Where does Bond go after Craig?

1201202204206207212

Comments

  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited September 30 Posts: 21,705
    BMB007 wrote: »
    Really disappointed to see the words "Name a female director and honestly I won't bother" written, verbatim, by a moderator of these forums. What kind of atmosphere does this set here?

    A moderator is still a member first and foremost. Said member can still have an opinion. As @Birdleson mentioned, his and mine are almost opposite opinions. And yet, when he voiced his, he didn't attempt to clash with other members, nor did he directly respond to another member's opinion. That is not a lapse in decorum, nor a mood killer for the forum. It's an honest opinion, written without ever seeking controversy.
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    It's my secret dream that they bring back Sanchez all burned and scarred from LTK (we still have Davi, so...)

    He's spent decades hunting down Bond, only to get lit on fire yet again the second Bond lays eyes on him.

    He was the true architect of all Bond's pain. He sent Trevalyan after him, got Carver to put the British in a difficult situation, targeted M and had Graves try to get under his skin.

    And he is Bond's brother.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,248
    Likewise, I disagree with @Birdleson, but I have a lot of respect for him and his opinion was measured and self-aware.
  • edited September 29 Posts: 613
    DarthDimi wrote: »

    He was the true architect of all Bond's pain. He sent Trevalyan after him, got Carver to put the British in a difficult situation, targeted M and had Graves try to get under his skin.

    And he is Bond's brother.

    lmao
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 1,695
    Thankfully we have a few differing opinions on here, otherwise we'd all be in adamant agreement for the 5-6 years waiting for Bond 26. I can't think of anything more boring

    Also God I hope I'm wrong and it's not another 5-6 year wait for Bond 26 😅
  • Posts: 1,122
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    To be honest, I've always thought TLD had some of the weakest villains of the series. Necros is another generic spin on Red Grant (which we also saw in FYEO, YOLT, and TND) Koskov, while deceitful and nasty, isn't menacing enough to carry the film himself, and neither is Whitaker really. In a sense it's a similar set up to FRWL in this way - it's more an ensemble cast of villains. The difference is the villains in FRWL are much more distinctive, well cast and interesting, at least for me.

    Weirdly I was watching Hudson Hawk a while ago(!) and James Coburn is in it as a uniform-wearing arms dealer baddie, and it made me think how much better TLD would have been if he had been Whittaker. It would have helped a lot if they'd had a proper movie star baddie, I think.

    But then I also tend to think that Dalton wouldn't really have come out very well against him. Roger could compete charisma-wise with your Walkens, but I'm not sure about Tim.

    I can see the logic in casting Joe Don Baker. I suppose there's an underlying idea that he could plausibly be someone with a Napoleon complex 'pretending' to be a General. A James Coburn type might have comes across as just a bit too much like a proper General if that makes sense.

    That said, I 100% agree, Coburn would have been better.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 11,640
    Oh I don’t know, in Hudson Hawk he’s very similar, a bit of a fraud (as I remember, anyway! :) ).
  • Posts: 1,122
    mtm wrote: »
    Oh I don’t know, in Hudson Hawk he’s very similar, a bit of a fraud (as I remember, anyway! :) ).

    I haven't seen that film in a long time, but I remember he played that part in a really interesting way - a good blend of menace with some dark comedy in there. Strange film from what I remember, but I liked it. Need to give it a rewatch.

    Again, I think he would have been better. I suppose one thing to remember though is that the film came out long after TLD and perhaps to the producers they simply didn't see someone like Coburn plausibly conveying the 'fraudulent' nature of the character. You can apply the same logic to someone like George C Scott. But yeah, it's definitely a great 'what could have been'.
  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    Posts: 370
    Joe Don Baker had been such a hit in Edge of Darkness, I get why they cast him.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 11,640
    He is a good actor, but I think a proper star could have turned it around. Whittaker's in it so little it feels like a role a big character actor could have given the sort of memorable turn that helps to make the film, like a Vincent Schiavelli sort of thing.
  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    Posts: 370
    Frankly I'd love to have seen David Warner or Tim Curry as the bad guy, but that's probably the reason they don't let me cast movies. Ray Liotta or John Malkovitch would probably be my more sensible suggestions.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 5,150
    Did they need both Koskov and Whittaker? I feel like it could have just been Koskov living it up at the villa on stolen state funds.
  • Archangel007Archangel007 United States
    Posts: 25
    Regarding what I think Bond should be like in the films going forward...

    He can still have that dry, droll sense of humor. What I think would be interesting is if the audience was shown subtle expressions by Bond when he is observing the room, sizing a situation up, and even when feeling angry/vulnerable.

    It would never be in your face, if you blinked you would miss it. However, once in awhile when Bond is trying to act calm and charming (especially in the face of intense pressure), you could see that there was something going on behind the mask. The key here is that Bond would never outright reveal what he is feeling or thinking, there would be these slight visual cues informing the audience of something deeper but that's it. There would be no scene where Bond ultimately breaks down, laying his emotions bare.

    Oh, and I'd like Bond to be a bit more cultured again. Maybe not overly snobbish, but it would be nice to see him referencing art, an opera/symphony, or even his knowledge of history. It would also be nice to see Bond ordering a fanciful meal/drink that the Foodies out there would want to explore. It's little things like that that I would like to see.
  • Posts: 1,122
    echo wrote: »
    Did they need both Koskov and Whittaker? I feel like it could have just been Koskov living it up at the villa on stolen state funds.

    I suppose from a script perspective they simply thought Koskov wasn't strong enough a character to carry the film as the main villain? It makes sense I guess, he's more of an opportunist than a villain with an ideologically influenced plan... maybe the writers didn't think it would play as well having this sort of 'twist' in a Bond film, and the audience would either have been confused or wondering where the main villain of this film was for sections of the movie... It certainly feels like Koskov's double crossing/the drama of the revelation was watered down somewhat, to the point where the reveal of him sitting in Whittikar's villa is rather unceremonious, simply because it's clear Bond is conducting his investigation under the idea that Koskov is a bit dodgy... I dunno...
    Regarding what I think Bond should be like in the films going forward...

    He can still have that dry, droll sense of humor. What I think would be interesting is if the audience was shown subtle expressions by Bond when he is observing the room, sizing a situation up, and even when feeling angry/vulnerable.

    It would never be in your face, if you blinked you would miss it. However, once in awhile when Bond is trying to act calm and charming (especially in the face of intense pressure), you could see that there was something going on behind the mask. The key here is that Bond would never outright reveal what he is feeling or thinking, there would be these slight visual cues informing the audience of something deeper but that's it. There would be no scene where Bond ultimately breaks down, laying his emotions bare.

    To be fair, I don't think any of that was lost during the Craig era. In fact, save for the ending with M's death, this is pretty much Bond throughout SF. Even down to the dry humour (it was less 'quippy' than what we've been used to in some of the classic movies anyway). Heck, even the crying bit is understandable (Fleming's Bond did on occasion, including in LALD where he did so for the first time 'since he was a boy').
    Oh, and I'd like Bond to be a bit more cultured again. Maybe not overly snobbish, but it would be nice to see him referencing art, an opera/symphony, or even his knowledge of history. It would also be nice to see Bond ordering a fanciful meal/drink that the Foodies out there would want to explore. It's little things like that that I would like to see.

    I get that. Maybe not necessarily referencing art or symphonies, but things which he would plausibly know about and have built up some knowledge of. So certainly food, drink and perhaps little bits and pieces of history having travelled throughout the world for his profession. It'd be nice to see him genuinely interested in it too.

    One thing I'd like to see is Bond having to learn something new for the purpose of his job. Craig's Bond was more a 'man of action', so the films leaned into this, but in the novels we see Bond having to do this. In LALD he has to train physically in order to go through the climax at the end of the film, in MR we see him practicing little card tricks before the bridge game, he has to quickly learn about genealogy in OHMSS etc. I think something like this would showcase the next Bond's intelligence and just how difficult his job actually is.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 11,640
    I always think the main problem with TLD is the defection at the beginning- MI6 has bulletproof cars, as we see later, so why not just go over and pick Koskov up in one of those instead of letting him cross a road in front of a sniper and leave him knocking at the door? :D
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 2,915
    https://www.empireonline.com/movies/news/bond-producers-barbara-broccoli-and-michael-g-wilson-on-the-fate-and-future-of-007/

    Not sure if this was posted. Warning: some controversial points about NTTD and the future!
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,283
    P&W are back!
  • Posts: 1,122
    Yes, it seems they're back. Then again they're much like the furniture now. I suspect we could get a situation like SF where the first drafts and the general direction of the story are written and honed by P&W before someone else jumps onboard and irons it all out. That's actually fine, they'll have a longer period of time to churn out these drafts.

    Now the question is, who else will come on board to write?
  • Posts: 11,420
    Seriously? That’s a huge step in the wrong direction already. They’ve become thematically repetitive as hell.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 37,936
    With a new era, I was hoping to see fresh blood across the board, but they could certainly do worse than bringing those two back, I guess.
  • edited September 30 Posts: 1,122
    At the end of the day they're just writers for hire. Most of the general themes/ideas I suspect are discussed beforehand with Broccoli, and it's not just a case of them doing whatever they want. It'll now be a case where they write a few drafts or treatments and see what sticks, after which they'll get an idea of the tone, character and plot ideas, and presumably bring someone else onboard who has more expertise at writing with these specific elements. Again, this is what happened with SF, CR and pretty much every other Bond film since TWINE.

    P&W aren't inherently 'bad' writers in this sense. They just get the ball rolling. It's the producers and those collaborating with them 'at the top' who have a lot of impact on the story/general script direction at this stage. Arguably the more interesting elements of even DAD were written by them, and apparently before further rewrites to make the film more action/fantasy orientated, the story was relatively grounded (stuff like Bond being captured/kept in a Korean camp, having to figure out who betrayed him etc. make more sense in this context). Again, it's early days, and what'll be more interesting is who else is brought on.
  • edited September 30 Posts: 613
    How much freedom do additional writers, directors and actors have making changes in redrafts?

    On what level are the producers involved in the writing process?
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 5,150
    So it's going to be MR, then, in the style of CR.

    Maybe a P&W script with a rewrite by Haggis?

    (I don't know what's going on with Haggis' trial but with Scientology you always have to wonder...)
  • Posts: 14,589
    I knew they'd come back! :D
    I imagine P&W will be writing Bond scripts for the duration of the franchise.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 1,695
    Not fond of their comments about Bond having a "family", when it took Safin having to confirm he was the father. I don't think it had the impact they felt it did to be honest.

    Like Brofeld, I'd sweep the daughter thing under the rug as they butchered it in execution.
  • Posts: 1,122
    How much freedom do additional writers, directors and actors have making changes in redrafts?

    On what level are the producers involved in the writing process?

    Difficult to say. It does seem to be a very collaborative process, whatever one thinks of the final results. I don't think Barbara Broccoli or Michael Wilson stand over the writer's shoulders, but I suspect they have discussions after each draft or treatment about what they want and will go through points for improvements. Additional writers will work alone and incorporate earlier drafts and get new scripts done by set deadlines. Then more meetings, more points for improvement, more drafts.

    Even when I've worked on short films redrafts of scripts have lasted well into cinematography preparation. The good news is that they'll have a slightly longer pre-production time on this one to get the script to a suitable stage.
    echo wrote: »
    So it's going to be MR, then, in the style of CR.

    Maybe a P&W script with a rewrite by Haggis?

    (I don't know what's going on with Haggis' trial but with Scientology you always have to wonder...)

    I'm going to bet Haggis won't be making a return to Bond. As you said though, with Scientology you have to wonder, but I'm really not familiar with the case...

    Going from P&W's last few scripts we might get elements of Fleming thrown in there, just in an original story.
  • Posts: 14,589
    I doubt they're planning on much Fleming for the next era. I believe Barbara and Michael mentioned awhile back they've scraped the bottom of the barrel looking for Fleming material.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited September 30 Posts: 5,150
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    Not fond of their comments about Bond having a "family", when it took Safin having to confirm he was the father. I don't think it had the impact they felt it did to be honest.

    Like Brofeld, I'd sweep the daughter thing under the rug as they butchered it in execution.

    I liked how understated it was. "She has your eyes" feels a lot more Bond, and frankly less soap-operaish, than "she's your daughter."

    Bond having a child is vastly different than Bond being a father.

    It makes sense that Broccoli and Wilson would rely on who they know, P&W, to ground them a bit. The casting of the next Bond is a massive undertaking. Not to mention following Craig.
  • edited September 30 Posts: 613
    The line might be good but the storyline was meagre and predictable.
  • edited September 30 Posts: 1,122
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    I doubt they're planning on much Fleming for the next era. I believe Barbara and Michael mentioned awhile back they've scraped the bottom of the barrel looking for Fleming material.

    Really? I can't find this quote at all. If anything there are little details thrown into articles by journalists about Broccoli and Wilson carrying around editions of dog-eared Fleming books on-set to prove points (ie. https://variety.com/2020/film/features/james-bond-no-time-to-die-barbara-broccoli-michael-wilson-1203466601/) Also look at how much Fleming material was actually there during the Craig era. Oberhauser, the Garden of Death, the title Quantum of Solace, much of the themes of Skyfall (P&W even said they were 'steeped in Fleming' during the writing of this film, to the point where they clashed with Peter Morgan who was supposedly more interested in Le Carre, which is a subtle, but important aspect when writing a Bond script). Not saying it was all incorporated well, but it's there. At best they even understand how the novels work. I suspect they'll also be keen to keep that element of Bond's DNA alive, as they always seem to have done.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 5,150
    007HallY wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    I doubt they're planning on much Fleming for the next era. I believe Barbara and Michael mentioned awhile back they've scraped the bottom of the barrel looking for Fleming material.

    Really? I can't find this quote at all. If anything there are little details thrown into articles by journalists about Broccoli and Wilson carrying around editions of dog-eared Fleming books on-set to prove points (ie. https://variety.com/2020/film/features/james-bond-no-time-to-die-barbara-broccoli-michael-wilson-1203466601/) Also look at how much Fleming material was actually there during the Craig era. Oberhauser, the Garden of Death, the title Quantum of Solace, much of the themes of Skyfall (P&W even said they were 'steeped in Fleming' during the writing of this film, to the point where they clashed with Peter Morgan who was supposedly more interested in Le Carre, which is a subtle, but important aspect when writing a Bond script). Not saying it was all incorporated well, but it's there. At best they even understand how the novels work. I suspect they'll also be keen to keep that element of Bond's DNA alive, as they always seem to have done.

    +1. There's a lot of Fleming in the Craig era.
Sign In or Register to comment.