Where does Bond go after Craig?

1104105107109110482

Comments

  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,792
    Since62 wrote: »
    Telly Savalas played a great Blofeld ! Robust, big appetites, self-centered, credible !

    Yes he's the best for my money. He's charismatic, a bit scary and a proper presence. I know Pleasance is seen as the archetype by a lot of folk, and he does some very pleasing mad acting, but he's not really scary: he's just mad. Savalas feels like he really could hate you and make you hurt if he wanted to: he's dangerous.
  • Posts: 1,536
    Yes ! Savalas's Blofeld, unlike Pleasance's Blofeld, had no large, physically imposing, dangerous primary henchman. He had Irma Bunt for some of that ya-gotta-be-sick-to-do-it stuff, and he had a bunch of tough guys, but no Grant/Oddjob/Vargas/generic Nordic big guy (YOLT - even on IMDB I cannot find the actor !). Why not ? He was ready for it himself !
  • Exactly. Maybe Tarantino can make his Brosnan Voice-Over Casino Royale film with CGI.

    Oh no..please no.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 3,960
    mtm wrote: »
    Since62 wrote: »
    Telly Savalas played a great Blofeld ! Robust, big appetites, self-centered, credible !

    Yes he's the best for my money. He's charismatic, a bit scary and a proper presence. I know Pleasance is seen as the archetype by a lot of folk, and he does some very pleasing mad acting, but he's not really scary: he's just mad. Savalas feels like he really could hate you and make you hurt if he wanted to: he's dangerous.
    Since62 wrote: »
    Yes ! Savalas's Blofeld, unlike Pleasance's Blofeld, had no large, physically imposing, dangerous primary henchman. He had Irma Bunt for some of that ya-gotta-be-sick-to-do-it stuff, and he had a bunch of tough guys, but no Grant/Oddjob/Vargas/generic Nordic big guy (YOLT - even on IMDB I cannot find the actor !). Why not ? He was ready for it himself !

    Yes, it’s a shame we never got Telly to come back. He should have been in DAF, he could have played the campy side.
  • Posts: 1,536
    Indeed, as by then they w-e-r-e going for more humor. In fact, he'd have helped make a fabulous scene out of the old Monty Python radio bit..."I see a penguin on the Telly !"
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 3,960
    I think we need to face the facts: since EON got the rights to Blofeld and SPECTRE back, we’ll be seeing them more often than not. They are Bond’s archenemies, rightfully.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,792
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Since62 wrote: »
    Telly Savalas played a great Blofeld ! Robust, big appetites, self-centered, credible !

    Yes he's the best for my money. He's charismatic, a bit scary and a proper presence. I know Pleasance is seen as the archetype by a lot of folk, and he does some very pleasing mad acting, but he's not really scary: he's just mad. Savalas feels like he really could hate you and make you hurt if he wanted to: he's dangerous.
    Since62 wrote: »
    Yes ! Savalas's Blofeld, unlike Pleasance's Blofeld, had no large, physically imposing, dangerous primary henchman. He had Irma Bunt for some of that ya-gotta-be-sick-to-do-it stuff, and he had a bunch of tough guys, but no Grant/Oddjob/Vargas/generic Nordic big guy (YOLT - even on IMDB I cannot find the actor !). Why not ? He was ready for it himself !

    Yes, it’s a shame we never got Telly to come back. He should have been in DAF, he could have played the campy side.

    Yes, he could have done it.
  • Posts: 1,678
    I, for one, look forward to a new incarnation of Spectre and Blofeld.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 7,955
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Since62 wrote: »
    Telly Savalas played a great Blofeld ! Robust, big appetites, self-centered, credible !

    Yes he's the best for my money. He's charismatic, a bit scary and a proper presence. I know Pleasance is seen as the archetype by a lot of folk, and he does some very pleasing mad acting, but he's not really scary: he's just mad. Savalas feels like he really could hate you and make you hurt if he wanted to: he's dangerous.
    Since62 wrote: »
    Yes ! Savalas's Blofeld, unlike Pleasance's Blofeld, had no large, physically imposing, dangerous primary henchman. He had Irma Bunt for some of that ya-gotta-be-sick-to-do-it stuff, and he had a bunch of tough guys, but no Grant/Oddjob/Vargas/generic Nordic big guy (YOLT - even on IMDB I cannot find the actor !). Why not ? He was ready for it himself !

    Yes, it’s a shame we never got Telly to come back. He should have been in DAF, he could have played the campy side.

    He actually was offered DAF, but he asked for more money, and Cubby was a sticker as usual.
  • Posts: 1,536
    Telly's Blofeld would have been quite fond of Tiffany !
  • He actually was offered DAF, but he asked for more money, and Cubby was a sticker as usual.

    I never knew that! That's really interesting, because if Telly was cast, then I bet the script would be a little more weighted towards a direct sequel to OHMSS.

  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 7,955
    He actually was offered DAF, but he asked for more money, and Cubby was a sticker as usual.

    I never knew that! That's really interesting, because if Telly was cast, then I bet the script would be a little more weighted towards a direct sequel to OHMSS.

    I doubt that, however, Mankiewicz would have certainly written the part to Telly’s strengths like he did for Gray.
  • Savalas and Connery... what a missed opportunity! I wonder how those would've gotten along on set - maybe they would've joined forces to strike some sense into the producers and the screenwriters.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 7,955
    Good luck getting Telly out of the casinos!
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,792
    Good luck getting Telly out of the casinos!

    Or dressing up as a lady.
  • I like the idea of younger Bond with father figure M like the first Kingsman movie.
  • BirdlesonBirdleson Moderator
    edited February 2022 Posts: 2,161
    I’d much rather go back to an M/Bond era of mutual respect and defined roles. We haven’t really had that since Dalton’s first. Since there’s either been suspicion, annoyance, maybe grudging admiration, substitute parent crap, outright dislike, whiny antagonism, and disastrous decisions.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 3,960
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I’d much rather go back to an M/Bond era of mutual respect and defined roles. We haven’t really had that since Dalton’s first. Since there’s either been suspicion, annoyance, maybe grudging admiration, substitute parent crap, outright dislike, whiny antagonism, and disastrous decisions.

    Hear hear!
  • BirdlesonBirdleson Moderator
    Posts: 2,161
    Regardless of what I’d like, they’re going to go young. They realize that they have not been attracting younger viewers, which for decades had been the foundation that would prop the franchise up through the lean times. They want a young Bond who will appeal to a young audience and will stay on for 10 plus years. I just hope they go for a relative unknown, hopefully no pretty boy. Roger and Pierce could pull it off in their ‘40s, but a younger Bond shouldn’t be so conventionally good looking.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 3,960
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Regardless of what I’d like, they’re going to go young. They realize that they have not been attracting younger viewers, which for decades had been the foundation that would prop the franchise up through the lean times. They want a young Bond who will appeal to a young audience and will stay on for 10 plus years. I just hope they go for a relative unknown, hopefully no pretty boy. Roger and Pierce could pull it off in their ‘40s, but a younger Bond shouldn’t be so conventionally good looking.

    I agree with your predictions.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,792
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I’d much rather go back to an M/Bond era of mutual respect and defined roles. We haven’t really had that since Dalton’s first. Since there’s either been suspicion, annoyance, maybe grudging admiration, substitute parent crap, outright dislike, whiny antagonism, and disastrous decisions.

    In Dalton’s first, Bond disobeys direct orders twice and disregards what M tells him (three times if you include the hamper! :) ), and M threatens to replace him with 008.
    The ‘crap’ you talk of is just part of how their relationship works.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    edited February 2022 Posts: 13,844
    mtm wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I’d much rather go back to an M/Bond era of mutual respect and defined roles. We haven’t really had that since Dalton’s first. Since there’s either been suspicion, annoyance, maybe grudging admiration, substitute parent crap, outright dislike, whiny antagonism, and disastrous decisions.

    In Dalton’s first, Bond disobeys direct orders twice and disregards what M tells him (three times if you include the hamper! :) ), and M threatens to replace him with 008.

    Dalton:Bond was an experienced enough agent to make a (correct) judgement call, both times. If he hadn’t, he would have killed an innocent civilian! As for the hamper, hardly an order. We might as well criticise Bond for all the times when he checked in at a fancy hotel, rather than a lower class (less expensive) establishment.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited February 2022 Posts: 14,792
    mtm wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I’d much rather go back to an M/Bond era of mutual respect and defined roles. We haven’t really had that since Dalton’s first. Since there’s either been suspicion, annoyance, maybe grudging admiration, substitute parent crap, outright dislike, whiny antagonism, and disastrous decisions.

    In Dalton’s first, Bond disobeys direct orders twice and disregards what M tells him (three times if you include the hamper! :) ), and M threatens to replace him with 008.

    Dalton:Bond was an experienced enough agent to make a (correct) judgement call, both times. If he hadn’t, he would have killed an innocent civilian! As for the hamper, hardly an order. We might as well criticise Bond for all the times when he checked in at a fancy hotel, rather than a lower class (less expensive) establishment.
    All of the Bonds are experienced enough to make judgement calls: that’s why they have a licence to kill. If it’s fine for him, it’s fine for all of them. You ignored the Pushkin order; the hamper was a joke, that’s why I didn’t count it and put a smilie after it. But what we’re talking about is how relationship between Bond and M is usually fractious, even in films held up as examples where it’s perfect.
    In fact I’d say Brown’s M actually got the relationship wrong: he’s only ever annoyed or exasperated with Bond, he never shows the glimmer of respect or warmth that he really should do.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,844
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I’d much rather go back to an M/Bond era of mutual respect and defined roles. We haven’t really had that since Dalton’s first. Since there’s either been suspicion, annoyance, maybe grudging admiration, substitute parent crap, outright dislike, whiny antagonism, and disastrous decisions.

    In Dalton’s first, Bond disobeys direct orders twice and disregards what M tells him (three times if you include the hamper! :) ), and M threatens to replace him with 008.

    Dalton:Bond was an experienced enough agent to make a (correct) judgement call, both times. If he hadn’t, he would have killed an innocent civilian! As for the hamper, hardly an order. We might as well criticise Bond for all the times when he checked in at a fancy hotel, rather than a lower class (less expensive) establishment.
    All of the Bonds are experienced enough to make judgement calls: that’s why they have a licence to kill. If it’s fine for him, it’s fine for all of them. You ignored the Pushkin order.

    No, I didn’t. What were the two examples you were thinking about when you said that Bond disobeys a direct order twice? Pushkin was a judgement call from an experienced agent, and he was right.

    Also, no, they haven’t all been portrayals of Bond as an experienced agentt. Craig:Bond was a rookie in both CR and QOS, and how many times does he rebel against M in CR alone?
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited February 2022 Posts: 14,792
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I’d much rather go back to an M/Bond era of mutual respect and defined roles. We haven’t really had that since Dalton’s first. Since there’s either been suspicion, annoyance, maybe grudging admiration, substitute parent crap, outright dislike, whiny antagonism, and disastrous decisions.

    In Dalton’s first, Bond disobeys direct orders twice and disregards what M tells him (three times if you include the hamper! :) ), and M threatens to replace him with 008.

    Dalton:Bond was an experienced enough agent to make a (correct) judgement call, both times. If he hadn’t, he would have killed an innocent civilian! As for the hamper, hardly an order. We might as well criticise Bond for all the times when he checked in at a fancy hotel, rather than a lower class (less expensive) establishment.
    All of the Bonds are experienced enough to make judgement calls: that’s why they have a licence to kill. If it’s fine for him, it’s fine for all of them. You ignored the Pushkin order.

    No, I didn’t. What were the two examples you were thinking about when you said that Bond disobeys a direct order twice? Pushkin was a judgement call from an experienced agent, and he was right.

    Kill the sniper, kill Pushkin. I'm not saying he wasn't right- we're not talking about Bond's ability; the conversation is about Bond and M's relationship supposedly being one without antagonism and being full of mutual respect in that film. Bond thinks M is wrong, says so to his face (he also says he'll be happy if M fires him behind his back), and takes the job from M having no intention of obeying orders. The idea that all is smooth between them in that film clearly isn't true.
    As I said, the hamper was a joke, which is why I didn't count it as one of the two and put a smilie after it.
    Also, no, they haven’t all been portrayals of Bond as an experienced agentt. Craig:Bond was a rookie in both CR and QOS, and how many times does he rebel against M in CR alone?

    All double Os are respected enough to make their own judgement calls, that's literally what a licence to kill is. Bond in CR is not on his first day as a spy, that's what all the "take your hand away from your ear" stuff is there to show us. Bond made judgement calls in CR just like he made them in TLD: his relationship with M is very similar- better in fact as she shows some respect for him, more like Fleming's M.
  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    Posts: 1,350
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Regardless of what I’d like, they’re going to go young. They realize that they have not been attracting younger viewers, which for decades had been the foundation that would prop the franchise up through the lean times. They want a young Bond who will appeal to a young audience and will stay on for 10 plus years. I just hope they go for a relative unknown, hopefully no pretty boy. Roger and Pierce could pull it off in their ‘40s, but a younger Bond shouldn’t be so conventionally good looking.

    Just wait for them to cast Harry Styles and see this place explode. That would certainly bring in the kids >:)
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 2,857
    Agreed. CraigBond's also ex-SBS, so he's used to decentralised command where he's using his own initiative to achieve objectives, not blindly following orders as directed from above. That's why I was glad they removed the bit in the SP script where M told Bond 'You go where I tell you. You sleep when I tell you. Eat when I tell you. Sh*t when I tell you', etc - because it didn't ring true at all: Mallory's ex-SAS and he wouldn't have that rigid regular army mentality either. There'll be occasional conflicts, but you don't micro-manage men of Bond's calibre - you give them the target and let them have at it.
  • Posts: 1,964
    I think its time we go back to fantasy Bond films again. They have been missed.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,844
    Venutius wrote: »
    Agreed. CraigBond's also ex-SBS, so he's used to decentralised command where he's using his own initiative to achieve objectives, not blindly following orders as directed from above. That's why I was glad they removed the bit in the SP script where M told Bond 'You go where I tell you. You sleep when I tell you. Eat when I tell you. Sh*t when I tell you', etc - because it didn't ring true at all: Mallory's ex-SAS and he wouldn't have that rigid regular army mentality either. There'll be occasional conflicts, but you don't micro-manage men of Bond's calibre - you give them the target and let them have at it.

    I’ll concede that Craig:Bond looks like he might have served in the SBS. But so can’t imagine that with his disregard for authority, that he was not only have made it into the SBS, but also be drafted into the 00 section.

    The sticking point for me, is that Bond, in CR is written as a younger person, and maybe not necessarily former SBS. Then to cast an actor nearing 40, to play this wet behind the ears, former SBS, rookie 00... it feels off.
  • Someone mentioned in a thread somewhere about Bond possibly tracking a serial killer which was an interesting idea but not one I liked personally. However, a slightly different play on that could be interesting.

    A re-take on Scaramanga, with different name, executing 00 agents one by one could make a great film. Determined to prove he is the ultimate assassin whilst being payed "X amount of dollars" by a crime organisation/rich baddie for his work.

    Bond would be the hunted and the hunter throughout the film. If they casted it well, it could be great.
Sign In or Register to comment.