Where does Bond go after Craig?

15681011213

Comments

  • Mark_HazzardMark_Hazzard Classified
    Posts: 127
    About my comments on A-listers. I didn't mean the next Bond should be an A-lister, that was clumsily written by me. EON more likely will cast an unknown, maybe just for the reason they could simply start at lower a lower salary. That being said, DC wasn't completely unknown. Ever since I saw him in Tomb Raider I thought he could have a shot at it. And most of us probably knew him from Layer Cake?

    What I meant by A-listers is the rest of the cast, especially the villains. I am still waiting to the day that Kevin Spacey is announced as the diabolical mastermind.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    bondjames wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    I know my examples have flaws.

    But what about Moneypenny?? M??
    Isn't it as "wrong" to cast a black woman for MP or a woman for M?
    I know, they are just side-characters, but just saying.

    I don't trust BB entirely to respect Fleming or her father.
    If she sees fit to cast a black man for Bond she will, it's her decision.

    I'm neutral on this topic of casting a black man for Bond (I'm Swiss. :P )
    I just point out some things to consider.

    Nobody goes to a James Bond movie to see Moneypenny so her change is pretty minor. M is a different person. "M" is just a title, it can be given to anyone, same with "Q"

    It shouldn't matter what his colour is, but it does matter.

    A lot of this is due to the importance of the character in history (and many of our lifetimes) and our desire for familiarity when it comes to our heroes. We idolize them based on our perception of them (height, weight, hair, acting.....since this is a film characterization after all, poise etc.) and in relation to what/who has come before in the role.

    I believe the 'black' argument is the same as the 'short' argument or the 'rugged' vs 'suave' argument. It rubs some people the wrong way, just more so than the other characteristics because it is so much more apparent.

    Bottom line - it's just not sellable globally - at least not for now.

    I respectively disagree ...it does matter. When casting a part/character it does matter.

    Casting calls almost always stipulate physical characteristics.

    Being of African descent or being black is not part if the character of Bond's history.

    Being "short" and blond even in some ways compromises that if you want to strict about it.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited September 2015 Posts: 23,883
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    I know my examples have flaws.

    But what about Moneypenny?? M??
    Isn't it as "wrong" to cast a black woman for MP or a woman for M?
    I know, they are just side-characters, but just saying.

    I don't trust BB entirely to respect Fleming or her father.
    If she sees fit to cast a black man for Bond she will, it's her decision.

    I'm neutral on this topic of casting a black man for Bond (I'm Swiss. :P )
    I just point out some things to consider.

    Nobody goes to a James Bond movie to see Moneypenny so her change is pretty minor. M is a different person. "M" is just a title, it can be given to anyone, same with "Q"

    It shouldn't matter what his colour is, but it does matter.

    A lot of this is due to the importance of the character in history (and many of our lifetimes) and our desire for familiarity when it comes to our heroes. We idolize them based on our perception of them (height, weight, hair, acting.....since this is a film characterization after all, poise etc.) and in relation to what/who has come before in the role.

    I believe the 'black' argument is the same as the 'short' argument or the 'rugged' vs 'suave' argument. It rubs some people the wrong way, just more so than the other characteristics because it is so much more apparent.

    Bottom line - it's just not sellable globally - at least not for now.

    I respectively disagree ...it does matter. When casting a part/character it does matter.

    Casting calls almost always stipulate physical characteristics.

    Being of African descent or being black is not part if the character of Bond's history.

    Being "short" and blond even in some ways compromises that if you want to strict about it.

    Precisely, but I don't think anyone (well, maybe a few here and there) will disagree that DC is doing a bang up job and helping to reinvent Bond for a new millennium despite being short and blond.

    A great black actor could theoretically do the same (although I'm personally not in favour of it, as I too am stuck in the past somewhat admittedly).

    The market won't accept it........yet........but one day, maybe?
  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    Posts: 3,157
    fanbond123 wrote: »
    It's obvious where Bond goes after Craig....

    Anthony 'the horror' Horowitz takes over as writer and director. He casts himself in the role.

    The title of Bond 25 is

    Ego Forever


    (which reflects the sheer awesomeness and modesty of Mr Horowitz!)


    ;)

    =))
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    bondjames wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    I know my examples have flaws.

    But what about Moneypenny?? M??
    Isn't it as "wrong" to cast a black woman for MP or a woman for M?
    I know, they are just side-characters, but just saying.

    I don't trust BB entirely to respect Fleming or her father.
    If she sees fit to cast a black man for Bond she will, it's her decision.

    I'm neutral on this topic of casting a black man for Bond (I'm Swiss. :P )
    I just point out some things to consider.

    Nobody goes to a James Bond movie to see Moneypenny so her change is pretty minor. M is a different person. "M" is just a title, it can be given to anyone, same with "Q"

    It shouldn't matter what his colour is, but it does matter.

    A lot of this is due to the importance of the character in history (and many of our lifetimes) and our desire for familiarity when it comes to our heroes. We idolize them based on our perception of them (height, weight, hair, acting.....since this is a film characterization after all, poise etc.) and in relation to what/who has come before in the role.

    I believe the 'black' argument is the same as the 'short' argument or the 'rugged' vs 'suave' argument. It rubs some people the wrong way, just more so than the other characteristics because it is so much more apparent.

    Bottom line - it's just not sellable globally - at least not for now.

    I respectively disagree ...it does matter. When casting a part/character it does matter.

    Casting calls almost always stipulate physical characteristics.

    Being of African descent or being black is not part if the character of Bond's history.

    Being "short" and blond even in some ways compromises that if you want to strict about it.

    Precisely, but I don't think anyone (well, maybe a few here and there) will disagree that DC is doing a bang up job and helping to reinvent Bond for a new millennium despite being short and blond.

    A great black actor could theoretically do the same (although I'm personally not in favour of it, as I too am stuck in the past somewhat admittedly).

    The market won't accept it........yet........but one day, maybe?

    And with that I agree ...I am an avid fan of Craig's Bond.


  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    bondjames wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    I know my examples have flaws.

    But what about Moneypenny?? M??
    Isn't it as "wrong" to cast a black woman for MP or a woman for M?
    I know, they are just side-characters, but just saying.

    I don't trust BB entirely to respect Fleming or her father.
    If she sees fit to cast a black man for Bond she will, it's her decision.

    I'm neutral on this topic of casting a black man for Bond (I'm Swiss. :P )
    I just point out some things to consider.

    Nobody goes to a James Bond movie to see Moneypenny so her change is pretty minor. M is a different person. "M" is just a title, it can be given to anyone, same with "Q"

    It shouldn't matter what his colour is, but it does matter.

    A lot of this is due to the importance of the character in history (and many of our lifetimes) and our desire for familiarity when it comes to our heroes. We idolize them based on our perception of them (height, weight, hair, acting.....since this is a film characterization after all, poise etc.) and in relation to what/who has come before in the role.

    I believe the 'black' argument is the same as the 'short' argument or the 'rugged' vs 'suave' argument. It rubs some people the wrong way, just more so than the other characteristics because it is so much more apparent.

    Bottom line - it's just not sellable globally - at least not for now.

    I respectively disagree ...it does matter. When casting a part/character it does matter.

    Casting calls almost always stipulate physical characteristics.

    Being of African descent or being black is not part if the character of Bond's history.

    Being "short" and blond even in some ways compromises that if you want to strict about it.

    Precisely, but I don't think anyone (well, maybe a few here and there) will disagree that DC is doing a bang up job and helping to reinvent Bond for a new millennium despite being short and blond.

    A great black actor could theoretically do the same (although I'm personally not in favour of it, as I too am stuck in the past somewhat admittedly).

    The market won't accept it........yet........but one day, maybe?

    Flemings bond was 6ft. At 5ft 10 in Craig is exactly average height for a brit....not short. It just so happens that Cubby had a thing about tall actors playing the part. Any shorter than average would not be acceptable though.
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    Posts: 2,138
    Chris Nolan has announced his next film wont hit Cinema's until 2017 its very top secret project. Intriguing two years is a long time for Nolan not to have a film on its way.

    "Warner Bros. has all rights on the new project but gave no details. The dating announcement was the first news of the project"

    But with Bond movie rights still up for grabs it is unlikely that Nolan's 2017 project is a Bond movie. I think this rules Nolan out.

    http://variety.com/2015/film/news/christopher-nolans-next-movie-coming-in-2017-1201588444/
  • Mark_HazzardMark_Hazzard Classified
    edited September 2015 Posts: 127
    Unless... they aren't up for grabs any more.

    EON was in talks with him about Bond 24.
    http://www.enstarz.com/articles/50552/20141110/james-bond-24-movie-news-christopher-nolan-may-take-over-soon-interstellar-director-has-had-discussions-video.htm

    Although things didn't work out due to scheduling, didn't read anything about contractual obligations by the way, the talks were rumoured to be 'productive'.

    I think EON tries to keep the two-year gap between the movies, so 2017 could be possible for Nolan.
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    Posts: 2,138
    Unless... they aren't up for grabs any more.

    EON was in talks with him about Bond 24.
    http://www.enstarz.com/articles/50552/20141110/james-bond-24-movie-news-christopher-nolan-may-take-over-soon-interstellar-director-has-had-discussions-video.htm

    Although things didn't work out due to scheduling, didn't read anything about contractual obligations by the way, the talks were rumoured to be 'productive'.

    I think EON tries to keep the two-year gap between the movies, so 2017 could be possible for Nolan.

    Well if EON announce WB as the new studio partner then it would be a big give away that Nolan will be taking over. If he does I fully expect him to work with Tom Hardy for a 3rd time by casting him as Bond. About 18 months ago there was a rumours Barbara Broccoli had already managed to get Hardy to pen a deal. Interesting to see if that rumour has legs.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    edited September 2015 Posts: 5,131
    I wouldn't mind if this were true.
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    Posts: 2,138
    Neither would I. Director Nolan, Keep Cinematographer: Hoyte van Hoytema (Spectre, Interstella with Nolan) and Hardy as Bond. I would settle for that.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 5,161
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Nolan is great if your 14 I guess.

    Agreed. I just don't get the hype. I find his movies bloated and full of exposition. Interstellar in particular was endless. I did like Inception (mostly for the OHMSS homage and the cast; Marion Cotillard would be great in a Bond film).
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,021
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Nolan is great if your 14 I guess.

    It works with 41 as well (although I'm not there yet but almost).

    And I doubt a few billion USD box office is generated by 14 year olds.

  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    Posts: 2,138
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Nolan is great if your 14 I guess.

    Must be a bright kid to get the plot of Interstellar, Memento and Inception all of which are ranked very highly by fans on IMDB at the age of 14. Skyfall took a few ideas from the dark knight. I think saying Nolans movies are for 14 year olds is big over exaggeration. Action, Story and massive imagery Nolan could take Bond to a new level.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,021
    If Nolan is for 14 year olds then Skyfall must be for 5 year olds if I continue the logic.
  • Posts: 9,298
    After Dan, Mendes I think It will be Chris Nolan, with Hoyte van Hoytema staying on a cinematographer together after the work they did together on interstellar and although not my first choice I would be accepting of Tom Hardy (having seen him older in Legend) who of course Nolan directed in Inception and The Dark Knight Rises. I am tempting to stick money on it.

    Nolan "I love James Bond and I've talked with the producers over the years, but nothing's ever worked out," .

    "They do a great job - they don't need me right now, and Sam [Mendes] is an extraordinary talent. I will absolutely be first in line to see the next Bond film as I have been for all of them."



    This will of course only be on the proviso that Warner Brothers win the rights at the pending tender with Sony no longer part of the picture.

    A Nolan trilogy with Tom Hardy as 007 I would quite like.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,021
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Nolan is great if your 14 I guess.

    It works with 41 as well (although I'm not there yet but almost).

    And I doubt a few billion USD box office is generated by 14 year olds.
    The mentality. Box Office is no indication of quality or intellectual prowess. I think they work well (my observation as a high school teacher who teaches art and some film history )if you are a bright, young person who does not have a lot of quality film watching under their belt. To me his work comes off as gimmicky and often trite (MEMENTO, INCEPTION, INTERSTELLAR - all of which I eventually saw). No doubt Mendes lifted elements of THE DARK KNIGHT TRILOGY, and that was where most of my criticisms of SKYFALL lie. I enjoyed the Batman films enough, but I would hope that Bond films would aim somewhat higher than generic superhero movie fare.

    Actually, talking serious, I'm not that big a fan of Nolan.
    Batman Begins is in my Top 5 best movies ever. But TDK is one of the most overrated movies ever, Inception may be a masterpiece but besides the insanely fabulous OHMSS sequence it is rather hard to sit through. Interstellar was a endless bore.
    Memento was original and great back then, but now I can't watch it anymore.
    The Prestige might be the only other Nolan film that I really like.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited September 2015 Posts: 23,883
    While I can understand some of the criticisms of Nolan, I think they have been unduly harsh here.

    I personally find the Batman trilogy to be one of the greatest trilogies ever put to film (along with LOTR & to a lesser extent, the earlier Star Wars set). They have a consistent narrative throughout, and chart the course of Wayne from childhood to his internal struggles/demons as Batman and finally to finding some salvation/solace in TDKR. Truly a superb piece of work, and definitely a massive inspiration (in terms of themes, angst & inner struggle) for Mendes & SF. I'm quite certain SP will delve further into this (based on what we can see in the trailers) and will further draw links with Nolan's work, particularly TDKR, on a thematic level (in terms of bringing everything back full circle).

    I definitely agree that some of Nolan's more recent original work, like Inception, and certainly Interstellar, are somewhat bloated and excessive, but even then, they are worthy of admiration. Inception in particular is a very difficult story to tell convincingly in a 2.5 hr time period, and I have always felt that Nolan did a superb job (including visually) given the complexity of the narrative.

    As I've said elsewhere, I'm open to Nolan, because I think he has enough respect for EON and Bond to temper his predilection for excess, and do the material justice. Having said that, as I've also said before, I don't know where Nolan can go with Bond, because most of the character issues forming Bond's world would have already been explored by the time Mendes signs off.

    I agree that he should do a Bond trilogy, but I'd prefer more of a 'period piece' setting so he will have something interesting to delve into, and with Bale rather than Hardy as Bond. It won't happen, but I want it to.
  • MurdockMurdock Mr. 2000
    Posts: 16,173
    Nolan means he would probably write it. (Yuck.) And bring in Hans Zimmer to compose. (Yawn.)
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,021
    Murdock wrote: »
    Nolan means he would probably write it. (Yuck.) And bring in Hans Zimmer to compose. (Yawn.)

    Nope, his brother would write it and that would be a vast improvement over "plot holes" kings P+W.
  • MurdockMurdock Mr. 2000
    Posts: 16,173
    Murdock wrote: »
    Nolan means he would probably write it. (Yuck.) And bring in Hans Zimmer to compose. (Yawn.)

    Nope, his brother would write it and that would be a vast improvement over "plot holes" kings P+W.
    You must be joking... :-&

    Both of them can't write that well. The Exposition and speeches everyone seems to give is so overdone and pretentious. I can imagine it now, The Ghost of Andrew Bond haunts his son played by Michael Caine where he must save Esther Lynd (Played by Anne Hathaway) Where nobody has any chemistry together and all just kinda hang around while the same electronic Hans Zimmer loop plays through the whole movie Drowning out Craig's voice While M. constantly tells Bond speeches how he's the best Agent ever and must keep being the best or the world will end. Yuck. No thanks.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited September 2015 Posts: 23,883
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Wouldn't you say that his Dark Knight films were rife with plot holes?

    Yes, they had plot holes, but then which Batman film (or superhero film for that matter) doesn't? I have yet to see a superhero film that dealt with the personal arc of the protagonist with the effectiveness that Nolan did with his trilogy, while still re-imagining all the major characters and villains in suitably (given the fantastical genre) realistic fashion, & also while giving us a plausible plot.

    Sure, there were holes, but only because of the overwhelming ambition of the whole thing. If looked at holistically, it is a work of genius in filmaking imho (although I agree that Zimmer needed to tone down his score a little in TDKR). Even Coppola couldn't pull off that level of consistency with his Godfather series.

    Batman Begins is one of the greats as far as I'm concerned. TDK is overrated imho. TDKR is underrated. it pulls everything together beautifully but Bane & Catwoman are relatively weak. Arguably this is necessary because the 3rd film, like the 1st, is more about Wayne's journey and its completion, rather than so much about the antagonists.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    echo wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Nolan is great if your 14 I guess.

    Agreed. I just don't get the hype. I find his movies bloated and full of exposition. Interstellar in particular was endless. I did like Inception (mostly for the OHMSS homage and the cast; Marion Cotillard would be great in a Bond film).

    I love inception. However, I missed the OHMSS homage???? Can someone fill me in please?
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,128
    echo wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Nolan is great if your 14 I guess.

    Agreed. I just don't get the hype. I find his movies bloated and full of exposition. Interstellar in particular was endless. I did like Inception (mostly for the OHMSS homage and the cast; Marion Cotillard would be great in a Bond film).

    Her hilariously dodgy death scene in TDKR sullied any desire I once had for her to be a Bond girl.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,021
    suavejmf wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Nolan is great if your 14 I guess.

    Agreed. I just don't get the hype. I find his movies bloated and full of exposition. Interstellar in particular was endless. I did like Inception (mostly for the OHMSS homage and the cast; Marion Cotillard would be great in a Bond film).

    I love inception. However, I missed the OHMSS homage???? Can someone fill me in please?

    you must be joking!

    <iframe width="854" height="480" src="https://youtube.com/embed/oAzlM90u09I" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    suavejmf wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Nolan is great if your 14 I guess.

    Agreed. I just don't get the hype. I find his movies bloated and full of exposition. Interstellar in particular was endless. I did like Inception (mostly for the OHMSS homage and the cast; Marion Cotillard would be great in a Bond film).

    I love inception. However, I missed the OHMSS homage???? Can someone fill me in please?
    The ski escape and chase in one layer of that extensive, multi-layered dream sequence near the end.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Birdleson wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Wouldn't you say that his Dark Knight films were rife with plot holes?

    Yes, they had plot holes, but then which Batman film (or superhero film for that matter) doesn't? I have yet to see a superhero film that dealt with the personal arc of the protagonist with the effectiveness that Nolan did with his trilogy, while still re-imagining all the major characters and villains in suitably (given the fantastical genre) realistic fashion, & also while giving us a plausible plot.

    Sure, there were holes, but only because of the overwhelming ambition of the whole thing. If looked at holistically, it is a work of genius in filmaking imho (although I agree that Zimmer needed to tone down his score a little in TDKR). Even Coppola couldn't pull off that level of consistency with his Godfather series.

    Batman Begins is one of the greats as far as I'm concerned. TDK is overrated imho. TDKR is underrated. it pulls everything together beautifully but Bane & Catwoman are relatively weak. Arguably this is necessary because the 3rd film, like the 1st, is more about Wayne's journey and its completion, rather than so much about the antagonists.

    I agree that BATMAN BEGINS is probably the second best super-hero film we've had (my first being SUPERMAN, THE MOVIE (1978)). But I was responding to the statement that the Nolan brothers would give us a script without plot holes (as opposed to SKYFALL).

    And, like I said above, I hope for more from a Bond film (though I have often been disappointed). James Bond is not a superhero franchise (or at least shouldn't be).

    I agree. If Nolan ever gets it, he (and his brother) will definitely have to be kept in check.

    You're right - Bond should not follow, but should set the trends. I hope EON has enough confidence after their recent successes (including, inevitably, SP) to do that again.
  • Posts: 4,541
    Nolan's style has been influential and the darker tones of Craig's Bond are well documented. So, in a way, Nolan has made things easier for him to take over. I find it much harder to imagine for him to take over after DAD but Mendes has almost "carried the batton" reader for Nolan to take over. I think the key thing is whether Nolan "gets" Bond and respects it's legacy rather than tramples all over it. It could go very well or it could be horrible.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    I'm not one of those that thinks TDK is overrated I still think I've not seen a better blockbuster since , although I found TDKR the worst of the trilogy and until along came the overlong and boring Interstellar his worst film full stop.

    I'm actually more a fan of his smaller films, Memento for me is still one of the most audacious and original thrillers of the last 20 years and The Prestige would be my 2nd choice.

    1. Memento
    2. The Prestige
    3. The Dark Knight
    4. Inception
    5. Batman Begins
    6. Insomnia
    7. The Following
    8. The Dark Knight Rises
    9. Interstellar.

    Do I want Nolan to do Bond? I'm not really sure, I think I'd rather see him do something small and Murdock both Memento & The Prestige show that both brothers can write when they try.

    The thing is Nolanites don't do him any favours, as soon as he took on Batman they emerged, I personally was a fan before the blockbusters.

Sign In or Register to comment.