Where does Bond go after Craig?

1121122124126127523

Comments

  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,917
    I feel like there was complaining about that(!) but only on Bond forums.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,894
    echo wrote: »
    Did people complain when they rebooted the character last time? No. I don't recall reading, "But what about Goldfinger? What about Tracy? Did none of that happen? Waa!" Zzz...

    Actually, there have been critics of the reboot. Why did they need to reboot? I know that they wanted to jump on the Batman Begins reboot wagon. But all they needed was another OHMSS/FYEO/TLD course correction.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    edited March 2022 Posts: 7,942
    I can’t comprehend how anyone can’t understand doing a new cinematic adaptation of a fictional literary character. Sherlock Holmes is my favorite comparison; I don’t think that any other literary figure has had more , independent, film adaptations . Does anyone watch the Cumberbatch version and say , ‘ hey, wait a minute, in Basil Rathbone’s third film did this or that so why is Cumberbatch doing or saying that or this’ .

    The next Bond will have a clean slate; overwhelming audience will go with that .
  • MSL49MSL49 Finland
    Posts: 395
    Lighter with no personal baggage.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 5,944
    MSL49 wrote: »
    Lighter with no personal baggage.

    There's been personal baggage in every film since 1989.
  • MSL49MSL49 Finland
    Posts: 395
    It's time to switch.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 12,976
    Actually, there have been critics of the reboot. Why did they need to reboot? I know that they wanted to jump on the Batman Begins reboot wagon. But all they needed was another OHMSS/FYEO/TLD course correction.

    It was the best way to tell the Casino Royale story that defines the character.

    Very unexpected. And they delivered.

  • Posts: 9,766
    MSL49 wrote: »
    Lighter with no personal baggage.

    Bond versus Mobsters would be that.
  • Posts: 1,703
    The range of theories and ideas from just the fans on this thread as to were Bond could go next really shines a light on just how difficult Eon's task is in trying to make the right moves for the next iteration of 007.
  • Posts: 727
    Speaking of what’s acceptable in the modern age, in the new Batman movie, he watches a member of the opposite sex get undressed for two minutes to no backlash whatsoever. I often wonder if it was Bond in that scene instead. I could imagine the Guardian cultural section being quite busy for months.
  • Posts: 12,248
    Speaking of what’s acceptable in the modern age, in the new Batman movie, he watches a member of the opposite sex get undressed for two minutes to no backlash whatsoever. I often wonder if it was Bond in that scene instead. I could imagine the Guardian cultural section being quite busy for months.

    I was honestly shocked that A) that scene was in at all & B) I only read one complaint about it among several reviews. The “modern audiences” typically will make a fuss about this kind of thing. The Batman was impressive on many levels, one of them being it made a movie feel sexy again finally. Sex appeal is sorely lacking thanks to some people. Would love to see things like this return to Bond as it is so part of his character.
  • edited March 2022 Posts: 14,816
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    I fear Bond won’t be much of a womanizer anymore thanks to modern sensitivity.

    I think he still will be, but women will be more assertive. Think more Solange and less Solitaire.

    We’ll see. To me, even though I can let it slide since it’s part of the love plot, NTTD made it look like the series is transitioning to “fit the times,” with no casual sex or sexy women in the title credits. They already took away Bond’s smoking, so taking away his sexual lust isn’t at all a far fetched idea, especially since in the eyes of many he’s evil and misogynistic just for having casual consensual encounters.

    Smoking is no longer seen glamorous and hasn't been for a long time though. Except maybe cigars. Maybe. Which is why they make an appearance in NTTD, albeit Bond doesn't smoke one. Seduction, providing it's not done in a sleazy or creepy manner, is still seen as sexy and part of an hedonistic living. There's a very good reason why it was seriously toned down in NTTD: it would have cheapened the relationship between Bond, Madeleine and Mathilde. Otherwise, when Bond is single in Jamaica and unaware of the existence of his daughter, he seems as womanising as he was before his relationship with Madeleine. Or at least he seems eager to sleep with Nomi.

    I don’t know about that. There seems to be a cultural shift where it’s been looked down upon for men to be like James Bond and get a lot of action now. It’s always been backwards anyway; in the old days, if you were a guy and got lots of action, well done player, it you were a woman you were a slut. Now I feel the attitude is more a woman is empowered for having multiple partners and men are pigs for it.

    Smoking and having tons of sex with different people are both risky to one’s health. I don’t understand all these double standards. We can’t watch James Bond or The Penguin in Batman smoke anymore god forbid, but who cares when they do things like killing people? So backwards what makes people sensitive.

    Let's not make false equivalences: sex is natural and part of human nature. Heck it's essential to the human species. Smoking is not. It's unhealthy even in small quantity: there's literally no moderation for it. And if it's been looked down upon it's for health reasons and objective, verifiable facts. Sex on the contrary has become far less taboo. As long as it's dome between two fully consenting adults, I don't think anyone objects, except religious fanatics and a few radical feminists. Regarding Bond himself, I'd applied the old principle Raymond Chandler used for his own Philip Marlowe: neither an eunuch nor a satyr, who may seduce a duchess, but will not dishonour a virgin.

    You didn’t address the killing part. Is that in the “part of human nature” or “unhealthy even in small quantity” category? I said and stand by what I said about riskiness regarding unprotected sex; technically we never know one way or another with Bond other than Madeleine of course if he protects himself to be fair. At any rate, this is all being performed on a screen as fiction. If killing people and having sex can be faked, why not smoking? It’s all art as I said - people have themselves to blame if they take the initiative to emulate what they see on screen.

    I'm not sure where you're going with it. Killing is pretty much a moot point: villains murder (generally) Bond does so in self-defence, or at least he does it for Queen and Country, thus for selfless reasons. He doesn't enjoy it. It doesn't matter whether smoking is fake or not: it's no longer seen as glamorous. Far less than fine wines or decades old scotch, or high quality cocktails. With the possible exception of cigars. As for sex, not sure where you're going with protected/unprotected. For all we know Bond has a stash of condoms in his briefcase. In any case, it's the public general attitude towards sex that is now very permissive overall I think.

    Ok. So your argument is that Bond doesn’t / shouldn’t smoke anymore because of public perception, correct? It the public decided we shouldn’t glamorize sex or violence anymore (violence in these films is shown both realistically and glamorized for what it’s worth), they should no longer be part of Bond’s character either? Or if public attitude shifted against alcohol more or more in the future.

    Edit: Bond also clearly says in TMWTGG he admits killing Scaramanga would be a pleasure, and often quips one-liners and grins after killing (he had to fly MR, Carlos in CR, etc). Seems he enjoys it at least sometimes!
    It's not a question of public perception, it's about what smoking represents nowadays and has been for a while. It's no longer glamorous. At all. If you can make it glamorous again, then by all mean have Bond smoke again. Like I said, cigar is still sort of sexy. You're making a false equivalence bringing in sex and violence: they can be glamourised or not, depending of the work of fiction. It's a harder sale for smoking, by and large.

    Yes in the movies Bond does enjoy killing sometimes (in the novel I'm not certain he ever does) partially to soften the violence, distantiate ourselves with it, if that makes sense. And even then I think at least some one liners are not said with any sadism or malice, but to distantiate himself from the brutality of action. Overall I tend to think it works better and it's more impactful when he considers it a necessary evil and when he kills someone dispassionately. When he said he would enjoy killing Scaramanga, it shows what he thinks of Scaramanga, his enjoyment would come from getting rid of an evil man he finds morally repellent, it's not the killing that is in itself a source of pleasure. Bond is not a sadist. Unlike Scaramanga, I might add, who fetishises both murder and the tool he uses for murder.

    Edit: and at least during the Craig era, Bond’s drinking is seen as both glamorous and part of his hedonistic lifestyle AND potentially harmful. They don't shy away from Bond’s destructive and alcoholic tendencies. So things are not mutually exclusive: something can be both seen as sexy or hedonistic yet harmful.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited March 2022 Posts: 5,869
    Speaking of what’s acceptable in the modern age, in the new Batman movie, he watches a member of the opposite sex get undressed for two minutes to no backlash whatsoever. I often wonder if it was Bond in that scene instead. I could imagine the Guardian cultural section being quite busy for months.
    I think its down to the context of the scene, the characters, and just how it was handled overall. From that, I think people understood that there wasn't anything to it beyond Bruce wondering what she was doing; seeing her remove her wig and dress in her motorcycle suit, as opposed to watching her change in the uncomfortable sense. There was obviously hint of sexiness to it given Kravitz' beauty overall, but again the context and how it was handled didn't come across perverted.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited March 2022 Posts: 14,917
    Speaking of what’s acceptable in the modern age, in the new Batman movie, he watches a member of the opposite sex get undressed for two minutes to no backlash whatsoever. I often wonder if it was Bond in that scene instead. I could imagine the Guardian cultural section being quite busy for months.

    I saw a fun tweet earlier where someone said "You couldn't make a movie like The Batman today" :D
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Speaking of what’s acceptable in the modern age, in the new Batman movie, he watches a member of the opposite sex get undressed for two minutes to no backlash whatsoever. I often wonder if it was Bond in that scene instead. I could imagine the Guardian cultural section being quite busy for months.

    I was honestly shocked that A) that scene was in at all & B) I only read one complaint about it among several reviews. The “modern audiences” typically will make a fuss about this kind of thing. The Batman was impressive on many levels, one of them being it made a movie feel sexy again finally. Sex appeal is sorely lacking thanks to some people. Would love to see things like this return to Bond as it is so part of his character.

    If you were shocked that no-one complained, maybe this view that everyone else in the world is offended by everything 'these days' which several media outlets push is actually not true? Culture wars sell papers just as well as Mr Carver's real wars do after all.
    If you're not offended, and I'm not offended, and no-one else here is offended; maybe don't worry about it.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited March 2022 Posts: 14,917
    Ludovico wrote: »
    When he said he would enjoy killing Scaramanga, it shows what he thinks of Scaramanga, his enjoyment would come from getting rid of an evil man he finds morally repellent, it's not the killing that is in itself a source of pleasure. Bond is not a sadist. Unlike Scaramanga, I might add, who fetishises both murder and the tool he uses for murder.

    To be fair I think the morals in TMWTGG script are all over the shop. It's only film where MI6 and the British are the aggressors- Scaramanga is a bad chap make no mistake, but there's actually no reason for MI6 to send their best assassin after him other than he possesses (and quite legitimately at that!) what they want.
    And then they appear to allow the oil companies pay them off to keep it a big secret after the end of the film! At least, Bond's Lotus still appears to be running on petrol in the next film :D
  • Posts: 727
    I think it's because the woke punditry, especially those in the guardian, don't care about Batman. But they love to pick on Bond. I think it's actually a sign of Bond's bigger cinematic relevance over Batman.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited March 2022 Posts: 5,869
    I think it's because the woke punditry, especially those in the guardian, don't care about Batman. But they love to pick on Bond. I think it's actually a sign of Bond's bigger cinematic relevance over Batman.
    I'm not sure. If we are to compare in that sense, I'd say its more to do with Bond's history when it comes to its treatment of female characters. Yes, we've had some extremely strong female characters even from the franchises birth, but also a few unfortunate cases of misrepresentation that can be hard to ignore, and we can't deny that, so I think people have an expectation for the Bond franchise to make more of an effort considering the history of the "Bond girl". But again the scene we're referring to was executed in such a way that any scrutiny isn't warranted.

    As for the cinematic relevance, I'd say Batman has held that title over Bond, well Nolans did anyway, just because of how superheroes have taken the conversation in terms of cinematic franchises.
  • Posts: 727
    Maybe they were satisfied by the "white privilege" jab and decided to ignore the creepy undressing scene.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited March 2022 Posts: 5,869
    "white privilege" jab
    People have pointed out that one out as something that bothered them but not many, I think thats cause (in my opinion) the line is warranted given the context of the film and the character of Selina. Anyway, we should probably avoid too much Batman stuff going on here.
  • Posts: 14,816
    mtm wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    When he said he would enjoy killing Scaramanga, it shows what he thinks of Scaramanga, his enjoyment would come from getting rid of an evil man he finds morally repellent, it's not the killing that is in itself a source of pleasure. Bond is not a sadist. Unlike Scaramanga, I might add, who fetishises both murder and the tool he uses for murder.

    To be fair I think the morals in TMWTGG script are all over the shop. It's only film where MI6 and the British are the aggressors- Scaramanga is a bad chap make no mistake, but there's actually no reason for MI6 to send their best assassin after him other than he possesses (and quite legitimately at that!) what they want.
    And then they appear to allow the oil companies pay them off to keep it a big secret after the end of the film! At least, Bond's Lotus still appears to be running on petrol in the next film :D

    True, TMWTGG is not exactly consistent in any way. But I think there was at least an attempt to depict Scaramanga as a sadistic and fetischist killer.
  • Posts: 12,248
    The “white privilege” line in Batman in context isn’t bad at all. As someone who often complains about PC culture going too far, this didn’t bother me whatsoever. White privilege exists… and the people she was talking about in the movie were rich evil people.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,917
    I think it's because the woke punditry, especially those in the guardian, don't care about Batman. But they love to pick on Bond. I think it's actually a sign of Bond's bigger cinematic relevance over Batman.

    I feel it's a pretty tough argument to claim that Batman doesn't have a big cinematic impact.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited March 2022 Posts: 5,869
    FoxRox wrote: »
    The “white privilege” line in Batman in context isn’t bad at all. [...] White privilege exists… and the people she was talking about in the movie were rich evil people.
    +1
    mtm wrote: »
    I think it's because the woke punditry, especially those in the guardian, don't care about Batman. But they love to pick on Bond. I think it's actually a sign of Bond's bigger cinematic relevance over Batman.
    I feel it's a pretty tough argument to claim that Batman doesn't have a big cinematic impact.
    Precisely. Let's also not forget how the franchises most successful entry was heavily inspired by The Dark Knight.
  • Posts: 1,703
    As observed above, Bruce is being clinical, absorbing intel while watching Selina. Because it is not presented in a sexual way and the audience understood what was transpiring there was nothing for people to get triggered by. Same can be said for Bond whenever he beds a consenting adult. Personally, the idea of Bond smoking cigarettes does not have to be sexy. For people living on the edge, an occasional good cigarette can be a relaxing personal pleasure.
  • MSL49MSL49 Finland
    Posts: 395
    Make Bond fun again.
  • edited March 2022 Posts: 1,001
    MSL49 wrote: »
    Make Bond fun again.

    Exactly. Have him enjoying his work, free of emotional baggage.

    I'd be quite happy if the next movie was called 'James Bond of the Secret Service' and they embraced the pulp element, whilst keeping this quote in mind, (from Dr No)...

    “The license to kill for the Secret Service, the double-o prefix, was a great honor. It had been earned hardly. It brought Bond the only assignments he enjoyed, the dangerous ones.”
  • Posts: 9,766
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Speaking of what’s acceptable in the modern age, in the new Batman movie, he watches a member of the opposite sex get undressed for two minutes to no backlash whatsoever. I often wonder if it was Bond in that scene instead. I could imagine the Guardian cultural section being quite busy for months.

    I was honestly shocked that A) that scene was in at all & B) I only read one complaint about it among several reviews. The “modern audiences” typically will make a fuss about this kind of thing. The Batman was impressive on many levels, one of them being it made a movie feel sexy again finally. Sex appeal is sorely lacking thanks to some people. Would love to see things like this return to Bond as it is so part of his character.


    Agreed. again as much as I liked the Nolan trilogy I felt because Chris's wife was on set the sexuality of the women was sorely lacking (its the one reason I don't want him to direct Bond)

    I do wonder if EON had the balls to bring back an older actor to follow the trend of
    Spider Man: No Way Home
    Flash and possibly Doctor Strange 2

    Again I think many on here would prefer a third Dalton or a 5th Brosnan over 95% of the people rumored or mentioned on this board.
  • MSL49MSL49 Finland
    Posts: 395
    Nolan movies are too dark for Bond.
  • edited March 2022 Posts: 12,837
    echo wrote: »
    Did people complain when they rebooted the character last time? No. I don't recall reading, "But what about Goldfinger? What about Tracy? Did none of that happen? Waa!" Zzz...

    Actually, there have been critics of the reboot. Why did they need to reboot? I know that they wanted to jump on the Batman Begins reboot wagon. But all they needed was another OHMSS/FYEO/TLD course correction.

    I agreed with this at the time, because I assumed the reboot would just create a new floating timeline, so it seemed pointless to me. But instead they used it to set up a complete story with a beginning middle and end. That made it worth it for me. I still agree they didn’t need to do it, but I’m glad they did, even though the arc wasn’t always handled brilliantly.
Sign In or Register to comment.