Where does Bond go after Craig?

1293294296298299513

Comments

  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,009
    True, but there's not much weight behind it since this Blofeld is not the same one from the early movies, with none of the same history with Bond, so it plays as more of a cheap 'nudge and a wink' namecheck reference. That's provided the audience is familiar with the character, for some people the name will be as meaningless as it is to the characters on screen.

    Exactly. It’s delivered with this dramatic weight that is totally unwarranted in the context of the story. It makes no sense for Blofeld to deliver his name like that. The filmmakers obviously were expecting the audience to gasp with surprise and delight. For me it was the equivalent of a very unfunny joke followed by a cymbal crash.

    Yeah, it was quite underwhelming for me too. A big reason also is that you could see it coming from miles off (if you're one of the ones who is familiar with the character) - we knew he was Blofeld as soon as he first appeared. The Oberhauser identity smokescreen was very transparent. There was no element of surprise or even an eyebrow raise. So it's a lose-lose, really.

    The Eve thing was played much smarter, for my money.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,053
    For the future, EON needs to NOT use code-names for classic characters. It only worked for Moneypenny because her character was radically altered from before. As for Blofeld, he was portrayed exactly the same as in previous movies. A blind person could see it coming. If Blofeld’s a future villain, EON doesn’t need to be shy about him. In this day and age of the internet, it’s bound to leak. As for a few other classic characters coming back, I like the idea of Draco being a undercover mob agent. A unique twist on his character. Same with Tiger, there’s more stories to tell with him as a side character. EON, just don’t use code-names!
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited May 2023 Posts: 2,897
    Yeah, the various reveals were a bit underwhelming really. Not sure anyone swallowed the 'I'm playing a character called Eve', 'I'm playing a character called Franz Oberhauser' denials anyway, so the interest wasn't so much in what was being revealed as it was in how they revealed it. But both of them were a bit perfunctory in the end, tbh. I'd be ok with them leaving this aspect out of the next set of films.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,449
    I fully agree with @MaxCasino. These characters don't have to be teased. Just throw them in the cast list!

    I recall going through the IMDB list of Batman Begins in 2004. The film was still months away from its release, but seeing several character names and the names of the actors attached to the roles, made me dream of the final product and got me really excited. Imagine if Oldman had been listed as "Policeman" and Murphy as "Doctor"... That would've been lame.
  • Posts: 1,478
    We keep coming back to the Oberhauser in the room. Note to producers: next time, get it right.
  • Posts: 6,682
    Reporter: So Aaron, you're not playing Bond in the next film? Who are you playing then?
    Aaron Taylor-Johnson: I'm playing Sir Hildebert Bryce, a member of the British Aristocracy.
    Reporter: Yeah, right, and I'm Franz Oberhauser.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,449
    mattjoes wrote: »
    Reporter: So Aaron, you're not playing Bond in the next film? Who are you playing then?
    Aaron Taylor-Johnson: I'm playing Sir Hildebert Bryce, a member of the British Aristocracy.
    Reporter: Yeah, right, and I'm Franz Oberhauser.

    ATJ: Who's that, mate?
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited May 2023 Posts: 7,971
    We can't have the next Bond film until they recast bond, they can't recast until they have a finished script and they can't begin writing a script until the writers strike is resolved. All in all, it seems like we won't be seeing the next film until 2027 at the earliest, just in time for the 65th anniversary. I suspect EON are doing this deliberately because they want the bond films to have an aura, the last of the old style prestige franchises that didn't sell out and launch 50 different spinoffs and tv shows. Bond is like an old dog of the industry after all, even franchises like Halloween or Star Wars are mere whippersnappers in comparison to bond.
  • BennyBenny In the shadowsAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,813
    Seriously @Mendes4Lyfe I'll have what you're having.
    Do you actually believe this too be true?
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    Posts: 3,382
    Steps of doing a Bond film (my theory):

    1. Hire a scriptwriter: write a script.
    2. Hire a director: do a screentest.
    3. From the script, the director would choose a scene for a screentest
    4. Many actors are going to undergo a screentest.
    5. There would be an elimination rounds for them, then the one who's left and caught both the Producers and director's heart would likely to be Bond.

    So hire a scriptwriter first, then director, then the actor.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    Yeah that seems the usual way; plus in step 2 you have the stage where the director may have the script be rewritten.
  • Posts: 3,275
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    Steps of doing a Bond film (my theory):

    1. Hire a scriptwriter: write a script.
    2. Hire a director: do a screentest.
    3. From the script, the director would choose a scene for a screentest
    4. Many actors are going to undergo a screentest.
    5. There would be an elimination rounds for them, then the one who's left and caught both the Producers and director's heart would likely to be Bond.

    So hire a scriptwriter first, then director, then the actor.

    Number 3 seems to be typically the bedroom scene from FRWL. Never really been sure why this is the definitive audition piece, but it is.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    Posts: 3,382
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    Steps of doing a Bond film (my theory):

    1. Hire a scriptwriter: write a script.
    2. Hire a director: do a screentest.
    3. From the script, the director would choose a scene for a screentest
    4. Many actors are going to undergo a screentest.
    5. There would be an elimination rounds for them, then the one who's left and caught both the Producers and director's heart would likely to be Bond.

    So hire a scriptwriter first, then director, then the actor.

    Number 3 seems to be typically the bedroom scene from FRWL. Never really been sure why this is the definitive audition piece, but it is.

    Yes, it's typically that, but then the screentest of Brosnan in TLD was different (have you seen it?), as so was Craig's screentest in CR too.

    For me, it depends.
  • edited May 2023 Posts: 2,753
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    Steps of doing a Bond film (my theory):

    1. Hire a scriptwriter: write a script.
    2. Hire a director: do a screentest.
    3. From the script, the director would choose a scene for a screentest
    4. Many actors are going to undergo a screentest.
    5. There would be an elimination rounds for them, then the one who's left and caught both the Producers and director's heart would likely to be Bond.

    So hire a scriptwriter first, then director, then the actor.

    Number 3 seems to be typically the bedroom scene from FRWL. Never really been sure why this is the definitive audition piece, but it is.

    From my understanding it's part of the many screen-tests they do for the final candidates. The FRWL scene is one and they'll do a fight scene as well probably to access the candidate's physicality, likely a spin on the hotel fight from OHMSS (similar to the one James Brolin did for his screen test in '87). Then a scene from the actual film they're doing.

    I'm guessing they use the FRWL scene because it not only gives the director/producers an idea of how seductive the candidate can be, but how the actor acts as Bond during quieter moments (I mean, during that scene Bond has to go from suspecting an intruder in his room to having to quickly turn on the charm). That and they probably don't want to do too many scenes from the actual film maybe for fear of anything leaking?
  • George_KaplanGeorge_Kaplan Not a red herring
    edited May 2023 Posts: 539
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    Steps of doing a Bond film (my theory):

    1. Hire a scriptwriter: write a script.
    2. Hire a director: do a screentest.
    3. From the script, the director would choose a scene for a screentest
    4. Many actors are going to undergo a screentest.
    5. There would be an elimination rounds for them, then the one who's left and caught both the Producers and director's heart would likely to be Bond.

    So hire a scriptwriter first, then director, then the actor.

    Number 3 seems to be typically the bedroom scene from FRWL. Never really been sure why this is the definitive audition piece, but it is.

    Yes, it's typically that, but then the screentest of Brosnan in TLD was different (have you seen it?), as so was Craig's screentest in CR too.

    For me, it depends.

    I always wondered if this supposed to be the scene in Bond's hotel room in OHMSS.
    6pmc9mfrbx251.webp
    On-Her-Majestys-Secret-Service-0215.jpg
    Looks quite similar.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    Yes I've always taken it as that. For CR one of the scenes was the train scene from that film where Bond meets Vesper (relocated to his hotel room). I'd love to see that version.
  • Posts: 2,753
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    Steps of doing a Bond film (my theory):

    1. Hire a scriptwriter: write a script.
    2. Hire a director: do a screentest.
    3. From the script, the director would choose a scene for a screentest
    4. Many actors are going to undergo a screentest.
    5. There would be an elimination rounds for them, then the one who's left and caught both the Producers and director's heart would likely to be Bond.

    So hire a scriptwriter first, then director, then the actor.

    Number 3 seems to be typically the bedroom scene from FRWL. Never really been sure why this is the definitive audition piece, but it is.

    Yes, it's typically that, but then the screentest of Brosnan in TLD was different (have you seen it?), as so was Craig's screentest in CR too.

    For me, it depends.

    I always wondered if this supposed to be the scene in Bond's hotel room in OHMSS.
    6pmc9mfrbx251.webp
    On-Her-Majestys-Secret-Service-0215.jpg
    Looks quite similar.

    A little off topic, but if there's one thing I hope the future Bond films never do it's to pay homage to OHMSS by having the next Bond wear a white shirt with frilly ruffles.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited May 2023 Posts: 3,382
    007HallY wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    Steps of doing a Bond film (my theory):

    1. Hire a scriptwriter: write a script.
    2. Hire a director: do a screentest.
    3. From the script, the director would choose a scene for a screentest
    4. Many actors are going to undergo a screentest.
    5. There would be an elimination rounds for them, then the one who's left and caught both the Producers and director's heart would likely to be Bond.

    So hire a scriptwriter first, then director, then the actor.

    Number 3 seems to be typically the bedroom scene from FRWL. Never really been sure why this is the definitive audition piece, but it is.

    Yes, it's typically that, but then the screentest of Brosnan in TLD was different (have you seen it?), as so was Craig's screentest in CR too.

    For me, it depends.

    I always wondered if this supposed to be the scene in Bond's hotel room in OHMSS.
    6pmc9mfrbx251.webp
    On-Her-Majestys-Secret-Service-0215.jpg
    Looks quite similar.

    A little off topic, but if there's one thing I hope the future Bond films never do it's to pay homage to OHMSS by having the next Bond wear a white shirt with frilly ruffles.

    :))
    Of course, they will never do it, it's already dated and 'very much of its time'.

    And I think there would be no OHMSS homages for now, since it's been done to death in NTTD.

    Although the whole hotel sequence in OHMSS with Bond fighting Che Che and his interaction with Tracy would make a great screentest.
  • Posts: 2,753
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    Steps of doing a Bond film (my theory):

    1. Hire a scriptwriter: write a script.
    2. Hire a director: do a screentest.
    3. From the script, the director would choose a scene for a screentest
    4. Many actors are going to undergo a screentest.
    5. There would be an elimination rounds for them, then the one who's left and caught both the Producers and director's heart would likely to be Bond.

    So hire a scriptwriter first, then director, then the actor.

    Number 3 seems to be typically the bedroom scene from FRWL. Never really been sure why this is the definitive audition piece, but it is.

    Yes, it's typically that, but then the screentest of Brosnan in TLD was different (have you seen it?), as so was Craig's screentest in CR too.

    For me, it depends.

    I always wondered if this supposed to be the scene in Bond's hotel room in OHMSS.
    6pmc9mfrbx251.webp
    On-Her-Majestys-Secret-Service-0215.jpg
    Looks quite similar.

    A little off topic, but if there's one thing I hope the future Bond films never do it's to pay homage to OHMSS by having the next Bond wear a white shirt with frilly ruffles.

    :))
    Of course, they will never do it, it's already dated and 'very much of its time'.

    And I think there would be no OHMSS homages for now, since it's been done to death in NTTD.

    Although the whole hotel sequence in OHMSS with Bond fighting Che Che and his interaction with Tracy would make a great screentest.

    There's a great episode of Seinfeld where Jerry inadvertently agrees to wear a rather frilly shirt designed by Kramer's girlfriend on The Tonight Show. George's shirt in OHMSS always reminds me of that.

    Anyway, like I said I don't know if they still do this scene for their screen-tests.

  • LucknFateLucknFate 007 In New York
    edited May 2023 Posts: 1,420
    Do we think Waller-Bridge doing press for Indy 5 could shed some light on Bond preproduction? I wonder if anyone will think to ask if she's continuing her involvement in the Bond franchise.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,053
    LucknFate wrote: »
    Do we think Waller-Bridge doing press for Indy 5 could shed some light on Bond preproduction? I wonder if anyone will think to ask if she's continuing her involvement in the Bond franchise.

    I hope so.
  • LucknFateLucknFate 007 In New York
    Posts: 1,420
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    LucknFate wrote: »
    Do we think Waller-Bridge doing press for Indy 5 could shed some light on Bond preproduction? I wonder if anyone will think to ask if she's continuing her involvement in the Bond franchise.

    I hope so.

    Just curious - you hope they ask, or you hope she's involved in the future?
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,053
    LucknFate wrote: »
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    LucknFate wrote: »
    Do we think Waller-Bridge doing press for Indy 5 could shed some light on Bond preproduction? I wonder if anyone will think to ask if she's continuing her involvement in the Bond franchise.

    I hope so.

    Just curious - you hope they ask, or you hope she's involved in the future?

    Both, honestly. I hope Bond lightens up a bit next time, with no family drama. She would be a good person to start that trend.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 2,897
    I hope Phoebe WB at least writes some of the gags. 'Not the first thing I thought you'd take off' - classic.
  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    Posts: 1,351
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    Steps of doing a Bond film (my theory):

    1. Hire a scriptwriter: write a script.
    2. Hire a director: do a screentest.
    3. From the script, the director would choose a scene for a screentest
    4. Many actors are going to undergo a screentest.
    5. There would be an elimination rounds for them, then the one who's left and caught both the Producers and director's heart would likely to be Bond.

    So hire a scriptwriter first, then director, then the actor.

    The thing is that these bullet points aren’t monoliths, they all have sub-points and I feel like Bond is one franchise that could get away with splitting that first one up considerably. I’m not saying it would be the best way to go or that it’s likely, but I think it’s absolutely possible that they have some sort of treatment maybe even a very rough first draft from P&W and are currently in early development with that. So they’d talk to directors and actors and start planning with Locations and Special Effects and everything and whenever the strike is over they’ll get someone to actually make a full script out of this.

    We all know there’s going to be Bond and a villain and a henchman and a girl and so on and there will be 3-4 action setpieces in 2-3 locations. It’s a bit mad-libs style and again, maybe not the way to write a classic, but don’t they tell their screenwriters: „It has to be in these 3 locations due to taxbreaks and production capacity. Also, Corbould came up with this, this and this.“ anyway?
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited May 2023 Posts: 3,382
    Just my realization that Bond's grittiness was misunderstood in the films.

    While Bond wasn't completely serious as people always know, he actually made some funny comments and humor, his grittiness comes from the fact that he's a man of World War, a man who experienced such, back then, it's a bleak world of Black and White, full of dullness, it's a very serious world back then because of World War, and Bond was one of those.

    Fleming and the books (that includes Bond's character), wants us to see the reflection of World War, that those things that Fleming wrote reflected World War and it's theme being played in the background.

    In the films, it's often misunderstood, like he's serious because it needs to be: often because it's the 'trend', yes, even the Dalton ones, and especially the Craig Era ones, they just went the serious approach because it needs to be and that's the understanding of the character, which in my view, was wrong.

    Aside from the books not being that gritty, the context or the aspect behind the seriousness of the novels was came from the World War theme.
    Imagine why Bond used to take some Benzedrine? Think of this: soldiers back in the World War used to take some drugs, that's what Bond reflected, back then to avoid the depression made by the War, people used to take anti-depressants. And Bond, being a man from that era experienced those, that's why, he's a Commander of the Royal Navy, he used to share and reflect the same mentality as the World War Soldiers back then. Now this was something that no one could replicate, because it's a matter of experience.

    Now, this is what misunderstood in the Craig Era, Bond did those and why? Why he needs to be gritty? His grittiness in Skyfall doesn't makes sense, because there's nothing to be serious of, to get dour of, I don't see the point, maybe it's just me.

    Something that couldn't be replicated today, yes, even by Period Pieces, there's still that misunderstanding with regards to the main point behind the tone of the character.

    Now, it's serious, because the modern cinema were aiming for more serious tones, it's the trend, not the fact that what Fleming wants us to realize, the effects of World War that's being played in the books, hence the seriousness, but as we can see, the books weren't that serious, because again, it's not intentionally played, there's a humor, of course, because Fleming wasn't targeting the seriousness of the character, he's not interested in the seriousness and grittiness, if anything he's more interested in escapism which he stated many times, the seriousness aspect of the books was all about the effects of World War, the bleakness of it and how it affected the mood back then.

    The seriousness of the books had that Wartime shadow mood and atmosphere into it, but if we look closer into those books, they're just normal, often sprinkled some humor for it not to be dour.

    Not just Fleming wanted to made Bond serious because he wanted him serious, or because he's serious himself, no, Fleming wanted to depict the bad effects of World War, the effect it had in terms of spirit and presence.

    Bond in the books still had humor and made jokes, in fact, maybe it's only me but Archer is the one I saw when reading some of his lines in his books, but Bond's seriousness at times depicts the bleakness of the people's attitude caused by World War.
    Bond the character was made by experiences and that's something that couldn't be replicated
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    Now, this is what misunderstood in the Craig Era, Bond did those and why? Why he needs to be gritty? His grittiness in Skyfall doesn't makes sense, because there's nothing to be serious of, to get dour of, I don't see the point, maybe it's just me.

    He's a killer, surrounded by other killers and people are dying. I'm not sure what there isn't there to be serious about?
    And Craig's Bond still has humour and makes jokes: more than Dalton's does even, I'd say. I think it's always a misreading of his portrayal to say it was nothing but gritty.
  • George_KaplanGeorge_Kaplan Not a red herring
    edited May 2023 Posts: 539
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    Just my realization that Bond's grittiness was misunderstood in the films.

    While Bond wasn't completely serious as people always know, he actually made some funny comments and humor, his grittiness comes from the fact that he's a man of World War, a man who experienced such, back then, it's a bleak world of Black and White, full of dullness, it's a very serious world back then because of World War, and Bond was one of those.

    Fleming and the books (that includes Bond's character), wants us to see the reflection of World War, that those things that Fleming wrote reflected World War and it's theme being played in the background.

    In the films, it's often misunderstood, like he's serious because it needs to be: often because it's the 'trend', yes, even the Dalton ones, and especially the Craig Era ones, they just went the serious approach because it needs to be and that's the understanding of the character, which in my view, was wrong.

    Aside from the books not being that gritty, the context or the aspect behind the seriousness of the novels was came from the World War theme.
    Imagine why Bond used to take some Benzedrine? Think of this: soldiers back in the World War used to take some drugs, that's what Bond reflected, back then to avoid the depression made by the War, people used to take anti-depressants. And Bond, being a man from that era experienced those, that's why, he's a Commander of the Royal Navy, he used to share and reflect the same mentality as the World War Soldiers back then. Now this was something that no one could replicate, because it's a matter of experience.

    Now, this is what misunderstood in the Craig Era, Bond did those and why? Why he needs to be gritty? His grittiness in Skyfall doesn't makes sense, because there's nothing to be serious of, to get dour of, I don't see the point, maybe it's just me.

    Something that couldn't be replicated today, yes, even by Period Pieces, there's still that misunderstanding with regards to the main point behind the tone of the character.

    Now, it's serious, because the modern cinema were aiming for more serious tones, it's the trend, not the fact that what Fleming wants us to realize, the effects of World War that's being played in the books, hence the seriousness, but as we can see, the books weren't that serious, because again, it's not intentionally played, there's a humor, of course, because Fleming wasn't targeting the seriousness of the character, he's not interested in the seriousness and grittiness, if anything he's more interested in escapism which he stated many times, the seriousness aspect of the books was all about the effects of World War, the bleakness of it and how it affected the mood back then.

    The seriousness of the books had that Wartime shadow mood and atmosphere into it, but if we look closer into those books, they're just normal, often sprinkled some humor for it not to be dour.

    Not just Fleming wanted to made Bond serious because he wanted him serious, or because he's serious himself, no, Fleming wanted to depict the bad effects of World War, the effect it had in terms of spirit and presence.

    Bond in the books still had humor and made jokes, in fact, maybe it's only me but Archer is the one I saw when reading some of his lines in his books, but Bond's seriousness at times depicts the bleakness of the people's attitude caused by World War.
    Bond the character was made by experiences and that's something that couldn't be replicated

    Replicated by whom? And how? All of Bond's experiences are fictional (even if details like the use of stimulants are based in reality), so there's nothing to replicate.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited May 2023 Posts: 3,382
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    Just my realization that Bond's grittiness was misunderstood in the films.

    While Bond wasn't completely serious as people always know, he actually made some funny comments and humor, his grittiness comes from the fact that he's a man of World War, a man who experienced such, back then, it's a bleak world of Black and White, full of dullness, it's a very serious world back then because of World War, and Bond was one of those.

    Fleming and the books (that includes Bond's character), wants us to see the reflection of World War, that those things that Fleming wrote reflected World War and it's theme being played in the background.

    In the films, it's often misunderstood, like he's serious because it needs to be: often because it's the 'trend', yes, even the Dalton ones, and especially the Craig Era ones, they just went the serious approach because it needs to be and that's the understanding of the character, which in my view, was wrong.

    Aside from the books not being that gritty, the context or the aspect behind the seriousness of the novels was came from the World War theme.
    Imagine why Bond used to take some Benzedrine? Think of this: soldiers back in the World War used to take some drugs, that's what Bond reflected, back then to avoid the depression made by the War, people used to take anti-depressants. And Bond, being a man from that era experienced those, that's why, he's a Commander of the Royal Navy, he used to share and reflect the same mentality as the World War Soldiers back then. Now this was something that no one could replicate, because it's a matter of experience.

    Now, this is what misunderstood in the Craig Era, Bond did those and why? Why he needs to be gritty? His grittiness in Skyfall doesn't makes sense, because there's nothing to be serious of, to get dour of, I don't see the point, maybe it's just me.

    Something that couldn't be replicated today, yes, even by Period Pieces, there's still that misunderstanding with regards to the main point behind the tone of the character.

    Now, it's serious, because the modern cinema were aiming for more serious tones, it's the trend, not the fact that what Fleming wants us to realize, the effects of World War that's being played in the books, hence the seriousness, but as we can see, the books weren't that serious, because again, it's not intentionally played, there's a humor, of course, because Fleming wasn't targeting the seriousness of the character, he's not interested in the seriousness and grittiness, if anything he's more interested in escapism which he stated many times, the seriousness aspect of the books was all about the effects of World War, the bleakness of it and how it affected the mood back then.

    The seriousness of the books had that Wartime shadow mood and atmosphere into it, but if we look closer into those books, they're just normal, often sprinkled some humor for it not to be dour.

    Not just Fleming wanted to made Bond serious because he wanted him serious, or because he's serious himself, no, Fleming wanted to depict the bad effects of World War, the effect it had in terms of spirit and presence.

    Bond in the books still had humor and made jokes, in fact, maybe it's only me but Archer is the one I saw when reading some of his lines in his books, but Bond's seriousness at times depicts the bleakness of the people's attitude caused by World War.
    Bond the character was made by experiences and that's something that couldn't be replicated

    Replicated by whom? And how? All of Bond's experiences are fictional (even if details like the use of stimulants are based in reality), so there's nothing to replicate.

    Give me clarifications about this:

    For example, if the Bond of today would use drugs for example, or even his grittiness, what it originally represented, or the reason behind of Bond's grittiness is something that couldn't be replicated, because the current statement that if Bond is serious and gritty, people would think of them as being close to the books, but my point here is, there's a reason why Bond was serious, there's an experience behind that, and it couldn't be replicated today.

    For me, Bond was gritty because it's the trend, it's the demand, not by going close to the books, because Bond in the books was serious because of the World War experiences, something that couldn't be replicated today, even if the next Bond will be gritty that essence that "yes, he's like that because of his World War experiences" is not felt.

    For me Bond's seriousness in the books was heavily influenced by World War, in the films, Bond's gritty for a different reason.

    I never felt in Dalton's Bond or in Craig's Bond that they're somewhat gritty because of World War experiences, for me, it strikes me more as they're killers, that's why, but the reason why the original Bond as depicted by Fleming was serious because of World War experiences.

    Same for his booze or drinking, it's the aspect of him which built by World War, but Bond doing it today or in general Bond doing it in films, the essence behind that habit wasn't there.

    It's just an observation from mine.
  • LucknFateLucknFate 007 In New York
    Posts: 1,420
    https://variety.com/2023/film/global/rebel-wilson-james-bond-audition-senior-year-1235624156/

    "“What was really cool was getting to audition for Bond,” said Wilson, who stressed that the role she went for wasn’t actually James Bond, but rather another character in the movie. The audition took place last year, though the star played coy about whether or not she landed the gig.

    The next instalment of the famous franchise is currently in script stage. Broccoli and Wilson last year told Variety that finding the new Bond is “not just about casting an actor for a film. It’s about a reinvention.” One frequently discussed frontrunner for the role is Aaron Taylor-Johnson."
Sign In or Register to comment.