Where does Bond go after Craig?

1229230232234235698

Comments

  • I just want to chime in that I'm really enjoying this thread and the ideas being offered!

    I feel this is now an excellent opportunity to reintroduce Bond given the increasingly volatile and Flemingian nature of global villainy that's around us whether it's geopolitical hostility, mad men with Napoleon complexes running countries and corporations, the unleashing of potentially sentient AI, climate catastrophes, etc. (I'd avoid viruses for a few films). There should be plenty of inspiration to the producers and screenwriters to come up with relevant and entertaining plots for years to come. As I believe one of Barbara or Michael has said, the villain's plot is where it all begins.

    I like the ideas of bringing some of the unused literary characters onto the screen, including May as Bond's landlord who can give Bond a Scottish verbal beating but also provide wisdom and care (especially if the Bond part is one of a 35-year old or so). Ms. Ponsonby as a colleague Bond admires and trusts. A Gala Brand-like female ally.

    Obviously Craig has set a very high bar for performance and dramatic credibility as Bond, despite screenplays of varying quality. I hope EON avoids seeking even more dramatic storylines and performances that that of the Craig era. Whoever the actor will be, I hope he will give an authentic performance bringing in his own style (as Craig did) and not over-reach to outdo any of the predecessors. Keep it cool, keep it natural, have fun with it, and I'm sure the audiences will be in for a positive surprise.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,395
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    slide_99 wrote: »
    I'm very skeptical about the future of this series. I don't want more reboots, re-imaginings, subversions, alternate takes, "explorations," and such nonsense. Bond 26 should just pick up where DAD left off; everyone knows who Bond is, there's no need to reintroduce him, so just make a normal Bond movie that's not trying to be something else like Batman and Bourne. Don't bother with a reboot/new continuity, just pretend that the Craig era didn't happen. I don't see what else they can do. If they go for continuity/arching narrative again it's just going to turn into a second Craig era with a whole bunch of retcons and narrative beats that don't add up, not to mention piggy-backing off of other franchises.

    You don’t want continuity, yet you think they should pick up where DAD left off? That makes no sense.

    An odd thing to say indeed.

    Also, "piggy-backing off of other franchises"? First of all, I just don't get it why people love to use that word "franchise" so much, especially when they're not talking about franchises but about film series. Ah well.

    Secondly, I'm a little tired of the whole "Bond Begins", "The Bond Identity" and "Bond is just doing Marvel now" sentiment. Let EON produce a Bond film that defies every hot trend of the day. Let them produce a film that takes it slow (or else it's like Bourne), unpersonal (or else it's like "everything else"), without a team (or else it's like Mission : Impossible), without a character evolution (or else it's like Batman Begins), and without a clean slate (or else it's a reboot, out of continuity, ...). Let them. You may end up with a film that sets our traditional, Flemingian fan hearts on fire, makes a little money and puts James Bond in the freezer for years.

    Eon's been copying trends since at least 1973 and possibly earlier...I see echoes of Planet of the Apes in DAF. That's how the franchise has survived since Connery.
  • Agent_Zero_OneAgent_Zero_One Ireland
    edited February 2023 Posts: 554
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I think they'd do themselves a favor by returning to the standalone experiences again in the next era. That way, they don't back themselves into a corner or feel obligated to keep a storyline going (or make it conclude so bluntly).

    If they do want to continue going in that direction, then I really would prefer they get a good outline of where they want it all to start and end this time around: don't introduce the big bad in the penultimate film, don't make Bond "past his prime" when he's still going to be in two more installments over an almost 10 year extra stretch, etc.
    I don't find this one too egregious because Skyfall ultimately portrays that Bond isn't past his prime. The final scene implies that Craig's Bond is about to settle into a status quo akin to how Connery was introduced, despite not being literally the same man.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,011
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I think they'd do themselves a favor by returning to the standalone experiences again in the next era. That way, they don't back themselves into a corner or feel obligated to keep a storyline going (or make it conclude so bluntly).

    If they do want to continue going in that direction, then I really would prefer they get a good outline of where they want it all to start and end this time around: don't introduce the big bad in the penultimate film, don't make Bond "past his prime" when he's still going to be in two more installments over an almost 10 year extra stretch, etc.
    I don't find this one too egregious because Skyfall ultimately portrays that Bond isn't past his prime. The final scene implies that Craig's Bond is about to settle into a status quo akin to how Connery was introduced, despite not being literally the same man.

    That's a fair point. It's just hammered home so blatantly throughout the film, along with the excess drinking and pill popping, that it always ends up being my takeaway.
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    edited February 2023 Posts: 699
    CrabKey wrote: »
    I interpret picking up where DAD left off as continuation of stand alone Bond films.

    This. I don't mean make a sequel to DAD, I mean going back to the original "timeless" continuity where Bond is just an ever-present character. It's a pretty foolproof formula that worked for 40 years. There's no reason why it can't work today, especially seeing as how, unlike with Marvel, the Bond producers don't have a ton of already-existing material to adapt and plan things out in advance.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    edited February 2023 Posts: 8,233
    slide_99 wrote: »
    CrabKey wrote: »
    I interpret picking up where DAD left off as continuation of stand alone Bond films.

    This. I don't mean make a sequel to DAD, I mean going back to the original "timeless" continuity where Bond is just an ever-present character. It's a pretty foolproof formula that worked for 40 years. There's no reason why it can't work today, especially seeing as how, unlike with Marvel, the Bond producers don't have a ton of already-existing material to adapt and plan things out in advance.

    If that’s the case, then there’s no reason they shouldn’t reboot again. Because they’re all standalone, it wouldn’t matter if it is or isn’t the same guy we saw in previous Bond films.

    Michael G Wilson has already said as far back as 1994 that he views each of the Bonds as different characters rather than being the same exact guy we saw since 1962.
    CrabKey wrote: »
    LucknFate wrote: »
    CrabKey wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    CrabKey wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    CrabKey wrote: »
    I interpret picking up where DAD left off as continuation of stand alone Bond films.

    Wouldn't it then basically just be a new continuity anyway?

    No.

    Oh well. Suppose we'll just have to see what they do with it then.

    In looking at the series as a whole, I see returning to standalone films, i.e. DAD, as a continuation of that practice, not continuity of casting and story.

    For me the question always come down to is this supposed to be the same James Bond we first saw introduced in Dr. No?



    For me, as soon as one Bond movie ends, the next one is a fresh start, regardless of actor or unless it's meant to be a direct sequel like QOS and NTTD. I clear my head of any continuity because it clearly doesn't matter to the filmmakers. Returning to the "DAD" timeline doesn't make sense to me. DAD exists on its own, it happens to be the fourth movie with the same actor playing the same role.

    I do the same with Fleming's and the continuation novels. I simply don't expect them to carry on what came before. I expect another thrilling story with certain themes and elements, sure, but imo the best Bond stories are made to exist in isolation.

    I've never understood the public and fandom's obsession with making up a continuity that even the filmmakers never acknowledge outside of their direct sequels. The Tracy stuff is to give the character moments of depth, but you can't say they took it that seriously in the Moore era. They pick and choose continuity where they please, and don't bother having it makes sense. Moore's and Dalton's Tracy references are winks to the fans, don't take it too seriously.

    It will be interesting to see if the next Bond series features any callbacks and to whom.

    I think we can count on that. Every Bond actor has had their films make call backs to previous eras. Even Craig’s, despite having a clean break with CR still had plenty of callbacks peppered in. The thing is though, it has never been about continuity, it’s just the filmmakers having fun by including Easter eggs. When Brosnan is toying with a jet pack, it’s not the filmmakers trying to confirm to you that all the films are in the same continuity any more than Daniel Craig driving the Aston Martin from GF.

  • edited February 2023 Posts: 3,327
    slide_99 wrote: »
    CrabKey wrote: »
    I interpret picking up where DAD left off as continuation of stand alone Bond films.

    This. I don't mean make a sequel to DAD, I mean going back to the original "timeless" continuity where Bond is just an ever-present character. It's a pretty foolproof formula that worked for 40 years. There's no reason why it can't work today, especially seeing as how, unlike with Marvel, the Bond producers don't have a ton of already-existing material to adapt and plan things out in advance.

    If that’s the case, then there’s no reason they shouldn’t reboot again.
    It will be a reboot of sorts regardless. EON boxed themselves into a corner by killing off Bond in the last one, so they have no alternative but to reboot.

    I only hope it is a soft reboot (TLD/GE) rather than a hard reboot (CR) where we have to go back to the beginning again of Bond's career.

  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,233
    A hard reboot doesn’t necessarily mean going back to the beginning. They can do a hard reboot and still start anew like DN.
  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    Posts: 951
    slide_99 wrote: »
    CrabKey wrote: »
    I interpret picking up where DAD left off as continuation of stand alone Bond films.

    This. I don't mean make a sequel to DAD, I mean going back to the original "timeless" continuity where Bond is just an ever-present character. It's a pretty foolproof formula that worked for 40 years. There's no reason why it can't work today, especially seeing as how, unlike with Marvel, the Bond producers don't have a ton of already-existing material to adapt and plan things out in advance.

    If that’s the case, then there’s no reason they shouldn’t reboot again. Because they’re all standalone, it wouldn’t matter if it is or isn’t the same guy we saw in previous Bond films.
    Multiple Bonds with multiple continuities doesn’t really appeal to me. I prefer the loose continuity the films used to use where the timeline advances but the character is the same.
    Michael G Wilson has already said as far back as 1994 that he views each of the Bonds as different characters rather than being the same exact guy we saw since 1962.
    Interesting, I know he’s said that each actor plays the character a different way, but I didn’t realise he saw them as different characters. I don’t suppose you have a link you could give me, I’d be interested in reading (or watching) the whole thing.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,456
    Basic Bond 26 wishlist:

    - Standalone adventure
    - Single location/country (except for pts)
    - More emphasis on standout action
    - Younger Bond at the peak of his powers
    - More emphasis on humour/one liners
    - New triumphant version of the bond theme
    - Gunbarrel opening with traditional design
    - practical and inventive gadgets
    - At least one showstopper original stunt
    - Run time under 2 hrs 15 minutes
    - Bond beds multiple women
    - No driving sequences involving the DB5
    - true rock and roll title song (no ballads!)

    Its obvious to me that most fans have been yearning for a standalone, no strings attached Bond adventure ever for years, and cinema in general has been moving in a more over the top direction since the mid 2010's, its time that bond finally catches up with the times. I always feel like the first film in a new era feels the freshest because they have made the effort to rethink everything from the ground up, and EON seems to work best when their back is against the wall and they have to deliver the goods.

    I feel like edgar wright is the perfect choice for Bond 26 personally, because his films seem to represent the dynamic, playful style of the 2020's cinema that bond should be targeting. Also edgar is a homegrown talent with a unique individual style and vision (you can't beat that for bond) and hasn't been tapped for a big franchise yet, although he came close before. He also has a strong relationship with Babs and Mickey since they granted him permission to use the thunderball poster in his latest movie.
  • Posts: 6,710
    Alas, @Mendes4Lyfe, I think many of the points on that list will simply not happen, even though most of us agree unanimously with the entire list.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited February 2023 Posts: 3,800
    With the exception of the use of rock instead of ballad (I love Bombastic and Ballad Bond themes, if just done right or maybe a combination of rock and ballad like Live And Let Die, I'm fine with) but something along the veins of 'You know My Name', I'm not much on board, too heavy for my liking, and I not also on board with Bond bedding multiple women.

    But apart from that, I actually agree with the rest in the list.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,641
    Univex wrote: »
    Alas, @Mendes4Lyfe, I think many of the points on that list will simply not happen, even though most of us agree unanimously with the entire list.

    Yeah completely agree mate.
    @Mendes4Lyfe we all want most of your list mate but I can't see us getting that lucky somehow
  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    Posts: 951
    Generally like the list.

    Where I differ: I don’t care about Bond bedding multiple women, don’t mind the DB5 either way, I would favour dry wit over an emphasis on humour/one liners, and I would add that I’d like to see better designed fight-sequences now we’ve got a younger Bond.
  • Posts: 1,088
    [q
    Multiple Bonds with multiple continuities doesn’t really appeal to me. I prefer the loose continuity the films used to use where the timeline advances but the character is the same.

    Infinitely preferable, yes.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,236
    Generally like the list.

    Where I differ: I don’t care about Bond bedding multiple women, don’t mind the DB5 either way, I would favour dry wit over an emphasis on humour/one liners, and I would add that I’d like to see better designed fight-sequences now we’ve got a younger Bond.

    Dry wit is definitely more to my liking. One of the things I actually liked the most about the Craig era was the integration of dry humour as part of Bond's personality, rather than him simply being obligated structurally to deliver a wonky line. I don't think anyone other than Connery managed to succeed in that regard.
  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    Posts: 951
    Yes, the Craig era dispensed with a lot of the cringe humour, and I was grateful for that.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,641
    Yes, the Craig era dispensed with a lot of the cringe humour, and I was grateful for that.

    Yeah that was one thing I hope remains from the Craig era. The dry wit was well pitched with Craig's dry delivery
  • Posts: 1,088
    I agree. The humour/drama balance was the best we've had since the 60's.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,233
    slide_99 wrote: »
    CrabKey wrote: »
    I interpret picking up where DAD left off as continuation of stand alone Bond films.

    This. I don't mean make a sequel to DAD, I mean going back to the original "timeless" continuity where Bond is just an ever-present character. It's a pretty foolproof formula that worked for 40 years. There's no reason why it can't work today, especially seeing as how, unlike with Marvel, the Bond producers don't have a ton of already-existing material to adapt and plan things out in advance.

    If that’s the case, then there’s no reason they shouldn’t reboot again. Because they’re all standalone, it wouldn’t matter if it is or isn’t the same guy we saw in previous Bond films.
    Multiple Bonds with multiple continuities doesn’t really appeal to me. I prefer the loose continuity the films used to use where the timeline advances but the character is the same.
    Michael G Wilson has already said as far back as 1994 that he views each of the Bonds as different characters rather than being the same exact guy we saw since 1962.
    Interesting, I know he’s said that each actor plays the character a different way, but I didn’t realise he saw them as different characters. I don’t suppose you have a link you could give me, I’d be interested in reading (or watching) the whole thing.

    Doesn’t get much more in-depth beyond Wilson remarking that he views the James Bond films as a “series of series” rather than a single big one. And this was in 1995 right before GE came out.

    https://spycommandfeatures.wordpress.com/continuity-in-james-bond-films/

    That would at least explain why he had zero trouble rebooting with CR as opposed to playing with a conceit that it could be an adventure set before DN (a fan theory I think that is immediately debunked by the presence of Leiter). So perhaps when actors like Judi Dench and Desmond Llewelyn carry over between Bond actors, it’s speaking less about continuity and more about Eon keeping actors they like in parts they’ve played.
  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    Posts: 951
    Thanks for the link.
  • If they plan on using continuity in the future, I just hope it’s thought out in advance or that any retcons or plot threads feel organic to what has come before. Things like making SPECTRE the big baddies behind everything in the three previous films only to kill them all off in a single scene in the next film doesn’t flow or gel with what came before. Watching all five together, they do feel disjointed and very messy when it comes to many of the details. Even Le Chiffre is supposed to be a freelance banker that Mr. White would only guarantee a meeting with to Obanno but then he is randomly revealed (along with Patrice and Silva) to be high ranking members of SPECTRE. As much as I love QOS, the filmmaking is completely at odds with everything else in the Craig era (for better or worse), so things like the unique title cards and rapid-fire editing make it feel less like the second part in an epic five part story arc and more like it was all an afterthought.
  • Posts: 2,029
    For the third and a half time, I watched NTTD again last night. Took my time with it, paused periodically, rewound in a few spots. On this almost fourth viewing, nothing was new to me, which allowed me to focus more on the film as a whole. Without the surprise of what is to come, one can spend time with scenes one doesn't get a chance to on that first and second viewing. Logan Ash became a much clearer antagonist. Safin improves each time I see him. Madeleine has gone from so so to nice performance. She and DC don't have the same screen chemistry he had with Eva Green, but the relationship between LS and DC works better now than how I viewed it in the past. I still don't like Bond dying at the end. He could have lived happily ever. It really wouldn't matter since the next film will be a reset.

    But the deaths of Bond, Felix, Blofeld, and all of SPECTRE wipe the slate clean. All gone.

    My hope is the next actor is a relative unknown. I would like a little more wit without the silliness of the RM era. Not sure what PWB brought to NTTD, but I like her humor as demonstrated in Fleabag. Whatever the villain's plot, hopefully it will be within the bounds of science and plausibility. And of course, each film a standalone.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,703
    https://screenrant.com/james-bond-26-villains-return/

    I think the only villain that should be brought back is Blofeld, in a reoccurring role. Let his presence be known.
  • Posts: 4,310
    With regards to stand alone films, I don't think it's that simple. Like I said before, the Connery films featured SPECTRE and Blofeld as a key link, and even the Moore era had recurring characters who had relationships with Bond that were developed. The Craig era carrying over characters, plot elements, and ideas - heck, even the first two films being direct sequels - had a precedent in this sense. Hell, Fleming himself had stuff like cliffhangers in his novels.

    Regardless, every Bond film is its own thing. Each has a different identity. I don't think that'll change if they continue to go the route they did with the Craig era.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,395
    My controversial opinion? Blofeld is not that interesting a character. Period.

    Violet-scented breath? So does my aunt.
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,603
    echo wrote: »
    My controversial opinion? Blofeld is not that interesting a character. Period.

    Violet-scented breath? So does my aunt.

    He's not depicted well in the films compared IMO
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited February 2023 Posts: 3,800
    echo wrote: »
    My controversial opinion? Blofeld is not that interesting a character. Period.

    Violet-scented breath? So does my aunt.

    He's not depicted well in the films compared IMO

    Even in the books, I'm afraid, he did seemed good in Thunderball, but in the next following novels, he's no longer interesting, he's not threatening nor menacing, he's just a man who's desperate and frustrated, he's a man whom anyone could messed up with.

    That's one of the reasons why Thunderball worked, it's set up Blofeld as a criminal mastermind, a scary boss, threatening, powerful, and deadly.

    But both in OHMSS and YOLT, he's no longer that, add to that was his silly, ridiculous plots that proved he's frustrated, not a fan of him or his plots in those two novels.

    The expectations was high because of Thunderball, but his turn in OHMSS and YOLT disappointed me really, it's a like he became a deflated balloon.

    Like it made me think "Is this still the same man that I've read from Thunderball? He's entirely different, but in a bad and lesser way".

    It would've been better had Thunderball became a one-off book with SPECTRE and Blofeld, think of how From Russia With Love was with General Grubozaboyschikov (General G), after that, he's never heard nor seen again in the other novels, Fleming just put him there, but never planned on making him a recurring character.

    Would have been better if he did that with Blofeld, he's mentioned and described in Thunderball, but after that was never seen or heard again, then both in OHMSS and YOLT, there's an entirely different villain.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 3,160
    I'd be ok if Ernst sat out the next guy's run, tbh.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited February 2023 Posts: 3,800
    Venutius wrote: »
    I'd be ok if Ernst sat out the next guy's run, tbh.

    Possibly, actually the Franchise did survived without Blofeld, starting from Moore until Brosnan, there's no Blofeld, and yet, the Franchise had still became successful.

    And honestly, his comeback did made the Franchise for worst (think of SPECTRE and NTTD).

    So, I don't see any reason for the inclusion of the character again in the next era.
Sign In or Register to comment.