Bond 26 (202X)

Gunna kick off this thread now so I can look forward to the next Bond film. I'm assuming 2022 because it will coincide with the 60th anniversary, and it will probably get a new actor in the role. Will Michael Fassbender still be young enough?

I very much doubt they'll get Fassbender as Bond at this point (too bad because he'd be my #1 choice), but I think age would not be an issue if they did.

The second movie of each Bond usually comes out soon after the first one, meaning Fassbender could make one in 2022, one in 2024 and one in 2027, leaving at 50 years old with three Bond movies. This way he would be the first Bond actor who did three movies (this way each Bond actor would have done 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 movies) and would leave the role on a high note (the fourth one is usually where things become a mess).

Moreover, Fassbender looks very young for his age, if he were to become Bond in 2022 I think he could play Bond until 2032 and still have the looks.

Walecs wrote:

I very much doubt they'll get Fassbender as Bond at this point (too bad because he'd be my #1 choice), but I think age would not be an issue if they did.

The second movie of each Bond usually comes out soon after the first one, meaning Fassbender could make one in 2022, one in 2024 and one in 2027, leaving at 50 years old with three Bond movies. This way he would be the first Bond actor who did three movies (this way each Bond actor would have done 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 movies) and would leave the role on a high note (the fourth one is usually where things become a mess).

Moreover, Fassbender looks very young for his age, if he were to become Bond in 2022 I think he could play Bond until 2032 and still have the looks.

Pretty much my thinking. I'm so disappointed that they've waited so long for Cregg and not hired the most perfect actor play Bond today.

I vote again for someone not from the mainstream, someone who can become Bond as opposed to someone who Bond will instead be made to fit. Only Connery and Dalton achieved this wholeheartedly imo but it is by far the best outcome....equally get more than one film in readiness so we can have a sequence of films one every three years, not linked in any way other than its Bond and the MI6 team in all of them....oh and no stories reconstructing or rationalising the character at ever 12th minute interval.........*sigh* increasingly I just wish Bond had ended with DAD modern sensibilities, PC obsession and self importance just seem poised to bugger up anything else we might hope for :/

I feel Fassy is almost already James Bond, so he wouldn't have to become anything. Iron out the Irish twang in his accent and rock up to the role as passionately and excellently he does with everything else. 

I have stewed over the could-haves and should-haves of the series but it drives me insane. The Craig era started off on the wrong foot, and it was propelled further by blind consumerism.

Sadly the Craig template is probably the one they will adopt moving forward, PC apologies all wound into the character a strong shift toward the maternal, a heavy conceit for grit, realism and self importance...you know all the things which Bond never had any desire to be and imo pretty much the antithesis of Fleming's 'boys own' adventure for warm blooded heterosexuals in planes, bars and beds'.

Martin Campbell says he'd return if Daniel Craig doesn't.

I'd be more inclined to believe he'd rather work with another actor, considering Campbell will have worked with Brosnan about three times as of next spring. I would like his return if it meant another GE style entry. If it meant another Casino Royale then no thanks.

If not Fassbender than as above, someone not obvious like Hardy or that Poldark fella. Heart's set on Fassbender but alas.

The problem with the franchise is the Bond's tend to go on one film too many. Every three to four films should be the template to recast Bond. Fassbender would be my choice to play 007, he could easily do three films and then hand over to Henry Cavill (who I believe will take over from Craig). Spectre, the ending was the perfect way to say goodbye to Daniel Craig and usher in a new Bond. I fear they will ruin Bond 25.

Perfect_Spy wrote:

Every three to four films should be the template to recast Bond. Fassbender would be my choice to play 007, he could easily do three films and then hand over to Henry Cavill (who I believe will take over from Craig). Spectre, the ending was the perfect way to say goodbye to Daniel Craig and usher in a new Bond. I fear they will ruin Bond 25.

I'd agree to this part. I like the Moore Bond films in John Glen's era more than his 1970s efforts, so I can't subscribe to the idea that every Bond overstayed their welcome. I also think Brosnan should have been given a fifth and maybe sixth film. 

But I'd be happy with three-four Fassbender Bond films, and Cavill might boot Bond back further to the joie de vivre aspect of the character so lacking in Craig's entries. Getting Craig back lowered the bar for Bond 25 in my eyes.

This discussion seems pointless as I don't see how Bond can exist in the prevailing moral climate unless he's pitted against someone like Trump - that is, Bond's a murderous bastard but he’s our murderous bastard: he has 'the right world view'. There’s a disquieting religiosity about the liberal left's current moral fervour, particularly the way debates are presented in terms of right and wrong/good and evil.

Erica Ambler wrote:

There’s a disquieting religiosity about the liberal left's current moral fervour, particularly the way debates are presented in terms of right and wrong/good and evil.

Indeed, as any objective observer of Australia's present same-sex marriage postal survey would attest. For once, it's not the happy clappers who exhibit the greatest level of moral absolutism and zealotry (and this is coming from someone who may be inclined to take a libertarian view of the issue).

Also stating to think the writers/Babs just won't be able to resist looking to Trump for not-so-subtle inspiration for the next villain. Next best thing to making Bond a Muslim woman.

McMumbles already sounds like he's wearing a burqa.

I feel as though Babs and co want to show Bond as a flawed being, but they just aren't doing a good job of it.

The art of subtlety is lost on them.

Hilly KCMG wrote:

If not Fassbender than as above, someone not obvious like Hardy or that Poldark fella. Heart's set on Fassbender but alas.

Started watching Season 3 of Poldark and I just have to say in some of the close up shots he really looks a lot like Dalton. If you liked Dalton, I think you'd like Turner.

Erica Ambler wrote:

This discussion seems pointless as I don't see how Bond can exist in the prevailing moral climate unless he's pitted against someone like Trump - that is, Bond's a murderous bastard but he’s our murderous bastard: he has 'the right world view'. There’s a disquieting religiosity about the liberal left's current moral fervour, particularly the way debates are presented in terms of right and wrong/good and evil.

I don't think it's all that hard. I think there's a huge audience out there looking for a film hero that doesn't care about "equality" or "sensitivity" and doesn't need to be part of a film where he gets schooled or dressed down by other characters for being out of his time. Basically, get a director who is willing to have Bond be UNAPOLOGETIC. Or go back and do period pieces set in the 50's, where all this social-justice bull-shiz didn't exist.

Agreed. Though I'd go a step further and suggest making a TV miniseries akin to Poirot and make faithful adaptations of the novels. That was a missed opportunity in 2012 to coincide with the 50th anniversary celebrations (and 60th literary anniversary). 

For the film series, Matthew Vaughn has that sensibility, but not the right style.

FieldsMan wrote:

For the film series, Matthew Vaughn has that sensibility, but not the right style.

BroCColi is reputed to hate him. The Kingsman series has not made things easier.

Erica Ambler wrote:

FieldsMan wrote:

For the film series, Matthew Vaughn has that sensibility, but not the right style.

BroCColi is reputed to hate him. The Kingsman series has not made things easier.

That's a shame. Onto the next self-indulgent nonsense.

I suppose John Glen is nowhere near the equation?

Hilly KCMG wrote:

I suppose John Glen is nowhere near the equation?

He is in my book. Last chance to get a bevy of poolside, bikini clad women.

FieldsMan wrote:

Agreed. Though I'd go a step further and suggest making a TV miniseries akin to Poirot and make faithful adaptations of the novels. That was a missed opportunity in 2012 to coincide with the 50th anniversary celebrations (and 60th literary anniversary). 

For the film series, Matthew Vaughn has that sensibility, but not the right style.

If EON wanted it, they could go to HBO or Netflix. People would pay good money to do, and see, a limited series run for 007 on the smaller screen. Having said that, even GAME OF THRONES hasn't been immune to social criticism for the violent and sexuality they've shown, so I'm not expecting a tv series transition to be easy, but at least when you factor in lower costs, the risk of doing a period piece or a harder-edge version of the books is mitigated.

What we've got right now is a Bond that is apologetic. This seems to go all the way back to seeds planted in GE, where for every vice Bond commits, he is balanced out by having M or Moneypenny scold him, or Jack Wade (whom I liked) check Bond's British privilege at the door almost scene for scene.

We need to remember, when Bond hit it big in '64, he was controversial. He was risque. There were articles written about how bad of an influence he was (or would be). The movies were pushing the envelope for sensuality in 1962. I remember seeing a picture in Life Magazine (?) of a VW Beetle that was being used in Vietnam War protests, and they'd painted it with anti-war messages and anti-007 messages.

Bond needs to get back to some of that. He's got to step on some toes, melt some snowflakes, stick a finger in the eye of modern day activists, and none of that is going to happen as long as Barbara Broccoli continues to have veto power in the direction of this series and as long as we have a lead actor whose willing to put on pumps, a wig and a dress and pimp out the 007 image for some cheap political points.

And one more thing: Bond needs to average at least 3 women per film, maybe 4. We need to get back to having PTS' like TSWLM, MR and AVTAK with a bird Bond shags before the opening credits have rolled.

Yeah, M may have scolded him in GE, but then Bond also goes and gets steamy with Xenia and has sex with Natalya. He doesn't change because of some old bag's opinion. That briefing scene was more about showing that they have opinions about each other, but let's get the fuck over them now and focus on the mission. Trade that with modern day "Bond", where Bond is scolded for sleeping with women who all get killed, and by the end of the film he doesn't shag the girl and she's the only one to survive, and you realise that Eon want to say something about Bond's character.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

If EON wanted it, they could go to HBO or Netflix. People would pay good money to do, and see, a limited series run for 007 on the smaller screen. Having said that, even GAME OF THRONES hasn't been immune to social criticism for the violent and sexuality they've shown, so I'm not expecting a tv series transition to be easy, but at least when you factor in lower costs, the risk of doing a period piece or a harder-edge version of the books is mitigated.

Interestingly though, GoT has largely avoided the wrath of the SJW, presumably because it's so stratospherically popular. The only leftist-manufactured controversy I can recall *spoilers* relates to the scene in which Ramsay rapes Sansa - which, really, in the pantheon of evil deeds committed in Westoros ranks just above an inappropriately-timed fart.

But yes, good point regarding Bond causing offence right from the beginning. However, with today's perverse worship of social media and an environment of general timidity, I think it unlikely that Bond would be permitted to crawl up the skirts of the pearl-clutchers (and anyway, these days there'd be a pre-op cock hanging there).