214 replies to this topic

[Tiin007]

I agree the chances of Craig returning for both Bonds 25 and 26 are incredibly low, but it's a real shame. I worry that just one film is not enough to properly and effectively wrap up the Blofeld story. Not to mention that Craig will have been Bond the longest yet still wind up two films short of Roger's record. 

[KHergesheimer]

I doubt they are doing more than one film, although it would explain the long delay (writing and preparing for a two film arc takes time). But I think one more great film is all we can hope for from Craig.

[KHergesheimer]

And I do think Craig is back, too much noise from too many reliable sources. If he was out, and they were looking for a replacement, word would have got out. It just needs an announcement, and the timing is predicated on some other variable. I wouldn't be surprised if they use it to hype Lucky's release. Would guarantee some significant noise around the film and Craig as well as help him avoid the headache of opaque answers.

Edited by KHergesheimer, 28 July 2017 - 12:49 PM.

[wdj89]

Because the distribution deal and possibly some financing is most likely not finalized yet/contracts signed, so they cant announce casting/details til the financing is all in place etc... close enough for them to stake a date (which could move still) but not to announce details - no doubt everything will be announced via a special press event as per SKyfall and Spectre's in the next few months (October or November)

[Professor Pi]

So, I'm not advocating either of these things happen, but to address two other topics that pop up every so often ...

 

Michael Caine is too old to play M at 84, but Martin Campbell is okay to direct Bond at 73?

 

(For the record, I want to keep Fiennes, Judi Dench was 77 whiile filming Skyfall, and EON has never hired anyone as old as Campbell direct Bond.)

[SecretAgentFan]

I´m sure Fiennes, Whishaw and Harris will be kept on in any event for BOND 25.  

 

And when could BOND 26 actually start shooting?  I doubt that they will want to move on quickly from Craig.  Think another four years later.  2023 at the earliest then.  

 

So, actors who are now in their late 50´s might become suitable as M, 18 year olds for Q and Moneypenny...  

 

And, of course, look at current twentysomethings for Bond.

[Tiin007]

Controversial opinion: keep Fiennes, Harris, Whishaw and (yes, even) Kinnear for the next Bond actor. All do a great job in their respective roles, even if Kinnear is somewhat forgettable. I miss the good old days of consistency in the supporting roles. 

 

(I'm not sure why this is such a controversial opinion. It seems fellow fans keep clamoring for a new M or Moneypenny; but if it ain't broke, don't fix it.) 

[Matt_13]

Naomi should remain as Moneypenny for as long as possible. She's fantastic and a great ambassador for the brand.

[tdalton]

Controversial opinion: keep Fiennes, Harris, Whishaw and (yes, even) Kinnear for the next Bond actor. All do a great job in their respective roles, even if Kinnear is somewhat forgettable. I miss the good old days of consistency in the supporting roles. 

 

(I'm not sure why this is such a controversial opinion. It seems fellow fans keep clamoring for a new M or Moneypenny; but if it ain't broke, don't fix it.) 

 

Can't speak for the other fans, but for me, I want a new supporting cast largely because it is broke and it needs fixing.  These actors command far too much screen time considering the roles that they play.  Very much want to see those parts dialed way back in future installments, especially once the new Bond is cast.

[KHergesheimer]

Keep the supporting cast, they are excellent, and the continuity keeps an integrity to the Craig era...even with the villains (Mr White). In fact bring back Jeffrey Wright as Felix, would bring us full circle.

[Tiin007]

 

Controversial opinion: keep Fiennes, Harris, Whishaw and (yes, even) Kinnear for the next Bond actor. All do a great job in their respective roles, even if Kinnear is somewhat forgettable. I miss the good old days of consistency in the supporting roles. 

 

(I'm not sure why this is such a controversial opinion. It seems fellow fans keep clamoring for a new M or Moneypenny; but if it ain't broke, don't fix it.) 

 

Can't speak for the other fans, but for me, I want a new supporting cast largely because it is broke and it needs fixing.  These actors command far too much screen time considering the roles that they play.  Very much want to see those parts dialed way back in future installments, especially once the new Bond is cast.

 

 

I fully agree that their roles need to be cut down significantly. 

 

So keep the actors and just give them less screen time. 

 

I can't imagine Fiennes or Harris refusing to do just one scene because they won't have a leading role. Pay them accordingly and it should be fine. (This would even allow them the freedom to do other roles, as just a scene or two wouldn't require clearing their schedules.) And if any future entry (hopefully far down the line) requires a larger presence of M / Q / Moneypenny, the actors will still be around and more than willing to flex their acting muscles. 

[antovolk]

As I said before,  I say recast M/Q/MP etc because unlike the transition between Brosnan>Craig, not only are audiences today far more continuity-obsessed (yours truly included), they went above and beyond to make the Craig era serialised. So to have it both ways like the olden days so to say, when the extent of serialisation was Connery's run, wouldn't fly with today's audiences... If the post-Craig era ends up taking that old-school approach, then with future Bonds you can keep the supporting cast.

 

And am I the only one who's been happy about the more actual supporting roles M/Q/MP have been getting in the Craig run? Not sure what's so 'heretic' about it....

[Dustin]

And am I the only one who's been happy about the more actual supporting roles M/Q/MP have been getting in the Craig run? Not sure what's so 'heretic' about it....

Nothing heretical about liking the way the Homebase's crew developed. Only Bond is not really a team player, and until very recently the Bond vibe was distinctly different from, say, MI5/SPOOKS or Avengers. Now we're looking for meaningful ways to include the backup team and that's not always helpful to the overall storyline. It's a very difficult act to balance this and with time the wheels are bound to come off.

As for replacing the fine ensemble...I'm not sure the general audience would really want to see new faces with a new Bond. Most people will just take it as it's served either way. Old friends are always welcome and Harris, Fiennes and Whishaw seem to be quite accepted in their parts. I dare say they'd be a welcome aid in introducing the new guy.

[han4bond]

 

Also, if Nolan is given the keys to reboot, you can expect Tom Hardy as Bond, Marion Cotillard as one of the female leads, Michael Caine as M, and Hans Zimmer scoring.  Those developments would not be to everyone's liking here. But it'd be a big kick off to a 60th anniversary in 2022!

 

 

I would love everything about that, particularly a Zimmer score.

[Tiin007]

 

As for replacing the fine ensemble...I'm not sure the general audience would really want to see new faces with a new Bond. Most people will just take it as it's served either way. Old friends are always welcome and Harris, Fiennes and Whishaw seem to be quite accepted in their parts. I dare say they'd be a welcome aid in introducing the new guy.

 

 

Thank you. 

[Gobi-1]

I want the MI6 cast to remain with the series when Bond #7 arrives. Considering that part of Blofeld's plot in Spectre was to eliminate the Double-00 program and merge MI6 with MI7 the larger roles for M, Moneypenny, Tanner, and Q were justified. Not every Bond film will have that. I certainly think the next film should reduce their roles. M, Tanner, and Moneypenny should only be around for the initial briefing and wrap up. Q could pop up in the field if needed. I'd much rather see Felix return and fill the role of Bond's support on the mission.

 

Also Ralph Finnes is only 54, Naomie Harris is 40, and Ben Whishaw is 36. They're all young enough to remain with the franchise for many years to come. Decades even. They could easily rival Bernard Lee, Lois Maxwell, and Desmond Llewelyn in series longevity. They indeed would be welcome faces as Bond actors come and go.

[tdalton]

 

 

Controversial opinion: keep Fiennes, Harris, Whishaw and (yes, even) Kinnear for the next Bond actor. All do a great job in their respective roles, even if Kinnear is somewhat forgettable. I miss the good old days of consistency in the supporting roles. 

 

(I'm not sure why this is such a controversial opinion. It seems fellow fans keep clamoring for a new M or Moneypenny; but if it ain't broke, don't fix it.) 

 

Can't speak for the other fans, but for me, I want a new supporting cast largely because it is broke and it needs fixing.  These actors command far too much screen time considering the roles that they play.  Very much want to see those parts dialed way back in future installments, especially once the new Bond is cast.

 

 

I fully agree that their roles need to be cut down significantly. 

 

So keep the actors and just give them less screen time. 

 

I can't imagine Fiennes or Harris refusing to do just one scene because they won't have a leading role. Pay them accordingly and it should be fine. (This would even allow them the freedom to do other roles, as just a scene or two wouldn't require clearing their schedules.) And if any future entry (hopefully far down the line) requires a larger presence of M / Q / Moneypenny, the actors will still be around and more than willing to flex their acting muscles. 

 

 

As nice as that would be, I can't see EON doing it.  They've pretty much adhered to the philosophy of "if you're going to get Dench/Fiennes/etc, then you give them something to do".  I'd also be OK with them recasting Moneypenny and Q as well.  I didn't care for the portrayal of either character in Skyfall, and while Whishaw did a much better job in Spectre, Moneypenny was still one of the weak points of the film.  Not blaming Naomie Harris entirely for it, as a good portion of the blame should come down on the writers as well, but I just didn't care much at all for this incarnation of the character.

[SecretAgentFan]

If the Craig era winds down with BOND 25 and there is another four year hiatus I would welcome a complete new beginning for the next era.

 

I also must say that Fiennes/Whishaw/Harris made a better impression on me in SKYFALL where they had more interesting things to do, in contrast to SPECTRE where they had a lot of screentime but not a lot to act.

 

If BOND 25 gives them a chance to shine I would probably want them to stick around.

 

But I agree on this: the team has been given an importance that it does not need to have.  And this is only due to the casting of famous actors in these minor parts.  And those actors simply will not be content with having just one or two scenes of exposition.  They will always demand more or they will quit.  That´s why EON wants to appease them with more involvement.

[wdj89]

I guess its part of the "reality" of modern spying they have been trying to imbue the series with - near constant communication with home base, tactical support etc... more military style operation

 

But really much as I like them all - especially Whishaw - I think the series would do much better if it returned to "you + me against the world" kinda situations which will probably be more tense and dramatic and keep the focus on Bond, where it belongs - I feel like the development that used to go to the  villains and their plots has been shifting to subplots for the home team - hence we end up with Spectre...

[Pussfeller]

Indeed, my biggest problem with the Craig era is the "remote-control Bond" phenomenon. He's in constant electronic contact with mission control, either actively collaborating with them or taking steps to elude their control. It's become far too big a part of the films.

 

I trace this back to the casting of Judi Dench. The producers keenly felt that they had a "great" on their hands, and needed to give her more and more to do. Fiennes is the same. I'd really like to see MI6 reduced back to its 60's/70's/80's level of prominence in the films, with Bond completely untethered and on his own, except perhaps for the occasional meet-up with a friendly agent. I don't want every film to have a London B-plot that we're constantly cutting back to. 

[Mr. Somerset]

The earpiece trend in the Craig films gives the filmmakers an excuse to cut to M guiding Bond thru every step of his mission. A well seasoned MI6 still using his training wheels so to speak.

[Simon]

Which, in the pre-credits to Skyfall, lead to such great lines as, 'Bond, wot's going on?'

 

To which I would have replied, 'F*** off, I am fighting for my life...'

 

As lauded as Skyfall is in some quarters, a film I can't watch from the beginning due in no small part to all the nagging from dearest M.

 

Agreed, cut it all back and let Bond develop relationships out in the field.

[Dustin]

...to which I would have replied, 'F*** off, I am fighting for my life...'

A line of dialogue sorely missing from the series. It would put back the bloody facts into a post-factual world...

[MinZorin]

So you guys want to have the old style detachment and testosterone back in the films? Would be awesome but who would that sell to? Because neither of these are present in today's world, we only have attachment and estrogen. Also something in our culture broke around 2000 with the introduction of the internet. Still in the 90s films and music were still pretty unique but everything made after that point got way too calculated because everyone knows everything, all reflection without inspiration.

[Royal Dalton]

Some (probable) guff from the Sunday Mirror: http://www.mirror.co...erhand-10895860

[Gobi-1]

 

...to which I would have replied, 'F*** off, I am fighting for my life...'
 

A line of dialogue sorely missing from the series. It would put back the bloody facts into a post-factual world...

 

 

A line like that points to a direction they could go in. With just about everything attached to cameras, computers, and the internet old school physical technology could be used to help counter it. You can't hack into a slip of paper. Shift the spy game back to cloak and daggers instead of satellites and hard drives. Put human intelligence on the ground without being continually monitored by superiors. Technology is with us and its not going away but maybe the can find more interesting ways to deal with it.

[Pierceuhhh]

Mendes doesn't get enough credit for removing cellphones almost completely from his films. The constant closeups of antiquated c. 2003 Ericssons in Casino Royale is embarrassing and DEEPLY uncinematic.

[sharpshooter]

Some (probable) guff from the Sunday Mirror: http://www.mirror.co...erhand-10895860

Seems to be an amalgamation of all the old rumours. But I have to say, I'm on board with Croatia if that happens. It's a lovely place. And Shatterhand would be a great title. The S trilogy!  

[SecretAgentFan]

That article brings back fond memories of "Beyond the Ice".

[wdj89]

So you guys want to have the old style detachment and testosterone back in the films? Would be awesome but who would that sell to? Because neither of these are present in today's world, we only have attachment and estrogen. Also something in our culture broke around 2000 with the introduction of the internet. Still in the 90s films and music were still pretty unique but everything made after that point got way too calculated because everyone knows everything, all reflection without inspiration.

 

No not at all - its not about machismo and not needing help - or even detaching self from the world or making an alpha male spy movie. Its to do with what makes a compelling spy thriller and you can have all that in action movie with artistic leanings and compelling character work within it. Military copy paste dialogue is not particularly exciting writing but it takes up pages which is handy for a writer in an action movie to have people to ask whats going on so you can tell AND show them at the same time. The psychological pressure on one man with basically a suicide mission to save the world and compelling characters within that (who could provide help, back up) is much more the direction i would like to see Bond go