Where does Bond go after Craig? *Potential SPOILERS*

1525355575882

Comments

  • QsCatQsCat London
    Posts: 159
    Denbigh wrote: »
    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.

    The Batman might be terrible for all we know..
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited May 21 Posts: 4,667
    QsCat wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    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.
    The Batman might be terrible for all we know...
    Yes, of course...

    ...but the film has so much overall interest and has the potential to be really good and perform extremely well, it might be worth EON trying to figure out what they could do to get to the same level, because the current interest in the films (we'll see what No Time to Die's numbers are like) won't sustain the franchise for another 50 years.
  • edited May 22 Posts: 2,513
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    To me point is that the events of Casino Royale and Vesper are what establish and define the Bond character.

    So it's cooked in for Connery and Lazenby, Moore, Dalton, Brosnan. There's nothing to separate it from them. Doesn't have to be presented on screen or in dialogue. It's there.

    I like that idea, it I also like the idea of the Craig era being its own separate entity. I’d love for the next Bond film to be the final reboot this series undergoes for awhile.

    That’s why I think Forever and a Day is a great blueprint. It can give an origin story, while being a one off, which is why it can work for both the fans and creative side of things. I know a lot of people don’t like continuation novels but FAAD makes a great starting point for the next movie.

    Totally agree. I also agree with other posters here that the next Bond film needs to wipe the slate clean, no past references, no emotional baggage, no Bond going rogue, and no retcon crap either.

    Start afresh, new actor, new phase. But more of a traditional template Bond film - one-off story, Bond off on a new mission, brief chat with M, Q and Moneypenny at the beginning, but there it ends. No more Scooby gang in the action, just Bond off on his way to kill a bad guy.

    Light-hearted moments peppered throughout if necessary (though not silly, OTT crap), a few unused Fleming scenes incorporated into the script, and everyone will be happy.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 8,787
    I’ve already got loads of films like that though. I’m happy for them to come up with new spins on the material.
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    Metro.co.uk: MI5 reveals letters from children who want to be next James Bond.
    https://metro.co.uk/2021/05/21/mi5-reveals-letters-from-children-who-want-to-be-next-james-bond-14623991/
    Craig does seem to be helping recruitment ;)
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Costa Mucho
    Posts: 41,978
    Metro.co.uk: MI5 reveals letters from children who want to be next James Bond.
    https://metro.co.uk/2021/05/21/mi5-reveals-letters-from-children-who-want-to-be-next-james-bond-14623991/
    Craig does seem to be helping recruitment ;)

    That s dreadful.
  • Posts: 2,513
    mtm wrote: »
    I’ve already got loads of films like that though. I’m happy for them to come up with new spins on the material.

    I'm all for new ideas too, but this will mean a departure from the past 20 odd years then, as we have now got just as many `new spin' films in the franchise - giving us emotional baggage Bond, going rogue, making it personal, double-crossing agents, Scooby Gang in the centre of the action, etc.

    If its a toss up between recent Bond films, or going back to basics with more traditional Bond films (1962 to 1987), and they were the only 2 options, then I would choose the latter.

    But yes, I'm all for something completely new as well, as long as it doesn't deviate too far from Fleming.


  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe "I need a year off" Craig
    Posts: 7,316
    If I had to guess, we won't see another Bond film until at least 2026. To put that into context, Biden would be half way through his second term by then.

    Theres no knowing which direction they could take, or where culture will be by then, but I think its a safe bet that we will get a soft reboot with just Bond going about a mission like the old days. And I think the tone will be much closer to Goldeneye than Casino Royale.
  • Posts: 2,513
    If I had to guess, we won't see another Bond film until at least 2026. To put that into context, Biden would be half way through his second term by then.

    Theres no knowing which direction they could take, or where culture will be by then, but I think its a safe bet that we will get a soft reboot with just Bond going about a mission like the old days. And I think the tone will be much closer to Goldeneye than Casino Royale.

    Not sure on that, as CR is generally deemed a better film than GE, in terms of BO draw, with the critics, and with the fan base in general. I would hazard a guess CR will be the template now for future Bond films, which is not a bad thing either, IMO.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited May 22 Posts: 8,787
    Theres no knowing which direction they could take, or where culture will be by then, but I think its a safe bet that we will get a soft reboot with just Bond going about a mission like the old days. And I think the tone will be much closer to Goldeneye than Casino Royale.

    Like JSW, I don't think that's likely either. We know Bond now, the audience want to see things which affect him personally and test him. Movies are just more interesting and exciting if we're emotionally involved.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe "I need a year off" Craig
    Posts: 7,316
    mtm wrote: »
    Theres no knowing which direction they could take, or where culture will be by then, but I think its a safe bet that we will get a soft reboot with just Bond going about a mission like the old days. And I think the tone will be much closer to Goldeneye than Casino Royale.

    Like JSW, I don't think that's likely either. We know Bond now, the audience want to see things which affect him personally and test him. Movies are just more interesting and exciting if we're emotionally involved.

    Who told you that?
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited May 22 Posts: 8,787
    mtm wrote: »
    Theres no knowing which direction they could take, or where culture will be by then, but I think its a safe bet that we will get a soft reboot with just Bond going about a mission like the old days. And I think the tone will be much closer to Goldeneye than Casino Royale.

    Like JSW, I don't think that's likely either. We know Bond now, the audience want to see things which affect him personally and test him. Movies are just more interesting and exciting if we're emotionally involved.

    Who told you that?

    Casino Royale made a ton more money than Die Another Day. Skyfall (where he cries over M's body and goes back to his childhood home) was the top grossing UK film ever for a while.

    CR and OHMSS are consistently up towards the top of fan favourite lists (CR actually came top of the recent, biggest fan survey I've seen). Loads of people going on about how LTK is a great Bond film too. Even fans prefer the ones where it's personal, despite many loud ones going on about how they don't want personal missions.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe "I need a year off" Craig
    edited May 22 Posts: 7,316
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Theres no knowing which direction they could take, or where culture will be by then, but I think its a safe bet that we will get a soft reboot with just Bond going about a mission like the old days. And I think the tone will be much closer to Goldeneye than Casino Royale.

    Like JSW, I don't think that's likely either. We know Bond now, the audience want to see things which affect him personally and test him. Movies are just more interesting and exciting if we're emotionally involved.

    Who told you that?

    Casino Royale made a ton more money than Die Another Day. Skyfall (where he cries over M's body and goes back to his childhood home) was the top grossing UK film ever for a while.

    CR and OHMSS are consistently up towards the top of fan favourite lists (CR actually came top of the recent, biggest fan survey I've seen). Loads of people going on about how LTK is a great Bond film too. Even fans prefer the ones where it's personal, despite many loud ones going on about how they don't want personal missions.

    You forget about fan favourites such as GF, TB, LALD, TSWLM and GE?

    Die Another Day was the low point of the franchise for many, its not really surprising that CR would top it both critically and commercially. Skyfall has been widely recognised as a zeitgeist hit which overperformed due to a number of factors, including anniversary celebrations, the UK Olympics appearance. I think it certainly worked for the time, but don't know if all Bond should be that from now on. Eventually, you have to move on, innovate, refresh, and take things in a new direction or you just stagnate (like die another day) and get left behind, right? I think people liked Casino Royale because it WAS new and different at the time but If EON are still using the 2006-2012 playbook in 2026, that would be a big problem. You can only ride the wave so far before it crashes, right?

    It'll be interesting how Bond 25 does, that will show us if people still want more of the same style of film or not.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited May 22 Posts: 8,787
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Theres no knowing which direction they could take, or where culture will be by then, but I think its a safe bet that we will get a soft reboot with just Bond going about a mission like the old days. And I think the tone will be much closer to Goldeneye than Casino Royale.

    Like JSW, I don't think that's likely either. We know Bond now, the audience want to see things which affect him personally and test him. Movies are just more interesting and exciting if we're emotionally involved.

    Who told you that?

    Casino Royale made a ton more money than Die Another Day. Skyfall (where he cries over M's body and goes back to his childhood home) was the top grossing UK film ever for a while.

    CR and OHMSS are consistently up towards the top of fan favourite lists (CR actually came top of the recent, biggest fan survey I've seen). Loads of people going on about how LTK is a great Bond film too. Even fans prefer the ones where it's personal, despite many loud ones going on about how they don't want personal missions.

    You forget about fan favourites such as GF, TB, LALD, TSWLM and GE?

    No, they just come further down the list. CR and OHMSS are #1 and #3 respectively, those others come in at 4,16,10,5 and 7 in a survey from the beginning of the year of 865 Bond fans.
    Thunderball is not really one you could call a fan favourite; you must have forgotten ;)
    Die Another Day was the low point of the franchise for many, its not really surprising that CR would top it both critically and commercially.

    And yet it did great business: nearly $100m more than TWINE just a couple of years before. It was a massive hit- CR just did better (and on a lower budget).
    Skyfall has been widely recognised as a zeitgeist hit which overperformed due to a number of factors, including anniversary celebrations, the UK Olympics appearance. I think it certainly worked for the time, but don't know if all Bond should be that from now on. Eventually, you have to move on, innovate, refresh, and take things in a new direction or you just stagnate (like die another day) and get left behind, right? I think people liked Casino Royale because it WAS new and different at the time but If EON are still using the 2006-2012 playbook in 2026, that would be a big problem. You can only ride the wave so far before it crashes, right?

    You think going back to how films were 40 years is not stagnating?

    I'm not saying they have to do exactly the same plot things, just that audiences -and fans- respond better to, and now expect, their heroes to be emotionally involved in the plot. I don't really know why anyone wouldn't want that: it adds intensity and tension and increases the excitement.
    Ian Fleming was the one who killed Bond's wife and had 007 try to murder M, get amnesia, go off on a revenge mission to kill Blofeld etc. It's not a new phenomenon.

  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    OHMSS, CR and LTK are my top three Bonds, must make me the ultimate person to answer a Bond survey :))
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 8,787
    OHMSS, CR and LTK are my top three Bonds, must make me the ultimate person to answer a Bond survey :))

    Well it's FRWL at #2, but even that is a revenge mission against Bond in part ;)
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    Damn @mtm I thought I was about to be hailed as the arbiter of all Bond views and opinions. For a second there I felt like a God ! :D
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited May 22 Posts: 4,667
    Is it ok to not really know what your favourite Bond film is? Cause I'm not that 100% I know I can say what's definitely not my favourite haha :D
  • edited May 22 Posts: 863
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Is it ok to not really know what your favourite Bond film is? Cause I'm not that 100% I know I can say what's definitely not my favourite haha :D

    I always find myself flipping back and forth between OHMSS and FRWL.
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    I have a top five films and yes as you've pointed out they sometimes change positions, but after that I can't really chose between all those wonderful films.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 8,787
    I have a top five films and yes as you've pointed out they sometimes change positions, but after that I can't really chose between all those wonderful films.

    I sort of worked out a ranking based on one of those preference calculator things online so I could play in that survey, but yeah: I'm not one to draw up lists of which I like best generally.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe "I need a year off" Craig
    edited May 22 Posts: 7,316
    It appears that it is you who must have forgotten that up until Skyfall Thunderball held the record for highest grossing Bond film, inflation adjusted. So by your rational of using boxoffice figures, yes, it very much is a fan favourite.

    I'm not arguing they retread from 40 years ago, I'm saying they should follow the same general trend they have been since the beginning. Bond films have always followed a pattern of going from light to dark back to light again. After the emotional OHMSS we got the Moore era which was hugely popular in its day. Then we had a darker portrayal with Tim, back to light romps with Pierce, back to grounded fare with Craig. This pattern has existed for the entire run of the franchises long history, which is why I advocate them continuing with a more relaxed, slick GE style film next. I don't know why they would suddenly break with tradition now.
    mtm wrote: »
    I'm not saying they have to do exactly the same plot things, just that audiences -and fans- respond better to, and now expect, their heroes to be emotionally involved in the plot.

    Again, who said this? You state it as fact, but seems more like a lot of guesswork and random poking around with boxoffice figures. If you stare at numbers long enough, you'll find an argument for anything. Lets see how B25 does before we jump to any conclusions.

    People liked this era of Bond because it was prescient for the time. Post 9/11, the more sober, gritty style worked as it reflected the cultural mood. That won't and can't work forever and EON need to go back to the drawing board, which necessarily means cutting out the fat, and throwing away the established formula. In the case of Craig this means the emotional baggage needs to be tossed to make way for a different interpretation, just the same way that they had to cut out all the excess of gadgetry and wacky hijinks of die another day to reach the likes of CR/SF.
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    I think one of the strengths of the Bond series is they can be so different in tone and style from each other. For example in the mood for a more realistic Bond, you can and when you want something a little more light there is a selection to chose from too.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited May 22 Posts: 4,667
    I mean as a kid I'd always watch either Thunderball and Die Another Day, mainly because of Miranda Frost, with Thunderball being my favourite at the time mainly due to Fiona Volpe. I really like female villains and henchwomen haha - which is actually my biggest grievance with the Craig-era.

    Then I started watching more and more, Goldeneye became my favourite, and then after seeing Casino Royale, that was, and then after Skyfall, that was, and Spectre didn't stand a chance as it really disappointed me and now I don't know.
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    :)) When I was a Kid I loved Moonraker ( still have a soft spot for it ) ;)
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 6,587
    I would generally go by tickets sold rather than box-office, myself.
  • Denbigh wrote: »
    I mean as a kid I'd always watch either Thunderball and Die Another Day, mainly because of Miranda Frost, with Thunderball being my favourite at the time mainly due to Fiona Volpe. I really like female villains and henchwomen haha - which is actually my biggest grievance with the Craig-era.

    Then I started watching more and more, Goldeneye became my favourite, and then after seeing Casino Royale, that was, and then after Skyfall, that was, and Spectre didn't stand a chance as it really disappointed me and now I don't know.

    I feel like that’s why I love the Bond films, because each time I go into any specific entry in the franchise, I always end the film with a different opinion than before. For myself, and I’m sure the same can be said for others here, I absolutely hated OHMSS as a kid. But I grew up, started exploring the source material, and with all that, my absolute love for OHMSS was born. Same with FRWL. When it comes to ranking these films, or any other film in general, I don’t think there’s a “right” way to score them. You can talk about Box Office, but that just measures popularity more than quality. Reviews I guess could be an appropriate rubric, but I never find myself referring to a critics review and taking it as the word of god; everyone has their own personal favorites, and even though we hold some entries in much higher regard than others, that doesn’t decrease the value of any of the films really, at least that’s how I see it.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 8,787
    It appears that it is you who must have forgotten that up until Skyfall Thunderball held the record for highest grossing Bond film, inflation adjusted. So by your rational of using boxoffice figures, yes, it very much is a fan favourite.

    Erm, no. Box office shows that it's an audience favourite, not a fan favourite. FRWL is #2 fan favourite, but 12th on the list of box office earners.
    I'm not arguing they retread from 40 years ago, I'm saying they should follow the same general trend they have been since the beginning. Bond films have always followed a pattern of going from light to dark back to light again. After the emotional OHMSS we got the Moore era which was hugely popular in its day. Then we had a darker portrayal with Tim, back to light romps with Pierce, back to grounded fare with Craig. This pattern has existed for the entire run of the franchises long history, which is why I advocate them continuing with a more relaxed, slick GE style film next. I don't know why they would suddenly break with tradition now.

    Because 'tradition' isn't progress: no-one is selling cars with steam-powered engines because it's traditional. You sell people what they want now.
    mtm wrote: »
    I'm not saying they have to do exactly the same plot things, just that audiences -and fans- respond better to, and now expect, their heroes to be emotionally involved in the plot.

    Again, who said this? You state it as fact, but seems more like a lot of guesswork and random poking around with boxoffice figures.

    Have you watched any movies recently? How many can you think of where the main characters weren't involved with the main plot?
    It's a fact that CR is the favourite of the fans, and Skyfall was the most successful Bond ever. Do you honestly think OHMSS is a favourite of the fans because it has a great safe-cracking sequence? It's because it's the one where Bond falls in love. People love it.
    People liked this era of Bond because it was prescient for the time. Post 9/11, the more sober, gritty style worked as it reflected the cultural mood. That won't and can't work forever and EON need to go back to the drawing board, which necessarily means cutting out the fat, and throwing away the established formula. In the case of Craig this means the emotional baggage needs to be tossed to make way for a different interpretation, just the same way that they had to cut out all the excess of gadgetry and wacky hijinks of die another day to reach the likes of CR/SF.

    Who said this? You state it as fact, but it's guesswork.
    There may well be a different angle to it, but the emotional engagement will remain. Audiences are just more sophisticated now.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 8,787
    Denbigh wrote: »
    I mean as a kid I'd always watch either Thunderball and Die Another Day, mainly because of Miranda Frost, with Thunderball being my favourite at the time mainly due to Fiona Volpe. I really like female villains and henchwomen haha - which is actually my biggest grievance with the Craig-era.

    That's a good point. He could really have done with one, couldn't he?
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 4,667
    mtm wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    I mean as a kid I'd always watch either Thunderball and Die Another Day, mainly because of Miranda Frost, with Thunderball being my favourite at the time mainly due to Fiona Volpe. I really like female villains and henchwomen haha - which is actually my biggest grievance with the Craig-era.

    That's a good point. He could really have done with one, couldn't he?
    You never know, we may get a hint of one in No Time to Die, maybe. We know we won't be getting any main female villains or henchwomen.
Sign In or Register to comment.