Where does Bond go after Craig? *Potential SPOILERS*

1505153555682

Comments

  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 4,520
    Since62 wrote: »
    Unfortunately for T Dalton and everyone else involved: the Bond films were not "fresh" in the film market at the time. Secondly, the scripts were lame. With Bond already regarded as not fresh, wan stories and direction made the films even more vulnerable. On the prior occasion on which Bond was not highly regarded was following TMWTGG. It was not funded well. The producers cranked it out quickly following LALD. LALD got more interest due to having a new Bond actor. TSWLM, the follow-up to TMWTGG was a spectacular film, which reminded people why the Bond films had been popular. It came on strong and was FUN. If it copied anything, it copied prior Bond films, NOT whatever trend was popular in pop-films at the time. (Unfortunately, the producers went back to following trends and not setting them with MR, which did great box-office, but was an inferior film.) OP again got Bond up with a FUN, exotic story and film unlike other movies of the day. AVTAK was a let-down, with the star poorly paired, casting-wise, with the leading lady. TLD needed more than just a new Bond actor to make it interesting...and did not quite deliver. T Dalton was not served well by the script in either of his films, very unfortunately. I don't think "a serious Bond" bothered people. It was just that the films were not spectacular, fun or unique films you could see only in a Bond movie. LTK, in particular, was far too similar to a story that was already cliche by then -- cop goes rogue to get the drug lord and this time it's personal...good grief HOW many films were described by that summary ?!!? The teen-jealousy sub-plot certainly did not help. The villains in T Dalton's films were not larger than life, and were rather run of the mill. From what I've read, TD's third Bond film, were it made, may have been rather like TSWLM -- not in terms of a silly factor, but in terms of bringing back a spectacle unseen in other films. Fun and unique to Bond. They just should have gotten to that right off in TD's first film.

    I disagree. As a teen, I remember vividly what a breath of fresh air TLD was, following the somnolent, geriatric AVTAK. The PTS had a younger Bond doing his own stunts, then a heavy dose of actual Fleming...

    TLD has an amiable blend of fun and edge and it felt much younger and revitalized. True, the villains were not great and the third act falls apart, but that's true of many Bond films.
  • Posts: 618
    Please note I wrote the phrase as "fresh in the film market" at the time. During Moore's term the producers got a bunch of films out, and quickly. They developed a reputation of being letdowns at least as often as entertaining...perhaps more often. So, sure, Dalton came along as fresh to a Bond fan. But to film-goers generally, meh. The two scripts were dull. Other films -- even though less glamorous and with less of a lasting entertainment value after all these years -- were better received by film goers. TLD was the 16th ranked film by Box Office that year. Well ahead were Beverly Hills Cop II (the SEQUEL not the first one !), 3 Men and a Baby, The Untouchables (with a former Bond in a crucial role, who made all the difference in the film), Lethal Weapon behind Stakeout, Predator, the awful and unfunny Dragnet, Robocop, and Outrageous Fortune. Plenty of the top 15 cannot even be easily recalled ! At any rate, just comparing Bond films with each other, these two had bland scripts. People go on and on about Dalton being "truest to Fleming's Bond" but it certainly was not well-served by those scripts and direction...
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 4,520
    The public's taste in the '80s and the quality of TLD and LTK are two different things, though.

    Dalton was ahead of his time, both in terms of incorporating Fleming and in taking the films in a dark direction (Batman was a huge hit at the time).
  • Posts: 618
    Batman was an exciting film. TLD and LTK were snores. LTK, in particular, told a story audiences had seen on tv countless times by then -- rogue cop goes after drug lord and this time it's personal...cliche...
  • Posts: 2,406
    Since62 wrote: »
    Batman was an exciting film. TLD and LTK were snores. LTK, in particular, told a story audiences had seen on tv countless times by then -- rogue cop goes after drug lord and this time it's personal...cliche...

    I would not say that TLD and LTK were snores. I watched LTK for the first time in 1998 so I did not have the context of what was on TV at the time.
  • Since62 wrote: »
    Batman was an exciting film. TLD and LTK were snores. LTK, in particular, told a story audiences had seen on tv countless times by then -- rogue cop goes after drug lord and this time it's personal...cliche...

    I disagree about TLD and LTK. I’ll admit that as a kid, those two didn’t capture my imagination the way the Connery/Moore/Brosnan era’s did, but in the context of what the Craig era has done (even if it’s not my favorite), me reading the books, and also me aging and becoming more mature, I’ve come to find both TLD and LTK as films I really love and respect.

    And as far as Dalton, he’s never really been an absolute favorite of mine, and it’s been previously stated in this thread that Dalton didn’t have the star studded prowess of some of the other Bonds, and he certainly does lack swagger. But in a weird way, that’s what draws me too him. He has some enduring quality that I like and whenever I do watch his films, I always find myself rooting for him for reasons other than just “he’s James Bond, he has to win and save the day.”
  • Posts: 2,513
    Since62 wrote: »
    Batman was an exciting film. TLD and LTK were snores. LTK, in particular, told a story audiences had seen on tv countless times by then -- rogue cop goes after drug lord and this time it's personal...cliche...

    Totally disagree, but then again I would as both TLD and LTK are in my top 10 (LTK is in my top 5).
  • Posts: 39
    LTK is one of my favorite Bond flicks.

    Santos and Dario are terrific.
    The glamorous, aspirational and exotic tone is very suited to the Instagram crowd. Another generation of Bond fans in the making.

    This is really, really smart. I don't think they'll go the A24 route though, and I love many films from A24, but they haven't produced a massive box office smash yet.

    I think it will combine what you said above with the following
    kenton wrote: »
    I think it will go in a totally different direction and have more of a modern Roger Moore era 'fun vibe' ala the superhero films of James Gunn/Taika Waititi



  • Posts: 4,430
    Back on track, I'm I right in saying that for every new actor, there has been a change in tone? They can hardly go down a darker route can they? A lighter tone has to be the direction, surely?
  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    Posts: 714
    patb wrote: »
    Back on track, I'm I right in saying that for every new actor, there has been a change in tone? They can hardly go down a darker route can they? A lighter tone has to be the direction, surely?

    Connery to Lazenby back to Connery wasn't a huge change in tone on the level of DAD to CR, I would say.

    And they could of course either stay the course or go full John Wick hardcore-action with the next guy. I think that is very unlikely, not impossible.
    But in general it is the prevailing opinion and mine, too, that they will go lighter. If they stay true to form and try to follow trends in blockbuster filmmaking, I would think they try to have the next guy be somewhere in the Marvel and specifically Captain America/Black Panther zone. Not straight up comedies, but some purposefully placed lighter scenes and 'banter' in between the bombast and melodrama that make up the meat of the story.
    (Although NTTD might already get there with Q and Moneypenny specifically)
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe "I need a year off" Craig
    Posts: 7,316
    patb wrote: »
    Back on track, I'm I right in saying that for every new actor, there has been a change in tone? They can hardly go down a darker route can they? A lighter tone has to be the direction, surely?

    Connery to Lazenby back to Connery wasn't a huge change in tone on the level of DAD to CR, I would say.

    And they could of course either stay the course or go full John Wick hardcore-action with the next guy. I think that is very unlikely, not impossible.
    But in general it is the prevailing opinion and mine, too, that they will go lighter. If they stay true to form and try to follow trends in blockbuster filmmaking, I would think they try to have the next guy be somewhere in the Marvel and specifically Captain America/Black Panther zone. Not straight up comedies, but some purposefully placed lighter scenes and 'banter' in between the bombast and melodrama that make up the meat of the story.
    (Although NTTD might already get there with Q and Moneypenny specifically)

    Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace were basically like John Wick already in terms of hard-hitting action.
  • edited May 16 Posts: 566
    If they stay true to form and try to follow trends in blockbuster filmmaking, I would think they try to have the next guy be somewhere in the Marvel and specifically Captain America/Black Panther zone. Not straight up comedies, but some purposefully placed lighter scenes and 'banter' in between the bombast and melodrama that make up the meat of the story.
    These two are indeed plausible as possible inspirations for the next Bond era, even though these two franchises are quite different between, on the one hand, a grim and cold realism and, on the other, a rather colorful futurism. I'm not saying that the two can't serve as inspiration, but between Captain America: The Winter Soldier and Black Panther, these are two rather distant approaches to the same genre, especially in terms of color palettes or the treatment of reality and technology.

    While I wouldn't mind a Bond in the vein of any of these two series, it would be two very different approaches, especially in visual terms.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 8,787
    patb wrote: »
    Back on track, I'm I right in saying that for every new actor, there has been a change in tone? They can hardly go down a darker route can they? A lighter tone has to be the direction, surely?

    Connery to Lazenby back to Connery wasn't a huge change in tone on the level of DAD to CR, I would say.

    Connery to Moore wasn't a big change, I'd say. But I get what Patb is saying and it does seem likely: basically Bond films are about Bond himself, so it makes sense that a change in style from how he's played (which seems kind of inevitable) will affect the entire film given he's right at the centre of it.

  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 1,033
    I suspect it'll be a Goldeneye style shift, lean more on the iconography of the series and less of a deep analysis of his character. Hopefully the script is as strong as Goldeneye, if that is the plan. I doubt they'll want to reboot with a new actor so soon after Daniel, I think they'll just pick up with a new film and new era without explaining how we got there
  • edited May 16 Posts: 566
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    I suspect it'll be a Goldeneye style shift, lean more on the iconography of the series and less of a deep analysis of his character. Hopefully the script is as strong as Goldeneye, if that is the plan. I doubt they'll want to reboot with a new actor so soon after Daniel, I think they'll just pick up with a new film and new era without explaining how we got there

    It depends on what you mean by a reboot, but if Bond 26 is any close to Goldeneye (a reintroduction to Bond, a new M, a new Moneypenny, no reference to past installments), it will be consider as such. Particularly after the Craig era that was more or less developed around a storyline and recurring characters. In many ways I agree that we're heading toward a new Goldeneye, leaning on the classic iconography of the series as you say, but, by doing so, it would be a (soft-)reboot.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited May 16 Posts: 4,667
    I think it could also very much be the case as films and television shows seem to be veering away from the origin story. It was an interesting exploration at the time of Casino Royale, but now, in a new era of cinema and even television, I think it's understood that it is interesting now to just jump right in - but we'll see.

    I do think this is another area the possible success of The Batman could inspire, seeing as this is an introduction to a new younger actor in an iconic role, but not an origin story.
  • edited May 16 Posts: 566
    Denbigh wrote: »
    I do think this is another area the possible success of The Batman could inspire, seeing as this is an introduction to a new younger actor in an iconic role, but not an origin story.
    Agree. Eon will, in my mind, probably go in that direction. This is, from a business point of view, the most interesting path. Both because it allows the studio to have under contract an actor young enough to star in several films, but also because it is the ideal starting point narratively speaking.

    The other option would be to take the premise seen in both John Gardner's books and Goldeneye: Bond as a seasoned agent, far from being a rookie, even old-fashioned in the eyes of the administration of the secret services that changed. Although commercially viable, such an approach would risk being redundant with the Craig era.

    It is in Eon's best interests to present the new Bond as young, fresh, a product of his time, both to distinguish from what came before and to send a message to the audience about the relevance of the brand.
  • Posts: 4,430
    "It is in Eon's best interests to present the new Bond as young, fresh, a product of his time, both to distinguish from what came before and to send a message to the audience about the relevance of the brand. "

    100% spot on
  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    Posts: 714
    If they stay true to form and try to follow trends in blockbuster filmmaking, I would think they try to have the next guy be somewhere in the Marvel and specifically Captain America/Black Panther zone. Not straight up comedies, but some purposefully placed lighter scenes and 'banter' in between the bombast and melodrama that make up the meat of the story.
    These two are indeed plausible as possible inspirations for the next Bond era, even though these two franchises are quite different between, on the one hand, a grim and cold realism and, on the other, a rather colorful futurism. I'm not saying that the two can't serve as inspiration, but between Captain America: The Winter Soldier and Black Panther, these are two rather distant approaches to the same genre, especially in terms of color palettes or the treatment of reality and technology.

    While I wouldn't mind a Bond in the vein of any of these two series, it would be two very different approaches, especially in visual terms.

    I phrased that unclearly. You are absolutely right. The two - what do we call them? Sub-franchises? - are different in many ways (although I never really bought Winter Soldier's supposed grittiness). I was just trying to separate them out from the more overtly comedic or otherwise strange offerings of the MCU like Ant-Man, Guardians or Spiderman. Cap and Black Panther to me are the films that are first and foremost serious action films (you know, as serious as guys in Spandex punching each other can be) while having some levity sprinkled in.

    But going off of your comment: Would people be down with a more futuristic Bond?
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited May 16 Posts: 4,667
    Denbigh wrote: »
    I do think this is another area the possible success of The Batman could inspire, seeing as this is an introduction to a new younger actor in an iconic role, but not an origin story.
    It is in Eon's best interests to present the new Bond as young, fresh, a product of his time, both to distinguish from what came before and to send a message to the audience about the relevance of the brand.
    +1

    Also, it's an interesting thought, if we're taking into account what James Bond is and has been to what he could be as we get further and further away from the period that birthed his characterisation, is to maybe have James Bond become a product of that characterisation through his childhood, and how that affects a man who will be in his prime during the modern day.

    So his mother, father, and most of the other people who raised him would represent the ideals and principles of classic James Bond, which would've influenced a James Bond who would've been raised in the 80s or 90s, creating an interesting juxtaposition - which could be furthered by the allies and villains he comes across.
  • edited May 16 Posts: 566
    Would people be down with a more futuristic Bond?
    I think it would depend on the treatment and the nature of the futuristic elements, but, personally, I think it could be interesting if it is meant to be supposedly realistic and serious, as opposed, let's say, to the outlandish or over the top approach of DAD.

    I quite liked what was seen in Quantum of Solace with the technology advanced MI6 head office, and I would be open to a generalization of such treatment of futuristic elements. This could also translate into architecture, whether it is the villain's lair or London and the cities visited by Bond. The creative team could thus try to develop something visually close to what cities will probably be in ten or fifteen years, without impacting the plot itself which could still be a classical Bond adventure.
    Denbigh wrote: »
    It's an interesting thought, if we're taking into account what James Bond is and has been to what he could be as we get further and further away from the period that birthed his characterisation, is to maybe have James Bond become a product of that characterisation through his childhood, and how that affects a man who will be in his prime during the modern day.
    As long as it's not too artificial, it could indeed be an original way to keep Bond classical, while modern.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 8,787
    Yes I think I'm getting a little bored of the 'Bond is a sexist dinosaur' stuff just because we've been leaning on it, off and on, for the last 25 years. I don't mean the character has to change hugely, it's just the films could in future make a bit less of it and, he could indeed play up to it a little less. Bond in Casino Royale was probably more of a modern guy with up to date sensibilities than the bloke in Skyfall who kept hitting on all of his work colleagues was :D
  • Posts: 618
    Having given this a great deal of consideration, I think that Bond 26 will offer up a semi-soft, somewhat hard re-boot. In fact, Bond 26 likely will be the first film to present it. To express it in mathematical terms, with a soft re-boot at 33%, and hard re-boot at 66%, the anticipated semi-soft, somewhat hard re-boot may be approximated as 49.5%. As Goldilocks said of the bed she selected among three before her: "not too hard, not too soft, but just right !"
  • edited May 17 Posts: 2,513
    patb wrote: »
    Back on track, I'm I right in saying that for every new actor, there has been a change in tone? They can hardly go down a darker route can they? A lighter tone has to be the direction, surely?

    Connery to Lazenby back to Connery wasn't a huge change in tone on the level of DAD to CR, I would say.

    And they could of course either stay the course or go full John Wick hardcore-action with the next guy. I think that is very unlikely, not impossible.
    But in general it is the prevailing opinion and mine, too, that they will go lighter. If they stay true to form and try to follow trends in blockbuster filmmaking, I would think they try to have the next guy be somewhere in the Marvel and specifically Captain America/Black Panther zone. Not straight up comedies, but some purposefully placed lighter scenes and 'banter' in between the bombast and melodrama that make up the meat of the story.
    (Although NTTD might already get there with Q and Moneypenny specifically)

    I can't see a lighter approach with the next Bond film. No way, it is not happening,

    A lot obviously depends on the reviews of NTTD, and how it is received, but in almost all circumstances, everything points to the next film being dark and serious in just about every scenario.

    If the film is similar in tone to SP, and has outlandish moments like DAD, and inevitably gets (quite rightly) panned by the critics, then the next film will almost certainly revert to a back-to-basics approach again, similar to what happened with TLD after AVTAK, and CR after DAD.

    If NTTD is a lot more darker, and serious in tone (CR/SF), and gets universal acclaim, then the next film will also follow on in the same vain.

    There are only 2 possible exceptions to this, and where we could see a lighter film next time -

    1) If the critics pan NTTD for being too dark and too serious, like what happened by some critics after LTK (but I seriously doubt this would happen).

    2) If NTTD is already an outlandish, gadget-laden, OTT, light-hearted romp (which the trailer doesn't lead me to believe), and the critics are absolute loving it in their glowing reviews, and are demanding more of the same for Bond 26.

    So for all of you fans who are desperate for another Roger Moore or Brozza type romp, with double taking pigeons, slide whistles, underwater tie-straightening, invisible cars and plenty of Tarzan swinging yells, sorry to break it to you folks, but it ain't happening. ;)
  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    Posts: 737
    Am I the only one who doesn't think the Craig films have been all that dark? The violent moments are violent, and the light moments are light. That seems to be a fair balance and not drastically different to what has gone before in the series.

    We hear a lot about the lightness of the Moore years, and yet we still get Bond threatening to kill Rosie after having sex with her, torturing a woman for information, killing a bloke by throwing him off a roof and shooting the main villain in the balls, kicking a man off a cliff in revenge for him running down a woman in a car, shooting a Russian soldier in the forehead at point blank range etc. This is mixed in with a lot of daftness, for sure, but these violent and dark moments are mostly forgotten it seems.

    Likewise, in the supposedly dark and gritty LTK we've got Bond parachuting into a wedding, being attacked with a swordfish, fighting ninjas, doing a wheelie in a truck, and it all closes with a winking fish.

    There is maybe a lack of silliness in CR and QoS (I wouldn't say there is a lack of humour, but certainly not the Moore style quips), but in SF and SP there's plenty of light moments - the London Underground chase, the way Hinx dies, the parachute ejector seat etc.

    And, if the rumours about NTTD are correct, it looks set to be one of the more fantasy style entries in the entire franchise.

    Basically, I don't see a huge difference between the Craig years and what has gone on before - they have always tried to balance action, violence, humour, and glamour. Yes, they have toned down the more extreme outrageousness of the Moore years (though some of this touches moments of wonderful surrealism and absurdism in my eyes and I would welcome it back), but otherwise the balance isn't that different.

    They are fantasy adventures and it looks as if they will remain that way. Why would they change now? The balance might shift slightly in favour of one element at the expense of others, but not hugely. There will still be outlandish villains, stylish locations, and violent action. And all of it will be slightly over the top so will always have an absurd edge to it.

  • Posts: 2,513
    Am I the only one who doesn't think the Craig films have been all that dark? The violent moments are violent, and the light moments are light. That seems to be a fair balance and not drastically different to what has gone before in the series.

    We hear a lot about the lightness of the Moore years, and yet we still get Bond threatening to kill Rosie after having sex with her, torturing a woman for information, killing a bloke by throwing him off a roof and shooting the main villain in the balls, kicking a man off a cliff in revenge for him running down a woman in a car, shooting a Russian soldier in the forehead at point blank range etc. This is mixed in with a lot of daftness, for sure, but these violent and dark moments are mostly forgotten it seems.

    Likewise, in the supposedly dark and gritty LTK we've got Bond parachuting into a wedding, being attacked with a swordfish, fighting ninjas, doing a wheelie in a truck, and it all closes with a winking fish.

    There is maybe a lack of silliness in CR and QoS (I wouldn't say there is a lack of humour, but certainly not the Moore style quips), but in SF and SP there's plenty of light moments - the London Underground chase, the way Hinx dies, the parachute ejector seat etc.

    And, if the rumours about NTTD are correct, it looks set to be one of the more fantasy style entries in the entire franchise.

    Basically, I don't see a huge difference between the Craig years and what has gone on before - they have always tried to balance action, violence, humour, and glamour. Yes, they have toned down the more extreme outrageousness of the Moore years (though some of this touches moments of wonderful surrealism and absurdism in my eyes and I would welcome it back), but otherwise the balance isn't that different.

    They are fantasy adventures and it looks as if they will remain that way. Why would they change now? The balance might shift slightly in favour of one element at the expense of others, but not hugely. There will still be outlandish villains, stylish locations, and violent action. And all of it will be slightly over the top so will always have an absurd edge to it.

    I wouldn't categorise the winking fish of LTK, the Tube chase or Hinx's death in the same vain as double taking pigeons, Tarzan yells or invisible cars. These stupid moments are when the series strayed too far, and the producers knew full well they had too, which is why they reigned the tone back in after MR and DAD, which contain the worst of these moments.

    But yes, the films will always have fantasy moments in them, no matter how dark or serious the tone may get, and this was reflected even back in the Fleming novels. It's all a matter of how subtle they are done. A winking fish at the very last frame before the end credits is far less jarring than a Tarzan yell in the middle of an action sequence, for example.
  • edited May 17 Posts: 1,469
    In terms of a change in tone from the Craig films, I'd like to see a lighter tone in how some scenes are written, and hopefully the next Bond will have the acting range to play them as well as being serious about the mission and action. I was going to say either Craig doesn't have the emotional or acting range of previous Bonds, or it was his own choice to play the role with a more serious, slightly depressed quality--after CR, that is. In that film we saw him tell Solange, "Well, perhaps you're just out of practice", and he smiles at her. And there are other moments in that film where he plays some scenes or exchanges with other characters a bit lighter for whatever reason, but after CR I saw less of that, though Craig really excels at the action and fight scenes.

    I think of past moments when Bond wasn't totally focused on his job, like in FRWL when we see Bond and Sylvia Trench's picnic, relaxing in the boat on the river and later at the car. Or Sean singing "Underneath the Mango Tree", not that we need to see Bond singing again. Or Roger in Octopussy, right after the tense moment with Kamal, telling the Major "lt's not really in the wrist, you know"; giving money to his Indian associates to keep them in curry; and riding in the company car saying "Easy come, easy go". And there are other scenes like that.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 8,787
    I’m not sure anyone wants a replay of the curry moment! :D
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 4,520
    Thrasos wrote: »
    In terms of a change in tone from the Craig films, I'd like to see a lighter tone in how some scenes are written, and hopefully the next Bond will have the acting range to play them as well as being serious about the mission and action. I was going to say either Craig doesn't have the emotional or acting range of previous Bonds, or it was his own choice to play the role with a more serious, slightly depressed quality--after CR, that is. In that film we saw him tell Solange, "Well, perhaps you're just out of practice", and he smiles at her. And there are other moments in that film where he plays some scenes or exchanges with other characters a bit lighter for whatever reason, but after CR I saw less of that, though Craig really excels at the action and fight scenes.

    I think of past moments when Bond wasn't totally focused on his job, like in FRWL when we see Bond and Sylvia Trench's picnic, relaxing in the boat on the river and later at the car. Or Sean singing "Underneath the Mango Tree", not that we need to see Bond singing again. Or Roger in Octopussy, right after the tense moment with Kamal, telling the Major "lt's not really in the wrist, you know"; giving money to his Indian associates to keep them in curry; and riding in the company car saying "Easy come, easy go". And there are other scenes like that.

    Based on?

    I see humor in his exchanges with Camille in QoS. YMMV.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited May 19 Posts: 4,667
    I think if they can find someone like Matt Reeves seems to be to the Batman franchise even just for Bond 26, then I think we'll be in for something good. I know I keep mentioning The Batman, but personally from what I've seen it seems to be a great balance of modern audience interest, creative freedom, talent, all while so far seeming (in my opinion) a very faithful portrayal of the Batman source material.
Sign In or Register to comment.