Where does Bond go after Craig?

1171172174176177182

Comments

  • MI6HQMI6HQ Having a trip down to Memory Lane.....
    edited July 1 Posts: 959
    mtm wrote: »
    Yeah that's understandable. I get a bit frustrated when folks say that it wouldn't have worked with Connery or Connery couldn't have done it: he was one of the best movie stars of the last 60 years, he'd have been just fine with it (as long as he fully engaged).

    I think it would have worked as long as he's engaged and as long as he have a great co-star to go with (someone like Rigg).

    It also depends on the co-star, if Connery's there but his leading lady wasn't that great it wouldn't worked.

    But the problem if the audiences at the time would have liked to see Connery's Bond falling in love? People knew his Bond as this playboy superman, they're not used to seeing Bond that way.
    So with other actor in the role, it's easy for the audiences to accept the change in Bond's character.
  • edited July 1 Posts: 651
    MI6HQ wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Yeah that's understandable. I get a bit frustrated when folks say that it wouldn't have worked with Connery or Connery couldn't have done it: he was one of the best movie stars of the last 60 years, he'd have been just fine with it (as long as he fully engaged).

    I think it would have worked as long as he's engaged and as long as he have a great co-star to go with (someone like Rigg).

    It also depends on the co-star, if Connery's there but his leading lady wasn't that great it wouldn't worked.

    But the problem if the audiences at the time would have liked to see Connery's Bond falling in love? People knew his Bond as this playboy superman, they're not used to seeing Bond that way.
    So with other actor in the role, it's easy for the audiences to accept the change in Bond's character.

    Connery could potentially have done it, but obviously 'if he was engaged' is the most important phrase in that sentence. To be honest, I'm not sure if he was ever going to be considering his frustration with the role and his relationship with Broccoli. I don't think he would have been lured back with the script/the 'deeper' interpretation of the character in that particular film. Let's be honest, if they did manage to get him back it would likely have been with money, and there's no guarantee that would have resulted in a more dynamic performance.

    It's one of these hypotheticals we just don't know at the end of the day. But yes, I imagine Connery would have been capable of carrying the role in OHMSS as an actor... if he wanted to.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited July 1 Posts: 4,914
    007HallY wrote: »
    MI6HQ wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Yeah that's understandable. I get a bit frustrated when folks say that it wouldn't have worked with Connery or Connery couldn't have done it: he was one of the best movie stars of the last 60 years, he'd have been just fine with it (as long as he fully engaged).

    I think it would have worked as long as he's engaged and as long as he have a great co-star to go with (someone like Rigg).

    It also depends on the co-star, if Connery's there but his leading lady wasn't that great it wouldn't worked.

    But the problem if the audiences at the time would have liked to see Connery's Bond falling in love? People knew his Bond as this playboy superman, they're not used to seeing Bond that way.
    So with other actor in the role, it's easy for the audiences to accept the change in Bond's character.

    Connery could potentially have done it, but obviously 'if he was engaged' is the most important phrase in that sentence. To be honest, I'm not sure if he was ever going to be considering his frustration with the role and his relationship with Broccoli. I don't think he would have been lured back with the script/the 'deeper' interpretation of the character in that particular film. Let's be honest, if they did manage to get him back it would likely have been with money, and there's no guarantee that would have resulted in a more dynamic performance.

    It's one of these hypotheticals we just don't know at the end of the day. But yes, I imagine Connery would have been capable of carrying the role in OHMSS as an actor... if he wanted to.

    Agreed. Connery wouldn't have worked in OHMSS unless it was 1965 or before. And that means no Rigg.

    We're lucky we got the OHMSS we got.
  • GadgetManGadgetMan Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 4,199
    I've always felt Connery's ultra-confidence would have been too much for OHMSS. Lazenby makes OHMSS very suspenseful, because he's clearly not as confident as Connery.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 21,092
    I think our Bond actors were more versatile than some here seem to think. Given they were in their prime at the time, I think they all could have done each movie. Obviously, it is hard to imagine Roger in QOS or Daniel in DAF but that doesn't mean they would have blown it.
  • MI6HQMI6HQ Having a trip down to Memory Lane.....
    Posts: 959
    echo wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    MI6HQ wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Yeah that's understandable. I get a bit frustrated when folks say that it wouldn't have worked with Connery or Connery couldn't have done it: he was one of the best movie stars of the last 60 years, he'd have been just fine with it (as long as he fully engaged).

    I think it would have worked as long as he's engaged and as long as he have a great co-star to go with (someone like Rigg).

    It also depends on the co-star, if Connery's there but his leading lady wasn't that great it wouldn't worked.

    But the problem if the audiences at the time would have liked to see Connery's Bond falling in love? People knew his Bond as this playboy superman, they're not used to seeing Bond that way.
    So with other actor in the role, it's easy for the audiences to accept the change in Bond's character.

    Connery could potentially have done it, but obviously 'if he was engaged' is the most important phrase in that sentence. To be honest, I'm not sure if he was ever going to be considering his frustration with the role and his relationship with Broccoli. I don't think he would have been lured back with the script/the 'deeper' interpretation of the character in that particular film. Let's be honest, if they did manage to get him back it would likely have been with money, and there's no guarantee that would have resulted in a more dynamic performance.

    It's one of these hypotheticals we just don't know at the end of the day. But yes, I imagine Connery would have been capable of carrying the role in OHMSS as an actor... if he wanted to.

    Agreed. Connery wouldn't have worked in OHMSS unless it was 1965 or before. And that means no Rigg.

    We're lucky we got the OHMSS we got.
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    I've always felt Connery's ultra-confidence would have been too much for OHMSS. Lazenby makes OHMSS very suspenseful, because he's clearly not as confident as Connery.
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    I think our Bond actors were more versatile than some here seem to think. Given they were in their prime at the time, I think they all could have done each movie. Obviously, it is hard to imagine Roger in QOS or Daniel in DAF but that doesn't mean they would have blown it.

    Agreed with all of the opinions here, thanks @echo @GadgetMan @Creasy47 agreed to all of you. 👍

    Anyway, we're going far from the topic, let's go back to 'reinvention'. This is still the thread for the Bond 26 discussions, I'm sure there's also a thread here that discusses this topic about OHMSS.

    So, I'm thinking about the current trends when it comes to characterization these days, Brosnan was hired because people wanted 90's action hero, Craig was hired because of the serious, gritty, action hero (like Bourne) which was the demand at the time.

    I do wonder where EON will get an influence for the character and the next era.

    Many people were pointing at Batman as the possible influence, but in my opinion, they already done that with Craig, maybe something different this time would work?
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 4,914
    Thanks for getting us back on track, although I could talk about OHMSS endlessly.

    I think it's too soon to know what their influences for the next Bond will be, because Eon is taking a break, and frankly they need to in order to distinguish the next Bond from the hugely successful Craig era.

    I highly doubt they will go back to the breeziness of the Brosnan and Moore years. Cruise has that market cornered now, and in my opinion he can have it. I forget those films five minutes after I see them.

    I'd say the next Bond will be more like Dalton, Craig, and early Connery, and less like the others. That way, Eon can continue to chase down prestige actors. (Put another way, Broccoli and Wilson are not going back to casting bargain-basement actors like Celi or Zerbe.)

    I also think the next Bond film will have a substantial love interest to distinguish itself from the Vesper era. We might be getting Gala Brand, or some new creation with an even greater impact on Bond.
  • edited July 1 Posts: 651
    MI6HQ wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    MI6HQ wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Yeah that's understandable. I get a bit frustrated when folks say that it wouldn't have worked with Connery or Connery couldn't have done it: he was one of the best movie stars of the last 60 years, he'd have been just fine with it (as long as he fully engaged).

    I think it would have worked as long as he's engaged and as long as he have a great co-star to go with (someone like Rigg).

    It also depends on the co-star, if Connery's there but his leading lady wasn't that great it wouldn't worked.

    But the problem if the audiences at the time would have liked to see Connery's Bond falling in love? People knew his Bond as this playboy superman, they're not used to seeing Bond that way.
    So with other actor in the role, it's easy for the audiences to accept the change in Bond's character.

    Connery could potentially have done it, but obviously 'if he was engaged' is the most important phrase in that sentence. To be honest, I'm not sure if he was ever going to be considering his frustration with the role and his relationship with Broccoli. I don't think he would have been lured back with the script/the 'deeper' interpretation of the character in that particular film. Let's be honest, if they did manage to get him back it would likely have been with money, and there's no guarantee that would have resulted in a more dynamic performance.

    It's one of these hypotheticals we just don't know at the end of the day. But yes, I imagine Connery would have been capable of carrying the role in OHMSS as an actor... if he wanted to.

    Agreed. Connery wouldn't have worked in OHMSS unless it was 1965 or before. And that means no Rigg.

    We're lucky we got the OHMSS we got.

    Agreed 👍

    Anyway, we're going far from the topic, let's go back to 'reinvention'. This is still the thread for the Bond 26 discussions, I'm sure there's also a thread here that discusses this topic about OHMSS.

    So, I'm thinking about the current trends when it comes to characterization these days, Brosnan was hired because people wanted 90's action hero, Craig was hired because of the serious, gritty, action hero (like Bourne) which was the demand at the time.

    I do wonder where EON will get an influence for the character and the next era.

    Many people were pointing at Batman as the possible influence, but in my opinion, they already done that with Craig, maybe something different this time would work?

    It's worth noting The Batman has a slightly different interpretation of Bruce/Batman to be fair. Pattinson plays Wayne as a recluse, a much quieter/isolated figure. His Batman also seems much more on the low key side compared to Bale's, lots of watchful eye movements/a more 'whispery' voice, although still able to throw a punch when needed...

    Not sure if that'll play into the next Bond, but I can imagine them going with an actor not unlike Robert Pattinson. Someone who doesn't necessarily have Craig's surface level ruggedness, but still has a unique screen presence. A bit more on the younger side perhaps. I can image a quieter Bond - not brooding per say, but maybe given to the literary Bond's moments of cynicism or getting easily bored with his job. Perhaps they'll be a bit more restrained during the fight sequences (Craig's Bond had a tendency to go into situations guns/fists blazing rather than holding back).
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 10,720
    MI6HQ wrote: »
    But the problem if the audiences at the time would have liked to see Connery's Bond falling in love? People knew his Bond as this playboy superman, they're not used to seeing Bond that way.
    So with other actor in the role, it's easy for the audiences to accept the change in Bond's character.

    Interesting thought, yes perhaps. I feel like he's Bond enough in the film for it to have been fine, but you may be right.
    007HallY wrote: »
    It's one of these hypotheticals we just don't know at the end of the day. But yes, I imagine Connery would have been capable of carrying the role in OHMSS as an actor... if he wanted to.

    Yes it's a key point.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 6,585
    I’m in the minority in that I strongly disliked “The Batman” ; it was a soul sucking experience and Pattinson’s performance complimented it by being relentlessly depressing and gloomy. I do no want this for Bond.
  • edited July 1 Posts: 651
    They're different character in fairness, so I don't think they'll ever be completely the same. That said if we had a Bond who enters the room as Pattinson's Batman does with his watchful 'Bat glares', constantly weighing up the situation, then that'd be a nice touch.

    I also feel a more reserved, quiet hero is a nice contrast to the villains, especially in The Batman. There's something interesting about seeing the manic glee of the Riddler or Penguin's comic wise cracks playing off against Batman's straight-laced, brooding but 'can-snap-at-any-moment' presence. It makes the hero feel more human I think, and the villains more sinister...
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 6,585
    Part of Bonds persona has always been a playful, schoolboy quality; no matter how dire a situation he still has a twinkle in his eye and is enjoying himself. During Craig’s era that was toned down a bit; I would like to see it return.
  • edited July 1 Posts: 651
    Actually I'd say it was emphasised in the later Craig films if anything. "Just showed someone your watch, really blew their mind.", Bond doing his tie after jumping on the train in SF, Craig's performance during the Italian car chase in SP, even much of the Cuba sequence. Often I felt it undermined the action sequences, especially during the SP example. Compare that to Connery's genuinely worried expressions during the laser beam scene in GF - it really sells the danger of the situation. It can still be done, Bond having that twinkle in his eye, but it has to be done right I think.

    But yes, Bond would certainly say things in a villain's presence that Batman never would. Often Bond has to bluff his way out of situations, and there are many moments in the books where he purposely winds them up in order to get the upper hand. But both operate similarly to detectives, both have to use their intuitions and wit to work things out/get out of a sticky situation. Both can even be rather insular characters at times... they're both 'loners' one could say.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 1,302
    CraigBond showed a strong streak of British gallows humour in the Le Chiffre interrogation and all of Craig's films showed him with a sense of 'cheerfulness in the face of adversity', as the Royal Marines ethos puts it. It's a Bondian trait that works really well and Craig did a great job of balancing it with the more brooding side.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited July 1 Posts: 10,720
    talos7 wrote: »
    Part of Bonds persona has always been a playful, schoolboy quality; no matter how dire a situation he still has a twinkle in his eye and is enjoying himself. During Craig’s era that was toned down a bit; I would like to see it return.

    Yeah I agree that is an important part of Bond - he certainly had it more than Dalton did; even in CR when he's doing stuff like crashing the Range Rover in the car park, he's kind of inwardly enjoying himself. Dalton has 'salt corrosion' and that's about it, he never got that side of Bond right. You're never having fun with him or laughing at how audacious he is.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython Omaha, NE
    Posts: 6,401
    mtm wrote: »
    Did they? He was full on fighting SMERSH a few times, surely?

    Right. From CR to GF, the Russians were always involved in some form, with the exception of DAF. By TB, Fleming saw the geopolitical landscape changing so retired SMERSH in favor of making SPECTRE. Eon then followed his lead by making them the antagonist in FRWL rather than SMERSH.
  • Posts: 310
    mtm wrote: »
    Yeah that's understandable. I get a bit frustrated when folks say that it wouldn't have worked with Connery or Connery couldn't have done it: he was one of the best movie stars of the last 60 years, he'd have been just fine with it (as long as he fully engaged).

    I think Connery could have worked really well. In the film, Bond is disenchanted with being 007, and Connery was disenchanted with the role. So there could have been some great synergy, if Connery had drawn on that to give us a slightly-aging disillusioned 007. But, as you say, he would have had to be fully engaged

    I disagree that the audience wouldn’t have gone along with it. A story showing the end of his career - resigning from active service, getting married and planning to settle down would have provided a wonderful story arc - especially with the end of the 1960s and doubts whether Bond films could continue into the 1970s.

    One of Connery’s gripes was that he felt the character was becoming a cartoon superman, over-shadowed by gadgets. The stripped back human story should have appealed. It might even have led to a hard edged 1970s (a la French Connection style) revenge movie - instead of the non-sensical DAF, where Bond and Blofeld are joshing like a couple of old mates
  • Posts: 2,424
    [quote="where Bond and Blofeld are joshing like a couple of old mates [/quote]

    Love this description of Bond and Blofeld in DAF.

  • Posts: 656
    After the Craig era, I feel like I've gotten bored with the idea of Bond falling in love with the Bond girl and the Bond girl having an everlasting presence in the next films, so I would welcome if they veered away from that for a while and just make the Bond girl either the villain or someone who tags along with and maybe flirts/sleeps with Bond too but they keep it platonic/professional. But that's just me.

    I would propose making the next storyline very mission focused (with the flavor of high stakes, colorful characters and glamour that Bond is known for, of course), instead of drama focused, put the villain's plot at the center, with focus on Bond and his detective skills. I am of course for giving him strong characterization but maybe his personal relationships can take a backseat now.
  • edited July 3 Posts: 1,155
    After the Craig era, I feel like I've gotten bored with the idea of Bond falling in love with the Bond girl and the Bond girl having an everlasting presence in the next films, so I would welcome if they veered away from that for a while and just make the Bond girl either the villain or someone who tags along with and maybe flirts/sleeps with Bond too but they keep it platonic/professional. But that's just me.

    I would propose making the next storyline very mission focused (with the flavor of high stakes, colorful characters and glamour that Bond is known for, of course), instead of drama focused, put the villain's plot at the center, with focus on Bond and his detective skills. I am of course for giving him strong characterization but maybe his personal relationships can take a backseat now.

    I’m fine with the drama, I actually welcome it but the brand of drama in the Craig was a little unnecessary and veered away from what makes Bond so compelling as a character. I think Fleming put it best:

    It was part of his profession to kill people. He had never liked doing it and when he had to kill he did it as well as he knew how and forgot about it. As a secret agent who held the rare double-O prefix—the licence to kill in the Secret Service—it was his duty to be as cool about death as a surgeon. If it happened, it happened. Regret was unprofessional—worse, it was a death-watch beetle in the soul.

    - Goldfinger, Chapter 1: Reflections in a Double Bourbon


    Another from a 1964 Playboy interview with Fleming:

    "I don't think that he is necessarily a good guy or a bad guy. Who is? He's got his vices and very few perceptible virtues except patriotism and courage, which are probably not virtues anyway ... But I didn't intend for him to be a particularly likeable person." Fleming agreed with some critics' characterisation of Bond as an unthinking killer, but expressed that he was a product of his time: "James Bond is a healthy, violent, noncerebral man in his middle-thirties, and a creature of his era. I wouldn't say he's particularly typical of our times, but he's certainly of the times."

    Fleming’s Bond should be the core basis of the drama in the next iteration. He’s a human being who has been turned into a cold killing machine, who copes with a healthy dose of alcohol, functional/recreational drugs and a high octane lifestyle enjoying the best luxuries the world has to offer. We don’t need more love stories, secrets from the past, long lost foster brothers, etc. Do that and treat the supporting characters like real people with some semblance of depth and substance rather than mechanisms to execute the “formula” and rehash old tropes. If they do those two things I think there’ll be more than enough drama and it won’t feel so contrived.

    If they do want to go back to the romance well, I’d like to see the Gala Brand treatment happen. Bond develops interest/feelings for the Bond girl but she is engaged/married. She returns back to a loving, family life which Bond could never have, while he returns to the fray cold, alone, and probably knowing that it is for the best. I also wouldn’t mind acknowledgment that the events of OHMSS and/or CR took place with the tragic death of his lover, but I wouldn’t want to revisit it on screen.
  • MI6HQMI6HQ Having a trip down to Memory Lane.....
    edited July 3 Posts: 959
    After the Craig era, I feel like I've gotten bored with the idea of Bond falling in love with the Bond girl and the Bond girl having an everlasting presence in the next films, so I would welcome if they veered away from that for a while and just make the Bond girl either the villain or someone who tags along with and maybe flirts/sleeps with Bond too but they keep it platonic/professional. But that's just me.

    I would propose making the next storyline very mission focused (with the flavor of high stakes, colorful characters and glamour that Bond is known for, of course), instead of drama focused, put the villain's plot at the center, with focus on Bond and his detective skills. I am of course for giving him strong characterization but maybe his personal relationships can take a backseat now.

    True, I'm not really buying it and I didn't bought it with Bond and Madeleine, just not.
    You can soften Bond's side (Like Bond feeling for Elektra or his interactions with Kara) but not to the extent of making him falling in love in every film.
    Vesper and Tracy are enough, I don't want to see any of that replicated, especially when the character didn't came from Fleming or something from the books (Madeleine again for example).
    That's one of my wishlist for the next Bond film that they should get rid of.
    Enough with him falling in love, it's been done to death already.
    The more they've done it, the more it cheapens the romance in the Bond films, it should be rare and deserving.
    The Bond-Madeleine relationship had ruined the quality of writing when it comes to the love stories in the franchise in my opinion.

    After the Craig era, I feel like I've gotten bored with the idea of Bond falling in love with the Bond girl and the Bond girl having an everlasting presence in the next films, so I would welcome if they veered away from that for a while and just make the Bond girl either the villain or someone who tags along with and maybe flirts/sleeps with Bond too but they keep it platonic/professional. But that's just me.

    I would propose making the next storyline very mission focused (with the flavor of high stakes, colorful characters and glamour that Bond is known for, of course), instead of drama focused, put the villain's plot at the center, with focus on Bond and his detective skills. I am of course for giving him strong characterization but maybe his personal relationships can take a backseat now.

    I’m fine with the drama, I actually welcome it but the brand of drama in the Craig was a little unnecessary and veered away from what makes Bond so compelling as a character. I think Fleming put it best:

    It was part of his profession to kill people. He had never liked doing it and when he had to kill he did it as well as he knew how and forgot about it. As a secret agent who held the rare double-O prefix—the licence to kill in the Secret Service—it was his duty to be as cool about death as a surgeon. If it happened, it happened. Regret was unprofessional—worse, it was a death-watch beetle in the soul.

    - Goldfinger, Chapter 1: Reflections in a Double Bourbon


    Another from a 1964 Playboy interview with Fleming:

    "I don't think that he is necessarily a good guy or a bad guy. Who is? He's got his vices and very few perceptible virtues except patriotism and courage, which are probably not virtues anyway ... But I didn't intend for him to be a particularly likeable person." Fleming agreed with some critics' characterisation of Bond as an unthinking killer, but expressed that he was a product of his time: "James Bond is a healthy, violent, noncerebral man in his middle-thirties, and a creature of his era. I wouldn't say he's particularly typical of our times, but he's certainly of the times."

    Fleming’s Bond should be the core basis of the drama in the next iteration. He’s a human being who has been turned into a cold killing machine, who copes with a healthy dose of alcohol, functional/recreational drugs and a high octane lifestyle enjoying the best luxuries the world has to offer. We don’t need more love stories, secrets from the past, long lost foster brothers, etc. Do that and treat the supporting characters like real people with some semblance of depth and substance rather than mechanisms to execute the “formula” and rehash old tropes. If they do those two things I think there’ll be more than enough drama and it won’t feel so contrived.

    If they do want to go back to the romance well, I’d like to see the Gala Brand treatment happen. Bond develops interest/feelings for the Bond girl but she is engaged/married. She returns back to a loving, family life which Bond could never have, while he returns to the fray cold, alone, and probably knowing that it is for the best. I also wouldn’t mind acknowledgment that the events of OHMSS and/or CR took place with the tragic death of his lover, but I wouldn’t want to revisit it on screen.

    True, I'm on board with the Gala Brand relationship, also I want to see the Bond -Tiffany Case breakup to be made on screen. Those relationships for a change instead of just killing them off, it'll be refreshing to see.
  • Posts: 634
    After the Craig era, I feel like I've gotten bored with the idea of Bond falling in love with the Bond girl and the Bond girl having an everlasting presence in the next films.

    It depends what direction Eon decides to take, but I wouldn't be against seeing Bond fall in love again. It all depends on the execution. Something close to Horowitz's Forever and a Day with Bond falling in love with a mentor figure could be a fresh and interesting way to do it. Philip Kennedy Johnson's futur comics for Dynamite seems to go in this direction with Bond investigating the murder of a former female 00 agent who trained him and who had an affair with him.

    Another angle could be to flesh out what we saw in TND with Bond meeting an ex he really loved. Rather than a subplot, maybe it could be the heart of Bond 26. Again, it could be an interesting way to see Bond falling in love (or rather being in love), that would be different from what we saw in the Craig era.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 1,462
    No matter who they cast in Bond 26 I think the playboy nature of the character is a thing of the past, especially in the post #metoo era.

    I can see Bond having more relationships simar to Kara in TLD, one Bond girl per adventure.

    I just hope the next era of the character has more elegance and sex appeal then NTTD. If hadn't been for Paloma it would have been the least glamorous film of the series
  • edited July 3 Posts: 1,155
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    I just hope the next era of the character has more elegance and sex appeal then NTTD. If hadn't been for Paloma it would have been the least glamorous film of the series

    I think Casino Royale did a really good job of this and would like to see more of it again, I think it’s a big part of why it still feels so Bond despite lacking most of the formula and tropes. So much of Bond, particularly Connery and Craig’s eras, is dark, gritty, often ugly situations and behaviours in impossibly beautiful and glamorous environments. We had a lot of well shot and well conceived environments, Skyfall being a great example, but outside the Shanghai casino it was missing a lot of glam. It worked in the context of that film, but I think we need a bit more.
  • Posts: 651

    If they do want to go back to the romance well, I’d like to see the Gala Brand treatment happen. Bond develops interest/feelings for the Bond girl but she is engaged/married. She returns back to a loving, family life which Bond could never have, while he returns to the fray cold, alone, and probably knowing that it is for the best. I also wouldn’t mind acknowledgment that the events of OHMSS and/or CR took place with the tragic death of his lover, but I wouldn’t want to revisit it on screen.

    I'd love to see the Gala Brand take on the Bond girl. They sort of did the ending with Camille in QOS, although that was more about two people with tragedies in their lives parting ways. The Brand interpretation could result in an interesting, well written Bond girl too. A character conflicted about returning to her domestic life is interesting, and doesn't necessarily need to be the 'plot twist' it was in the novel and could be hinted at earlier.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 1,462
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    I just hope the next era of the character has more elegance and sex appeal then NTTD. If hadn't been for Paloma it would have been the least glamorous film of the series

    I think Casino Royale did a really good job of this and would like to see more of it again, I think it’s a big part of why it still feels so Bond despite lacking most of the formula and tropes. So much of Bond, particularly Connery and Craig’s eras, is dark, gritty, often ugly situations and behaviours in impossibly beautiful and glamorous environments. We had a lot of well shot and well conceived environments, Skyfall being a great example, but outside the Shanghai casino it was missing a lot of glam. It worked in the context of that film, but I think we need a bit more.

    I couldn't have put it better myself mate
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited July 3 Posts: 4,914
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    No matter who they cast in Bond 26 I think the playboy nature of the character is a thing of the past, especially in the post #metoo era.

    I can see Bond having more relationships simar to Kara in TLD, one Bond girl per adventure.

    I just hope the next era of the character has more elegance and sex appeal then NTTD. If hadn't been for Paloma it would have been the least glamorous film of the series

    I don't think metoo precludes Bond sleeping with several women in the same film. Just not slapping them, having them be former sex slaves (truly an odd backstory even for 2012), etc.

    The Largo/Domino relationship is also a bit creepy because of their difference in ages and Domino's lack of agency. With this kind of storyline, I'd see it more being like Camille, who infiltrates the villain's plan and sleeps with him for her own specific agenda. (This is one of the more underappreciated elements of QoS, her agency.)

    Kara was a reaction to AIDS and the safe sex era. I don't think we'll see that again. NTTD was different: Bond only slept with one woman because he was still in love with Madeleine. Kind of the opposite of OHMSS, if you think about it.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 6,585
    There is a huge difference in a character who is abusive and one who enjoys the non exclusive company of multiple, consenting, women. It’s all in the writing.

    I’ve always thought that a missed opportunity of the Craig era was not having the receptionist at The Ocean Club coming to Bond’s room , under the false pretense of something like bringing him a spare key . Later he would make a quip about the room service.
    I don’t The Ocean Club would have approved of that, Lol. My point is that casual consensual encounters should not be off the table.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 10,720
    I’m not sure where he’d have fitted that in though, as he had Solange over that night! :D
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 6,585
    mtm wrote: »
    I’m not sure where he’d have fitted that in though, as he had Solange over that night! :D

    Sean would have. 😉

    I would have put it in as Bond is sitting in his room, following the initial beach encounter with Solange, doing research on his laptop. There’s a knock at the door; Bond, clad only in. towel, cautiously opens the door; he’s greeted by the smiling face of the receptionist who playfully says that she thought that he may need a spare key. The corner of Bond’s mouth responds in a knowing smile.

    Aside from wanting to see a bit more of Bond’s hedonistic side, I really wanted to see more of the receptionist. The actress did so much with such a slight role. I actually think that she would have made a great Moneypenny.
Sign In or Register to comment.