Where does Bond go after Craig? *Potential SPOILERS*

1464749515280

Comments

  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 8,432
    And the parkour stuff in CR too I suppose. The jump from the crane etc.

    Oh yes good point, they did promote that quite heavily. And it's great.
    Arguably I'd say they haven't done a stunt sequence as impressive since that.

    I can't think of sequences and action they really sort of traded on to that level after... maybe the QoS car chase, and probably the DB5 stuff in NTTD.
  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    Posts: 719
    QsCat wrote: »
    Bond is better purely because of Bond. Doesn't matter how fun the MI films are, I will always prefer Bond, because of the character. I am not interested in what Ethan Hunt eats or wears, whereas some of the best bits of Bond are the moments when he isn't even involved in any action.

    Saying that, the MI films are definitely very good action films, and are leading the way in blockbuster spy movies at the moment.

    I don't mind Cruise, he comes across ok to me. But has anyone here seen the Alex Gibney documentary about Going Clear? It contains a quite frankly astonishing story about Cruise that several high profile people are happy to go on record and claim is true.

    You're right there, I don't think anybody could disagree with that. It's mainly the action really that's the source of comparison.

    I did see that doc a while ago but don't remember the Cruise allegations. Think I recall something about them trying to find a wife for him though

    Yes, that's the one I meant. It's a bit more than find a wife for him. He takes a shine to a woman, so the scientologists give her a makeover, fix her skin and teeth, deliver her to his house, and tell her she's going to be his girlfriend until he's done with her. She was an actress in Homeland, from what I remember.

    Anyway, we all have our faults.
  • Something that separates Bond from Mission Impossible for me (and a lot of blockbusters for that matter) beyond just the character of Bond and the formulaic elements we love, is that the location filmmaking is usually done very well and gives a real sense of presence and atmosphere to the films. Mission Impossible is also a globetrotting series that does location work, and yet it doesn’t really capture the atmosphere and character of its locations as well (I think). That being said I’m very fond of Mission Impossible as well, and Fallout in particular has really set the bar in terms of stunt-based action filmmaking that Bond used to be known for (particularly in the John Glen era I feel). I don’t think Bond needs to compete in that arena though and think Fukunaga is taking the right approach, and besides from what we’ve seen NTTD seems like it’s filled to the brim with great stunts and action sequences even if there’s no big show-stopper or the insanity of seeing the lead actor doing it for real that MI has.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 6,485
    mtm wrote: »
    And the parkour stuff in CR too I suppose. The jump from the crane etc.

    Oh yes good point, they did promote that quite heavily. And it's great.
    Arguably I'd say they haven't done a stunt sequence as impressive since that.

    I can't think of sequences and action they really sort of traded on to that level after... maybe the QoS car chase, and probably the DB5 stuff in NTTD.

    NTTD is the first one to have really sold the spectacle (i.e. the stunts) of Bond since QoS. I don't recall much of the Skyfall trailers but Spectre certainly sold itself as more of a mystery. Between the bridge jump, the bike jump, the DB5 chase you mentioned etc, NTTD is certainly pushing the testosterone levels up seemingly.
  • I can’t wait to see the Landrover/motorcycle chase personally. With all the jumps and stuff, and the foggy forest action, it looks fantastic.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited January 21 Posts: 8,432
    Something that separates Bond from Mission Impossible for me (and a lot of blockbusters for that matter) beyond just the character of Bond and the formulaic elements we love, is that the location filmmaking is usually done very well and gives a real sense of presence and atmosphere to the films. Mission Impossible is also a globetrotting series that does location work, and yet it doesn’t really capture the atmosphere and character of its locations as well (I think).

    I think yes and no to that one though. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. Something like Skyfall has scenes set in Turkey and China, and yet really there's nothing at all which means those scenes need to be there and could easily have been any country- switch that pre-title sequence to Paris and what do you need to change?. The Chinese scenes feature no actual Chinese people apart from the bar workers and staff (the French lady who plays Severine is about of a quarter Chinese descent; that's not really the same). Plus of course they barely shot anything in China. The end of Skyfall in Scotland has a reason to be set there.
    The MI films are guilty and innocent to about the same degree I think.

    It's funny, when you look at Die Another Day, because of the plot it has to be set in Korea, it has to be Hong Kong, it has to be Cuba. Iceland, yeah not so much I guess. But generally it's sort of ahead of Skyfall in terms of its settings! :)

    mtm wrote: »
    And the parkour stuff in CR too I suppose. The jump from the crane etc.

    Oh yes good point, they did promote that quite heavily. And it's great.
    Arguably I'd say they haven't done a stunt sequence as impressive since that.

    I can't think of sequences and action they really sort of traded on to that level after... maybe the QoS car chase, and probably the DB5 stuff in NTTD.

    NTTD is the first one to have really sold the spectacle (i.e. the stunts) of Bond since QoS. I don't recall much of the Skyfall trailers but Spectre certainly sold itself as more of a mystery. Between the bridge jump, the bike jump, the DB5 chase you mentioned etc, NTTD is certainly pushing the testosterone levels up seemingly.

    Yes hopefully. I like a bit of action. I must admit I don't find the bridge jump all that stunning (although I certainly wouldn't like to do it!) but it's fun.
    I can’t wait to see the Landrover/motorcycle chase personally. With all the jumps and stuff, and the foggy forest action, it looks fantastic.

    Yes, the bit with all of them jumping crazily on the open bit of ground looks like really good fun. An off-road car chase does feel weirdly like something I can't think of being done much before...? Even though you'd think it's not exactly an incredibly out-of-the-box bit of thinking! :)
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    edited January 21 Posts: 6,485
    mtm wrote: »
    I must admit I don't find the bridge jump all that stunning (although I certainly wouldn't like to do it!) but it's fun.

    I liked it the first time, I guess. Unfortunately, due to external factors, it's not quite as impressive now. I've seen it too many times (similarly, over exposure during marketing was something that tainted the plane sequence at the beginning of Rogue Nation for me, too). The vehicular stuff though? Still very cool to look at.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited January 21 Posts: 8,432
    mtm wrote: »
    I must admit I don't find the bridge jump all that stunning (although I certainly wouldn't like to do it!) but it's fun.

    I liked it the first time, I guess. Unfortunately, due to external factors, it's not quite as impressive now. I've seen it so many times now (similarly, over exposure during marketing was something that tainted the plane sequence at the beginning of Rogue Nation for me, too)

    Yeah, it's a nice simple stunt and I'm sure it'll be exciting in the movie, but it's a man falling off something- I've seen a hundred bungee jumps and all that. A bit like that Die Hard stunt which is an iconic image, but I've never found it a hugely jaw-dropping stunt to watch: it's a man tied on to something jumping off a roof; all he has to do is obey gravity.
    I don't think they're trying to claim it's as impressive as someone hanging on to the outside of a plane or anything, though; I'm not having a go at the film.
    The vehicular stuff though? Still very cool to look at.

    Yes, and it's nice to know there's plenty of that coming that we haven't seen yet.

    It still irks me a bit that the DB5 is sliding so much in the bits we've seen because a good driver like Bond wouldn't be oversteering that much- look at those brilliant rally-style drifts you get in something like Ronin, or indeed in Fallout.
  • mtm wrote: »
    Something that separates Bond from Mission Impossible for me (and a lot of blockbusters for that matter) beyond just the character of Bond and the formulaic elements we love, is that the location filmmaking is usually done very well and gives a real sense of presence and atmosphere to the films. Mission Impossible is also a globetrotting series that does location work, and yet it doesn’t really capture the atmosphere and character of its locations as well (I think).

    I think yes and no to that one though. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. Something like Skyfall has scenes set in Turkey and China, and yet really there's nothing at all which means those scenes need to be there and could easily have been any country- switch that pre-title sequence to Paris and what do you need to change?. The Chinese scenes feature no actual Chinese people apart from the bar workers and staff (the French lady who plays Severine is about of a quarter Chinese descent; that's not really the same). Plus of course they barely shot anything in China. The end of Skyfall in Scotland has a reason to be set there.
    The MI films are guilty and innocent to about the same degree I think.

    It's funny, when you look at Die Another Day, because of the plot it has to be set in Korea, it has to be Hong Kong, it has to be Cuba. Iceland, yeah not so much I guess. But generally it's sort of ahead of Skyfall in terms of its settings! :)

    Yeah I guess not all Bond films are equal in this regard, and it has to do with sets as much as location filmmaking, but I still feel like I get more of a sense of place, or memorable locations, typically in Bond over MI (though that series certainly has its moments as well, particularly the first film where Prague was used wonderfully, or the Burj Khalifa views). Maybe I’m just talking out of my ass!
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 8,432
    mtm wrote: »
    Something that separates Bond from Mission Impossible for me (and a lot of blockbusters for that matter) beyond just the character of Bond and the formulaic elements we love, is that the location filmmaking is usually done very well and gives a real sense of presence and atmosphere to the films. Mission Impossible is also a globetrotting series that does location work, and yet it doesn’t really capture the atmosphere and character of its locations as well (I think).

    I think yes and no to that one though. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. Something like Skyfall has scenes set in Turkey and China, and yet really there's nothing at all which means those scenes need to be there and could easily have been any country- switch that pre-title sequence to Paris and what do you need to change?. The Chinese scenes feature no actual Chinese people apart from the bar workers and staff (the French lady who plays Severine is about of a quarter Chinese descent; that's not really the same). Plus of course they barely shot anything in China. The end of Skyfall in Scotland has a reason to be set there.
    The MI films are guilty and innocent to about the same degree I think.

    It's funny, when you look at Die Another Day, because of the plot it has to be set in Korea, it has to be Hong Kong, it has to be Cuba. Iceland, yeah not so much I guess. But generally it's sort of ahead of Skyfall in terms of its settings! :)

    Yeah I guess not all Bond films are equal in this regard, and it has to do with sets as much as location filmmaking, but I still feel like I get more of a sense of place, or memorable locations, typically in Bond over MI (though that series certainly has its moments as well, particularly the first film where Prague was used wonderfully, or the Burj Khalifa views). Maybe I’m just talking out of my ass!

    Yeah it's just that sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. Did we great a great impression of the feel of Miami or Madagascar in Casino Royale? Or even of Montenegro? Did Ghost Protocol feel like it gave you the real feel of India (even though I think they did actually film there)? But then, yeah, you get Dubai or London, which I think they do a nice job of.
  • edited January 22 Posts: 5,814
    Where Does Bond Go After Craig... Considering @Shardlake has succinctly described my own feelings on the Little Man, I'll steer my thought back to the thread's question:

    Big shoes to fill-- that's for sure...

    I'm guessing that the video game, with EoN's participation, can keep James Bond in the spotlight while they start to gear up for the new era.

    I'm not a gamer, I'm useless at it, but I hear the first one comes out in 2022; I'm wondering: if that is a success, can/will they release a second game in 2024/2025?

    This keeps James Bond in the public awareness and then EoN has had enough time to separate the Craig Era (very popular, no matter what the naysayers are bleating on about), to introduce the new man in 2025/26.

    Just my two cents...
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 6,485
    I hope the next game opens avenues for more to be made. Not a gamer really either. The last game I went out of my way to play was Bloodstone. But the gaming industry is the biggest entertainment industry in the world right now and Bond definitely has a place there, if they put the effort in. I agree that it would compliment future films nicely in terms of public appeal for "new" generations. More people are playing games than ever.
  • Posts: 653
    I wish there was a gif of M in GoldenEye saying "Don't make it personal" Because that's one thing I'd like producers to keep in mind going forward, personally :D

  • Posts: 121
    There is no "after Craig". NTTD will get pushed back an infinite amount of times and Craig will stay Bond until the heat death of the universe.
  • Posts: 2,421
    Mr_Beach wrote: »
    There is no "after Craig". NTTD will get pushed back an infinite amount of times and Craig will stay Bond until the heat death of the universe.

    Now you are finally facing reality. Well done... ;)
  • Posts: 618
    Well, does this mean Bond will die by the end of NTTD -- though we may never know.

    How long before the screenplay gets released -- without authorization, of course ?
  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    edited January 28 Posts: 619
    With all the weirdness around Game Stop and r/wallstreetbets going on, I thought I'd dust off my idea for a LALD (the novel) redo:
    Instead of a racial divide make it economical. Instead of Mr. Big being "the great Negro gangster" and basically the owner and major power in Harlem with Bond having to go there as a fish out of water, have Big run a type of get-rich-quick scheme that makes his most ardent followers become very, very protective of the man and of course turns out to have a very dark underbelly of some sort. With a good writer, social media elements could be used effectively (not too "Black Mirror", but I drift in that direction) to replace the switch-board aspect of the novel. The idea that Big has his eyes and ears everywhere.
    You could then also throw in a little bit of Drax with this guy actually worming his way into the upper-reaches of high society and generally being seen as a everyman hero in some way. Depending on how Ken Loach you want to be about this, the whole hook for Bond being sent on the mission could be the Bank of England or the British Government fearing too much of a redistribution of wealth or some such (think Goldfinger) with Bond subsequently having to figure out whether that is actually a worthy mission or not.
    Possibilities for Bond trying to infiltrate the structure seem endless and once a writer has nailed down the details of Big's scheme I don't think it would be all that hard to find a place for a Solitaire figure.
    The part I haven't found a simile for yet is the Harlem of it all. A very cheap version would be having Bond go into a trailer park in Alabama full of people looking at Big as their saviour, but I really hate that idea myself. My best solution yet would be a kind of sales convention, where Big pulls in his victims/followers, but I don't really know a way to make that interesting. But it leads to the reason I came up with this whole thing in the first place: Cast Jamie Foxx as Mr. Big and have him do a 5-minute scene combining this

    and this
    .

    The final act would probably need some re-working, because the way it is set-up in LALD, the novel, might be a bit close to what we will see in NTTD and the keelhauling has of course been used in FYEO.
  • Posts: 618
    Your description of the villain makes one wonder who's really the villain in such a story. It reminds me of one of the "villains" in WW84, before he went weird, and would tell people: Life is Goooood ! But it can be Betterrrr...
  • mrlynxmrlynx Maine
    Posts: 26
    Look up Keith Raniere and the NXIVM cult. This is exactly what you're talking about - there's even a place for a Solitaire character
  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    Posts: 619
    mrlynx wrote: »
    Look up Keith Raniere and the NXIVM cult. This is exactly what you're talking about - there's even a place for a Solitaire character

    Oh my god. You are right! And that makes it too real for me to want to take this thought experiment even further. I mean, they apparently branded women and then prostituted them. That is seriously fucked up.
  • Posts: 618
    Would that be something worthy of a Double O agent ? Wouldn't it be appropriate for law enforcement such as police ? I guess you're suggesting the cult would be inspirational, and a storyline for a Bond film would somehow be written at a level of worthiness. You'd have to manage to avoid too much similarity with LTK and Wayne Newton's Professor Joe Butcher. (Wayne Newton, btw, who became quite the Vegas Guy, would have been better cast in DAF)
  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    edited February 11 Posts: 619
    Since62 wrote: »
    Would that be something worthy of a Double O agent ? Wouldn't it be appropriate for law enforcement such as police ? I guess you're suggesting the cult would be inspirational, and a storyline for a Bond film would somehow be written at a level of worthiness. You'd have to manage to avoid too much similarity with LTK and Wayne Newton's Professor Joe Butcher. (Wayne Newton, btw, who became quite the Vegas Guy, would have been better cast in DAF)

    Another good point. In the end, that boils down to whether we would accept the reasons for Bond's involvement that where given in f.e. LALD (the novel) and Goldfinger today. If I recall correctly, both of them are basically about the structural integrity of the British monetary system in the face of large amounts of Gold being either introduced to or substracted from the system. In LALD, the operation against Mr. Big is led by the FBI (so law enforcement) and Bond is originally only there because there is a connection to Jamaica, which at the time was still part of the Empire.
    There are two possible ways I see this working.
    The more socially critical one (which is, I think, something Bond has never done) would be to go a similar route: This "cult" is somehow threatening the structure of the British economic system and MI6 and/or their Overseers don't have a problem with sending a double-0 after the leader to reinforce the status quo. The movie would then hinge on Bond having to figure out who the "real villain" is. This might be a bit too close to SP's C plot.
    The second option is more straight forward that the "dark side" of the villainous organisation is even more evil than "just" human trafficking (not to downplay the horrific things NXIVM did, but that does seem more like a law enforcement situation). Financing terrorism. Working with a foreign adversary. Having terrorist plans themselves like for example brainwashing twelve beautiful young women from all over the world, to use them as couriers for a biological weapon.
    Both ways could use the angle of having somebody high up in British society - possibly even a member of the royal family - connected to the cult. I read that the daughter of a former President of Mexico was involved with NXIVM, so the jump isn't that far.

    As for Professor Joe: Another thing I had forgotten! But honestly, I don't mind a 2025 version of Prof. Joe turning up in a movie. I like him. You are right however, that this would probably be seen as too much recycling.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 4,479
    I'm starting to change my mind on whether Bond 26 should be a reboot.

    I previously thought that we don't need another reboot so soon after the last (shades of Spiderman)...but now I wonder, given Craig's age by the time the bloody film gets released, added to the intensely personal nature of Craig's era, *if* it is better to start afresh.

    As an example, is the next Bond going to be pining after/working through his complicated emotions for Vesper? Craig and Green were so strong together in CR that it's hard to see a new Bond taking up the Vesper mantle.

    This is different than Rigg in OHMSS, which was essentially a one-hander. (The strong echoes of Tracy from DAF through LTK (and possibly TWINE) are all thanks to her, and don't seem tethered to a particular Bond.)
  • Posts: 89
    echo wrote: »
    I'm starting to change my mind on whether Bond 26 should be a reboot.

    I previously thought that we don't need another reboot so soon after the last (shades of Spiderman)...but now I wonder, given Craig's age by the time the bloody film gets released, added to the intensely personal nature of Craig's era, *if* it is better to start afresh.

    As an example, is the next Bond going to be pining after/working through his complicated emotions for Vesper? Craig and Green were so strong together in CR that it's hard to see a new Bond taking up the Vesper mantle.

    This is different than Rigg in OHMSS, which was essentially a one-hander. (The strong echoes of Tracy from DAF through LTK (and possibly TWINE) are all thanks to her, and don't seem tethered to a particular Bond.)

    I can't really see an alternative seeing as much of the Craig era has been about him being middle aged and past his prime. If CR was a self-contained film then there wouldn't be an issue but because its story has since been expanded in subsequent films, the assumption would be that this is the same Bond who later became "out of step" and eventually retired. Unless they cast an actor who's only a couple of years younger than Craig and continue milking that plot point for the next few films, then the only other option is to reboot.

    My prediction is that Bond 26 will be about as much of a reboot as TLD was, in that the actor playing Bond will be much younger and will probably play the part quite differently. They can keep the regulars on but no mention will be made to previous films' events.
  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    Posts: 619
    echo wrote: »
    I'm starting to change my mind on whether Bond 26 should be a reboot.

    I previously thought that we don't need another reboot so soon after the last (shades of Spiderman)...but now I wonder, given Craig's age by the time the bloody film gets released, added to the intensely personal nature of Craig's era, *if* it is better to start afresh.

    As an example, is the next Bond going to be pining after/working through his complicated emotions for Vesper? Craig and Green were so strong together in CR that it's hard to see a new Bond taking up the Vesper mantle.

    This is different than Rigg in OHMSS, which was essentially a one-hander. (The strong echoes of Tracy from DAF through LTK (and possibly TWINE) are all thanks to her, and don't seem tethered to a particular Bond.)

    I can't really see an alternative seeing as much of the Craig era has been about him being middle aged and past his prime. If CR was a self-contained film then there wouldn't be an issue but because its story has since been expanded in subsequent films, the assumption would be that this is the same Bond who later became "out of step" and eventually retired. Unless they cast an actor who's only a couple of years younger than Craig and continue milking that plot point for the next few films, then the only other option is to reboot.

    My prediction is that Bond 26 will be about as much of a reboot as TLD was, in that the actor playing Bond will be much younger and will probably play the part quite differently. They can keep the regulars on but no mention will be made to previous films' events.

    I am really looking forward to how they will handle this. I personally think the best way forward is to go back to the floating timeline. The focus is mainly on the here and now, the past doesn't play a massive role but the things that happened to previous incarnations of Bond have generally happened to this Bond (i.e. Tracy), albeit on an adjusted timeline where needed. Basically: Some stuff has already happened to him, some stuff will happen to him later. We are meeting Bond more or less in the middle of his career/life.
    I do not think the films have to be 100% interchangeable; there can be character development over the tenure of the actor. Don't need that much story connection, however..
  • edited February 16 Posts: 89
    echo wrote: »
    I'm starting to change my mind on whether Bond 26 should be a reboot.

    I previously thought that we don't need another reboot so soon after the last (shades of Spiderman)...but now I wonder, given Craig's age by the time the bloody film gets released, added to the intensely personal nature of Craig's era, *if* it is better to start afresh.

    As an example, is the next Bond going to be pining after/working through his complicated emotions for Vesper? Craig and Green were so strong together in CR that it's hard to see a new Bond taking up the Vesper mantle.

    This is different than Rigg in OHMSS, which was essentially a one-hander. (The strong echoes of Tracy from DAF through LTK (and possibly TWINE) are all thanks to her, and don't seem tethered to a particular Bond.)

    I can't really see an alternative seeing as much of the Craig era has been about him being middle aged and past his prime. If CR was a self-contained film then there wouldn't be an issue but because its story has since been expanded in subsequent films, the assumption would be that this is the same Bond who later became "out of step" and eventually retired. Unless they cast an actor who's only a couple of years younger than Craig and continue milking that plot point for the next few films, then the only other option is to reboot.

    My prediction is that Bond 26 will be about as much of a reboot as TLD was, in that the actor playing Bond will be much younger and will probably play the part quite differently. They can keep the regulars on but no mention will be made to previous films' events.

    I am really looking forward to how they will handle this. I personally think the best way forward is to go back to the floating timeline. The focus is mainly on the here and now, the past doesn't play a massive role but the things that happened to previous incarnations of Bond have generally happened to this Bond (i.e. Tracy), albeit on an adjusted timeline where needed. Basically: Some stuff has already happened to him, some stuff will happen to him later. We are meeting Bond more or less in the middle of his career/life.
    I do not think the films have to be 100% interchangeable; there can be character development over the tenure of the actor. Don't need that much story connection, however..

    That’s what I’m hoping for. If they must have another ongoing arc then they should start it in Bond 26 and go forward from there. I don’t want to hear about the past coming back to haunt people again.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited February 16 Posts: 4,479
    Agreed. I love Eva Green (seriously, who doesn't?) but after Craig, it is time to let Vesper fade into the background.

    I like how they handled Moore-to-Dalton in TLD--his Bond was weary but didn't seem old--and most importantly, they didn't dwell on it beyond the first fifteen minutes.
  • Posts: 509
    My prediction is that Bond 26 will be about as much of a reboot as TLD was, in that the actor playing Bond will be much younger and will probably play the part quite differently. They can keep the regulars on but no mention will be made to previous films' events.

    Even though I agree with you, I can't imagine the next movie keeping as many regulars as TLD did in its time. Between Brown's M, Llewelyn's Q, Frederick Gray and General Gogol, Dalton's Bond was clearly represented as operating in the same world as Moore's. I can't imagine Bond 26 bringing back so many actors from the Craig era.

    In a sense, I have a feeling that as long as the movie doesn't mention the previous movies, it will be seen as a reboot by the general audience, regardless of the direction taken by the creative team. The return of an actor is no longer even a sign of a perpetuation of a continuity since Casino Royale brought Dench back when the film was a reboot.

    In my opinion, the next installment might benefit from renewing the characters, and not just the actors playing them. By that I mean for example the introduction of Loelia Ponsonby, replacing Miss Moneypenny, and avoiding the question of "is or not this the same iteration of the character seen in the Craig era?" The same could easily be done with Q or M, with new people assuming those positions within MI6. A place could of course be made for a former regular if one of the actors wishes to come back but, to be honest, apart from maybe Fiennes, I find it hard to imagine Harris or Whishaw returning.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 4,479
    My prediction is that Bond 26 will be about as much of a reboot as TLD was, in that the actor playing Bond will be much younger and will probably play the part quite differently. They can keep the regulars on but no mention will be made to previous films' events.

    Even though I agree with you, I can't imagine the next movie keeping as many regulars as TLD did in its time. Between Brown's M, Llewelyn's Q, Frederick Gray and General Gogol, Dalton's Bond was clearly represented as operating in the same world as Moore's. I can't imagine Bond 26 bringing back so many actors from the Craig era.

    In a sense, I have a feeling that as long as the movie doesn't mention the previous movies, it will be seen as a reboot by the general audience, regardless of the direction taken by the creative team. The return of an actor is no longer even a sign of a perpetuation of a continuity since Casino Royale brought Dench back when the film was a reboot.

    In my opinion, the next installment might benefit from renewing the characters, and not just the actors playing them. By that I mean for example the introduction of Loelia Ponsonby, replacing Miss Moneypenny, and avoiding the question of "is or not this the same iteration of the character seen in the Craig era?" The same could easily be done with Q or M, with new people assuming those positions within MI6. A place could of course be made for a former regular if one of the actors wishes to come back but, to be honest, apart from maybe Fiennes, I find it hard to imagine Harris or Whishaw returning.

    I know they've tried to bring Ponsonby in but if they're going to have a secretary character, Eon knows the audience will be looking for Moneypenny.

    Harris is the de facto Bond ambassador at this point. She represents the brand.

    If Fiennes returns, I'll bet she does too.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 8,432
    Yes it's hard to see much point in Ponsonby: Bond meeting two secretaries and flirting with them in similar offices in the same building might get a bit repetitive.
Sign In or Register to comment.