Where does Bond go after Craig?

1301302304306307686

Comments

  • Posts: 7,517
    echo wrote: »
    I find the MI films utterly disposable and forgettable, aside from the first one, which had intrigue and style and the essential casting of Ving Rhames. I recall some stunts, like the helicopter fight on top of the cliffs in Norway or wherever. When I see things like bathroom fights or opera sequences, I think, "Yeah, there's another thing they stole from Bond."

    The MI films have fully embraced the worst aspects of some lesser Bond films--forgettable stories, memorable chiefly for the stunts.

    But Roger Moore did it better and more effortlessly than Cruise.

    Agree totally.
  • Posts: 2,006
    304 pages into this discussion, we still know almost nothing about where the series goes after Craig. New and younger guy, check. The new Bond will reflect some of the attitudes and values of the current generation, check. That seems to be about it.

    Filming for NTTD was completed in October 2019, which means the script was completed long before then, and Craig's departure had long been known. It would be nice to be given news of something concrete.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,641
    I think EON are further along with Bond 26 than they'd admit at this time, but I doubt we'll hear anything til Christmas at the earliest, even that will likely only probably be a release date
  • Junglist_1985Junglist_1985 Los Angeles
    Posts: 1,034
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    I think EON are further along with Bond 26 than they'd admit at this time, but I doubt we'll hear anything til Christmas at the earliest, even that will likely only probably be a release date

    Agreed. There’s ZERO chance they aren’t getting some “ducks in a row” during this downtime. There was most definitely a rough outline of a script before the writer’s strike (Barbs admitting P&W will come up with some ideas nearly a year ago), and the search for a new Bond has been going on for years.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,190
    Eon always had a script on hand that they would work on throughout their entire 60 year existence. For now, especially with the strike going, they’ll continue to play coy.
  • George_KaplanGeorge_Kaplan Being chauffeured by Tibbett
    edited July 2023 Posts: 692
    CrabKey wrote: »
    304 pages into this discussion, we still know almost nothing about where the series goes after Craig.

    To be fair, this thread was started even before the release of SP. 304-pages seems like a reasonable number for a period of 8-years.
  • NoTimeToLiveNoTimeToLive Jamaica
    Posts: 98
    echo wrote: »
    I find the MI films utterly disposable and forgettable, aside from the first one, which had intrigue and style and the essential casting of Ving Rhames. I recall some stunts, like the helicopter fight on top of the cliffs in Norway or wherever. When I see things like bathroom fights or opera sequences, I think, "Yeah, there's another thing they stole from Bond."

    The MI films have fully embraced the worst aspects of some lesser Bond films--forgettable stories, memorable chiefly for the stunts.

    But Roger Moore did it better and more effortlessly than Cruise.

    Well said.
  • Posts: 4,205
    echo wrote: »
    I find the MI films utterly disposable and forgettable, aside from the first one, which had intrigue and style and the essential casting of Ving Rhames. I recall some stunts, like the helicopter fight on top of the cliffs in Norway or wherever. When I see things like bathroom fights or opera sequences, I think, "Yeah, there's another thing they stole from Bond."

    The MI films have fully embraced the worst aspects of some lesser Bond films--forgettable stories, memorable chiefly for the stunts.

    But Roger Moore did it better and more effortlessly than Cruise.

    Well said.

    Must say I find myself agreeing with that too. While I enjoy the MI films fine enough I find they're a bit disposable and forgettable in the long run. And no, Tom Cruise does not have the charisma nor the charm of the majority of the cinematic Bonds (with the exception of Lazenby, but this is just my opinion. He's certainly no Moore, Connery or Craig).
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited July 2023 Posts: 3,795
    I liked Tom Cruise as an actor really, I do find him handsome, he's also charismatic (especially in the Top Gun series), of course, he's old now, but back then when he's young, he looked like a model for a magazine, he's handsome and charismatic but in a different way.

    I think it depends on what type of charisma really.

    And Tom Cruise is aging better than some of the Bond actors, with the exception of Brosnan and Lazenby (who both still looking good despite of their age).

    Tom Cruise is 61 years old, and he is still really looking good, compared to Connery in DAF (aged 41) and Moore in AVTAK (aged 58), he even look younger than Craig does in NTTD.

    And I liked MI, one of the advantages that MI have on Bond is the better use of the female characters, the women of MI were beautiful but they're useful to the plot and are competent, something that I couldn't say for the majority of the Bond Girls, sorry (I'm a Bond fan, but I have to admit it).

    MI definitely had no Mary Goodnight, Stacey Sutton, and Christmas Jones in them ;) and the actresses are not along the likes of Barbara Bach in terms of acting 😁, they're real actresses not models hired for their looks, and the female characters weren't given a sexually intended (double entendres) pun names.

    I'm a Bond fan and I really adore the Bond Franchise, but I'll have to admit that the treatment of the female characters in these films didn't aged well.

    I find these two franchises just on par with each other, I looked at them as equals, but yes, the only thing where it's different is the treatment of the female characters.
  • edited July 2023 Posts: 4,205
    Cruise isn't a bad actor by any means. I just think he just works best playing more impulsive and even arrogant/reckless characters. Even when he did movies such as Magnolia and Eyes Wide Shut this was the case. Hunt in the first two MI films felt more natural in this sense because he was a younger agent, at times even out of his depth. It's when he's tasked with playing an older, more experienced agent - a James Bond or Jack Reacher type - that something just doesn't click anymore for me.

    I don't find him a warm screen presence, and I'm not sold on his brand of 'charm' or charisma as an actor. I personally think Christian Bale had it correct when he said his inspiration for Patrick Bateman in American Psycho was Cruise because even when he's smiling there's 'nothing behind the eyes'.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,641
    Completely agree on this, I think what MI has done is tried to cherry pick the best of Bond and purposely avoid the worst aspects of the Bond series, the drinking, womanising and such.

    It's worked in terms of, there's so many interesting characters in the MI series but if I'm honest as much as I like Cruise as Hunt, Hunt isn't as interesting as Bond is. I do love the MI films though and I can't wait for the new one
  • Posts: 2,006
    @Jordo007 Is it possible MI doesn't even think about Bond?
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 3,154
    Not if that opera sequence is anything to go by...
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,641
    CrabKey wrote: »
    @Jordo007 Is it possible MI doesn't even think about Bond?

    Haha it's possible I guess mate
  • Posts: 6,709
    Well, Cruise said to Craig he was a fan, so… who knows?
  • Posts: 2,006
    I like both the MI and Bond series, but I am not sure there's much originality in either.
    That might be true of most action films these days. When do we come away from the cinema feeling as if we haven't been there, done that?

  • I wonder how they will reintroduce Bond in the next film? Maybe Live and Let Die (the novel) could be the blueprint for a 'remake'. Bit of voodoo to bring Bond back from the dead.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,471
    CrabKey wrote: »
    I like both the MI and Bond series, but I am not sure there's much originality in either.
    That might be true of most action films these days. When do we come away from the cinema feeling as if we haven't been there, done that?

    I like Bond, but 60 years in, if you're looking particularly for originality it probably shouldn't be your first port of call.
  • edited July 2023 Posts: 1,971
    IMO the series should just pick up right where the Brosnan timeline left off. I think we are due for standalone Bond movies again. Unless theres a really good story to tell over multiple movies
  • Posts: 2,006
    mtm wrote: »
    CrabKey wrote: »
    I like both the MI and Bond series, but I am not sure there's much originality in either.
    That might be true of most action films these days. When do we come away from the cinema feeling as if we haven't been there, done that?

    I like Bond, but 60 years in, if you're looking particularly for originality it probably shouldn't be your first port of call.

    One can hope. I'm sure there is no shortage of writing talent who can bring something new to the series. Not convinced a fresh Bond begins with writers who have been at it since 1999.

  • Posts: 3,327
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    IMO the series should just pick up right where the Brosnan timeline left off. I think we are due for standalone Bond movies again. Unless theres a really good story to tell over multiple movies

    That would be the logical thing to do. Taking Bond back on another young reboot tale, how he earned his 00 status, etc. would be pointless, although the one possibility is doing an adaptation of Forever and a Day, which is set before CR.
  • edited July 2023 Posts: 1,220
    I find the comparisons to most big budget action franchises moot at this point. It’s ironic that the trend started with a Martin Campbell film, but the filmmakers have positioned Bond in the auteur blockbuster realm (The Dark Knight, Dune, Blade Runner 2049, The Batman, Knives Out) moreso than the more traditional action genre.

    I’d like to see them continue to lean into that and the strength of their 2nd unit action crews to use the franchise as a canvas for interesting filmmakers to deliver their vision and bring their own unique voice, especially if we’re returning to more standalone installments. It’s unique to Bond and not a path I could see competitors like Mission Impossible, John Wick, MCU, etc. having success with long-term. Want to go action heavy? Gareth Evans. A cerebral epic? Chris Nolan. Foreboding with some existential dread? Denis Villeneuve. Frenetic campy fun? Edgar Wright. Twisty-turny mystery? Rian Johnson. Gritty, pitch-black nihilism? David Fincher. There’s endless possibilities to keep things fresh tonally/stylistically while still incorporating all the elements that make Bond what it is.
  • Posts: 1,971
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    IMO the series should just pick up right where the Brosnan timeline left off. I think we are due for standalone Bond movies again. Unless theres a really good story to tell over multiple movies

    That would be the logical thing to do. Taking Bond back on another young reboot tale, how he earned his 00 status, etc. would be pointless, although the one possibility is doing an adaptation of Forever and a Day, which is set before CR.

    Never read that book. Im gonna have to check it out. But yes I don't think fans are wanting for another origins reboot again (unless its a really good story). Lets go back to the classic stand alone Bond films we all grew up loving.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,471
    I wouldn't mind another start to the story, as long as it's a different one to the last.
    If it showed the original starting of the double-0 section or something with M coming up with the plan, I could see something like that being fun.
  • edited July 2023 Posts: 4,205
    I've said it before, but I don't think we'll be going back to Bond's first mission as a 00. It's territory that's been covered in CR anyway, and I doubt we'll be getting a Forever And a Day type story, but you never know. More unlikely is a story about a pre-007 Bond in the Navy or something (way too self referential and boring).

    They may just follow on from The Batman's lead and have a 007 era Bond earlier in his career. Maybe a year or two in. Not quite in his prime yet, more prone to mistakes, but not a new 00 agent either. In that case the story will likely be crafted around a mission that has a lasting impact on Bond for whatever reason. That or they'll just run with a more enigmatic but modern era Bond who's been in the Service an unspecified amount of time.

    Regardless I suspect we'll be getting a completely new MI6 team, and the fact that Bond is now a younger/millennial born character will be at least hinted at. If I'm honest, I suspect the latter point is something the filmmakers are going to have to grapple with (if anyone's read Charlie Higson's new Bond novella On His Majesty's Secret Service it's something that's brought to the forefront, the fact that this Bond is a man in his 30s who never grew up during the Cold War and lives in the modern world. I must admit it's not done very well, but it's an interesting premise and could well be important to Bond going forward). In this sense I don't think we'll be going back to the same 'timeline' as the '62-'02 films, if this ever was the same timeline anyway. It'll be a fresh start no matter what.
  • Posts: 2,006
    The new Bond won't be a 60s throwback. That would seem to be something original Bod fans might like, but today's target audiences would have little appreciation or interest. Plus too costly. The new Bond will have been born in the mid 80s. As such he'll be tech savy. I'm sure we'll see plenty that reminds us of other films, MI, F&F, and punishing fight scenes that go on far too long to be credible. I don't see introducing him as a newbie to the service, or references to previous adventures. Nor do I see him as pre-Craig, the way Endeavor was a prequel to Morse. In some sense he'll be Deaver's Bond.

    I hope the producers are bold enough to go with a complete new cast. Make a clean break so fans don't have to rationalize why a character from the Craig era is, but is not, the same character in the new series.

    While I don't believe EON has been in a wait and see posture regarding the Indy film, I'm sure the film performing below expectations will be a subject for discussion. A viewer whose first Bond film was a Craig will certainly not relate to a new Bond film in the way others did whose first films were any of the actors who preceded DC. I suspect historic Bond fans will figure less and less into the direction of the series.

    I hope the series in its new form remains distinct rather than becoming an action extravaganza in which Bond plays second fiddle to stunts and effects.
  • LucknFateLucknFate 007 In New York
    edited July 2023 Posts: 1,655
    If we were to start a Bond 26 Bingo card based on some loose pitches discussed so far, what would it have on it? Here's some suggestions:
    • New recurring female character, like a girlfriend, secretary, trainee, or a housekeeper.
    • New origin story
    • Year Three Bond
    • Female villain
    • Race-bent James Bond
    • M, Q, MP scooby gang clean slate
    • Traditional mission plot with orders from M.
    • Unrelated PTS
    • Independent story/doesn't set up any direct sequels, just that James Bond will return.
    • More focused action sequences
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,327
    I think we're going to get a younger Bond, so year 2-3 Bond makes sense. I hope it's not another origin story. <yawn>

    An unrelated PTS would be welcome, which could be followed up by a Sylvia Trench type. However, that could lead to drama overload these days because undoubtedly there would be another love interest.

    I'm not sure how DN and FRWL handled it, TBH, because it didn't feel like Connery was cheating on her with either Honey or Tatiana. Sylvia just seemed kind of effortlessly there.
  • George_KaplanGeorge_Kaplan Being chauffeured by Tibbett
    edited July 2023 Posts: 692
    I don't think Bond being a millennial should be given that much importance. He'll be tech savvy (as someone previously mentioned), and probably a little cynical towards authority, but those are traits Bond has displayed in the past. And other than obviously being played by a different actor with his own interpretation, I can't really see how and why a millennial Bond would be much different from Craig.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    Posts: 3,795
    echo wrote: »
    I think we're going to get a younger Bond, so year 2-3 Bond makes sense. I hope it's not another origin story. <yawn>

    An unrelated PTS would be welcome, which could be followed up by a Sylvia Trench type. However, that could lead to drama overload these days because undoubtedly there would be another love interest.

    I'm not sure how DN and FRWL handled it, TBH, because it didn't feel like Connery was cheating on her with either Honey or Tatiana. Sylvia just seemed kind of effortlessly there.

    Maybe try to set it up with Moneypenny with her and James going outside for a day off, but suddenly they're attacked by some bad guys.

    I've got that idea from Dynamite Comics' Reflections of Death.
Sign In or Register to comment.