Where does Bond go after Craig?

1283284286288289512

Comments

  • MalloryMallory Do mosquitoes have friends?
    Posts: 2,032
    @echo I agree, there were some good elements in the original Spectre scripts, but really you would need to do a complete page one rewrite to make any of it work.
  • edited May 2023 Posts: 2,742
    echo wrote: »
    I think the "becoming Bond" concept worked for CR and to a lesser extent QoS.

    With SF, the final twist was "becoming Moneypenny and M" and to an extent "becoming Bond" again.

    By SP, we had "becoming Blofeld."

    I think "becoming Blofeld" could have been a much more interesting path in SP had they steered away from at least some of the '60s excess (the scar, the cat). The shapeshifting aspect of Blofeld in the books might have been a good direction, Blofeld as a master of disguise.

    And as much as flashbacks are not really used in the films (except for NTTD)--Bond being in the eternal present--Logan's idea of Blofeld and Mr. White and the French foreign legion or whatever would have given Waltz, obviously a very capable actor, his own angle to play on a frankly tired character (How do you dial back Blofeld from "Keel Bond now!" and "Making mud pies, 007?"). Mendes would have been the exactly right director for such a character-driven flashback.

    Also imagine if Lucia were Blofeld's wife instead. A lot of dramatic potential there as well.

    I mean, the SP script otherwise is terrible but the Blofeld/White backstory had potential. It's probably the most frustrating Bond film.

    I'd say what makes SF's ending work is that the whole film is centred around the idea of Bond's - and by extension MI6s' - relevance in the modern world. It makes sense ending on something that's familiar to Bond fans and viewers. As is said in the film itself 'the old ways are best'. I don't think this idea was there with CR, and I'd argue that film isn't actually all that much about Craig's Bond becoming James Bond anymore than QOS is about him seeking revenge. Bond is a relatively seasoned agent by the beginning of that film and the lessons he has to learn are more personal, related to Vesper's betrayal and perhaps learning to 'take his ego out of the equation' (I guess), but it's not about the nature of his job and his sense of duty which is very much there with SF. Perhaps Bond becomes a bit more hardened by the end of CR - and indeed it's a great ending with that familiar line and theme -but it's still very open ended, which is a major reason why QOS became a direct sequel.

    Perhaps I should have said instead of Craig's Bond becoming the Bond we know (although there's an element of that too) it's more that the onscreen world becomes more like what we associate with the classic Bond films. In the subsequent films the threats are amped up, the stories become more fantastical, and Bond is really the only one who can tackle these new threats in a changing world.

    I do agree that SP is a missed opportunity with some very questionable decisions, but I understand why they went in the general direction they did. It had to be a Bond film which harkened back to those more classic, fantastical films.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,245
    I hope Spectre as an enemy is gone for the immediate future.

    Same with the DB5.

    I’d like a new Mi6 crew, that doesn’t necessarily include a personal assistant/secretary by the name of Moneypenny. And I’d like a Q-branch, but I don’t necessarily need Q.

    I think the new actor should be one who can possess all of Bond’s strengths: physically attractive (but emotionally unavailable), a gambler and risk taker, physically honed and fit and trained in modern unarmed combat, great marksman, passionate about cars and driving, dangerous…

    But underneath that it’d be wise for the creators to find his weaknesses.

    What is that one thing, or couple things he’s hiding with his surface bravado and bluffs? What would an intuitive opponent be able to exploit?

    If the writers can dig deep and find his weakness (even Superman has his kryptonite), then we can explore a different, yet grounded James Bond. What is this man afraid of? And let the new villain drive him to the brink where, just as we think Bond has been defeated, he’s able to overcome the fears and turn the table on his enemy.

    Always put as many obstacles in front of our hero as we can. Never make anything easy for him. And then let him slay the dragon in a last minute bit of triumph and bravery

    General, I know. But just thinking what I’d like to see from the character moving forth…
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    edited May 2023 Posts: 648
    Skyfall-1883.jpg
    "So, 007, you failed to retrieve the undercover list, a foul-up which directly lead to the executions of several MI6 agents, you went AWOL for a month during which time we suffered a terrorist attack, and then you kidnapped the head of British intelligence and got her killed by using her as bait?"
    "Yes, but I learned something about myself along the way, sir."
    "In that case, we're lucky to have you. Welcome back, old chap."
    [cue triumphant Bond theme]
  • BennyBenny In the shadowsAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,811
    I wonder @slide_99 , what do you like about the Bond films?
    I don't recall a positive post from you.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,245
    @Benny , I’m thinking @slide_99 should take over EoN. He’s got his finger on the pulse. He gets Bond. I mean, like you, I hear mostly negative comments, but you know what they say about people who only know how to tear things down….

    Oh wait…
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 7,999
    I get the complaint. Bond films back in the day, at least for the most part, were more about plot. The Connery films had some character work in the early films before the formula took hold, and we’d occasionally get character stuff like in OHMSS. By the time we get to Craig there’s far more importance put on story and character, with plot taking more of a backseat. So it was interesting to see the division over those on SF. Those who took to the story and character, and those who couldn’t understand why stuff like the hard drive was pushed aside and not emphasized as it would have been in older films. This film isn’t about hard drives and government intervention, it’s about dysfunctional characters in conflict. I love that about SF, but I can understand how those who are wired to view Bond a certain way don’t take to that.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,245
    And, as far we know @slide_99 actually watched Skyfall (unlike his constant banging on over NTTD, a film he’s never watched).

    At least he’s trying new things…
  • Posts: 988
    Benny wrote: »
    I wonder @slide_99 , what do you like about the Bond films?
    I don't recall a positive post from you.
    peter wrote: »
    And, as far we know @slide_99 actually watched Skyfall (unlike his constant banging on over NTTD, a film he’s never watched).

    You guys should form a private members club.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,245
    @ColonelAdamski — please explain…
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 2,895
    peter wrote: »
    I think the new actor should be one who can possess all of Bond’s strengths: physically attractive (but emotionally unavailable), a gambler and risk taker, physically honed and fit and trained in modern unarmed combat, great marksman, passionate about cars and driving, dangerous…
    Sounds a lot like Sope to me!

  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,245
    Venutius wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    I think the new actor should be one who can possess all of Bond’s strengths: physically attractive (but emotionally unavailable), a gambler and risk taker, physically honed and fit and trained in modern unarmed combat, great marksman, passionate about cars and driving, dangerous…
    Sounds a lot like Sope to me!

    @Venutius … he’s the only one who checks my boxes. The other actors who are routinely mentioned feel like wet napkins compared to Sope.
  • Posts: 1,477
    I get the complaint. Bond films back in the day, at least for the most part, were more about plot. The Connery films had some character work in the early films before the formula took hold, and we’d occasionally get character stuff like in OHMSS. By the time we get to Craig there’s far more importance put on story and character, with plot taking more of a backseat. So it was interesting to see the division over those on SF. Those who took to the story and character, and those who couldn’t understand why stuff like the hard drive was pushed aside and not emphasized as it would have been in older films. This film isn’t about hard drives and government intervention, it’s about dysfunctional characters in conflict. I love that about SF, but I can understand how those who are wired to view Bond a certain way don’t take to that.

    How are you interpreting character? When did Connery's Bond cease becoming a character in favor of a formulaic role? Are you suggesting Craig's angst and baggage make him more of a character?



  • Posts: 658
    Justice is his weakness
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,009
    CrabKey wrote: »
    I get the complaint. Bond films back in the day, at least for the most part, were more about plot. The Connery films had some character work in the early films before the formula took hold, and we’d occasionally get character stuff like in OHMSS. By the time we get to Craig there’s far more importance put on story and character, with plot taking more of a backseat. So it was interesting to see the division over those on SF. Those who took to the story and character, and those who couldn’t understand why stuff like the hard drive was pushed aside and not emphasized as it would have been in older films. This film isn’t about hard drives and government intervention, it’s about dysfunctional characters in conflict. I love that about SF, but I can understand how those who are wired to view Bond a certain way don’t take to that.

    How are you interpreting character? When did Connery's Bond cease becoming a character in favor of a formulaic role? Are you suggesting Craig's angst and baggage make him more of a character?

    I'd argue that it's about balance. One of the things about CR that I adore is how we learn about this version of Bond as a character through his actions rather than any explicit attempts at explaining him. Mollaka doing his gymnastics, while Bond simply bursts through the wall etc. I love that stuff.

    SF felt special at the time because it was the first Bond that went into any detail about Bond's life prior to him being an MI6 operative. As a once off, it was supremely effective. A perfectly balanced, unique adventure that managed to do something new while also being everything that you'd expect a Bond film to be on top of that. The best of both worlds.

    Then SP and NTTD doubled down on those aspects and while they had their thrills, I found the impact diluted somewhat. The things that made SF special and unique suddenly became an expectation. All of these elements would have been more palatable with better scripts, of course, but unfortunately those scripts weren't the best.

    It's a double-edged sword, though; obviously because SF was so successful they clearly felt that this was the thing to do. And that's fair enough. The numbers don't lie.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited May 2023 Posts: 2,895
    peter wrote: »
    Venutius wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    I think the new actor should be one who can possess all of Bond’s strengths: physically attractive (but emotionally unavailable), a gambler and risk taker, physically honed and fit and trained in modern unarmed combat, great marksman, passionate about cars and driving, dangerous…
    Sounds a lot like Sope to me!

    @Venutius … he’s the only one who checks my boxes. The other actors who are routinely mentioned feel like wet napkins compared to Sope.

    Exactly that, Peter. Sope's got every one of those Bond strengths, whereas most of the other suggested candidates have a couple at best and many of them don't seem to measure up at all. Put Sope up against any one of them and it's almost man against boy, tbh. IMO, obvs.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,245
    Venutius wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    Venutius wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    I think the new actor should be one who can possess all of Bond’s strengths: physically attractive (but emotionally unavailable), a gambler and risk taker, physically honed and fit and trained in modern unarmed combat, great marksman, passionate about cars and driving, dangerous…
    Sounds a lot like Sope to me!

    @Venutius … he’s the only one who checks my boxes. The other actors who are routinely mentioned feel like wet napkins compared to Sope.

    Exactly that, Peter. Sope's got every one of those Bond strengths, whereas most of the other suggested candidates have a couple at best and many of them don't seem to measure up at all. Put Sope up against any one of them and it's almost man against boy, tbh. IMO, obvs.

    💯… if you put him in a tux— he’ll look awesome. Combat gear— awesome. A three piece suite— awesome. Driving? Fighting? Being brought into M’s office? Having women want him?

    The list goes on and this guy makes the mark on each.
  • Posts: 1,477
    @CraigMooreOHMSS For me more backstory doesn't speak to character portrayal. It's what an actor brings to a role, which is why different actors can tackle the same role with very different results. But backstory and history are not a bad thing and most certainly can help an actor develop a character.

    Connery was interesting because he was cool, nonchalant, cynical, and could project personal fear when in danger. Moore couldn't pull off Connery, which is why he really never seemed to be in danger. I've never bought the Moonraker centrifuge scene as RM's ability to project fear.

    Craig projected some of what Connery did, but never Connery's cool, nonchalance. Nonetheless, I enjoyed DC as Bond.

    Moving beyond Craig, I hope the producers find an actor who can mashup Connery and Craig without being Moore or Brosnan. For me it always comes down being Bond as opposed to playing the role of Bond.

  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 7,999
    CrabKey wrote: »
    I get the complaint. Bond films back in the day, at least for the most part, were more about plot. The Connery films had some character work in the early films before the formula took hold, and we’d occasionally get character stuff like in OHMSS. By the time we get to Craig there’s far more importance put on story and character, with plot taking more of a backseat. So it was interesting to see the division over those on SF. Those who took to the story and character, and those who couldn’t understand why stuff like the hard drive was pushed aside and not emphasized as it would have been in older films. This film isn’t about hard drives and government intervention, it’s about dysfunctional characters in conflict. I love that about SF, but I can understand how those who are wired to view Bond a certain way don’t take to that.

    How are you interpreting character? When did Connery's Bond cease becoming a character in favor of a formulaic role? Are you suggesting Craig's angst and baggage make him more of a character?



    That was more directed at the cast of characters rather than Bond specifically. To make my point clear, Connery says he preferred the earlier films because there was more rounded characters and dynamics for his Bond to bounce off of. By the time we reach YOLT, the characters are one dimensional and there’s more emphasis on the spectacle, set design, etc. It’s a big factor in why Connery became less engaged. Had he been given the OHMSS that Peter Hunt made, I have confidence that would have kept him more engaged than he was in YOLT. He might have delivered his best performance in that film.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,009
    CrabKey wrote: »
    @CraigMooreOHMSS For me more backstory doesn't speak to character portrayal. It's what an actor brings to a role, which is why different actors can tackle the same role with very different results. But backstory and history are not a bad thing and most certainly can help an actor develop a character.

    Yes, that would be exactly my view too.
  • BennyBenny In the shadowsAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,811
    peter wrote: »
    Venutius wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    Venutius wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    I think the new actor should be one who can possess all of Bond’s strengths: physically attractive (but emotionally unavailable), a gambler and risk taker, physically honed and fit and trained in modern unarmed combat, great marksman, passionate about cars and driving, dangerous…
    Sounds a lot like Sope to me!

    @Venutius … he’s the only one who checks my boxes. The other actors who are routinely mentioned feel like wet napkins compared to Sope.

    Exactly that, Peter. Sope's got every one of those Bond strengths, whereas most of the other suggested candidates have a couple at best and many of them don't seem to measure up at all. Put Sope up against any one of them and it's almost man against boy, tbh. IMO, obvs.

    💯… if you put him in a tux— he’ll look awesome. Combat gear— awesome. A three piece suite— awesome. Driving? Fighting? Being brought into M’s office? Having women want him?

    The list goes on and this guy makes the mark on each.

    I like the Sope appreciation going on here.
    He is very alpha male, with a good strong voice, and all the necessary features associated with the character of James Bond.
  • George_KaplanGeorge_Kaplan Not a red herring
    edited May 2023 Posts: 539
    For some reason I've got a very strong feeling it will be him. He's 32 so they've got plenty of time to get everything else in order before they start casting, and I haven't seen him being discussed anywhere outside of these forums (I'd never even heard of him until I saw people talking about him on here). Plus his Wikipedia page looks like this:

    Screenshot-313.png

    Exactly the sort of (fairly) low profile you want for a Bond actor. Of course it's just an opinion, but I've got a very strong feeling this is our man.
  • edited May 2023 Posts: 3,272
    peter wrote: »
    I hope Spectre as an enemy is gone for the immediate future.

    Same with the DB5.

    I’d like a new Mi6 crew, that doesn’t necessarily include a personal assistant/secretary by the name of Moneypenny. And I’d like a Q-branch, but I don’t necessarily need Q.

    I think the new actor should be one who can possess all of Bond’s strengths: physically attractive (but emotionally unavailable), a gambler and risk taker, physically honed and fit and trained in modern unarmed combat, great marksman, passionate about cars and driving, dangerous…

    But underneath that it’d be wise for the creators to find his weaknesses.

    What is that one thing, or couple things he’s hiding with his surface bravado and bluffs? What would an intuitive opponent be able to exploit?

    If the writers can dig deep and find his weakness (even Superman has his kryptonite), then we can explore a different, yet grounded James Bond. What is this man afraid of? And let the new villain drive him to the brink where, just as we think Bond has been defeated, he’s able to overcome the fears and turn the table on his enemy.

    Always put as many obstacles in front of our hero as we can. Never make anything easy for him. And then let him slay the dragon in a last minute bit of triumph and bravery

    General, I know. But just thinking what I’d like to see from the character moving forth…

    Yes I agree with pretty much all of this. Bond's fears in the books were fairly normal and human. He even had a fear of flying during one novel, when turbulence suddenly strikes.

    I would also like to see the return of Bond alone on a mission, without a Scooby gang or a female 007 in tow either accompanying him.
    peter wrote: »
    Venutius wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    I think the new actor should be one who can possess all of Bond’s strengths: physically attractive (but emotionally unavailable), a gambler and risk taker, physically honed and fit and trained in modern unarmed combat, great marksman, passionate about cars and driving, dangerous…
    Sounds a lot like Sope to me!

    @Venutius … he’s the only one who checks my boxes. The other actors who are routinely mentioned feel like wet napkins compared to Sope.

    He doesn't tally with the Fleming description, so it's a massive no from me. And there are other candidates touted around at the moment who are far stronger than Sope.

    I hate to rain on your parade, but it won't be Sope as the next Bond. I am 100% certain.
  • CharmianBondCharmianBond Pett Bottom, Kent
    edited May 2023 Posts: 533
    And there are other candidates touted around at the moment who are far stronger than Sope.

    Who are your picks?

    I've thought about your Maddens and your Lowdens, even O'Conner (big ears included) and they are incredible actors but the more I've thought about it the more I think they're not Bond to me. Whereas I keep coming back to Sope, he's the one that has the little extra something. Call it charisma, sheer magnetism, alpha male energy, raw sex appeal, that's cinematic Bond for me.
  • edited May 2023 Posts: 988
    He'd look silly as James Bond.
    He doesn't tally with the Fleming description, so it's a massive no from me.

    For me, it's quite important the next guy matches Fleming's description in some way. I actually though Daniel Craig wasn't as good choice as Bond, and he's still my least favourite. As good an actor as he is, and as good as CR and SF were, I never quite believed in him as Bond.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    CrabKey wrote: »
    Moore couldn't pull off Connery,

    I don’t think Sean was into that.
  • CharmianBondCharmianBond Pett Bottom, Kent
    Posts: 533
    There have been so many iterations of James Bond at this point, maybe it's the fact I started with a spinoff, maybe it's because I love EEAAO, maybe it also the Michelle Yeoh in my pfp that's looking at me but as long as he's British and he's got a licence to kill then I don't care whether he has a 'dark comma of hair.'

    As long as he's a handsome, sells the action and can please a crowd. I'm sure that can't be too difficult.
  • Posts: 988
    What's EEAAO? (and what's a pfp while we're at it?)

    I don't think many people are that bothered if we get a Fleming-true Bond or not. Someone did say there's no chance of a black Bond because of how other countries would react. Here in the UK I don't think a different Bond would hurt the box office, but I don't know if that's true in other parts of the world.
    I'd like another Tim Dalton doing a film every two years, but I don't think either will happen.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,480
    The problem with Sope is his filmography isn't really that large, would EON risk the future of the series on a great actor who's unknown?

    When Daniel got the role in 2005, he wasn't unknown, as much as he was an unfamiliar face. He'd worked with Angelina Jolie, Paul Newman, Tom Hanks, Steven Spielberg and most importantly he'd had several lead/co-lead roles.

    The great thing with Sope and my own choice for the role, Leo Suter, is they're both young and talented actors. They've both got time to round themselves as actors and polish their C.V's
  • Posts: 988
    I rarely watch movies and don't watch TV so I've no idea who I'd choose. And sometimes the actor's 'prime' as Bond can be a few years. What I mean is, Pierce Brosnan for me, peaked in TND. He was pretty perfect in that, but seemed a little too young and fresh in Goldeneye. By DAD, he was looking more like a senior Bond. And with Connery, his 'era of perfection' was the first three.
    An actor that looks fresh-faced in 2023, might well be the perfect Bond in 2026.
Sign In or Register to comment.