Where does Bond go after Craig?

1249250252254255512

Comments

  • edited March 2023 Posts: 3,273
    peter wrote: »
    @jetsetwilly … It’s a 60 year franchise. No other film series can boast this. Most have died out, or like Indy Jones, take longgggg pauses to figure out where they’re taking their IP.

    Let EoN figure this out so they can blast back on the scene like they did with GE and CR.

    There’s a process and as I, and @ColonelSun can attest, writing scripts isn’t as easy as , oh I’ve got a grand idea. When you place yourself with a producer, it gets a little more complex. There’s a process to modern blockbuster tent-pole creations.

    And I don’t believe EoN’s been sitting there with a thumb up their rear. I just think they’re pushing through the creative waters to give us an explosive reintroduction. If it was easy, all we Bond fans would be making gazillions off our own Bond-type creations. But we aren’t.

    EoN literally is unique in that it is the size of an independent film production company, but unlike other indies they’re competing in the world of multi million dollar popcorn flicks. It’s a wonder they’re not only surviving but thriving in this marketplace (like seriously, I’d challenge any independent production company to compete in the blockbuster sandbox. I guarantee they couldn’t compete and would be dead within five years).

    Yes I get that. I work in the TV industry, which isn't that far removed from cinema. I also know that EON probably have lots of unused script ideas that they have collected over the years that have yet to be used, and can be adapted to a modern day storyline, not to mention the still unused Fleming scenes from the novels that could be reworked too (and yes, there are lots of unused scenes and storylines from the books).

    My biggest fear is Babs has lost interest in the franchise since Craig's departure, yet doesn't want to depart with it and sell it on, because its personal to her family, which is why she is taking time out in not pushing for a new script.

    I really hope I'm wrong, and I'm just being another paranoid impatient Bond fan.
  • Posts: 3,273
    Risico007 wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    @jetsetwilly … It’s a 60 year franchise. No other film series can boast this. Most have died out, or like Indy Jones, take longgggg pauses to figure out where they’re taking their IP.

    Let EoN figure this out so they can blast back on the scene like they did with GE and CR.

    There’s a process and as I, and @ColonelSun can attest, writing scripts isn’t as easy as , oh I’ve got a grand idea. When you place yourself with a producer, it gets a little more complex. There’s a process to modern blockbuster tent-pole creations.

    And I don’t believe EoN’s been sitting there with a thumb up their rear. I just think they’re pushing through the creative waters to give us an explosive reintroduction. If it was easy, all we Bond fans would be making gazillions off our own Bond-type creations. But we aren’t.

    EoN literally is unique in that it is the size of an independent film production company, but unlike other indies they’re competing in the world of multi million dollar popcorn flicks. It’s a wonder they’re not only surviving but thriving in this marketplace (like seriously, I’d challenge any independent production company to compete in the blockbuster sandbox. I guarantee they couldn’t compete and would be dead within five years).

    You should write Bond 26….

    But since you will say no I still say if they are unsure where to go the obvious answer as always is GO BACK TO FLEMING….

    Again let’s take what many consider a weaker book like diamonds are forever readapting that’s for modern audiences woukd be fine as gangster films seem to be on the rise/more popular today

    I know Bond vs the Spangled mob is not on everyone’s bucket list but it will be good and well well

    Exactly what I've been spouting on this forum for months. Go back to Fleming, use the Spangled Mob, bring in the gangsters. Rework TSWLM's gangsters too, and Scraramanga from TMWTGG.

    I'd much rather see a down-to-earth gritty Bond film with nasty violent gangsters, Bond being Brooklyn stomped on with football boots, than much of the trash we have suffered during the Craig era, particularly SP and NTTD.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,000
    peter wrote: »
    I wasn’t born in the original era but it was that era that my dad educated me on. To this day, the first four films are still magical— that’s why I’d never want to go back and try and capture that period. It’d be nothing but a poor facsimile of the actual movie magic of the original films.
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    For me, only the 60's films where Bond is a trademark, the original, an icon.
    Because it keeps the signature while bringing in the essence of Fleming, that's why there's the originality.

    From the 70's onwards, Bond had became the shadow of its glory days, the essence was no longer there, Bond is no longer the trademark, it's like a Fashion Brand that died out so easily after inspiring some new trends, Bond was just copying those films that dethroned him from the spotlight, in short, replicating the same essence of those big blockbusters at the time.

    Maybe, if one may think of it, Lazenby's agent was at somehow, right, Bond and the spy genre did really died after the 60's, he'd made a decent argument for that.

    Bond, in terms of dominating the trends, never seemed to recover again.

    Now, that's what I would liked to see, two things for me to expect since Babs and MGW are busy on reinventing the character: either it could be trying to reclaim the glory (which I'm expecting and hoping at some point), or just continue in what they're doing of serving what the trend had set by another film.

    I'm hoping for the former, not to the latter.

    The gulf between these posts and their approaches to the next Bond era are massive. And irreconcilable, for that matter. Though I’m more inclined to agree with @peter, which also acknowledges that while Bond as a franchise hasn’t always been a trendsetter as it was in the sixties, it has seen off and outlived plenty of trends that led others into dead ends as “the next big thing.”

    I get the nostalgia for those early films (he says with Thunderball being his favorite Bond film and having just been replaying parts of the FRWL video game), but the past is the past for a reason. I get that a return to the sixties era has its appeal to the long time Bond enthusiast, but does it appeal to anyone else? In the last few years, we’ve had two big budget retro spy films flop and flip pretty hard (The Man From UNCLE and The King’s Man). You can read the reaction to The King’s Man) especially as a warning against doing the same for Bond, given the modern-day setting of that series before it went back in time. Indeed, the only successful retro spy film I can think of is 2011’s Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy adaptation which had both an all-star cast and a budget the fraction of a Bond film or those two aforementioned flops.

    Yeah. James Bond has never really been about wallowing in the past. It’s always been about the present and how exactly the character of Bond works within the context of the changing times. Which is very rooted in the Fleming novels with Bond watching the once powerful British Empire become dwarfed by the Americans and Russians.

    What’s the point of Bond staying in the 60s? Is it just for the sake of nostalgia for a world that no longer exists?
  • edited March 2023 Posts: 3,273
    Since62 wrote: »
    Not all of Fleming’s material was gold. Why use the Spangled mob when you can write a newer and more compelling villain?

    Indeed. Very weak villain, plot, etc. Would not happen again until TSWLM, which was deliberately a different sort of story, but even that one had better villains. The next time there was a villain and plot that weak in the books was TMWTGG. Some of the books, if folllowed, would not serve well as films.

    I would argue that the `weak' storylines and scenes from the unused Fleming novels (DAF, MR, TSWLM, YOLT and TMWTGG) are still far stronger than much of the garbage in SP and NTTD. If you think those 2 films are far stronger as stories, then you have very poor taste, IMO.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited March 2023 Posts: 3,382
    My three wishes for Bond 26:

    1. Bond should move forward
    2. Bond should have its originality again (no copying trends from other films).
    3. Be unique

    #2 is probably the most important to me, to the Producers: don't look at the other films, focus on Bond, don't mind the trends, they're making Bond worse, make a great Bond film, not cashing in, lack of identity could ruin the quality of a product.

    No matter how Marvel, Star Wars, DC and etc. Would make lots of money, a lot of it don't work with Bond, it works for them because that's their style, their signature, but Bond have it's own style, and they should think ways about growing on that.

    So please, just don't repeat the same mistake again!

    No problem with them using original stories, or doing Fleming (the latter is much better and preferable to me), just stop chasing trends, that's one of the reasons why the quality of some Bond films really fell.

    Whatever will be the next Blockbuster trend, hope EON would never look on that.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,000
    They’ll look at the trends and you’ll continue to be miserable about it.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    Posts: 3,382
    They’ll look at the trends and you’ll continue to be miserable about it.

    I'm not miserable though.

    Just hoping for the future of Bond.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,000
    How can you have hope given the last 50 years of Eon keeping up with cinematic trends?
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    Posts: 3,382
    How can you have hope given the last 50 years of Eon keeping up with cinematic trends?

    Maybe now, as they've said, they're reinventing the character.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    Eh? Brosnan had a whole campaign to become Bond willed into existence from the general public seeing him as perfect for the role (and in the days before the Internet, mind you).

    Yet none of his films hit the stratosphere the way Connery and Craig’s have on first release. GE did exceptionally well on the 60th anniversary re-release, whereas his latter three films dropped like bricks. I was genuinely surprised by that because I was positive that all of Brosnan’s four films would have powered through on nostalgia alone, but it was only GE.

    Yeah, Bond was very popular when Brosnan started, but Craig's films were more of a phenomenon. Skyfall felt like it was in tune with the whole country.
  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    Posts: 686
    delfloria wrote: »
    Just out of interest, what was the last new Bond film you didn’t see at the cinema?

    And would really bad reviews and word of mouth or bad casting for Bond himself keep you from going to see the next Bond film?

    The last Bond film I didn’t see at the cinema was Octopussy, but I seriously considered missing No Time to Die because I had hated Spectre, I felt killing off Bond was a cheap move and didn’t like the idea of rebooting continuity again.

    I wouldn’t skip the next film for a casting decision I didn’t like, but I would skip it if word of mouth was bad and I didn’t like the actor cast.

    In addition to your question, has everybody seen EVERY Bond film in a theater? original release, revival theater, museum showing, special screening etc. I can't imagine only having watched a Bond film on a TV.

    I don’t think I’ve EVER been to a revival showing if any film, so the Connery Bonds, OHMSS, LALD, TMWTGG, MR, and Octopussy are films I’ve never seen on a big screen. I think there are a number of other classic films I’d choose to see at the cinema before I’d pick a Bond movie (Goldfinger might tempt me, though), I’m a more casual Bond fan than most here. Moonraker remains the only Fleming 007 book I’ve read, and I rather regret having read a Gardner effort.
  • Posts: 1,478


    At the top of my list of the best Bond films.
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    What I meant in my post was the cash in of trends just think of the Moore films for example heavily inspired by such trends in each years:

    1. Live And Let Die being inspired by the Blaxploitation

    2. The Man With The Golden Gun being inspired by those Kung Fu, Karate Martial Arts, Chinese 70's action.

    3. The Spy Who Loved Me inspired by Lawrence of Arabia, and Jaws.

    Moonraker by Star Wars, Licence To Kil by Miami Vice/Lethal Weapon action 80's TV shows.

    Now the Craig films being inspired by Bourne, Marvel, and Dark Knight.

    I hope in the next Era of Bond (Bond 26 onwards) there would be no like this.

    And dare I say it, The Bond films has always reminded me of the other films!

    Let Bond had its own style again! Like how the 60's Bond films had its sort of originality in them but at the same time putting in the Fleming spirit.

    The originality is what I've missed.

    I have no problem with Bond in the modern world, I prefer that too, but please, have some originality, don't make me think of other films when watching Bond films.

    In an earlier post I mentioned what an impact the first four Bond films had on me.1962 through 1965. They were not like other films I had seen at the time. But that newness wore off. YOLT's leap into space went too far. OHMSS disappointed only because GL was not SC. But it was a much better film than YOLT and has subsequently emerged as one of the great Bond films. DAF was hardly better than YOLT. And, as you point out, then comes the string of Bond films sampling every trend in film. An irritation of minor note is the CE3K ringtone in MR. Not witty, not amusing. Just a nod to a better film than MR.

    I've enjoyed Craig as Bond more than I've enjoyed the DC films themselves. (CR is unmatched by the rest of the films in the DC series.) I share the view that Craig's films don't remind me of those early SC films, but other nonBond films.

    It may be we'll never have the experience of the first kiss again. Maybe for us original Bond fans it will continue to be been there, done that, seen that, etc. But then maybe that applies to film in general. Having seen thousands of films, is there really anything new? I continue to hope for a good Bond film, if not a classic.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,254
    @CrabKey

    The challenge of finding new, fresh stories, film, Bond adventures:

    “Many academics, most notably author Christopher Booker, believe there are only seven basic narrative plots in all of storytelling – frameworks that are recycled again and again in fiction but populated by different settings, characters, and conflicts. Those seven types of story are:

    Overcoming the Monster
    Rags to Riches
    The Quest
    Voyage and Return
    Rebirth
    Comedy
    Tragedy”
  • edited March 2023 Posts: 2,750
    mtm wrote: »
    Eh? Brosnan had a whole campaign to become Bond willed into existence from the general public seeing him as perfect for the role (and in the days before the Internet, mind you).

    Yet none of his films hit the stratosphere the way Connery and Craig’s have on first release. GE did exceptionally well on the 60th anniversary re-release, whereas his latter three films dropped like bricks. I was genuinely surprised by that because I was positive that all of Brosnan’s four films would have powered through on nostalgia alone, but it was only GE.

    Yeah, Bond was very popular when Brosnan started, but Craig's films were more of a phenomenon. Skyfall felt like it was in tune with the whole country.

    Definitely. I wish we could get a Bond film that's able to drum up that sense of anticipation, excitement, and dare I say unity again at some point in the near future. I remember at the time SF felt like a 'big event' and everyone I know went to see it.

    But then again I suppose it's more about the circumstances around the film and how the producers harness it in the advertising (for SF it probably had a lot to do with the London 2012 Olympics, the 50th Bond Anniversary and the Bond/Queen segment from the opening ceremony). That and it tends to come in the middle of an actor's tenure, presuming they've done more than two films. So for Connery it was the GF-YOLT Bondmania years, for Moore it was the rise of blockbusters and the anticipation of a 'big Bond film' with TSWLM after years of comparatively smaller scale ones, and of course Craig with SF. Interestingly as was said I don't think Brosnan ever quite had that, even with DAD coining with the 40th Bond film anniversary. If anything he had that with GE due to the long delay and it being the first post Cold War Bond film... perhaps in that sense we may get something similar with Bond 26 being that 'big event' film... maybe.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    Yeah it's interesting that for the Bonds who made more than two films, the third time was the real charm for Connery, Moore and Craig, but Brosnan's was arguably a bit of a damp squib comparatively.
  • Posts: 2,750
    Maybe TWINE is just an extraordinary film in that sense... not for the right reasons, but still extraordinary.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    Posts: 3,382
    007HallY wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Eh? Brosnan had a whole campaign to become Bond willed into existence from the general public seeing him as perfect for the role (and in the days before the Internet, mind you).

    Yet none of his films hit the stratosphere the way Connery and Craig’s have on first release. GE did exceptionally well on the 60th anniversary re-release, whereas his latter three films dropped like bricks. I was genuinely surprised by that because I was positive that all of Brosnan’s four films would have powered through on nostalgia alone, but it was only GE.

    Yeah, Bond was very popular when Brosnan started, but Craig's films were more of a phenomenon. Skyfall felt like it was in tune with the whole country.

    Definitely. I wish we could get a Bond film that's able to drum up that sense of anticipation, excitement, and dare I say unity again at some point in the near future. I remember at the time SF felt like a 'big event' and everyone I know went to see it.

    But then again I suppose it's more about the circumstances around the film and how the producers harness it in the advertising (for SF it probably had a lot to do with the London 2012 Olympics, the 50th Bond Anniversary and the Bond/Queen segment from the opening ceremony). That and it tends to come in the middle of an actor's tenure, presuming they've done more than two films. So for Connery it was the GF-YOLT Bondmania years, for Moore it was the rise of blockbusters and the anticipation of a 'big Bond film' with TSWLM after years of comparatively smaller scale ones, and of course Craig with SF. Interestingly as was said I don't think Brosnan ever quite had that, even with DAD coining with the 40th Bond film anniversary. If anything he had that with GE due to the long delay and it being the first post Cold War Bond film... perhaps in that sense we may get something similar with Bond 26 being that 'big event' film... maybe.

    The Craig films particularly the last three became almost celebratory because SF is about the 50th anniversary and the Olympics.

    SPECTRE because of the comeback of Bond's nemesis in Blofeld and the long gap, and NTTD because again, long gap and it's Craig's last film.

    What made the Craig Era Bond films seemed exclusive compared to the classic Bond films was because of the long gaps and the fact that the Social Media was also helping the Bond hype in making noises.

    But just imagine it being released every two years, and the media not that much prominent, I don't think it would have been that much exclusive and celebratory feel.

    Product placement? The Classic Bonds also had them, but when I think of the Craig Era, I always felt they're very exclusive, VIP.

    Maybe it had something to do with marketing? I don't know, but the long gaps and the media surely helped the hype.
  • Posts: 1,478
    peter wrote: »
    @CrabKey

    The challenge of finding new, fresh stories, film, Bond adventures:

    “Many academics, most notably author Christopher Booker, believe there are only seven basic narrative plots in all of storytelling – frameworks that are recycled again and again in fiction but populated by different settings, characters, and conflicts. Those seven types of story are:

    Overcoming the Monster
    Rags to Riches
    The Quest
    Voyage and Return
    Rebirth
    Comedy
    Tragedy”

    Let us hope the writers of Bond 26 find a fresh way to dress up whichever narrative archetype they employ.
  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    Posts: 686
    mtm wrote: »
    Yeah it's interesting that for the Bonds who made more than two films, the third time was the real charm for Connery, Moore and Craig, but Brosnan's was arguably a bit of a damp squib comparatively.

    I think that’s partly because his first was an unusually strong entry. I think more than any other actor to play Bond, Brosnan seemed very comfortable with the role straight out the gate. Unfortunately I don’t think he had anywhere to go from there.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited March 2023 Posts: 14,861
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Eh? Brosnan had a whole campaign to become Bond willed into existence from the general public seeing him as perfect for the role (and in the days before the Internet, mind you).

    Yet none of his films hit the stratosphere the way Connery and Craig’s have on first release. GE did exceptionally well on the 60th anniversary re-release, whereas his latter three films dropped like bricks. I was genuinely surprised by that because I was positive that all of Brosnan’s four films would have powered through on nostalgia alone, but it was only GE.

    Yeah, Bond was very popular when Brosnan started, but Craig's films were more of a phenomenon. Skyfall felt like it was in tune with the whole country.

    Definitely. I wish we could get a Bond film that's able to drum up that sense of anticipation, excitement, and dare I say unity again at some point in the near future. I remember at the time SF felt like a 'big event' and everyone I know went to see it.

    But then again I suppose it's more about the circumstances around the film and how the producers harness it in the advertising (for SF it probably had a lot to do with the London 2012 Olympics, the 50th Bond Anniversary and the Bond/Queen segment from the opening ceremony). That and it tends to come in the middle of an actor's tenure, presuming they've done more than two films. So for Connery it was the GF-YOLT Bondmania years, for Moore it was the rise of blockbusters and the anticipation of a 'big Bond film' with TSWLM after years of comparatively smaller scale ones, and of course Craig with SF. Interestingly as was said I don't think Brosnan ever quite had that, even with DAD coining with the 40th Bond film anniversary. If anything he had that with GE due to the long delay and it being the first post Cold War Bond film... perhaps in that sense we may get something similar with Bond 26 being that 'big event' film... maybe.

    The Craig films particularly the last three became almost celebratory because SF is about the 50th anniversary and the Olympics.

    SPECTRE because of the comeback of Bond's nemesis in Blofeld and the long gap, and NTTD because again, long gap and it's Craig's last film.

    What made the Craig Era Bond films seemed exclusive compared to the classic Bond films was because of the long gaps and the fact that the Social Media was also helping the Bond hype in making noises.

    But just imagine it being released every two years, and the media not that much prominent, I don't think it would have been that much exclusive and celebratory feel.

    Product placement? The Classic Bonds also had them, but when I think of the Craig Era, I always felt they're very exclusive, VIP.

    Maybe it had something to do with marketing? I don't know, but the long gaps and the media surely helped the hype.

    Which shows they know what they're doing. They make them feel special. The filmgoing experience is never just confined to the cinema.
    mtm wrote: »
    Yeah it's interesting that for the Bonds who made more than two films, the third time was the real charm for Connery, Moore and Craig, but Brosnan's was arguably a bit of a damp squib comparatively.

    I think that’s partly because his first was an unusually strong entry. I think more than any other actor to play Bond, Brosnan seemed very comfortable with the role straight out the gate. Unfortunately I don’t think he had anywhere to go from there.

    You're not wrong, but then Craig's was a bit of smash hit too and redefined Bond in a lot of peoples' eyes. I agree Brosnan had nowhere to go though, and the producers must have felt that too.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,050
    CrabKey wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    @CrabKey

    The challenge of finding new, fresh stories, film, Bond adventures:

    “Many academics, most notably author Christopher Booker, believe there are only seven basic narrative plots in all of storytelling – frameworks that are recycled again and again in fiction but populated by different settings, characters, and conflicts. Those seven types of story are:

    Overcoming the Monster
    Rags to Riches
    The Quest
    Voyage and Return
    Rebirth
    Comedy
    Tragedy”

    Let us hope the writers of Bond 26 find a fresh way to dress up whichever narrative archetype they employ.

    Let’s hope that those writers aren’t Purvis and Wade. I know that people have said that it’s hard to come with ideas, but these two have been falling back on their cliches. Namely Bond taking a resignation, or M’s past haunting (them), than blaming Bond and later saying he’s the best. Nothing for the future of James Bond in cinema needs to change more than the writing. Their past is coming back to haunt them and having to resign.
  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    Posts: 1,351
    I have been saying for a while that they should just steer into Bond films re-telling the same types of stories over and over again. For me, the fun is in recognising the difference in the sameness if that makes sense. I look at Bonds as almost like different stagings of the same play. They’ve been doing Hamlet for hundreds of years, but they still find ways to do it differently and to have it say something about our modern world. And if they don’t do the exact dialogue, they use the underlying myth, like The Northman f.e., and then you can even twist it around and do something like Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead out of Hamlet. What I am trying to say is, they could be a bit more trusting both in their material and their audience and instead of trying to find a new Bond story (He’s a father! He’s retired! He‘s in love!) they could just accept a Bond story is a Bond story but then play with the execution.

    I’m a weirdo, so I would like for them to do something properly strange, like using the script from DN and setting it today, to see what’s changed. Or switch around the cast after every film (this time Whishaw is Bond and Craig is M!). I get that that’s never going to happen, but there are still so many ways to tell this myth to a modern audience and interrogate what it is that makes people come back again and again.
  • Posts: 1,478
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    CrabKey wrote: »
    peter wrote: »

    Let us hope the writers of Bond 26 find a fresh way to dress up whichever narrative archetype they employ.

    Let’s hope that those writers aren’t Purvis and Wade. I know that people have said that it’s hard to come with ideas, but these two have been falling back on their cliches. Namely Bond taking a resignation, or M’s past haunting (them), than blaming Bond and later saying he’s the best. Nothing for the future of James Bond in cinema needs to change more than the writing. Their past is coming back to haunt them and having to resign.

    I appreciate the challenges of writing. Not an easy thing to do, even for experienced writers. But enough of Bond's fake and real deaths, resignations tendered or imposed.

    I hope the end of NTTD really means something. I hope it's more than a convenient way to end an actor's tenure. New day. New Bond. Old writing team. Not seeing it.



  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited March 2023 Posts: 5,921
    delfloria wrote: »
    Just out of interest, what was the last new Bond film you didn’t see at the cinema?

    And would really bad reviews and word of mouth or bad casting for Bond himself keep you from going to see the next Bond film?

    The last Bond film I didn’t see at the cinema was Octopussy, but I seriously considered missing No Time to Die because I had hated Spectre, I felt killing off Bond was a cheap move and didn’t like the idea of rebooting continuity again.

    I wouldn’t skip the next film for a casting decision I didn’t like, but I would skip it if word of mouth was bad and I didn’t like the actor cast.

    In addition to your question, has everybody seen EVERY Bond film in a theater? original release, revival theater, museum showing, special screening etc. I can't imagine only having watched a Bond film on a TV.

    Yes, I have. It helped that I lived in L.A.

    I think CR is a good template, not just because the story is strong, but also because it leans into Bond's womanizing, drinking, etc. without apologizing for it. SF does this even further with benzadrine or whatever.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited March 2023 Posts: 2,895
    Unfortunately, when Empire interviewed BB and MGW last year, BB said that when EON are ready, 'We'll start the process probably with Rob and Neil and we'll see where we go.' Ok, 'probably' isn't definitely and I'm sure BB won't allow herself to be held to it if circumstances change, but it does give you an idea of the way they're thinking about things.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,000
    Venutius wrote: »
    Unfortunately, when Empire interviewed BB and MGW last year, BB said that when EON are ready, 'We'll start the process probably with Rob and Neil and we'll see where we go.' Ok, 'probably' isn't definitely and I'm sure BB won't allow herself to be held to it if circumstances change, but it does give you an idea of the way they're thinking about things.

    Or what they want you to think.

    The idea that they don’t have a draft at work is as fictional as the scripts being written.
  • BirdlesonBirdleson Moderator
    Posts: 2,161
    @echo it appears that we have lived in several of the same places.
  • Posts: 1,693
    The definition of insanity is repeating the same thing again and again and then expecting new results. How does EON itself step away from themselves in order to reinvent Bond? The ups and downs of the recent Bond films are a part of their DNA.
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    edited March 2023 Posts: 648
    In defense of the Brosnan era, it was the first time since the 60s where the Bond series wasn't too obviously aping other franchises. Apart from TND and DAD taking a few visual cues from what was popular in action movies at the time, the Brosnan films seemed content to just be Bond movies. That's also what I liked about Casino Royale.

    After four entries of experimentation with uneven results, the producers would do well to stop trying to impress people with wanna-be prestige films and adopt a back-to-basics approach for Bond 26.
  • BennyBenny In the shadowsAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,811
    I think it's time to get back to the signature stunts again. None of the Craig era films really had a stunt that made people go wow!
    The crane fight in CR was impressive, and the train sequence in SF was good, but most of the set pieces in the films have been sub standard, from what we've seen from the series before. And that is meant in no disrespect to the stunt team, who always do a fantastic job.
    But films like Mission Impossible are leaving Bond for dead in this department. Not saying the next actor should be committing to the stunts like Tom Cruise, but at least let's get Bond in an action scene, where people talk about it, want to see the next film, because of something amazing they see in the trailer.
    I think it would also be okay, for the films to go back to there over the top and fantastical stories and villains. Hollowed out volcanoes...perhaps. But far fetched is often seen now, as being too much like Austin Powers. But I don't think audiences would care too much. The average film goer doesn't watch Bond films like the die hard fans do.
    Take GE for example. You have the villain with a satellite dish under a lake, that drains to reveal itself. And everyone lapped it up. A massive success.
    I don't think this direction would alienate people to the point of making Bond a parody of itself. Just a thought.
Sign In or Register to comment.