Where does Bond go after Craig?

1115116118120121688

Comments

  • Posts: 1,860
    There is a reason SPECTRE exists. EON needs them now more than ever.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    edited February 2022 Posts: 8,193
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    Aside from corrupt generals, the Russians have never been portrayed as anything other than rivals. Adversarial more than villainous. That’s why we always got Orlov, Koskov, Orumov. That’s why SPECTRE replaced SMERSH. Even the North Koreans got the same treatment in DAD.

    EON will never villainize governments/countries.

    Although they tend to make the American police force look like buffoons. I’m namely looking at you, Guy Hamilton and Tom Mankiewicz.

    That’s very different. It’s more a riff on Keystone Cops than anything else, and many films beyond Bond play up that trope.

    For example, the CIA is never portrayed as villainous, but it does feature a corrupt buffoon like Gregory Beam who uses special forces to target Bond and in the end loses his job while Felix gets a promotion.
  • slide_99 wrote: »
    Bond movies shouldn't be too topical. That's how you get TLD, where yesterday's heroes are today's villains, and the whole movie suffers as a result.

    Who are today's villains in TLD?

    That was referring to the Mujahidin as freedom fighters against the Soviets in the 80s. Rambo III did it, too.

    Seen differently through 21st Century specs.

    y6psxuxgq17z.jpg?auto=webp&s=17439e0863408814734482f4cc9bf7f233bba2ad

    Only some of the Mujahidin became today's enemies, not all.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,335
    Aside from corrupt generals, the Russians have never been portrayed as anything other than rivals. Adversarial more than villainous. That’s why we always got Orlov, Koskov, Orumov. That’s why SPECTRE replaced SMERSH. Even the North Koreans got the same treatment in DAD.

    EON will never villainize governments/countries.

    Except for China.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    echo wrote: »
    Aside from corrupt generals, the Russians have never been portrayed as anything other than rivals. Adversarial more than villainous. That’s why we always got Orlov, Koskov, Orumov. That’s why SPECTRE replaced SMERSH. Even the North Koreans got the same treatment in DAD.

    EON will never villainize governments/countries.

    Except for China.

    And Isthmus.
  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    Posts: 1,351
    peter wrote: »

    Interesting (and of course ludicrous) that there is so much politics involved. It seemed to me that Warner/Discovery going through made it pretty clear that Amazon/MGM would also be done pretty soon, but apparently one has to wait on one committee confirming a commissioner who will then break a tie about whether this will be fought in court, where it is then a totally different question, whether the deal stands or not. Fun.
  • Are we still allowed to watch From Russia With Love? I might unofficially change the title to " To Ukraine with Love"
  • Posts: 1,635
    Sure ! Bond recognized the Russians in power. Whether SMERSH at work (book), or SPECTRE-infiltrated (film, just a few years after the book was published), he had no illusions or delusions. JFK included the book on a list of favorites, but that did not mean he loved the Soviets. Putin, by the way, was in the KGB from 1975 on. Not so very long after the film, or, for that matter, the book.
  • Posts: 16,182
    peter wrote: »

    I suppose this means yet another long gap between Bond films?
  • Since62 wrote: »
    Sure ! Bond recognized the Russians in power. Whether SMERSH at work (book), or SPECTRE-infiltrated (film, just a few years after the book was published), he had no illusions or delusions. JFK included the book on a list of favorites, but that did not mean he loved the Soviets. Putin, by the way, was in the KGB from 1975 on. Not so very long after the film, or, for that matter, the book.

    Putin is spitting image of Kronsteen!
  • Posts: 1,635
    I t-h-i-n-k it was on this particular page on which it was well noted that, as goes the Bat, so may go the Bond...in terms of tone and style. This would suggest an even more psych-intense Bond, which, to get there, would wind up (exaggerating to make point) with a Bond portrayal that leans way into the psycho-killer with Benzedrine in his champagne adrenaline junkie guy...actually, I doubt they'll show Bond using drugs that way. As for the rest, oof, I've advocated a change in tone, as well as predicted it, because they've just gone down that road for 5 films from 2006 on. Therefore, on balance, even though it appears The Bat will be a big hit, I think, perhaps, a break from the premise repeated at the top of this note.
  • Posts: 1,860
    Since62 wrote: »
    I t-h-i-n-k it was on this particular page on which it was well noted that, as goes the Bat, so may go the Bond...in terms of tone and style. This would suggest an even more psych-intense Bond, which, to get there, would wind up (exaggerating to make point) with a Bond portrayal that leans way into the psycho-killer with Benzedrine in his champagne adrenaline junkie guy...actually, I doubt they'll show Bond using drugs that way. As for the rest, oof, I've advocated a change in tone, as well as predicted it, because they've just gone down that road for 5 films from 2006 on. Therefore, on balance, even though it appears The Bat will be a big hit, I think, perhaps, a break from the premise repeated at the top of this note.

    Regardless of the recent trends I would guess that the very, very positive response to the Cuba sequence in NTTD will have an impact on Bond's next direction.
  • Posts: 1,635
    Great observation ! I expect we both still may enjoy the intensity of The Batman, and look forward to more great Bond movies, as well.
  • Posts: 2,008
    For me, each new Bond actor means a new series, unrelated to the storylines of previous Bonds. Of course the monkey wrench in the works is when supporting actors carry over. They provide a continuity that has never made sense. For example, Dench and Craig. As CR was a Bond origin story, did those events happen before Dench and Brosnan and then return to Dench and Craig and then Fiennes? And then there's Blofeld's eye. Did OHMSS take place before YOLT? You can make yourself crazy sorting it all out. Why bother? I won't argue with the talent of the writers, but I feel the series suffered after Maibaum. Where should the series go after DC? Carry over no one. Begin with a clean slate of actors. Because if anyone who was on hand for Bond's death leaves before the new series is completed, it won't make a bit sense to anyone hoping for a scrap of continuity. Don't emulate the latest box office smash. Ignore DC and Marvel, Star Wars, Fast & Furious, Indiana Jones (part whatever) and Mission Impossible. Bond doesn't need to wrestle with demons. He doesn't need to be dark and brooding. He can have a sense of humor without the silliness and the self-parody of the Moore era. Hopefully we can return to classic Bond. As Q says in NSNA, "Now you're on this, I hope we're going to have some gratuitous sex and violence." Bond replies, "I certainly hope so too."
  • Posts: 328
    People need to realise and accept that from Connery to Brosnan there was a loose continuity. With Craig, his era was an entirely separate and isolated from what came before. EoN are known for sacrificing what makes sense for artistic liberties which they did when they cast Dench as a different M to the version she played in the Brosnan era.
    I 100% agree that going forward for Bond 26 they should recast everyone. With the way NTTD ended it would be crazy and unacceptable if they carried over any of the core actors from Crzig's era.
  • Posts: 1,635
    Yes, verrrry loose. After Moore's term, for one thing, it no longer was feasible that the Bond on screen served in WWII. For that reason and a few others I think one could suggest that the original "loose continuity" terminated after Moore's films. That which provides a few threads to go past Moore, if I recall correctly, would be a few references to Bond having been married before, or, at least, in a significant personal relationship before. Those brief references were made only a couple times or so, with Dalton and with Brosnan. For me, at least, I just felt that so much time had passed, and yet the stories still being set in The Present Day - ie, not set in the 1960s - that I felt we were seeing a new, albeit consistent portrayal. When Connery left, and when Connery left again, I did not overthink it, and I think that was the intention of the producers. At some point, by age if nothing else, Connery was going to have to stop playing Bond on film -- though not necessarily with his voice ! Did I think that Lazenby's Bond had fought Doctor No and Rosa Klebb, and so on ? Even though he handled a few mementos in OHMSS when he stormed to his office to write a resignation letter - clearly telling the audience this fellow got the knife from Honey - though, of course, he did not and it remained in Doctor No's lair or just on the beach Bond and she were captured, if she still had it even by then - I just felt it was not a strict requirement. When Brosnan played with gadgets from earlier films, and with the same Q-actor, and remarked about "this being where the relics are kept" I did not think it meant Brosnan's Bond had used the jetpack. I did not think, either, that there was some "James Bond" before Brosnan's Bond. I know that makes no sense, but I really just felt it was an homage and a bit of humor. Considering how the Blofeld continuity was sidetracked by making YOLT before OHMSS, and just the changes overall, well, despite the mementos, it did not seem all neat and tied up in a bow. I did not think of it much. That was part of the charm of the independent stories. Sure, there were some returning characters, and some references, but it was not a thing tied down by strict rules. James Bond is a cool, handsome, capable secret agent. That has been enough at each change of actor.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,193
    Michael Wilson has already said for years that he views each Bond being in their own much like Craig’s, but that they share a similar history. Pierce Brosnan would not likely have married Tracy in 1969, but maybe he did in 1983. That’s just left to fans’ imaginations to work that out.

    I’ve said it before, but I can imagine for the next Bond his background would be an amalgamation of all previous films, with the exception of him dying. He might have had BOTH Vesper and Tracy. Blofeld could be in prison, or perhaps at large, or maybe even dead (which I doubt because I think EON will reserve him for later). The films don’t even have to necessarily acknowledge that. It can simply be inferred.
  • edited March 2022 Posts: 6,844
    Michael Wilson has already said for years that he views each Bond being in their own much like Craig’s, but that they share a similar history. Pierce Brosnan would not likely have married Tracy in 1969, but maybe he did in 1983. That’s just left to fans’ imaginations to work that out.

    I’ve said it before, but I can imagine for the next Bond his background would be an amalgamation of all previous films, with the exception of him dying. He might have had BOTH Vesper and Tracy. Blofeld could be in prison, or perhaps at large, or maybe even dead (which I doubt because I think EON will reserve him for later). The films don’t even have to necessarily acknowledge that. It can simply be inferred.

    As long as he's dropping his kid off at kindergarten before he leaves for missions, this works for me.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,193
    Out of sight, out of mind. ;)
  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    Posts: 1,351
    Since62 wrote: »
    I t-h-i-n-k it was on this particular page on which it was well noted that, as goes the Bat, so may go the Bond...in terms of tone and style. This would suggest an even more psych-intense Bond, which, to get there, would wind up (exaggerating to make point) with a Bond portrayal that leans way into the psycho-killer with Benzedrine in his champagne adrenaline junkie guy...actually, I doubt they'll show Bond using drugs that way. As for the rest, oof, I've advocated a change in tone, as well as predicted it, because they've just gone down that road for 5 films from 2006 on. Therefore, on balance, even though it appears The Bat will be a big hit, I think, perhaps, a break from the premise repeated at the top of this note.

    I've long said I want to see the "Benzos in Champagne"-version of Bond, but now that you equate it with this iteration of Batman - which I am wholly uninterested in - I'm slightly hesitant. I don't really need strung-out emo-BDSM Bond. My idea for that would have been more pop, colours, tempo, debauchery, not Pete Doherty. But as you said, they'd never show him using drugs as a helpful tool in the matter-of-fact way Fleming did (different times and all that). I'm not sure how exactly BBFC ratings work, but I would assume portraying drug use as useful to accomplish missions without any kind of come-down or negative effects is on their naughty list. And again, I don't really need to see Bond having a hangover or withdrawal symptoms...
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited March 2022 Posts: 3,154
    Craig himself once said 'I know we can’t have him having amphetamine and speed and doing all these things. But inside, I know I’m doing that.' So CraigBond was doing it all along - they just didn't film those bits... ;)
  • Posts: 1,635
    Venutius wrote: »
    Craig himself once said 'I know we can’t have him having amphetamine and speed and doing all these things. But inside, I know I’m doing that.' So CraigBond was doing it all along - they just didn't film those bits... ;)

    Ha ! As we know - with all movie characters - they gotta go to the bathroom, too, but - unless you're watching an early John Waters flick - we don't get that...actually Divine ate dog feces in Pink Flamingoes, and taking drugs is a choice unlike voiding one's waste (not a matter of choice) so I KNOOOOOWWWWW this analogy is stretched.

    What can be more problematic for some of us as audience members is how characters supposedly without much money get to live in spacious quarters in London, New York, etc...
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    Craig was chomping on some kind of meds in Skyfall; and looking at his humble abode on the beach, I assumed these pills didn't come from a pharmacy...
  • Posts: 1,635
    Well, he HAD been shot, so wouldn't he be more likely to take pain meds ? Oh, yeah, he was drinking like a fish. Not a great combo, so, yeah, he's drug-daring. Also, oh yeah, Double-Os don't have a long life expectancy...He was living in rustic style, too, so maybe some quinine pills mixed in there, though I think the idea - considering that on screen he'd been shot just moments before (in real time, longer, but for the audience, moments before) - was pain pills.
    Good heavens, who'd need pain pills after ingesting so much alcohol ? So, he may have been beyond need and into addiction or choice.
    So...while we're nearly on point...Should Bond have eaten the Scorpion ?
  • DoctorKaufmannDoctorKaufmann Can shoot you from Stuttgart and still make it look like suicide.
    Posts: 1,261
    The Boyle/Hodge script did feature a Russian villain and a new Cold War, didn't it. I would like to know more about it.
    And for me, there were always different Bonds: Connery-Bond, the one.off Lazenby-Bond, the Moore-Bond, Dalton-Bond, Brosnan-Bond, and Craig-Bond. Wirh Moore and Dalton there were refeences to Lazenby's Bond. But Brosnan had nothing in common with his predecessors. With Craig, we ssw him on his first mission, and then on his last one, in which he dies. I don't have any problems with a new, younger actor portraying Bond.
  • LucknFateLucknFate 007 In New York
    Posts: 1,658
    The Boyle/Hodge script did feature a Russian villain and a new Cold War, didn't it. I would like to know more about it.
    And for me, there were always different Bonds: Connery-Bond, the one.off Lazenby-Bond, the Moore-Bond, Dalton-Bond, Brosnan-Bond, and Craig-Bond. Wirh Moore and Dalton there were refeences to Lazenby's Bond. But Brosnan had nothing in common with his predecessors. With Craig, we ssw him on his first mission, and then on his last one, in which he dies. I don't have any problems with a new, younger actor portraying Bond.

    In hindsight, it's interesting that both Moore and Dalton played into Connery continuity, as Eon was very openly worried about both actors not being accepted by audiences, hence the constant reminders that it's the same guy.

    Continuity in the Bond franchise likely just comes down to how confident they are audiences will accept their actor.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    @Since62 i always thought he was chomping on black market oxi…
  • Posts: 2,919
    LucknFate wrote: »
    Continuity in the Bond franchise likely just comes down to how confident they are audiences will accept their actor.

    I think back then it was also based on the feeling that the role was bigger than any actor playing it. And 30+ years ago audiences weren't so familiar with the concept of "reboots" and cared less about strict continuity. Now people do because franchises keep rebooting and strictly demarcating their continuities, as in comic book films where Marvel maintains a tight sprawling continuity and DC keeps restarting theirs with characters like Batman.
  • Posts: 1,860
    A new interview with Broccoli/Wilson indicates that they are looking for a multi film deal with the next Bond actor. Will each be a stand alone or will they be chapters of a larger arch? Which would you prefer?
Sign In or Register to comment.