Where does Bond go after Craig?

1578579581583584688

Comments

  • Posts: 4,238
    I’d go as far to say that SF has one of the best opening shots of all time. But yeah, it’s a great PTS. Genuinely remember the first time I ever watched it. It felt like Bond had literally died. Obviously we’ve seen fake Bond deaths in the series before - ie. YOLT - but none were as believable, and it was actually quite impactful seeing Craig’s Bond slowly take hit after hit, struggle to fight Patrice with a bullet in his shoulder, and then get shot and fall.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited June 30 Posts: 16,507
    007HallY wrote: »
    Yeah, I always presumed it was Bond investigating/it wasn’t obvious Patrice had overtaken the two other agents until he got in the room. Gunshots wouldn’t necessarily mean much even if he had heard them, which we don’t actually know (the agents could possibly have killed Patrice if something had gone wrong for instance and have temporarily gone radio silent) and it’d be counterintuitive on Bond’s part to rush in/alert Patrice to his presence… and the shot wouldn’t look as cool with Bond running in (which yes, is a factor, even though it’s relatively logical). It’s very much a ‘begin as late as possible’ opening, which is actually good.

    Again though to each their own. I certainly complain about/don’t like certain things in Bond films others wouldn’t think about normally or outright don’t see, so I can relate 😂


    I love everything about SF, including the opening, but I guess thinking about it... what was it that put Bond there? With radio contact with M and Moneypenny in the car outside: had they had some sort of report that Ronson and his team were in danger? Had they had to retreat to a safe house and asked for backup or something? Why was Bond already local? The way they act about the laptop suggests that they knew Patrice would be after it- M should have told him to destroy it if they thought it was at risk, you'd think.
    I love it, and it doesn't have to explain any of this stuff to be a brilliant sequence, but it's just fun to try and work out what the story before the film started was.

    Yeah Skyfall's PTS is just superb. I don't know how anybody could watch that entire sequence and not leave feeling amped for what is to come.

    Yes, it's fantastic, one of the all-time best for my money. The way it builds and builds, and the music getting epic as the bikes ride across of the roofs of the Grand Bazaar... top Bond excitement. And it needs to be, as it's a very long time until another action sequence!
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    edited June 30 Posts: 695
    I don't "despise" SF's PTS, I just don't like Mendes' fussy style and I never found the chase exciting due to its linearity. They go from point A to point B without anything unexpected happening, and then end up on the train. It just seems too stagey.
    Compare it to QOS's opening chase, which has a sense of spontaneity to it, like the Aston getting its door ripped off, Bond having to swerve into a quarry to avoid the roadblock, or the cop car nearly hitting Bond after it was shot up by the Quantum agents.
    And again, I don't think the opening moments of SF make any sense, given what's shown. There are parts of SF that I like, but the opening isn't one of them. I actually think the movie gets better as it goes, before fumbling again in the 3rd act.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,507
    slide_99 wrote: »
    Compare it to QOS's opening chase, which has a sense of spontaneity to it, like the Aston getting its door ripped off, Bond having to swerve into a quarry to avoid the roadblock, or the cop car nearly hitting Bond after it was shot up by the Quantum agents.

    I don't really understand this comment. There's literally several moments where various participants have to swerve to avoid something unexpected, which takes them on a different path, just as Bond has to swerve into the quarry.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    mtm wrote: »
    slide_99 wrote: »
    Compare it to QOS's opening chase, which has a sense of spontaneity to it, like the Aston getting its door ripped off, Bond having to swerve into a quarry to avoid the roadblock, or the cop car nearly hitting Bond after it was shot up by the Quantum agents.

    I don't really understand this comment. There's literally several moments where various participants have to swerve to avoid something unexpected, which takes them on a different path, just as Bond has to swerve into the quarry.

    I also don’t understand this, but slide gets full points for actually (seemingly) watching this film.

    The PTS makes quite a bit of sense: we’re dropped into the middle of an assignment where Bond seems to arrive seconds too late, after Patrice has infiltrated the safe house.

    Perhaps Patrice got in because the men were expecting Bond to come and pick up the computer. Their guard is down, Patrice enters…

    So Bond arrives at the safe house;

    Hears a noise.

    Pulls out his gun. Senses heightened.

    Moves further into the flat where he spots the first dead body lying in a pool of his blood.

    Moving further in, he sees Ronson, and realizes the hard drive’s been stolen.

    He wants to help the fallen agent, but is ordered to pursue Patrice where-

    We get a car chase. Then-

    A shoot out in an open market. Then-

    A motorcycle chase that continues on rooftops, then-

    Bond and his opponent smash into another marketplace.

    Now they’ve got people to dodge…

    Patrice pulls ahead of Bond, but Moneypenny is waiting, and almost guns Patrice down.

    He narrowly escapes, jumping off a bridge onto a moving train.

    Leading Bond to use the speed of his motorcycle, smashing into the bridge’s railing, to propel him onto that same moving train. However-

    He almost falls off;

    Climbs back onto the roof of it.

    Has another shootout, but-

    Runs out of ammo. Then-

    He takes on Particle in a digger.

    Gets shot.

    Loses control of the digger.

    Takes out a bunch of VWs, that in turn almost take out Moneypenny.

    Patrice uncouples the car, separating Bond and himself, but-

    Bond continues his pursuit by having the digger rip into the train’s roof, using the machine’s arm like a bridge into the rest of the train that he’s been separated with.

    Jumps into the train.

    He’s wounded, but-

    Climbs back on the roof to continue his battle with his opponent, where he’s blown away, accidentally, by Moneypenny.

    @slide_99 … that is not moving from Point A to Point B without anything unexpected happening, and then they’re on the train! It’s like you’ve gone out of your way to oversimplify this sequence.

    In fact, there are more unseen obstacles happening in this PTS than there are in Quantum, which is essentially a standard car chase with shaky cam, a door gets ripped off, and there were a few near misses.

    But when you break down the beats of SF’s PTS, it’s beautifully loaded, and you can actually see the action!
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,507
    Was thinking about this PTS: I have been enjoying NTTD recently but I think it is a little striking to compare the two- NTTD's has big stunts in the bridge and bike jumps, but like @SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ and I often say, they're kind of missing that Bond feeling. And I think if you look at SF's PTS, you've got the crane-train jump and the bikes on the roofs, and I'd say both of those have a sense of triumph about them, which NTTD kind of misses. The DB5 doughnut does better on that front.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited June 30 Posts: 3,154
    And he straightens his cuffs...classic.
  • mtm wrote: »
    slide_99 wrote: »
    Compare it to QOS's opening chase, which has a sense of spontaneity to it, like the Aston getting its door ripped off, Bond having to swerve into a quarry to avoid the roadblock, or the cop car nearly hitting Bond after it was shot up by the Quantum agents.

    I don't really understand this comment. There's literally several moments where various participants have to swerve to avoid something unexpected, which takes them on a different path, just as Bond has to swerve into the quarry.

    I just rewatched the Skyfall PTS, and its certainly put together well: on an analytical view its near perfect: the score builds the tension, we are immersed in the story quickly with little need for buildup, and chase changes dynamic every so often. (Mind you I do agree about the odd way Craig poses for entrance).

    However, it doesn't jump out at me with anything jaw-dropping or extremely entertaining for me to chew on. I feel as if the PTS works as a short film and is quite good in that respect. But it doesn't work as an opening spectacle for me, if that makes sense. The straightforwardness of this plot makes this complaint make sense because the story doesn't have enough time to twist. (Neither does QoS, but that, with the crashing and editing is more of spectacle).
  • Posts: 4,238
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Yeah, I always presumed it was Bond investigating/it wasn’t obvious Patrice had overtaken the two other agents until he got in the room. Gunshots wouldn’t necessarily mean much even if he had heard them, which we don’t actually know (the agents could possibly have killed Patrice if something had gone wrong for instance and have temporarily gone radio silent) and it’d be counterintuitive on Bond’s part to rush in/alert Patrice to his presence… and the shot wouldn’t look as cool with Bond running in (which yes, is a factor, even though it’s relatively logical). It’s very much a ‘begin as late as possible’ opening, which is actually good.

    Again though to each their own. I certainly complain about/don’t like certain things in Bond films others wouldn’t think about normally or outright don’t see, so I can relate 😂


    I love everything about SF, including the opening, but I guess thinking about it... what was it that put Bond there? With radio contact with M and Moneypenny in the car outside: had they had some sort of report that Ronson and his team were in danger? Had they had to retreat to a safe house and asked for backup or something? Why was Bond already local? The way they act about the laptop suggests that they knew Patrice would be after it- M should have told him to destroy it if they thought it was at risk, you'd think.
    I love it, and it doesn't have to explain any of this stuff to be a brilliant sequence, but it's just fun to try and work out what the story before the film started was.

    Yeah, true. I suppose it says a lot about how effective the PTS is that you don't really ask yourself those questions in the moment. You just go along with the idea that Bond is in the middle of this assignment.

    And to be fair, it's probably for the best that the PTS takes the audience along like that. Sometimes Bond films can break down if you start to question stuff in the moment! (For me it's TB's PTS. Whenever I watch it I can't help but ask why Bouvar felt the need to attend his own fake funeral dressed as his own widow... even if you try and come up with something akin to what you were saying about SF's PTS backstory it just makes him look daft).
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,230
    The PTS for SF was beautifully done and did a great job of setting up the rest of the film; being the frustrated , would love to have been, filmmaker that I am , I would have made an aesthetic choice for the opening sequence that would have slightly changed a thematic element of Bond being too old to that of being disillusioned. I never liked that only three films in that Bond was too old.

    For the PTS I would have had Bond basically looking the same as he did in CR and QoS; more than anything this means the same hairstyle. Following his "death" we see Bond having shed the trappings of his life as a globe traveling spy ; this could have included a quick shot of him leaving a makeshift barber shop on the beach where he tosses down a few dollars, having received a quick clipper cut.

    My point is that I would have preferred to have seen Bond as a man , and spy in his prime; age hasn't caught up with him as much as disillusionment. He feels that he, and other agents, has been abandoned and not allowed to finish the mission.
  • edited July 3 Posts: 1,860
    Where does Bond go from here?..............right now, it very well may be in director Edward Berger's hands.
  • Posts: 1,083
    How lucky some of us were. to grow up in an era when we had a Bond film every two years. It was such fun!



  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,641
    Not thrilled about a 2027 release date, have to be honest. I'm not familiar with Berger's work but we'll see how it turns out
  • Posts: 2,278
    MaxCasino wrote: »

    There is a useful four letter word, and this article is full of it.
  • edited July 3 Posts: 4,238
    I’m sure Craig’s got better things to do honestly. And I suspect BB would more readily take into account what the Casting Director, the director, and the rest of the producing team have to say about contenders.

    Perhaps on an informal basis he might speak highly of an actor they might be interested in (if him and BB do speak about this stuff even informally) and he along with the other Bonds will congratulate the new actor when picked. Apart from that I have a hard time believing he’d have a significant part in this especially considering he wouldn’t be working on Bond 26 in any official capacity.
  • Posts: 1,860
    How lucky some of us were. to grow up in an era when we had a Bond film every two years. It was such fun!

    Agreed! We had the best of times.

  • Posts: 2,010
    The man who wanted Bond dead was a very good Bond. That's where his creative input should end.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited July 4 Posts: 3,154
    I'd guess that any talk of Craig having future creative involvement is just some journalist trying to stir up a bit of online natter. Remember Dan's no-patience exasperation and irritation in that NTTD-era interview where someone asked him if he'd direct a future Bond film? Let's say he didn't pause for thought or try to mask his feelings. So...publicly agree with a decision that BB and MGW make? Maybe. But be an active participant in choosing the next guy? Nah.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    edited July 4 Posts: 9,509
    Venutius wrote: »
    I'd guess that any talk of Craig having future creative involvement is just some journalist trying to stir up a bit of online natter. Remember Dan's no-patience exasperation and irritation in that NTTD-era interview where someone asked him if he'd direct a future Bond film? Let's say he didn't pause for thought or try to mask his feelings. So...publicly agree with a decision that BB and MGW make? Maybe. But be an active participant in choosing the next guy? Nah.

    I couldn’t even read the article. It’s such a stupid theory that, if something this stupid really happened, would make the new guy know that he’d never be the true lead actor— it’d always go back to the other guy, a popular Bond, who had a decision in his casting (and what else would he have decisions on: the way he approached the role? How he says, Bond, James Bond? What suits he should wear? How he represents the character off set?).

    Stupid article based on nothing but to whip up online anger.

    Does journalism actually exist anymore??
  • Posts: 564
    peter wrote: »
    Venutius wrote: »
    I'd guess that any talk of Craig having future creative involvement is just some journalist trying to stir up a bit of online natter. Remember Dan's no-patience exasperation and irritation in that NTTD-era interview where someone asked him if he'd direct a future Bond film? Let's say he didn't pause for thought or try to mask his feelings. So...publicly agree with a decision that BB and MGW make? Maybe. But be an active participant in choosing the next guy? Nah.

    I couldn’t even read the article. It’s such a stupid theory that, if something this stupid really happened, would make the new guy know that he’d never be the true lead actor— it’d always go back to the other guy, a popular Bond, who had a decision in his casting (and what else would he have decisions on: the way he approached the role? How he says, Bond, James Bond? What suits he should wear? How he represents the character off set?).

    Stupid article based on nothing but to whip up online anger.

    Does journalism actually exist anymore??

    To your last question — this is why it is important to delineate between legitimate publications with editorial standards and SEO-bait rags.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    BMB007 wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    Venutius wrote: »
    I'd guess that any talk of Craig having future creative involvement is just some journalist trying to stir up a bit of online natter. Remember Dan's no-patience exasperation and irritation in that NTTD-era interview where someone asked him if he'd direct a future Bond film? Let's say he didn't pause for thought or try to mask his feelings. So...publicly agree with a decision that BB and MGW make? Maybe. But be an active participant in choosing the next guy? Nah.

    I couldn’t even read the article. It’s such a stupid theory that, if something this stupid really happened, would make the new guy know that he’d never be the true lead actor— it’d always go back to the other guy, a popular Bond, who had a decision in his casting (and what else would he have decisions on: the way he approached the role? How he says, Bond, James Bond? What suits he should wear? How he represents the character off set?).

    Stupid article based on nothing but to whip up online anger.

    Does journalism actually exist anymore??

    To your last question — this is why it is important to delineate between legitimate publications with editorial standards and SEO-bait rags.

    Although I had to look up the meaning of SEO (I can research and type, and read and send emails, but that’s about the extent of my techie-intelligence, 😂), but I agree wholeheartedly.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,193
    How lucky some of us were. to grow up in an era when we had a Bond film every two years. It was such fun!

    That was all before I was ever conscious of what Bond was, so it’s kinda crazy to think there was a period where Bond films came out roughly two years apart for nearly 24 consecutive years from 65 to 89 with no significant breaks beyond two and a half years. For fans that aren’t discriminating about Bond films and take what they can get, that sounds great. But I can imagine audience burnout being a challenge for Eon, which is what seemed to have happened in the 80s with LTK hitting rock bottom. At a certain point Bond had become taken for granted. You could argue then it was no longer special because Cubby’s machine was always churning out a film like clockwork. This probably didn’t seem all that great especially for those who were not enamored with Moore and Dalton.

    Which is partly why I think GE broke big in 95. Brosnan being a new Bond no doubt got hype building, but I don’t think it can be exaggerating to suggest just how audiences were hungry due to a drought in Bond films.

    I wonder if that’s something Broccoli is considering during this post-NTTD period. That giving the films an actual break after Craig and before the new guy would hopefully build up some hunger among audiences. Personally I never expected Eon to just get to making Bond 26 immediately after NTTD and have a film out in 2023. I never entertained that thought, because at least in my lifetime there’s never been a point where we got one Bond actor coming in two years after the last actor’s film.

    Between LTK and GE it was 6 years. Between DAD and CR it was 4 years. I said as far back as 2021 that at the earliest we might actually get a Bond 25 in 2025, because I was considering those long gaps with our most recent actors. I’ll be surprised if it stretches beyond 2027. The days of having different Bond actors within two years is something we’ll never see again, and I’m okay with that not only because that’s how I’ve been used to seeing it in my lifetime but because I do believe absence makes the heart grow fonder.

    I do believe once we get Bond 26 we’ll see a more consistent run with two to three year gaps in between films with the new guy. That’s assuming Amazon doesn’t experience bankruptcy or COVID delaying.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    👏🏻 👏🏻 👏🏻….
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,857
    Two years was such a long time back then.

    The 80s were a time humming with Bond films every two years. New Bond novels every year, sometimes adding a film novelization.

    Still we're well served with modern Bond. In addition to films and books there are the Dynamite comics, games, and other developments. Another fine era of Bond history.

  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,193
    Funnily, my only true experience as a fan seeing a film churn out after two years was with QOS. I didn’t become a fan until the summer of 2000, so the first three Brosnan films coming out every other year was something of being after the fact. I was however surprised that Bond 21 would not be coming out in 2001.
  • Posts: 736
    According to a report in the Express, Bond 26 is unlikely until 2027. Sounds about right.

  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,857
    I still note after CR the filmmakers planned to release Bond 22 in May 2008, just 18 months later.

    Conditions didn't permit, but it shows the possibilities are there. And for all the first films of a new Bond actor, the longest wait for the next one was two years. Craig included.

Sign In or Register to comment.