What to keep and what to get rid of from the Craig era.

1246710

Comments

  • echo wrote: »
    With Bond #7, I don't want Tracy or Vesper in the past, or a return to either of the two continuities, which are so top-heavy or old at this point that it would make no sense.

    Give me something new. A new Bond, M, Moneypenny. All new.

    What do you mean? We could totally get a scene like with Anya at the bar in TSWLM.

    Femme fatale: "James Bond. First significant girlfriend, wife, former employer, CIA friend, stepbrother and nemesis, past self killed..."
    Bond: "All right, I get your point."
    Femme fatale: "You're sensitive, Mr. Bond."
    Bond: "Only about the last one."
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited August 2022 Posts: 7,526
    :)) I bet my life they will never refer to Blofeld as his stepbrother ever again.
  • :)) I bet my life they will never refer to Blofeld as his stepbrother ever again.

    That is one good thing about moving on to a new era.
  • edited August 2022 Posts: 784
    Including Blofeld in any of the new films will make the franchise too cartoony. New villains, maybe a young Scaramanga or Alec Travelyan cameo.

    The films need to be self contained for the benefit of casual viewers.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,526
    Personally, I maintain they can still use Blofeld and Spectre and do it well, and I hope they do. Maybe not right away though.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,002
    :)) I bet my life they will never refer to Blofeld as his stepbrother ever again.

    That is one good thing about moving on to a new era.

    Stepsister maybe. Or the hot family maid from his childhood.


  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited August 2022 Posts: 5,973
    echo wrote: »
    With Bond #7, I don't want Tracy or Vesper in the past, or a return to either of the two continuities, which are so top-heavy or old at this point that it would make no sense.

    Give me something new. A new Bond, M, Moneypenny. All new.

    What do you mean? We could totally get a scene like with Anya at the bar in TSWLM.

    Femme fatale: "James Bond. First significant girlfriend, wife, former employer, CIA friend, stepbrother and nemesis, past self killed..."
    Bond: "All right, I get your point."
    Femme fatale: "You're sensitive, Mr. Bond."
    Bond: "Only about the last one."

    That's just too much baggage for the new guy. Tracy was long ago (52 years!) and they hit us (and Bond) over the head with Vesper.

    This will be the second Bond reboot. I love Tracy and Vesper but it's time to leave them in the past. Give him someone new to pine over.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    Posts: 3,390
    echo wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    With Bond #7, I don't want Tracy or Vesper in the past, or a return to either of the two continuities, which are so top-heavy or old at this point that it would make no sense.

    Give me something new. A new Bond, M, Moneypenny. All new.

    What do you mean? We could totally get a scene like with Anya at the bar in TSWLM.

    Femme fatale: "James Bond. First significant girlfriend, wife, former employer, CIA friend, stepbrother and nemesis, past self killed..."
    Bond: "All right, I get your point."
    Femme fatale: "You're sensitive, Mr. Bond."
    Bond: "Only about the last one."

    That's just too much baggage for the new guy. Tracy was long ago (52 years!) and they hit us (and Bond) over the head with Vesper.

    This will be the second Bond reboot. I love Tracy and Vesper but it's time to leave them in the past. Give him someone new to pine over.

    Enter Gala Brand or Vivienne Michel.

    Femme Fatale: Had a Girlfriend but the relationship only lasted for one month.

    Bond: Alright, you've made your point.

    Femme Fatale: It's still strikes a nerve, Mr. Bond.
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 13,913
    Get rid of Bond *not* scuba diving - I want some underwater action! Or is it No Time to...
    51661024934_13c3782cc4_o.jpg
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,510
    QBranch wrote: »
    Get rid of Bond *not* scuba diving - I want some underwater action! Or is it No Time to...
    51661024934_13c3782cc4_o.jpg

    Hahaha that should have been the poster

    I think I heard David, from Bond Experience, say to Calvin Dyson in a video there was pictures of Daniel in blue scuba gear in Jamaica.

    Maybe they filmed a scuba sequence for NTTD and scrapped it because of pacing?
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 13,913
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    QBranch wrote: »
    Get rid of Bond *not* scuba diving - I want some underwater action! Or is it No Time to...
    51661024934_13c3782cc4_o.jpg

    Hahaha that should have been the poster

    I think I heard David, from Bond Experience, say to Calvin Dyson in a video there was pictures of Daniel in blue scuba gear in Jamaica.

    Maybe they filmed a scuba sequence for NTTD and scrapped it because of pacing?
    That's interesting, I'll do a bit of searching. When we first saw BTS pics of Bond on the jetty with spear gun I envisioned an opening scene with Craig swimming with said gun and a mask - the tone a bit like when Bond first encounters Domino. Schools of fish and shots of other marine creatures before sailing back to the villa. Maybe a shark in there too. I didn't imagine Craig in full scuba gear, but in my mind he was definitely wearing clothes.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,510
    I'm sure David mentions it in a video with Calvin Dyson about NTTD. I remember being taken aback by hearing it
    I think David said he'd seen a picture or has a picture but he couldn't reveal it or something like that
  • QBranch wrote: »
    Get rid of Bond *not* scuba diving - I want some underwater action! Or is it No Time to...
    51661024934_13c3782cc4_o.jpg

    Yes! Bond has to go back to both scuba diving and skiing. And not visiting Italy.
    echo wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    With Bond #7, I don't want Tracy or Vesper in the past, or a return to either of the two continuities, which are so top-heavy or old at this point that it would make no sense.

    Give me something new. A new Bond, M, Moneypenny. All new.

    What do you mean? We could totally get a scene like with Anya at the bar in TSWLM.

    Femme fatale: "James Bond. First significant girlfriend, wife, former employer, CIA friend, stepbrother and nemesis, past self killed..."
    Bond: "All right, I get your point."
    Femme fatale: "You're sensitive, Mr. Bond."
    Bond: "Only about the last one."

    That's just too much baggage for the new guy. Tracy was long ago (52 years!) and they hit us (and Bond) over the head with Vesper.

    This will be the second Bond reboot. I love Tracy and Vesper but it's time to leave them in the past. Give him someone new to pine over.

    But Tracy and Vesper are both baggage that Fleming's Bond had. We don't need to have dream sequences with Eva Green in the next film like they planned for Quantum of Solace (though some here would probably say that wouldn't be the worst thing in the world). I just mean that this is an opportunity to pick up with Fleming's Bond where he has both Vesper and Tracy in his past without having to do Vesper and Tracy all over again. They already happened, and they can both be in the history of the next Bond.
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 13,913
    Bond has to go back to both scuba diving and skiing.
    Ah yes, skiing too! Have Bond escaping a fleet of modified snowcat vehicles.

    No mentions of Tracy or Vesper, thanks. Let's move on to new relationships.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Kicking: Impossible
    Posts: 6,719
    QBranch wrote: »
    Get rid of Bond *not* scuba diving - I want some underwater action! Or is it No Time to...
    51661024934_13c3782cc4_o.jpg

    Yes! Bond has to go back to both scuba diving and skiing. And not visiting Italy.

    I mean, he tries his damnedest, but when the evil organization you're fighting holds its meetings there, or its employees live there, or the love of your life was buried there, it's a bit difficult not to.

    Visiting Venice was his own damned fault though.
  • mattjoes wrote: »
    QBranch wrote: »
    Get rid of Bond *not* scuba diving - I want some underwater action! Or is it No Time to...
    51661024934_13c3782cc4_o.jpg

    Yes! Bond has to go back to both scuba diving and skiing. And not visiting Italy.

    I mean, he tries his damnedest, but when the evil organization you're fighting holds its meetings there, or its employees live there, or the love of your life was buried there, it's a bit difficult not to.

    Visiting Venice was his own damned fault though.

    "Sorry, M, not happening. I don't care that they have rockets trained on the World Summit in Florence. I'm sick of that damned place. The pasta. The monuments. The way they all talk with their hands. I'm never going back there. We could do without our world leaders for a while."
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 13,913
    What happens in Italy stays in Italy. Like everything. So just stay in Italy. Bond, pack your bags for Rome, you've been transferred to Station R.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited April 2023 Posts: 3,390
    What to get rid from the Craig Era? The Overplayed/overused depressed,damaged and traumatized Bond Girls

    Could we please have a Bond Girl who's as fun as Paloma, or a Bond Girl that has no emotional baggage or personal problems, mind them, I liked Tracy, Melina and the likes.

    But this damaged, sad Bond Girl trope were overplayed too much in the Craig Era, where all of the Bond Girls were either depressed or traumatized, and it's consistent throughout his run consecutively.

    * Camille - traumatized and depressed
    * Severine - traumatized
    * Lucia Sciarra - Depressed
    * Madeleine - Traumatized and Depressed

    The only problem free Bond Girls that Craig's Bond had encountered so far other than Paloma was Strawberry Fields or maybe Solange.

    But all of his main Bond Girls were all plagued by blues, as much as they're interesting, they've been overplayed to death and it's been tiring, they're all damaged.

    I think we need to have a fun Bond Girl again, not bimbo or helpless damsel, they could still be interesting even without emotional baggage or traumas, not damaged.

    That's why seeing someone like Paloma is a breathe of fresh air.

    Think of the Classic Era Bond Girls, they're interesting, but not in a sense that they're moping, looking sad and dour in the whole film's runtime.

    So, it's not just Bond who needs to change, but also the characters around him.

    If Bond was changed and fun again, but the characters around him didn't changed, and they're all still acting like in the Craig Era, it wouldn't makes sense either.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,534
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    What to get rid from the Craig Era? The Overplayed/overused depressed,damaged and traumatized Bond Girls

    Could we please have a Bond Girl who's as fun as Paloma, or a Bond Girl that has no emotional baggage or personal problems, mind them, I liked Tracy, Melina and the likes.

    But this damaged, sad Bond Girl trope were overplayed too much in the Craig Era, where all of the Bond Girls were either depressed or traumatized, and it's consistent throughout his run consecutively.

    * Camille - traumatized and depressed
    * Severine - traumatized
    * Lucia Sciarra - Depressed
    * Madeleine - Traumatized and Depressed

    The only problem free Bond Girls that Craig's Bond had encountered so far other than Paloma was Strawberry Fields or maybe Solange.

    But all of his main Bond Girls were all plagued by blues, as much as they're interesting, they've been overplayed to death and it's been tiring, they're all damaged.

    I think we need to have a fun Bond Girl again, not bimbo or helpless damsel, they could still be interesting even without emotional baggage or traumas, not damaged.

    That's why seeing someone like Paloma is a breathe of fresh air.

    Think of the Classic Era Bond Girls, they're interesting, but not in a sense that they're moping, looking sad and dour in the whole film's runtime.

    So, it's not just Bond who needs to change, but also the characters around him.

    If Bond was changed and fun again, but the characters around him didn't changed, and they're all still acting like in the Craig Era, it wouldn't makes sense either.

    I'm with you on this. However, I'm a tad afraid that the political climate is more inclined towards "complicated women", as opposed to the playful, good-looking, easy types. And yet, Paloma briefly oozed such a charm, that I wouldn't mind her as a template for at least one or two future girls. Of course, we have to be careful not to overestimate her appeal. She worked well in those Cuba scenes, but if we bring her along for an entire film, she may need something "extra" lest she becomes another Goodnight from TMWTGG.

    To be frank, I thought Nomi was a step in that direction too. She is charming, doesn't lose her cool in the presence of Bond, never overshadows him, has a few funny exchanges with MP, and doesn't carry a big emotional weight with her.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,081
    deary me, the self-conscious need for everything to be so sophisticated. I miss when bond were about honest, unpretentious fun. TSWLM knows exactly what it is, take it or leave it. Doesn't concern itself about whether each character has enough layers to them. I feel like that has become the new "are there enough gadgets" that they would worry about back in the day.
  • edited April 2023 Posts: 2,880
    deary me, the self-conscious need for everything to be so sophisticated. I miss when bond were about honest, unpretentious fun. TSWLM knows exactly what it is, take it or leave it. Doesn't concern itself about whether each character has enough layers to them. I feel like that has become the new "are there enough gadgets" that they would worry about back in the day.

    Arguably that's one of the Bond films in which Bond himself has 'layers'. Especially compared to Moore's first two films. You get the first explicit reference to Tracy's death since OHMSS (and Bond's reaction to it). There's of course Bond being responsible for the death of Anya's boyfriend, the subsequent relationship between them, and the confrontation/Bond's decision to tell Anya. The whole third act of that film actually hinges in great part around finding out whether Anya will kill Bond, and indeed there's the extra depth in Bond's decision to rescue her knowing this could potentially be his fate.

    Ironically I think most people's most common complaint about that film is the fact that Stromberg is a pretty one dimensional villain. But I'd argue it's one of the most successful Bond films because it merges that escapism with that added depth to Moore's Bond (and yes, I think a conscious effort was made to write Moore's Bond this way, again especially when you compare how he's written in his first two films) and uses it to tell a gripping story.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited April 2023 Posts: 3,390
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    What to get rid from the Craig Era? The Overplayed/overused depressed,damaged and traumatized Bond Girls

    Could we please have a Bond Girl who's as fun as Paloma, or a Bond Girl that has no emotional baggage or personal problems, mind them, I liked Tracy, Melina and the likes.

    But this damaged, sad Bond Girl trope were overplayed too much in the Craig Era, where all of the Bond Girls were either depressed or traumatized, and it's consistent throughout his run consecutively.

    * Camille - traumatized and depressed
    * Severine - traumatized
    * Lucia Sciarra - Depressed
    * Madeleine - Traumatized and Depressed

    The only problem free Bond Girls that Craig's Bond had encountered so far other than Paloma was Strawberry Fields or maybe Solange.

    But all of his main Bond Girls were all plagued by blues, as much as they're interesting, they've been overplayed to death and it's been tiring, they're all damaged.

    I think we need to have a fun Bond Girl again, not bimbo or helpless damsel, they could still be interesting even without emotional baggage or traumas, not damaged.

    That's why seeing someone like Paloma is a breathe of fresh air.

    Think of the Classic Era Bond Girls, they're interesting, but not in a sense that they're moping, looking sad and dour in the whole film's runtime.

    So, it's not just Bond who needs to change, but also the characters around him.

    If Bond was changed and fun again, but the characters around him didn't changed, and they're all still acting like in the Craig Era, it wouldn't makes sense either.

    I'm with you on this. However, I'm a tad afraid that the political climate is more inclined towards "complicated women", as opposed to the playful, good-looking, easy types. And yet, Paloma briefly oozed such a charm, that I wouldn't mind her as a template for at least one or two future girls. Of course, we have to be careful not to overestimate her appeal. She worked well in those Cuba scenes, but if we bring her along for an entire film, she may need something "extra" lest she becomes another Goodnight from TMWTGG.

    To be frank, I thought Nomi was a step in that direction too. She is charming, doesn't lose her cool in the presence of Bond, never overshadows him, has a few funny exchanges with MP, and doesn't carry a big emotional weight with her.

    To be honest, that's why I don't believe this feminist modern movement, that's already the female trope since 50's/60's, it's not a modern type of woman, complicated women is a Hitchcock thing and I find it a mystery that the current political climate tends to go in that direction regarding female roles.

    Those playful, easy and cool female characters for me are the most modern type of female roles, just like Paloma and yes, Nomi.

    So, I'm hoping we would see future Bond Girls in the same vein as Paloma and Nomi for the next Bond films.

    Those complicated women needs to rest for a while now, they've been heavily used in the Craig Era.

  • edited April 2023 Posts: 2,880
    To be completely fair, the likes of Paloma is a supporting character. Similar to Agent Fields in QOS and to a lesser extent Nomi in NTTD. Films can generally afford to these types of supporting characters a bit more simplistic (and indeed 'cooler') than the main Bond girls because they are in effect a sort of relief and don't fundamentally drive the story forward as much. The main Bond girls are usually a bit more two dimensional, and yes, often in the modern films this involves some sort of acknowledgment of trauma in their past to give them something engaging to do that again moves the story along, ultimately because they'll have the most connection to Bond whether they end up with him by the end or not (so for Camille in QOS this involves avenging her parents, for Severine it's her desire to escape from Silva, for Madeline it's the fact that her father is Mr. White... the only supporting Bond girl that kind of breaks this mould is Sciarra from SP, but I'd argue she's more functional in storytelling terms than Paloma or Fields, and Nomi).

    But it depends on how it's done. I can understand wanting a main Bond girl that is a bit different to the Craig ones. Ultimately, however, they can still be stylish and cool while still having some sort of trauma/motive that drives them (ie. someone like Catwoman in The Batman perhaps is an example).
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    Posts: 3,390
    007HallY wrote: »
    To be completely fair, the likes of Paloma is a supporting character. Similar to Agent Fields in QOS and to a lesser extent Nomi in NTTD. Films can generally afford to these types of supporting characters a bit more simplistic (and indeed 'cooler') than the main Bond girls because they are in effect a sort of relief and don't fundamentally drive the story forward as much. The main Bond girls are usually a bit more two dimensional, and yes, often in the modern films this involves some sort of acknowledgment of trauma in their past to give them something engaging to do that again moves the story along, ultimately because they'll have the most connection to Bond whether they end up with him by the end or not (so for Camille in QOS this involves avenging her parents, for Severine it's her desire to escape from Silva, for Madeline it's the fact that her father is Mr. White... the only supporting Bond girl that kind of breaks this mould is Sciarra from SP, but I'd argue she's more functional in storytelling terms than Paloma or Fields, and Nomi).

    But it depends on how it's done. I can understand wanting a main Bond girl that is a bit different to the Craig ones. Ultimately, however, they can still be stylish and cool while still having some sort of trauma/motive that drives them (ie. someone like Catwoman in The Batman perhaps is an example).

    Yes, but if the next Bond or the tone of the next Bond film would be fun, then the Bond Girls in the same vein as the Bond Girls of the Craig Era wouldn't likely to work.

    We've been talking about bringing back the fun in Bond films and avoiding the tropes in the Craig Era, but overlooking that his Bond Girls and the tropes about them should also be considered.
  • Posts: 2,880
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    To be completely fair, the likes of Paloma is a supporting character. Similar to Agent Fields in QOS and to a lesser extent Nomi in NTTD. Films can generally afford to these types of supporting characters a bit more simplistic (and indeed 'cooler') than the main Bond girls because they are in effect a sort of relief and don't fundamentally drive the story forward as much. The main Bond girls are usually a bit more two dimensional, and yes, often in the modern films this involves some sort of acknowledgment of trauma in their past to give them something engaging to do that again moves the story along, ultimately because they'll have the most connection to Bond whether they end up with him by the end or not (so for Camille in QOS this involves avenging her parents, for Severine it's her desire to escape from Silva, for Madeline it's the fact that her father is Mr. White... the only supporting Bond girl that kind of breaks this mould is Sciarra from SP, but I'd argue she's more functional in storytelling terms than Paloma or Fields, and Nomi).

    But it depends on how it's done. I can understand wanting a main Bond girl that is a bit different to the Craig ones. Ultimately, however, they can still be stylish and cool while still having some sort of trauma/motive that drives them (ie. someone like Catwoman in The Batman perhaps is an example).

    Yes, but if the next Bond or the tone of the next Bond film would be fun, then the Bond Girls in the same vein as the Bond Girls of the Craig Era wouldn't likely to work.

    We've been talking about bringing back the fun in Bond films and avoiding the tropes in the Craig Era, but overlooking that his Bond Girls and the tropes about them should also be considered.

    I suspect much from the Craig era will bleed through into the next one. Like I said it ultimately depends on how it’s done. A lot of Bond girls have some form of tragedy in their backstory which helps give them something to do and drive the story (Ie. Anya in TSWLM with the death of her lover, Natasha in GE witnessing her co-workers being slaughtered etc.)
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou. I can still hear my old hound dog barkin'.
    Posts: 8,683
    I love the Craig era.

    That being said, it's over. Permanently. And the franchise will need a new start. That being said, and apart from my repeatedly mentioned wish that the next time they'd make it a period piece by adapting the novels in their 1950s (or at worst 1960s) environment, I would prefer the next Bond to be closer to Sean and Tim and Dan, rather than getting back to funny Rog and pretty-boy Pierce - generally speaking. I wouldn't want it to be too funny and/or ironic and/or satirical. There has to be a serious core to the entire story to entice me.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,534
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    I love the Craig era.

    That being said, it's over. Permanently. And the franchise will need a new start. That being said, and apart from my repeatedly mentioned wish that the next time they'd make it a period piece by adapting the novels in their 1950s (or at worst 1960s) environment, I would prefer the next Bond to be closer to Sean and Tim and Dan, rather than getting back to funny Rog and pretty-boy Pierce - generally speaking. I wouldn't want it to be too funny and/or ironic and/or satirical. There has to be a serious core to the entire story to entice me.

    Exactly how I feel about it. Rog and Pierce delivered awesome Bonds, and if there's another FYEO or GE on the horizon, I'll take it. But I'm more in the FRWL/OHMSS/TLD/LTK/Craig boat. The simple fun of TMWTGG tastes good, but it's not where I want them to take Bond next.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 2,925
    Yep, exactly. I'll sail in that boat too.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,105
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    I love the Craig era.

    That being said, it's over. Permanently. And the franchise will need a new start. That being said, and apart from my repeatedly mentioned wish that the next time they'd make it a period piece by adapting the novels in their 1950s (or at worst 1960s) environment, I would prefer the next Bond to be closer to Sean and Tim and Dan, rather than getting back to funny Rog and pretty-boy Pierce - generally speaking. I wouldn't want it to be too funny and/or ironic and/or satirical. There has to be a serious core to the entire story to entice me.

    I agree 100%. That’s why I wish Purvis and Wade should leave. It just makes sense. I think Barbara Broccoli is more attached to them, than she is Craig.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,510
    The thing I love about the Craig era, is the series and Bond as a character was taken seriously. Hopefully that continues
Sign In or Register to comment.