Where does Bond go after Craig?

16061636566661

Comments

  • iamurospb wrote: »
    I don't know how many times I'll say this or how many times I have to say this until it becomes true - Aidan Turner in a true-to-novel adaptation movie!

    Glad to see another on the Turner train!
  • Posts: 9,840
    I wouldlike to see more consitency as much as I loved Craig's tenure based on what we all have seen of no time die his tenure seems

    Casino Royale: Fleming title and Fleming's Bod
    Quantum of Solace :Fleming title Fleming's bond
    Skyfall: not a Fleming title and a weird mixture of Fleming and movie bond
    Spectre: Fleming title (see Quantum wasn't the last one) but basically Craig doing an impression of Brosnan's bond
    No time to die: not a Fleming title but a return of Fleming Bond

    Honestly I would like more consistency with Fleming titles and fleming tone... there is no reason Bond 23 couldnt of been called The Property of a lady and Bond 25 should of been The Garden of Death

    as for tone yeah Craig does dark bond well.. pulling out jokes just doesn't work.
  • ProfJoeButcherProfJoeButcher Bless your heart
    Posts: 1,711
    Going forward, the most important thing for me is that James Bond movies do things that only James Bond movies can do. CR and QOS would not take much changing to be something else entirely, and there are significant stretches of SF and SP where you could say the same, moreso Skyfall.
  • Posts: 9,840
    Going forward, the most important thing for me is that James Bond movies do things that only James Bond movies can do. CR and QOS would not take much changing to be something else entirely, and there are significant stretches of SF and SP where you could say the same, moreso Skyfall.

    Casino Royale is note for not From fleming if there is a movie that is pure James bond this is it.. I am curious to hear What makes Spectre more James Bond in your mind
  • ProfJoeButcherProfJoeButcher Bless your heart
    edited September 2021 Posts: 1,711
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Going forward, the most important thing for me is that James Bond movies do things that only James Bond movies can do. CR and QOS would not take much changing to be something else entirely, and there are significant stretches of SF and SP where you could say the same, moreso Skyfall.

    Casino Royale is note for not From fleming if there is a movie that is pure James bond this is it.. I am curious to hear What makes Spectre more James Bond in your mind

    Well, like being ballsy enough to have the ejector seat and Spectre meeting, for example. And a crater base and so on.

    Casino Royale is Fleming in the sense that there's a card game and torture scene between Bond and Le Chiffre in the second act, but the characterization of Bond has nothing to do with Fleming--blowing up an embassy, breaking into M's house, being a loose cannon disrespectful of institutions. The type of guy he is in the movie, especially the first third, is practically contra-Fleming, and his reaction to Vesper's death is likewise alien to what happened in the book.

    I was referring to Bond movies, and not Fleming, anyway, so none of that is a criticism of Casino Royale or the Craig era. Some of these films are among my absolute favorites.
  • Posts: 9,840
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Going forward, the most important thing for me is that James Bond movies do things that only James Bond movies can do. CR and QOS would not take much changing to be something else entirely, and there are significant stretches of SF and SP where you could say the same, moreso Skyfall.

    Casino Royale is note for not From fleming if there is a movie that is pure James bond this is it.. I am curious to hear What makes Spectre more James Bond in your mind

    Well, like being ballsy enough to have the ejector seat and Spectre meeting, for example. And a crater base and so on.

    Casino Royale is Fleming in the sense that there's a card game and torture scene between Bond and Le Chiffre in the second act, but the characterization of Bond has nothing to do with Fleming--blowing up an embassy, breaking into M's house, being a loose cannon disrespectful of institutions. The type of guy he is in the movie, especially the first third, is practically contra-Fleming, and his reaction to Vesper's death is likewise alien to what happened in the book.

    I was referring to Bond movies, and not Fleming, anyway, so none of that is a criticism of Casino Royale or the Craig era. Some of these films are among my absolute favorites.
    Bond aid the same line in the book Job is done and the well you know the rest
  • ProfJoeButcherProfJoeButcher Bless your heart
    Posts: 1,711
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Going forward, the most important thing for me is that James Bond movies do things that only James Bond movies can do. CR and QOS would not take much changing to be something else entirely, and there are significant stretches of SF and SP where you could say the same, moreso Skyfall.

    Casino Royale is note for not From fleming if there is a movie that is pure James bond this is it.. I am curious to hear What makes Spectre more James Bond in your mind

    Well, like being ballsy enough to have the ejector seat and Spectre meeting, for example. And a crater base and so on.

    Casino Royale is Fleming in the sense that there's a card game and torture scene between Bond and Le Chiffre in the second act, but the characterization of Bond has nothing to do with Fleming--blowing up an embassy, breaking into M's house, being a loose cannon disrespectful of institutions. The type of guy he is in the movie, especially the first third, is practically contra-Fleming, and his reaction to Vesper's death is likewise alien to what happened in the book.

    I was referring to Bond movies, and not Fleming, anyway, so none of that is a criticism of Casino Royale or the Craig era. Some of these films are among my absolute favorites.
    Bond aid the same line in the book Job is done and the well you know the rest

    "He saw her now only as a spy. Their love and his grief
    were relegated to the boxroom of his mind. Later,
    perhaps they would be dragged out, dispassionately
    examined, and then bitterly thrust back with other sen-
    timental baggage he would rather forget. Now he could
    only think of her treachery to the Service and to her
    country, and of the damage it had done. His
    professional mind was completely absorbed with the
    consequences — the covers which must have been blown
    over the years, the codes which the enemy must have
    broken, the secrets which must have leaked from the
    centre of the very section devoted to penetrating the
    Soviet Union."

    Quite different.

    But even if the James Bond of the Casino Royale film were remotely similar to Ian Fleming's creation, I'm really talking about the EON film franchise. I'd like to see future installments be a bit more like those.
  • It can only get better with the end of Craig and his tedious 16 year story arc. I hope to see a more normal fun film. Of course another awful choice may be made as Bond and the producers will work hard to come up with new strange concepts for the series.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,395
    It can only get better with the end of Craig and his tedious 16 year story arc. I hope to see a more normal fun film. Of course another awful choice may be made as Bond and the producers will work hard to come up with new strange concepts for the series.

    🙄
  • tqbtqb
    Posts: 1,022
    After watching the Becoming Bond documentary, it sounds like EON really doesn't know where they'll go next. I'm sure Amazon will be itching to get moving soon.
  • skropper13skropper13 United States
    Posts: 117
    It can only get better with the end of Craig and his tedious 16 year story arc. I hope to see a more normal fun film. Of course another awful choice may be made as Bond and the producers will work hard to come up with new strange concepts for the series.

    I really could not stand spectre and the attempt to mix a campy, tongue-in-cheek style bond with the craig era-rough, story driven drama bond. I truly thought this was one of the most forgettable films in the series. Whichever route they decide to go I hope it is tonally even and consistent throughout. I myself am a huge fan of the story driven, stripped down version of bond that we have seen a lot of through the craig years and hope they find a plan to keep that tone going forward.
  • Daniel Craig. My favourite Bond ever. Can't see anyone touching him but I guess they said that after Connery retired from the
  • skropper13 wrote: »
    It can only get better with the end of Craig and his tedious 16 year story arc. I hope to see a more normal fun film. Of course another awful choice may be made as Bond and the producers will work hard to come up with new strange concepts for the series.

    I really could not stand spectre and the attempt to mix a campy, tongue-in-cheek style bond with the craig era-rough, story driven drama bond. I truly thought this was one of the most forgettable films in the series. Whichever route they decide to go I hope it is tonally even and consistent throughout. I myself am a huge fan of the story driven, stripped down version of bond that we have seen a lot of through the craig years and hope they find a plan to keep that tone going forward.

    I think this is a fairly safe bet. The most successful 2 films in recent times, both financially and critically, are CR and SF, which incidentally try to go for Fleming in tone, or directly adapt straight from the books.

    I don't expect they will stray too far from this long proven winning formula any time soon, which is what the franchise was firmly built on. It looks like even NTTD is going to serve up some long overdue, and previously overlooked Fleming scenes from the novels.

    The films which tie in closer to the source material are usually deemed by most fans and critics alike to be the best films in the series (OHMSS, FRWL, GF, CR etc). If it ain't broke, there is nothing to fix.... ;)
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited September 2021 Posts: 16,211
    I think Skyfall edged closer to the film series in tone than its immediate predecessors: you've got stuff like the line of police motorcycles and the cheesy tube platform couple joke. It's taking the CR tone but adding some old school Bond film feel in there.

    The film series became really successful when it moved away from the books and became its own thing, bigger and crazier.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,224
    Agreed. GF is faithful to the story but is it faithful to the book's tone? But without GF's success at the box office, the next 22 films probably don't exist.
  • Posts: 16,105
    echo wrote: »
    Agreed. GF is faithful to the story but is it faithful to the book's tone? But without GF's success at the box office, the next 22 films probably don't exist.

    Good point. I somehow feel had GF not been the hit it was, the series would have remained small and ended either with Connery or when the Fleming novels ran out.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,211
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    Agreed. GF is faithful to the story but is it faithful to the book's tone? But without GF's success at the box office, the next 22 films probably don't exist.

    Good point. I somehow feel had GF not been the hit it was, the series would have remained small and ended either with Connery or when the Fleming novels ran out.

    Yes indeed, and I actually think that Thunderball was a bit of a misstep: although it was on a grand scale they took a bit of a backwards step from the glitzy campy madness of Goldfinger. There's no laser beam or guy throwing a steel hat: it's just fairly dull villains dressed in black doing quite ordinary things, stealing bombs. YOLT is the one that actually feels like it got the message from GF.
  • Posts: 16,105
    mtm wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    Agreed. GF is faithful to the story but is it faithful to the book's tone? But without GF's success at the box office, the next 22 films probably don't exist.

    Good point. I somehow feel had GF not been the hit it was, the series would have remained small and ended either with Connery or when the Fleming novels ran out.

    Yes indeed, and I actually think that Thunderball was a bit of a misstep: although it was on a grand scale they took a bit of a backwards step from the glitzy campy madness of Goldfinger. There's no laser beam or guy throwing a steel hat: it's just fairly dull villains dressed in black doing quite ordinary things, stealing bombs. YOLT is the one that actually feels like it got the message from GF.

    I really love TB, though. It is considerably slower paced and lacks the supervillain henchman and over the top sets. Still it feels very Fleming like (by way of Kevin McClory).
    YOLT takes things to the next level of fun. Same with DAF, really, which was specifically intended to capture the flavor of GF. A massive hit, though many fans today dismiss it as a sub par follow up to OHMSS.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,211
    I don't know if TB does feel very Fleming does it? Even the book doesn't really: there's not much in the way of twisted or mad or pervy stuff in there, it's all pretty straightforward.
  • Posts: 16,105
    mtm wrote: »
    I don't know if TB does feel very Fleming does it? Even the book doesn't really: there's not much in the way of twisted or mad or pervy stuff in there, it's all pretty straightforward.

    I think the book feels fairly Fleming, almost transitional before we get into TSWLM, OHMSS and YOLT, all which really take risks.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,224
    Yes, Fleming really hit his stride--again--toward the end. I can't fault him for TMWTGG.

    But CR-MR are very solid, as are FRWL-DN.

    He had a lot more hits than misses of the 14.
  • mtm wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    Agreed. GF is faithful to the story but is it faithful to the book's tone? But without GF's success at the box office, the next 22 films probably don't exist.

    Good point. I somehow feel had GF not been the hit it was, the series would have remained small and ended either with Connery or when the Fleming novels ran out.

    Yes indeed, and I actually think that Thunderball was a bit of a misstep: although it was on a grand scale they took a bit of a backwards step from the glitzy campy madness of Goldfinger. There's no laser beam or guy throwing a steel hat: it's just fairly dull villains dressed in black doing quite ordinary things, stealing bombs. YOLT is the one that actually feels like it got the message from GF.

    Yet the film that followed YOLT is the one that is now deemed the more superior classic, even with a one-hit wonder in the role. DAF also followed the GF trend yet I doubt that is deemed as high in the popular rankings as FRWL, for example. If anything DAF usually ranks towards the bottom.
    mtm wrote: »
    I think Skyfall edged closer to the film series in tone than its immediate predecessors: you've got stuff like the line of police motorcycles and the cheesy tube platform couple joke. It's taking the CR tone but adding some old school Bond film feel in there.

    The film series became really successful when it moved away from the books and became its own thing, bigger and crazier.

    SF still feels like its trying to tap into Fleming though, even with the occasional cheesy nods to the film series.

    And yes, the film series hit its stride when it adapted GF as the Bond template - bigger and crazier, but this is still Fleming. The formula for success was written back then - a PTS at the beginning of the book (of sorts), larger-than-life-villains, bowler hat henchmen, fast car with gadgets (limited to a few in the book), outrageous criminal plan, Pussy Galore, 2 murdered Bond girls nearer the beginning, game of wits (in this case golf), etc.

    Its all there in GF. This was the template the series was built on, which is undeniably Fleming. The 2 films before this also followed Fleming, but they didn't hit the right notes for a successful template like GF did.

  • echo wrote: »
    Agreed. GF is faithful to the story but is it faithful to the book's tone? But without GF's success at the box office, the next 22 films probably don't exist.

    I think so. I would say GF is as accurate an adaptation of Fleming as say, FRWL or OHMSS.
  • mtm wrote: »
    I don't know if TB does feel very Fleming does it? Even the book doesn't really: there's not much in the way of twisted or mad or pervy stuff in there, it's all pretty straightforward.

    I've always felt TB was the weakest novel, even though it does give us SPECTRE and Blofeld (another template that movie Bond success was built on). Probably more down to Fleming being constrained to adapting a screenplay into a novel that had already been loosely penned out, and contributed by KM and JW.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,211
    mtm wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    Agreed. GF is faithful to the story but is it faithful to the book's tone? But without GF's success at the box office, the next 22 films probably don't exist.

    Good point. I somehow feel had GF not been the hit it was, the series would have remained small and ended either with Connery or when the Fleming novels ran out.

    Yes indeed, and I actually think that Thunderball was a bit of a misstep: although it was on a grand scale they took a bit of a backwards step from the glitzy campy madness of Goldfinger. There's no laser beam or guy throwing a steel hat: it's just fairly dull villains dressed in black doing quite ordinary things, stealing bombs. YOLT is the one that actually feels like it got the message from GF.

    Yet the film that followed YOLT is the one that is now deemed the more superior classic, even with a one-hit wonder in the role. DAF also followed the GF trend yet I doubt that is deemed as high in the popular rankings as FRWL, for example. If anything DAF usually ranks towards the bottom.

    Audiences didn’t really go for it though. It’s only seen as a favourite in retrospect.
    mtm wrote: »
    I think Skyfall edged closer to the film series in tone than its immediate predecessors: you've got stuff like the line of police motorcycles and the cheesy tube platform couple joke. It's taking the CR tone but adding some old school Bond film feel in there.

    The film series became really successful when it moved away from the books and became its own thing, bigger and crazier.

    SF still feels like its trying to tap into Fleming though, even with the occasional cheesy nods to the film series.

    Yeah, agreed; but a lot of the time it’s more of a balance with a trad Bond film than CR was.

    Its all there in GF. This was the template the series was built on, which is undeniably Fleming. The 2 films before this also followed Fleming, but they didn't hit the right notes for a successful template like GF did.

    The film adds a lot of flavour to the adaptation, it’s adding a feel that its two predecessors didn’t quite. People responded to that bigger, bolder feel.
    mtm wrote: »
    I don't know if TB does feel very Fleming does it? Even the book doesn't really: there's not much in the way of twisted or mad or pervy stuff in there, it's all pretty straightforward.

    I've always felt TB was the weakest novel, even though it does give us SPECTRE and Blofeld (another template that movie Bond success was built on). Probably more down to Fleming being constrained to adapting a screenplay into a novel that had already been loosely penned out, and contributed by KM and JW.

    Yeah exactly. There’s not much in the way of the twisted, uniquely Fleming ideas in there. Maybe the health farm, but otherwise any Man From Uncle villain could steal some bombs.
  • Posts: 3,333
    mtm wrote: »
    Audiences didn’t really go for it though. It’s only seen as a favourite in retrospect.
    It's always been a favourite of mine since I first saw it at a London cinema in '69. I take your point, but OHMSS was an international hit that just didn't happen to perform as well in the US market, therefore, it was deemed a bit of a failure. It was due to this American drop-off in ticket sales that prompted the producers to set the next Bond movie in the States (with or without Lazenby), hire another US writer and make it more US-centric. Whether you like DAF or not, the end result is a knee-jerk response at trying to placate the US market to the detriment of the overall series. A similar reponse happened with TLD.

    Again, this movie performed extremely well in the foreign markets, but less so in the US. And again, like OHMSS, TLD has been reevaluated by US fans retrospectively that didn't get it the first time round. Simple summation, it's only now seen as a favourite in retrospect by our American cousins across the Pond.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,224
    I knew TLD was an instant classic when I saw it in the US in 1987. After the moribund AVTAK and with a healthy dose of Fleming, it was a breath of fresh air.
  • edited September 2021 Posts: 1,220
    It’ll be interestng to see whether the direction of the series will direct the casting of the new actor or if they’ll find an actor and build a tone/direction around his style.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,641
    It’ll be interior see whether the direction of the series will direct the casting of the new actor or if they’ll find an actor and build a tone/direction around his style.

    I hadn't thought about it like that. That's a really interesting point mate
  • I would guess the latter because I think there’s a number of good directions they could take the series in but there probably aren’t many good candidates to play Bond, so it makes more sense to me to build it around the actor.
Sign In or Register to comment.