Where does Bond go after Craig?

1135136138140141228

Comments

  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    edited April 2022 Posts: 3,040
    I see the behind the scenes crew shaking up a bit, akin to LTK in 1989. I think MGW will be a presenter, like Cubby for GE. Barbara will do his senior position, and Gregg Wilson will be made a full on producer. I agree that Purvis and Wade needed to go in general as the writing is becoming clear who’s writing what. That’s my one wish for DC’s time as Bond: he deserved a screenplay with no input from them. Not everything was their fault, but there are more deserving and talented writers who could do better. I also agree that no Bond actor should have as much creative control as Craig (or Moore to a lesser degree) did. I actually feel bad for SC and PB as EON could have respected and listened to them a bit more. Start hiring action directors, not arthouse ones, who are hired based on your personal basis towards your lead actor (Marc Forster). As for leading villains, character actors work better than Oscar winners. Two rare expectations were CW and JB. One last thing EON needs to change is their surprise comeback characters: just tell us who they are! Don’t write an entire screenplay hiding their identity when even blind James Bond fans could see it coming! EON has a bigger change needed than they realize.
  • Posts: 1,176
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    I see the behind the scenes crew shaking up a bit, akin to LTK in 1989. I think MGW will be a presenter, like Cubby for GE. Barbara will do his senior position, and Gregg Wilson will be made a full on producer. I agree that Purvis and Wade needed to go in general as the writing is becoming clear who’s writing what. That’s my one wish for DC’s time as Bond: he deserved a screenplay with no input from them. Not everything was their fault, but there are more deserving and talented writers who could do better. I also agree that no Bond actor should have as much creative control as Craig (or Moore to a lesser degree) did. I actually feel bad for SC and PB as EON could have respected and listened to them a bit more. Start hiring action directors, not arthouse ones, who are hired based on your personal basis towards your lead actor (Marc Forster). As for leading villains, character actors work better than Oscar winners. Two rare expectations were CW and JB. One last thing EON needs to change is their surprise comeback characters: just tell us who they are! Don’t write an entire screenplay hiding their identity when even blind James Bond fans could see it coming! EON has a bigger change needed than they realize.

    Yep.Purvis and Wade need to go as they have been there far too long.I know money talks but surely Babs and MGW realise how poor their writing is ( anyone reading the DAD screenplay would know that ).

  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited April 2022 Posts: 1,855
    Wasn't it Craig who pounced with an enthusiastic 'Yes!' when Mads' name came up merely as a suggestion for CR? I think he'd seen him in Pusher or the sequel and had been well-impressed. Craig was also fairly instrumental in getting Eva Green cast as Vesper, by all accounts. I think we were well served by Craig's input into such decisions, tbh.
  • Posts: 1,413
    I still wonder if Craig will come on as a producer after he gets done with his run on his EON produced Broadway show.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 3,040
    delfloria wrote: »
    I still wonder if Craig will come on as a producer after he gets done with his run on his EON produced Broadway show.

    It would probably be better if he didn’t. Especially since most of us want to move forward from certain people and things from his time.
  • edited April 2022 Posts: 2,898
    peter wrote: »
    @AstonLotus ...Craig announced in 2017 he was coming back for Bond. This was approximately one year and nine months after Spectre's release.

    They would not have had another film out with a new actor at that point (and I doubt they would have had a new actor in place either).

    And this announcement wasn't the first time BB heard of his return. She knew it was locked weeks prior to this.

    The main delay of NTTD was the dismissal of Boyle and Hodge and starting a film production almost from scratch-- starting with a page one rewrite of P&W's draft-- and then a worldwide pandemic struck...

    Please stop trying to change history to fit your narrative.

    You generally dislike most of this era, and you believe BB is a ditzy schoolgirl. But this, and your comment above, shows you going to extreme lengths to paint these two in a bad light.

    Better to just be honest about it rather than re-writing history.

    There is a general feel that Babs pulled out all the stops for Craig though, desperate to bring him back for the next one at any cost, gave him a lot of creative control, had his say in who was hired, etc.

    Nothing wrong with this per se, as it seems standard practice in Hollywood franchises these days. Cruise has a lot of say in the MI films, for example.

    I just feel had Craig been more like Dalton, in terms of making the right noises in wanting to go back to the novels as much as possible, I would have been on board more with the creative decisions that were made during the Craig era. It felt to me that Craig was wanting to push for a more human Bond (which is good in my book), but not necessarily because it tied in with Fleming - really just because as an actor he wanted to portray a more human being.

    This led to seeing the demise of the character of Bond in every way possible - retiring him as a sad lonely man, stripping him of the woman he loved, killing M before his eyes, giving him a child that he will never be able to grow old with, and ultimately killing him off.
  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    Posts: 1,205
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Not that it would ever happen, but one thing I thought about is a shorter, small-scale film with Craig as a NTTD prequel, with random unconnected misadventures of his while in Jamaica. Like a Fleming short story collection.

    Like even TSWLM perhaps? Released on YT, or something similar.

    I've recently thought they should go the other way with it and do a one-man play (or maybe one other character to bounce off of) about the 5 years Craig-Bond spends in Jamaica during NTTD. Reconning with all that's happened in the last 10 years.
    Or have Jez Butterworth or Peter Morgan or John Hodge or John Logan or whomever to write an original play about Old Bond and try to get Brosnan, Dalton, Lazenby and Craig to alternate in the role. Could become a fun little thing where after your film run as Bond you get to do the Final Play, or something. never going to happen, of course.
  • Posts: 734
    There is a general feel that Babs pulled out all the stops for Craig though, desperate to bring him back for the next one at any cost, gave him a lot of creative control, had his say in who was hired, etc.

    I think this is pretty obvious to everyone. Because of Craig's 'creative control', NTTD was what it was.
  • edited April 2022 Posts: 1,314
    All this talk of following The Batman depresses me too.

    I’m wondering when and if we’re going to see a more general return to fun escapism in popcorn entertainment rather than nihilism and dystopia. The 80s were a high watermark of entertainment that made you feel good. Maybe I’m being nostalgic but those classic films from that era were so “punch the air”. Heroes were heroic. Plots were intelligent but lean and focussed. Concepts were clear. Stories were unambiguous.

    How many of us pretended to be luke Skywalker, or Indiana Jones, or bond at playtime. Which kids (or adults) wants to be Craig bond?

    I think a long term plan is required to secure the long term future of the franchise
  • edited April 2022 Posts: 1,268
    Matt007 wrote: »
    All this talk of following The Batman depresses me too.

    I’m wondering when and if we’re going to see a more general return to fun escapism in popcorn entertainment rather than nihilism and dystopia. The 80s were a high watermark of entertainment that made you feel good. Maybe I’m being nostalgic but those classic films from that era were so “punch the air”. Heroes were heroic. Plots were intelligent but lean and focussed. Concepts were clear. Stories were unambiguous.

    How many of us pretended to be luke Skywalker, or Indiana Jones, or bond at playtime. Which kids (or adults) wants to be Craig bond?

    I think a long term plan is required to secure the long term future of the franchise

    Do you think The Batman was nihilistic and dystopian though? It's a dark film, but pretty self-consciously optimistic (especially compared to some of the ideas of the Nolan films).

    I get what you mean though. The issue is we don't live in a world where characters like Bond are seen as unambiguously good as they used to be, as is the case with Batman. To be entirely fair, both do have shades of moral ambiguity and Bond is and always has been an anti-hero. There's also just not that same sense of optimism within the world/politics which permeated a lot of 80s action/escapist films.

    I'd say kids still want to be like Bond and Batman though. They can also still do 'fun' in Bond, and I suspect they'll strive for that and something slightly more fantastical in the next one, however low key. But I think that sense of darkness and a sense of moral ambiguity, however emphasised, is here to stay for now as it is in a lot of other films.
  • Posts: 2,898
    Matt007 wrote: »
    All this talk of following The Batman depresses me too.

    I’m wondering when and if we’re going to see a more general return to fun escapism in popcorn entertainment rather than nihilism and dystopia. The 80s were a high watermark of entertainment that made you feel good. Maybe I’m being nostalgic but those classic films from that era were so “punch the air”. Heroes were heroic. Plots were intelligent but lean and focussed. Concepts were clear. Stories were unambiguous.

    How many of us pretended to be luke Skywalker, or Indiana Jones, or bond at playtime. Which kids (or adults) wants to be Craig bond?

    I think a long term plan is required to secure the long term future of the franchise

    The one key thing about all the Cubby Bond's (except OHMSS) is that they end on a very positive note, in the 70's and 80's particularly. The likes of TSWLM, FYEO and OP really have a feelgood effect when the end credits roll. You leave the cinema `on an all time high'. The same could be said with the Brosnan era too.

    The Craig era sees Bond more as a flawed character, less of a hero, and less of the guy you want to mimic in the street, which is more in line with keeping to the books.

    CR ends on a positive note (despite Vesper's death), QoS not so much. SF also ends on a positive note (despite M's death), as does SP. The less said about the ending to NTTD the better.... ;)

    But yes, current trends focus more on making heroes tragic flawed figures that you wouldn't necessarily want to be, and Bond is no exception.
  • edited April 2022 Posts: 1,314
    But by and large the marvel franchise avoids the dark and depressive vibe from the dc universe, or what I’ve seen of it.

    It seems to me the two things film execs and fans get wet about us “dark and emotional” rather than “escapist and entertaining”.

    I get that that’s just a trend, but part of me yearns for a return to a time when the movies were a two hour escape from the mundanity of life, rather than an allegory for everything that’s bad in the world.

    I mean Picard for example. I didn’t even finish the first series. The star trek I like represents the potential best future for humans. We’ve moved beyond trivial things. Every single character on Picard has some emotional flaw or dark secret. It’s wearing as it’s nothing new anymore.
  • edited April 2022 Posts: 12,724
    Matt007 wrote: »
    All this talk of following The Batman depresses me too.

    I’m wondering when and if we’re going to see a more general return to fun escapism in popcorn entertainment rather than nihilism and dystopia. The 80s were a high watermark of entertainment that made you feel good. Maybe I’m being nostalgic but those classic films from that era were so “punch the air”. Heroes were heroic. Plots were intelligent but lean and focussed. Concepts were clear. Stories were unambiguous.

    How many of us pretended to be luke Skywalker, or Indiana Jones, or bond at playtime. Which kids (or adults) wants to be Craig bond?

    I think a long term plan is required to secure the long term future of the franchise

    I don’t know if kids think that deeply into it to be honest, I think they just want to watch a cool action film. I used to love pretending to be Rambo after I’d seen First Blood for the first time, and he was a depressed PTSD riddled wreck in that film. I also didn’t think it was the end of the world when Robin Hood died in the old ITV series, so I can’t imagine kids are that cut up about Bond’s death either. Especially kids today, who will have grown up with reboots and all that.

    I reckon the franchise will be fine, and I think there’s plenty of variety in the tone of blockbusters at the minute. Some darker ones, some funnier ones. Bond has been doing well with a nice mix of both, getting more gadget and gag heavy again without ditching the character drama. I was sick of the gritty reboot trend too after a while, but I think we’re way past that now.
  • MI6HQMI6HQ Vauxhall Headquarters, London
    Posts: 1,888
    Would the people accept the endings of the novels of From Russia With Love or You Only Live Twice? Had it been filmed?

    Will the people criticize it? I bet no one would criticize it because the people will keep on reasoning that the ending came from Fleming right? Think of OHMSS.

    So if the ending of NTTD came from Fleming, would they criticize it?
  • edited April 2022 Posts: 1,268
    Can't stand some of the Marvel films - ugly looking movies too. Picard was garbage as well though.

    I'm sure the Bond series can learn to balance tone in a way which works. I harp on about it a lot but the Cuba scenes from NTTD are generally seen as 'fun and escapist' but it also has some quite dark, even horrific moments. Can we not have something similarly outlandish but with dark moments - something generally escapist but ultimately low key with high stakes and interesting characters/premises? Not saying I want the film to be a romp going from set piece to set piece (that's not James Bond) but just something true to the spirit of that with a solid story at the centre. As vague as it sounds I think there's something they can take out of that going forward.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 6,523
    Matt007 wrote: »

    I think a long term plan is required to secure the long term future of the franchise

    You're talking about a multi-billion dollar series that is coming off the most successful era since the 60s, and; Amazon gave up an arm and a leg to have a piece of the Bond films.

    You may not have enjoyed Craig and/or the majority of his output as Bond, but I think EoN is doing A-OK as filmmakers, they're highly respected in the business and the worldwide audience continue to enjoy the films, especially the era which recently came to a close.

  • edited April 2022 Posts: 734
    MI6HQ wrote: »
    So if the ending of NTTD came from Fleming, would they criticize it?

    If Fleming wrote Bond's death, (which he never did, despite the FRWL ending), then it would surely have been the last Bond book. And even if he wrote further adventures after Bond's literary death, they'd have been placed in a time before Bond's death. This is because Fleming took care in the chronology of his character. Like all good writers.
    So, if Fleming wrote Bond's death, it would have made sense in the narrative.
    CraigBond's death doesn't make sense, because we're being asked to accept that although Bond is dead, he's not dead. He'll be back in an alternate universe, as a different character, but still the same character.
    That fudging and back-peddling of the whole fictional cinematic incarnation of James Bond is something I'm pretty damn sure Ian Fleming wouldn't never in a million years tried to do in his books.
    Like all good writers, he had an obligation to the reader. His books, however outlandish, had to make sense in that way, otherwise the reader would feel cheated.

  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 5,201
    Fleming wrote for money, which is why various books were sold to different production companies, not to mention the teleplays that became the short stories.

    I doubt Fleming would ever have officially killed off Bond (if he had he would have done it in TMWTGG), because it would have been bad for business, in his eyes.
  • edited April 2022 Posts: 734
    Who knows? For years it was written he wanted to kill Bond off at the end of the 5th novel, but I'm not so sure. In his letters there's one from December '57 where, when asked about Bond's probable death, he writes "how faithless my readers are. Surely they should assume that if James Bond were to die, it would not be as a result of a kick in the shin". Which I rather like.
    I don't think he was against killing Bond as an idea, and had Fleming lived, we may well have had a great final Bond adventure. And Bond's demise would have been quite appropriate, at the hands of his creator.
    Much better that, than at the whim of an actor.
  • Posts: 12,724
    CraigBond's death doesn't make sense, because we're being asked to accept that although Bond is dead, he's not dead. He'll be back in an alternate universe, as a different character, but still the same character.

    Craig’s Bond is dead, but they’re not going to stop making Bond films, so the character will return in a new reinterpretation of the old legend. Because that’s what Bond is now. A modern day myth. I don’t think it’s been a chronological series for a long, long time now.
  • Posts: 734
    Craig’s Bond is dead, but they’re not going to stop making Bond films, so the character will return in a new reinterpretation of the old legend. Because that’s what Bond is now. A modern day myth.

    Like King Arthur then. That all sounds lovely.

  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 6,523
    There's just no nuance: the whim of an actor, and all of that... In the end @ColonelAdamski ... The death of Bond was just an idea they decided to collectively agree upon... You do realize that this creative decision could have been declined from the studio's who have to sell the film, right? This wasn't just the whim of an actor, but the entire team was on board.

    And guess what? Generally the world wide box office responded positively, so they made the right decision and the film was a success.

    Thank god EoN et al stretched their creative legs and didn't give us the "same old, same old"...
  • Posts: 12,724
    Craig’s Bond is dead, but they’re not going to stop making Bond films, so the character will return in a new reinterpretation of the old legend. Because that’s what Bond is now. A modern day myth.

    Like King Arthur then. That all sounds lovely.

    The modern day equivalent yeah. A long lasting pop culture icon who thrives off reinvention and reinterpretation.
  • edited April 2022 Posts: 2,898
    MI6HQ wrote: »
    Would the people accept the endings of the novels of From Russia With Love or You Only Live Twice? Had it been filmed?

    Will the people criticize it? I bet no one would criticize it because the people will keep on reasoning that the ending came from Fleming right? Think of OHMSS.

    So if the ending of NTTD came from Fleming, would they criticize it?

    In a word - no. Strange as it may sound, having Bond die, but penned by Fleming would be the only way I could ever accept it.
  • Posts: 734
    peter wrote: »
    There's just no nuance: the whim of an actor, and all of that... In the end @ColonelAdamski ... The death of Bond was just an idea they decided to collectively agree upon... You do realize that this creative decision could have been declined from the studio's who have to sell the film, right? This wasn't just the whim of an actor, but the entire team was on board.

    Craig said he asked "can I kill him off?". Which made me think it came from him. That, coupled with the director saying the death was a 'given' even before the script was written, makes me think there's a distinct possibility the 'blame' for CraigBond's death, lies largely with Craig. If I'm wrong about this, I'm sorry. But from what little I've read, the death was part of the deal with Craig coming back. Sure, the team had to go along with it, otherwise the film wouldn't have been made.
    I can't be just me that thinks as long as the series has Ian Fleming's James Bond at the start of the movie, there's a bit of responsibility to keep to the one character, and killing him off is a little, dare I say . . . . disrespectful?
    Fleming never killed him off, or Gardner, or Benson, or Sean or Harry or Cubby, or Roger (as if he ever would!), yet this far down the pike, after all those novels and movies, they all suddenly decide what a great idea it would be to kill him off?
    Creative decision, my arse. It's a gimmick.
  • Posts: 2,898
    peter wrote: »
    There's just no nuance: the whim of an actor, and all of that... In the end @ColonelAdamski ... The death of Bond was just an idea they decided to collectively agree upon... You do realize that this creative decision could have been declined from the studio's who have to sell the film, right? This wasn't just the whim of an actor, but the entire team was on board.

    Craig said he asked "can I kill him off?". Which made me think it came from him. That, coupled with the director saying the death was a 'given' even before the script was written, makes me think there's a distinct possibility the 'blame' for CraigBond's death, lies largely with Craig. If I'm wrong about this, I'm sorry. But from what little I've read, the death was part of the deal with Craig coming back. Sure, the team had to go along with it, otherwise the film wouldn't have been made.
    I can't be just me that thinks as long as the series has Ian Fleming's James Bond at the start of the movie, there's a bit of responsibility to keep to the one character, and killing him off is a little, dare I say . . . . disrespectful?
    Fleming never killed him off, or Gardner, or Benson, or Sean or Harry or Cubby, or Roger (as if he ever would!), yet this far down the pike, after all those novels and movies, they all suddenly decide what a great idea it would be to kill him off?
    Creative decision, my arse. It's a gimmick.

    Spot on!
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 6,523
    peter wrote: »
    There's just no nuance: the whim of an actor, and all of that... In the end @ColonelAdamski ... The death of Bond was just an idea they decided to collectively agree upon... You do realize that this creative decision could have been declined from the studio's who have to sell the film, right? This wasn't just the whim of an actor, but the entire team was on board.

    Craig said he asked "can I kill him off?". Which made me think it came from him. That, coupled with the director saying the death was a 'given' even before the script was written, makes me think there's a distinct possibility the 'blame' for CraigBond's death, lies largely with Craig. If I'm wrong about this, I'm sorry. But from what little I've read, the death was part of the deal with Craig coming back. Sure, the team had to go along with it, otherwise the film wouldn't have been made.
    I can't be just me that thinks as long as the series has Ian Fleming's James Bond at the start of the movie, there's a bit of responsibility to keep to the one character, and killing him off is a little, dare I say . . . . disrespectful?
    Fleming never killed him off, or Gardner, or Benson, or Sean or Harry or Cubby, or Roger (as if he ever would!), yet this far down the pike, after all those novels and movies, they all suddenly decide what a great idea it would be to kill him off?
    Creative decision, my arse. It's a gimmick.

    If the death of James Bond was not viable and not something the studio thought would sell to the worldwide audiences, they would have put a stop to it (just like they put a stop to Dalton doing a third).

    Instead, Universal (arguably one of the top three studios) came on board knowing exactly what EoN had planned.

    It’s not disrespecting Fleming in any way; the man loved to make money. If he were still alive sharing in the profits of these films, I’m guessing he’d have no complaints whatsoever.
  • Posts: 12,724
    Back on topic, I’ve always liked the idea of a wolf in sheep’s clothing sort of Bond. I know that’s all of them to an extent, but I mean someone who can flick between the two sides of the character (the gentleman and the killer) at their most extreme. Someone who doesn’t seem overtly dangerous, and has heaps of Moore/Brosnan style charm, but can suddenly turn into Daniel Craig when the action kicks off. Struggling to think of many actors who could pull that off though. Maybe someone like Rege Jean-Page, he’s a name who’s come up a lot who @007HallY just reminded me of on the Bond actor thread. He’s got the charming side down and he seems physically fit enough to match the handier Bonds in the fight scenes, with the right training.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 6,523
    @thelivingroyale … I’ve only seen clips of Bridgerton… Do you think Page has big screen charisma?

    I’d love to see him without the beard and in a film…
  • edited April 2022 Posts: 2,898
    peter wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    There's just no nuance: the whim of an actor, and all of that... In the end @ColonelAdamski ... The death of Bond was just an idea they decided to collectively agree upon... You do realize that this creative decision could have been declined from the studio's who have to sell the film, right? This wasn't just the whim of an actor, but the entire team was on board.

    Craig said he asked "can I kill him off?". Which made me think it came from him. That, coupled with the director saying the death was a 'given' even before the script was written, makes me think there's a distinct possibility the 'blame' for CraigBond's death, lies largely with Craig. If I'm wrong about this, I'm sorry. But from what little I've read, the death was part of the deal with Craig coming back. Sure, the team had to go along with it, otherwise the film wouldn't have been made.
    I can't be just me that thinks as long as the series has Ian Fleming's James Bond at the start of the movie, there's a bit of responsibility to keep to the one character, and killing him off is a little, dare I say . . . . disrespectful?
    Fleming never killed him off, or Gardner, or Benson, or Sean or Harry or Cubby, or Roger (as if he ever would!), yet this far down the pike, after all those novels and movies, they all suddenly decide what a great idea it would be to kill him off?
    Creative decision, my arse. It's a gimmick.

    If the death of James Bond was not viable and not something the studio thought would sell to the worldwide audiences, they would have put a stop to it (just like they put a stop to Dalton doing a third).

    Instead, Universal (arguably one of the top three studios) came on board knowing exactly what EoN had planned.

    It’s not disrespecting Fleming in any way; the man loved to make money. If he were still alive sharing in the profits of these films, I’m guessing he’d have no complaints whatsoever.

    Well seeing as Dalton is on par with Connery as my favourite Bond, if the studios did put a stop to him doing a third, it shows how they can get things wrong. I wouldn't use that example as a good measure of the studios getting things right.

    And judging by the state of films being churned out of Hollywood these days, I don't think they are a great barometer for what makes films great either. Yes, they make money, and if that is the only measure to judge them on, then they are doing spiffingly well.

    Bond's death was no doubt seen as a money making gimmick too. Doesn't mean to say it was right, and it doesn't mean to say that Fleming would be doing cartwheels of joy in his grave either at the decision the studios made, even if it did line his hypothetical pockets further.

Sign In or Register to comment.