Where does Bond go after Craig?

1199200202204205212

Comments

  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 5,157
    Gee, you'd think some of you weren't given birth to by women. 8-|

    Have a little more faith in women. Yes, even female directors.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited September 28 Posts: 11,648
    Bier's a good director, she'd do a fine job.

    To be honest, the point is kind of moot in the sense that Bond is pretty much critic-proof and almost guaranteed to be successful unless there's a very dramatic shift.

    It's true, but perhaps always worth trying to get ahead of the shift. I listened to that Empire 'best cinema characters' podcast a while ago (full of superheroes who I would say are charisma-free, but Empire gotta Empire :) ) and their assessment of Bond was a bit worrying in terms of being youthful movie opinion-formers (Chris Hewitt was on 007's side at least!). I think nudging Bond or his world along a bit does no harm, and I think NTTD did that pretty well in itself without damaging the core character.
    That the film itself felt a bit less like the Bond of old to me is a separate issue. Things like the action scenes not being terribly good aren't really a result of what we're talking about.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    edited September 28 Posts: 7,444
    mtm wrote: »
    Bier's a good director, she'd do a fine job.

    To be honest, the point is kind of moot in the sense that Bond is pretty much critic-proof and almost guaranteed to be successful unless there's a very dramatic shift.

    It's true, but perhaps always worth trying to get ahead of the shift.

    Oh, absolutely. I meant it in a way of support for the idea of a female director - they should go for it if they want to because most people will go see a Bond film regardless of who's directing.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 1,700
    I think Both Mendes and Fukanaga failed mixing dramatic realism with camp...It would be nice if the films have a consistent tone, and go knee deep instead of tiptoeing around but never really jumping in.
    Yes, there's something in that. The handful of tonal shifts in SF and SP were a letdown, but there's so many in NTTD that it lurches all over the place at times.

  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 11,648
    mtm wrote: »
    Bier's a good director, she'd do a fine job.

    To be honest, the point is kind of moot in the sense that Bond is pretty much critic-proof and almost guaranteed to be successful unless there's a very dramatic shift.

    It's true, but perhaps always worth trying to get ahead of the shift.

    Oh, absolutely. I meant it in a way of support for the idea of a female director - they should go for it if they want to because most people will go see a Bond film regardless of who's directing.

    Yes, very true.
  • edited September 28 Posts: 1,122
    If anyone is anxious about a female director (or a black Bond or whatever), it's worth considering that someone outside the status quo might have a stronger incentive to make a classic, traditional Bond. I don't know if that makes sense to anyone else, but I can imagine a female director, to the extent she's concerned with appearances at all, would want to show that she can make a proper Bond film, and not that she can make a completely unrecognizable pink version of Bond or whatever.

    I think a woman directing a black Bond would end up being more similar to the classics that anything Danny Boyle directing Craig would have been like.

    There is potentially some truth to that. Having worked on sets with a number of female directors I do get what you mean.

    Again, I think it's why it's important to actually look at the individual directors. Is it better for the film to have someone more creatively involved in the scriptwriting process or someone who will take a script and effectively fulfil the 'vision' for the film through collaboration? These are of course the extremes of both sides and most directors are somewhere in the middle of this spectrum, but the series seems to have gone more for the former in the last few years, hiring 'visionary' directors like Mendes and of course Fukunaga who had a hand in the script. That's not to mention Danny Boyle too. That's not even mentioning what traits these directors are adept at. There's a pretty wide pool of talent (particularly women) directing for television who would be good though, but it's a question of what they want and who they can work with.

    Then of course there's the script, which is arguably more important, at least at this moment. Even if P&W are back there'll probably be one or more hands on deck. Same question, what kind of writer do we go for? Personally I'd suggest someone like Krysty Wilson-Carins (1917, Las Night in Soho).
  • If anyone is anxious about a female director (or a black Bond or whatever), it's worth considering that someone outside the status quo might have a stronger incentive to make a classic, traditional Bond. I don't know if that makes sense to anyone else, but I can imagine a female director, to the extent she's concerned with appearances at all, would want to show that she can make a proper Bond film, and not that she can make a completely unrecognizable pink version of Bond or whatever.

    I think a woman directing a black Bond would end up being more similar to the classics that anything Danny Boyle directing Craig would have been like.
    I was thinking this exact point myself while skimming through this thread. Again, let's not break the glass ceiling for the pomp and circumstance, but rather, because it is genuinely warranted. If a director has whatever filmography and mindset that appears to suit Bond, by all means get that person hired regardless of theirs sex or skin tone.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 11,648
    JamesStock wrote: »
    If anyone is anxious about a female director (or a black Bond or whatever), it's worth considering that someone outside the status quo might have a stronger incentive to make a classic, traditional Bond. I don't know if that makes sense to anyone else, but I can imagine a female director, to the extent she's concerned with appearances at all, would want to show that she can make a proper Bond film, and not that she can make a completely unrecognizable pink version of Bond or whatever.

    I think a woman directing a black Bond would end up being more similar to the classics that anything Danny Boyle directing Craig would have been like.
    I was thinking this exact point myself while skimming through this thread. Again, let's not break the glass ceiling for the pomp and circumstance, but rather, because it is genuinely warranted. If a director has whatever filmography and mindset that appears to suit Bond, by all means get that person hired regardless of theirs sex or skin tone.

    I don't think there's just one person that fits that bill though. Lots and lots of other factors (not least availability! :) ) come into play, so the producers can look for whatever they want.
  • Posts: 4,540
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    @mtm re your last point, I agree. You can have the best director on the plannet but if they don't "get" Bond, then the magic won't happen. We have seen this with other franchises in recent years.

    Can you name some examples, please? Both directors and franchises. I’m curious what everyone thinks.

    I think it's fair that McQ "gets" MI when Woo did not.

    I think it's fair that Gareth Edwards "gets" SWs when JJ does not.

    I think it's fair that Meyer "got" Star Trek when Wise (and JJ) did not.



  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 2,923
    patb wrote: »
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    @mtm re your last point, I agree. You can have the best director on the plannet but if they don't "get" Bond, then the magic won't happen. We have seen this with other franchises in recent years.

    Can you name some examples, please? Both directors and franchises. I’m curious what everyone thinks.

    I think it's fair that McQ "gets" MI when Woo did not.

    I think it's fair that Gareth Edwards "gets" SWs when JJ does not.

    I think it's fair that Meyer "got" Star Trek when Wise (and JJ) did not.



    Thank you for your opinions.

    I think Martin Campbell got Bond while Marc Forster did not.

    I think that Bruce Feirstein gets Bond, while Purvis and Wade do not.

    I don’t think any director got Superman except for Richard Donner.

    Ironically, Rogue One apparently went through a lot of reshoots without Gareth Edwards.

  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lagos, Nigeria
    edited September 28 Posts: 373
    I think Gareth Edwards might be a good choice for Bond 26. His films are pacy and entertaining.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 6,804
    I think Gareth Edwards might be a good choice for Bond 26. His films are pacy and entertaining.

    As long as he doesn’t bring Aaron Taylor-Johnson along.
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 373
    talos7 wrote: »
    I think Gareth Edwards might be a good choice for Bond 26. His films are pacy and entertaining.

    As long as he doesn’t bring Aaron Taylor-Johnson along.

    Yeah, because of his voice...I guess.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,258
    talos7 wrote: »
    I think Gareth Edwards might be a good choice for Bond 26. His films are pacy and entertaining.

    As long as he doesn’t bring Aaron Taylor-Johnson along.

    Yeah, because of his voice...I guess.

    Have you seen him act? Terrible.
  • ProfJoeButcherProfJoeButcher Bless your heart
    edited September 28 Posts: 1,544
    MaxCasino wrote: »

    I think Martin Campbell got Bond while Marc Forster did not.

    I think that Bruce Feirstein gets Bond, while Purvis and Wade do not.


    I know most people love Goldeneye, but I hope they avoid anything resembling Campbell/Feirstein. That movie presented a very generic James Bond that left Pierce's characterization adrift in a way that hurt his entire tenure. It wasn't much like Fleming, and it wasn't much like previous EON Bonds. It was more like what people who have never seen James Bond imagine it to be like, maybe as a result of having to reintroduce him in a new context. Not even the film's endless monologues about James Bond were able to flesh him out in a way that gave Pierce much to work with.

  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited September 28 Posts: 5,201
    talos7 wrote: »
    I think Gareth Edwards might be a good choice for Bond 26. His films are pacy and entertaining.

    As long as he doesn’t bring Aaron Taylor-Johnson along.

    Yeah, because of his voice...I guess.

    Have you seen him act? Terrible.
    I think he's quite a good actor, not the greatest in the slightest, but his performances in Nowhere Boy, Nocturnal Animals, A Million Little Pieces, and Bullet Train are standouts personally. I can understand why people don't rate him based on Godzilla, but let's be honest, the only interesting character in that film, with actually anything to work with acting wise, was Bryan Cranston's.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,258
    Denbigh wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    I think Gareth Edwards might be a good choice for Bond 26. His films are pacy and entertaining.

    As long as he doesn’t bring Aaron Taylor-Johnson along.

    Yeah, because of his voice...I guess.

    Have you seen him act? Terrible.
    I think he's quite a good actor, not the greatest in the slightest, but his performances in Nowhere Boy, Nocturnal Animals, A Million Little Pieces, and Bullet Train are standouts personally. I can understand why people don't rate him based on Godzilla, but let's be honest, the only interesting character in that film, with actually anything to work with acting wise, was Bryan Cranston's.

    Fair enough, I've seen him in more than Godzilla, but it seems like you've seen him in more things than I have.
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 373
    talos7 wrote: »
    I think Gareth Edwards might be a good choice for Bond 26. His films are pacy and entertaining.

    As long as he doesn’t bring Aaron Taylor-Johnson along.

    Yeah, because of his voice...I guess.

    Have you seen him act? Terrible.

    Yeah, I think his voice lets him down when he wants to act. I think if someone like Hugh Jackman had an almost-feminine voice, it would affect his acting.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 11,648
    Denbigh wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    I think Gareth Edwards might be a good choice for Bond 26. His films are pacy and entertaining.

    As long as he doesn’t bring Aaron Taylor-Johnson along.

    Yeah, because of his voice...I guess.

    Have you seen him act? Terrible.
    I think he's quite a good actor, not the greatest in the slightest, but his performances in Nowhere Boy, Nocturnal Animals, A Million Little Pieces, and Bullet Train are standouts personally. I can understand why people don't rate him based on Godzilla, but let's be honest, the only interesting character in that film, with actually anything to work with acting wise, was Bryan Cranston's.

    I've only seen a couple of those, and he is a good actor in them, but I do think he doesn't have the movie star gene, which is something extra to being a good actor I think.
  • Posts: 1,122
    Aaron Taylor Johnson's a pretty good actor. I honestly think he should get offered more roles than he does at the moment. But no, he's not Bond.
  • Archangel007Archangel007 United States
    Posts: 25
    Hello all, I'm a longtime lurker but decided to make my first post here to talk about what I'd like to see for the next Bond film. Apologies if someone else has already stated this.

    To put it simply, I want a straight forward action spy thriller with most of the Bond trimmings. To compare, I'd like the narrative tone from the sequence in The Living Daylights where Bond has to help Koskov defect. Asides from the bit with Rosika Miklos, it's mostly played with suspense and seriousness.

    Of course, that sequence was based on the short story of the same name by Ian Fleming. However, I remember something Barbara Broccoli once said her father would tell her. To paraphrase, "When in doubt, go back to the books." This doesn't mean they have to go back to the books for the story, but I think they should for the tone.

    With the saturation of superhero films, I think the audience is a little less interested in spectacle and want something different. I'm not saying it should be devoid of humor, but it shouldn't be full of gags and bad puns. I have more more thoughts on the subject but I will leave it there for now. Thanks for reading!
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 373
    Welcome @Archangel007 I think some of us also want something in the vein of TLD & GE for Bond 26. Welcome again and thanks for sharing your thoughts. Enjoy the community, it's filled with wonderful people.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 1,697
    @Archangel007 welcome to the forum mate. I hope they go for something in line with TLD as well, that's where Bond is at it's best for me
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 11,648
    I always thought that Casino Royale hit that sweet spot of TLD tone too. Serious but not too realistic, jokes that don't break the spell, a nice European thriller atmosphere etc.

    Bear in mind that Bond does disobey orders and technically 'goes rogue' in TLD, so be careful what you wish for if you don't like that sort of thing :)
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,522
    mtm wrote: »
    I always thought that Casino Royale hit that sweet spot of TLD tone too. Serious but not too realistic, jokes that don't break the spell, a nice European thriller atmosphere etc.

    Bear in mind that Bond does disobey orders and technically 'goes rogue' in TLD, so be careful what you wish for if you don't like that sort of thing :)

    So true. Craig gets alot of criticism for going rogue so often. But Bond has been going rogue since OHMSS (the raid on Piz Gloria). Dalton goes rogue in both of his films. It's part of the character's developing make-up.
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 373
    mtm wrote: »
    I always thought that Casino Royale hit that sweet spot of TLD tone too. Serious but not too realistic, jokes that don't break the spell, a nice European thriller atmosphere etc.

    Bear in mind that Bond does disobey orders and technically 'goes rogue' in TLD, so be careful what you wish for if you don't like that sort of thing :)

    Yes! Agreed. CR has that TLD tone too.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited September 29 Posts: 5,157
    mtm wrote: »
    I always thought that Casino Royale hit that sweet spot of TLD tone too. Serious but not too realistic, jokes that don't break the spell, a nice European thriller atmosphere etc.

    Bear in mind that Bond does disobey orders and technically 'goes rogue' in TLD, so be careful what you wish for if you don't like that sort of thing :)

    Agreed. I'm of the belief that the best Bond films stay in Europe with a Cold War feel (I'll allow a detour to the Caribbean for sunshine and because of the British history there).

    I would like to see something different going forward than Bond going rogue/quitting his job. At this point, it's almost a cliche narratively. Bond regretting a killing? Bond seeing the impact on the victim's family (although that's very Bourne)?

    I doubt in this day and age that Bond as an emotionless assassin would play with audiences (and I'd think any Bond actor would look for more to play in the role), but there must be more innovative ways to develop the character. New writers truly would help in this regard.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 11,648
    NicNac wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    I always thought that Casino Royale hit that sweet spot of TLD tone too. Serious but not too realistic, jokes that don't break the spell, a nice European thriller atmosphere etc.

    Bear in mind that Bond does disobey orders and technically 'goes rogue' in TLD, so be careful what you wish for if you don't like that sort of thing :)

    So true. Craig gets alot of criticism for going rogue so often. But Bond has been going rogue since OHMSS (the raid on Piz Gloria). Dalton goes rogue in both of his films. It's part of the character's developing make-up.

    Yep, absolutely agree- if he just did everything conventionally then we wouldn't like him. The point of Bond is that he's his own man.
  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    edited September 29 Posts: 370
    I do think there is a big difference between Bond being the man on the ground who sometimes disobeys or modifies orders because he can see something his immediate superior can't, eg. Bond not killing the gunwoman in TLD, and Bond going totally rogue; breaking contact with M and MI6 as the heart of the story (LTK and QoS).

    For the most part, when Bond doesn't carry out an order it's not a major issue and M agrees with him, trusts him. Even in OHMSS, when Bond is refused licence to pursue Bloefeld, M gives him a leave of absence obviously guessing what he's going to do; he trusts Bond, it's a big part of their relationship.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 11,648
    In TLD Bond is sent to kill Pushkin, M is angry with him for doubting his orders, Bond goes to a totally different country regardless.
Sign In or Register to comment.