Where does Bond go after Craig?

1749750751752753755»

Comments

  • AnotherZorinStoogeAnotherZorinStooge Bramhall (Irish)
    Posts: 708
    007HallY wrote: »

    Bingo.

    If she shays no it meansh yesh

    'You want to shlap a woman with an open palm, not a fist..."

    Anyway, I'm being facetious again. I've only skimmed through the video so I might be way off the guy's analysis, but I'm not sure I fully agree with him when he talks about the Bond not being a 'hedonist' as of late and not engaging with the culture of where he's at (I guess since the Craig films?) You get Bond switching hotels in QOS (which I think is a great joke in a Bond film I'm mixed on), him commenting on the lamb in CR, and even ordering his specific cocktail in both films. One thing I loved about SF was that we saw Bond very easily drinking with locals and doing the scorpion drinking game (it's actually one of those weird things I can't imagine any cinematic Bond doing apart from Craig without looking totally uncomfortable, and yet I can imagine Fleming's Bond, perhaps a bit tipsy, doing the same thing and really applying himself to it in the right circumstance).

    I think the next Bond film has to do a bit better than Bond simply turning his nose up at a certain kind of brandy or immediately knowing the kind of vintage of wine he's drinking. Or having been to Oxford and studied however many languages (unless it's done in a certain way that just comes off as bulls*it nowadays). It's a fine line between making an onscreen Bond look like a pretentious ars*hole and making him out to be cultured, but moreover well travelled and interesting.

    You have to be careful when people want a past they didn't experience, or didn't exist, to return to prominence.

    The 60s Bonds were a product of their time. Remaking them sixty years later to rehash sixty years ago feels illusory, indeed, in some cases, sinister.

    If people think James Bond is too posh or too old-fashioned then we have a problem.

    Bond, and even Fleming is complicit here, is a vehicle for a writer's mores and ethics. Whilst the originL books are obviously racist, the films have toned such political intrigue down, mainly because of the box-office.

    There will be plenty of advocates for 'dewoking' 007 and with Bezos ultimately at the helm, it may happen.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 9,054
    007HallY wrote: »

    Bingo.

    If she shays no it meansh yesh

    'You want to shlap a woman with an open palm, not a fist..."

    Anyway, I'm being facetious again. I've only skimmed through the video so I might be way off the guy's analysis, but I'm not sure I fully agree with him when he talks about the Bond not being a 'hedonist' as of late and not engaging with the culture of where he's at (I guess since the Craig films?) You get Bond switching hotels in QOS (which I think is a great joke in a Bond film I'm mixed on), him commenting on the lamb in CR, and even ordering his specific cocktail in both films. One thing I loved about SF was that we saw Bond very easily drinking with locals and doing the scorpion drinking game (it's actually one of those weird things I can't imagine any cinematic Bond doing apart from Craig without looking totally uncomfortable, and yet I can imagine Fleming's Bond, perhaps a bit tipsy, doing the same thing and really applying himself to it in the right circumstance).

    I think the next Bond film has to do a bit better than Bond simply turning his nose up at a certain kind of brandy or immediately knowing the kind of vintage of wine he's drinking. Or having been to Oxford and studied however many languages (unless it's done in a certain way that just comes off as bulls*it nowadays). It's a fine line between making an onscreen Bond look like a pretentious ars*hole and making him out to be cultured, but moreover well travelled and interesting.

    You have to be careful when people want a past they didn't experience, or didn't exist, to return to prominence.

    The 60s Bonds were a product of their time. Remaking them sixty years later to rehash sixty years ago feels illusory, indeed, in some cases, sinister.

    If people think James Bond is too posh or too old-fashioned then we have a problem.

    There will be plenty of advocates for 'dewoking' 007 and with Bezos ultimately at the helm, it may happen.

    Bingo.
  • Posts: 2,135
    007HallY wrote: »

    Bingo.

    If she shays no it meansh yesh

    'You want to shlap a woman with an open palm, not a fist..."

    Anyway, I'm being facetious again. I've only skimmed through the video so I might be way off the guy's analysis, but I'm not sure I fully agree with him when he talks about the Bond not being a 'hedonist' as of late and not engaging with the culture of where he's at (I guess since the Craig films?) You get Bond switching hotels in QOS (which I think is a great joke in a Bond film I'm mixed on), him commenting on the lamb in CR, and even ordering his specific cocktail in both films. One thing I loved about SF was that we saw Bond very easily drinking with locals and doing the scorpion drinking game (it's actually one of those weird things I can't imagine any cinematic Bond doing apart from Craig without looking totally uncomfortable, and yet I can imagine Fleming's Bond, perhaps a bit tipsy, doing the same thing and really applying himself to it in the right circumstance).

    I think the next Bond film has to do a bit better than Bond simply turning his nose up at a certain kind of brandy or immediately knowing the kind of vintage of wine he's drinking. Or having been to Oxford and studied however many languages (unless it's done in a certain way that just comes off as bulls*it nowadays). It's a fine line between making an onscreen Bond look like a pretentious ars*hole and making him out to be cultured, but moreover well travelled and interesting.

    You have to be careful when people want a past they didn't experience, or didn't exist, to return to prominence.

    The 60s Bonds were a product of their time. Remaking them sixty years later to rehash sixty years ago feels illusory, indeed, in some cases, sinister.

    If people think James Bond is too posh or too old-fashioned then we have a problem.

    Bond, and even Fleming is complicit here, is a vehicle for a writer's mores and ethics. Whilst the originL books are obviously racist, the films have toned such political intrigue down, mainly because of the box-office.

    There will be plenty of advocates for 'dewoking' 007 and with Bezos ultimately at the helm, it may happen.

    I don't want a woke Bond either. Why would anyone want one in the first place?
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,800
    What does "dewoking" mean?
  • Posts: 2,135
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    What does "dewoking" mean?

    I don't know what he's talking about. It's highly unlikely that Hollywood will become truly racist.
  • Posts: 436
    I think he means the Craig era was woke, (which it wasn't).

    Anyway, let it be clear, you want headlines and bums in seats? Viral stories? Make Bond what he was during the Connery era. Shagging anything that moves, killing every piece of subhuman creature he crosses, (fat people, rich people, hideous people), etc.

    Then watch counting the money, as the whole WWW goes crazy and accuse him of sexism and fascism and whathaveyou.

    If you go the other way, the film will just sink past the opening week-end.

    My feeling, they will do a Beverly Hills Cop 4 and after much paid promotion, this will just disappear from the radar, with the franchise dead.
  • Posts: 2,594
    I’m so f_cking sick of the word “Woke.” Pardon my language.
  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    Posts: 1,053
    I’m so f_cking sick of the word “Woke.” Pardon my language.

    Agreed. It’s such a lazy catch-all.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    Posts: 9,294
    I haven't read all of this thread, but here's a Guardian article about the challenge to "Bond" trade marks:
    https://theguardian.com/film/2025/jun/20/james-bond-name-battle-007-uk-eu-trademark?CMP=share_btn_url
  • Posts: 6,853

    I’m late to this particular show ;) but this fella’s opinion mirrors my own. He is spot on. Very good, simple video.
  • SeveSeve The island of Lemoy
    edited June 20 Posts: 623

    You have to be careful when people want a past they didn't experience, or didn't exist, to return to prominence.

    The 60s Bonds were a product of their time. Remaking them sixty years later to rehash sixty years ago feels illusory, indeed, in some cases, sinister.

    I agree

    In any case 1960s James Bond was never an architypal "Swinging 1960s" character. Although we like to pigeonhole fashions and behaviour into convenient 10 year boxes, Bond's generation was in it's prime from the mid 1950s to mid 1960s, the era portrayed in "Mad Men". He's a contemporary of the Rat Pack, who prefers jazz (like his creator). and more formal dress, to rock and jeans. He's into Bennies not Mary Jane.

    But the rock and jeans generation still identified with him and flocked to theatres to see him. Many times the audience wants to pretend they are something else and don't want a character who lives in the same World as themselves


    If people think James Bond is too posh or too old-fashioned then we have a problem.

    They can stop making movies now.

    Many people want to see how the other half live, and experience that lifestyle vicariously for a couple of hours, that won't change. (Just look at all the reality shows about "celebs" and their mundane but opulent lives)

    Being cool is never out of fashion, so as long as Bond demonstrates a calm demeanur under pressure, can outwit his opponents mentally, out duel them verbally and physically, he will be fine. He doesn't need to comment on pop culture or morality. He has modified his behaviour in certain areas over time, but single people still sleep around in today's World and villains can be slapped around for information, even if they are women.

    In any case the majority of the audiences don't think of him as "posh", only as British, because that is as far as their assessment of his accent goes. In many markets he will be dubbed and sound like a fellow countryman. Secret Agents are percieved to be living the high life on an expense account, not an inheritance, and mix with the filthy rich and famous as part of their mission, not their private lives.

Sign In or Register to comment.