Where does Bond go after Craig?

24567182

Comments

  • Posts: 832
    That comparison bothers me. I see where it's coming from, a little, but no. I really don't like to think about it that way and the similarities are too subtle.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,106
    Ottofuse8 wrote: »
    That comparison bothers me. I see where it's coming from, a little, but no. I really don't like to think about it that way and the similarities are too subtle.

    I agree. Calling the Craig era TDK series of Bond is just laziness of the mind.
  • edited July 2015 Posts: 4,619
    The obvious thing to do would be to make a few Bond films that are set in the past. In the late 50s or early 60s... I think it could work really well. (Although it will probably never happen, because it would basically mean no product placements...)
  • The next move is going to be the most interesting of all.
    DC's Bond was way more than a reboot. It was a reimagining of Fleming's Bond transposed to modern times. With the exception of QOS it's worked well both critically and commercially albeit the lack of glamour is starting to disappoint some fans.
    Against that backdrop eon need to do something really brave and my recommendation would be to return to the books and remake them in chronological order with, the exception of CR, as DC's version is too recent.
  • RC7RC7
    edited July 2015 Posts: 10,512
    The obvious thing to do would be to make a few Bond films that are set in the past. In the late 50s or early 60s... I think it could work really well. (Although it will probably never happen, because it would basically mean no product placements...)

    Fleming didn't write Bond as a period character and the films don't treat him as such either. Bond should always exist in the modern world. It's what keeps it ticking. Period is a bad, bad idea that will essentially ruin the franchise.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    edited July 2015 Posts: 11,106
    The obvious thing to do would be to make a few Bond films that are set in the past. In the late 50s or early 60s... I think it could work really well. (Although it will probably never happen, because it would basically mean no product placements...)

    No. Firstly it's not obvious and secondly Bond isn't a period piece character. Seriously, I am so glad none of the fans here have no say on how to move forward with these films. The series would have been dead long ago if that were the case.
  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    Posts: 3,157
    RC7 wrote: »
    The obvious thing to do would be to make a few Bond films that are set in the past. In the late 50s or early 60s... I think it could work really well. (Although it will probably never happen, because it would basically mean no product placements...)

    Fleming didn't write Bond as a period character and the films don't treat him as such either. Bond should always exist in the modern world. It's what keeps it ticking. Period is a bad, bad idea that will essentially ruin the franchise.

    I disagree, in my opinion spy stories work better during Cold War, and since Bond himself was born during that time period, he belongs to that. Not that I'm against modern world-Bond, quite the opposite, but I prefer the 50s/60s as a setting.
    Saying "Fleming didn't write it as a period piece" means nothing. He had no point in writing period pieces, the "golden age of espionage" was the 50s, not the 20s or the previous century. Does it mean that every single novel (not just Fleming's) should be adapted in modern times?
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Walecs wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    The obvious thing to do would be to make a few Bond films that are set in the past. In the late 50s or early 60s... I think it could work really well. (Although it will probably never happen, because it would basically mean no product placements...)

    Fleming didn't write Bond as a period character and the films don't treat him as such either. Bond should always exist in the modern world. It's what keeps it ticking. Period is a bad, bad idea that will essentially ruin the franchise.

    I disagree, in my opinion spy stories work better during Cold War, and since Bond himself was born during that time period, he belongs to that. Not that I'm against modern world-Bond, quite the opposite, but I prefer the 50s/60s as a setting.
    Saying "Fleming didn't write it as a period piece" means nothing. He had no point in writing period pieces, the "golden age of espionage" was the 50s, not the 20s or the previous century. Does it mean that every single novel (not just Fleming's) should be adapted in modern times?

    The reason James Bond has survived is because he's a modern beast. The fact it was the golden age of espionage is irrelevant. SF was concerned with the role of someone like Bond in 2012 and that resonated much more than it would have done had it been a yarn set during the Cold War. Bond should be forward facing in my opinion.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe Given the circumstances
    Posts: 7,338
    RC7 wrote: »
    Walecs wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    The obvious thing to do would be to make a few Bond films that are set in the past. In the late 50s or early 60s... I think it could work really well. (Although it will probably never happen, because it would basically mean no product placements...)

    Fleming didn't write Bond as a period character and the films don't treat him as such either. Bond should always exist in the modern world. It's what keeps it ticking. Period is a bad, bad idea that will essentially ruin the franchise.

    I disagree, in my opinion spy stories work better during Cold War, and since Bond himself was born during that time period, he belongs to that. Not that I'm against modern world-Bond, quite the opposite, but I prefer the 50s/60s as a setting.
    Saying "Fleming didn't write it as a period piece" means nothing. He had no point in writing period pieces, the "golden age of espionage" was the 50s, not the 20s or the previous century. Does it mean that every single novel (not just Fleming's) should be adapted in modern times?

    The reason James Bond has survived is because he's a modern beast. The fact it was the golden age of espionage is irrelevant. SF was concerned with the role of someone like Bond in 2012 and that resonated much more than it would have done had it been a yarn set during the Cold War. Bond should be forward facing in my opinion.

    but, in your own words, 'if the film is good, people will see it.' Surely then the reason bond survives is because they are good films, not because they are modern films.
  • RC7RC7
    edited July 2015 Posts: 10,512
    RC7 wrote: »
    Walecs wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    The obvious thing to do would be to make a few Bond films that are set in the past. In the late 50s or early 60s... I think it could work really well. (Although it will probably never happen, because it would basically mean no product placements...)

    Fleming didn't write Bond as a period character and the films don't treat him as such either. Bond should always exist in the modern world. It's what keeps it ticking. Period is a bad, bad idea that will essentially ruin the franchise.

    I disagree, in my opinion spy stories work better during Cold War, and since Bond himself was born during that time period, he belongs to that. Not that I'm against modern world-Bond, quite the opposite, but I prefer the 50s/60s as a setting.
    Saying "Fleming didn't write it as a period piece" means nothing. He had no point in writing period pieces, the "golden age of espionage" was the 50s, not the 20s or the previous century. Does it mean that every single novel (not just Fleming's) should be adapted in modern times?

    The reason James Bond has survived is because he's a modern beast. The fact it was the golden age of espionage is irrelevant. SF was concerned with the role of someone like Bond in 2012 and that resonated much more than it would have done had it been a yarn set during the Cold War. Bond should be forward facing in my opinion.

    but, in your own words, 'if the film is good, people will see it.' Surely then the reason bond survives is because they are good films, not because they are modern films.

    Irrelevant. My point relies on the constant that Bond operates in a world just a nudge away from our own. You could make a very good period Bond, but it would diminish the impact of the canon. You can write as many period continuation novels as you like, but the 'films' are the cultural currency on which Bond operates. Piss about with that and you're on a slippery slope.

    Plus, there are lots of awesome stories to tell that are rooted in the present.
  • Posts: 11,175
    RC7 wrote: »
    The obvious thing to do would be to make a few Bond films that are set in the past. In the late 50s or early 60s... I think it could work really well. (Although it will probably never happen, because it would basically mean no product placements...)

    Fleming didn't write Bond as a period character and the films don't treat him as such either. Bond should always exist in the modern world. It's what keeps it ticking. Period is a bad, bad idea that will essentially ruin the franchise.

    To quote Bond himself:

    "It's what keeps him alive"

    (sorry, couldn't resist)
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,534
    Bond survives because it is the one franchise that has succeeded in adapting itself to what general audience demands for the last 50 years. So saying for Bond to keep going they must 'continue doing SF's, CR's or GE's is what will drive the franchise to it's death. Doing Craig without Craig, or Connery without Connery is what will kill franchise. Moore showed that the only way to keep the show going was to not ''out-do Connery', but to do his own unique take on the character. Craig will be huge shoes to fill when he leaves, and like Connery/Moore no one will ever beat them at their own game, so Bond 7 will have to find his own unique spin on the character.
  • MurdockMurdock Mr. 2000
    Posts: 16,146
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    Daniel Craig's Bond is pretty much the dark knight series of James Bond
    Fortunately without Nolan's bad expository writing.

  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe Given the circumstances
    Posts: 7,338
    Bond survives because it is the one franchise that has succeeded in adapting itself to what general audience demands for the last 50 years. So saying for Bond to keep going they must 'continue doing SF's, CR's or GE's is what will drive the franchise to it's death. Doing Craig without Craig, or Connery without Connery is what will kill franchise. Moore showed that the only way to keep the show going was to not ''out-do Connery', but to do his own unique take on the character. Craig will be huge shoes to fill when he leaves, and like Connery/Moore no one will ever beat them at their own game, so Bond 7 will have to find his own unique spin on the character.

    let's hope he can give the character some of his pep back. I'd love to see a stand alone Bond adventure stripped of the emotional baggage inherent in a realistic approach and without bearing the brunt of constantly reintroducing familiarity. Just a fresh take, a cohesive story that includes all the elements shaken up and presented in a distinctly different way. Not until the Craig era have I realised how much I value the fact that unlike other franchises, Bond films are standalone. When you sit down to watch a Bond everything you need to know is presented concisely and Is wrapped up by the closing credits. With Craig it has taken 4 films of glacial character development to arrive at something resembling a finished character. Connery only needed one scene.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,106
    What general audiences demand? Not too sure about that because general audiences are in large part too fickle and dont know what they want until they've got it. There are certain prerequisites that have to be in place but on top of that audiences will be given something and as long as it's good that's what matters. I can tell you right now the GA didn't want Craig as Bond. There are people here who can't wait to see the back of Craig but you know what, he brought a new and refreshing dynamic take on the character that had already been immortalised by Connery and Moore. Who the hell is this short blond guy, are you sure he's not playing the villain???? Well this same guy brought a much needed and a long overdue sense of credibility and real talent not just to the character but to the movies themselves. Our beloved movie series can be taken seriously again and is no longer an embarrassing joke which it had become. The series is at it's most popular and financial viability since the Bond mania of tge 60s and as such has facilitated a rebirth of spy movies.

    The cold war era was great but then again that was a period of far more inquisitive minds where a slow burning process of intrigue and mystery was the norm. As @RC7 stated, SF addressed the placement of agents like Bond in today's climate of espionage and the way the world is today is far more dynamically bleak, uncertain and treacherous. Fortunately Bond wasnt ever neant to and isn't bound by period piece staples for him to look out of place or redundant in today's spy climate and days yet to come. If people prefer tge cold war era setting that's fair enough but to think it's a better setting is down to not thinking big enough and confined to an imagination of limited flexibility.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited July 2015 Posts: 15,534
    What the general audience want = do they want dark/serious films, more lighthearted like Moore and Brosnan, or something else entirely. Doing CR or QOS in 1977 or 1995 or 1999 would have not have worked. What I meant was the general audience demands a certain style/tone of film making that EON will always have to adapt to in order to bring in the big bucks. Once the general audience will stop asking for the current trend of 'serious' films, the whole Hollywood will have to adapt, so no more Dark Knight trilogy, QOS, Bourne and whatnot for a while.

    EON should never listen to the general audience to chose the actor, as that would be catastrophic, but the tone of the franchise has to be largely based on what is currently popular for huge blockbusters.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,106

    I don't know. I think it depends on the genre and what we're dealing with. For instance, I don't think many people are clamoring for a Bond movie with the tonal mood of QoS. It just wasn't the sort of movie you walk away feeling pumped by. That being said, Bond is a spy, a hitman, a killer. His work is grim and brutal and for the sake of credibikity , especially in a post 9/11 world the serious, harsh and grim reality should never be underplayed. However, these films are fantasy and escapist and such gritty elements of Vond's character should be offset with dry with and humour (nothing pathetically cheesy), beautiful locations, gorgeous women, memorable villain's and above all a fantastic screenplay. Bond isn't some obscure indy brand where if it's a great movie but makes little to no money because no one knows about it, it gets lost in the corridors of time and ends up on some, movies you didnt no about but need to see before you die blog. He's the poster child for commercialization and in an era of social and mobile media and unlimited access to a wealth of news and information, as long as Bond movies are well crafted from the screenplay to the acting and direction, they'll continue to be successful and maintain mass appeal. Films akin to the likes of FRWL, TB, TSWLM, GE and CR going forward today will never lose it's appeal irrespective of what other movies are doing. Bond just needs to stay authentic and not submit to audiences a shitty movie because children won't save it like they bloody do for trans-bloody-formers.

    Re:Bourne, the Bourne movies need to do 1 thing and that's keep in line with the tone of the original trilogy. It doesn't need to be anything else. These particularl movies have an established dynamic about them that is a staple to tge world in which those movies inhabit. It's not going to change and nor should it.
  • ThomasCrown76ThomasCrown76 Augusta, ks
    Posts: 757
    James Bond will go to the moon
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Bond survives because it is the one franchise that has succeeded in adapting itself to what general audience demands for the last 50 years. So saying for Bond to keep going they must 'continue doing SF's, CR's or GE's is what will drive the franchise to it's death. Doing Craig without Craig, or Connery without Connery is what will kill franchise. Moore showed that the only way to keep the show going was to not ''out-do Connery', but to do his own unique take on the character. Craig will be huge shoes to fill when he leaves, and like Connery/Moore no one will ever beat them at their own game, so Bond 7 will have to find his own unique spin on the character.

    let's hope he can give the character some of his pep back. I'd love to see a stand alone Bond adventure stripped of the emotional baggage inherent in a realistic approach and without bearing the brunt of constantly reintroducing familiarity. Just a fresh take, a cohesive story that includes all the elements shaken up and presented in a distinctly different way. Not until the Craig era have I realised how much I value the fact that unlike other franchises, Bond films are standalone. When you sit down to watch a Bond everything you need to know is presented concisely and Is wrapped up by the closing credits. With Craig it has taken 4 films of glacial character development to arrive at something resembling a finished character. Connery only needed one scene.

    Is your username ironic?
  • edited July 2015 Posts: 2,872
    I'm all for the darker tone, rather than the Moore/Brosnan direction (as I'm first and foremost a Fleming fan).

    However, seeing Kingsman recently got me thinking. There we had a Moore-type film in many ways - OTT gadgets, OTT action, OTT villain with an OTT plot to destroy the world, yet somehow the film also managed to contain some quite edgy moments throughout, particularly the skydive training scene, Colin Firth's shock death, and Eggsy's mum hacking at the bathroom door with her crying baby inside.

    I'm wondering if this could be a template for the next Bond? Fusing OTT elements with edgy moments that actually work together. Not an easy thing to pull off, I know. But maybe it can be pulled off if done correctly?
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,106
    Nah Bond doesn't need to dip his toe in that arena. It works for Kingsman because ut's a different type of movie and may not work for Bond. Bond is on a trajectory which tge producers should stuck to. CR was tonally perfect before Vesper died and Bond became heart broken.
  • Posts: 2,872
    doubleoego wrote: »
    Nah Bond doesn't need to dip his toe in that arena. It works for Kingsman because ut's a different type of movie and may not work for Bond. Bond is on a trajectory which tge producers should stuck to. CR was tonally perfect before Vesper died and Bond became heart broken.

    I'm not saying they should go in the Kingsman direction. I was wondering if this is new trend, which EON often tend to follow.

    Personally I agree. CR was perfect, far better than QoS or SF. This should be the template for success, but it is no coincidence that it followed a Fleming novel very closely for most part.

    Which leads me back to my broken record again. Why, why, why are they not tapping into the unused Fleming material still out there?

    And don't anyone give me that crap about the unused material not being good enough. There are scenes, moments, plots and characters from MR, DAF, TSWLM, YOLT and TMWTGG that are far better than most of the ideas that have spurned from the Bond writers over the past 20-odd years.

    Maibaum managed to do this successfully in the 80's. Why can't they do it again?

  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,106
    Agreed. It makes you wonder if these people have actually read Fleming's novels like they claim they have. Issues with the script is something that shouldn't be happening at least not to the extent they've been suffering tge past 18 years.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited July 2015 Posts: 4,919
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I'm hoping that we go back to some stand alone films. Ones that are mission focused, that have no origin in Bond's, M's or MI6's past. Also, I wouldn't mind a return to some lighter fare. It's the back and forth that has kept the franchise alive and fresh.

    I agree with the stand alone film sentiment. While I think the majority of audiences still want serious/gritty, the more continuity you infuse, the more difficult it becomes with each entry. Stand alone entries is what made the series last so long as it doesn't bog itself down in the logistical timeline constraints.

    I wouldn't mind more humor and light heartedness, not sure if the time is quite right yet though I for one would greatly enjoy it!

    The '60s Bond films were not standalone; SPECTRE *was* the continuity (despite the recasts of Blofeld). Even the sole standalone film, GF, was referred to twice in OHMSS.
    doubleoego wrote: »
    CR was tonally perfect before Vesper died and Bond became heart broken.

    I'd argue that CR was tonally perfect because Vesper died and Bond became heartbroken.

    I don't want to see a reboot with the next Bond actor (Bond 26?). The current MI6 crew is young, not to mention amazing. They could continue beyond Craig.

    I also think that since they have redone CR and Blofeld, they should redo MR.
  • edited July 2015 Posts: 1,653
    There must be a 60:40 percent ratio chance Chris Nolan will direct a Bond film. He must be high up Eon's list of potential future directors. Perhaps Eon will consider him when the next actor takes over. If Nolan does get a Bond film then it's doubtful there will be much or any shift in style/tone etc.

    I wonder what a Guy Ritchie Bond film would be like? That might feel different to the current Craig era films. His Man From U.N.C.L.E film looks like a less serious version of Bond. A throwback to 1960s Bond but aimed at a present-day audience. That approach could be done with the next Bond actor, perhaps? Not set in the 60s, of course, but a more flippant James Bond, not driven by personal demons or the past.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    jake24 wrote:
    What direction will the 007 series take after Daniel's helm? Where would Bond go after the Craig era?

    Use as much unused Fleming material as possible and steer clear of any pointless PC casting choices for Bond e.g. Edris Elba etc.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe Given the circumstances
    Posts: 7,338
    If they can't have Mendes then Nolan is the only man for the job. No other working director has a hope.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,021
    For me the most important thing is that they will cast an actor that actually resembles Ian Fleming's Bond.
    I will never understand how they could cast a short, blonde actor. Nothing against Craig but he simply doesn't look the part.

    Henry Cavill would look the part perfectly in every way. That's not saying I want him as Bond, just as an example of what kind of man they should cast next.

    Put the fun back into Bond. The taking itself seriously has not worked that well. It certainly doesn't have to go back to Moore-Fun but as an example take Casino Royale which in my opinion was perfectly balanced.

    Choose a director that is not that known. Nolan would be a mistake, this would immediately divide people and that can't be good.
    Take a director that has proven himself already at doing intelligent action thrillers, no experiments like Marc Foster or Sam Mendes again.

    But maybe the most important thing of them all is: NEVER EVER SHOOT A BOND MOVIE IN 3D, that would be a crime of gigantic proportions.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    edited July 2015 Posts: 5,131
    Craig is the best Bond since Connery. He 'acts' the part of Fleming's Bond. Blonde hair is a non issue and 5ft 10 inches isn't short....it's average UK height. Fleming's Bond was 6ft as written in the novels. Casino Royale was indded a good balance of tone as you say, but is much darker than Skyfall which was lighter? Agreed. No 3D ever.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,021
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Craig is the best Bond since Connery. He 'acts' the part of Fleming's Bond. Blonde hair is a non issue and 5ft 10 inches isn't short....it's average UK height. Fleming's Bond was 6ft as written in the novels. Casino Royale was indded a good balance of tone as you say, but is much darker than Skyfall which was lighter? Agreed. No 3D ever.

    After only three movies it is a bold statement to say Craig is the best since Connery.
    Especially with one, QOS, undoubtably being one of the least good Bonds.

    IMO Dalton oozes more Bond in any scene than Craig ever will. But that's me.
Sign In or Register to comment.