Where does Bond go after Craig?

15354565859513

Comments

  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,834
    I did suspect Ana de Armas as one when she was cast but that was quickly squashed, and either way, Paloma looks incredible and badass. She'll be quite the highlight I'm sure with however long she has on-screen... and well least we get to Vogel again for a little bit I guess @Thunderpussy haha :D
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    @Denbigh she looks amazing in the trailer,
    hell of a skill to do martial arts in high heels ;)
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited May 2021 Posts: 14,861
    Denbigh wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    I mean as a kid I'd always watch either Thunderball and Die Another Day, mainly because of Miranda Frost, with Thunderball being my favourite at the time mainly due to Fiona Volpe. I really like female villains and henchwomen haha - which is actually my biggest grievance with the Craig-era.

    That's a good point. He could really have done with one, couldn't he?
    You never know, we may get a hint of one in No Time to Die, maybe. We know we won't be getting any main female villains or henchwomen.

    Yes, I guess Nomi could turn out to be bad, but I really don't think she will.

    I think it's mad we haven't had a female main villain for twenty years. Just for the sake of variation if nothing else!
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited May 2021 Posts: 5,834
    mtm wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    I mean as a kid I'd always watch either Thunderball and Die Another Day, mainly because of Miranda Frost, with Thunderball being my favourite at the time mainly due to Fiona Volpe. I really like female villains and henchwomen haha - which is actually my biggest grievance with the Craig-era.

    That's a good point. He could really have done with one, couldn't he?
    You never know, we may get a hint of one in No Time to Die, maybe. We know we won't be getting any main female villains or henchwomen.
    Yes, I guess Nomi could turn out to be bad, but I really don't think she will.
    Haha I meant more those background SPECTRE agents getting a little more screentime than we expect but never say never I guess...

    ...but I agree it won't happen :)
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    I only hope you didn't " Jinx " it :D
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 7,971
    mtm wrote: »
    It appears that it is you who must have forgotten that up until Skyfall Thunderball held the record for highest grossing Bond film, inflation adjusted. So by your rational of using boxoffice figures, yes, it very much is a fan favourite.

    Erm, no. Box office shows that it's an audience favourite, not a fan favourite. FRWL is #2 fan favourite, but 12th on the list of box office earners.
    I'm not arguing they retread from 40 years ago, I'm saying they should follow the same general trend they have been since the beginning. Bond films have always followed a pattern of going from light to dark back to light again. After the emotional OHMSS we got the Moore era which was hugely popular in its day. Then we had a darker portrayal with Tim, back to light romps with Pierce, back to grounded fare with Craig. This pattern has existed for the entire run of the franchises long history, which is why I advocate them continuing with a more relaxed, slick GE style film next. I don't know why they would suddenly break with tradition now.

    Because 'tradition' isn't progress: no-one is selling cars with steam-powered engines because it's traditional. You sell people what they want now.
    mtm wrote: »
    I'm not saying they have to do exactly the same plot things, just that audiences -and fans- respond better to, and now expect, their heroes to be emotionally involved in the plot.

    Again, who said this? You state it as fact, but seems more like a lot of guesswork and random poking around with boxoffice figures.

    Have you watched any movies recently? How many can you think of where the main characters weren't involved with the main plot?
    It's a fact that CR is the favourite of the fans, and Skyfall was the most successful Bond ever. Do you honestly think OHMSS is a favourite of the fans because it has a great safe-cracking sequence? It's because it's the one where Bond falls in love. People love it.
    People liked this era of Bond because it was prescient for the time. Post 9/11, the more sober, gritty style worked as it reflected the cultural mood. That won't and can't work forever and EON need to go back to the drawing board, which necessarily means cutting out the fat, and throwing away the established formula. In the case of Craig this means the emotional baggage needs to be tossed to make way for a different interpretation, just the same way that they had to cut out all the excess of gadgetry and wacky hijinks of die another day to reach the likes of CR/SF.

    Who said this? You state it as fact, but it's guesswork.
    There may well be a different angle to it, but the emotional engagement will remain. Audiences are just more sophisticated now.

    Exactly, so what sense does it make to be riding a 2006 motor in 2026? You make a film to fit the tone and sensibilities of the time, not what was popular 20 years ago. FYI, people generally like OHMSS because its incredibly well crafted, not just "because Bond gets married", lol. By that reasoning they could have filmed anything and as long as there's a marriage scene in there somewhere and fans would love it.

    I never denied that CR and SF are popular, but that doesn't make copying what they did many years later a good idea. If you keep trying to make the same type of movie over and over with exactly the same tone and style, you end up with the Jason Bourne franchise, slowly losing steam over time. Bond has literally built a nearly 60 year legacy off changing with the times, and cutting out the dead weight periodically. As much as Craigites like to glorify the 2006 - 2012 period, it can't be denied that the record since then has been far from great. Its really just those 2 movies that people like, and audiences have already moved on. Craigites have this weird idea that the majority of people are still stuck in that era with them, the fact is that whilst popular at the time this run of films have been largely overtaken by the likes of Mission Impossible since 2015. But we should find out more about that by how Craigs Swanning performs (hopefully) this October. I'm guessing the steady post-Skyfall decline continues, but let's sit tight and find out.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited May 2021 Posts: 14,861
    mtm wrote: »
    It appears that it is you who must have forgotten that up until Skyfall Thunderball held the record for highest grossing Bond film, inflation adjusted. So by your rational of using boxoffice figures, yes, it very much is a fan favourite.

    Erm, no. Box office shows that it's an audience favourite, not a fan favourite. FRWL is #2 fan favourite, but 12th on the list of box office earners.
    I'm not arguing they retread from 40 years ago, I'm saying they should follow the same general trend they have been since the beginning. Bond films have always followed a pattern of going from light to dark back to light again. After the emotional OHMSS we got the Moore era which was hugely popular in its day. Then we had a darker portrayal with Tim, back to light romps with Pierce, back to grounded fare with Craig. This pattern has existed for the entire run of the franchises long history, which is why I advocate them continuing with a more relaxed, slick GE style film next. I don't know why they would suddenly break with tradition now.

    Because 'tradition' isn't progress: no-one is selling cars with steam-powered engines because it's traditional. You sell people what they want now.
    mtm wrote: »
    I'm not saying they have to do exactly the same plot things, just that audiences -and fans- respond better to, and now expect, their heroes to be emotionally involved in the plot.

    Again, who said this? You state it as fact, but seems more like a lot of guesswork and random poking around with boxoffice figures.

    Have you watched any movies recently? How many can you think of where the main characters weren't involved with the main plot?
    It's a fact that CR is the favourite of the fans, and Skyfall was the most successful Bond ever. Do you honestly think OHMSS is a favourite of the fans because it has a great safe-cracking sequence? It's because it's the one where Bond falls in love. People love it.
    People liked this era of Bond because it was prescient for the time. Post 9/11, the more sober, gritty style worked as it reflected the cultural mood. That won't and can't work forever and EON need to go back to the drawing board, which necessarily means cutting out the fat, and throwing away the established formula. In the case of Craig this means the emotional baggage needs to be tossed to make way for a different interpretation, just the same way that they had to cut out all the excess of gadgetry and wacky hijinks of die another day to reach the likes of CR/SF.

    Who said this? You state it as fact, but it's guesswork.
    There may well be a different angle to it, but the emotional engagement will remain. Audiences are just more sophisticated now.

    Exactly, so what sense does it make to be riding a 2006 motor in 2026? You make a film to fit the tone and sensibilities of the time, not what was popular 20 years ago.

    Because if you watch any big film now you'll notice that sort of thing is still going down extremely well. Look at the Marvel movies for instance.
    Throwing out what works now would be the opposite of cutting out the dead weight.
    FYI, people generally like OHMSS because its incredibly well crafted, not just "because Bond gets married", lol. By that reasoning they could have filmed anything and as long as there's a marriage scene in there somewhere and fans would love it.

    Bond gets married in YOLT, it's at #14 in the poll. So no, that reasoning is not right at all.

    Fans love the relationship angle, they cry at the ending. This is not some wild and crazy theory. I suspect you probably quite like that part of the film too: most of us do.
    I never denied that CR and SF are popular, but that doesn't make copying what they did many years later a good idea. If you keep trying to make the same type of movie over and over with exactly the same tone and style, you end up with the Jason Bourne franchise, slowly losing steam over time.

    I keep repeating that I'm not saying that they do everything the same but you seem to think I'm saying they should keep the exact same style..? I've no idea where you're getting this from.
    What I am saying, and was the single sentence which you took exception to in the beginning of all this, is that audiences like to see him being affected personally, a bit of drama in the mix.

    Bond has literally built a nearly 60 year legacy off changing with the times, and cutting out the dead weight periodically. As much as Craigites like to glorify the 2006 - 2012 period, it can't be denied that the record since then has been far from great. Its really just those 2 movies that people like, and audiences have already moved on. Craigites have this weird idea that the majority of people are still stuck in that era with them, the fact is that whilst popular at the time this run of films have been largely overtaken by the likes of Mission Impossible since 2015. But we should find out more about that by how Craigs Swanning performs (hopefully) this October. I'm guessing the steady post-Skyfall decline continues, but let's sit tight and find out.

    'Craigites' 8-|

    Notice the most recent Mission Impossible increased the personal involvement of Ethan to the mission.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 7,971
    I have most Marvel films closer to GE than CR. Most superhero films in general are fun romps, even the Iron Man films are still fun because they have genuine humour and a variety of entertain on offer. I want to sit down to a Bond film and have a fun ride again, not get bogged down by emotional drama, or bored stiff by pointless side plots (Max Denbigh anyone?) For me this experience of a fun ride is what I get from GE, and really the last good example of it in this franchise (TND and TWINE are still fun, but not as well executed). If they kept the amount of characterisation to how it is done in the Iron Man films I personally wouldn't mind but they need to keep things mission focused, and not tying everything back to Bond, his family home, distant relatives etc. Thats the sort of stuff I mean when I say the ham-fisted melodrama needs to be exorcised for the next iteration. I think some of these movies will be looked upon as cringy in years to come, like the needless tying together of all the villains into one mega-plan. The storys just aren't that unique or inventive because it feels like the character is put first, and everything takes a hit a lot of times. There is massive potential to have a Bond who is quite aloof, and the drama and intrigue comes from the situation rather than what skeleton might fall out of his closet next. When I think of modernising for today, I think adding some humour and kinetic energy to the direction would go a long way, and having an actual interesting plot at the forefront again, not just some nebulous, vaguely ominous governmental scheme.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 5,921
    Many things work in CR, but the important one for Bond 26 is this: go back to Fleming.
  • BennyBenny In the shadowsAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,813
    echo wrote: »
    Many things work in CR, but the important one for Bond 26 is this: go back to Fleming.

    I very much hope so. No better basis for the next film. Especially with a new actor.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 12,916
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Is it ok to not really know what your favourite Bond film is? Cause I'm not that 100% I know I can say what's definitely not my favourite haha :D
    Yeah I generally think the Bond film I'm watching at the time is my favorite.

  • Posts: 3,275
    I have most Marvel films closer to GE than CR. Most superhero films in general are fun romps, even the Iron Man films are still fun because they have genuine humour and a variety of entertain on offer. I want to sit down to a Bond film and have a fun ride again, not get bogged down by emotional drama, or bored stiff by pointless side plots (Max Denbigh anyone?) For me this experience of a fun ride is what I get from GE, and really the last good example of it in this franchise (TND and TWINE are still fun, but not as well executed).

    Audiences have moved on, expectations are different now to what they were back in 1995. Look at all the Netflix dramas that do very well with the masses. They are usually emotional dramas, not fun romps. And when it comes to Bond look no further than SF and CR in terms of what ticks most peoples boxes, critics and fans alike.

    I am hazarding a guess NTTD will do extremely well at the BO, assuming the world gets back to some normality and people can go to the cinema again. If it does, then don't expect drastic changes with the next Bond film.

  • echo wrote: »
    Many things work in CR, but the important one for Bond 26 is this: go back to Fleming.

    Definitively agree. While I don't know if it would be ideal for Bond 26 specifically, the opening chapters of TMWTGG would be a great PTS for a new actor and a great way to introduce him to the audience.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited May 2021 Posts: 7,971
    I have most Marvel films closer to GE than CR. Most superhero films in general are fun romps, even the Iron Man films are still fun because they have genuine humour and a variety of entertain on offer. I want to sit down to a Bond film and have a fun ride again, not get bogged down by emotional drama, or bored stiff by pointless side plots (Max Denbigh anyone?) For me this experience of a fun ride is what I get from GE, and really the last good example of it in this franchise (TND and TWINE are still fun, but not as well executed).

    Audiences have moved on, expectations are different now to what they were back in 1995. Look at all the Netflix dramas that do very well with the masses. They are usually emotional dramas, not fun romps. And when it comes to Bond look no further than SF and CR in terms of what ticks most peoples boxes, critics and fans alike.

    I am hazarding a guess NTTD will do extremely well at the BO, assuming the world gets back to some normality and people can go to the cinema again. If it does, then don't expect drastic changes with the next Bond film.

    After every era comes to an end there is always a change of direction. It wouldn't be "moving with the times" if they kept doing things the same way from 2006. Thats literally what they did with Bourne and the franchise fizzled out. People got bord of the same schtick after the fifth film, and the new TV series never even got past one series. Just look at the gap between LTK and GE and how much they updated the style of the movies. LTK feels slow and listless in comparison to GE which is far more modern kinetic and punchy. The dialogue, and one liners all help to add to this effect. I think after Craig bales out, the next films will undergo a similar transformation and SF, SP will feel very plodding in future years. They really like to overdo the long establishing shots in those two, and the dramatic pauses and moody atmosphere (say for the Scotland sequence) all soak up a lot of screen time. Its weird that they haven't made a film under 2hrs 20 for a while, and B25 appears to be the longest yet.

    As far as Bond 25, the movie likely won't make back its own production costs, which are rumoured to be north of 300 million. The gap between SP and B25 is only a few months short of the same gap that LTK - GE had. And this time instead of a revamped style and a completely fresh portrayal, we have the same Bond actor and reconstituted plot elements which weren't that popular to begin with. I don't know many who are big fans of the character Madeline Swann, or Waltzs Blofeld for that matter. People have been losing interest since 2015, when SP failed to gained the critical or financial success of SF. As much as some devote Craigites love to venerate 2006 - 2012 as a peak for the franchise, that era came to an end a long time ago now. We have to accept that what we have left is the remainders or leftovers. No Bond who is around for more than a couple years goes out on a high. At best B25 will be an interesting film for fans to look back on, and be a modest success, however anyone thinking it will rise up and reach the heights of SF or even SP again I think are in for a rude awakening. Theres simply no steam left for that, they're dragged things out for too long now. SF was released in a cauldron of enthusiasm and hope, not just for Bond but for everything British. Patriotism was at an all time high, and then the film seemed to carry that lantern and run with it. I think we can expect huge wait for the next Bond film some time between 2026 - 2028. Even if B25 makes back its budget, it'll take a long time to truly nail down where to take the franchise next, cast a new Bond etc. EON seem completely out of energy these days, I suppose as Micheal and Barbara get older, so they are likely to make the process take as long as possible, if they even want to continue.
  • Posts: 3,275
    I have most Marvel films closer to GE than CR. Most superhero films in general are fun romps, even the Iron Man films are still fun because they have genuine humour and a variety of entertain on offer. I want to sit down to a Bond film and have a fun ride again, not get bogged down by emotional drama, or bored stiff by pointless side plots (Max Denbigh anyone?) For me this experience of a fun ride is what I get from GE, and really the last good example of it in this franchise (TND and TWINE are still fun, but not as well executed).

    Audiences have moved on, expectations are different now to what they were back in 1995. Look at all the Netflix dramas that do very well with the masses. They are usually emotional dramas, not fun romps. And when it comes to Bond look no further than SF and CR in terms of what ticks most peoples boxes, critics and fans alike.

    I am hazarding a guess NTTD will do extremely well at the BO, assuming the world gets back to some normality and people can go to the cinema again. If it does, then don't expect drastic changes with the next Bond film.

    After every era comes to an end there is always a change of direction. It wouldn't be "moving with the times" if they kept doing things the same way from 2006. Thats literally what they did with Bourne and the franchise fizzled out. People got bord of the same schtick after the fifth film, and the new TV series never even got past one series. Just look at the gap between LTK and GE and how much they updated the style of the movies. LTK feels slow and listless in comparison to GE which is far more modern kinetic and punchy. The dialogue, and one liners all help to add to this effect. I think after Craig bales out, the next films will undergo a similar transformation and SF, SP will feel very plodding in future years. They really like to overdo the long establishing shots in those two, and the dramatic pauses and moody atmosphere (say for the Scotland sequence) all soak up a lot of screen time. Its weird that they haven't made a film under 2hrs 20 for a while, and B25 appears to be the longest yet.

    As far as Bond 25, the movie likely won't make back its own production costs, which are rumoured to be north of 300 million. The gap between SP and B25 is only a few months short of the same gap that LTK - GE had. And this time instead of a revamped style and a completely fresh portrayal, we have the same Bond actor and reconstituted plot elements which weren't that popular to begin with. I don't know many who are big fans of the character Madeline Swann, or Waltzs Blofeld for that matter. People have been losing interest since 2015, when SP failed to gained the critical or financial success of SF. As much as some devote Craigites love to venerate 2006 - 2012 as a peak for the franchise, that era came to an end a long time ago now. We have to accept that what we have left is the remainders or leftovers. No Bond who is around for more than a couple years goes out on a high. At best B25 will be an interesting film for fans to look back on, and be a modest success, however anyone thinking it will rise up and reach the heights of SF or even SP again I think are in for a rude awakening. Theres simply no steam left for that, they're dragged things out for too long now. SF was released in a cauldron of enthusiasm and hope, not just for Bond but for everything British. Patriotism was at an all time high, and then the film seemed to carry that lantern and run with it. I think we can expect huge wait for the next Bond film some time between 2026 - 2028. Even if B25 makes back its budget, it'll take a long time to truly nail down where to take the franchise next, cast a new Bond etc. EON seem completely out of energy these days, I suppose as Micheal and Barbara get older, so they are likely to make the process take as long as possible, if they even want to continue.

    It will be interesting to see where the next film goes, and how the series will be rebooted. We don't know when that will be though. It could be a few years away yet, and a lot will depend on how audiences tastes are at the moment in time, what kind of action flicks are doing well. This will be a deciding factor and influence in the direction of the next film. CR and QoS were influenced by Bourne, and SF and SP were influenced by Nolan's Batman.
  • Posts: 1,545
    There has been a tremendous amount of very interesting discussion and analysis on here about whether post-Craig Bond will be more of what we've seen during Craig's tenure, or something different. I offer a few observations which I think are simply practical. (1) For one thing, the story arc will come to an end with Craig's last film. Even if the producers wish to present a "heavy" film, there will be a new actor, and, likely, a re-boot to some degree even if not complete, going back to Bond getting his 00, or even before. (2) Were they to start another "heavy" arc, it would risk being tiresome. I fully expect NTTD to be terrific, and a great entertainment, and very popular and financially successful. This does not mean you just start over with the same type storyline the next time out. The producers can achieve some over-arching story-telling, with some serious heft to it, and not go "full-on silly" as in some past eras, and produce very entertaining and popular films. But I think we'll be moving on from the Vesper story-line, the Dr. Swann story-line, the Bro-feld storyline. If they go with a young actor, and start things off before Bond is an 00, or is a new agent, we may see again the "you're reckless and you must learn more quickly and get your head in the game" storyline, but not for very long. If Bond does not "get it" quickly, then he'd be too dense to be in his job, or to stay alive. (3) I realize some folks are suggesting we will see more of the "heavy, personal" storylines, although with different background aspects emphasized, with different characters, but I also think we will see more of an emphasis on action, adventure, maybe some suspense.
  • Posts: 4,599
    I like the idea of a pre-00 story. There are many smaller gov depts where Bond could serve with a more compact, stript down story and no grand World domination plan. However (arguing against myself), I really like the current M, Q and Moneypenny set up.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited May 2021 Posts: 5,921
    Why not both? A young Bond series (would have to be a period piece) and a seasoned Bond one, alternating releases every two years.

    I don't have faith Eon could plan far ahead enough for that, though.
  • edited May 2021 Posts: 15,785
    I'd really only want to see a young Bond series if it were set during WW2.
    Could work, though.
    Somehow I have a feeling there will be a long enough gap between NTTD and B26 that origin stories, multi-verses, and most of what's popular now will have probably played it's course. Audience tastes may be completely different by then.
    Who knows? Maybe Speilberg's WEST SIDE STORY will be such a hit it spawns a whole new era of musicals and we'll get to see the Craig's replacement break into song and dance very 20 minutes?

    Just kidding.
  • Posts: 2,436
    patb wrote: »
    I like the idea of a pre-00 story. There are many smaller gov depts where Bond could serve with a more compact, stript down story and no grand World domination plan. However (arguing against myself), I really like the current M, Q and Moneypenny set up.

    The original idea for The Living Daylights was to show Bond in his time in the navy.
  • edited May 2021 Posts: 890
    The original idea for The Living Daylights was to show Bond in his time in the navy.
    Really? The detailed synopsis from The Making of The Living Daylights book hardly addresses Bond's career in the navy. He's presented as a navy officier attached to an embassy in the PTS but, directly after the titles, he's fired for misconduct and is contacted by M to join MI6. So clearly his time in the navy didn't seem to interest either Maibaum or Wilson. Unless I missed another summary published elsewhere since.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    edited May 2021 Posts: 4,548
    Benny wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    Many things work in CR, but the important one for Bond 26 is this: go back to Fleming.

    I very much hope so. No better basis for the next film. Especially with a new actor.

    I am on record as saying the series could benefit from returning Bond to the midst of the Cold War (late 50s/early 60s). While TMFU was not a Box Office smash, I really think it was on to something. I loved the look and feel of that film. The cars. The fashion. The music. Alicia Vikander was a great non-Bond Bond girl.

    While I love Bond no matter the era, I have to admit that the technological advancements of the 21st century make the spy game a little less interesting (SF made it fresh; SP made it dull). Furthermore, EON would have a lot more flexibility in creating villains who fit that time period but also speak to today. Both WW films are a terrific example of that: a reminder that the problems of the past still plague us.

  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 5,921
    A young Bond TV series could show his mistakes and also have Easter eggs for the DN-DAD films for fans...while the film series continued apace in the present.

    Eon is onto something, always making the *films* contemporary.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,053
    https://www.cbr.com/amazon-mgm-buyout-deal-announcement-soon/

    We could get more a more regular schedule for 007 movies, if all goes to plan.
  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    Posts: 1,351
    TripAces wrote: »
    Benny wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    Many things work in CR, but the important one for Bond 26 is this: go back to Fleming.

    I very much hope so. No better basis for the next film. Especially with a new actor.

    I am on record as saying the series could benefit from returning Bond to the midst of the Cold War (late 50s/early 60s). While TMFU was not a Box Office smash, I really think it was on to something. I loved the look and feel of that film. The cars. The fashion. The music. Alicia Vikander was a great non-Bond Bond girl.

    While I love Bond no matter the era, I have to admit that the technological advancements of the 21st century make the spy game a little less interesting (SF made it fresh; SP made it dull). Furthermore, EON would have a lot more flexibility in creating villains who fit that time period but also speak to today. Both WW films are a terrific example of that: a reminder that the problems of the past still plague us.
    In my eyes P&W found the perfect guiding line for a Bond film in SF. Not the film itself - although I love it - but in the Q scene.
    Q: Well, I'll hazard I can do more damage on my laptop sitting in my pajamas before my first cup of Earl Grey than you can do in a year in the field.
    James Bond: Oh, so why do you need me?
    Q: Every now and then a trigger has to be pulled.
    James Bond: Or not pulled. It's hard to know which in your pajamas. Q.
    Q: 007.
    That is the basic template Bond needs to follow in the technological age, in my opinion. You can have signals, imagery and cyber intelligence all you want. At the end of the day, someone like Bond has to get to the target, make a final assessment of the situation and if he deems it necessary pull the trigger (in the Bond universe at least).
    Maddeningly, they don't really go anywhere with that idea after it is articulated in that scene and they have the tendency to make technology all-powerful and have it be incredibly stupid in the next scene.
    Without needing to ape them any more than has already happened, both Bourne and M:I have shown that you can still do interesting plots and some cool tradecraft scenes in the modern world. I think the Bond franchise has been a bit over-cautious in the Craig era, because they have been burnt with weird techno-ideas during Brosnan's run. But I personally feel like society's relationship to technology has changed enough to maybe give a slightly more futuristic Bond a go again. The trick is always to have the tech enhance the man and not just have him be the wielder of something everyone could use to solve the situation.
  • edited May 2021 Posts: 4,599
    There is some kind of back lash re tech and people are embracing analogue in some areas and not just old farts (cassettes trendy now!) so SF was ahead of the trend. We do need a new Bond who relies on his whits and IQ rather than more gadgets. It also encourages lazy script writing as you just use tech to explain stuff (DNA on the ring in SP for example) and a better informed audience just see that and think "what?!" Also, sorry to bring up MI again, but some of the best scenes within the franchise are when the tech fails. More knowledgable Bond fans than me can point to scenes where Bond's tech has failed?
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 5,921
    LALD. Perhaps the defining scene in movie history of tech failing.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    edited May 2021 Posts: 4,548
    TripAces wrote: »
    Benny wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    Many things work in CR, but the important one for Bond 26 is this: go back to Fleming.

    I very much hope so. No better basis for the next film. Especially with a new actor.

    I am on record as saying the series could benefit from returning Bond to the midst of the Cold War (late 50s/early 60s). While TMFU was not a Box Office smash, I really think it was on to something. I loved the look and feel of that film. The cars. The fashion. The music. Alicia Vikander was a great non-Bond Bond girl.

    While I love Bond no matter the era, I have to admit that the technological advancements of the 21st century make the spy game a little less interesting (SF made it fresh; SP made it dull). Furthermore, EON would have a lot more flexibility in creating villains who fit that time period but also speak to today. Both WW films are a terrific example of that: a reminder that the problems of the past still plague us.
    In my eyes P&W found the perfect guiding line for a Bond film in SF. Not the film itself - although I love it - but in the Q scene.
    Q: Well, I'll hazard I can do more damage on my laptop sitting in my pajamas before my first cup of Earl Grey than you can do in a year in the field.
    James Bond: Oh, so why do you need me?
    Q: Every now and then a trigger has to be pulled.
    James Bond: Or not pulled. It's hard to know which in your pajamas. Q.
    Q: 007.
    That is the basic template Bond needs to follow in the technological age, in my opinion. You can have signals, imagery and cyber intelligence all you want. At the end of the day, someone like Bond has to get to the target, make a final assessment of the situation and if he deems it necessary pull the trigger (in the Bond universe at least).
    Maddeningly, they don't really go anywhere with that idea after it is articulated in that scene and they have the tendency to make technology all-powerful and have it be incredibly stupid in the next scene.
    Without needing to ape them any more than has already happened, both Bourne and M:I have shown that you can still do interesting plots and some cool tradecraft scenes in the modern world. I think the Bond franchise has been a bit over-cautious in the Craig era, because they have been burnt with weird techno-ideas during Brosnan's run. But I personally feel like society's relationship to technology has changed enough to maybe give a slightly more futuristic Bond a go again. The trick is always to have the tech enhance the man and not just have him be the wielder of something everyone could use to solve the situation.

    I agree. And SF handled it very well. But then having to basically hear the same stuff again in SP made me fear that we'll be reminded of this, explicitly, in every film going forward.
  • Posts: 1,545
    By "tech failing" in LALD do you refer to the magnetic watch not bringing Bond the canoe because the canoe was tied up ? The tech didn't fail, really. It worked. The canoe moved toward Bond. If you meant another scene, please enlighten ! That is the only part I recall right now.

    Clever scriptwriters can get around the unfortunate "deus ex machina" aspects of technology and gadgets always getting Bond out of jams, as with the simplicity of a rope on a canoe. With today's tech, for example, Bond could be captured, loses his gadgets, escapes and must find another way to prevail.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 5,921
    ^Tech failing Bond
Sign In or Register to comment.