› ›

Where does Bond go after Craig?

1…761762763764765767»

Comments

  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 7,042
    SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ wrote: »
    It's very simple. Villeneuve should just give us 50 percent new & 50 percent familiar. Just balance it, and he's good to go.

    It all starts with a strong script.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited 2:30pm Posts: 19,634
    sandbagger1 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Bond has such a long history and diverse set of films that’s it’s unclear how much you can change it before it’s unrecognisable really. CR is arguably fairly unrecognisable compared to what came before, but it’s great. As long as it’s got Bond in it and it does action and adventure and a few gags here and there, you’ve pretty much got a Bond film.
    And yet we've all argued against changes we consider stop it from feeling like Bond, though we don't all agree what those factors are. I know you didn't have a problem with NTTD killing Bond, Felix, giving him a daughter etc, but you have (IIRC) said that Fukunaga didn't achieve that Bond movie feel; you also were visibly disappointed with our first look at First Light, whilst others were very pleased. I think I've suggested stylistic experimentation before, which you've been against, but you're much keener on playing fast and loose with the Bond character than I am.

    There's obviously more to it than "as long as it’s got Bond in it and it does action and adventure and a few gags here and there, you’ve pretty much got a Bond film."

    Edit: Sorry, that sounds more snarky than intended. I'm not putting down your opinion or trying to start a fight.

    You're right, there is more to it than that; but you're also right that it's kind of hard to define what that 'more' is. As you say, we've all tried to put our fingers on it and kind of failed, so as 007HallY says, saying 'don't change it so it's unrecognisable' is not great advice as it's hard to pin down exactly how you do that. I think the best advice is probably that old standard: don't listen to any advice.
    I think making it feel like Bond is kind of down to the feel of the person making it rather than anything too specific: for me Mendes got it where Forster didn't, and I'd have trouble explaining why. Villeneuve is no slouch and obviously has love for Bond, so I'm pretty optimistic he'll have ideas for how to update it and yet make it feel right.
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 3,023
    echo wrote: »
    SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ wrote: »
    It's very simple. Villeneuve should just give us 50 percent new & 50 percent familiar. Just balance it, and he's good to go.

    It all starts with a strong script.

    Oh, for sure.
  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    Posts: 1,168
    mtm wrote: »
    sandbagger1 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Bond has such a long history and diverse set of films that’s it’s unclear how much you can change it before it’s unrecognisable really. CR is arguably fairly unrecognisable compared to what came before, but it’s great. As long as it’s got Bond in it and it does action and adventure and a few gags here and there, you’ve pretty much got a Bond film.
    And yet we've all argued against changes we consider stop it from feeling like Bond, though we don't all agree what those factors are. I know you didn't have a problem with NTTD killing Bond, Felix, giving him a daughter etc, but you have (IIRC) said that Fukunaga didn't achieve that Bond movie feel; you also were visibly disappointed with our first look at First Light, whilst others were very pleased. I think I've suggested stylistic experimentation before, which you've been against, but you're much keener on playing fast and loose with the Bond character than I am.

    There's obviously more to it than "as long as it’s got Bond in it and it does action and adventure and a few gags here and there, you’ve pretty much got a Bond film."

    Edit: Sorry, that sounds more snarky than intended. I'm not putting down your opinion or trying to start a fight.

    You're right, there is more to it than that; but you're also right that it's kind of hard to define what that 'more' is. As you say, we've all tried to put our fingers on it and kind of failed, so as 007HallY says, saying 'don't change it so it's unrecognisable' is not great advice as it's hard to pin down exactly how you do that. I think the best advice is probably that old standard: don't listen to any advice.
    I think making it feel like Bond is kind of down to the feel of the person making it rather than anything too specific: for me Mendes got it where Forster didn't, and I'd have trouble explaining why. Villeneuve is no slouch and obviously has love for Bond, so I'm pretty optimistic he'll have ideas for how to update it and yet make it feel right.
    But what he actually says is" So don’t f— with it, basically. There’s a lot of fertile ground for Bond, particularly the way the world is at the moment. I just hope that they don’t break what’s not broken!" [emphasis mine]

    Basically he's saying not to alter what's still working, don't update it for the sake of it. He obviously thinks no radical changes are necessary, which I would agree with. I know obviously that a fair number of people here wouldn't agree with that, and perhaps age is a factor in that.

    By the way, I've found the full article:

    https://www.goldderby.com/film/2025/goldeneye-martin-campbell-pierce-brosnan-james-bond/
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 19,634
    Yep, I posted it a few days ago in the Martin Campbell thread.
  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    Posts: 1,168
    mtm wrote: »
    Yep, I posted it a few days ago in the Martin Campbell thread.

    Oh sorry, I haven't read that thread. Apologies.
  • 007HallY007HallY
    Posts: 6,399
    sandbagger1 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    sandbagger1 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Bond has such a long history and diverse set of films that’s it’s unclear how much you can change it before it’s unrecognisable really. CR is arguably fairly unrecognisable compared to what came before, but it’s great. As long as it’s got Bond in it and it does action and adventure and a few gags here and there, you’ve pretty much got a Bond film.
    And yet we've all argued against changes we consider stop it from feeling like Bond, though we don't all agree what those factors are. I know you didn't have a problem with NTTD killing Bond, Felix, giving him a daughter etc, but you have (IIRC) said that Fukunaga didn't achieve that Bond movie feel; you also were visibly disappointed with our first look at First Light, whilst others were very pleased. I think I've suggested stylistic experimentation before, which you've been against, but you're much keener on playing fast and loose with the Bond character than I am.

    There's obviously more to it than "as long as it’s got Bond in it and it does action and adventure and a few gags here and there, you’ve pretty much got a Bond film."

    Edit: Sorry, that sounds more snarky than intended. I'm not putting down your opinion or trying to start a fight.

    You're right, there is more to it than that; but you're also right that it's kind of hard to define what that 'more' is. As you say, we've all tried to put our fingers on it and kind of failed, so as 007HallY says, saying 'don't change it so it's unrecognisable' is not great advice as it's hard to pin down exactly how you do that. I think the best advice is probably that old standard: don't listen to any advice.
    I think making it feel like Bond is kind of down to the feel of the person making it rather than anything too specific: for me Mendes got it where Forster didn't, and I'd have trouble explaining why. Villeneuve is no slouch and obviously has love for Bond, so I'm pretty optimistic he'll have ideas for how to update it and yet make it feel right.
    But what he actually says is" So don’t f— with it, basically. There’s a lot of fertile ground for Bond, particularly the way the world is at the moment. I just hope that they don’t break what’s not broken!" [emphasis mine]

    Basically he's saying not to alter what's still working, don't update it for the sake of it. He obviously thinks no radical changes are necessary, which I would agree with. I know obviously that a fair number of people here wouldn't agree with that, and perhaps age is a factor in that.

    I suppose it depends on what's deemed to be still working. And they'll always have to update it just by virtue of making a new film. Anyway, it's a very general thing to say, and it's not overly helpful. Also a bit funny coming from the director of CR (which is quite a formula breaking Bond film, even if includes/reinterprets some of those well worn tropes).
  • DEKE_RIVERSDEKE_RIVERS
    Posts: 2,566
    talos7 wrote: »
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    sandbagger1 wrote: »
    Martin Campbell was asked what advice he would give to Villeneuve on the upcoming film, and this apparently was his answer:
    “Don’t break what isn’t broken. It doesn’t need to be a reboot – it just needs to be a bloody good Bond film! If we released GoldenEye or Casino Royale again next week, they’d feel just as potent. So don’t f— with it, basically. There’s a lot of fertile ground for Bond, particularly the way the world is at the moment. I just hope that they don’t break what’s not broken!

    There are no established standouts like Pierce. Pierce was a perfect Bond for his time. But Daniel wasn’t Daniel Craig when he got the part, and all credit to Barbara Broccoli for pushing him. So what you’re looking for is another Daniel Craig, someone who isn’t necessarily a star…Frankly, you don’t need a star. James Bond is the star, and the film is the star. They just need to find a terrific actor who looks right for the part.”

    I love how much this man understands what Bond is. I'd love him to be working on the films behind the scenes

    If Villeneuve is not available, they should get Campbell to direct the screentests.

    I doubt it. Choosing the new Bond is 50% of the job.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,734
    DEKE_RIVERS wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    sandbagger1 wrote: »
    Martin Campbell was asked what advice he would give to Villeneuve on the upcoming film, and this apparently was his answer:
    “Don’t break what isn’t broken. It doesn’t need to be a reboot – it just needs to be a bloody good Bond film! If we released GoldenEye or Casino Royale again next week, they’d feel just as potent. So don’t f— with it, basically. There’s a lot of fertile ground for Bond, particularly the way the world is at the moment. I just hope that they don’t break what’s not broken!

    There are no established standouts like Pierce. Pierce was a perfect Bond for his time. But Daniel wasn’t Daniel Craig when he got the part, and all credit to Barbara Broccoli for pushing him. So what you’re looking for is another Daniel Craig, someone who isn’t necessarily a star…Frankly, you don’t need a star. James Bond is the star, and the film is the star. They just need to find a terrific actor who looks right for the part.”

    I love how much this man understands what Bond is. I'd love him to be working on the films behind the scenes

    If Villeneuve is not available, they should get Campbell to direct the screentests.

    I doubt it. Choosing the new Bond is 50% of the job.

    He wouldn't be choosing the new Bond.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 25,075
    talos7 wrote: »
    DEKE_RIVERS wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    sandbagger1 wrote: »
    Martin Campbell was asked what advice he would give to Villeneuve on the upcoming film, and this apparently was his answer:
    “Don’t break what isn’t broken. It doesn’t need to be a reboot – it just needs to be a bloody good Bond film! If we released GoldenEye or Casino Royale again next week, they’d feel just as potent. So don’t f— with it, basically. There’s a lot of fertile ground for Bond, particularly the way the world is at the moment. I just hope that they don’t break what’s not broken!

    There are no established standouts like Pierce. Pierce was a perfect Bond for his time. But Daniel wasn’t Daniel Craig when he got the part, and all credit to Barbara Broccoli for pushing him. So what you’re looking for is another Daniel Craig, someone who isn’t necessarily a star…Frankly, you don’t need a star. James Bond is the star, and the film is the star. They just need to find a terrific actor who looks right for the part.”

    I love how much this man understands what Bond is. I'd love him to be working on the films behind the scenes

    If Villeneuve is not available, they should get Campbell to direct the screentests.

    I doubt it. Choosing the new Bond is 50% of the job.

    He wouldn't be choosing the new Bond.

    I actually wonder how Amazon does things compared to EON.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 19,634
    I'm not sure there's any reason to think he won't be a very large part of the process. Plus he may well be part of the reason the actor signs on too.
  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    Posts: 1,168
    007HallY wrote: »
    sandbagger1 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    sandbagger1 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Bond has such a long history and diverse set of films that’s it’s unclear how much you can change it before it’s unrecognisable really. CR is arguably fairly unrecognisable compared to what came before, but it’s great. As long as it’s got Bond in it and it does action and adventure and a few gags here and there, you’ve pretty much got a Bond film.
    And yet we've all argued against changes we consider stop it from feeling like Bond, though we don't all agree what those factors are. I know you didn't have a problem with NTTD killing Bond, Felix, giving him a daughter etc, but you have (IIRC) said that Fukunaga didn't achieve that Bond movie feel; you also were visibly disappointed with our first look at First Light, whilst others were very pleased. I think I've suggested stylistic experimentation before, which you've been against, but you're much keener on playing fast and loose with the Bond character than I am.

    There's obviously more to it than "as long as it’s got Bond in it and it does action and adventure and a few gags here and there, you’ve pretty much got a Bond film."

    Edit: Sorry, that sounds more snarky than intended. I'm not putting down your opinion or trying to start a fight.

    You're right, there is more to it than that; but you're also right that it's kind of hard to define what that 'more' is. As you say, we've all tried to put our fingers on it and kind of failed, so as 007HallY says, saying 'don't change it so it's unrecognisable' is not great advice as it's hard to pin down exactly how you do that. I think the best advice is probably that old standard: don't listen to any advice.
    I think making it feel like Bond is kind of down to the feel of the person making it rather than anything too specific: for me Mendes got it where Forster didn't, and I'd have trouble explaining why. Villeneuve is no slouch and obviously has love for Bond, so I'm pretty optimistic he'll have ideas for how to update it and yet make it feel right.
    But what he actually says is" So don’t f— with it, basically. There’s a lot of fertile ground for Bond, particularly the way the world is at the moment. I just hope that they don’t break what’s not broken!" [emphasis mine]

    Basically he's saying not to alter what's still working, don't update it for the sake of it. He obviously thinks no radical changes are necessary, which I would agree with. I know obviously that a fair number of people here wouldn't agree with that, and perhaps age is a factor in that.

    I suppose it depends on what's deemed to be still working. And they'll always have to update it just by virtue of making a new film. Anyway, it's a very general thing to say, and it's not overly helpful. Also a bit funny coming from the director of CR (which is quite a formula breaking Bond film, even if includes/reinterprets some of those well worn tropes).

    I'd argue that the film isn't so much a reinvention of the franchise as a getting back to basics adaptation of Casino Royale. From the interview it seems Campbell saw Craig's Bond as the same man as in the other films, it's just him before those events, if you take into account the franchise's rather rubbery continuity. Craig's Bond is a little rougher around the edges because he's new at the job, but it really is just getting back to its roots rather than saying the character no longer works and needs changing.

    As for your other points..

    Well I suppose you could argue that they've never stopped working for the general public, though we've seen course-corrections where the makers were obviously concerned they were losing the cultural zeitgeist. Other than needing to replace a phenomenally successful lead actor the franchise appears to be good shape.


    I'm not really sure what you mean when you say they have to update it by virtue of making a new film - yes technology moves on, fashions change, but those are surface changes; giving Bond a mobile phone and taking away his hat and cigarette doesn't really impact the core of the character. AIDS changed the sexual landscape for a while, and we got a slightly more romantic Bond in Dalton, but it was more scaling back on the excesses of the Moore years than an update. Most people here don't want to hear the term 'AI', and if the AI bubble bursts it might be safer to avoid it.



  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 3,023
    I think Campbell was more like talking about drastic changes.
  • DEKE_RIVERSDEKE_RIVERS
    Posts: 2,566
    talos7 wrote: »
    DEKE_RIVERS wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    sandbagger1 wrote: »
    Martin Campbell was asked what advice he would give to Villeneuve on the upcoming film, and this apparently was his answer:
    “Don’t break what isn’t broken. It doesn’t need to be a reboot – it just needs to be a bloody good Bond film! If we released GoldenEye or Casino Royale again next week, they’d feel just as potent. So don’t f— with it, basically. There’s a lot of fertile ground for Bond, particularly the way the world is at the moment. I just hope that they don’t break what’s not broken!

    There are no established standouts like Pierce. Pierce was a perfect Bond for his time. But Daniel wasn’t Daniel Craig when he got the part, and all credit to Barbara Broccoli for pushing him. So what you’re looking for is another Daniel Craig, someone who isn’t necessarily a star…Frankly, you don’t need a star. James Bond is the star, and the film is the star. They just need to find a terrific actor who looks right for the part.”

    I love how much this man understands what Bond is. I'd love him to be working on the films behind the scenes

    If Villeneuve is not available, they should get Campbell to direct the screentests.

    I doubt it. Choosing the new Bond is 50% of the job.

    He wouldn't be choosing the new Bond.

    Who? Campbell or Villeneuve?

    I think Villeneuve will handle the selection process. It's a very important matter
  • 007HallY007HallY
    Posts: 6,399
    sandbagger1 wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    sandbagger1 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    sandbagger1 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Bond has such a long history and diverse set of films that’s it’s unclear how much you can change it before it’s unrecognisable really. CR is arguably fairly unrecognisable compared to what came before, but it’s great. As long as it’s got Bond in it and it does action and adventure and a few gags here and there, you’ve pretty much got a Bond film.
    And yet we've all argued against changes we consider stop it from feeling like Bond, though we don't all agree what those factors are. I know you didn't have a problem with NTTD killing Bond, Felix, giving him a daughter etc, but you have (IIRC) said that Fukunaga didn't achieve that Bond movie feel; you also were visibly disappointed with our first look at First Light, whilst others were very pleased. I think I've suggested stylistic experimentation before, which you've been against, but you're much keener on playing fast and loose with the Bond character than I am.

    There's obviously more to it than "as long as it’s got Bond in it and it does action and adventure and a few gags here and there, you’ve pretty much got a Bond film."

    Edit: Sorry, that sounds more snarky than intended. I'm not putting down your opinion or trying to start a fight.

    You're right, there is more to it than that; but you're also right that it's kind of hard to define what that 'more' is. As you say, we've all tried to put our fingers on it and kind of failed, so as 007HallY says, saying 'don't change it so it's unrecognisable' is not great advice as it's hard to pin down exactly how you do that. I think the best advice is probably that old standard: don't listen to any advice.
    I think making it feel like Bond is kind of down to the feel of the person making it rather than anything too specific: for me Mendes got it where Forster didn't, and I'd have trouble explaining why. Villeneuve is no slouch and obviously has love for Bond, so I'm pretty optimistic he'll have ideas for how to update it and yet make it feel right.
    But what he actually says is" So don’t f— with it, basically. There’s a lot of fertile ground for Bond, particularly the way the world is at the moment. I just hope that they don’t break what’s not broken!" [emphasis mine]

    Basically he's saying not to alter what's still working, don't update it for the sake of it. He obviously thinks no radical changes are necessary, which I would agree with. I know obviously that a fair number of people here wouldn't agree with that, and perhaps age is a factor in that.

    I suppose it depends on what's deemed to be still working. And they'll always have to update it just by virtue of making a new film. Anyway, it's a very general thing to say, and it's not overly helpful. Also a bit funny coming from the director of CR (which is quite a formula breaking Bond film, even if includes/reinterprets some of those well worn tropes).

    I'd argue that the film isn't so much a reinvention of the franchise as a getting back to basics adaptation of Casino Royale. From the interview it seems Campbell saw Craig's Bond as the same man as in the other films, it's just him before those events, if you take into account the franchise's rather rubbery continuity. Craig's Bond is a little rougher around the edges because he's new at the job, but it really is just getting back to its roots rather than saying the character no longer works and needs changing.

    As for your other points..

    Well I suppose you could argue that they've never stopped working for the general public, though we've seen course-corrections where the makers were obviously concerned they were losing the cultural zeitgeist. Other than needing to replace a phenomenally successful lead actor the franchise appears to be good shape.


    I'm not really sure what you mean when you say they have to update it by virtue of making a new film - yes technology moves on, fashions change, but those are surface changes; giving Bond a mobile phone and taking away his hat and cigarette doesn't really impact the core of the character. AIDS changed the sexual landscape for a while, and we got a slightly more romantic Bond in Dalton, but it was more scaling back on the excesses of the Moore years than an update. Most people here don't want to hear the term 'AI', and if the AI bubble bursts it might be safer to avoid it.



    Yeah, I mean all that’s part of updating Bond. You can also apply it to the new actor having their unique take on the character. It’s all going to be ‘the same but different’.

    Anyway, I get what you mean. Fundamentally they’re creating a new version of the same character, and it’s about being as true to Bond as possible while reinventing it all for a fresh new film. What Campbell says is all very general though. But hey, anyone can take from it what they will.
Sign In or Register to comment.