Bond 25 (2019)

Like him as an actor but not sure he's right for Bond. As for the lips...lumme.

FieldsMan wrote:

Send her a copy of McQueen's SHAME.  

I keep going back to (I think it was BI) who said he knows someone who works on the Bond films, and apparently Babs has said Bond is Fassbender's if he wants it…

Well ... I know a fella who works on Jags and Astons. He said that amongst his customers was Fassbender's uncle, who apparently said that his nephew had been told by EON that Bond is his (if he wants it) when Craig's done.

Now ... this guy knew mechanics who worked on Skyfall and as a result, he knew way before I saw it anywhere else that the DB5's machine-guns would be in use for the first time in years.

Hmm. Hope it was Fass' uncle and not someone blowing air.

Blunt Instrument wrote:

FieldsMan wrote:

Send her a copy of McQueen's SHAME.  

I keep going back to (I think it was BI) who said he knows someone who works on the Bond films, and apparently Babs has said Bond is Fassbender's if he wants it…

Well ... I know a fella who works on Jags and Astons. He said that amongst his customers was Fassbender's uncle, who apparently said that his nephew had been told by EON that Bond is his (if he wants it) when Craig's done.    

Now ... this guy knew mechanics who worked on Skyfall and as a result, he knew way before I saw it anywhere else that the DB5's machine-guns would be in use for the first time in years.    

Good enough for me!

A friend of mine posted this on facey and thought it was pretty accurate why it's time to move on from the maudlin Craig era.

Superb.

Unfortunately Craig's Bond perfectly reflects this doleful age of emotional infantilisation and self-flagellation.

What a frustrating era Craig's has been. With each film trying to head in a different direction, it seems there's always been a lack of conviction, never really knowing which route to go down.

I think the man needs one more film to try and round things off. If not, we can only bemoan what could have been in regards to his entire period as Bond.

A damned shame.

Still, very excited by the prospect of Fassbender taking over - he's the only candidate for me.

The only film from Craig's era that is a Bond film through and through is SF, because it had brains and confidence behind it. Given Craig's supposed creative input, I don't think he deserves another film. Despite being wrong for the part form the get go, after an identity crisis during four films - or middle aged crisis - it's time for him to move on. SPECTRE was clearly the film to round things off for him, but it demonstrated that he was bored a less self-centred Bond.

Fassbender is the only known candidate for me, also. Hopefully Babs realises what a misfire her experimentation was - save SF - and understands that the backlash re: SPECTRE has to do with poor writing and uninspired action sequences, and not because of what has become known as the checklist of a Bond picture.

FieldsMan wrote:

The only film from Craig's era that is a Bond film through and through is SF, because it had brains and confidence behind it. Given Craig's supposed creative input, I don't think he deserves another film.

He's been involved with the writing of the last three now, has he not? Would suggest that he is enthusiastic about these projects and about being Bond. It was interesting to see how relaxed and personable he was on The Graham Norton Show when promoting SPECTRE. Hardly the image we've been force-fed by the tabloids.

FieldsMan wrote:

Fassbender is the only known candidate for me, also. Hopefully Babs realises what a misfire her experimentation was - save SF - and understands that the backlash re: SPECTRE has to do with poor writing and uninspired action sequences, and not because of what has become known as the checklist of a Bond picture.

She won't. As we know, Craig has been a huge commercial and critical success, with some calling him the best Bond since Connery if not the best ever. I know many thought he was the wrong choice when first announced in 2005, with his scrawny physique and long blonde hair he had at that time. But seeing his performance in Layer Cake again it's easy to see why he was considered for Bond. Enigmatic, dangerous and very watchable (and all traits he's shown in films he's made during his tenure as Bond, particularly Dragon Tattoo)

If they dump Craig, then they need to abandon the obsession with continuity. They didn't even really do well with continuity from the get-go.

It's ridiculous trying to connect these films as they go from one leading actor to another. EON needs to reboot again with a fresh take on the character and continue doing this as the series moves on.

They certainly put themselves in a corner with SPECTRE. I think they'd be better off ignoring SPECTRE and Blofeld and just move on in a new direction. It's beyond me why they tried to connect SPECTRE so heavily to Quantum of Solace, the lesser of Craig's entries.

As for continuity, it's been a mess this whole era. We had a major reboot that lasted 5 minutes. Then it was kind of business as usual. QoS following directly from CR did not work so well. Then all of a sudden in Skyfall he's washed up.

The main reason this annoys me is because Skyfall gave the perfect reasoning for why James Bond is relevant in today's world. It's something that never was addressed after the end of the Cold War. GE-DAD he seemed to purposeless. But then again in SPECTRE, they bring up the issue with Bond and MI6 not being relevant. Didn't we just tackle this in the prior film?

They should have just went on with business as usual. They set up a solid platform for future Bond films. Then they mucked it up with SPECTRE.

Moore wrote:

They certainly put themselves in a corner with SPECTRE. I think they'd be better off ignoring SPECTRE and Blofeld and just move on in a new direction. It's beyond me why they tried to connect SPECTRE so heavily to Quantum of Solace, the lesser of Craig's entries.

What's worse, they knew about these problems months before filming started and called in re-writes, yet the re-writes appear to have had no effect on the movie. I wonder how much Jez! Butterworth got paid to turn in the same basic piece of crap he was asked to rewrite. Furthermore, these "mistakes" that were made are so basic, so elementary, so god-awfully simplistic and obvious (like hiding Blofeld's identity, revealing Blofeld had daddy issues and hates Bond for it, tying all the previous films back to Blofeld, etc...) that SOMEONE needs to be held accountable for this mess. Somebody needs to lose a job over this, and I don't mean Mendes or one of the writers; I'm talking Barbara or Michael or both. No excuse for this abomination.

I mean, how is it even humanly possible to try and hide Blofeld's identity in a film called SPECTRE???!!!???? Why go to such lengths to hide who he is and miss a golden marketing opportunity to trumpet the fact that one of the best villains in cinema history is back??? GOD BLESS IT!!!! I just don't understand the inane decisions that got made on this film.

It would be as silly as making a Bond film and trying to hide the fact that the character in it is James Bond. It's that ridiculous. I still think the Forbes review calling it the worst James Bond film since A View To A Kill is pretty close to accurate. At least TWINE and DAD had something of a coherent string of events you could call a movie despite all the flaws and missteps they have.

Moore wrote:

The main reason this annoys me is because Skyfall gave the perfect reasoning for why James Bond is relevant in today's world. It's something that never was addressed after the end of the Cold War. GE-DAD he seemed to purposeless. But then again in SPECTRE, they bring up the issue with Bond and MI6 not being relevant. Didn't we just tackle this in the prior film?

Almost forgot about this (and probably neglected to mention it in my critiques). The rehashing of the "MI6 is outdated" meme was just fucking boring. I almost thought that shrill MP who was grilling Dench in SF had grown a cock and become whatshisface (the Mole™). Fucking lazy.

There's a distinct lack of confidence permeating through SPECTRE. Rather than make something that was a standalone piece of cinema (like Skyfall) they chose to hump the legs of what had come before it (and not just the good legs either).

The next Bond film is pretty much make-or-break as far as I'm concerned. Skyfall is looking more and more like an aberration sandwiched between QOS and SP. If they can't craft a high quality piece of Bond cinema that stands on its own two feet then clearly there's an existential question to be answered for the franchise.

G section wrote:

FieldsMan wrote:

The only film from Craig's era that is a Bond film through and through is SF, because it had brains and confidence behind it. Given Craig's supposed creative input, I don't think he deserves another film.

He's been involved with the writing of the last three now, has he not? Would suggest that he is enthusiastic about these projects and about being Bond. It was interesting to see how relaxed and personable he was on The Graham Norton Show when promoting SPECTRE. Hardly the image we've been force-fed by the tabloids.

Well given the direction QOS and SP went in particularly, it highlights that he hasn't really got a grasp on the essence of Bond, especially considering how everything in his era has been emotionally charged and personally involved in the villains' schemes, and that's not what Bond is about.

CJB wrote:

Moore wrote:

The main reason this annoys me is because Skyfall gave the perfect reasoning for why James Bond is relevant in today's world. It's something that never was addressed after the end of the Cold War. GE-DAD he seemed to purposeless. But then again in SPECTRE, they bring up the issue with Bond and MI6 not being relevant. Didn't we just tackle this in the prior film?

There's a distinct lack of confidence permeating through SPECTRE. Rather than make something that was a standalone piece of cinema (like Skyfall) they chose to hump the legs of what had come before it (and not just the good legs either).

The next Bond film is pretty much make-or-break as far as I'm concerned. Skyfall is looking more and more like an aberration sandwiched between QOS and SP. If they can't craft a high quality piece of Bond cinema that stands on its own two feet then clearly there's an existential question to be answered for the franchise.

I'm inclined to agree here, which is a shame. Out with Craig, in with Fassbender. Keep Mendes around but limit his creative input in the writing process. Michael put Babs on a leash and we might stand a chance.

FieldsMan wrote:

Well given the direction QOS and SP went in particularly, it highlights that he hasn't really got a grasp on the essence of Bond, especially considering how everything in his era has been emotionally charged and personally involved in the villains' schemes, and that's not what Bond is about.  

It is funny but one of the big issues I have with the Craig era (apart from its dogmatic misery and general wallowing self importance) is that the justification for a 00 involvement is by and large nil. There is something to be said of sending in a blunt instrument or licence to Kill when the situation is dire, a direct threat or a situation so potentially dangerous we don't have the luxury of time before it turns critical. But the Craig era is almost exclusively driven by vague gatherings that no one really knows what they pose or else whims and hunches that all too conveniently patronize a personal beef he might carry. The Craig Bond is often nothing other than a petulant teen (the core demographic), sulking skulking and wholly unmotivated till it strikes directly at his person - imo a far cry from the figure Fleming wrote of or anything seen in the preceding movies in the franchise.

lachesis wrote:

FieldsMan wrote:

Well given the direction QOS and SP went in particularly, it highlights that he hasn't really got a grasp on the essence of Bond, especially considering how everything in his era has been emotionally charged and personally involved in the villains' schemes, and that's not what Bond is about.  

It is funny but one of the big issues I have with the Craig era... is that the justification for a 00 involvement is by and large nil. There is something to be said of sending in a blunt instrument or licence to Kill when the situation is dire, a direct threat or a situation so potentially dangerous we don't have the luxury of time before it turns critical. But the Craig era is almost exclusively driven by vague gatherings that no one really knows what they pose or else whims and hunches that all too conveniently patronize a personal beef he might carry.  

Yep. Problem is that the filmmakers are unwilling to throw Bond into anything of geopolitical relevance and instead feed us Assange-ian dirge like Nine Eyes or Bolivia's water supply.

Yeah, I've been thinking of late that the impact SPECTRE needs to have these days is similar to that of ISIS. While I wouldn't want a religious motivation to pop up in a Bond film, their invasion of certain areas and occupying territory for monetary gain isn't new really ground for Bond films, but it's a perfectly acceptable mission to go on in this day and age for Bond. That would highlight why Bond is as relevant today.

Indeed it is the underlying threat that is just lacking in Bond atm (along with the charm, excitment and the fun of course), the scripts have obsessed with the idea of 'making Bond relevant' but ironically the misdirected pretension of realism has ensured they never actually furnish the very sort of challenges and extreme obstacles that could justify it.

Terrorism is a real and ongoing threat but by no means does it require religion (at least not of the divine or existential type). I just finished the 4th episode of 'Man from UNCLE' and there is a modern day pirate (Robert Culp no less) kidnapping folk to create a new civilization when the superpowers inevitably (in his mind) decimate the planet - its almost rational in the context of that political climate. Even the bizarre Kingsman scheme manages a relevant theme of one mad businessman's attempt to eliminate the dross....there are more people today with 'more money than sense' than ever before, why are we repeatedly saddled with Freudian twaddle half threats?

There are crime scheme galore that willfully place lives at risk.....Bond is never about him being the one and only solution or even the perhaps the best one...hes more a case of 'if we don't act now the consequences are far worse' the 00's are activated when normal avenues are exhausted not at the very outset when there is nothing more than a whiff of fear.

The villains need to be genuinely dangerous, callous or just blind to the despair they leave behind - this simply has not been the case with Craig and the abject misery and personalisation of him and everything around him is no compensation indeed if looked at objectively it paints him as a very selfish and self righteous figure - to no ones credit.

While I agree with you, I have to say that Silva was a very big step in the right direction, even if his scheme was very personal.

Interestingly, this is what Exec. Producer Gregg Wilson recently said about their writing process, specifically re: Bond 25 and SP

On another note: Mark Strong believes Daniel Craig is done with Bond

First of the production rumours: Bond 25 to Shoot in Croatia?

Looks fantastic! Still very early days, but it's good to get the conversation going. Happy for PM to start throwing around some ideas about how Bond could end up there.

I'll be very surprised if Fassbender gets the gig. Back in 2009 it seemed feasible then because he wasn't a leading man back then, but he's not only become one but that he's also been nominated for Oscars. Would be the first time EON ever got an actor for Bond that had already established himself as a movie star.

As for whether Craig is still in or out... Thing is, if Craig is really done, why the hesitation to just announce "I'm done"? I rather they get that over with than wait a long time before announcing it. On the other hand, he probably is game for one more but the media has been hungry to announce he's out of the series that they'll take any rumor and run with it. It's been like that ever since the postponing of SKYFALL when tabloid predicted Craig was done after two films.

I wonder if they want to find a replacement first before announcing that Craig is done.

I don't think so. I think they like having that period of a few months in between a Bond actor leaving and a new one taking over. It's all over the media. Speculation runs rampant. It's a ton of free press of drum up interest in the next film.