Where does Bond go after Craig?

1221222224226227512

Comments

  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    That’s right, you can watch the film version here. It’s enjoyable Sunday afternoon sort of stuff and has a bit of a Bond feel.
  • Posts: 14,799
    Kojak007 wrote: »
    Storywise, I hope they return to more standalone-movies.
    What I always liked about Bond movies; you could basically choose any movie and watch it with your friends, an explanation about prior events wasn't needed.
    In the Craig era, only CR and SF worked as standalone movies, and a lot of the connections in the other movies felt forced.
    However, I fear they will try to connect the next movies even more.

    Goes with the nature of how media is consumed these days. It made sense that the older films were standalone for their time because accessibility to films, particularly during the 60s to late 80s, was not good. If it was 1977 and you wanted to watch every Bond film made up to that point, that would be difficult, especially for titles like OHMSS. You’d have to wait and hope for a re-release somewhere.

    Cut to 2023, film and television has never been more accessible. That’s partly why so many films and TV is more serialized than it was in the 20th century because people can easily catch up by just streaming whatever they need to see at home. If Eon goes back to standalone films that would have to motivated by a desire to go that route. Right now, there’s no reason not to do serializations since that has become the norm.

    There can be a healthy middle ground. STAR TREK: STRANGE NEW WORLDS is refreshingly episodic, though it still has an undercurrent of continuity flowing.

    That's what I said in another thread: even the Dragon Riders is serialised, and that's a cartoon series for children. I don't think we'll see standalone Bond movies until the whole industry goes this way.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited January 2023 Posts: 14,861
    I feel like quite a few cartoons I watched as a kid were serialised. Some were, some weren’t. Most TV dramas back in the 70s or so were (I don’t mean adventure shows like The Saint but more grown up stuff like Onedin Line or Poldark etc), but even things like Dr Who were always serials. I don’t really see how it’s a problem to be honest. Even the first few Bond films had elements of continuity which carried from one to the next: he even carried the same gadgets over in a couple of instances.
  • Posts: 2,742
    You can argue the Bond series as a whole has always had an element of continuity to it. I mean, if you hadn’t watched OHMSS then things in the Moore era like the PTS to FYEO wouldn’t make sense. As mtm said the first few Bond films had SPECTRE as a recurring narrative thread. Even the Craig era had things like referencing the ejector seat gadget in the DV5 from GF. There are countless examples. So in a sense it’s really not unusual for Bond.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    007HallY wrote: »
    You can argue the Bond series as a whole has always had an element of continuity to it. I mean, if you hadn’t watched OHMSS then things in the Moore era like the PTS to FYEO wouldn’t make sense. As mtm said the first few Bond films had SPECTRE as a recurring narrative thread. Even the Craig era had things like referencing the ejector seat gadget in the DV5 from GF. There are countless examples. So in a sense it’s really not unusual for Bond.

    And indeed, whenever Tracy got a nod in TSWLM or FYEO or LTK, my little fan senses got hugely excited and loved it- I can't be the only one? Did people get annoyed when that stuff popped up because they wanted no continuity? Because I always got the impression fans loved those links between films.
  • Posts: 2,742
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    You can argue the Bond series as a whole has always had an element of continuity to it. I mean, if you hadn’t watched OHMSS then things in the Moore era like the PTS to FYEO wouldn’t make sense. As mtm said the first few Bond films had SPECTRE as a recurring narrative thread. Even the Craig era had things like referencing the ejector seat gadget in the DV5 from GF. There are countless examples. So in a sense it’s really not unusual for Bond.

    And indeed, whenever Tracy got a nod in TSWLM or FYEO or LTK, my little fan senses got hugely excited and loved it- I can't be the only one? Did people get annoyed when that stuff popped up because they wanted no continuity? Because I always got the impression fans loved those links between films.

    Indeed. Not saying I always liked what was serialised in the Craig era (similar to how I’m not a fan of what they did with Jaws returning in MR - another thing that wouldn’t make as much sense narratively if you hadn’t seen TSWLM) but there is a precedent for writing Bond films in this way, and it makes sense that the next actor’s tenure will have recurring narrative threads. They’ve never been truly episodic as films in this sense.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited January 2023 Posts: 14,861
    The weird thing about Jaws returning of course is that it means the Bond we're watching definitely experienced the events of TSWLM, and yet he never says "Gosh, this is just like what Stromberg was doing a couple of years ago, only in space" :D
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited January 2023 Posts: 3,382
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    You can argue the Bond series as a whole has always had an element of continuity to it. I mean, if you hadn’t watched OHMSS then things in the Moore era like the PTS to FYEO wouldn’t make sense. As mtm said the first few Bond films had SPECTRE as a recurring narrative thread. Even the Craig era had things like referencing the ejector seat gadget in the DV5 from GF. There are countless examples. So in a sense it’s really not unusual for Bond.

    And indeed, whenever Tracy got a nod in TSWLM or FYEO or LTK, my little fan senses got hugely excited and loved it- I can't be the only one? Did people get annoyed when that stuff popped up because they wanted no continuity? Because I always got the impression fans loved those links between films.

    I loved it, but to those people who were not a fan of OHMSS, probably they don't liked it and don't mind it.
    Although for me, it's not enough though, not satisfying, I'm still craving for a revenge sequel.

    I have no problem with continuity, but to interlink it all like all of the villains from the previous era, all why all of the missions needs to be connected to Bond's personal life?

    True, like someone said here before, it makes his world a bit smaller, like the filmmakers wanted us to see that the reason why England is always in danger was because of Bond and his personal connections, like he compromised England because of his connections with the villains?

    So, for me, the Craig Era failed in this, in a narrative sense, it's more outlandish than Bond going to space or everything happened in Die Another Day, because Bond puts not just England, but the whole world in danger because of his step brother whose jealous of him and other of his personal problems.

    This is where Bond almost carried the world on his back.

    Look at the destruction of the old MI6 building in SPECTRE, it's happened because of Bond, connected to his personal life.

    All of what happened was connected to Bond's personal life, it's very outlandish to me.
  • Posts: 1,477
    For me series story continuity went out the window when, after confronting each other in YOLT, Bond and Blofeld meet again in OHMSS.





  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited January 2023 Posts: 3,382
    CrabKey wrote: »
    For me series story continuity went out the window when, after confronting each other in YOLT, Bond and Blofeld meet again in OHMSS.





    Actually, I consider this to be just "Bond just in disguise (hence why he's dubbed)".

    Actually he did recognized him, that's why he told him "Merry Christmas, 007" and crashed his glasses.

    So, I think it needs to happen, because Bond's in disguise and he's voice was dubbed.

    I do liked when Bond's in disguise something that we haven't seen in the Craig Era.

    Reading You Only Live Twice and I really laughed at Blofeld's reaction when he saw Bond (in a Japanese disguise) "You're tall for a Japanese" then it's Irma Bunt who'd recognized him.
  • Posts: 2,742
    I suppose the question in that case becomes is Blofeld's inability to recognise Bond in OHMSS more a continuity issue or a case against the idea that Bond films can be more serialised in format? For what it's worth I suppose strictly speaking it's a continuity error, but one which I have no doubt everyone working on the film was aware of. I think what makes it more palatable as well is the fact that it's a different Bond actor.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    Posts: 3,382
    I actually have no problems with it, and I don't mind either, true @007HallY and this is the first time that Bond's in disguise (especially with his Clark Kent look and Dubbed Voice).

    Actually Blofeld's changing faces creates a lot more continuity error, like why Savalas' Blofeld had no scars? Then suddenly he had hair in Diamonds Are Forever, and the guy who played Dikko Henderson was Blofeld (Charles Grey)?

    Then suddenly in FYEO, he had no hair again.
  • Posts: 2,742
    MI6HQ wrote: »
    I actually have no problems with it, and I don't mind either, true @007HallY and this is the first time that Bond's in disguise (especially with his Clark Kent look and Dubbed Voice).

    Actually Blofeld's changing faces creates a lot more continuity error, like why Savalas' Blofeld had no scars? Then suddenly he had hair in Diamonds Are Forever, and the guy who played Dikko Henderson was Blofeld (Charles Grey)?

    Then suddenly in FYEO, he had no hair again.

    I suppose it's hinted Blofeld had plastic surgery when he got his ear lobes removed in OHMSS so perhaps got his scar covered up then. And I guess you could say the same for DAF. Basically what happens with Blofeld in the novels.

    Granted, that doesn't explain why he's bald again in FYEO, but I'd also argue that's not really the point. At risk of going on a bit of a tangent, the Bond films have a tendency to reinvent - or as of late outright reboot - itself when a new actor takes the role, but they're not outright episodic either, and things such as this have been known to be carried over. I guess the point of making Blofeld that bald headed villain with a cat in FYEO was because that was the most culturally identifiable/popular version of the character, and they wanted the character to be recognisable as Blofeld without having to use the actual name. A childish f you to Kevin McClory perhaps, but using that distinct, culturally identifiable feature of the character was also there with the inclusion of Blofeld's scar in SP.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited January 2023 Posts: 14,861
    007HallY wrote: »
    I suppose the question in that case becomes is Blofeld's inability to recognise Bond in OHMSS more a continuity issue or a case against the idea that Bond films can be more serialised in format? For what it's worth I suppose strictly speaking it's a continuity error, but one which I have no doubt everyone working on the film was aware of. I think what makes it more palatable as well is the fact that it's a different Bond actor.

    It is odd because Bond is chasing Blofeld in the film: Blofeld is 'something of a must' with him. Which we assume is because of all the previous times we've seen them do battle, and indeed meet- it has become personal for him. So it's weirdly a case of the filmmakers wanting us to remember what happened in the films with the 'other fella', and yet forget the last one as well. It's all a bit strange.
    It shows their attitude to continuity in general, really: it's there when they want it and to be ignored if not convenient. Which is probably a healthy attitude overall, but there is a limit probably.
  • Posts: 2,742
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I suppose the question in that case becomes is Blofeld's inability to recognise Bond in OHMSS more a continuity issue or a case against the idea that Bond films can be more serialised in format? For what it's worth I suppose strictly speaking it's a continuity error, but one which I have no doubt everyone working on the film was aware of. I think what makes it more palatable as well is the fact that it's a different Bond actor.

    It is odd because Bond is chasing Blofeld in the film: Blofeld is 'something of a must' with him. Which we assume is because of all the previous times we've seen them do battle, and indeed meet- it has become personal for him. So it's weirdly a case of the filmmakers wanting us to remember what happened in the films with the 'other fella', and yet forget the last one as well. It's all a bit strange.
    It shows their attitude to continuity in general, really: it's there when they want it and to be ignored if not convenient. Which is probably a healthy attitude overall, but there is a limit probably.

    Again, I think it's part of the twofold nature of the Bond films and their continuity. Each new actor's tenure is distinctly different and yet much like Bond's Walther PPK, the gun barrel or the theme etc. the narrative threads from those first films were carried over as well. So for me, in the context of seeing Lazenby's Bond for the first time and knowing what I know about the previous films, I can sort of go with/understand the idea that Bond is hunting down Blofeld.

    I think it'd be the same going forward. I don't want strict continuity across the whole series, but within each actor's tenure.
  • Posts: 9,730
    https://screenrant.com/bond-26-one-night-stand-girl-stop-romance-007/


    Am I the only one who thinks that some people have too much time on their hands and not enough facts?


    Heck even in the first film I would argue Sylvia trench is a strong character who doesn’t die at the end so that disproves this article already
  • Posts: 12,242
    Risico007 wrote: »
    https://screenrant.com/bond-26-one-night-stand-girl-stop-romance-007/


    Am I the only one who thinks that some people have too much time on their hands and not enough facts?


    Heck even in the first film I would argue Sylvia trench is a strong character who doesn’t die at the end so that disproves this article already

    Was just going to post that article as I also found it, goes along with much of the discussion had here. Though I don’t like it, it definitely feels like a foregone conclusion Bond won’t be a player anymore.
  • Posts: 1,693
    mtm wrote: »
    The weird thing about Jaws returning of course is that it means the Bond we're watching definitely experienced the events of TSWLM, and yet he never says "Gosh, this is just like what Stromberg was doing a couple of years ago, only in space" :D

    Just like I wanted someone in Top Gun Maverick to say "If Luke Skywalker could do it so can we".
  • Posts: 1,693
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Risico007 wrote: »
    https://screenrant.com/bond-26-one-night-stand-girl-stop-romance-007/


    Am I the only one who thinks that some people have too much time on their hands and not enough facts?


    Heck even in the first film I would argue Sylvia trench is a strong character who doesn’t die at the end so that disproves this article already

    Was just going to post that article as I also found it, goes along with much of the discussion had here. Though I don’t like it, it definitely feels like a foregone conclusion Bond won’t be a player anymore.

    Just another indicator that as the culture changes so does Bond. Seems like the younger generation has less interest in sex and feels so should Bond. Men's aspirations have changed. Not my cup of tea because i grew up in the fifties and sixties.
  • Posts: 12,242
    delfloria wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Risico007 wrote: »
    https://screenrant.com/bond-26-one-night-stand-girl-stop-romance-007/


    Am I the only one who thinks that some people have too much time on their hands and not enough facts?


    Heck even in the first film I would argue Sylvia trench is a strong character who doesn’t die at the end so that disproves this article already

    Was just going to post that article as I also found it, goes along with much of the discussion had here. Though I don’t like it, it definitely feels like a foregone conclusion Bond won’t be a player anymore.

    Just another indicator that as the culture changes so does Bond. Seems like the younger generation has less interest in sex and feels so should Bond. Men's aspirations have changed. Not my cup of tea because i grew up in the fifties and sixties.

    Putting aside the actual cultural changes, I disagree with the notion Bond or any other character has to adhere to what’s “popular” at any time.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 7,999
    Guys, that’s a screenrant.com article. They’re not a serious website/publication. They’re notorious for click baiting. Stop giving them attention.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited January 2023 Posts: 5,834
    They hire a lot of writers who can basically write about what they want.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited January 2023 Posts: 5,921
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I suppose the question in that case becomes is Blofeld's inability to recognise Bond in OHMSS more a continuity issue or a case against the idea that Bond films can be more serialised in format? For what it's worth I suppose strictly speaking it's a continuity error, but one which I have no doubt everyone working on the film was aware of. I think what makes it more palatable as well is the fact that it's a different Bond actor.

    It is odd because Bond is chasing Blofeld in the film: Blofeld is 'something of a must' with him. Which we assume is because of all the previous times we've seen them do battle, and indeed meet- it has become personal for him. So it's weirdly a case of the filmmakers wanting us to remember what happened in the films with the 'other fella', and yet forget the last one as well. It's all a bit strange.
    It shows their attitude to continuity in general, really: it's there when they want it and to be ignored if not convenient. Which is probably a healthy attitude overall, but there is a limit probably.

    That is an interesting point about "Blofeld is something of a 'must.'"

    Minus the original Bond-undergoes-plastic surgery idea (resurrected in DAF), I am guessing that Hunt found the Bond infiltrating Piz Gloria--as a gay man no less--too juicy to pass up just for save continuity.

    And I'd argue Hunt was right.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited January 2023 Posts: 5,834
    I mean OHMSS already has quite self aware moments so the fact that Blofeld doesn't recognise Bond just feels like another example of that.
  • Posts: 1,693
    FoxRox wrote: »
    delfloria wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Risico007 wrote: »
    https://screenrant.com/bond-26-one-night-stand-girl-stop-romance-007/


    Am I the only one who thinks that some people have too much time on their hands and not enough facts?


    Heck even in the first film I would argue Sylvia trench is a strong character who doesn’t die at the end so that disproves this article already

    Was just going to post that article as I also found it, goes along with much of the discussion had here. Though I don’t like it, it definitely feels like a foregone conclusion Bond won’t be a player anymore.

    Just another indicator that as the culture changes so does Bond. Seems like the younger generation has less interest in sex and feels so should Bond. Men's aspirations have changed. Not my cup of tea because i grew up in the fifties and sixties.

    Putting aside the actual cultural changes, I disagree with the notion Bond or any other character has to adhere to what’s “popular” at any time.

    Agreed. And I still think that a character with a limited life span has the right to smoke.
  • Posts: 1,477
    delfloria wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »

    Just another indicator that as the culture changes so does Bond. Seems like the younger generation has less interest in sex and feels so should Bond. Men's aspirations have changed. Not my cup of tea because i grew up in the fifties and sixties.

    These days many young people practice 'friends with benefits,' which suggests they are interested in sex but without the hangups of a relationship. Exceptions noted, I doubt if men's 'aspirations' have changed. That one doesn't act upon their impulses doesn't necessarily mean they aren't thinking naughty things. I can't imagine the consumers of online porn are mostly dirty old men.

    One can make the case that a weakness of the enlightened Bond series is the failure to involve Bond in sexual relationships with women his age or older.

    Ironically, the two best films in the entire series both feature well developed relationships. Relationships mean commitment. Unless his significant other is on missions with him, seems they'll become a minor character. Could be tricky, as Ethan Hunt found out.


  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 7,999
    echo wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I suppose the question in that case becomes is Blofeld's inability to recognise Bond in OHMSS more a continuity issue or a case against the idea that Bond films can be more serialised in format? For what it's worth I suppose strictly speaking it's a continuity error, but one which I have no doubt everyone working on the film was aware of. I think what makes it more palatable as well is the fact that it's a different Bond actor.

    It is odd because Bond is chasing Blofeld in the film: Blofeld is 'something of a must' with him. Which we assume is because of all the previous times we've seen them do battle, and indeed meet- it has become personal for him. So it's weirdly a case of the filmmakers wanting us to remember what happened in the films with the 'other fella', and yet forget the last one as well. It's all a bit strange.
    It shows their attitude to continuity in general, really: it's there when they want it and to be ignored if not convenient. Which is probably a healthy attitude overall, but there is a limit probably.

    That is an interesting point about "Blofeld is something of a 'must.'"

    Minus the original Bond-undergoes-plastic surgery idea (resurrected in DAF), I am guessing that Hunt found the Bond infiltrating Piz Gloria--as a gay man no less--too juicy to pass up just for save continuity.

    And I'd argue Hunt was right.

    Which is also a complete reversal of Fleming’s book, since Bond was writing in his resignation because he thought searching for Blofeld was a waste of time.
  • Posts: 12,242
    Guys, that’s a screenrant.com article. They’re not a serious website/publication. They’re notorious for click baiting. Stop giving them attention.

    It’s about more than just the one article though. Clearly this is the attitude of plenty of people now - more neutrality or negativity around sex. Especially male heterosexuality has come under question and been seen negatively a lot more recently I think. And it’s a lot more likely than not the producers will terminate this iconic element of Bond to get the most young audiences on board as possible. My ultimate hope is society is just going through a transitional phase of being hyper wary of the bad things that can come with / from certain subjects, and someday hopefully things can be more fun and easygoing again in real life and entertainment.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 7,999
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Guys, that’s a screenrant.com article. They’re not a serious website/publication. They’re notorious for click baiting. Stop giving them attention.

    It’s about more than just the one article though. Clearly this is the attitude of plenty of people now - more neutrality or negativity around sex. Especially male heterosexuality has come under question and been seen negatively a lot more recently I think. And it’s a lot more likely than not the producers will terminate this iconic element of Bond to get the most young audiences on board as possible. My ultimate hope is society is just going through a transitional phase of being hyper wary of the bad things that can come with / from certain subjects, and someday hopefully things can be more fun and easygoing again in real life and entertainment.

    Huh? Where are you getting all of this?
  • Posts: 12,242
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Guys, that’s a screenrant.com article. They’re not a serious website/publication. They’re notorious for click baiting. Stop giving them attention.

    It’s about more than just the one article though. Clearly this is the attitude of plenty of people now - more neutrality or negativity around sex. Especially male heterosexuality has come under question and been seen negatively a lot more recently I think. And it’s a lot more likely than not the producers will terminate this iconic element of Bond to get the most young audiences on board as possible. My ultimate hope is society is just going through a transitional phase of being hyper wary of the bad things that can come with / from certain subjects, and someday hopefully things can be more fun and easygoing again in real life and entertainment.

    Huh? Where are you getting all of this?

    I’m speaking on my own experience around many other younger people, having recently gone to college for five years. I noticed that this is a very low priority among lots of them, and some even disgusted / apprehensive about it, which honestly surprised me. I think a lot of the common feeling is they “don’t have time” for it / relationships, at least I personally have been told that by some classmates.
Sign In or Register to comment.