Where does Bond go after Craig?

17475777980681

Comments

  • jobo wrote: »
    @DaltonsMaggotHands

    Nr 3 is not an option and will never happen. It's not a series about MI6 or the nr 007. It is a series about the character James Bond.

    Especially since NTTD ended with "James Bond will return", so I pretty certain that it is an option. Regarding the suggestions made by @DaltonsMaggotHands, I said it before, but I think the first one could work with an adaptation of the first chapters of TMWTGG. It is the only way to bring back Craig's supporting cast, in my opinion, even though I would prefer to not use any of them.
  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    Posts: 1,351
    I wonder if Amazon could ever talk EON into being allowed to do #3 as a stand-alone streaming series. Have the cinematic Bond be a new thing, while Lashana Lynch continues in the story from NTTD.. Highly, highly unlikely, but interesting, I think.

    I also think there is a #4: The mostly unacknowledged return to the original non-continuity. Craig-Bond remains it's own thing and we don't take anything from that, but we also don't start from 0. Bond is already an established 00. Tracy is in his past. He has had a couple of tussles with Blofeld and SPECTRE. (Those last two are negotiable I say. But Tracy is one of the main parts of continuity pre-Craig, right?) Due to the decades long gap, I don't think we can really get any of the main actors from the Brosnan era back apart from maybe Colin Salmon and possibly Samantha Bond in a different role.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,418
    I feel like the options are (NTTD spoilers in this post):

    1) Just do a usual 'new Bond' (e.g. Moore, Dalton, Brosnan) where the new guy is basically the same guy, but different etc... All the supporting cast are mostly still there, but you have a new arc (I don't think this is possible given the ending of NTTD, though it would have been my preference prior to the last 10 minutes)

    2) Do a complete reboot a bit like Casino Royale. Basically a new cast. You go hard on this new approach and try to give the new guy an 'arc' like Craig had. You probably avoid the more 'origin story' elements of Casino Royale, but essentially this is James Bond with no overlap with Craig's Bond. CR carried over Judi Dench's M, and you could probably get away with something like keeping Whishaw or Harris, but probably only one. (I like the supporting cast, so not a fan of this approach, but I feel like it's the only way you can keep doing an actual James Bond film).

    3) You take everything from Craig's Bond as cannon, the next film is a new era but also a direct sequel. James Bond is dead. You carry on the whole 007 thing, maybe it's Lashana Lynch, maybe it's her and a new 007 (who will effectively be seen as the new 'Bond'), it's just a number etc... but he isn't James Bond. Maybe they give a new guy James Bond as a codename or something, whatever, it still isn't him. (Whilst interesting, not sure how I feel about that, would be strange, but maybe it's the best of the options available).

    I feel the decision will probably come down to the director/actor they get for the next film(s).

    If you can tie a Nolan or a Villeneuve to 2-3 films, maybe you let them do a reboot and start from scratch again i.e. 'option 2'. If not, you build on the successes of the Craig era with an 'option 3' (Ana de Armas, Lashana Lynch, Naomi Harris plus a new guy could have a decent bit of a potential and work really well, it just would feel a bit strange).

    Hello! Great first post.

    I feel like 2) is maybe the likeliest, and I wouldn't mind some of the MI6ers hanging around (maybe this Tanner and Moneypenny are done, but maybe keep M & Q if they want to). Perhaps a new reboot won't lean on 'James Bond's first mission!' as much as CR and will just be him meeting everyone for the first time and getting on with it rather than learning lots of life lessons, I don't know.
    Mind you, I can almost imagine a sort of Jack Ryan Shadow Recruit thing where M recruits a (this time) genuinely young Bond from the Navy etc. and perhaps it takes place over the course of several years. I don't know if I'd hate that.
  • HildebrandRarityHildebrandRarity Centre international d'assistance aux personnes déplacées, Paris, France
    Posts: 482
    Bringing back the supporting cast wouldn't work, as audiences would also expect Daniel Craig to return, and having another guy playing the part opposite Haris, Fiennes or Whishaw would point out to some giant shadow over the part. Besides, if the new guy is supposed to play the same iteration of the character, in some sort of sequel to the previous film with the help of some "retcon", it would cheapen the ending of NTTD, and making it lose all emotional weight, while Craig's series had been all about emotional development.

  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,418
    Bringing back the supporting cast wouldn't work, as audiences would also expect Daniel Craig to return

    I think the audience is smarter than that though. Especially if you mix in a new Moneypenny or Q or whatever as well.
  • Posts: 3,333
    I have no idea what they're intending for 007 in Bond 26, but I do know James Bond will return. One also has to consider the outside influences of Bond in Hollywood and overall cinema trends. When CR was released, it was following the Jason Bourne template of a grittier Bond. By the time of SF it had set a lot of that aside to follow the Dark Knight approach of orphan Bond and a Joker-style villian. When SP was in pre-production we already had the rise of the MCU and tying every movie together. So depending on what movie trends are hot before Bond 26 goes into full production, the current plan might still be to build a BCU going forwards, but this time have it more well-thought-out.
  • mtm wrote: »

    Hello! Great first post.

    I feel like 2) is maybe the likeliest, and I wouldn't mind some of the MI6ers hanging around (maybe this Tanner and Moneypenny are done, but maybe keep M & Q if they want to). Perhaps a new reboot won't lean on 'James Bond's first mission!' as much as CR and will just be him meeting everyone for the first time and getting on with it rather than learning lots of life lessons, I don't know.
    Mind you, I can almost imagine a sort of Jack Ryan Shadow Recruit thing where M recruits a (this time) genuinely young Bond from the Navy etc. and perhaps it takes place over the course of several years. I don't know if I'd hate that.

    Thanks. I agree, I wouldn't be surprised if they would ideally like to effectively go forward with Craig as the new template. A new Bond comes in, has 3-6 films, and it's all sort-of self contained. My worry about that is if the first film doesn't work, or the actor has had enough etc... it can quickly become a mess if you have to then reboot/start again after one or two films.

    Also, as mentioned, I'm quite liking a lot of the existing cast and it would be a shame to lose them.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,970
    Based on how well The Batman seems to be resonating with audiences (just see the reaction to that amazing trailer last night), again, I won't be surprised if that doesn't inspire something when it comes to Bond 26.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited October 2021 Posts: 16,418
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Based on how well The Batman seems to be resonating with audiences (just see the reaction to that amazing trailer last night), again, I won't be surprised if that doesn't inspire something when it comes to Bond 26.

    I don't know much about it really, does this version of Batman have a particular hook?
  • Posts: 1,078
    I remember at the end of Skyfall, how great it was seeing M's office, Moneypenny at her desk, a male, stroppy M and Bond wanting to get back to work. It felt like the reboot had come full cycle and they could start doing proper none-rogue 'Bond on a mission' films again.
    And we all know how that panned out. . . . .
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited October 2021 Posts: 5,970
    mtm wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Based on how well The Batman seems to be resonating with audiences (just see the reaction to that amazing trailer last night), again, I won't be surprised if that doesn't inspire something when it comes to Bond 26.
    I don't know much about it really, does this version of Batman have a particular hook?
    Well, the approach they've gone for is a younger Bruce Wayne/Batman (Pattinson) who is only in his second year as the infamous vigilante, so while not an origin story, is an exploration of a Batman in his earlier years.

    And I think that would be a good approach for Bond 26, as it would freshen things up for audiences who've maybe disconnected slightly during the run of Craig's era, while also avoiding an origin story for the fans who want to hit the ground running.
  • Posts: 3,333
    mtm wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Based on how well The Batman seems to be resonating with audiences (just see the reaction to that amazing trailer last night), again, I won't be surprised if that doesn't inspire something when it comes to Bond 26.

    I don't know much about it really, does this version of Batman have a particular hook?
    I think this Batman is a much younger take focused squarely on the character being a detective doing detective work. And of course, no actors reprising their roles from previous incarnations. I've seen the trailer and it does look very promising.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 16,169
    Denbigh wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Based on how well The Batman seems to be resonating with audiences (just see the reaction to that amazing trailer last night), again, I won't be surprised if that doesn't inspire something when it comes to Bond 26.
    I don't know much about it really, does this version of Batman have a particular hook?
    Well, the approach they've gone for is a younger Bruce Wayne/Batman (Pattinson) who is only in his second year as the infamous vigilante, so while not an origin story, is an exploration of a Batman in his earlier years.

    And I think that would be a good approach for Bond 26, as it would freshen things up for audiences who've maybe disconnected slightly during the run of Craig's era, while also avoiding an origin story for the fans who want to hit the ground running.

    So if Pattinson is 35 by and in his 2nd year as Batman, then Wayne would have decided to become Batman around the age of 34.
    In the Craig universe Bond became a double O at 38. Therefore if Eon were to follow this trend (which I could see very likely) they'd be looking for a Bond actor around the age of 39. Makes sense and I could live with that.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited October 2021 Posts: 5,970
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Based on how well The Batman seems to be resonating with audiences (just see the reaction to that amazing trailer last night), again, I won't be surprised if that doesn't inspire something when it comes to Bond 26.
    I don't know much about it really, does this version of Batman have a particular hook?
    Well, the approach they've gone for is a younger Bruce Wayne/Batman (Pattinson) who is only in his second year as the infamous vigilante, so while not an origin story, is an exploration of a Batman in his earlier years.

    And I think that would be a good approach for Bond 26, as it would freshen things up for audiences who've maybe disconnected slightly during the run of Craig's era, while also avoiding an origin story for the fans who want to hit the ground running.
    In the Craig universe Bond became a double O at 38. Therefore if Eon were to follow this trend (which I could see very likely) they'd be looking for a Bond actor around the age of 39. Makes sense and I could live with that.
    It's certainly a possibility, but they could also go for a James Bond who's also in his early 30s.
  • Posts: 3,327
    mtm wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Based on how well The Batman seems to be resonating with audiences (just see the reaction to that amazing trailer last night), again, I won't be surprised if that doesn't inspire something when it comes to Bond 26.

    I don't know much about it really, does this version of Batman have a particular hook?

    It looks to be a lot darker and violent in tone, in line with the recent Joker movie. Not sure how much of this will influence Bond 26.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 3,333
    Denbigh wrote: »
    It's certainly a possibility, but they could also go for a James Bond who's also in his early 30s.
    Yes, it'll depend on whether they follow Matt Reeves' The Batman and cast a 35-year-old who does have a rather mature-looking face for his age, or a boyish-looking actor for Bond 26.
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    In the Craig universe Bond became a double O at 38. Therefore if Eon were to follow this trend (which I could see very likely) they'd be looking for a Bond actor around the age of 39. Makes sense and I could live with that.
    I don't think they'll worry too much about finding an actor that coincides with Craig's true age when he first made an appearance in CR because the character never stated his actual age in the movie. Secondly, Connery and Lazenby were both significantly younger than Craig was as seasoned 007s, but that didn't sway the producers from casting someone much older as a total novice Bond. In other words, they'll do what they think is right for their first movie going forwards.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,418
    Denbigh wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Based on how well The Batman seems to be resonating with audiences (just see the reaction to that amazing trailer last night), again, I won't be surprised if that doesn't inspire something when it comes to Bond 26.
    I don't know much about it really, does this version of Batman have a particular hook?
    Well, the approach they've gone for is a younger Bruce Wayne/Batman (Pattinson) who is only in his second year as the infamous vigilante, so while not an origin story, is an exploration of a Batman in his earlier years.

    And I think that would be a good approach for Bond 26, as it would freshen things up for audiences who've maybe disconnected slightly during the run of Craig's era, while also avoiding an origin story for the fans who want to hit the ground running.

    Okay thanks, yeah I can deal with that.
    mtm wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Based on how well The Batman seems to be resonating with audiences (just see the reaction to that amazing trailer last night), again, I won't be surprised if that doesn't inspire something when it comes to Bond 26.

    I don't know much about it really, does this version of Batman have a particular hook?

    It looks to be a lot darker and violent in tone, in line with the recent Joker movie. Not sure how much of this will influence Bond 26.

    Yes I'd probably be less keen on that.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,641
    I remember at the end of Skyfall, how great it was seeing M's office, Moneypenny at her desk, a male, stroppy M and Bond wanting to get back to work. It felt like the reboot had come full cycle and they could start doing proper none-rogue 'Bond on a mission' films again.
    And we all know how that panned out. . . . .

    I remember leaving the cinema elated after that scene. I wish I had that same feeling after NTTD

    Looking back I wish they would have left the rights to Spectre in a drawer for the next actor (like they did the rights to Casino for Daniel) and followed the potential set up from that fantastic final scene from Skyfall
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 3,333
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    Looking back I wish they would have left the rights to Spectre in a drawer for the next actor (like they did the rights to Casino for Daniel) and followed the potential set up from that fantastic final scene from Skyfall
    I totally agree. As someone else pointed out, the inclusion of Blofeld and SPECTRE was used as a bargaining chip to lure Sam Mendes back to direct the sequel. Their inclusion should've remained off the table and heldover for the next 007 actor to utilize.
  • MinionMinion Don't Hassle the Bond
    Posts: 1,165
    bondsum wrote: »
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    Looking back I wish they would have left the rights to Spectre in a drawer for the next actor (like they did the rights to Casino for Daniel) and followed the potential set up from that fantastic final scene from Skyfall
    I totally agree. As someone else pointed out, the inclusion of Blofeld and SPECTRE was used as a bargaining chip to lure Sam Mendes back to direct the sequel. Their inclusion should've remained off the table and heldover for the next 007 actor to utilize.

    Wasn't it John Logan who was obsessed with Blofeld being Bond's Moriarty and jumped at the opportunity?
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,970
    I don't think introducing SPECTRE was the problem, I think having Ernst Stavro Blofeld be the main villain was the problem. They should've just taken their time, and built them up as a threat first, by doing what original films did, and had Bond face an original high-ranking member as opposed to retconning the last three films to make those characters members of SPECTRE, which just doesn't work.
  • Denbigh wrote: »
    They should've just taken their time, and built them up as a threat first, by doing what original films did, and had Bond face an original high-ranking member.
    The problem was Spectre could have been Craig's last film: Eon wasn't going to tease a sequel while they weren't sure that their star will come back later. Bond 24 had to be a story with a satisfying ending and not something calling for a sequel.
  • Posts: 15,124
    Bringing back the supporting cast wouldn't work, as audiences would also expect Daniel Craig to return, and having another guy playing the part opposite Haris, Fiennes or Whishaw would point out to some giant shadow over the part. Besides, if the new guy is supposed to play the same iteration of the character, in some sort of sequel to the previous film with the help of some "retcon", it would cheapen the ending of NTTD, and making it lose all emotional weight, while Craig's series had been all about emotional development.

    I think they'll bring back at least some of the supporting cast, if only to keep a continuity of sorts. Different timeliness, but same characters. Beside, it's easier to keep them than recast. They'll have to recast James Bond already, not to mention the villain, the Bond girls. Practically it makes sense to keep some of the cast.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited October 2021 Posts: 24,183
    People seem extremely obsessed with continuity in the Bonds. Ask yourselves, was continuity ever a thing before 2006?

    In 1985, a jokey, ageing man takes a shower with a lovely blonde. The next time we see that same man, he's a spry, energetic youth with a cynical touch, telling another man that M can fire him if he likes and that he'll thank him for it. Same boss, gadget supplier and minister of defence, yet the secretary has somehow changed from a loveable aunt into a just-out-of-college lass with the exact same name. Not sure how that works. Another funny thing is that this man continues to be young, and at some point will steer a car by remote control through a NOKIA cell phone, invented in the '90s, yet that very same man, still young, was driving the latest Aston Martin years before we landed on the moon. I regret to also point out that our man has a friend who can fix everything, including his looks, from a funny grandpa type into a rather young blonde Robert Redford wannabe, and more incarnations along the way. A master of disguise? And please, tell me where the invisible-car tech went. Could've been quite useful in missions since...

    So, why did Kirk and co go back in time to fix everything, only to forget about time travel technology in subsequent missions, when it also could have fixed everything?

    Tell me, why is Harvey Dent a black man first, and then a white man next?

    Wasn't Indiana Jones technically blessed with immortality at some point? Why worry about anything when pursuing the crystal skull then?

    And so on...

    Answer: continuity doesn't matter all that much in the end. Some people get hung up on it, most do not. Most people live from film to film, and even when they don't, muddled continuity rarely offends anyone. Film series like Saw, The Avengers, X-Men, ... rely heavily on continuity, and even they lose track of their own continuity at some point. Narrative conveniences and cool in-film moments matter more than how element x in film A relates to element y in film F. Most people care not for that, or little at best.

    And when it comes to continuity, the Bonds are not exactly the best students in the classroom. Quite the opposite. With the exception of the Craigs, continuity was never a thing. Sure, we loved to see Michael Kitchen again in TWINE, but who else noticed? Who else cares? Judy Dench as M in both the Brosnan years and the Craig years? Whoever complained? The DB5 in SF, all equipped with tricks last seen in GF and TB? That doesn't even tie in with CR, not even remotely.
    Robert Brown in NTTD???

    We may get off on continuity thingies and easter eggs and such, but who are we? Less than one per cent of all those who watch the new Bond film when it's released? And do we honestly care about lapses in continuity? Are those lapses reason enough for us to give the next Bond film the finger? I certainly hope not, because at least 20 films in our beloved series will give you serious nightmares then.
  • HildebrandRarityHildebrandRarity Centre international d'assistance aux personnes déplacées, Paris, France
    Posts: 482
    Continuity is something you can take advantage of, when it can enhance the characters and the films. During the Craig years, they emphasized callbacks and continuity, for instance by having Jeffrey Wright recurring as Leiter. When he's reunited with Bond in NTTD, he's not just the American ally that the story requires, you totally buy that the two of them would be friends, as you've seen them together for 15 years.
    Yet, at other moments, the films still indulged in the Bond mythology by bringing back the DB5, first as a regular model, then as the version seen in Goldfinger.

    And it's interesting to see that over the course of NTTD, Bond loses his DB5, his code number, his best friend, his nemesis, and ultimately his life. The nemesis doesn't hurt too much, especially because of Blofeld's botched introduction in Spectre and the uncertainty about who was responsible for the attack in Matera, but the other things matter because of the weight they had acquired during the previous films.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    edited October 2021 Posts: 12,480
    @Birdleson I appreciate you laying all that out, and I agree with you. It is something to think about ... and are we really only about 1%? Sigh ... probably. I will tell myself we are a firm 5%. ;)

    Continuity has never bothered me. I look forward to a cracking good story with a character I enjoy. Every time. Sometimes I am disappointed, sometimes I am thrilled and completely satisfied. I do not mind if there is continuity or not.

    But having said that, I also agree with @HildebrandRarity in that continuity can sometimes enhance the enjoyment of a Bond film - if well done. One thing I greatly appreciate about the Daniel Craig era is it gave me more of a connected story arc than we have ever had, and took us from rookie 00 to his final moments. I don't need that particular story arc given to me again. I now have it, and the way it was handled was very rewarding for me.

    So I like some continuity if it makes me smile - and most in Bond films are not realistic continuity - but I also look forward to fresh takes on Bond, the man and his adventures. Of course Barbara and Michael have been thinking of this since Spectre. They just won't discuss it in public till 2022, which is simply good business sense.

    I don't know what Bond 26 will be. It seems a wide open field, and I like that. Make it fresh. I just know I don't want a true beginning of rookie 00 agent again. Let's meet him after he's been on a few missions but still in his 30s. I don't want a true beginner origin story. We have the perfect Casino Royale for that.

    I want a Bond with a different personality, yet still with some realism and depth. Saying "depth" can alarm those who do want a more emotionless, copy back to the 60s through 80s Bond. Those who think "emotions" or "depth" is too much and don't want to have glimpses of Bond's psyche any more. Well, I do want all of that- just within the bounds of a good story, with a new Bond who has a different take. But I want some realism, and real feelings shown also. It will be interesting. I personally hope for a full new MI6 crew, but if there is any holdover, just give me the right story for the film and it won't bother me one bit. B-)
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,304
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Robert Brown in NTTD???

    Yes, that one is indeed a head-scratcher! Perhaps it's just because
    Fukunaga loves TLD
    ?
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    Posts: 693
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Answer: continuity doesn't matter all that much in the end.

    No, but killing a pop culture icon in any incarnation does matter, regardless of continuities and timelines. And I hate that even have to deal with comic book-style "timelines" now.
  • HildebrandRarityHildebrandRarity Centre international d'assistance aux personnes déplacées, Paris, France
    Posts: 482
    I hope that they'll imply in the reboot that Bond has some trust issues with women. Of course, I don't want to see again a rehash of Vesper's story, but they can keep it in the vague, attribute it to some unmentioned situation a few years before the film.

    This was already a thing in the novels. Even if you hadn't read Casino Royale, you could understand that he had some flaws and, despite what he sometimes wanted, he wasn't fit for a proper relationship, until he found somebody as damaged as him in Tracy.

    The early films with Connery were much more relaxed in that regard. Bond was basically an hedonist whom every woman was supposed to find irresistible, and he gladly indulged in that. But in the novels, there was a little more bitterness. That's the balance I hope they find in the next films.
  • DarthDimi wrote: »
    In 1985, a jokey, ageing man takes a shower with a lovely blonde. The next time we see that same man, he's a spry, energetic youth with a cynical touch, telling another man that M can fire him if he likes and that he'll thank him for it. Same boss, gadget supplier and minister of defence, yet the secretary has somehow changed from a loveable aunt into a just-out-of-college lass with the exact same name.

    I agree that those of us getting into the weeds on this forum are probably going a little too deep, but come on, actually on-screen definitively killing Bond and characters mourning his death is very different from anything previously done.

    Pre-Craig, the whole "yeah, it's the same guy, but it's a new guy, don't ask too many questions" worked and was well established. They did like to put in continuity points to establish it was always the same James Bond (without wanting to get into official continuity etc...). It worked because they kept it vague. The ending of NTTD was anything but vague.

    I just don't think you can have Naomi Harris as Moneypenny saying "Hello James Bond, how have you been?" after the final scenes of NTTD. That's not being picky and obsessed, it's basic film continuity.
Sign In or Register to comment.