Where does Bond go after Craig?

12829313334529

Comments

  • Posts: 727
    Hopefully in non-binary pansexual orgies in Berlin.
  • Posts: 11,425
    octofinger wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    octofinger wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Fiennes was off to a great start with SF, but they turned him into such a whiny milquetoast in SP that my enthusiasm for his take on the. character plummeted. Let’s hope they course correct in NTTD. Then I can get excited about a future return.

    Fiennes really isn't great in the role. He's too close in age to Craig for starters. And there doesn't appear to be any real 'take'on who his M is.

    I think he’s great as Mallory, it’s only in SP - where the dynamic seems have drastically changed - that his character feels a little flaccid. Their relationship in SF builds to one of mutual respect by the final scene, with M clearly the figure of authority and Bond respectful of that. Within 15 mins of SP they’re seen together for the first time, with Bond in petulant mood and M equally abrasive. Shoe-horning Dench into proceedings is the main issue.

    It would’ve been more effective, imo, to learn (post-credits) that M himself (Mallory) had established a connection between ‘Sciarra’ and an anonymous source in MI6 - cue Bond taking off on an unsanctioned mission to Mexico City.

    On his return, rather than the slanging match in his office you have them meet at Blades. M is naturally pissed at Bond’s actions but agrees the intel was worth the fallout. From here the two of them are in it together and trust no one, even to the point where they fleetingly suspect each other. Ultimately M risks his own position because of his loyalty to Bond and we lose the protracted sense of ‘rogue-like’ behaviour where everything is designed to be done without M’s knowledge until the final act.

    Dammit. Make this the 100th time I've read s suggestion that would have vastly improved SP.

    What frustrates me most about that film is that it had all the potential in the world.

    Anyway, to the future of the 'Scooby Gang': I'd be happy to see all of them stay if the interval isn't too long - they're all quite talented. However, their collective salaries must hurt a bit. If EON is thinking about a 'leaner' approach to the next actor, they can't keep dropping $200 million+ on each picture. . .

    "All the Potential In The World" should be the working title of every new Bond movie.

    Quite.

    It's just that SP felt special:

    -massive amounts of public goodwill after the historic success of SF
    -all the characters introduced, a new M in place, and essentially a narrative 'blank slate' in place to run the story in any direction
    -the rights to spectre in hand again
    -the most talent ever assembled on both sides of the camera, right through cast and crew
    -a practically unlimited budget

    They had the world on a string with that one. It looks gorgeous, but it could have been so, so much better.

    Yes. I personally thought the trailer was the best of the Craig era. Helped by the music of course. Shame the film didn't live up to expectations.

    People do forget though that SP did very well at the box office, especially outside the US. As has sometimes been the case in the past (LTK for example) poor US box office has overshadowed the fact a film has actually been very popular everywhere else.
  • Posts: 1,680
    Spectre did poorly critically and to a degree financially in the United States.

  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    edited January 2020 Posts: 4,343
    Birdleson wrote: »
    But a 20-25% drop from the previous film is a bad sign, regardless. Like it or not that, that initial success at the box office (opening weekend) was more predicated on the goodwill of SF than any other factor. SP itself was an unknown factor.

    The big issue with SP was that the US audiences basically hated it. We are still talking about the 4th highest grossing Bond movie ever adjusting.
  • M_BaljeM_Balje Amsterdam, Netherlands
    edited January 2020 Posts: 4,447
    In 2021 Universal movies wil be released by Warner (and in some country's other way around), but don't know or this only count for real Universal titles (like Fast and Furious) or also count for Paramount/Universal (Mission Impossible 7 & 8), Dreamworks/Universal titles (Spy animated movie with Wil Smith is last one released under Fox i think) or MGM/Universal (Bond 26?).

    In UK and The Netherlands/Belgium and Denmark for example it mean Universal movies wil be released by Warner and in VS/Germany Warner movies by Universal. Fantastic Beast 3 released in Vs by Universal ?. And or Warner titles stil be released by Warner outside of Vs and Germany. France is not confirmd yet and i hope it wil be same as Vs/Germany, for very simple reasen Warner have some trouble to release BD in The Netherlands and (Flemish part of) Belgium. That problem wil get a way if that France tag is gone and there no longer deside what we get. If not i am afraid problem will be bigger if Universal losing contol.

    I don't expect it, but it be nice with trouble Warner have that there let Universal release finaly 8 disc Superman on BD in The Netherlands and Belgium or that old Batman series from the 60's on DVD (and BD). Or The Color Purple on BD for example. Even with in mind that Warner will remean in releasing there own titles.

    Whyle Universal/Warner have there Dolby True HD connection (if things not go wrong) and Disney/Fox there HD-MA 7.1. Overall i think Universal/FOX and Warner/Disney have been a more logic choose. Positief thing can be is that both Universal and Fox are better one in releasing things,both can learn: Warner from Universal and Disney can learn from Fox. I believe Warner whant to work with them, whyle i think Disney already have to much control over Fox. Don't like it Warner take over from Universal idea dropping 3D releases or no longer make releases with slipcover, Warner also have litle Disney in them to let remove sleeves like Disney doing. Something Fox did too and later we discover why.
  • Posts: 15,818
    Birdleson wrote: »
    matt_u wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    But a 20-25% drop from the previous film is a bad sign, regardless. Like it or not that, that initial success at the box office (opening weekend) was more predicated on the goodwill of SF than any other factor. SP itself was an unknown factor.

    The big issue with SP was that the US audiences basically hated it. We are still talking about the 4th highest grossing Bond movie ever adjusting.

    That drop off is significant. And, yes, I live in the US and I absolutely hated it.

    One of the reasons why I'm baffled as to why (at least to me) NTTD seems to directly follow up on an unpopular entry . Especially after the 2nd longest gap in the series.
  • 007Blofeld007Blofeld In the freedom of the West.
    edited January 2020 Posts: 3,126
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    matt_u wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    But a 20-25% drop from the previous film is a bad sign, regardless. Like it or not that, that initial success at the box office (opening weekend) was more predicated on the goodwill of SF than any other factor. SP itself was an unknown factor.

    The big issue with SP was that the US audiences basically hated it. We are still talking about the 4th highest grossing Bond movie ever adjusting.

    That drop off is significant. And, yes, I live in the US and I absolutely hated it.

    One of the reasons why I'm baffled as to why (at least to me) NTTD seems to directly follow up on an unpopular entry . Especially after the 2nd longest gap in the series.

    Same here they should have just ended with Spectre and started over but no Barbara wants to marry Daniel and make love.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    edited January 2020 Posts: 13,043
    matt_u wrote: »
    The big issue with SP was that the US audiences basically hated it. We are still talking about the 4th highest grossing Bond movie ever adjusting.
    Well that's hyperbole. While recognizing of course some folks outright hate the film.


    Consider IMDB metrics.
    Spectre 6.8
    US Users 6.8 (38,125)
    Non-US 6.7 (161,507)
    Compare to.
    Skyfall 7.7
    US Users 7.9 (79,244)
    Non-US 7.6 (278,590)
    Quantum of Solace 6.6
    US Users 6.7 (62,967)
    Non-US 6.5 (196,236)
    Casino Royale 8.0
    US Users 8.2 (97,904)
    Non-US 7.9 (271,068)
    On Her Majesty's Secret Service 6.7
    US Users 7.0 (14,467)
    Non-US 6.7 (36,521)
    For Your Eyes Only 6.8
    US Users 6.9 (17,252)
    Non-US 6.7 (41,826)
    The Living Daylights 6.7
    US Users 6.8 (16,090)
    Non-US 6.7 (41,163)
    Licence to Kill 6.6
    US Users 6.7 (17,155)
    Non-US 6.6 (43,489)
    GoldenEye 7.2
    US Users 7.4 (45,602)
    Non-US 7.1 (109,043)
    Tomorrow Never Dies 6.5
    US Users 6.5 (31,995)
    Non-US 6.4 (84,455)
    The World Is Not Enough 6.4
    US Users 6.3 (34,806)
    Non-US 6.4 (87,860)
    Die Another Day 6.1
    US Users 6.0 (34,562)
    Non-US 6.1 (99,366)

    The anomalies are how well-liked Casino Royale and Skyfall are. Deservedly so.

    But Spectre (suffering a failure myth earlier applied to OHMSS and Quantum of Solace) and Quantum of Solace (considered reasonably well-liked here at this point I think) stack up fine alongside other fine Bond films. I also note here most US ratings are slightly more generous than Non-US, even to Skyfall and Casino Royale.

  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    edited January 2020 Posts: 13,043
    Yes there are ways to rationalize and discount IMDB User Ratings. The more recent films [past 20 years or so] are likely more comparable. Still it's a measure of how the audience feels about the recent films and a more modern view on the older films, since the site was established rather than from the time of their release. Importantly it separates the US for comparison, to address the discussion earlier.

    What's another metric to consider that separates US audience opinion from the rest? I don't see numbers on IMDB or Rotten Tomatoes or other measures that indicate outright widespread audience hatred for Spectre. And earlier, for Quantum of Solace though I saw that theme expressed for some years. Similar to how I saw a hatred for On Her Majesty's Secret Service pursued as recently as 5 or so years ago. Not so much now.

    Box office also doesn't indicate overall audience hatred for Spectre in the US.

  • Birdleson wrote: »
    Question for those in Europe and Australia. In the US, Mendes’ 1917 was marketed as being from The Director of SKYFALL, no mention of SP. Was that the case for you guys as well? I know that SP was more well-received on that side of the pond.

    It was marketed as being from the director of Skyfall here (Europe) too.
  • Posts: 3,279
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    matt_u wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    But a 20-25% drop from the previous film is a bad sign, regardless. Like it or not that, that initial success at the box office (opening weekend) was more predicated on the goodwill of SF than any other factor. SP itself was an unknown factor.

    The big issue with SP was that the US audiences basically hated it. We are still talking about the 4th highest grossing Bond movie ever adjusting.

    That drop off is significant. And, yes, I live in the US and I absolutely hated it.

    One of the reasons why I'm baffled as to why (at least to me) NTTD seems to directly follow up on an unpopular entry . Especially after the 2nd longest gap in the series.

    Same here they should have just ended with Spectre and started over but no Barbara wants to marry Daniel and make love.

    I have a feeling if NTTD gives us more of the same that we saw in SP, there will be a backlash by critics and fans, and another big drop off at the BO.

    This may be the last ever produced Bond film by EON as we know it, if that is the case.
  • 007Blofeld wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    matt_u wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    But a 20-25% drop from the previous film is a bad sign, regardless. Like it or not that, that initial success at the box office (opening weekend) was more predicated on the goodwill of SF than any other factor. SP itself was an unknown factor.

    The big issue with SP was that the US audiences basically hated it. We are still talking about the 4th highest grossing Bond movie ever adjusting.

    That drop off is significant. And, yes, I live in the US and I absolutely hated it.

    One of the reasons why I'm baffled as to why (at least to me) NTTD seems to directly follow up on an unpopular entry . Especially after the 2nd longest gap in the series.

    Same here they should have just ended with Spectre and started over but no Barbara wants to marry Daniel and make love.

    I have a feeling if NTTD gives us more of the same that we saw in SP, there will be a backlash by critics and fans, and another big drop off at the BO.

    This may be the last ever produced Bond film by EON as we know it, if that is the case.

    Should easily make around $800million.
  • Posts: 11,425
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    matt_u wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    But a 20-25% drop from the previous film is a bad sign, regardless. Like it or not that, that initial success at the box office (opening weekend) was more predicated on the goodwill of SF than any other factor. SP itself was an unknown factor.

    The big issue with SP was that the US audiences basically hated it. We are still talking about the 4th highest grossing Bond movie ever adjusting.

    That drop off is significant. And, yes, I live in the US and I absolutely hated it.

    One of the reasons why I'm baffled as to why (at least to me) NTTD seems to directly follow up on an unpopular entry . Especially after the 2nd longest gap in the series.

    Same here they should have just ended with Spectre and started over but no Barbara wants to marry Daniel and make love.

    I have a feeling if NTTD gives us more of the same that we saw in SP, there will be a backlash by critics and fans, and another big drop off at the BO.

    This may be the last ever produced Bond film by EON as we know it, if that is the case.

    Was there a big BO drop off for SP? I thought it did great everywhere outside the US. And even then the money was less mainly due to exchange rates.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    edited January 2020 Posts: 13,043
    Two more anomalies, over the top numbers this time for box office. Skyfall is the film touted as finally eclipsing Thunderball, so there's a comparison to make there. And history repeating.

    Box Office Mojo
    Thunderball
    $63,595,658 Worldwide

    You Only Live Twice
    $43,084,787 Worldwide
    32.3% Box office drop
    Skyfall
    $304,360,277 US
    $804,200,736 Non-US
    $1,108,561,013 Overall

    Spectre
    $200,074,609 US
    $680,600,000 Non-US
    $880,674,609 Overall
    34.3% US Box office drop
    15.4% Non-US Box office drop
    20.6% Overall Box office drop

  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    Yeah that was what I was saying. SP drop outside US was absolutely fine, if you consider also the fact that back in 2012 there was a real Bond mania going on in the world, something I fear won’t happen again for quite some time. In the US it’s another story, the film didn’t really resonate with our American friends. Still is an overall success. Not crazy but still a success, box office wise. Too bad for them it costed so much to produce.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Two more anomalies, over the top numbers this time for box office. Skyfall is the film touted as finally eclipsing Thunderball, so there's a comparison to make there. And history repeating.

    Box Office Mojo
    Thunderball
    $63,595,658 Worldwide

    You Only Live Twice
    $43,084,787 Worldwide
    32.3% Box office drop
    Skyfall
    $304,360,277 US
    $804,200,736 Non-US
    $1,108,561,013 Overall

    Spectre
    $200,074,609 US
    $680,600,000 Non-US
    $880,674,609 Overall
    34.3% US Box office drop
    15.4% Non-US Box office drop
    20.6% Overall Box office drop

    I've always preferred YOLT to TB as well.

  • OctopussyOctopussy Piz Gloria, Schilthorn, Switzerland.
    Posts: 1,081
  • 007Blofeld007Blofeld In the freedom of the West.
    Posts: 3,126
    They should have a new plot based from the coronavirus that will wipe out the planet for Bond 26.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    They should have a new plot based from the coronavirus that will wipe out the planet for Bond 26.

    2oo deaths in China, with a population of a billion and a half, and no deaths outside, is hardly wiping out the planet. It is fearmongering as a selling point.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,869
    I'd be interested in seeing what Cary would do with a clean slate :)
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,120
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    Here’s a unique option: a character that should be introduced is May Maxwell. There’s some new material that can be done with the character.
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    I think with the new MI6 staff a.k.a the Scooby Gang- there's been an attempt to flesh out these characters with more scenes/screen time and plot relevance. That's fine and everything , but IMO Bernard Lee, Lois Maxwell and Desmond didn't need the bells and whistles for the audience to understand their characters.
    You can learn so much about a character from a simple line like "I never joke about my work, 007" and its delivery.
    Also I get so much more from the M scenes in DR NO and OHMSS than the more fleshed out Mallory scenes in SF and SP.
    I hope the next era, whenever that may be, goes back to keeping the Mi6 staff in the background, rather than creating entire stories around them.

    Keep the MI-6 people in the background, bring Felix Leiter into the action. He’s Bond’s best friend, show it! Adapt the Dynamite Comics storyline for help. It’s time that Felix got treated better in the movies.
  • Agent_47Agent_47 Canada
    Posts: 330
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    Here’s a unique option: a character that should be introduced is May Maxwell. There’s some new material that can be done with the character.
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    I think with the new MI6 staff a.k.a the Scooby Gang- there's been an attempt to flesh out these characters with more scenes/screen time and plot relevance. That's fine and everything , but IMO Bernard Lee, Lois Maxwell and Desmond didn't need the bells and whistles for the audience to understand their characters.
    You can learn so much about a character from a simple line like "I never joke about my work, 007" and its delivery.
    Also I get so much more from the M scenes in DR NO and OHMSS than the more fleshed out Mallory scenes in SF and SP.
    I hope the next era, whenever that may be, goes back to keeping the Mi6 staff in the background, rather than creating entire stories around them.

    Keep the MI-6 people in the background, bring Felix Leiter into the action. He’s Bond’s best friend, show it! Adapt the Dynamite Comics storyline for help. It’s time that Felix got treated better in the movies.

    I agree, Felix needs more screentime. He appears to be getting the short end of the stick, only showing up in Jamaica and then getting sidelined (or killed) yet again.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited May 2020 Posts: 5,869
    So I've been pushing these ideas around for a while as you've probably seen from the Bond actor page. So, if it was up to me, or if I had any idea of what they could do going forward, I would firstly keep the Craig-era as it was. No connections to it all, but I do think aspects of what he achieved and the tone his films portrayed should be kept, as well as the traditional elements of the James Bond franchise, and maybe even a bit more so with more standalone adventures, and less overarching plot threads that get too messy. Keep it interesting, but don't overcomplicate everything.

    So while things remain the same, the biggest change should be the whole cast. For James Bond, as I've mentioned. I think a younger actor in his thirties would be an interesting choice. While not far of the usual age of a Bond actor, there's enough of a difference I think to create new dynamics with other traditional characters. Like I've said Aaron Taylor-Johnson or Callum Turner would be my top picks for that now. Again, while both are qurrently early 30s, by the time Bond 26 should be made, they'll be a few years older.

    The other members to recast are the MI6 regulars. I would go for a more diverse choice here, and someone who can present that power and responsibility, to be the head of MI6 that we know and love. I've suggested actor Lennie James before. I think he'd be great. For Q, I'll always think Riz Ahmed would be a good choice and would provide a more zany approach to Q. As for Moneypenny, I think going forward it'll be interesting to see someone like Vanessa Kirby play the role, maybe as a more classic Moneypenny.
  • LFSLFS
    edited June 2020 Posts: 40
    I want Martin Campbell back as director. He has said in the past that maybe he'd be ready to come back after Craig will have left. Campbell also tested Henry Cavill for the role for Casino Royale and remarked that Cavill may still have a shot at Bond in the future.

    That's why I'm all for wrapping up the Craig era (he is good, but getting long in the tooth), and starting anew with Martin Campbell in the director's chair and Henry Cavill in the lead role. Cavill looks the part (there's a similarity to Horak's Bond, actually), can do action scenes and stunts himself and is also able to be suave and charming. I think he's probably the best candidate.

    If they'd get Campbell and Cavill together and then promise a stand-alone, normal Bond adventure (something like Dr. No), I would actually get excited about it.
  • Posts: 3,279
    LFS wrote: »
    I want Martin Campbell back as director. He has said in the past that maybe he'd be ready to come back after Craig will have left. Campbell also tested Henry Cavill for the role for Casino Royale and remarked that Cavill may still have a shot at Bond in the future.

    That's why I'm all for wrapping up the Craig era (he is good, but getting long in the tooth), and starting anew with Martin Campbell in the director's chair and Henry Cavill in the lead role. Cavill looks the part (there's a similarity to Horak's Bond, actually), can do action scenes and stunts himself and is also able to be suave and charming. I think he's probably the best candidate.

    If they'd get Campbell and Cavill together and then promise a stand-alone, normal Bond adventure (something like Dr. No), I would actually get excited about it.

    There's a chance Campbell may come back, but not a chance in hell Cavill will, regardless of how suitable he is (which I agree with).

    Once an actor has been used up in another franchise lead role, he will be immediately dismissed now. EON won't do it. Had Cavll been a relatively unknown actor, then yes, but unfortunately that shipped has long since passed. If he was to play Bond, it would have been at the time of casting him back in CR, when he wasn't that well established or famous (and far less expensive that he would be now).

  • DrClatterhandDrClatterhand United Kingdom
    Posts: 349
    Warner Bros. and Nolan. :')
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,526
    I bet after Craig, we get another updated 007 logo, something more modern.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,110
    Warner Bros. and Nolan. :')

    Yes.

    I think there is a big change on the horizon and when Bond does return, it will feel completely fresh and contemporary again.

    Just like 95 and 06 felt like major updates, so will 25 or whenever the movie is released probably not for another 5+ years is my guess.

    I don't think Babs will be involved anymore, perhaps in a minor overseeing role like George Lucas is doing on Star Wars. But I'm pretty sure the end of Craig also means the end of EON as the main series producers, because I don't think Babs want to do this for the rest of her life, that's just my impression.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited June 2020 Posts: 5,869
    I’d be interested to hear why you think Barbara is done? Especially with Gregg Wilson becoming more and more heavily involved in the films. I think it’s more likely that they’d want to keep it in the family and hand the films down like was done before.
  • BennyBenny In the shadowsAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,882
    It'll be a sad day when EON are no longer the producers of the Bond series.
Sign In or Register to comment.