Where does Bond go after Craig?

1223224226228229569

Comments

  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 15,333
    Denbigh wrote: »
    So while all of this talk is hypothetical as we don't know what EON will be doing in terms of modern changes to the character of James Bond, I feel if they make any they won't be big. I think Bond will still be a womanizer who flirts and sleeps with women, it just won't be in the same way it has been. I say this because I feel they will make an active effort to make sure the Bond girls themselves are more important than their bedding.

    While some will say that the franchise is ahead of its time when it comes to female characters, and while I think that's partly true, we have to admit that the franchise definitely has more than enough examples of writing in a female character for the sake of upping Bond's body count and I'm not talking about kills. The franchise also had examples of Bond sleeping with women in vulnerable positions, with Bond seemingly manipulating them into sex by using their vulnerabilities. It's even happened recently with Severine and Lucia Sciarra.

    So if there are any changes, they'll be in terms of avoiding things like I've mentioned above. They'll make sure that Bond's sex life is necessary. We don't need Bond sleeping with women in vulnerable positions for information unless an effort is made narratively and in terms of character development to make us believe why this woman would sleep with Bond.

    And if that's something you'll miss then honestly tough. What's more important to you that Bond is promiscuous or that he's promiscuous in quite manipulative ways? Because again I think the latter is what will be changed.

    Yeah this is an excellent post- all of that sounds good to me. Personally I want more interesting female characters (and I'm not sure Craig's films entirely kept up with some of the others out there), not because of dull culture war stuff, but because... why wouldn't you want interesting characters in a film you're watching?
  • Posts: 12,310
    Denbigh wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    I’d be 1000% satisfied if this is what we were to get. That’s 1000% fair and by all means should please everyone, and yet, my gut says the producers are going to just take the easy route sidestep it altogether. I’ve mentioned plenty times before how I’m happy with and it’s a good thing we don’t have the shadier moments like GF and TB ones, or just women that are embarrassingly one-dimensional for the sex.
    I think it's hard to tell what they want to do because I think No Time To Die was that first step to making a more active effort and because the script focused so heavily on the romance between Madeleine and Bond, I can understand why they left it out. Nomi as a character isn't written to be a love interest despite us knowing that Bond is initially attracted to her and would've slept with her if she didn't turn to be who she was.

    Paloma I think was more because of how late she was written and also because of timing. Having Bond sleep with Paloma wasn't necessary especially given how she only appears in one sequence and would've maybe felt like just a bed mate for Bond if they'd slept together. But again they made an effort to let us know that Bond would've been up for it otherwise.

    Yep, I’ve also mentioned before I can excuse NTTD for the lack of womanizing as the romance was a focal point. But it’ll be pretty solidified and obvious if we get a monogamous Bond two straight films here. I think there’s fret over the “problematic” elements even though it really doesn’t have to be that way at all. Bond 26 will be the true test, but I’m very wary.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited January 2023 Posts: 5,871
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    I’d be 1000% satisfied if this is what we were to get. That’s 1000% fair and by all means should please everyone, and yet, my gut says the producers are going to just take the easy route sidestep it altogether. I’ve mentioned plenty times before how I’m happy with and it’s a good thing we don’t have the shadier moments like GF and TB ones, or just women that are embarrassingly one-dimensional for the sex.
    I think it's hard to tell what they want to do because I think No Time To Die was that first step to making a more active effort and because the script focused so heavily on the romance between Madeleine and Bond, I can understand why they left it out. Nomi as a character isn't written to be a love interest despite us knowing that Bond is initially attracted to her and would've slept with her if she didn't turn to be who she was.

    Paloma I think was more because of how late she was written and also because of timing. Having Bond sleep with Paloma wasn't necessary especially given how she only appears in one sequence and would've maybe felt like just a bed mate for Bond if they'd slept together. But again they made an effort to let us know that Bond would've been up for it otherwise.
    Bond 26 will be the true test...
    100% but we just gotta trust in EON. Despite whatever people may think, they've done a lot to keep this franchise successful and relevant to both fans and general audiences alike and I trust them to make the best decisions for the character and the brand.

    I'd only be concerned about bigger and riskier changes if another company was taking over from EON, which will hopefully never happen.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited January 2023 Posts: 2,972
    mtm wrote: »
    Yeah, it's all about choosing what to accentuate and what to dial back.
    Precisely this, I think. Phoebe WB said 'The world's changed, but he doesn't have to - he should be true to his character.' Which is encouraging. But there's many facets to that character and, after what Dan did with it, they've got some leeway to mix them up a bit and still have it be Bond. That's a good thing, I think.
    I see what people mean when they say that Bond's seductions of Severine and Lucia could look a bit dubious. I don't think they were, though. Both women had been trapped in loveless, dead relationships for years. No one's touched them with any real desire for a long time. Suddenly, here's CraigBond with his old skool masculinity and raging T-levels, making an unexpected entrance into their little drama, and for the first time in a long time someone's not scared of Silva or Sciarra and actively wants them. Why wouldn't they respond, positively?
  • Posts: 12,310
    Denbigh wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    I’d be 1000% satisfied if this is what we were to get. That’s 1000% fair and by all means should please everyone, and yet, my gut says the producers are going to just take the easy route sidestep it altogether. I’ve mentioned plenty times before how I’m happy with and it’s a good thing we don’t have the shadier moments like GF and TB ones, or just women that are embarrassingly one-dimensional for the sex.
    I think it's hard to tell what they want to do because I think No Time To Die was that first step to making a more active effort and because the script focused so heavily on the romance between Madeleine and Bond, I can understand why they left it out. Nomi as a character isn't written to be a love interest despite us knowing that Bond is initially attracted to her and would've slept with her if she didn't turn to be who she was.

    Paloma I think was more because of how late she was written and also because of timing. Having Bond sleep with Paloma wasn't necessary especially given how she only appears in one sequence and would've maybe felt like just a bed mate for Bond if they'd slept together. But again they made an effort to let us know that Bond would've been up for it otherwise.
    Bond 26 will be the true test...
    100% but we just gotta trust in EON. Despite whatever people may think, they've done a lot to keep this franchise successful and relevant to both fans and general audiences alike and I trust them to make the best decisions for the character and the brand.

    I'd only be concerned about bigger and riskier changes if another company was taking over from EON, which will hopefully never happen.

    Hey, better them than Disney, that’s for sure!
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited January 2023 Posts: 15,333
    Venutius wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Yeah, it's all about choosing what to accentuate and what to dial back.
    Precisely this, I think. Phoebe WB said 'The world's changed, but he doesn't have to - he should be true to his character.' Which is encouraging. But there's many facets to that character and, after what Dan did with it, they've got some leeway to mix them up a bit and still have it be Bond. That's a good thing, I think.
    I see what people mean when they say that Bond's seductions of Severine and Lucia could look a bit dubious. I don't think they were, though. Both women had been trapped in loveless, dead relationships for years. No one's touched them with any real desire for a long time. Suddenly, here's CraigBond with his old skool masculinity and raging T-levels, making an unexpected entrance into their little drama, and for the first time in a long time someone's not scared of Silva or Sciarra and actively wants them. Why wouldn't they respond, positively?

    I think Severine's I'm slightly itchy about just because she'd been exploited in the sex trade and that felt an odd place to put Bond because although Severine was clearly willing, it kind of felt that she'd been conditioned into that and Bond was taking advantage of a damaged person. Which, y'know; he's not always a good person, and I can deal with that, but that's maybe a grey area I'd prefer him not to step into. But I had no issue with Lucia, and I think she acted it very well- you could tell that she was as attracted to Bond as he was to her.

    What I did like about NTTD was that apart from Bond literally being retired, the film didn't treat him as an outdated relic with old-fashioned values, which perhaps the previous couple of films did. Skyfall was interesting for doing that with all the 'old dog' stuff, but perhaps made it feel that Bond as a character didn't have much of a future; but I think NTTD showed that he can work perfectly well in today's world without seeming like a relic. A Bond that still fancies women but also occasionally respects one he can work with, and has some emotional intelligence, is still Bond.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited January 2023 Posts: 2,972
    Indeed. And Severine clearly was willing but, yes, there is the faint air of her past maybe leading her to think that sex might be the final price for Bond's help. The viewer knows that it wasn't - Bond wanted to get at Silva, regardless - but Severine herself might feel she has to make sure. She might also hope that, if she had sex with Bond, he'd feel a bit more personally protective of her against Silva - which he probably would've been (a bird with a wing down, etc) if he'd had the chance! They did make it clear that she wanted him, too, though, so...maybe as a 'reward for', rather than the 'price of', his help? Or is that a bit too close to rationalising and special pleading?
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited January 2023 Posts: 5,871
    Lucia wasn't too bad I guess but the reason I bring her up in this context was the immediacy of it all and some of the body language, specifically the way Bond aggressively backed her up against the mirror, for me anyway. And also the way her character was never seen again immediately after he'd bedded her. It just felt like one of those Bond girls that was written in more for their bedding and the information provided.

    Even a very similar character like Solange felt more nuanced and developed than Lucia.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 2,972
    I think we all wanted more Monica in SP, didn't we?
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,062
    FoxRox wrote: »
    I can’t wait for when Bond’s killing is seen by the majority as “not acceptable” next. The rationale will probably go something like “well, Batman doesn’t usually kill, so why should Bond! It’s not heroic to kill!” Clearly, bit by bit, people are fine with him becoming a different character.

    That comparison isn’t applicable. Bond is more of an anti-hero than a superhero. His licence to kill is what gives him that distinction. Why are you trying to rile yourself up by making up a future audience that might start to wag their finger over violence in movies?
  • Posts: 12,310
    FoxRox wrote: »
    I can’t wait for when Bond’s killing is seen by the majority as “not acceptable” next. The rationale will probably go something like “well, Batman doesn’t usually kill, so why should Bond! It’s not heroic to kill!” Clearly, bit by bit, people are fine with him becoming a different character.

    That comparison isn’t applicable. Bond is more of an anti-hero than a superhero. His licence to kill is what gives him that distinction. Why are you trying to rile yourself up by making up a future audience that might start to wag their finger over violence in movies?

    I was already riled up since it seemed to me other Bond fans aren’t as adamant as I am about characteristics I see as essential to his character, that’s all. Anyhow, Batman’s not exactly an orthodox “superhero” himself, since he doesn’t have superhuman powers and still is a pretty dark guy himself in most incarnations I’ve seen.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited January 2023 Posts: 5,871
    A thing I hope carries over from No Time To Die is the active effort made with the henchmen. While the Craig era has had interesting villains, the henchmen were always quite tame and almost too grounded despite their impressive skill in combat and stunts. Primo, Ash, Obruchev. Each of them slightly larger than life. Ash could easily have been a return to the tameness of early Craig henchmen but the writing and Billy's acting created something more than that.

    I think that's why I was so up for Fukunaga's return initially because I felt he'd perfectly captured tonally what worked in both the Craig era and those early more traditional adventures with Connery and Moore in so many areas of the film, so felt giving him a blank slate would lead to an even better James Bond adventure.
  • Posts: 12,310
    I agree, NTTD did a far better job than the other Craig movies with henchmen. I am super hopeful they pay more attention to this again and kick it up a notch. Getting a new one worthy of Oddjob or Jaws would be fantastic.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,062
    FoxRox wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    I can’t wait for when Bond’s killing is seen by the majority as “not acceptable” next. The rationale will probably go something like “well, Batman doesn’t usually kill, so why should Bond! It’s not heroic to kill!” Clearly, bit by bit, people are fine with him becoming a different character.

    That comparison isn’t applicable. Bond is more of an anti-hero than a superhero. His licence to kill is what gives him that distinction. Why are you trying to rile yourself up by making up a future audience that might start to wag their finger over violence in movies?

    I was already riled up since it seemed to me other Bond fans aren’t as adamant as I am about characteristics I see as essential to his character, that’s all. Anyhow, Batman’s not exactly an orthodox “superhero” himself, since he doesn’t have superhuman powers and still is a pretty dark guy himself in most incarnations I’ve seen.

    Batman is dark character, but he still more a superhero than Bond is in many ways. Where Bond has a licence to kill and does so on many occasions, Batman has for the most part* been someone who emphasizes on bringing criminals to justice, which partly why he has his no kill rule.

    *=of course, there’s exceptions like how Zack Snyder straight up turned Batman into Punisher that just straight up kills people left and right.
  • Posts: 1,744
    Did Haggis ever watch the beginning of TLD?!?!?!?!?!
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 15,333
    delfloria wrote: »
    Did Haggis ever watch the beginning of TLD?!?!?!?!?!

    To be fair, the opening to CR spells it out too.
  • Posts: 12,310
    FoxRox wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    I can’t wait for when Bond’s killing is seen by the majority as “not acceptable” next. The rationale will probably go something like “well, Batman doesn’t usually kill, so why should Bond! It’s not heroic to kill!” Clearly, bit by bit, people are fine with him becoming a different character.

    That comparison isn’t applicable. Bond is more of an anti-hero than a superhero. His licence to kill is what gives him that distinction. Why are you trying to rile yourself up by making up a future audience that might start to wag their finger over violence in movies?

    I was already riled up since it seemed to me other Bond fans aren’t as adamant as I am about characteristics I see as essential to his character, that’s all. Anyhow, Batman’s not exactly an orthodox “superhero” himself, since he doesn’t have superhuman powers and still is a pretty dark guy himself in most incarnations I’ve seen.

    Batman is dark character, but he still more a superhero than Bond is in many ways. Where Bond has a licence to kill and does so on many occasions, Batman has for the most part* been someone who emphasizes on bringing criminals to justice, which partly why he has his no kill rule.

    *=of course, there’s exceptions like how Zack Snyder straight up turned Batman into Punisher that just straight up kills people left and right.

    Yeah. Honestly things are going way off-topic now, but I enjoy both the usual non-killing Batman and Tim Burton's casual murdering one! I've heard people argue a Batman who kills isn't interesting, but for me anyway it was an interesting dynamic how Burton's was essentially just as psychotic as his villains, it makes a unique setup IMO.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 15,333
    I never really noticed that he kills: it's all so stylised that there's little impact.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 2,972
    Although, Haggis also wrote a lot of CR, after all. I think he was emphasising that this was CraigBond's primary role - not an aspect of his work, but the key part. They did seem to retain a lot of that, even post-Haggis: M explicitly ordering Bond to kill Patrice and Sciarra, etc.
  • Posts: 1,744
    mtm wrote: »
    delfloria wrote: »
    Did Haggis ever watch the beginning of TLD?!?!?!?!?!

    To be fair, the opening to CR spells it out too.

    Not to mention................."a license to kill is useless, unless one can set up the target".
  • edited January 2023 Posts: 12,310
    You know, I’d love a Bernard Lee-esque M again. His scenes always felt so iconic and memorable to me, in a way none of the other actors / scenes quite reached. And I consider Judi Dench my favorite M still. But there was something so *perfect* about the M scenes in the Connery + Lazenby + early Moore films. I think of the very first one in DN a lot, which is even more intensely played out in the novel thanks to hearing Bond’s thoughts. Such good stuff. Please give maximum effort to M & Bond scenes <3
  • edited January 2023 Posts: 784
    What I love about QoS is that they showed the victims of the villains’ plot. Had the interpersonal drama been a bit deeper and even shown the victims of bond/mi6 actions, the film would have deserved festival awards.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,062
    Though I wonder why Bond didn’t point out the water to the locals.

    “Hey, I just saw water right over there in walking distance.”
  • Though I wonder why Bond didn’t point out the water to the locals.

    “Hey, I just saw water right over there in walking distance.”

    Lmao true
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,221
    Though I wonder why Bond didn’t point out the water to the locals.

    “Hey, I just saw water right over there in walking distance.”

    Lmao true

    Not a bad idea.

    78cbd9f94f4a536dede24bff6c6421f1e44edc52.gif
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,665
    He would've missed his perfectly timed bus had he bothered to be a decent gentleman in that scene.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 15,333
    Though I wonder why Bond didn’t point out the water to the locals.

    “Hey, I just saw water right over there in walking distance.”

    That was my immediate thought in the cinema. They've just walked from there- it's not that far!!
  • TuxedoTuxedo Europe
    Posts: 254
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    He would've missed his perfectly timed bus had he bothered to be a decent gentleman in that scene.

    :))
  • edited January 2023 Posts: 784
    Maybe even blown his cover lol

    Camille didn’t seem to care either for what it’s worth.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 2,972
    Priorities - that bus only runs every third Wednesday at half-10...
Sign In or Register to comment.