It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
They should have taken their time. To continue the analogy, a little more 'foreplay' with the audience, a'la Connery's time, wouldn't have been amiss.
I like your idea about a trilogy.
No time to look back. Let's come up with a workable and plausible solution :-). I think my option C) (see above) is a good step in the right direction.
Do not follow the Blofeld story in B25, but bring him back (with a new actor) down the road and reintroduce him slowly and in a more menacing fashion over several films this time (just ignore the stupid Mendes backstory going forward.......it meant nothing to almost everyone the way it was done in SP anyway).
This D) allows EON to forget about SP and its continuity for a while (a good thing, since many appear to be having a mixed reaction to it) and establish a new Bond actor. They can bring back SPECTRE later (I'm not in agreement with Logan that Bond should always battle SPECTRE).
EON stopped worrying about any attempt at continuation the moment they decided to film YOLT before OHMSS. The way I look at it is that the Bond universe has been rebooted, to some degree, every time, Lazenby aside, they've case a new actor.
RM's introduction in LALD was deliberately done with as little connection to what had gone before (e.g. no briefing scene in M's office or appearance of Q). The only specific reference in the whole of RM's run to the previous incarnation is the FYEO PTS, which was only ever intended for audience purpose if (as planned) a new Bond was being introduced. There's that single reference in Dalton's reign in LTK of him being married before but I've always taken this to be just as much about adding weight to his revenge mission for what happened on Felix's own wedding day. Brosnan is presented as an end-of-Cold war era operative and another new reiteration of the same character.
I agree though (as I posted in one of the other threads) that this time around could in fact be the trickiest transitional of all. The emotional baggage and rather shoddy retconned connection of DC's movies will make it quite tricky for audiences to accept a new guy take this on. If DC does go now, than I think they should leave him and Madeline to ride off into the sunset and begin the new guys reign with a completely fresh stand-alone non-SPECTRE story and perhaps pick up with Blofeld in captivity in Bond 26.
This option D) in essence a mixture of option A) & B), thus hasn't got my approval.
Moreover, you bring in some personal opinionated arguments regarding "SPECTRE" that you didn't like, and that you want to fully 'erase'. The backstory has been done now. Finished. Closed. So it's equally possible, and way more desirable, to softly 'touching' the continuity from the previous four films as opposed to your "nullifying SPECTRE" argument.
C) is the best I think.
And this is not 'personal opinionated' arguments. Just read the review threads here and elsewhere. One of the primary arguments against this film is the retcon and how it was handled. By respected members here as well.
Blofeld can exist. Whether Waltz's Blofeld, as realized by Mendes, can as easily remains to be seen.
So let's go for C) then. It's unfounded to say at this stage that bringing back the entire team from "SPECTRE" will result in 'dwelling in the past'. I think it won't happen if you introduce a new director and if the screenplay writers adopt my plan C). You can perfectly exclude more personal background, by writing a screenplay with that in mind :-).
No need to be too drastic. And casting a new 007 IS a drastic thing.
Your idea is basically a reboot...soft or not soft. And I'm sorry to say this, but I don't like another DAF following up OHMSS.
Spot on.
DC is not the issue, if anything he held SP together (no mean feat). I love the film for it's enthusiasm, but P&W really need to p**s off... they are getting on my nerves.
Yes, you can exclude the past with a new screenplay. However, in any 'continuation' story, with the same cast, you can't forget the past. What's done is done, and if it's a continuation story with the same cast, the two will have to be watched together. A new director basically is 'saddled' with Mendes work.
So yes, if you want that, of course it can be done. It's more complex though, with baggage......unsuccessful baggage in some people's eyes.
I prefer D), especially since Craig only has one more in him at best so we will have to change it up sooner rather than later, but I can live with C), if executed perfectly.
The easiest route IMO is usually the less fulfilling one ;-).
I was one who thought they should complete the QoS storyline but I should have been careful what I wished for...CR stripped down the series so well but three films later the series now has a ton of storytelling baggage. I didn't like the soft "reset" at the end of SF (nor the Aston Martin in SF) because it pointlessly tied the two eras together, and I like it even less after SP.
I think the best solution is to get Craig back for one more. The Bond from the YOLT novel is perfect for Craig to play. Write out Madeleine (death or not) and let him have his final showdown with Blofeld, killing him. I always hated how open-ended the Blofeld arc was from DAF on.
Spectre can always come back in some form (Largo, Bunt, Blofeld's son or daughter--whatever they want). I like the idea of a continuing villainous organization. It worked in the '60s. It worked in CR and the Mr. White interrogation in QoS. But clear out the underbrush (SF and SP) first.
Option C) then as well :P. In any case, Barbara Broccoli shed some light on Bond #25!
http://www.thebondbulletin.com/work-on-bond25-could-begin-spring-2016
Keep the damn basterd Barbara! ;-)
I've been advocating for him to leave for 3 straight films, due to his Bond always having to deal with tedious personal drama.
However with his tour de force performance in SP, he has revived the authentic Bond persona.
Best we've seen since Sean.
I have elevated Craig to Laz level as worthy successor to Sean.
That is a distinguished honor indeed.
Blows anything Dalts Rog or Broz did out of the water.
That is authentic Bond we are seeing up on screen in SP, and all the way through, unlike the previous 3 films.
Now Craig did have some very strong moments in each of his 3 other films, but the character's scripted personal journey drama kept dragging things down. At least IMO. I realize some might have liked that stuff, but I didn't.
But with SP this is Bond in all his glory.And Craig looks real good too.
Really should.win the Oscar for best actor.
Playing Bond convincingly is not easy to do.
Like I said elsewhere, if I ran into Craig I'd haul him into the nearest pub, buy him a couple of Heineken or dirty martinis or whatever, and spend 30 minutes telling him what a great job he did as Bond in SP, and then send him on his way.
Craig's awesome Bond in SP is why I keep skipping back to the cinema for more.
I'll have 10 cinema viewings by the time I am done.
Half way there
Best capturing of the Bond persona since Sean hung up the holster over 40 years ago.
Not counting NSNA as Sean purposely played a semi-retired Bond in that film which is the only reason he agreed to do the film, if he could play Bond as older, which is one of the reasons I found old dog Bond in SF so tedious, as Sean had already done it, as an alternative take on the character in NSNA
Anyway, Craig in SP I think is very much Fleming's Bond. It's all there, even the look. The wit and smartass streak is there. The aura of menace and danger, tempered by wit and charm.
Pretty much perfect. The film is even shot in such a way that you don't realize he's not actually tall enough.
I really hope Daniel Craig returns for Bond 25 and then we'll see. But easily another Bond film in him on the result of Spectre.
This is the best post I've ever seen describing how great Craig is in this role. So accurate!
Now here, he IS Bond, but I assume, people now are just not used to that from him. His Bond always was different and many embraced that and now have problems connecting with this take, which goes back to the old films.
But many said, he couldn't BE that kind of Bond and now can see, like it or not, that he is very well capable of it.
Yeah, well said. I think part of the negative reviews for the film are because of this. Later on, when people have a better perspective on the film SP will be looked on in a more favorable light.
And now we know for sure Craig can be the ultimate Bond and handle every kind of "take" on the role. He can simply do it all. I remember people claiming it was only a thug but that was the young Bond. He's nailed the brutal killer Bond in CR and QoS, nailed the world weary Bond in SF, and now has nailed the fun, more enjoyable, escapism Bond, almost as well as Moore did. I hope he gets another chance to do it again and be even better.
In order to get a new actor Craig has to go first. So be careful what you wish for!