Reading through some of the reactions to Craig's return in the Bond 25 thread, I picked up a pessimistic vibe. Perhaps I can encourage some of you. I've got two ideas, but they're pretty far-out.
1) The best thing about Craig returning isn't Craig, himself, but the opportunity to do something with the very personal storylines that have been developed. Swann and Blofeld are too important to ignore, and their presence in Bond 25 would be discordant if we had a new Bond. Everyone loves the possibility of a Blofeld in his Shatterhand incarnation (derived from You Only Live Twice). It would seem inevitable that we'd have to endure Swann's death, and a corresponding renegade-vengeful Bond, to allow such a story.
I don't think so. We've never considered the possibility of Bond embarking on a mission with his companion-lover by his side. But Swann is tough and smart enough that she will not hold Bond back. For two more films, Bond could fight Blofeld/Shatterhand (who has not escaped, but has been, simply, released by the corrupt Deep State represented by C in SPECTRE) with Swann at his side, as his wife (shades of The Thin Man). They defeat him (Bond undertaking a dramatic rescue of Swann in the second film [shades of Mission: Impossible III]) and Bond, as we know him, is finished.
2) For Bond 27 we have a new actor, another reboot, and, at last, Quentin Tarantino's crazy-but-inspired idea of a period Bond, fighting communists and propping up the faltering British Empire, circa 1952. Provided they don't go for the CGI cop-out, these films would be unbelievably expensive (because of the necessary attention to detail in automobiles, sets, women's hairstyles, etc.), but unless EON has some brilliant idea so we don't get the tenth version of the same reformulated plot, this may be the only way to distinguish the series from its perpetual competitors. I recommend that the first film be a remake of Moonraker, closely tracking the book, but adding more material after the Soviet sub is destroyed (much like Casino Royale added the sinking-house shootout).
Maybe just to myself, but the whole idea of Swann tagging along for an entire Bond feature, getting killed, Bond being rueful once more, it all just seems so unneeded. It would be nice to see Bond not rueful or upset, and taking pleasure in his line of work as much as he can. Maybe explore the "For the Queen" mentality of it, or why he does it, but I just can't get behind a OHMSS rehash with bits from YOLT.
Who knows, maybe Bond 25 will take shape to be fine, even with a personal story once more. We'll all see soon. B-)
It's reasonable to expect a new Bond actor on screen in 2022-23. My take on it is this: There is a group of good candidates born in 1980 or a couple of years later: Tom Hiddleston, Clive Standen, Rupert Friend, Sam Heughan and Aidan Turner. The only younger I like is Aaron Taylor-Johnson, born in 1990. I hope and assume more younger candidates will emerge before the next James Bond is cast.
"Friend gave an impressive reading and was at one point in the selection process was as serious a candidate as Henry Cavill".
I agree, your Hero is only as good as the Villain he has to defeat. -{
Bale's Batman & Ledger's Joker comes to mind...
"Bond, James Bond"
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
I think it's very possible that even if Craig were to shoot #25 and 26 back to back, #27 is likely not going to happen until 2022 (at the earliest), which would almost certainly reset the field of potential successors to the role. Of course, if the franchise changes ownership, who knows?
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
There has been some development in TV since Jimmy Bond in CR. Colour, big budgets, drama series that aren't broadcast live.....
That said, ca don't want Bond or his world to be made for TV.
You can't have a Bond film series and a Bond tv series running at the same time. It would kill it. You couldn't have the Bond actor of the film series also playing Bond in the tv series. And you couldn't have 2 Bonds at the same time. 1 for the movies and 1 for the tv series. It would dampen the aura of the character. I'd love to see Craig do a one off tv special where they do a faithful 50s adaptation. Maybe like a 70 minute special that would act as a compliment to the next film but that's all. A series would be too much. These film corporations take a franchise, milk it for all its worth and suck the magic of it them. Look at Marvel and what's happening to Star Wars. I'd hate to see that happen to James Bond. Leave it as it is please -{
You can't have a Bond film series and a Bond tv series running at the same time. It would kill it. You couldn't have the Bond actor of the film series also playing Bond in the tv series. And you couldn't have 2 Bonds at the same time. 1 for the movies and 1 for the tv series. It would dampen the aura of the character. I'd love to see Craig do a one off tv special where they do a faithful 50s adaptation. Maybe like a 70 minute special that would act as a compliment to the next film but that's all. A series would be too much. These film corporations take a franchise, milk it for all its worth and suck the magic of it them. Look at Marvel and what's happening to Star Wars. I'd hate to see that happen to James Bond. Leave it as it is please -{
That's the assumption, but lots of things have changed in recent years, and many accepted wisdoms have been overturned
- In the 60s and 70s it was said TV stars could never become film stars...until Bruce Willis proved otherwise.
- Soap stars were dead in the water if they tried to break away from soapland...until TV bosses realised their star power actually sold the shows, and now it's not just TV gobbling up ex soap stars, but the movies as well.
Maybe, briefly, when Sherlock Holmes reigned on TV with Benedict Cumberbatch and was also on the big screen with RDJ, we could see a situation where a fictional character really could co-exist in two mediums?
pretty sure the first Picard Star Trek movie came out while The Next Generation was still broadcasting new episodes
definitely the first X-Files movie
and of course the Adam West Batman movie with all four main villains
cant think of too many examples going the other way, thought here have been loads of tv series spun off of popular movies, eg MASH or The Odd Couple
both Marvel and DC now have overlapping movie/tv continuities, has Samuel Jackson ever appeared in the SHIELD show?
maybe a Felix Leiter or Moneypenny tv show, with infrequent guest appearances by whoever the next Bond is, coinciding with sweeps week?
in the 1970s the older films were usually broadcast at least one per month, fairly predictably
I think it was ABC Sunday nights?
(EDIT: Wikipedia confirms here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_ABC_Sunday_Night_Movie#James_Bond_franchise)
dvd's and nettflixx have made that sort of thing redundant, but back then it was the only way to get caught up and they were so frequent it almost seemed like a tv show
I think a big part of the allure of the Bond canon is that there is only one man who plays him at any given time. It makes the character somewhat mythical in the film industry. Also the fact that the films are infrequent compared to other franchises, makes each new release a big event globally. A tv series would compromise both of these facets. Sherlock has been a huge success but it has also killed the film series starring Downey Jnr. The second film in that series bombed and it hasn't found its legs since. And Star Trek is not really a great example because it originated as a tv show. But that aside, Star Trek and Marvel aren't completely focused on one character. There is much more room to move. Whereas Bond starts and ends with Bond. And in all honesty, how many people out there besides the hardcore fans would actually would be interested in a 50s Bond tv show? Let alone a Monneypenny spin off. Sounds like scraping the barrel. I think the way forward with getting the most out of the franchise is to get a system down where you can produce Bond films every 2 years again. That's how you can capitalise and get the most out of the franchise -{
in the 1970s the older films were usually broadcast at least one per month, fairly predictably
I think it was ABC Sunday nights?
(EDIT: Wikipedia confirms here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_ABC_Sunday_Night_Movie#James_Bond_franchise)
dvd's and nettflixx have made that sort of thing redundant, but back then it was the only way to get caught up and they were so frequent it almost seemed like a tv show
They weren't shown that frequently. Since we're both operating from memory, to me it seemed more like a frequency of one Bond movie a year and whenever there was a broadcast, it was a big deal especially because home video had not yet existed.
On the question whether a spin-off Bond TV series should happen concurrently with the film series, I agree with most that the Bond character shouldn't be cheapened. However, with the rapidly changing options in media because of the Internet and the availability of personal electronic devices, I don't think that ideal can be hamstrung from being violated. Star Trek has coexisted on TV and the cinema since The Next Generation series and continues today with the upcoming series running concurrently with the most current movie series iteration; although Star Trek originated from TV, my point is that even the prestige factor is subject to changes in media options.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
They weren't shown that frequently. Since we're both operating from memory, to me it seemed more like a frequency of one Bond movie a year and whenever there was a broadcast, it was a big deal especially because home video had not yet existed.
it was definitely more than one a year, since I managed to see them all for the first time between The Spy Who Loved Me and Moonraker, most of them more than once. That was nine films, so even if I only caught them once, that'd be what? one every three months on average. Casino Royale I had to stay up long after midnight to see
this is a digression, though, cuz we're just talking about the same film series on tv, not a separate original show. Sorry to confuse. When I was a lad, I had to get my tv spy fix from reruns of Get Smart and Mission Impossible. I never saw those great ITV shows (Avengers, Saint, Prisoner) until we got cable.
Comments
1) The best thing about Craig returning isn't Craig, himself, but the opportunity to do something with the very personal storylines that have been developed. Swann and Blofeld are too important to ignore, and their presence in Bond 25 would be discordant if we had a new Bond. Everyone loves the possibility of a Blofeld in his Shatterhand incarnation (derived from You Only Live Twice). It would seem inevitable that we'd have to endure Swann's death, and a corresponding renegade-vengeful Bond, to allow such a story.
I don't think so. We've never considered the possibility of Bond embarking on a mission with his companion-lover by his side. But Swann is tough and smart enough that she will not hold Bond back. For two more films, Bond could fight Blofeld/Shatterhand (who has not escaped, but has been, simply, released by the corrupt Deep State represented by C in SPECTRE) with Swann at his side, as his wife (shades of The Thin Man). They defeat him (Bond undertaking a dramatic rescue of Swann in the second film [shades of Mission: Impossible III]) and Bond, as we know him, is finished.
2) For Bond 27 we have a new actor, another reboot, and, at last, Quentin Tarantino's crazy-but-inspired idea of a period Bond, fighting communists and propping up the faltering British Empire, circa 1952. Provided they don't go for the CGI cop-out, these films would be unbelievably expensive (because of the necessary attention to detail in automobiles, sets, women's hairstyles, etc.), but unless EON has some brilliant idea so we don't get the tenth version of the same reformulated plot, this may be the only way to distinguish the series from its perpetual competitors. I recommend that the first film be a remake of Moonraker, closely tracking the book, but adding more material after the Soviet sub is destroyed (much like Casino Royale added the sinking-house shootout).
That's my future for Bond.
Not in the film series, no- but in the literary series exactly that has happened.
Who knows, maybe Bond 25 will take shape to be fine, even with a personal story once more. We'll all see soon. B-)
And those are two bloody good reasons why it shouldn't happen on film X-(
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
This is interesting.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Spoiler alert: they tried that out in the 50s. There must've been a good reason why it never took off as a project.
That said, ca don't want Bond or his world to be made for TV.
That's the assumption, but lots of things have changed in recent years, and many accepted wisdoms have been overturned
- In the 60s and 70s it was said TV stars could never become film stars...until Bruce Willis proved otherwise.
- Soap stars were dead in the water if they tried to break away from soapland...until TV bosses realised their star power actually sold the shows, and now it's not just TV gobbling up ex soap stars, but the movies as well.
Maybe, briefly, when Sherlock Holmes reigned on TV with Benedict Cumberbatch and was also on the big screen with RDJ, we could see a situation where a fictional character really could co-exist in two mediums?
definitely the first X-Files movie
and of course the Adam West Batman movie with all four main villains
cant think of too many examples going the other way, thought here have been loads of tv series spun off of popular movies, eg MASH or The Odd Couple
both Marvel and DC now have overlapping movie/tv continuities, has Samuel Jackson ever appeared in the SHIELD show?
maybe a Felix Leiter or Moneypenny tv show, with infrequent guest appearances by whoever the next Bond is, coinciding with sweeps week?
I think it was ABC Sunday nights?
(EDIT: Wikipedia confirms here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_ABC_Sunday_Night_Movie#James_Bond_franchise)
dvd's and nettflixx have made that sort of thing redundant, but back then it was the only way to get caught up and they were so frequent it almost seemed like a tv show
They weren't shown that frequently. Since we're both operating from memory, to me it seemed more like a frequency of one Bond movie a year and whenever there was a broadcast, it was a big deal especially because home video had not yet existed.
On the question whether a spin-off Bond TV series should happen concurrently with the film series, I agree with most that the Bond character shouldn't be cheapened. However, with the rapidly changing options in media because of the Internet and the availability of personal electronic devices, I don't think that ideal can be hamstrung from being violated. Star Trek has coexisted on TV and the cinema since The Next Generation series and continues today with the upcoming series running concurrently with the most current movie series iteration; although Star Trek originated from TV, my point is that even the prestige factor is subject to changes in media options.
Strictly to the Fleming short stories, and set in the correct
Time period.
Casino Royale I had to stay up long after midnight to see
this is a digression, though, cuz we're just talking about the same film series on tv, not a separate original show. Sorry to confuse. When I was a lad, I had to get my tv spy fix from reruns of Get Smart and Mission Impossible. I never saw those great ITV shows (Avengers, Saint, Prisoner) until we got cable.