    Bond himself is always sexualised, and that is something that increases as the franchise goes on — it is a mistake to stop also sexualising the ‘Bond Girl’, and the real sexism is in the opinion that characters like Jones are unrealistic, particularly in the context of a Bond movie.

    You need to sexy to balance out the violence, otherwise you may as well just go and watch whatever Hollywood Blockbuster is doing the rounds. Bond is British, and a particular kind of European even. Always has been, on page and screen, with screen being more balance tbh.

    Bond being sexualized is accepted, since it's like a Red Sparrow type of thing, it involves Sexpionage, using sex for intelligence, that's alright, and the Bond films being sexualized is a fine thing for that.

    But Christmas Jones as a character is just silly and ridiculous, it's already there in the script that she's made that way, it's just pure cartoonish, almost Austin Powers territory type of camp, she's just there because???? I know her purpose regarding the plot, but her description was simply out of place, sure it's not being sexy (there are sexy professionals, just like Miss Universe candidates that were also professionals), but the way she's written like she's explicitly being sexy of wearing such an outfit that's not fitting for a workplace, that's just wrong.

    It makes Stacey Sutton more plausible as a State Geologist, because at least her outfits and the way she acted throughout the film really fits with what she was as a character, a Geologist, so, I don't expect her to be a fighter, so I don't get the criticisms regarding her shouting because she's a Geologist and she's a civilian, and there's Holly Goodhead, and she's also convincing as an Astrophysicist and a CIA Agent, and yet those women are beautiful and sexy too.

    It's one of the same reasons why I don't buy Anya Amasova as a tough KGB agent, one of the best Agents that Russia could offer, when in reality, she doesn't do anything, and I don't even for a second buy her killing just a mosquito, let alone punch a bad guy, she's more of a Domino type of Bond Girl to me, Barbara Bach just happened to made the situation more worse because she gave a bad performance, wooden acting.

    As for Denise Richards, well the description was a Scientist, and she played it like a sassy schoolgirl more than a Professional one, but is it her fault? No, she's just cast in such a badly written role.

    "Punch a bad guy"??? When did that become a woman's weapon of choice. Somebody has been watching too many marvel films. You do know why "the female of the species IS deadlier than the male"?
  • Posts: 1,979
    Perhaps Bond 26 can be an ordinary bloke who's not especially attractive, a little overweight and definitely doesn't turn the heads of attractive women when he walks into a room. He doesn't try to have it on with anyone because he knows women aren't interested. We won't have to second guess sex scenes because there will be no need for them.

    Of course no one is asking for that kind of Bond. But for me the enjoyment of Bond has always been the sex, the glamor, and the action. I reject the notion that earlier Bond's were creepy predators. Sleeping with Bond has always spoken to his sexual appeal. He's a sexually attractive man which is why attractive women desire him, even when implausibly a lesbian switches teams or a Tarot card reading virgin succumbs. I don't regard any of that as real life. I never have. Nor do I read into those scenes more than is presented, so that I am thinking Bond shouldn't have slept with her because of her background and circumstances that make her vulnerable. It's fiction. It's fantasy.

    One of my favorite scenes in NTTD is the often cited Paloma sequence. Perhaps in an earlier film Paloma and Bond would have slept together. But this is now and things change. What didn't change is casting Paloma with a beautiful actress wearing a revealing dress. Did she have to be that attractive? Could she have looked like and dressed like the woman in the oil pipeline office in TLD? Without Bond having it on with Paloma, isn't Paloma still somewhat objectified? To be clear, I wouldn't have wanted the scene any other way.

    I've seen plenty of films where nudity and sex seem to serve no purpose other than to quality for a rating. With the Bond films (more so than in the novels), sex is part of the Bond DNA. Hopefully that won't change.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    Has there been any indication(s) that James Bond would be anything other than a man who enjoys the intimate company of a woman?

    I’m not sure why this keeps coming up as if it’s some sort of existential crisis for the character.

    I don’t see this part of the character being exorcised any time soon (even in QoS he slept with Fields).
  • Posts: 1,859
    CrabKey wrote: »
    Perhaps Bond 26 can be an ordinary bloke who's not especially attractive, a little overweight and definitely doesn't turn the heads of attractive women when he walks into a room. He doesn't try to have it on with anyone because he knows women aren't interested. We won't have to second guess sex scenes because there will be no need for them.

    Of course no one is asking for that kind of Bond. But for me the enjoyment of Bond has always been the sex, the glamor, and the action. I reject the notion that earlier Bond's were creepy predators. Sleeping with Bond has always spoken to his sexual appeal. He's a sexually attractive man which is why attractive women desire him, even when implausibly a lesbian switches teams or a Tarot card reading virgin succumbs. I don't regard any of that as real life. I never have. Nor do I read into those scenes more than is presented, so that I am thinking Bond shouldn't have slept with her because of her background and circumstances that make her vulnerable. It's fiction. It's fantasy.

    One of my favorite scenes in NTTD is the often cited Paloma sequence. Perhaps in an earlier film Paloma and Bond would have slept together. But this is now and things change. What didn't change is casting Paloma with a beautiful actress wearing a revealing dress. Did she have to be that attractive? Could she have looked like and dressed like the woman in the oil pipeline office in TLD? Without Bond having it on with Paloma, isn't Paloma still somewhat objectified? To be clear, I wouldn't have wanted the scene any other way.

    I've seen plenty of films where nudity and sex seem to serve no purpose other than to quality for a rating. With the Bond films (more so than in the novels), sex is part of the Bond DNA. Hopefully that won't change.

    Also, to me, it's plain as day, that when Paloma tells Bond to stay longer next time, sleeping together is definitely in the cards.
  • Posts: 1,979
    peter wrote: »
    Has there been any indication(s) that James Bond would be anything other than a man who enjoys the intimate company of a woman?

    I’m not sure why this keeps coming up as if it’s some sort of existential crisis for the character.

    I don’t see this part of the character being exorcised any time soon (even in QoS he slept with Fields).

    Why does anything come up on this site? Opinions and discussions, that's all. Hasn't everything been discussed ad infinitum? I'm sure we all get a bit perturbed by things that keep coming up that we feel have run their course.


  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited October 2023 Posts: 3,152
    CrabKey wrote: »
    What didn't change is casting Paloma with a beautiful actress wearing a revealing dress. Did she have to be that attractive? Could she have looked like and dressed like the woman in the oil pipeline office in TLD?
    Tbf, Paloma's dressed like that because she's about to infiltrate a Spectre bunga-bunga party. Got to blend in and all that. Did she have to be that attractive? Oh, was she vaguely good-looking? I didn't notice, mate...cough...
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    CrabKey wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    Has there been any indication(s) that James Bond would be anything other than a man who enjoys the intimate company of a woman?

    I’m not sure why this keeps coming up as if it’s some sort of existential crisis for the character.

    I don’t see this part of the character being exorcised any time soon (even in QoS he slept with Fields).

    Why does anything come up on this site? Opinions and discussions, that's all. Hasn't everything been discussed ad infinitum? I'm sure we all get a bit perturbed by things that keep coming up that we feel have run their course.


    I’m not perturbed @CrabKey — I was genuinely asking since it seems some are concerned about this.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,395
    peter wrote: »
    CrabKey wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    Has there been any indication(s) that James Bond would be anything other than a man who enjoys the intimate company of a woman?

    I’m not sure why this keeps coming up as if it’s some sort of existential crisis for the character.

    I don’t see this part of the character being exorcised any time soon (even in QoS he slept with Fields).

    Why does anything come up on this site? Opinions and discussions, that's all. Hasn't everything been discussed ad infinitum? I'm sure we all get a bit perturbed by things that keep coming up that we feel have run their course.


    I’m not perturbed @CrabKey — I was genuinely asking since it seems some are concerned about this.

    I think because the original poster of this topic was talking excitedly about the lack of frivolous sexual interactions in Bond 25 and how "nobody noticed" as some kind of example for how Bond might change in the future.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    The world can change around Bond, but there are archetypes of his that will stay the same.

    In NTTD, he's only single for a brief part of the film before he gets back with Madeleine, and during this short period of time, he was fully playing his role as a man who very likely wanted to sleep with Nomi (and gives the audience an indication that his house was very much a bachelor pad over the course of five years), and possibly Paloma as well (although I think he was more taking the Mickey out of her (no different than Moore-Bond and Bibi, but definitely cooler in NTTD)).

    There is no indication that Bond won't remain an attractive figure to women (and men), as the series moves forward.

    He certainly won't be a puritan, but he also won't be dangling a woman's job over her head if she doesn't have a shag with him in a steam room, nor will he be using his super-sex powers to "turn" a lesbian straight, and he certainly won't be tricking young women into submitting their virginity to him....
  • Jordo007 wrote: »
    @peter cheers mate. Hopefully things progress and then Bond 26 can get on track

    They don't need to wait for the end of the SAG strike. The WGA strike has been over for a month. They can hire a writer, develop the script, talk to directors and hire a director. And hopefully they started all that a month ago.
  • Posts: 1,979
    As nobody apparently knows anything, speculation is bound to be rife. I am intrigued by the notion that BB says they haven't started to think about Bond 26 yet. Then she goes on to say rethinking Bond always happens when a new actor is brought in. So, nothing new or unusual here. So why the wait? Arguably one might speculate the old guard has run out ideas and perhaps a new generation needs to take over.

  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T. and the M.G.'s
    Posts: 7,021
    I speculate this thread has run out ideas. I read it out of habit, but don't get much out of it. I really should kick the habit. While I'm preparing to go into thread rehab, here's an idea:

    I'd like Bond 26 to be a remake of Thunderball. And at the end, it should say "in memory of Kevin McClory (1924-2006)". I promise I would keep laughing until the release of Bond 27.

    That long? Yes, that long. A decade at least!
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited October 2023 Posts: 6,288
    I don't mind seeing Bond getting laid, although watching some of the Moore films now, I do find myself finding it occasionally a tad creepy. Connery had his moments too.

    I prefer Dalton's totally implausible escapade on the boat with a woman after falling from the jeep off Gibraltar. It's still cheesy, but less sleazy.

    It's funny. Her long-sought "real man" literally falls from the sky.
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    We need a development on Bond 26 desperately

    Unfortunately, Christmas only comes once a year.
  • Posts: 1,979
    echo wrote: »
    I don't mind seeing Bond getting laid, although watching some of the Moore films now, I do find myself finding it occasionally a tad creepy. Connery had his moments too.

    When you saw those scenes originally, were they creepy then? What has changed that you think of them as creepy now?
    mattjoes wrote: »
    I speculate this thread has run out ideas.

    I would say that's true of almost every thread on this site. Thunderball III? Why not? Batman has been telling the same story for decades.
  • George_KaplanGeorge_Kaplan Being chauffeured by Tibbett
    edited October 2023 Posts: 680
    mattjoes wrote: »
    I speculate this thread has run out ideas.

    I think you're right, but I suspect we'll still somehow get at least another hundred pages before any real news comes out.
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,134
    mattjoes wrote: »
    I speculate this thread has run out ideas.

    I think you're right, but I suspect we'll still somehow get at least another hundred pages before any real news comes out.

    To some members that's a challenge they will accept!

    I think EON and Amazon should make a Carry On style Bond film, a comedy with all the usual Carry On type inuendo.
    Bring back Lazenby, Dalton, Brosnan and Craig all to play James Bond.
  • Posts: 7,415
    Benny wrote: »
    mattjoes wrote: »
    I speculate this thread has run out ideas.

    I think you're right, but I suspect we'll still somehow get at least another hundred pages before any real news comes out.

    To some members that's a challenge they will accept!

    I think EON and Amazon should make a Carry On style Bond film, a comedy with all the usual Carry On type inuendo.
    Bring back Lazenby, Dalton, Brosnan and Craig all to play James Bond.

    Dont you mean another CR'67? If its to have multiple Bonds? 🤣
  • Posts: 7,415
    Benny wrote: »
    mattjoes wrote: »
    I speculate this thread has run out ideas.

    I think you're right, but I suspect we'll still somehow get at least another hundred pages before any real news comes out.

    To some members that's a challenge they will accept!

    I think EON and Amazon should make a Carry On style Bond film, a comedy with all the usual Carry On type inuendo.
    Bring back Lazenby, Dalton, Brosnan and Craig all to play James Bond.

    Dont you mean another CR'67? If its to have multiple Bonds? 🤣
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    Supposedly studios are in the homestretch with SAG.

    Once this is done, studios, like Amazon/MGM, can get back to work with their partners, like EoN ( @Colonel_Venus), to develop and greenlight scripts, get casting underway, and start pulling the industry out of the literal darkness of the past six months!
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,395
    The way Babs is talking about it the franchise is in hibernation anyway, I'm not sure how much of a difference the strikes will make. EON were in no hurry on the previous films, they're certainly not going to hurry into starting the next era with a new actor. We won't see Bond 26 until late 2026 at the earliest.
  • By the time work begins on B26 there could be another strike. The writers guild has a deal for 3 years, so hopefully they will have something written before then.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,205
    I just can’t fathom, or believe, that NOTHING Is being done. I agree with @peter in feeling that they have nothing to announce. When building a house, a great deal of work goes on before construction begins.
Sign In or Register to comment.