The transition from Daniel's Bond to the next Bond?

Trigger_Mortis

I apologise in advance if this has already been discussed but I couldn't find a thread for it. Now that the Bond francise has been rebooted, the characters are effectively on a clean page. Given that Judi Dench is 74, I think we'll be lucky to have her within the next 5 films in the role as M (which is a shame given she plays the role so well). Obviously, they'll need to do a recast sometime within the next decade. This has me thinking back to Goldeneye where Brosnan cites that Dench's predecessor kept a bottle of liquor on the shelf which supports the notion that M is a handed down title. I have no doubt that the recast will be explained in the story when Dench's successor is cast.

This then leads me to Daniel and 007. Now that the reboot has happened and that they will most likely reference the change of hands in the M title, do you think they'll formally hand over the title "James Bond" to another agent or continue the recasting as they did from the 1960s to the early 2000s? Personally, i'd love to see the title handed down, kind of like Doctor Who. As far as I remember, this approach was suggeste by the Director of Die Another Day, only to be turned down by EON. Could EON be working toward reimagining the casting process of Bond too? This leaves to many options for the character's demise and could extent on the human side of him that's been set down in the current Craig era Bond films.

minigeff

i don't think 'James Bond' was ever intended as an alias, or a title to be handed over 'to the other bloke' as George once said.

the whole 'breaking the fourth wall' idea is a bit pointless in my mind, as it just add confusion and causes people to start questioning if bond is an alias all along. a connection to past characters is ok, but i always think that as the main character, James Bond should remain a constant throughout the series.

thesecretagent

M is merely a post within MI6, as intimated in Goldeneye, and can and should be filled by different actors playing different characters, either male or female. This can be interesting, and I think should change soon, back to a man. I like Judy Dench as M, but I think her time has come, and the best way to show that the next actor is also the next M is to change genders.
James Bond on the other hand, is James Bond. He should always be the same person, not a title. And, to keep the series both fresh and reletively timeless, should be played every five or ten years by a different actor. I personally don't like the idea of handing over the title to another agent. Too much Bondism has changed with the new take on the series. We are in danger of losing the essence of Bond altogether.

007 and a half

Regarding the subject of 'M' in CR when she asked how Bond knew where she lived didn't Bond say that he 'Thought that 'M' was a randomly assigned letter, I had know idea it stood for ......'

This would intimate that 'M' was due to her name and not a rank, I heard that the character's name was Barbara Mawdsley.

Just a thought anyway

Napoleon Plural

Maybe it means her name is 'Em' as in the sadly soon to be demised comic strip character in The London Paper.

dr. evan-gelist

I think Christian Bale would continue well as Bond after Craig. They have the same facial features.

Agent Wade

Rather than show the transition of M between films like they've always done, it would be refreshing to see a passing of the torch between M's as an actual part of a Bond film. That would unload a whole new pile of discussable things. "I liked it! I didn't like it! etc." It wouldn't have to be a major event in the film, just something notable. If I had to pick, I think it should be toward the beginning of the mission so Bond has to get used to the methods of a new superior yet again. The best Bond movies seem to be where 007 is never on the same page as M but manages to succeed and prove his mettle nonetheless.

thesecretagent

Agent Wade wrote:

Rather than show the transition of M between films like they've always done, it would be refreshing to see a passing of the torch between M's as an actual part of a Bond film. That would unload a whole new pile of discussable things. "I liked it! I didn't like it! etc." It wouldn't have to be a major event in the film, just something notable. If I had to pick, I think it should be toward the beginning of the mission so Bond has to get used to the methods of a new superior yet again. The best Bond movies seem to be where 007 is never on the same page as M but manages to succeed and prove his mettle nonetheless.

That's a great idea.

Mike Z

I know this has been discussed elsewhere on this board but it looks to me that Clive Owen is born to play the role (even if he is my age).

I'm pretty happy with the "reboot" films as they are (and for what they are) but recently I have been re-reading some of the Fleming novels and it has sparked a desire to see a film made that is a very literal adaptation of a book. let's see Bond in the era that the books were written wrapped up in some good ol' cold war intrigue with perhaps a nice blower Bentley chase scene and plenty of smoking and drinking.

Napoleon Plural

If MGM really is on the rocks as reported on mi6.co.uk, we could be in for another six-year hiatus a la Dalton's two movies. Following which, who knows? Maybe a new actor.

Dan Same

Mike Z wrote:

I know this has been discussed elsewhere on this board but it looks to me that Clive Owen is born to play the role (even if he is my age).

{[] {[] {[] Finally, I encounter a fellow AJB member who also wants Owen to play Bond.

thesecretagent

Dan Same wrote:

Mike Z wrote:

I know this has been discussed elsewhere on this board but it looks to me that Clive Owen is born to play the role (even if he is my age).

{[] {[] {[] Finally, I encounter a fellow AJB member who also wants Owen to play Bond.

No, you're not alone. I also think Owen would have been a good choice, and still think he could do it.

Dan Same

thesecretagent wrote:

Dan Same wrote:

Mike Z wrote:

I know this has been discussed elsewhere on this board but it looks to me that Clive Owen is born to play the role (even if he is my age).

{[] {[] {[] Finally, I encounter a fellow AJB member who also wants Owen to play Bond.

No, you're not alone. I also think Owen would have been a good choice, and still think he could do it.

Great to hear that. -{

HowardB

Napoleon Plural wrote:

If MGM really is on the rocks as reported on mi6.co.uk, we could be in for another six-year hiatus a la Dalton's two movies. Following which, who knows? Maybe a new actor.

The six year hiatus after the Dalton films was a very different situation....EON and Sony were in a legal battle over whether Sony had the rights to make their own Bond film. If MGM bites the dust, EON won't have any problems finding another partner to produce and distribute the next Bond film. The major film companies will be lined up with cash in hand to partner with EON. Sony would seem to have the inside track, having fulfilled that role for CS and QOS along with their deep pockets and very strong desire to partner with EON on the Bond series. It would be cool to see the United Artists logo in front of a Bond film again however. No worries here, Bond will be back in 2011 (I still wish it would be 2010) and it's just a matter of whether Daniel Craig is extended beyond the two more films he is signed for as to what will ultimately happen to the Bond films in the future.

Loeffelholz

Napoleon Plural wrote:

If MGM really is on the rocks as reported on mi6.co.uk, we could be in for another six-year hiatus a la Dalton's two movies. Following which, who knows? Maybe a new actor.

Hope springs eternal!

On a more serious note, I'd hate to see anything delay Bond beyond three years between pictures (which is still one too many for me ). With a franchise like Bond---which is essentially a licence to print money---surely there will be those who will front the necessary expenditure for what is arguably the best bet in the film business...but then again, people will go to war to keep their hands on such a cash cow...

It's a situation worth monitoring.

Mike Z

Loeffelholz wrote:

Napoleon Plural wrote:

If MGM really is on the rocks as reported on mi6.co.uk, we could be in for another six-year hiatus a la Dalton's two movies. Following which, who knows? Maybe a new actor.

Hope springs eternal!

On a more serious note, I'd hate to see anything delay Bond beyond three years between pictures (which is still one too many for me ). With a franchise like Bond---which is essentially a licence to print money---surely there will be those who will front the necessary expenditure for what is arguably the best bet in the film business...but then again, people will go to war to keep their hands on such a cash cow...

It's a situation worth monitoring.

"License to Print Money"... Let's hope they don't make that one