Where does Bond go after Craig?

1140141143145146513

Comments

  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,000
    They should bring back Pierce Brosnan for a one-off film, and then kill him off at the end of it to complete his arc. :D
  • edited April 2022 Posts: 3,273
    Revelator wrote: »
    Where does Bond go after Craig?

    I'm not a film producer, but let's pretend Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli have decided to ask a random person in the street for his advice. And he turned out to be me.

    Obviously the first step is finding a new Bond. He should be in his early 30s, so he can be signed to a four-film contract, but also should look mature. He needs to look equally good wearing a tuxedo and throwing a punch, because Bond is the only sophisticated action hero left in modern cinema--the gentleman tough-guy.

    As Craig aged the Bond films began skewing toward older audiences. To ensure their survival, they need to appeal to younger people again. Audiences need to be assured of utter excitement when they see a Bond film, not family drama or angst. Since 2006 the series has been on an ongoing mission to show Bond is human and encumbered with personal problems. That mission has been more than accomplished--now it's time to let the public expect Bond films to be fun.

    Therefore the films need more sex, violence, and lifestyle porn. Young people are clearly into the latter--look at all the influencers on Instagram and TikTok. So ramp up the glitzy clothes, ritzy decor, high living, posh food and drink, and exotic locales. A Bond movie should be on the cutting edge of not only spy gadgets but luxury tech. Dubai turned up to 11! Take audiences into the world of the super super-rich...and then blow it up.

    That leads us to action. The recent Bond films haven't had stunts or set-pieces that truly made audiences buzz. Nowadays the Mission Impossible franchise covers that territory. The Bond films need to re-establish themselves as top-rank purveyors of cutting-edge action. Every Bond film should have at least one action scene so spectacular it's worth the price of admission, like the ski-jump in TSWLM. Even more down-to-earth Bonds like FRWL and OHMSS had the train fight and ski/bobsled chase.

    So hire directors and second-unit directors and editors who have shown aptitude in filming action--no more middlebrow drama directors! Audiences used to line up for Bond films to discover what incredible stunts and action the filmmakers had in store for them. They need to feel this again. In an age of inconsequential CGI carnage, encourage the crew to craft action scenes that look and feel real: performed before the camera. Film them in a way that takes advantage of all the recent advances in technology, including ultra-portable cameras, and edit them as effectively and stylishly as Peter Hunt did. Advance the boundaries of action cinema in the way that the 60s Bond films did! Set the template instead of aping whatever the Bourne/Batman directors are doing.

    Let's not stop at more action--we need more sex. As an older gentleman once told me, a major reason why audiences used to go to Bond films was the babes, including the male babe, Bond himself. CR got that right in 2006, but by the time NTTD rolled around Craig was too old to be a playboy and the eroticism of the films was dialed down. Dial it back up. More beautiful women and men, more flesh, more sleeping around, and more eroticism; even if nudity is out of the question it can be hinted at.

    Bond movies are ultimately a brand. They customarily stood for sex, action, and high living--things people will be interested in until the end of time. So make a greater effort to deliver on those or your competitors will triumph and make your movies look antiquated. Better action, swankier luxury, and gritter and more spectacular action: if audiences get these, you get the audience.

    Great suggestions and I concur 100%. I would only add one more ingredient to this - throw in a PROPER adapted unused scene or two from the Fleming novels too (TLD, LTK style). Even if the mainstream audiences don't get it, we Fleming purists and Bond fans will. And this shouldn't detract from the high gloss, high octane thriller you've outlined here, but keeps all fans happy then.
  • edited April 2022 Posts: 3,273
    They should bring back Pierce Brosnan for a one-off film, and then kill him off at the end of it to complete his arc. :D

    Which would give us pain face grimacing, loud yelling and over acting galore... <:-P
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,053
    Revelator wrote: »
    Where does Bond go after Craig?

    I'm not a film producer, but let's pretend Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli have decided to ask a random person in the street for his advice. And he turned out to be me.

    Obviously the first step is finding a new Bond. He should be in his early 30s, so he can be signed to a four-film contract, but also should look mature. He needs to look equally good wearing a tuxedo and throwing a punch, because Bond is the only sophisticated action hero left in modern cinema--the gentleman tough-guy.

    As Craig aged the Bond films began skewing toward older audiences. To ensure their survival, they need to appeal to younger people again. Audiences need to be assured of utter excitement when they see a Bond film, not family drama or angst. Since 2006 the series has been on an ongoing mission to show Bond is human and encumbered with personal problems. That mission has been more than accomplished--now it's time to let the public expect Bond films to be fun.

    Therefore the films need more sex, violence, and lifestyle porn. Young people are clearly into the latter--look at all the influencers on Instagram and TikTok. So ramp up the glitzy clothes, ritzy decor, high living, posh food and drink, and exotic locales. A Bond movie should be on the cutting edge of not only spy gadgets but luxury tech. Dubai turned up to 11! Take audiences into the world of the super super-rich...and then blow it up.

    That leads us to action. The recent Bond films haven't had stunts or set-pieces that truly made audiences buzz. Nowadays the Mission Impossible franchise covers that territory. The Bond films need to re-establish themselves as top-rank purveyors of cutting-edge action. Every Bond film should have at least one action scene so spectacular it's worth the price of admission, like the ski-jump in TSWLM. Even more down-to-earth Bonds like FRWL and OHMSS had the train fight and ski/bobsled chase.

    So hire directors and second-unit directors and editors who have shown aptitude in filming action--no more middlebrow drama directors! Audiences used to line up for Bond films to discover what incredible stunts and action the filmmakers had in store for them. They need to feel this again. In an age of inconsequential CGI carnage, encourage the crew to craft action scenes that look and feel real: performed before the camera. Film them in a way that takes advantage of all the recent advances in technology, including ultra-portable cameras, and edit them as effectively and stylishly as Peter Hunt did. Advance the boundaries of action cinema in the way that the 60s Bond films did! Set the template instead of aping whatever the Bourne/Batman directors are doing.

    Let's not stop at more action--we need more sex. As an older gentleman once told me, a major reason why audiences used to go to Bond films was the babes, including the male babe, Bond himself. CR got that right in 2006, but by the time NTTD rolled around Craig was too old to be a playboy and the eroticism of the films was dialed down. Dial it back up. More beautiful women and men, more flesh, more sleeping around, and more eroticism; even if nudity is out of the question it can be hinted at.

    Bond movies are ultimately a brand. They customarily stood for sex, action, and high living--things people will be interested in until the end of time. So make a greater effort to deliver on those or your competitors will triumph and make your movies look antiquated. Better action, swankier luxury, and gritter and more spectacular action: if audiences get these, you get the audience.

    Great suggestions and I concur 100%. I would only add one more ingredient to this - throw in a PROPER adapted unused scene or two from the Fleming novels too (TLD, LTK style). Even if the mainstream audiences don't get, we Fleming purists and Bond fans will. And this shouldn't detract from the high gloss, high octane thriller you've outlined here.

    +2. Particularly with the art house directors! Have some action directors come in that know how to have heart in a story. Emotion is welcome in a Bond story just don’t over do it (TWINE, SP). Also, if EON is interested in a multi story arc, planning ahead and keeping people is the first way to go. The only time that EON pulled off the multi story arc well was Dr. No-From Russia With Love. Keep it simple EON. And have fun.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,000
    They should bring back Pierce Brosnan for a one-off film, and then kill him off at the end of it to complete his arc. :D

    Which would give us pain face grimacing, loud yelling and over acting galore... <:-P

    “I know. I knNNUUGGGGHHHHHAAAAA!!!”
  • Posts: 12,837
    Great post @Revelator. I agree with basically all of that.
    I don’t need more action, but I would like more creative action. When I think of my favorite action sequences in the Bond series they are rarely Bond shooting his way through armies of goons. A little of that is fine, but I prefer sequences that have tension/suspense, a good stunt or two, and Bond having to come up with solutions other than just shooting to get out of them. The parkour chase, Red Grant vs Bond, the ski chase in OHMSS, climbing up the cliff in FYEO, etc all tick those boxes for me. We’ve certainly had some of that in the Craig era but as it went on I feel like it became progressively more about him shooting lots and lots of people.

    Yeah completely agree. Don’t get me wrong, a Bond film that competes with MI’s stunts would be cool, but it’s not a necessity. You don’t have to go bigger to be better. The Raid 2 only had a budget of a few million quid, and the car chase towards the end seems insanely modest on paper compared to the likes of Bond, MI and FnF, but I still remember almost every single shot from it, and I found it just as thrilling as Tom Cruise hanging off that plane (if not moreso, because nobody can direct an action scene like Gareth Evans). Creativity is the main thing. I really liked how NTTD had a more visceral quality to the action again, but the only setpiece that felt at all inventive was the PTS.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited April 2022 Posts: 3,382
    Another thing that EON should remember in my opinion:

    If they're going to make a new organization, please don't retcon it like what they've did in Spectre like it's all connected, and forced like those villains that are meant to be standalones end up being forcibly connected, think of Silva being connected to SPECTRE, it's still laughable to me.
    Please I hope they won't do this again.
    I wish they went back to the old times where an organization (Old Spectre and Quantum) was just there sending their agents, making different kinds of threats, doing world domination plots and etc.

    Or if they're doing some sort of connections, make sure that it's not forced or contrived.
    The villains should be obvious that he or she was a member or agent of that organization, like Dr. No implying that he's a SPECTRE member.
    Not that they didn't imply it, then all of a sudden when this organization was introduced, we are all shocked that they're also a part of that organization, which is not really meant to be, think of Le Chiffre and Vesper, they're supposed to work for Quantum, they're not supposed to be a part of SPECTRE, but the writers chose to shoehorned them into that.

  • GadgetManGadgetMan Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 4,247
    I think they must have learnt from Craig's era. If the next era is going to connect movies together they'll plan it better. Another important thing though, is knowing how many films the actor is going to make, especially if you need to connect the films. I love Craig's Bond, but in my heart I know his era truly ended with SP. I loved it when I saw more of him of course. But whenever I watch SF's ending I somehow would have loved his era to end there, because SF's ending is so stylish. It's as good as CR's ending, but with the Gunbarrel at the end to make it more stylish.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    edited April 2022 Posts: 8,000
    MI6HQ wrote: »
    think of Le Chiffre and Vesper, they're supposed to work for Quantum, they're not supposed to be a part of SPECTRE, but the writers chose to shoehorned them into that.

    They weren’t even named in CR, so for all we know they could have worked for either Quantum or SPECTRE, and one or the other isn’t really all that different anyway. A shadowy organization that has agents in every corner. That’s why I’m not so bothered by them changing the name from Quantum to Spectre because they’re that interchangeable.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited April 2022 Posts: 3,382
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    I think they must have learnt from Craig's era. If the next era is going to connect movies together they'll plan it better. Another important thing though, is knowing how many films the actor is going to make, especially if you need to connect the films. I love Craig's Bond, but in my heart I know his era truly ended with SP. I loved it when I saw more of him of course. But whenever I watch SF's ending I somehow would have loved his era to end there, because SF's ending is so stylish. It's as good as CR's ending, but with the Gunbarrel at the end to make it more stylish.

    True, I also feel the same way.
    Skyfall would have been a great ending to the Craig Era.
    Also it can leave the door open for a new actor when Mallory asked Bond about returning to the duty, then Bond replied "with a pleasure", and the gunbarrel, I feel like yes, his era should have end here, with new actor stepping up to the role and there will be standard missions, no more going rogue, this time it's personal.
    Like yes, Bond already moved on, this is where it all begins, M was male again like in the classic movies, and Bond will protect Queen and Country again.
    I can't help but to also understand those people saying that SP tainted his era, I can't really blame them in the first place.
    Yes, I wish they will plan it better, the "connecting all of the movies", it's not really handled well in the Craig Era
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    MI6HQ wrote: »
    think of Le Chiffre and Vesper, they're supposed to work for Quantum, they're not supposed to be a part of SPECTRE, but the writers chose to shoehorned them into that.

    They weren’t even named in CR, so for all we know they could have worked for either Quantum or SPECTRE, and one or the other isn’t really all that different anyway. A shadowy organization that has agents in every corner. That’s why I’m not so bothered by them changing the name from Quantum to Spectre because they’re that interchangeable.

    In real life, sinister loose collaborations like these go under various names. It s not like they are all trade marked on the stock exchange, although quite a few are.
  • GadgetManGadgetMan Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 4,247
    MI6HQ wrote: »
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    I think they must have learnt from Craig's era. If the next era is going to connect movies together they'll plan it better. Another important thing though, is knowing how many films the actor is going to make, especially if you need to connect the films. I love Craig's Bond, but in my heart I know his era truly ended with SP. I loved it when I saw more of him of course. But whenever I watch SF's ending I somehow would have loved his era to end there, because SF's ending is so stylish. It's as good as CR's ending, but with the Gunbarrel at the end to make it more stylish.

    True, I also feel the same way.
    Skyfall would have been a great ending to the Craig Era.
    Also it can leave the door open for a new actor when Mallory asked Bond about returning to the duty, then Bond replied "with a pleasure", and the gunbarrel, I feel like yes, his era should have end here, with new actor stepping up to the role and there will be standard missions, no more going rogue, this time it's personal.
    Like yes, Bond already moved on, this is where it all begins, M was male again like in the classic movies, and Bond will protect Queen and Country again.
    I can't help but to also understand those people saying that SP tainted his era, I can't really blame them in the first place.
    Yes, I wish they will plan it better, the "connecting all of the movies", it's not really handled well in the Craig Era

    Yeah. That's it. But I'm still very happy Craig was brilliant in his era, even with all the problems.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,000
    MI6HQ wrote: »
    think of Le Chiffre and Vesper, they're supposed to work for Quantum, they're not supposed to be a part of SPECTRE, but the writers chose to shoehorned them into that.

    They weren’t even named in CR, so for all we know they could have worked for either Quantum or SPECTRE, and one or the other isn’t really all that different anyway. A shadowy organization that has agents in every corner. That’s why I’m not so bothered by them changing the name from Quantum to Spectre because they’re that interchangeable.

    In real life, sinister loose collaborations like these go under various names. It s not like they are all trade marked on the stock exchange, although quite a few are.

    Good point. Even in the novels Bond had to change his Universal Exports cover to Transworld Consortium because the old name became too known.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 12,916
    Silva's lines in SF set up the connection to Spectre perfectly. As the 5 films exist, there's no conflict with the organizations as they play out. SF included.
    If you wanted, you could pick your own secret missions. As I do. Name it, name it. Destabilize a multinational by manipulating stocks. Bip. Easy. Interrupt transmissions from a spy satellite over Kabul... done. Hmm. Rig an election in Uganda. All to the highest bidder.

    CR released November 2006. QOS planned release was May 2008, delayed to October. Skyfall planned release was originally Fall 2010. That would have pleased a lot of people, and showcases the intent of the filmmakers and producers before events extended schedules.

    There is the plan, then reality takes over. Looking back Eon masterfully negotiated developments across the years to box office and critical success, and no less success with the audience. NTTD weathering the theater closures and uncertain future exists as amazing film history playing out, luckily they invested a lot of heart and class and top notch entertainment in their latest mission.

    And the objections to the film content based on bad feelings for events taking place off screen (presuming the producers didn't plan enough) fall kind of flat.

    So I'm back to the Charly Gordon view of: What is, is. What is not, is not. (Is that it? It is.)

    This talk of demanding the filmmakers plan better (across 14 or more years) to me recalls a prescient Dilbert cartoon on planning and its potential worth.

    500-dilbert-planning.jpg
  • Posts: 1,693
    mattjoes wrote: »
    I have recently discovered is that teens on TikTok (and it’s bleeding into Instagram) are developing new slang to get around the content moderation on that platform. You can’t write Sex, or your video is downgraded by the algorithm, so it’s „seggs“ or some metaphor. You can write about death so people are „unalive“. I don’t know where our man Bond fits in there, but it doesn’t bode well for an assassin who’s a series adulterer, right?

    I know all about you. Seggs for dinner, unaliveness for breakfast.

    Could not have said it better.
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    Posts: 648
    You can't plan out a movie series unless you're adapting pre-existing works. The only way they could pre-plan a new Bond series is if they make new adaptions of the Fleming novels. Otherwise there's no way of doing Marvel-style continuity because they don't know which actors will be available a decade down the road, what the writers' situation will be, or what will be going on in the world in general.

    And honestly, why even bother with continuity? I don't think the Craig era benefited from it at all. You end up having to do terrible retcons to link all the movies together, so why not just take it one movie at a time instead? It's not like it didn't work for 40 years.
  • CharmianBondCharmianBond Pett Bottom, Kent
    Posts: 533
    I really appreciated the effort to tie things together in the Craig-era and add a thematic weight but I also agree that you can't have a rigid plan especially for something as chaotic as movie production, things change, priorities shift and actually improvisation can lead to something better than originally intended so I think it's a false dichotomy.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,000
    I really appreciated the effort to tie things together in the Craig-era and add a thematic weight but I also agree that you can't have a rigid plan especially for something as chaotic as movie production, things change, priorities shift and actually improvisation can lead to something better than originally intended so I think it's a false dichotomy.

    Yup. There’s no film series where everything goes according to plan. The MCU films for example went through a lot of changes during development. Things got pushed back. Some dropped altogether.

    George Lucas famously made up his Star Wars saga as he went along, which is why we get odd developments like Luke finding out Leia was his sister. The closest he had to a plan was the prequels because he knew what the endgame was, but what exactly happens in the prequels was something he had to come up with and he struggled along the way, often turning in drafts way too close before cameras were expected to roll. Then there’s all the reshoots he had to do because he realized what he had shot wasn’t conveying enough story.

    And then there’s Bond. Even back in the 60s they made the baffling choice of picking YOLT as the next adaptation before OHMSS, but that meant having to scrap the whole story and replace it with a new one involving space rockets and a hollowed out volcano.

    I think the closest that EON can have a multi-film plan is if they start adapting the continuation novels, whether faithfully or loosely. Which would be cool because then they’d be able to announce the title of the next film at the end, like they used to from FRWL-OP.
  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    Posts: 1,351
    Everyone’s got a plan until they get punched in the mouth.
    The real achievement of the MCU isn’t that they had everything planned out for ten years, but that they were always able to make the adjustments work and to drop what didn’t work without it being too obvious and disruptive.

    This is a boring thing to say, but Eon just have to be better at it. The problem isn’t (necessarily) that they decided too late to tie everything together. It’s that they tied it together badly. It’s not the ultimate sin to figure out a story as you go along. It’s also not fundamentally bad writing to start with an ending and write towards it. You just have to do it well!
  • Posts: 15,785
    I wouldn't mind a well planned story arc for the next actor.

    Well, actually I don't like the idea at all, but if it were well executed it could be great. Maybe a trilogy?
    Considering how Mickey G likes to emphasize that Eon isn't a machine factory, I kind of doubt a planned story arc will happen at all. My guess is Eon will continue to focus on one film at a time and then tie them in together as they go. Just like in the Craig era.

  • edited April 2022 Posts: 784
    Quantum of Solace was a great expansive sequel that kept things fresh. Continuation is not an art that can’t be mastered. You certainly don’t need pre existing works or plans to do it. You just need capable writing/directing talent with a knack for storytelling which seems to be rare in the industry since around the time D&D started replacing GRRM’s work in Game of Thrones or comedy began to be frowned upon.

    “I don’t think he smoked” was the best line in the franchise. Bond humorously corrects M claiming to have cared for, with gifts, the time-honoured employee that tried to have her killed. It conveyed subtly in one line what took Skyfall the entire dragged out Silva/Bond being shot/retirement/M dying plot to do.

    Skyfall was unBondian and barely consistent at all. The only reason I think it did better with non-diehard fans is that it was a standalone film through and through. And because it was more child friendly than Harry Potter.
  • edited April 2022 Posts: 2,753
    Many have already theorized that Eon will be looking to The Batman for inspiration, and its success at relaunching the character with a smaller scale noir mystery plotline could be just the thing they use as justification to do the same for Bond.

    Yes. I think The Batman's a good example of a film which not only understands/adapts its source material, but does something new with the film incarnation of its character. Essentially it's what I suggested - a big franchise film which uses Film Noir tropes. I'm not saying Bond 26 has to have the same dark cinematography or be about a broody Bond hunting serial killers, but this film has to re-establish Bond, do something slightly different with his character/the tropes of the series, all while ideally more closely adapting/understanding Fleming's novels and remaining consistent with what makes the Bond films so enjoyable to watch. I mean, it's telling that Skyfall was the most successful modern Bond film (or indeed ever?) - a film which is very character based, smaller in scale than many other Bond adventures and plays with the formula of the movie series. Also, why would EON risk throwing too much money at this next film? NTTD cost about £300 Million and couldn't break even with advertising costs. They'll need to keep the next one to about £185-200 Million, hence stripping back on locations, the story itself etc.

    My point is viewers want something different with these films that goes deeper than just 'luxury instagram' aesthetics and big action stunts (as @SomethingThatAteHim also pointed out it's more a case of creative action scenes being needed, not necessarily more or bigger ones). We have many unsuccessful action movies out there, Bond is and always has been better than them. All of these elements - the unique action sequences, the cars, gambling, sex - can be fitted with a story and character direction that is fresh and doesn't turn Bond 26 into a run of the mill action film.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 12,916
    Planning a controlled start with a new actor across 2 or 3 films in today's environment would be smart. Then more missions from the same actor would be icing on the cake.

    Or they're ready to move on to Bond 8, a new actor in their reestablished franchise. Just business.

  • Posts: 462
    I don’t mind continuity between films but it shouldn’t be forced or be retconning things that were previously established. Then it comes off as sloppy and lazy.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited April 2022 Posts: 3,382
    CrzChris4 wrote: »
    I don’t mind continuity between films but it shouldn’t be forced or be retconning things that were previously established. Then it comes off as sloppy and lazy.

    True, my friend.

  • Posts: 462
    MI6HQ wrote: »
    CrzChris4 wrote: »
    I don’t mind continuity between films but it shouldn’t be forced or be retconning things that were previously established. Then it comes off as sloppy and lazy.

    I have no problem with continuity, as long as it was written properly and not as forced and contrived.
    And also the reasoning behind it was very shallow, I mean Blofeld did all of that because he was jealous of Bond?
    It could have been much better.

    Or Silva working for SPECTRE. All we get is a quick namedrop from Blofeld and then that random production still when Bond is walking through MI6. Completely unnecessary. Lol.
  • edited April 2022 Posts: 784
    CrzChris4 wrote: »
    MI6HQ wrote: »
    CrzChris4 wrote: »
    I don’t mind continuity between films but it shouldn’t be forced or be retconning things that were previously established. Then it comes off as sloppy and lazy.

    I have no problem with continuity, as long as it was written properly and not as forced and contrived.
    And also the reasoning behind it was very shallow, I mean Blofeld did all of that because he was jealous of Bond?
    It could have been much better.

    Or Silva working for SPECTRE. All we get is a quick namedrop from Blofeld and then that random production still when Bond is walking through MI6. Completely unnecessary. Lol.


    I vomited in my mouth and had a small stroke.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited April 2022 Posts: 2,897
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    My guess is Eon will continue to focus on one film at a time and then tie them in together as they go. Just like in the Craig era.
    I think you're probably right. MGW actually once said that they always wait to see the reaction to the new film before they decide which way to go for the next one - which sort of undermines the idea of any pre-planned four- or five-film arc. As you say, they're maybe more likely to make adjustments as they go and then try to knit together the loose strands at the end.
  • edited April 2022 Posts: 2,753
    Is it worth in that case trying to tie together the next few films in a strictly narrative sense? The films can still be stand-alone adventures while coming back to certain aspects of Bond 7's character within them (there's plenty of stuff regarding Fleming's Bond that the films haven't really touched - his odd relationship with death and hatred of killing in cold blood, his 'St. George complex' of wanting to save damaged women and his tendency to fall in love with them, the physical toll of his profession and his addiction to the 'danger' of his job despite this). Just seems a bit silly having another SPECTRE situation where everything in this Bond actor's tenure is revealed to be part of some implausible grand plan.
  • LucknFateLucknFate 007 In New York
    Posts: 1,420
    Revelator wrote: »
    Where does Bond go after Craig?

    I'm not a film producer, but let's pretend Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli have decided to ask a random person in the street for his advice. And he turned out to be me.

    Obviously the first step is finding a new Bond. He should be in his early 30s, so he can be signed to a four-film contract, but also should look mature. He needs to look equally good wearing a tuxedo and throwing a punch, because Bond is the only sophisticated action hero left in modern cinema--the gentleman tough-guy.

    As Craig aged the Bond films began skewing toward older audiences. To ensure their survival, they need to appeal to younger people again. Audiences need to be assured of utter excitement when they see a Bond film, not family drama or angst. Since 2006 the series has been on an ongoing mission to show Bond is human and encumbered with personal problems. That mission has been more than accomplished--now it's time to let the public expect Bond films to be fun.

    Therefore the films need more sex, violence, and lifestyle porn. Young people are clearly into the latter--look at all the influencers on Instagram and TikTok. So ramp up the glitzy clothes, ritzy decor, high living, posh food and drink, and exotic locales. A Bond movie should be on the cutting edge of not only spy gadgets but luxury tech. Dubai turned up to 11! Take audiences into the world of the super super-rich...and then blow it up.

    That leads us to action. The recent Bond films haven't had stunts or set-pieces that truly made audiences buzz. Nowadays the Mission Impossible franchise covers that territory. The Bond films need to re-establish themselves as top-rank purveyors of cutting-edge action. Every Bond film should have at least one action scene so spectacular it's worth the price of admission, like the ski-jump in TSWLM. Even more down-to-earth Bonds like FRWL and OHMSS had the train fight and ski/bobsled chase.

    So hire directors and second-unit directors and editors who have shown aptitude in filming action--no more middlebrow drama directors! Audiences used to line up for Bond films to discover what incredible stunts and action the filmmakers had in store for them. They need to feel this again. In an age of inconsequential CGI carnage, encourage the crew to craft action scenes that look and feel real: performed before the camera. Film them in a way that takes advantage of all the recent advances in technology, including ultra-portable cameras, and edit them as effectively and stylishly as Peter Hunt did. Advance the boundaries of action cinema in the way that the 60s Bond films did! Set the template instead of aping whatever the Bourne/Batman directors are doing.

    Let's not stop at more action--we need more sex. As an older gentleman once told me, a major reason why audiences used to go to Bond films was the babes, including the male babe, Bond himself. CR got that right in 2006, but by the time NTTD rolled around Craig was too old to be a playboy and the eroticism of the films was dialed down. Dial it back up. More beautiful women and men, more flesh, more sleeping around, and more eroticism; even if nudity is out of the question it can be hinted at.

    Bond movies are ultimately a brand. They customarily stood for sex, action, and high living--things people will be interested in until the end of time. So make a greater effort to deliver on those or your competitors will triumph and make your movies look antiquated. Better action, swankier luxury, and gritter and more spectacular action: if audiences get these, you get the audience.

    Great suggestions and I concur 100%. I would only add one more ingredient to this - throw in a PROPER adapted unused scene or two from the Fleming novels too (TLD, LTK style). Even if the mainstream audiences don't get it, we Fleming purists and Bond fans will. And this shouldn't detract from the high gloss, high octane thriller you've outlined here, but keeps all fans happy then.

    Is there a thread on this forum that collects unused Fleming moments/materials that could still be used?
Sign In or Register to comment.