Where does Bond go after Craig?

1752753754755756758»

Comments

  • SeveSeve The island of Lemoy
    edited June 27 Posts: 653
    Burgess wrote: »

    The Bond franchise shouldn’t be a sandbox that’s closed off from modern tastes or modern ways of telling a story. Just as the technology in making a Bond film evolves, so should the techniques of moving that narrative. I don’t see how Bond on a mission and Bond learning or growing or reflecting on that mission are mutually exclusive. Fleming did it.

    I'm not adverse to Bond evolving or learning something, I just need a rest from Bond suffering personal tragedy - falling in love and being betrayed (or imagining he's been betrayed) or his lover dies, or M dies or Bond dies... (or Mathis dies or Leiter dies)

  • SeveSeve The island of Lemoy
    edited June 27 Posts: 653
    Bond making mistakes or being vulnerable isn't character development. It could spark character development and change, but making mistakes isn't an act of development in itself. If Bond makes a mistake but doesn't change at all, he hasn't developed by definition. For example; Bond is scared by turbulence on Friday the 13th in FRWL. However, he continues to take planes afterward. There's no development there. We just learn more about Bond.

    Which is kind of equivalent, as far as the audience experience goes IMO

    To me the two things are interchangeable, sometimes we the audience may see Bond learn and develop in real time, sometimes the creators reveal to the audience an aspect of the character that we were not familiar with before.

    A third technique is the flashback, where an aspect of the character that we are already familiar with is explained by showiing the a vignette from the past

    Perhaps "character development" is too narrow a description of the process, which is really about keeping the character interesting for the audience (or for the actor playing the part, when they want to retain his services across multiple films)
  • Posts: 2,208
    Yup! Looking forward to a Bond "that's not personal" this time. One more turn with Craig and it might have been lights out for Q and Moneypenny as we well. Yes, let's move beyond personal tragedy get back to a Bond who's just doing his job.
  • Posts: 6,878
    CrabKey wrote: »
    Yup! Looking forward to a Bond "that's not personal" this time. One more turn with Craig and it might have been lights out for Q and Moneypenny as we well. Yes, let's move beyond personal tragedy get back to a Bond who's just doing his job.

    Hear hear!
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited 12:29am Posts: 3,971
    CrabKey wrote: »
    Yup! Looking forward to a Bond "that's not personal" this time. One more turn with Craig and it might have been lights out for Q and Moneypenny as we well. Yes, let's move beyond personal tragedy get back to a Bond who's just doing his job.

    True, please have Bond do spy things, stop making him John Wick for sake, that's what makes the Fleming Books all the more special and to the lesser extent, the older/classic Bond films, as they're more about spycraft, Politics, Black And White world, a game and battle of wits, let's have that, of course, make Bond still human and vulnerable, but not to the point of being dramatic or taking every things personally like the Craig Era.

    And please, no interconnected plots, I'm done with that.
  • Posts: 6,878
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    CrabKey wrote: »
    Yup! Looking forward to a Bond "that's not personal" this time. One more turn with Craig and it might have been lights out for Q and Moneypenny as we well. Yes, let's move beyond personal tragedy get back to a Bond who's just doing his job.

    True, please have Bond do spy things, stop making him John Wick for sake, that's what makes the Fleming Books all the more special and to the lesser extent, the 60s Bond films (Connery/Lazenby), they're more about spycraft, Politics, Black And White world, a game and battle of wits, let's have that, of course, make Bond still human and vulnerable, but not to the point of being dramatic or taking every things personally like the Craig Era.

    And please, no interconnected plots, I'm done with that.

    Well said. Let's bring back espionage and intrigue, and intelligence to the plot and overall writing.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,813
    No Bond actor with any credibility in 2025 wants to play the role as an automaton.
  • Posts: 3,309
    CrabKey wrote: »
    Yup! Looking forward to a Bond "that's not personal" this time. One more turn with Craig and it might have been lights out for Q and Moneypenny as we well. Yes, let's move beyond personal tragedy get back to a Bond who's just doing his job.

    This is most likely not going to happen. Gone are the days where there needn't be an emotional hook for the lead protagonist that somehow drives him or her. We also see this in the upcoming 007-game, First Light, where there is emphasis on the death of Bond's parents.

    But one thing is for sure: we will not get another Bond-going-rogue movie. That would be awkward with a new Bond.
  • Posts: 1,228
    I’m anticipating his take will be something in the vein of The Living Daylights meets Skyfall. Stripped down, back to basics, politically complex, Flemingesque depiction of Bond, still maintaining most of the recognizable classic Bond elements, but fused with the prestige filmmaking aesthetics and production value. Speaking of which, if you watch the Skyfall teaser trailer you could easily be convinced that Denis Villeneuve has already made a Bond film.

Sign In or Register to comment.