Where does Bond go after Craig?

18182848687511

Comments

  • Posts: 9,730
    Well to be honest whenever you got back against the wall the best thing to do is the mantra that EON always does "go back to Fleming"

    so bond "died" twice in the books From Russia with Love and You Only Live Twice looking at the books that came after

    If you combine unused elements of The Man with the golden Gun and Dr. No you have a prety good film that does pick up on certain trends in Disney and Marvel...

    what do I mean

    PTS Bond (I am picturing Cavill but you can insert whoever you want) is brainwashed to Kill M he is almost successful as the title sequence happens
    titles
    Bond after being deprogramed only remembers two things about the people who brainwashed him

    the word Risico and the name Mark Hazard (who will be used as the villain name instead of Scaramaga which I don't think should be reused)



    the rest of the film is Bond's redemption story after being the "villain" of the pts this jumps into 2 big trends

    1. Movies about well known villains getting redemption Cruella, Wicked, etc
    2. Brainwashed characters seeking redemption (Winter soldier, Jason Bourne, etc)


    The eco plot of Doctor No could be added in and updated from Guano Mine to a recycling tycoon (shades of Carte Blanche)
  • Posts: 7,500
    People seriously think introducing a new Bond as a brainwashed villain trying to kill M is a good idea? I wanna know what it is people are smoking... I don't think it was a particularly good idea in the novel, I think it would be an awful idea in pretty much any Bond film and I think it would be frankly insane as an introduction to a new Bond actor! 8-}

    Sorry for being this uncompromisingly blunt, but honestly I can't help it. And, yes, feel free to sue me for not treating all of Fleming's ideas as genius, religious gospel...
  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    Posts: 1,351
    jobo wrote: »
    People seriously think introducing a new Bond as a brainwashed villain trying to kill M is a good idea? I wanna know what it is people are smoking... I don't think it was a particularly good idea in the novel, I think it would be an awful idea in pretty much any Bond film and I think it would be frankly insane as an introduction to a new Bond actor! 8-}

    Sorry for being this uncompromisingly blunt, but honestly I can't help it. And, yes, feel free to sue me for not treating all of Fleming's ideas as genius, religious gospel...

    I don't know about the brainwashing part, but the general idea of MI6 not knowing whether this guy actually is Bond or not and him having to go through several layers of security before he gets to Moneypenny and into M's office is almost too perfect as an introduction for a new actor.
    I think the way the opening of TMWTGG takes us on a tour of the outer layers of MI6 with the Soft Man and the Hard Man and all that is pretty cool. It couldn't be exactly the same in modern times of course (and at the end of the day you'd need an idea how they could possibly not recognize him and where he has been and everything), but it's still doable. The whole idea of how the way the Russians make up Bond being a bit too "stage Bond" for Tanner's liking is also very fun, I think and hamming up to ultra-cliché Bond for the PTS before settling into a more realistic portayal could be a fantastic opening.
    But I also have a weird sense of humour...
  • MalloryMallory Do mosquitoes have friends?
    Posts: 2,032
    You would think that “what comes next” came up immediately after EON decided on the NTTD ending. They wouldnt just sit on that for the last three years, surely?
  • Posts: 9,730
    jobo wrote: »
    People seriously think introducing a new Bond as a brainwashed villain trying to kill M is a good idea? I wanna know what it is people are smoking... I don't think it was a particularly good idea in the novel, I think it would be an awful idea in pretty much any Bond film and I think it would be frankly insane as an introduction to a new Bond actor! 8-}

    Sorry for being this uncompromisingly blunt, but honestly I can't help it. And, yes, feel free to sue me for not treating all of Fleming's ideas as genius, religious gospel...


    Oh everyone is entitled to their Opinion and again I don't take it personally because you aren't complaining about me but about Fleming so I don't take it personally..



    Again my issue with just a reboot is well we saw it in 2006. I don't want Bond Begins again. I just Want being Bond to be bond and the hook of Bond finding out who brainwashed him and why might be a bit to dark for a first film but it quickly reintroduces us to the world of 007.


    and the more I think of it the more I love the idea which means like Yes doing the theme and Hilary duff as a bond girl it won't happen ever. so everyone can relax
  • Posts: 3,270
    jobo wrote: »
    People seriously think introducing a new Bond as a brainwashed villain trying to kill M is a good idea? I wanna know what it is people are smoking... I don't think it was a particularly good idea in the novel, I think it would be an awful idea in pretty much any Bond film and I think it would be frankly insane as an introduction to a new Bond actor! 8-}

    Sorry for being this uncompromisingly blunt, but honestly I can't help it. And, yes, feel free to sue me for not treating all of Fleming's ideas as genius, religious gospel...

    Each to their own. I personally love the idea, and have been wanting to see this adapted on screen for years, but then again, I love TMWTGG novel (yes, even the opening).

    How much can I sue you for...? $-)
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    jobo wrote: »
    People seriously think introducing a new Bond as a brainwashed villain trying to kill M is a good idea? I wanna know what it is people are smoking... I don't think it was a particularly good idea in the novel, I think it would be an awful idea in pretty much any Bond film and I think it would be frankly insane as an introduction to a new Bond actor! 8-}

    Sorry for being this uncompromisingly blunt, but honestly I can't help it. And, yes, feel free to sue me for not treating all of Fleming's ideas as genius, religious gospel...

    Yeah I tend to agree, that plot is like something from Man From Uncle rather than Bond. As you say, just because it’s Fleming it doesn’t mean it’s good.
  • edited December 2021 Posts: 9,730
    jobo wrote: »
    People seriously think introducing a new Bond as a brainwashed villain trying to kill M is a good idea? I wanna know what it is people are smoking... I don't think it was a particularly good idea in the novel, I think it would be an awful idea in pretty much any Bond film and I think it would be frankly insane as an introduction to a new Bond actor! 8-}

    Sorry for being this uncompromisingly blunt, but honestly I can't help it. And, yes, feel free to sue me for not treating all of Fleming's ideas as genius, religious gospel...

    Each to their own. I personally love the idea, and have been wanting to see this adapted on screen for years, but then again, I love TMWTGG novel (yes, even the opening).

    How much can I sue you for...? $-)

    the more I think about it the more I realize something is definitely there and yes it's EON jumping on trend of Disney and Marvel but so what.


    The issue is a friend of mine pointed out that it's way too small fries for 007 today (though I countered a low budget thriller is where Bond should go)


    so now I am thinking how do I take this brainwashing element and really expand it to a 2 hour film?


    Obviously I want to go back to Fleming but what if Bond wasn't the only one brainwashed?

    a second 00 agent being Brainwashed but not activated could bring in a ticking clock and really explore Bond and his world in a unique way.


    Which he said all I am doing is adding a ticking clock to it..

    everyone can say I am wrong an that's fine but this could really subvert expectations and most actors would kill for this because you have to not only play 007 but Evil 007 and a James Bond who is unsure of what is real like was he really deprogrammed etc.


    there is a lot here to unpack and people who are better then me (I am sadly an ideas man I want to be a writer but I lack the discipline)

    It would be different and shocking but man I would be thrilled.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    No, not at all. I never thought they would say "this is it".
    I did however expect them to announce something like an official hiatus if he did end up dying. Barbara Broccoli sometimes talks about the future a bit like that (“People always ask, ‘Oh, who’s the next James Bond?’ It’s like asking a bride as she’s going up to the altar who’s her next husband going to be. I don’t really want to think about who is going to be the next person until I absolutely have to.”), so I really thought they would officially say: We'll take a break, let the dust settle on Craig, Michael G. Wilson retires and we figure out a new leadership structure at EON, we'll wait for the Amazon-MGM thing to settle, so we know who our partners there are going to be, maybe work on a couple other projects and when we feel like our heads are a bit clearer then we will start thinking about what Bond is going to be in the future and who we are going to hire for the script, direction and the role.
    It seems like that isn't happening and the wheels for Bond 26 are already starting to move.

    Although there’s still no sign of any ‘B26 ltd’ style companies on Companies House with Broccoli, Pope or Roebuck as directors, and they’ve usually opened a limited company for the next film by now.
  • Jordo007 wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    I am generaly curious: How many of you actually expected this 'to be it' for James Bond? When I hear about fans anxiously waiting through the end credits for confirmation that 'James Bond will return', it honestly baffles me a little. Did anyone seriously expect that EON would say, 'this is it! We're not interested in doing this highly financially benifitial family business anymore'?

    The ending shook me (although I had partly guessed what would happen in advance), but at no point did I contemplate the idea that there would be no more Bond films after this one.

    I didn't think it would be "it" for Bond but after witnessing that ending I needed some reassurance. It was almost like a comfort blanket I guess but I have never been more nervous waiting for the end of the credits

    It was understandable that they left it till the end, but cruel as those few minutes were anxious

    Us hardcore Bond fans knew it's not the end, but the casual audience or fans may think it was over! My parents and a friend of mine messaged me after watching and they thought it was the end of the Bond series.. had to explain a new actor will be picked and it will reboot..
  • I think a lot of older people don't know that it's become acceptable to kill a character and have them magically return in the next movie.
  • BirdlesonBirdleson Moderator
    edited December 2021 Posts: 2,161
    Immediately after streaming it, my brother-in-law (he's in his early 60s and has been a casual fan throughout his life) texted me "What the Hell does JAMES BOND WILL RETURN mean?" Wondering why bother killing him off. Goes to my theory that American audiences, particularly after the long gaps, aren't really onto the fact that Craig has any specific continuity to his films, beyond giving Bond an origin film. SF was huge because it didn't carry on from the film that was released four years earlier (one which was not well-received). Over here (I'm in the US), people, for the most part, still think of Bond films as individual adventures. So far as younger audiences, with a few rare exceptions, the majority of my students (high school) are oblivious to Bond (which is a shame, because when I was growing up teenagers were a large part of the core audience). Blame long gaps and forced continuity for that. It isn't STAR WARS. A kid who saw SP in ninth grade was halfway through college by the time NTTD was released. Not the greatest way to build a fanbase.

    It tells me there will be some confusion, but (as almost always is the case with fears of "confusing" the audience) if the new film is well made and exciting the general audiences won't care. Confusion, continuity, inconsistencies, etc...studios and hardcore fans obsess on that stuff. Your general audience is oblivious until the next installment, and will judge it on that experience.
  • edited December 2021 Posts: 7,500
    jobo wrote: »
    People seriously think introducing a new Bond as a brainwashed villain trying to kill M is a good idea? I wanna know what it is people are smoking... I don't think it was a particularly good idea in the novel, I think it would be an awful idea in pretty much any Bond film and I think it would be frankly insane as an introduction to a new Bond actor! 8-}

    Sorry for being this uncompromisingly blunt, but honestly I can't help it. And, yes, feel free to sue me for not treating all of Fleming's ideas as genius, religious gospel...

    Each to their own. I personally love the idea, and have been wanting to see this adapted on screen for years, but then again, I love TMWTGG novel (yes, even the opening).

    How much can I sue you for...? $-)


    That's not how lawsuits work, man. You don't ask "how much do you want me to sue you for?" ;))

    On a more serious note though, I think it is quite obvious that Fleming's genius lay in his compelling writing rather than his creative ideas or plot construction. I find all of his novels very enjoyable because of his incredible ability to make every scene interesting. I don't think all of his books are necessarily great stories though, and the fact that he made an idea work in print doesn't necessarily mean they are great ideas to filmatize.
  • edited December 2021 Posts: 3,270
    jobo wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    People seriously think introducing a new Bond as a brainwashed villain trying to kill M is a good idea? I wanna know what it is people are smoking... I don't think it was a particularly good idea in the novel, I think it would be an awful idea in pretty much any Bond film and I think it would be frankly insane as an introduction to a new Bond actor! 8-}

    Sorry for being this uncompromisingly blunt, but honestly I can't help it. And, yes, feel free to sue me for not treating all of Fleming's ideas as genius, religious gospel...

    Each to their own. I personally love the idea, and have been wanting to see this adapted on screen for years, but then again, I love TMWTGG novel (yes, even the opening).

    How much can I sue you for...? $-)


    That's not how lawsuits work, man. You don't ask "how much do you want me to sue you for?" ;))

    On a more serious note though, I think it is quite obvious that Fleming's genius lay in his compelling writing rather than his creative ideas or plot construction. I find all of his novels very enjoyable because of his incredible ability to make every scene interesting. I don't think all of his books are necessarily great stories though, and the fact that he made an idea work in print doesn't necessarily mean they are great ideas to filmatize.

    I think the best intro to the next Bond would be the scene in TSWLM when Bond finally arrives - Viv Michel in a sleazy motel, about to be raped and murdered by 2 nasty gangsters, and then the doorbell rings.

    That would make a great PTS, and a superb intro for the next Bond.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    jobo wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    People seriously think introducing a new Bond as a brainwashed villain trying to kill M is a good idea? I wanna know what it is people are smoking... I don't think it was a particularly good idea in the novel, I think it would be an awful idea in pretty much any Bond film and I think it would be frankly insane as an introduction to a new Bond actor! 8-}

    Sorry for being this uncompromisingly blunt, but honestly I can't help it. And, yes, feel free to sue me for not treating all of Fleming's ideas as genius, religious gospel...

    Each to their own. I personally love the idea, and have been wanting to see this adapted on screen for years, but then again, I love TMWTGG novel (yes, even the opening).

    How much can I sue you for...? $-)


    That's not how lawsuits work, man. You don't ask "how much do you want me to sue you for?" ;))

    On a more serious note though, I think it is quite obvious that Fleming's genius lay in his compelling writing rather than his creative ideas or plot construction. I find all of his novels very enjoyable because of his incredible ability to make every scene interesting. I don't think all of his books are necessarily great stories though, and the fact that he made an idea work in print doesn't necessarily mean they are great ideas to filmatize.

    Yes, I think that's very well put. The ideas can be wonderfully perverse and unusual at times, but sometimes they can be silly and a bit naff, but his genius is to sweep you along equally with both.
  • Posts: 7,500
    jobo wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    People seriously think introducing a new Bond as a brainwashed villain trying to kill M is a good idea? I wanna know what it is people are smoking... I don't think it was a particularly good idea in the novel, I think it would be an awful idea in pretty much any Bond film and I think it would be frankly insane as an introduction to a new Bond actor! 8-}

    Sorry for being this uncompromisingly blunt, but honestly I can't help it. And, yes, feel free to sue me for not treating all of Fleming's ideas as genius, religious gospel...

    Each to their own. I personally love the idea, and have been wanting to see this adapted on screen for years, but then again, I love TMWTGG novel (yes, even the opening).

    How much can I sue you for...? $-)


    That's not how lawsuits work, man. You don't ask "how much do you want me to sue you for?" ;))

    On a more serious note though, I think it is quite obvious that Fleming's genius lay in his compelling writing rather than his creative ideas or plot construction. I find all of his novels very enjoyable because of his incredible ability to make every scene interesting. I don't think all of his books are necessarily great stories though, and the fact that he made an idea work in print doesn't necessarily mean they are great ideas to filmatize.

    I think the best intro to the next Bond would be the scene in TSWLM when Bond finally arrives - Viv Michel in a sleazy motel, about to be raped and murdered by 2 nasty gangsters, and then the doorbell rings.

    That would make a great PTS, and a superb intro for the next Bond.

    I could see that work, yes
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    It's a bit more Jack Reacher than Bond though.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited December 2021 Posts: 7,518
    mtm wrote: »
    It's a bit more Jack Reacher than Bond though.

    :)) I love how Original Fleming Bond is "more Jack Reacher" than Bond. ;) It's like Robert Downey Jr. losing a Robert Downey Jr. Lookalike Contest.

    But I can see what you're saying; that particular Fleming scene is ironically something you'd more expect to find in a Jack Reacher film than a modern Bond film.
  • edited December 2021 Posts: 7,500
    mtm wrote: »
    It's a bit more Jack Reacher than Bond though.

    Yes, and it provides a few problems. Fleming dedicates a significant chunk of the book to letting us know Viv and her back story which makes us really care for her when the action finally starts rolling. They obviously wouldn't have time for that in a modern Bond film.
    mtm wrote: »
    It's a bit more Jack Reacher than Bond though.

    :)) I love how Original Fleming Bond is "more Jack Reacher" than Bond. ;) It's like Robert Downey Jr. losing a Robert Downey Jr. Lookalike Contest.

    But I can see what you're saying; that particular Fleming scene is ironically something you'd more expect to find in a Jack Reacher film than a modern Bond film.


    Yes, goes without saying that cinematic Bond in the 2020s is substantially different to literary Bond in the late fifties, not least a novel Fleming didn't care much for himself...
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,245
    .
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited December 2021 Posts: 7,518
    jobo wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    It's a bit more Jack Reacher than Bond though.

    Yes, and it provides a few problems. Fleming dedicates a significant chunk of the book to letting us know Viv and her back story which makes us really care for her when the action finally starts rolling. They obviously wouldn't have time for that in a modern Bond film.
    mtm wrote: »
    It's a bit more Jack Reacher than Bond though.

    :)) I love how Original Fleming Bond is "more Jack Reacher" than Bond. ;) It's like Robert Downey Jr. losing a Robert Downey Jr. Lookalike Contest.

    But I can see what you're saying; that particular Fleming scene is ironically something you'd more expect to find in a Jack Reacher film than a modern Bond film.


    Yes, goes without saying that cinematic Bond in the 2020s is substantially different to literary Bond in the late fifties, not least a novel Fleming didn't care much for himself...

    I think an apt filmmaker could make us care in a small amount of time.

    And yes, I agree, still just thought it was a funny irony.
  • edited December 2021 Posts: 3,270
    mtm wrote: »
    It's a bit more Jack Reacher than Bond though.

    :)) I love how Original Fleming Bond is "more Jack Reacher" than Bond. ;) It's like Robert Downey Jr. losing a Robert Downey Jr. Lookalike Contest.

    But I can see what you're saying; that particular Fleming scene is ironically something you'd more expect to find in a Jack Reacher film than a modern Bond film.

    It's a scene I could imagine from a Tarantino directed Bond flick.

    I'm all for gangsters in the next flick. It would be a refreshing change of direction, and you could incorporate loads of unused Spangled Mob stuff from DAF too, plus TMWTGG, which both relied more on the gangster world.

    I loved LTK for that reason. Taking Bond out of the spy genre once again, and get away from the OTT outlandish stuff, to a more grounded, violent, edgy gangster thriller - that would be my ideal Bond film.

    Hell, it can't be any worse than the soap opera we just witnessed in NTTD. Seeing Bond getting kicked and battered by 2 gangsters wearing football boots, `Brooklyn Stomp' style, as opposed to Bond playing happy families in the kitchen with a daughter in tow - I know what I'd prefer.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    Hell, it can't be any worse than the soap opera we just witnessed in NTTD. Seeing Bond getting kicked and battered by 2 gangsters wearing football boots, `Brooklyn Stomp' style, as opposed to Bond playing happy families in the kitchen with a daughter in tow - I know what I'd prefer.

    That's a bit of a false equivalence though, unless you think there really weren't any scenes of violence in NTTD.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 2,895
    Maybe the next Bond will just admonish the bad guys with stern language and disapproval.
  • edited December 2021 Posts: 9,730
    I will say this the more I look at my idea the more I love it...


    perfect way to introduce Bond
    brings something new to the franchise
    will have everyone at the edge of their seats


    yeah I like it way more then yet another origin story

    If I have time I may try nd create fan art for it
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 5,921
    mtm wrote: »
    It's a bit more Jack Reacher than Bond though.

    :)) I love how Original Fleming Bond is "more Jack Reacher" than Bond. ;) It's like Robert Downey Jr. losing a Robert Downey Jr. Lookalike Contest.

    But I can see what you're saying; that particular Fleming scene is ironically something you'd more expect to find in a Jack Reacher film than a modern Bond film.

    That's because Bond started it all. Let's just say Bond 26 opens with an TMWTGG-style brainwashed assassination attempt.

    The critics will carp, "Bond copied Bourne again." When in reality, it is the other way 'round. I mean, Ludlum even gave his hero the same initials.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    Bond followed in the footsteps of a great many not-dissimilar literary characters.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,518
    Who is the ur-spy?
  • Posts: 7,500
    Venutius wrote: »
    Maybe the next Bond will just admonish the bad guys with stern language and disapproval.


    No, no! Sarcasm! It might be the lowest form of wit, but it is the highest form of weaponry!
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Who is the ur-spy?

    tumblr_oje3cyEdBn1tvyli9o1_400.gifv
Sign In or Register to comment.