Empire's new Bond cover

Laff while the laffin's good, o Squalus Maximus.

Re Grav above. The franchise is doomed.

That does it, I'm launching a campaign to recruit Efron. Time to cut our losses. Pattinson is Plan B.

right idea, wrong pussy wrote:

Both interestingly, look more like Fleming's Bond than Craig. Then again, I look like the spitting image of Hoagy Chamichael if I tilt my head just so. I wouldn't make a good Bond, and neither would the two douchebags I just referenced.

If Craig decided to call it quits, I've got a wet soft spot for Michael Assbender....er...Fassbender :drunken:



He had a couple of Bond-like moments in X-Men First Class....

Rather Fassbender than Pattinson or Efron, no matter the level of jesting.

Not sure if this one's been posted, from Empire...

DENCH
OF THE REALM

I heard a rumour from a friend who through his work (he works on Jags and Astons) says he was talking to a relative of Fassbender's who claimed that he's been more-or-less told Bond is his (if he wants it) when Craig decides he's done with it.

I took it with a pinch of salt, but interesting nonetheless.

Mrs Aural Sects wrote:

Not sure if this one's been posted, from Empire...

Great image. Some others have suggested that might be the last moment of the film, and I've previously been skeptical, but seeing that photo, now I see it.

Not a bad way to end. Defence of the realm and all. (we're not likely to see Craig-Bond in inflatable, bobbing in the surf with Bond-girl or even with Bond-girl period.)

Maybe with Mommy M gone though, and new traditional M in place, Bond can just have a mission next time, but I doubt it. Screenwriters I'm sure, will cook up some new drama.

tiffanywint wrote:

Not a bad way to end. Defence of the realm and all. (we're not likely to see Craig-Bond in inflatable, bobbing in the surf with Bond-girl or even with Bond-girl period.)

Maybe with Mommy M gone though, and new traditional M in place, Bond can just have a mission next time, but I doubt it. Screenwriters I'm sure, will cook up some new drama.

Yeah, in the post Cubby era, we really haven't had a traditional Bond goes on mission film other than TND. TWINE had M at the center of the plot, DAD had Bond rogue much of the picture (with M as his jailor). CR and QOS had other plot arcs to work out. GE had more than just a briefing, given M's dislike of Bond in that film.

But I really do miss the "Bond and girl in rubber dinghy" endings. When was the last time the last words of the film were the Bond girl, ofscreen, cooing, "Oh, JAAAMMEESS!"? OP? TLD? Too long by far.

right idea, wrong pussy wrote:

But I really do miss the "Bond and girl in rubber dinghy" endings. When was the last time the last words of the film were the Bond girl, ofscreen, cooing, "Oh, JAAAMMEESS!"? OP? TLD? Too long by far.

Ahhhhhh, the good ole days. Watch TB and YOLT back-to-back for some good rubber-dinghy, or bobbing-in-the- water-with-the-girl-ending. Maybe all will revert to normal post Craig. The Craig period will someday be in the past and a new glorious GF-inspired era of Bond, will be launched with a 6'2 -6'3, dark haired, early 30's, new Bond actor, to take the torch, and return Bond to his former Sean-inspired glory. :cheers:

But why does the film have to end that way? Shouldn't each actor and/or director be given the chance to add a little of his (or her) own personality to a film? Which actor or director is going to want to make a film where they are obligated to to paint by the numbers? Too much creative control will doubtless result in another QUANTUM OF SOLACE. But forcing the directors to obey certain trops is only going to result in another bland middle-of-the-road entry.

tiffanywint wrote:

right idea, wrong pussy wrote:

But I really do miss the "Bond and girl in rubber dinghy" endings. When was the last time the last words of the film were the Bond girl, ofscreen, cooing, "Oh, JAAAMMEESS!"? OP? TLD? Too long by far.

Ahhhhhh, the good ole days. Watch TB and YOLT back-to-back for some good rubber-dinghy, or bobbing-in-the- water-with-the-girl-ending. Maybe all will revert to normal post Craig. The Craig period will someday be in the past and a new glorious GF-inspired era of Bond, will be launched with a 6'2 -6'3, dark haired, early 30's, new Bond actor, to take the torch, and return Bond to his former Sean-inspired glory. :cheers:

While I'm pretty sure the next Bond will be VERY different from Craig (how do you replicate what Craig does with his Bond, nor how, amazingly, he does it?), I doubt we'll ever see Bond as cod-Our-Man-Flint again.

Less intense that Craig for sure, but lounge-lizzardesque I doubt. Lazenby- or Dalton-like possibly, but 60s playboy, ageing grandad and 90s shaving ad Bond are long gone and aren't likely to be coming back.

David Schofield wrote:

While I'm pretty sure the next Bond will be VERY different from Craig (how do you replicate what Craig does with his Bond, nor how, amazingly, he does it?), I doubt we'll ever see Bond as cod-Our-Man-Flint again.

Less intense that Craig for sure, but lounge-lizzardesque I doubt. Lazenby- or Dalton-like possibly, but 60s playboy, ageing grandad and 90s shaving ad Bond are long gone and aren't likely to be coming back.

We don't want Flint or lounge lizard. Those are Bond parodies. Or grandad.

Sean Connery Bond is timeless. That's what we need to get back to! The problem is Eon keeps casting 40 year olds and most recently a guy that doesn't even resemble Bond. Hopefully post-Craig, Bond will return to his former glory.

And no Bond doesn't need to be floating in a rubber-raft with girl, at the end of every movie. The point being made though is that such an ending is toxic to the current Eon regime, which I think its fair to say, is now being run by Craig. Only when Craig is gone, can such endings ever be considered again, at least that's the way it looks to me.

I would love for him to prove me wrong, but I'm not holding my breath. Actually I don't really care what he does anymore. He's all wrong for the part anyway, so best to wait for him to finish his run.

In the meantime, I'll try and enjoy these Craig as Bond-similar-character films that Eon is putting out now. This new SF film looks real interesting. :)

tiffanywint wrote:

We don't want Flint or lounge lizard. Those are Bond parodies. Or grandad.

Sean Connery Bond is timeless. That's what we need to get back to! The problem is Eon keeps casting 40 year olds and most recently a guy that doesn't even resemble Bond. Hopefully post-Craig, Bond will return to his former glory.

And no Bond doesn't need to be floating in a rubber-raft with girl, at the end of every movie. The point being made though is that such an ending is toxic to the current Eon regime, which I think its fair to say, is now being run by Craig. Only when Craig is gone, can such endings ever be considered again, at least that's the way it looks to me.

I would love for him to prove me wrong, but I'm not holding my breath. Actually I don't really care what he does anymore. He's all wrong for the part anyway, so best to wait for him to finish his run.

In the meantime, I'll try and enjoy these Craig as Bond-similar-character films that Eon is putting out now. This new SF film looks real interesting. :)

I don't care much for cheesy Bond endings. Give me controversial closures like OHMSS, CR and QoS any day of the week, although it would be a refreshing change in Craig's films to see a typical Bond ending, but for one film only.

And if it would be for one film only, then I'm guessing it will be Skyfall, as much is being made of this being Craig's GF moment.

tiffanywint wrote:

David Schofield wrote:

While I'm pretty sure the next Bond will be VERY different from Craig (how do you replicate what Craig does with his Bond, nor how, amazingly, he does it?), I doubt we'll ever see Bond as cod-Our-Man-Flint again.

Less intense that Craig for sure, but lounge-lizzardesque I doubt. Lazenby- or Dalton-like possibly, but 60s playboy, ageing grandad and 90s shaving ad Bond are long gone and aren't likely to be coming back.

We don't want Flint or lounge lizard. Those are Bond parodies. Or grandad.

Sean Connery Bond is timeless. That's what we need to get back to! The problem is Eon keeps casting 40 year olds and most recently a guy that doesn't even resemble Bond. Hopefully post-Craig, Bond will return to his former glory.

And no Bond doesn't need to be floating in a rubber-raft with girl, at the end of every movie. The point being made though is that such an ending is toxic to the current Eon regime, which I think its fair to say, is now being run by Craig. Only when Craig is gone, can such endings ever be considered again, at least that's the way it looks to me.

I would love for him to prove me wrong, but I'm not holding my breath. Actually I don't really care what he does anymore. He's all wrong for the part anyway, so best to wait for him to finish his run.

In the meantime, I'll try and enjoy these Craig as Bond-similar-character films that Eon is putting out now. This new SF film looks real interesting. :)

You see, Connery Bond isn't timless. It went out with the 60s. It was dated by Rog-Bond even as early as the 1970s; NSNA was a disaster - even SC himself didn't portray HIS Bond but what had become the accepted version by that time - Rog-Bond! A post 2012 comeback of Connery-style Bond just isn't happening.

I do agree, however, we may get a return to the tall, dark, handsome Bond model. As I said earlier, after Craig I think EON will need to get as far away from the Craig-model as possible and the original tall, dark and handsome model is the ideal fallback. It would also be preferable if the new Bond is a fit, early 30 something rather than knacked, world-weary-looking guy close to 40. Indeed, much of me hopes Henry Cavill's SUPERMAN tanks so he can replace Craig.

But it won't be as a Connnery-type for the 21st Century, however more physically appropriate he may be than Craig. Just as :Lazenby, Dalton and Brosnan were there own, different Bonds despite the closer resemblance to the Fleming orginal than DC.

Hmmm ... well if it's any sort of a yardstick, the recently released 'The Cold Light Of Day' is an espionage action-thriller with Cavill in the lead role. And it's apparently terrible.

Why do people keep mentioning Cavill as if he's somehow ideal for the Bond role? Blecch.

I do see a return to the "gentleman" Bond to distinguish him from Craig, but Cavill is not the ideal go-to guy for that.

Harmsway wrote:

Why do people keep mentioning Cavill as if he's somehow ideal for the Bond role? Blecch.

I do see a return to the "gentleman" Bond to distinguish him from Craig, but Cavill is not the ideal go-to guy for that.

Other than the fact Cavill was no 2 to Craig for CR (and would probably have been more appropriately cast in the film what with some of the juvenile crap world-weary looking Craigy had to spout), he best meets the requirements of traditonal Bond - tall, dark and handsome and in the right age bracket and a Brit.

Can't think of anyone else who ticks all those boxes.

Michael Fassbender.

FieldsMan wrote:

Michael Fassbender.

Bit too quirky in the same way as Craig, IMO. Sure, some people'll go for that mousy colouring and HUGE forehead, looks-wise, but others.... Similar acting profile as Craig, too.

Cavill is the only one I can think of who is classically 'pretty' and Bond-like, however unimaginative that may be. Ask any member of the public for their standard Bond image and it is more akin to Cavill than, say, Fassbender. I just think that might be important a selling point for EON next time round (though I do accept Babs unusual tastes and Fassbender's cock might come into it).

David Schofield wrote:

tiffanywint wrote:

David Schofield wrote:

While I'm pretty sure the next Bond will be VERY different from Craig (how do you replicate what Craig does with his Bond, nor how, amazingly, he does it?), I doubt we'll ever see Bond as cod-Our-Man-Flint again.

Less intense that Craig for sure, but lounge-lizzardesque I doubt. Lazenby- or Dalton-like possibly, but 60s playboy, ageing grandad and 90s shaving ad Bond are long gone and aren't likely to be coming back.

We don't want Flint or lounge lizard. Those are Bond parodies. Or grandad.

Sean Connery Bond is timeless. That's what we need to get back to! The problem is Eon keeps casting 40 year olds and most recently a guy that doesn't even resemble Bond. Hopefully post-Craig, Bond will return to his former glory.

And no Bond doesn't need to be floating in a rubber-raft with girl, at the end of every movie. The point being made though is that such an ending is toxic to the current Eon regime, which I think its fair to say, is now being run by Craig. Only when Craig is gone, can such endings ever be considered again, at least that's the way it looks to me.

I would love for him to prove me wrong, but I'm not holding my breath. Actually I don't really care what he does anymore. He's all wrong for the part anyway, so best to wait for him to finish his run.

In the meantime, I'll try and enjoy these Craig as Bond-similar-character films that Eon is putting out now. This new SF film looks real interesting. :)

You see, Connery Bond isn't timless. It went out with the 60s.

I really couldn't disagree more. When people think of James Bond they think of the role's current inhabitant (DC) and they think of Connery. Prefer him or not, he is the archetypal Bond and his characterization is seen as definitive by virtually everybody except a handful of ideological loony toons. DN, FRWL, GF and TB will always be seen as classic Bond; I cannot imagine the masses ever arising and reviling those four films.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

David Schofield wrote:

tiffanywint wrote:

David Schofield wrote:

While I'm pretty sure the next Bond will be VERY different from Craig (how do you replicate what Craig does with his Bond, nor how, amazingly, he does it?), I doubt we'll ever see Bond as cod-Our-Man-Flint again.

Less intense that Craig for sure, but lounge-lizzardesque I doubt. Lazenby- or Dalton-like possibly, but 60s playboy, ageing grandad and 90s shaving ad Bond are long gone and aren't likely to be coming back.

We don't want Flint or lounge lizard. Those are Bond parodies. Or grandad.

Sean Connery Bond is timeless. That's what we need to get back to! The problem is Eon keeps casting 40 year olds and most recently a guy that doesn't even resemble Bond. Hopefully post-Craig, Bond will return to his former glory.

And no Bond doesn't need to be floating in a rubber-raft with girl, at the end of every movie. The point being made though is that such an ending is toxic to the current Eon regime, which I think its fair to say, is now being run by Craig. Only when Craig is gone, can such endings ever be considered again, at least that's the way it looks to me.

I would love for him to prove me wrong, but I'm not holding my breath. Actually I don't really care what he does anymore. He's all wrong for the part anyway, so best to wait for him to finish his run.

In the meantime, I'll try and enjoy these Craig as Bond-similar-character films that Eon is putting out now. This new SF film looks real interesting. :)

You see, Connery Bond isn't timless. It went out with the 60s.

I really couldn't disagree more. When people think of James Bond they think of the role's current inhabitant (DC) and they think of Connery. Prefer him or not, he is the archetypal Bond and his characterization is seen as definitive by virtually everybody except a handful of ideological loony toons. DN, FRWL, GF and TB will always be seen as classic Bond; I cannot imagine the masses ever arising and reviling those four films.

Of course; that wasn't my arguement. The Connery films of the 60s (the first four anyway, with their solid Fleming basis) are classics. And they may well be what the "public" think of beyond their limited imgaintaion that doesn't extend further than whoever the current Bond may be (post Dalton, anyway).

But the James Bond character has gone beyond Connery-Bond, and many years ago (Indeed, their is an argument that Connery himself killed Connery-Bond with his overweight lounge act comedian in DAF and let Rog-Bond free). And the Connery-Bond version isn't coming back.

There are, however, other routes the next Bond could take. More so than Craig, from Fleming. The look and the upper-middle class gentlemanly sophistication being the obvious ones.

The fact that Connery's Bond will likely never return doesn't mean it's not timeless. It simply means that Micolli have chosen not to plow that particular field again. But Babs and Michael are hardly the arbitors of what is timeless in cinematic Bond.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

The fact that Connery's Bond will likely never return doesn't mean it's not timeless. It simply means that Micolli have chosen not to plow that particular field again. But Babs and Michael are hardly the arbitors of what is timeless in cinematic Bond.

Exactly, the Connery Bond is timeless. Sean is the Bond archetype. Rog and Laz did their best to emulate. Laz did a good job IMO, but Rog simply wasn't able. He had to alter the character a tad to fit his own proclivities, although like Laz, it was apparent that Rog did respect the Connery/Young template. Rog did his best with what he had.

Dalton on the other hand, had potential but wasn't willing. He did attempt to change the character somewhat. Still, not a bad Bond. He at least had the look and brought the danger, even if he didn't bring the Sean swagger.

Broz attempted to fall back to the Connery model, but he wasn't very convincing, which only serves to re-inforce Connery's brilliance. Not just any actor, even those with the right Bond look, can pull off Connery's mix of charm and danger. We made due.

And Craig is simply all wrong. It does start with the look, so Craig never had a chance anyway. But the look aside, Craig has also conspired with the producers to change the character's temperament and attitudes. Craig is wrong in every way. Compared to Connery, Craig truly is anti-Bond

If the Connery Bond is lost, it's only because Connery may have been that great an actor, that others simply can't pull off Bond with the same combination of panache and menace. Connery may simply be a giant among Bonds. He may have set the bar so high, that it's unreachable for others.

IMO of those that followed, only Laz was in the same league.

But this doesn't mean we need give up. Henry Cavill for example does have the classic Bond look. Very much so, and based on his work in the latest Titans movie, he also moves very well, much like Sean and Laz did. But what do all three have in common - they were young. The young guys move better, because they are young, provided they have it in the first place. eg there was never a time when Rog moved well. But even Sean didn't move as well in DAF, even if he did bring his trademark Bond menace and danger. But it didn't matter. Sean more than compensated though, because after all, he is Sean. It was like a watching a great athlete who has slowed down a tad. The greatness is still palpable.

Cavill may not enter a room with the same authority and presence as Connery did. Really who can though?Sean was that good. I am willing to concede that Sean may have set the bar rather high, but still Eon could work with actors like Cavill, that have the raw tools, and ask them to do their best to find their inner Seanness. Where there is a will, there is often a way.

In the meantime though, Eon has skidded off in a completely different direction. Babs simply doesn't give a crap. Craig is her idea of Bond. Fair enough. She's in charge. We endure and bide our time.

It's almost biblical. Like waiting for the second coming. Just hope it doesn't take as long.