Where does Bond go after Craig?

11213151718512

Comments

  • edited December 2018 Posts: 1,092
    echo wrote: »
    thedove wrote: »
    Where do I hope they take the series? I hope we get back to less personal missions and just have a straight forward mission. As FRWL shows you can still have lots of drama without the personal ties. I hope we get a little lighter in tone, not to the extent of the some of the groaners of the Brosnan era. But the wry and dry humour of the Connery Bond movies. (I think he got the point.)

    Where do I think the Bond producers will take things? I think we will see more personal missions (they seem to think this type of thing plays well with the audience how else to explain no straight forward mission since TLD?) I think we will see a return to some bigger stunts.

    It shall be interesting to see.

    Yes but FRWL was 1963...

    Die Hard changed the game in 1985 and Lethal Weapon upped it. Every mission is personal now. No reason to believe that will change.

    Yeah, well, audiences are more sophisticated now so it's for a reason. I like old-school stuff as much as the next guy but we can't live in the past.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 7,965
    It depends whether they want another long break or not. I could see a movie as soon as 2022 or as late as 2024. If they did want another movie fast, I think going back to Campbell is probably the safest pair of hands. They could hammer out a script like in the old days someone like Campbell would need less time for artistic flourishes. I think straightforward storytelling should be the aim, with a dash of organic humour and a more snappy feel. I feel like the series, especially in the modern age is not living up to even a percentage of its potential.
  • edited December 2018 Posts: 17,241
    It depends whether they want another long break or not. I could see a movie as soon as 2022 or as late as 2024. If they did want another movie fast, I think going back to Campbell is probably the safest pair of hands. They could hammer out a script like in the old days someone like Campbell would need less time for artistic flourishes. I think straightforward storytelling should be the aim, with a dash of organic humour and a more snappy feel. I feel like the series, especially in the modern age is not living up to even a percentage of its potential.

    I hope they aim for 2022. Ideally they'll go for a quick recast with an actor that can win the audiences, hire a screenwriter to write a fun, straight-forward Bond adventure and get a suitable director to film it. There's plenty of talent that would jump at the chance of making a Bond film. It's up to EON to make it happen!
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 7,965
    It depends whether they want another long break or not. I could see a movie as soon as 2022 or as late as 2024. If they did want another movie fast, I think going back to Campbell is probably the safest pair of hands. They could hammer out a script like in the old days someone like Campbell would need less time for artistic flourishes. I think straightforward storytelling should be the aim, with a dash of organic humour and a more snappy feel. I feel like the series, especially in the modern age is not living up to even a percentage of its potential.

    I hope they aim for 2022. Ideally they'll go for a quick recast with an actor that can win the audiences, hire a screenwriter to write a fun, straight-forward Bond adventure and get a suitable director to film it. There's plenty of talent that would jump at the chance of making a Bond film. It's up to EON to make it happen!

    Yeah, November 2022 would be great! Thats about 2 years and 9 months since Bond 25. It would be so refreshing, since we only got one "short" gap so far this century. I'm hoping that the 60th anniversary is enough to make them get themselves into gear quickly. But at the same time, I'm not holding my breathe.
  • edited December 2018 Posts: 17,241
    It depends whether they want another long break or not. I could see a movie as soon as 2022 or as late as 2024. If they did want another movie fast, I think going back to Campbell is probably the safest pair of hands. They could hammer out a script like in the old days someone like Campbell would need less time for artistic flourishes. I think straightforward storytelling should be the aim, with a dash of organic humour and a more snappy feel. I feel like the series, especially in the modern age is not living up to even a percentage of its potential.

    I hope they aim for 2022. Ideally they'll go for a quick recast with an actor that can win the audiences, hire a screenwriter to write a fun, straight-forward Bond adventure and get a suitable director to film it. There's plenty of talent that would jump at the chance of making a Bond film. It's up to EON to make it happen!

    Yeah, November 2022 would be great! Thats about 2 years and 9 months since Bond 25. It would be so refreshing, since we only got one "short" gap so far this century. I'm hoping that the 60th anniversary is enough to make them get themselves into gear quickly. But at the same time, I'm not holding my breathe.

    Not holding my breath either. I guess it's more likely we'll get another long gap…
  • edited December 2018 Posts: 15,785
    I'd love a November 2022 for release date Aidan Turner's (or Cavill's) first outing. 60th anniversary film and the debut for a new actor. Beginning of a new era that harks back to he classic Connery/Moore days, and reminds audiences what a "James Bond movie" is supposed to be. Not a film following in the footsteps of Bourne, TDK trilogy, etc or whatever the current trend in 2022 will be.

    Sadly, however, the Craig era, as promising as it started has PROVEN time and time again that it isn't wise to hold one's breath.
    Considering CR was 12 years ago, it feels like the series hasn't evolved since then, really. Just took over a decade to re-introduce new versions of beloved characters, and thus create the Scooby Gang.

    Imagine if the Moore era kept the same tone of LALD all the way up to AVTAK, and by the time TLD was gearing into production, Roger stayed on and the film would be more or less still follow in the 70's funk "Shaft" trend that was popular in 1973. Would audiences in 1987 have responded as well with a new entry that carried the same early 70's trends? "Shaft", the TMWTGG Kung-Fu phase and so forth? I doubt it.


    That's what I feel we're getting with B25.

    The difference is Cubby kept the films coming out on a 2 year basis letting the series naturally evolve with the times. The Craig era gets a film every 4 years if one is lucky and cinema audiences move on. It's tough to stay relevant when you're lagging so far behind.

  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 7,965
    ToTheRight wrote: »

    That's what I feel we're getting with B25.


    I believe this is acurate. Like with DAD, I think the reaction of B25 will cause them to look for a new direction next time around, and a more traditional approach. I believe that they will double down on the artistic flourishes of the Craig era, having tried and failed the more traditional elements with SP. But I think this time it wil backfire and B25 will go down as a "they pushed it one film too far" effort, like AVTAK, DAF and DAD. They definitely won't try a comedic Bond again with Craig after SP, and I think this will cause the film to be seen as behind the times. They aren't all good (see aquaman) but we have to acceot that modern movies have embraced a more light, colourful advebturing tone. Its in this respect that I feel Bond really needs to catch up.
  • edited December 2018 Posts: 4,619
    It depends whether they want another long break or not. I could see a movie as soon as 2022 or as late as 2024. If they did want another movie fast, I think going back to Campbell is probably the safest pair of hands.
    A nearly 80 year old Campbell as the safest pair of hands? I really don't think so! Especially considering the fact that the great Christopher Nolan is probably extremely eager to direct Bond 26. Sooner or later you will have to come to grips with the fact that Campbell will never direct a Bond movie again.
    I feel like the series, especially in the modern age is not living up to even a percentage of its potential.
    2 out of 4 movies in the current age are MILES above any Bond movie since the 60s.
  • Posts: 7,653
    We need a workman director not another Director with vision, because we did have Forster & Mendes and they delivered shit. And if anybody starts about the successful BO office of SF I will gladly offer the the suggestion to have James Cameron directing as he solely has the nr. 1 & 2 in BO lists on his name. ;)
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,248
    I suppose “shit” is subjective then.
  • Posts: 4,619
    SaintMark wrote: »
    We need a workman director not another Director with vision, because we did have Forster & Mendes and they delivered shit. And if anybody starts about the successful BO office of SF I will gladly offer the the suggestion to have James Cameron directing as he solely has the nr. 1 & 2 in BO lists on his name. ;)
    James Cameron would direct an excellent James Bond film. Even his worst movie is miles above any Roger Moore film.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 7,965
    SaintMark wrote: »
    We need a workman director not another Director with vision, because we did have Forster & Mendes and they delivered shit. And if anybody starts about the successful BO office of SF I will gladly offer the the suggestion to have James Cameron directing as he solely has the nr. 1 & 2 in BO lists on his name. ;)
    James Cameron would direct an excellent James Bond film. Even his worst movie is miles above any Roger Moore film.

    On what criteria?
  • Posts: 4,619
    SaintMark wrote: »
    We need a workman director not another Director with vision, because we did have Forster & Mendes and they delivered shit. And if anybody starts about the successful BO office of SF I will gladly offer the the suggestion to have James Cameron directing as he solely has the nr. 1 & 2 in BO lists on his name. ;)
    James Cameron would direct an excellent James Bond film. Even his worst movie is miles above any Roger Moore film.

    On what criteria?
    On pretty much all criteria. Better script, better directing, better everything. Cameron's worst movie according to most people is either The Abyss or True Lies (Piranha II: The Spawning doesn't really count). I can't think of a single Bond film starring Moore that's better than either of those two films.
  • Posts: 17,241
    SaintMark wrote: »
    We need a workman director not another Director with vision, because we did have Forster & Mendes and they delivered shit. And if anybody starts about the successful BO office of SF I will gladly offer the the suggestion to have James Cameron directing as he solely has the nr. 1 & 2 in BO lists on his name. ;)
    James Cameron would direct an excellent James Bond film. Even his worst movie is miles above any Roger Moore film.

    On what criteria?
    On pretty much all criteria. Better script, better directing, better everything. Cameron's worst movie according to most people is either The Abyss or True Lies (Piranha II: The Spawning doesn't really count). I can't think of a single Bond film starring Moore that's better than either of those two films.

    Have yet to see a Cameron film I like. Moore on the other hand is entertainment gold.
  • Posts: 6,665
    SaintMark wrote: »
    We need a workman director not another Director with vision, because we did have Forster & Mendes and they delivered shit. And if anybody starts about the successful BO office of SF I will gladly offer the the suggestion to have James Cameron directing as he solely has the nr. 1 & 2 in BO lists on his name. ;)
    James Cameron would direct an excellent James Bond film. Even his worst movie is miles above any Roger Moore film.

    On what criteria?
    On pretty much all criteria. Better script, better directing, better everything. Cameron's worst movie according to most people is either The Abyss or True Lies (Piranha II: The Spawning doesn't really count). I can't think of a single Bond film starring Moore that's better than either of those two films.

    Have yet to see a Cameron film I like. Moore on the other hand is entertainment gold.

    + 10000000000 x 1000000000 x infinity
  • Posts: 11,425
    The key is in the casting. Craig was a big improvement on his predecessor but that wasn't hard. I think they can find someone even better than Craig for the next iteration. Craig is decent but not as great as some make out.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited December 2018 Posts: 7,965
    It's besides the point. Cameron may have made all masterpieces but if it's not Bond then it's not Bond. There's a formula which has been created over time and the execution is really what counts. SP did this execution poorly IMO, a d when it comes down to it what people really want to see is this formula pulled off properly again for modern times. We felt like Bond being a cypher wasn't enough, and having explored that particular avenue thoroughly, it's time to return to the DNA of what makes this franchise great and a cinematic institution. That's goes beyond Bonds inner troubles.
  • edited December 2018 Posts: 11,425
    The formula only gets you so far -as the Brosnan films demonstrated. I agree though that the formula needs to be respected. I think the Craig films all incorporate the formula - even QOS has the classic denouement at the baddy base.

    Whats been lacking for me is a lead actor who really has the charisma and screen presence to match Connery and Moore and solid storytelling.

    Craig is good but some recent rewatches of his films have reminded me what he lacks and why he has been so unsuccessful outside Bond.

    They need to cast the net wide next time and really find a potential star - someone who will inhabit the role and just own it.

    And we need some solid/compelling plots with good writing. One reason I was excited about Danny Boyle was that he really puts story and script first.
  • edited December 2018 Posts: 17,241
    Getafix wrote: »
    The formula only gets you so far -as the Brosnan films demonstrated. I agree though that the formula needs to be respected. I think the Craig films all incorporate the formula - even QOS has the classic denouement at the baddy base.

    Whats been lacking for me is a lead actor who really has the charisma and screen presence to match Connery and Moore and solid storytelling.

    Craig is good but some recent rewatches of his films have reminded me what he lacks and why he has been so unsuccessful outside Bond.

    They need to cast the net wide next time and really find a potential star - someone who will inhabit the role and just own it.

    And we need some solid/compelling plots with good writing. One reason I was excited about Danny Boyle was that he really puts story and script first.

    Craig is reliant on the drama element to be successful in the part, IMO. If that isn't incorporated in a good way (SP…), then he doesn't have that much to offer.

    Connery and Moore (and Brosnan too, to people I know) were much more likable in the part. I still have friends saying Craig isn't Bond in their eyes. I hope there's an actor out there with the right look and charisma (charisma even counts more than acting range to me). An actor that the audiences would immediately buy as Bond.
  • edited December 2018 Posts: 11,425
    Brosnan had the potential but never lived up to it IMO. Would have been interesting to see how he'd have handled a more serious toned film. He needed better direction and should have erred towards a slightly harder and less humorous take. Then when he did the lighter stuff it would have had more impact. Roger of course did it miles better.

    Craig leaves me a bit cold if I'm totally honest. He's solid but has never blown me away as Bond. Still he has been a step in the right direction. I hope they don't go back to total fantasy nonsense for his replacement.
  • Posts: 17,241
    Getafix wrote: »
    Brosnan had the potential but never lived up to it IMO. Would have been interesting to see how he'd have handled a more serious toned film. He needed better direction and should have erred towards a slightly harder and less humorous take. Then when he did the lighter stuff it would have had more impact. Roger of course did it miles better.

    Craig leaves me a bit cold if I'm totally honest. He's solid but has never blown me away as Bond. Still he has been a step in the right direction. I hope they don't go back to total fantasy nonsense for his replacement.

    Agree re. Brosnan. He's been decent in more serious non-Bond roles, so it would definitely have been interesting to see him in a more serious Bond film – like FYEO was to Moore (certain scenes aside, of course!).

    Craig leaves me a bit cold too. There's something missing there, IMO.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Craig lacks charisma imho. He has some presence and does a decent job but as his flops elsewhere demonstrate he is not really the star he is made out to be.
  • Posts: 6,665
    Getafix wrote: »
    Craig lacks charisma imho. He has some presence and does a decent job but as his flops elsewhere demonstrate he is not really the star he is made out to be.

    As a fan, and sadly, I've been coming around to this conclusion as well. Not a detractor of the man, never was. Got sold at his "Invasion" interview with Kidman, just on account of his voice and gaze.
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 984
    echo wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    That's not to say that a more Fleming specific Bond film cannot be made from time to time. In my view, its' best left for the first two of the new actor's tenure because they normally start small prior to going more fantastical as the tenure proceeds.

    Very true, this. Although it got me thinking. How would we react to a faithful adaptation of a Fleming's novel? I mean faithful to the bone, even regarding the character of Bond, looks wise and all. Down to the very structure and organic of the book. I, for one, know I would love it, even over the cinematic Bond. But to each their own, I know many would prefer the cinematic Bond and the formula. I'm not saying I would want just one or the other. But I would love to have both. With this TV craze that's going on, maybe a big British tv production? Set in the 50's? You'l say they made Fleming, the Man who would be Bond. But that's not the same, is it? No, I say a truly faithful adaptation. 10 episodes of the finest quality. I mean Granada quality (thinking of Holmes and Poirot here). A Downton Abbey production value series. With brilliant character actors portraying all the book character we hardcore fans love. I would be all for it.

    It would likely tank. Today's audience expects a modern Bond. The brilliance of Cubby was that he did just that.

    Agreed. I saw an interview once with Harry Saltzman. He said Bond is always set "5 minutes in the future". I couldn't agree more.
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    edited December 2018 Posts: 984
    Getafix wrote: »
    Brosnan had the potential but never lived up to it IMO. Would have been interesting to see how he'd have handled a more serious toned film. He needed better direction and should have erred towards a slightly harder and less humorous take. Then when he did the lighter stuff it would have had more impact. Roger of course did it miles better.

    Craig leaves me a bit cold if I'm totally honest. He's solid but has never blown me away as Bond. Still he has been a step in the right direction. I hope they don't go back to total fantasy nonsense for his replacement.

    Agree re. Brosnan. He's been decent in more serious non-Bond roles, so it would definitely have been interesting to see him in a more serious Bond film – like FYEO was to Moore (certain scenes aside, of course!).

    Craig leaves me a bit cold too. There's something missing there, IMO.

    I agree on Craig too. I don't know wether it's his look, voice or 'the cut of his jib' but I just haven't been able to take to him. Good actor, but my least favourite Bond.

    Going back to the original question, given that films in general seem to be trending toward a slightly lighter approach, I assume Bond will step back in to this, as it was pre Craig.

    I nice, standalone mission with a good old fashioned Megalomaniac villain would go down a treat with me. I understand that may not be to everyone's taste after having a decade and a bit of the Craig version.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I don't mind Craig as an actor, but I'm pretty much done with his Bond. It's all the baggage around it that has become a bit overwhelming and burdensome for me and which I can't erase. Those hanging photos at the end of SP sum it up perfectly. They went out of their way to wrap it all up together in a bow and hit me over the head with it. What can I say, they did too good of a job.

    In terms of the future I'm looking for a taller, suaver, smoother actor, but not a caricature. Someone who cannot easily be duplicated by competitors. Someone with an edge, but with more polish than Craig. Someone who I can look at on the screen and just feel that he just belongs in those suits and in that environment without having to be told as much. In other words, someone who's comfortable with the traditional icon elements of the role and who doesn't look like he's acting it.

    I'd prefer a decent actor who can subtly convey emotion without overdoing it. I think Rog and Sean were the best at this. Craig's not bad too.

    I also want decent espionage driven plots and just a bit of Le Carre (although I'm certainly not asking for that in entirety). So basically more FRWL style.

    I doubt we'll get that, but it's what I'd like.
  • Posts: 17,241
    Getafix wrote: »
    Craig lacks charisma imho. He has some presence and does a decent job but as his flops elsewhere demonstrate he is not really the star he is made out to be.
    Roadphill wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    Brosnan had the potential but never lived up to it IMO. Would have been interesting to see how he'd have handled a more serious toned film. He needed better direction and should have erred towards a slightly harder and less humorous take. Then when he did the lighter stuff it would have had more impact. Roger of course did it miles better.

    Craig leaves me a bit cold if I'm totally honest. He's solid but has never blown me away as Bond. Still he has been a step in the right direction. I hope they don't go back to total fantasy nonsense for his replacement.

    Agree re. Brosnan. He's been decent in more serious non-Bond roles, so it would definitely have been interesting to see him in a more serious Bond film – like FYEO was to Moore (certain scenes aside, of course!).

    Craig leaves me a bit cold too. There's something missing there, IMO.

    I agree on Craig too. I don't know wether it's his look, voice or 'the cut of his jib' but I just haven't been able to take to him. Good actor, but my least favourite Bond.

    Going back to the original question, given that films in general seem to be trending toward a slightly lighter approach, I assume Bond will step back in to this, as it was pre Craig.

    I nice, standalone mission with a good old fashioned Megalomaniac villain would go down a treat with me. I understand that may not be to everyone's taste after having a decade and a bit of the Craig version.

    That sums it up really. He's too "unconventional" to win me over. Had he been more traditional looking (taller etc.) he would have one less things that works against him, IMO. As @bondjames writes in the comment above, we need an actor that's taller, suaver, and smoother – without looking like a caricature.

    That being said, having an "unconventional" Bond was probably right for this era, but the era itself has been handled so very, very wrong.
  • Posts: 15,785
    Getafix wrote: »
    Craig lacks charisma imho. He has some presence and does a decent job but as his flops elsewhere demonstrate he is not really the star he is made out to be.
    Roadphill wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    Brosnan had the potential but never lived up to it IMO. Would have been interesting to see how he'd have handled a more serious toned film. He needed better direction and should have erred towards a slightly harder and less humorous take. Then when he did the lighter stuff it would have had more impact. Roger of course did it miles better.

    Craig leaves me a bit cold if I'm totally honest. He's solid but has never blown me away as Bond. Still he has been a step in the right direction. I hope they don't go back to total fantasy nonsense for his replacement.

    Agree re. Brosnan. He's been decent in more serious non-Bond roles, so it would definitely have been interesting to see him in a more serious Bond film – like FYEO was to Moore (certain scenes aside, of course!).

    Craig leaves me a bit cold too. There's something missing there, IMO.

    I agree on Craig too. I don't know wether it's his look, voice or 'the cut of his jib' but I just haven't been able to take to him. Good actor, but my least favourite Bond.

    Going back to the original question, given that films in general seem to be trending toward a slightly lighter approach, I assume Bond will step back in to this, as it was pre Craig.

    I nice, standalone mission with a good old fashioned Megalomaniac villain would go down a treat with me. I understand that may not be to everyone's taste after having a decade and a bit of the Craig version.

    That sums it up really. He's too "unconventional" to win me over. Had he been more traditional looking (taller etc.) he would have one less things that works against him, IMO. As @bondjames writes in the comment above, we need an actor that's taller, suaver, and smoother – without looking like a caricature.

    That being said, having an "unconventional" Bond was probably right for this era, but the era itself has been handled so very, very wrong.

    I agree. I felt thrilled when Craig was cast that after Pierce Eon was going in a different direction. It started out promisingly with CR, but damn if this isn't my least favorite era in the franchise. Oddly I do tend to rank the Pierce films a bit lower, but overall I prefer the Bondian vibe of the Brosnan years. ,,,,,,and the 2 year gaps .
  • Posts: 6,665
    True. I miss the Bondian vibes Pierce exuded sometimes.

    Besides, Craig's blonde.
    What? To me that's worse than his height.
    Really.
    Bring back the classic Bond.
    For the 26th, i mean. For now, I'm happy Craig's doing just one more. It really doesn't bother me that much. Although I Know I'd be over the roof with the prospect of having a new Bond under the helm of CJF out next year.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2018 Posts: 23,883
    Univex wrote: »
    For now, I'm happy Craig's doing just one more. It really doesn't bother me that much. Although I Know I'd be over the roof with the prospect of having a new Bond under the helm of CJF out next year.
    The possibilities would actually be endless with such a scenario, and very exciting.
    Getafix wrote: »
    Craig lacks charisma imho. He has some presence and does a decent job but as his flops elsewhere demonstrate he is not really the star he is made out to be.
    Roadphill wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    Brosnan had the potential but never lived up to it IMO. Would have been interesting to see how he'd have handled a more serious toned film. He needed better direction and should have erred towards a slightly harder and less humorous take. Then when he did the lighter stuff it would have had more impact. Roger of course did it miles better.

    Craig leaves me a bit cold if I'm totally honest. He's solid but has never blown me away as Bond. Still he has been a step in the right direction. I hope they don't go back to total fantasy nonsense for his replacement.

    Agree re. Brosnan. He's been decent in more serious non-Bond roles, so it would definitely have been interesting to see him in a more serious Bond film – like FYEO was to Moore (certain scenes aside, of course!).

    Craig leaves me a bit cold too. There's something missing there, IMO.

    I agree on Craig too. I don't know wether it's his look, voice or 'the cut of his jib' but I just haven't been able to take to him. Good actor, but my least favourite Bond.

    Going back to the original question, given that films in general seem to be trending toward a slightly lighter approach, I assume Bond will step back in to this, as it was pre Craig.

    I nice, standalone mission with a good old fashioned Megalomaniac villain would go down a treat with me. I understand that may not be to everyone's taste after having a decade and a bit of the Craig version.

    That sums it up really. He's too "unconventional" to win me over. Had he been more traditional looking (taller etc.) he would have one less things that works against him, IMO. As @bondjames writes in the comment above, we need an actor that's taller, suaver, and smoother – without looking like a caricature.

    That being said, having an "unconventional" Bond was probably right for this era, but the era itself has been handled so very, very wrong.
    That's a very good point. Given his era has been so different from the rest, it's actually apropos to an extent that he too physically is different and unconventional. I assume (and sincerely hope) that they plan to close his time out definitively with this next film (otherwise there was really no reason to bring him back), so that they can do a semi-hard reset next time and move forward, blending the best of the Craig era with the best of the classic pre-90 period. The right actor will go a long way towards that, but so will new writers and basically an entirely new team to create a clear differentiation from the past.
Sign In or Register to comment.