How can a new incarnation of Bond just appear now?
After all the high emotional, dramatic, traumatic ending of No Time to Die, how can a new Bond series just appear! I don't see how it can happen. And a Bond that maintains Craig's gloominess without integrating anything from the earlier Bonds I think it could be the end. And if it's extraordinarily politically correct it will also end. Regardless of the actor.
Comments
In the same way that an new version of Batman appeared a couple of years after the emotional, dramatic, traumatic ending of the dark Knight rises. The whole multiverse thing seems to be the in thing in cinema now. incidentally I think the makers of Bond have made a dog's dinner out of things. In years to come NTTD will be known as nothing but a bad OHMSs knock-off
<Sigh> I understand your point. I just don't feel about it like that. I wonder what it will be like after Barbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson aren't involved anymore. They probably arranged their successors already.....with their requirements to be contractually included.......Who knows??
Wilson may have found his successor, but I don't think BB is looking for one yet.
By the time Timothy Dalton took over in 1987, I stopped believing Bond was the "same guy" from 1962-85--I now take it that each new iteration lives in his own timeline and reality.
Isn't it strange that despite the changing universes of each Bond, there was a certain continuity of sorts with memento photos for the previous Ms, along with a Q and Moneypenny. I wonder why in Craig's Bond they chose a young kid as Q. I liked him alot, but it didn't seem in place for Q to be so young, even if he was selected by MI6 because he must have been a super genius.
Do you have to be old to be a super genius? 🤔
Q isn’t a young kid - no idea why you keep on repeating this…🤷🏻♂️
Excuse me, but how old was Desmond Llewelyn compared to Ben Wishaw as Q along the way? It isn't hard to calculate the age difference, and it is far more likely that someone around Llewelyn's age would be a Q than someone around Wishaw's age. That takes nothing away from Wishaw himself as an actor. He was very good, but it doesn't seem to be realistic that the boss of technogadgets for MI6 of the British intelligence service would be so young.
What has dear old Desmond got to do with this? 🤷🏻♂️ you were speaking about Ben Wishaw being a ‘young kid’ at 32 🤔
Zuckerberg was 19 when he started facebook…and Elon Musk was 32 when he started Tesla…so why do you find it unrealistic that Wishaw’s Q is the Quartermaster?
I was commenting on what I thought was a comment disagreeing about Q being a young kid (Wishaw).
Do you have to be old to be a super genius? 🤔
Q isn’t a young kid - no idea why you keep on repeating this…🤷🏻♂️
I think because Whishaw looks so young, people forget how old he is.
I thought Wishaw was a great Q but I think that was because most of the gizmos and gadgets these days are computer based so it just seemed a natural progression.
Exactly 🙂
To answer the original question, as we all know it's the magic of cinema...
It helps, based on years of experience.....otherwise why not have a 20 year old James Bond too?
But years of experience can be a hindrance when it’s brand new/cutting edge technology…my parents STILL can’t work the pvr and they are in their 80’s 🤣
His Q is only 17 years older, relatively speaking. Which is a smaller age gap than between Sean Connery and himself in his first and last appearances as 007 😄
Whatever. Wishaw looks much younger than the original Q. That's simply my point.
In my opinion the reimagining of Q as a younger fellow was one of the great triumphs of Craig’s films. Also helped by the excellent casting of Whishaw, who has an old head on young shoulders.
Dovy, the fact that Q was played by a younger man was to subvert the older portrayals of Q by Llewelyn and Clease, a bit like Judi Dench was cast as M in Goldeneye, though in her case MI5 actually had a female head at/around that time called Stella Rimmington. None the less, the re-casting was great from the perspective of breathing new life into scenes we’d seen many times before, interactions with M and Q.
Turning to your initial question, there’s a few ways they could go, though I’d sooner they left the ending of NTTD a bit more ambiguous. They could go back to an origin Bond story and start afresh or just completely ignore the Craig films, existing in their own “multiverse” as it were, and just carry on as usual, which is probably my preference under the limited circumstances that the producers have left themselves with.
Was the storyline of combining MI5 and MI6 equivalent to the idea of combining the FBI and CIA? And do you mean that we don't actually see Bond die in NTTD, and therefore the new Bond universe would continue Craig's universe?
No, what I mean is that they could reboot the series from afresh with a new Bond actor, showing us an origin of Bond or just carry on with a new actor as if the Craig films never happened, ie no new origin, just business as usual forming the very loose continuity the series always had before Craig took on the role in Casino Royale.
The latter suggestion would jettison the events of the Craig films, as if they never happened, though they would exist in their own universe. I think this is what I’d prefer to see, a continued link to the pre-Craig films, and as each subsequent actor gets replaced they don’t kill off Bond, like in the good old days!
Craig’s Bond is categorically dead, he’s made that clear in interviews since the film and I can’t see any way that NTTD suggests he survived the end. Craig’s universe of films would comprise Casino Royale to NTTD only.
I hope that helps clear things up.
And you can add there alot of science fiction, indicating that the Bond of 1962 and the Bond of 2021 are the same being who does appear in different parallel universes to save each one. Maybe even to use a Stargate or Sliders system. 😊😉🧐
Or even just relax and enjoy the films, without worrying too much about continuity and universes. We've spent a lot of time discussing this here, and this is one thread which may be of interest during which I expand on that view -
Be warned, there's a lot to read there!
Touché, Barbel, touché. But first let's find out from Barbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson what the significance is to the whole Bond legacy of "James Bond will return"! And then there is the issue of the original theme. Whenever I hear it on any film all I can think is that theme is Sean Connery, no matter how I try to forget it! The music belongs to Sean Connery as Bond!
Can we say that Agent Lee is overthinking the legacy or overdoing it a bit? After all, it could be done with plenty of other shows in history.
I'm a musician. It belongs to John Barry. 😁
However I agree with you to a point. The original guitar based version suggests Connery.
Read through that thread I suggested, don't stop with the first post.
"In my opinion the reimagining of Q as a younger fellow was one of the great triumphs of Craig’s films."
Completely agreed. It was one of the most consistently entertaining relationship dynamics in the last three films. Which, depending on where you land on Spectre and NTTD, is an extremely valuable commodity. Moneypenny was all but lost in NTTD; Fiennes' M started strong, wilted in Spectre, and had some intriguing character development in NTTD that wasn't fully mined; Tanner was Tanner. But Whishaw's Q was always a treat in his scenes.
And his youth is literally the topic of his and Bond's first conversation. Sure he's older now, but Whishaw's casting was expressly meant to evoke a "whiz kid" with no real field experience. And it was DELIGHTFUL.
They got Q right in Craig's tenure, but not Tanner. I could never imagine that Tanner as Bond's best friend in the service. Michael Kitchen's Tanner is the closest we've gotten so far.
The same way it happened all the other 6 times.
This isn't new territory we are entering here.
Bond: “I must be dreaming.”
Yes, it's a good point that Whishaw's Q remained a delight every time he appeared. I would say that Harris' Moneypenny was equally valuable actually, and even felt more fully rounded and had more of a connection with Craig's Bond than some/most of the actual romantic leads (fatally underused in NTTD too).
I remember that the spy TV show 'Alias' had a Q character who they decided to do as a young whizkid too, and it was awful and trite. It just goes to show what that a classy bit of writing, direction and a brilliant performer can do.
The filmmakers didn't do themselves any favours by shoehorning the DB5, portraits of Robert Brown and the 60s/80s office into the Craig era. You had lot's of people arguing that Skyfall was a prequel to Dr No thanks to the vintage office at the end. My fear is that their next gimmick will be to make the codename theory canon in Bond26
Could you elaborate on this? So you mean that M's and Moneypenny's offices should have been showing a lot more computer devices etc.?