Where does Bond go after Craig?

1306307309311312686

Comments

  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    You utterly missed the point of NTTD, @Mendes4Lyfe ...

    And keep holding onto that "feeling"... Right now Hollywood and producers are more concerned about these strikes... And even more worried about the aftermath... There are going to be all kinds of delays and hold-ups and cancellations and projects that will never see the light of day.

    Big tent pole films have started to book dates for their next releases... EoN hasn't... So keep clutching your "feeling"...
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    Posts: 695
    What, for instance, is the vision of SP?
    Skyfall made a billion dollars at the box office, so the producers wanted to make Skyfall part 2. Same themes, visual style, and villain type, but without Skyfall's clear and concise story. All the studio-mandated rewrites probably didn't help.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited July 2023 Posts: 8,411
    Again, this is merely based on the mood in the air but I think if Oppenhiemer is a critical darling, as appears to be the case based on early signs, then he will almost certainly be high on EON's list. Not to mention once this whole mess sorts itself out they will need to get a serious move on to make up for the four years where they weren't doing anything, they will need someone to work fast. Nolan has stated he won't start work on his next project until the strikes have concluded.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    edited July 2023 Posts: 9,509
    Again, this is merely based on the mood in the air but I think if Oppenhiemer is a critical darling, as appears to be the case based on early signs, then he will almost certainly be high on EON's list. Not to mention once this whole mess sorts itself out they will need to get a serious move on to make up for the four years where they weren't doing anything, they will need someone to work fast. Nolan has stated he won't start work on his next project until the strikes have concluded.

    @Mendes4Lyfe :

    To get Nolan to direct a project that isn’t one of his original projects, he will have to have immense control, but more importantly, if he is indeed interested in a project that didn’t first originate with he and his wife/producing partner, then a very hefty pay-or-play deal will have to be fronted to him in escrow where they’d need to negotiate that he’s attached to the project for x number of years!! (And is Nolan going to sit about and wait x number of years? , and; if he negotiates that he can still slip in another project of his own, during this wait time, then the potential B26 film would have to wait another eighteen-to-twenty-four months for him to complete his picture !!!)

    If this is to happen, EoN better open a shell company for B26 now (where all money invested, spent, and made will run through here for clean accounting), and start negotiating, or this scenario of yours is as likely, or not as likely, as you becoming the next director, Mendes, 😂.
  • I don’t think we’ll ever get a Bond film from Nolan honestly. Considering how much of his Batman films was riffed throughout Craig’s tenure, hiring Nolan would just mean we’d get another tenure of dark and gritty Bond films, and I don’t think EON wants to do that. If anything I’d say the next era NEEDS to be lighter than what we just had. I don’t think audiences will stick around if the next guys tenure is even more gloomy and depressing than Craig’s.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,842
    Nolan directing. Henry Cavill cast as 007. A two or three film story arc, moving the franchise forward after some unexpected pauses.

    All things are possible.

    4SLK.gif
  • Nolan directing. Henry Cavill cast as 007. A two or three film story arc, moving the franchise forward after some unexpected pauses.

    All things are possible.

    4SLK.gif

    Yeah that’s sounds amazing, and I’d be the first person in line to see it, but is that what EON would want? Would they want to cast a man in his early 40’s and just keep him around for 3 films coming off of the longest tenure an actor had in the part? I don’t think so, but like you said, anything is possible.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    edited July 2023 Posts: 13,842
    Nolan directing. Henry Cavill cast as 007. A two or three film story arc, moving the franchise forward after some unexpected pauses.

    All things are possible.

    4SLK.gif

    Yeah that’s sounds amazing, and I’d be the first person in line to see it, but is that what EON would want? Would they want to cast a man in his early 40’s and just keep him around for 3 films coming off of the longest tenure an actor had in the part? I don’t think so, but like you said, anything is possible.

    That focus could represent an unexpected and long-awaited control of their franchise. After the interruptions they experienced for the QOS and writers' strike, studio changeovers and financing affecting SF and SP, and the pandemic extending the release of NTTD.

    So an actor in his 40s across 2027, 2029, 2031. And they could still keep him on for more as done in the past.

  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,190
    I think it’s fair to say Michael and Barbara have dodged a bullet. Imagine if they were in the middle of shooting a Bond film this summer and suddenly halted production due to the strikes? And to have that happen to an actor’s first gig? It’s better that Eon waits it out for the studios to get their act together.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,471
    peter wrote: »
    If this is to happen, EoN better open a shell company for B26 now (where all money invested, spent, and made will run through here for clean accounting), and start negotiating, or this scenario of yours is as likely, or not as likely, as you becoming the next director, Mendes, 😂.

    There doesn't seem to be any sign of a B26 company started that I can see just yet, although there are often a few different entries for the same people
    https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/officers/S-fn_wwzDoscAiw7KWl-vIwbtD4/appointments
  • edited July 2023 Posts: 1,220
    I don’t think we’ll ever get a Bond film from Nolan honestly. Considering how much of his Batman films was riffed throughout Craig’s tenure, hiring Nolan would just mean we’d get another tenure of dark and gritty Bond films, and I don’t think EON wants to do that. If anything I’d say the next era NEEDS to be lighter than what we just had. I don’t think audiences will stick around if the next guys tenure is even more gloomy and depressing than Craig’s.

    I think audiences will be in for a Nolan Bond film regardless of its tone, I’d be surprised if the next films didn’t remain relatively dark, and I’d be FLOORED if EON didn’t at least make an attempt to get Nolan on board. I do agree with a lot of your sentiments, though.

    The Craig films (sometimes intentionally, sometimes circumstantially) were very influenced by Nolan, and with Bond’s fingerprints all over The Dark Knight Trilogy, Inception, and Tenet, the aggregate effect feels like I’ve already seen the Nolan Bond movie.

    He may very well be my favourite filmmaker of all time, but at this point he’d need to be bringing something that’s a radical departure from his own work to the table to excite me, and given that, I don’t see the point of bringing him on. I am all for bringing in another auteur of a similar vein to help reinvigorate the next iteration. I’d keep a close eye on Denis Villeneuve going forward, my gut tells me it’ll be him if not Nolan.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited July 2023 Posts: 8,411
    If they go dark and gritty again the franchise will be put out to pasture very quickly. I know people think that light hearted bond can never work again, but thats part of the challenge of starting a new era and figuring out how to get the audience on board with a new vision. Back in 2004 people thought a gritty bond would never work, that bond needs his gadgets and one liners, and now we're in the opposite situation. EON simply need to make it work, and the audience will come. In my opinion the overdependance on character in the last two films especially have been their downfall. It's gotten to the point, just like with DAD where the spectacle and special effects overshadowed the story, now the emotional stakes and dramatic weight are doing the same thing. The fact is I'm almost certain that SP would have been much more cohesive, clearer film if it had just been about Bond doing battle with his archnemisis without any of the connections and emotional stakes they added to give it more "heft". Bond should be Bond, pure and simple, as there's a reason why they don't play his theme much in the Craig films, or try and hide the gunbarrel in the end of the film. It's because those aspects don't fit the type of films they want to make, but at the end of the day, that's bond. They need to find a way to make it work.
  • edited July 2023 Posts: 1,220
    Personally, I don’t believe the two ideas are mutually exclusive. I think it’s possible to make Bond films that are more fun/humorous and more emotionally and dramatically resonant than the Craig films. I think it’ll require a lot more effort in the writers room (and probably different voices than Purvis & Wade), as well as the right director.

    My biggest issue with the Craig era post-Skyfall is that a lot of the “bold” moves felt superficial. When they went dark, it was a bit moody, sure but it felt safe and not that dark. When they got emotional it was sparingly and didn’t really pack much punch. When they went a little looser it wasn’t that fun or humorous. It was all a bit watered down and half-hearted and HEAVILY leaned on the strength of Craig’s performance and strong technical filmmaking.

    Craig’s films redefined the character for a generation and opened up some interesting ideas of what the franchise can be, but the producers have barely scratched the surface of its potential, in my opinion.
  • edited July 2023 Posts: 2,006
    If by lighthearted the suggestion is to return to the silliness of RM, why? What in the Bond novels ever suggested lighthearted? Wit and humor are one thing. Silliness to the point that the actor playing Bond can't even take himself seriously is quite another. No, we don't need dark and depressing. We need a return to the kinds of films that started the series in the first place.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited July 2023 Posts: 3,795
    The grittiness of the Craig Era was something that's not expected at the time, granted LTK and to the certain extent, OHMSS (for the drama and being character driven) was given at the time, but it's rare, what's mostly played is the light-heartedness and reliance on the formula, even the Connery ones had this, the aspects seen in the Craig Era was something that's never played or never seen before, that's why it worked, because it's experimental, again, like what I've said, the Producers always liked to experiment things.

    Many people liked Casino Royale, because it diverged from the expectations, it broke from the formula, the same for Skyfall.

    The Craig Era had been experimental to do such unusual things that we all know, impossible to happen in the Bond world.

    Some people liked the Craig Era, for the sake of doing something new, something that's never been done in the Bond films before.

    About the lighthearted Bond, as @Mendes4Lyfe have said:
    I know people think that light hearted bond can never work again, but thats part of the challenge of starting a new era and figuring out how to get the audience on board with a new vision. Back in 2004 people thought a gritty bond would never work, that bond needs his gadgets and one liners, and now we're in the opposite situation.

    It's been played already before, many times in fact, we've seen that Light-heartedness before, and people thinking it wouldn't work is because we've seen how it went, the Moore Era films notwithstanding, and there's the Brosnan Era.

    The grittiness of the Craig Era was something that's not seen, or the groundedness of it, it's more grounded than the Dalton Era that's still contained some fantastical elements in them, meanwhile the Craig Era had none of those and was mostly focused on character driven stories, which what made it worked.

    Long before Craig, we haven't explored Bond's character deeply yet, he's mostly as a character without something inside of him, but the Craig Era explored it, and that's made it worked.

    And it's in whether we liked it or not.

    That's why what I'm telling here all the time, is for them to try something new.

    Okay that's enough, we've seen a gritty Bond already, we've seen a drama/sentimental Bond already, we've seen lighthearted Bond already.

    Okay try something new, what's available in the store that's never been seen before? Okay why not try that for the new era?
  • Posts: 964
    We can mix the formulaic traits with the DC style Bond to create a new gold standard. The main concern is the storytelling.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited July 2023 Posts: 8,411
    You mention "light hearted" and people's minds will immediately jump to Roger Moore antics, bond running around in a gorilla suit or whatever, but it's important to remember there's more than one type of humour . EON's task is to find a way to make it work for today, not the 70's. Valentin Zukovsky and Sheriff JW Pepper are both technically comedic relief, but they aren't really direct equivalents. When I say the bond films need to bring back the humour, I don't mean the exactly same brand of comedic that it had before. I just think it's worth pointing out, because often I see a false dichotomy being spread that it's either we stick with the Craig gritty status quo, or revert back to a 70's camp, sight gags and slide whistle sound effects. I just think, if there is a pendulum that swings from dark to light in this franchise, then is has been in the moody side of things for a long time, and it's about time it swung back the other direction. That's how the series stays so fresh for so many years after all, by continually changing course and taking on new approaches. And the newness which @SIS_HQ refers to can only come from how that tone takes shapes and is implemented, just like the post 9/11 demand for "realism" ultimately shaped Casino Royale back then.
  • Posts: 4,205
    The Craig era started off in a more 'grounded' fashion (it was something not unexpected at the time I'd argue, especially with the Bourne films) but it slowly became much more fantastical, even light-hearted at times, all while keeping its darker edge. Obviously I can't say for sure as we're in for a bit of a wait, but if precedent's anything to go by we might see some elements of the later Craig films bleed through into Bond 26. We might get something more fantastical but with that darker edge.

    Anyway, these things are rarely straightforward. It's not just a case where Craig's films were always 'dark and gritty', nor that all of Brosnan and Moore's films were lighthearted but devoid of character. There are shades when it comes to Bond films.
  • edited July 2023 Posts: 6,709
    Having watched M:IDRp1 yesterday, I must say, wherever they go with the next Bond, it has to be sexy and stylish. Only Bond can have that sort of appeal. M:I films are wonderful, but the sexiness and the style, and the smoothness, and the exoticism and the slightly bizarre, must remain in Bond films. They make them stand out. I mean, drinking with a scorpion on the back of the hand, and escaping a komodo dragon, and having a flirtatious moment like in the Macao casino, or having a villain who bleeds from an eye, ... these things make Bond, well, Bond.

    And having him sharply dressed is paramount, as well as having some sexuality distilled from the leading ladies. And sex. One must have sex. This Nolanesque, Cruisesque (and I like them both) tendency for frigid, sexless men and victorianesque prudes must go. I welcome Eva Green's cleavage, Andress's bikini, Xenia's over the top sexual paraphilia of death and her killer tighs, and Halle Berry's fig cutting innuendos, ..., over Hayley Atwell's buttoned up blouse and Rebecca Ferguson amicable hugs any day of the week.

    Cancel me for saying this, for all I care, but Bond was created with sex on Fleming's mind, and with that prerogative. Sex, violence and exoticism. Take that away and you're left with Ethan Hunt. And I like Hunt, but he has no layers, no interest as a character besides his devotion to his friends, which is no different from that Fast and Furious awful family franchise. I'll say this again. Make Bond films with no shame for what they are. Thankfully, so far, EON has done so, even with some poor choices along the way.

    So, fingers crossed.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,411
    I disagree @Univex it seems like SP and Bond 25 are ashamed of what they are, or ashamed of the legacy they uphold, I'm not sure which...
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    That makes absolute sense, @Mendes4Lyfe … Your brilliance is mind-blowing… Your instincts are, once again, on point. How’d you get inside of the heads of BB and MGW??? Of course they’re ashamed of the legacy they were born into! It makes sense they'd raise three hundred million bucks to produce something that makes them ashamed.!!

    I can just see them in their creative meetings with their partners in finance and distribution: BB’s face was likely bright red, and MGW wore a bag over his head. They’re ashamed of this 60-plus year legacy. In fact, ashamed is too weak. They must hate this character and the history of the series, no? I mean, how else can you explain this rubbish they’re forcing down our throats…

    BB and MGW are just plain evil.

    Thank you, Mendes, for your tremendous insight and intuition. You’re always so on point!

    😂 🙄 🤡

  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,327
    Univex wrote: »
    Having watched M:IDRp1 yesterday, I must say, wherever they go with the next Bond, it has to be sexy and stylish. Only Bond can have that sort of appeal. M:I films are wonderful, but the sexiness and the style, and the smoothness, and the exoticism and the slightly bizarre, must remain in Bond films. They make them stand out. I mean, drinking with a scorpion on the back of the hand, and escaping a komodo dragon, and having a flirtatious moment like in the Macao casino, or having a villain who bleeds from an eye, ... these things make Bond, well, Bond.

    And having him sharply dressed is paramount, as well as having some sexuality distilled from the leading ladies. And sex. One must have sex. This Nolanesque, Cruisesque (and I like them both) tendency for frigid, sexless men and victorianesque prudes must go. I welcome Eva Green's cleavage, Andress's bikini, Xenia's over the top sexual paraphilia of death and her killer tighs, and Halle Berry's fig cutting innuendos, ..., over Hayley Atwell's buttoned up blouse and Rebecca Ferguson amicable hugs any day of the week.

    Cancel me for saying this, for all I care, but Bond was created with sex on Fleming's mind, and with that prerogative. Sex, violence and exoticism. Take that away and you're left with Ethan Hunt. And I like Hunt, but he has no layers, no interest as a character besides his devotion to his friends, which is no different from that Fast and Furious awful family franchise. I'll say this again. Make Bond films with no shame for what they are. Thankfully, so far, EON has done so, even with some poor choices along the way.

    So, fingers crossed.

    Lovely post. I couldn't agree more. Especially this point:

    "This Nolanesque, Cruisesque (and I like them both) tendency for frigid, sexless men and victorianesque prudes must go."

    Bond films are about sex and danger. Nolan and Cruise have something else on their minds: puzzle-designing for the former, stunt-razzle-dazzle and a irrepressible showmanship (perhaps masking something else) for the latter.

    Neither one can hold a candle to Bond. It's a unique cocktail with which Fleming, Connery, and Eon set the bar in the '60s.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited July 2023 Posts: 3,795
    For me, Bond and Ethan Hunt are two different things.

    But when it comes to the treatment of the female characters, Hunt did it better, again, it's not a dark light against Bond, it's his nature, that's his world and that's not Ethan Hunt, but for me, it's just a matter of personal preference, women in MI films felt like real people, and treated better, they've been given agencies and importance to the plot and Ethan Hunt himself, they're not sex objects like the Bond Girls.

    Sure I would take them over the likes of Christmas Jones, Mary Goodnight, and Stacey Sutton even Tiffany Case.

    But again, they're different, even down to the plots and all, they're separate.

    So, for me, Bond and Hunt aren't comparable.

    There are some things I liked about Bond that Hunt didn't have, but there's some things that I liked about Hunt that Bond didn't have.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,641
    Brilliant post @Univex couldn't agree more

    I throughly enjoyed the new Mission Impossible, but I hope EON watch it and see why we need the Bond series to have sex appeal. MI DR 1 felt very awkward around character relationships and characters being sexy in general
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,471
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    For me, Bond and Ethan Hunt are two different things.

    But when it comes to the treatment of the female characters, Hunt did it better, again, it's not a dark light against Bond, it's his nature, that's his world and that's not Ethan Hunt, but for me, it's just a matter of personal preference, women in MI films felt like real people, and treated better, they've been given agencies and importance to the plot and Ethan Hunt himself, they're not sex objects like the Bond Girls.

    Yeah I'd like to see female characters more like Ilsa etc. in Bond. They got closer with NTTD, and I liked Madeline actually- she was strong but that doesn't mean she's a badass with martial arts skills (as moviemakers often confuse for being a 'strong woman'), because she's a psychologist! :) Nomi was mostly good, but just superfluous to the film.
    I think NTTD showed that you can have women not treated as sex objects and for the character of Bond to not be undermined. That's not to say the film can't be sexy (another good reason not to get Nolan in).
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    Agreed that Nolan is far too cold and, to date (pre Oppenheimer), has never even entered the doorway of "sexy"... I've never liked his female characters, and generally, find him an ill-suited storyteller for James Bond and his adventures.

    I have no desire to see Bond bed three women/film, but sex is an integral part of his character. My own theories are that, on the surface, he's a red-blooded hedonist (drinking, gambling, fine dining (while on assignment), beautiful cars and driving them hard, sex, and, at one, time smoking). But scratch the surface and he's indulging these pleasures because he is very cognizant that his life could end with his next mission.

    And I do find it sexier to see Bond with a Lucia Sciarra, a Madeleine Swann (in NTTD, where she was given more to do than just pout and glare at Bond), a Vesper, an Octopussy, a Sylvia Trench (who wants to use Bond as much as he wants her), a Tatiana, and, of course, a Tracy... Real characters with layers, with secrets, with their own desires, as opposed to cartoon "strong women" like Christmas and Jinx...



  • slide_99 wrote: »
    All the studio-mandated rewrites probably didn't help.
    Studio-mandated rewrites? Based on the Sony mails, nobody liked Logan's original script. Everybody, including Barbara and Mendes wanted a rewrite.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited July 2023 Posts: 6,327
    peter wrote: »
    Agreed that Nolan is far too cold and, to date (pre Oppenheimer), has never even entered the doorway of "sexy"... I've never liked his female characters, and generally, find him an ill-suited storyteller for James Bond and his adventures.

    I have no desire to see Bond bed three women/film, but sex is an integral part of his character. My own theories are that, on the surface, he's a red-blooded hedonist (drinking, gambling, fine dining (while on assignment), beautiful cars and driving them hard, sex, and, at one, time smoking). But scratch the surface and he's indulging these pleasures because he is very cognizant that his life could end with his next mission.

    And I do find it sexier to see Bond with a Lucia Sciarra, a Madeleine Swann (in NTTD, where she was given more to do than just pout and glare at Bond), a Vesper, an Octopussy, a Sylvia Trench (who wants to use Bond as much as he wants her), a Tatiana, and, of course, a Tracy... Real characters with layers, with secrets, with their own desires, as opposed to cartoon "strong women" like Christmas and Jinx...

    The only time I thought Nolan had a decent female character was in Inception, but I attribute that to Marion Cotillard, who is an unparalleled (and I'd say, effortlessly sexy) actor who raised even DiCaprio's game. Of course she was a projection/dream and not a real character.

    I appreciate that he's an accomplished British director, and that the nationality of the director is important to many, but Nolan is not right for Bond.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    but Nolan is not right for Bond.

    I wholeheartedly agree with this. His films to date, even his so-called “Bondian” ones, just aren’t … Bond.
  • Posts: 964
    Why is peter so patronising towards mendes4lyfe
Sign In or Register to comment.