Bond 25 (2019)

FieldsMan wrote:

I didn't know he was close to 50... The wonders of make up and good lighting I suppose...

Asians often look young for their age.

FieldsMan wrote:

Posting here since a conversation has already started about the next Bond..... Though he has played a Bond villain (and arguably one of the worst ones), the idea of Toby Stephens becoming Bond #7 is really growing on me. As I've posted, I'm smashing out Black Sails at the moment, and Toby Stephens' performance is outstanding. A suitably nuanced, connected performance of a flawed character who is the right age and ethnicity for the character of Bond - not to mention that age has both matured and hardened him that he would really suit playing 007. And his voice has so much gravitas these days that it's no wonder that Fleming's estate keep calling him back for the radio plays.

Could a former villain play James Bond in the Eon series?

I loved Gustav Graves. One of my favorite villains. And obviously I think Toby was great in the role. One of the most seriously underrated villains in the entire series.

However, Toby is too old for the role. Toby is in the phase of his life where he should be driving a mini-van and picking up his grand-kids from soccer practice.

Here's an actress that is a two-fer: both talented and beautiful: Nathalie Emmanuel.



She's really held her own on Game of Thrones. She's bi-racial and I think she could credibly portray anyone from a Brit, or American, right down to anyone from Spain, Cuba, or South America.

http://metro.co.uk/2016/12/17/james-bond-bosses-in-a-panic-as-daniel-craig-gives-them-the-cold-shoulder-ahead-of-2018-movie-bond-25-6328402/

Babs really needs to get over her Craig crush. It's affecting her decision making.

Babs must be the only person in the world clamouring for the mopey prune to sleepwalk through another Bond film.

With the momentum and pressure of franchise building it is strange they aren't seeking a new face they can nail with a long term contract...even if Craig does the next they must surely see his lack of motivation is a real millstone when planning for the future. Yes I am biassed in that I really don't care for his Bond...but I think the logic holds even for his fans - if he is not inherently invested in the role and clearly does not think he needs it isn't that time to move on?

They're prolonging the inevitable. Sure, there is a chance that he'll return, but that won't happen anytime soon. With Othello, then Kings, then Purity - his 2017 is looking busy. Then he'll probably want another break because he's burned out, which means Craig's Bond 25 won't start production until 2018/2019.

They should pull the pin on Craig and begin casting Bond #7.

I don't think this sort of limbo does the series much good which is why they need to, as Fields says, say adios to Cregg and get on with finding his successor.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

http://metro.co.uk/2016/12/17/james-bond-bosses-in-a-panic-as-daniel-craig-gives-them-the-cold-shoulder-ahead-of-2018-movie-bond-25-6328402/

The Bond franchise is bigger than Craig. If he wants to go, thank you, BYE, bring on someone else. But enough of this licking his arse thing, Babs. It's sickening.

Progress being made on Bond 25 apparently. Script is allegedly finished - but I'm calling bullshit on that - but there has been a purchase of a helicopter and Craig meeting with Omega.

http://www.empireonline.com/movies/news/007-news-challenges-james-bond-25/

It's bittersweet, in my opinion. While I was happy to see this article (however true it is), I'd rather not have another Bond film until 2020 if it means Craig leaves.

Is anyone even slightly aroused by the idea of another Bond film at this point? Not a drop of blood heading southwards as far as I can tell.

Desperately throwing money at The Cregg is the first sign of many that they're concocting the same unimaginative dross that was SPRECTUM.

I can only speak for myself, and I am. But only if it's without Craig.

Alas the signs point to Cregg at the moment.

And, for better or worse, each actor's Bond is essentially written as his own man, therefore we can probably expect the Quantum-SPRECTUM arc to continue. At the very least, a change in tone and quality is unlikely.

Alas they do seem happy to hang on for Craig...and as such my enthusiasm for the next film is all but negligible. Indeed even if Craig goes I fear the real millstone is Ms Brocolli's pretensions and conceit one that actively denies many if not all of Bond's more unique attributes.

lachesis wrote:

Alas they do seem happy to hang on for Craig...and as such my enthusiasm for the next film is all but negligible. Indeed even if Craig goes I fear the real millstone is Ms Brocolli's pretensions and conceit one that actively denies many if not all of Bond's more unique attributes.

Agreed. It would be nice if she and Michael would sell the rights to someone else. They've had a good run. They showed they could prosper and thrive and grow the series to even bigger heights post-Cubby. They have nothing to prove. But I'm concerned she won't and that she'll continue to use the series as a vehicle to make social and political commentary instead of just trying to entertain us.

Maybe I'm sentimental, but I like the idea of it being a family business. I just don't understand where Michael G Wilson's enthusiasm and intuition has gone. His contributions in the 80s were great in my opinion. And he seemed to be following Cubby's legacy in the 90s. I understand he is getting on, but if he isn't up to the task of keeping things in check then he needs to pass the baton to his son (is it Greg Wilson?). One film in the past 17 years to be genuinely excellent isn't enough.

I'm glad to see Michael Assbender's name being raised again.

I'm not against Craig but his lack of enthusiasm gives me zero reason to support him and I maintain an air of indifference towards his keeping the role. At this point, I'd like to see Mike as Bond.

bitchcraft wrote:

I'm glad to see Michael Assbender's name being raised again.

As am I.

Hopefully there's some truth to it, and not just a red herring like Ellie Goulding was for singing the theme song for SP.

Fassbender appeared to rule himself out in this interview -

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/2016/11/02/michael-fassbender-rejects-playing-007-and-suggests-a-jane-bond/

Maybe he'd had a wee drink, it would explain the 'Jane Bond' suggestion.

I remember reading that, but I'm ignoring it.

Mayor says their in advanced talks for Bond 25 to film in Croatia. They must be in active development, or at the very least, have a seed of an idea that involves this pocket of the world if these talks are still continuing one year on. What global threats could give rise to story and action in Dubrovnik?

EDIT: Perhaps this European crisis?

http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/article/perilous-european-crisis-looms-balkans

http://nypost.com/2017/02/24/chinese-company-in-talks-to-buy-james-bond-studio/

This isn't ideal. Chinese input in the films would ensure censorship - ensuring they aren't depicted as villains. Which, of course, closes the door on so many story possibilities given China is becoming one of the most serious threats to global peace.

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/hollywood-made-in-china-excerpt-2017-1?r=US&IR=T

We live in interesting times, as the Chinese say. There's certainly an effort afoot to increase Beijing's soft power in Hollywood and, in turn, the commercial reality that there are 1.4 billion people in China ready to buy movie tickets. Certainly, though, James Bond must remain a thoroughly British affair to be at all recognisable.

I have to disagree with your assessment that China is a serious threat to global peace. Taking into account the United States' bumbling interventions in the Middle East and Putin's successes in perpetuating the refugee issue in Syria and related, ongoing attempts at influencing elections in Western Europe and the US, I'd say China is positively benign.

Perhaps right now, but China is temperamental in its cause of action so if an international incident was to occur in the South China Sea, or one of it's disputed territories, etc. then they won't be dealing with the situation diplomatically. Not to mention its alliance with Russia.

Perhaps with Trump's administration, ISIS, Russia and the Balkans, China isn't an immediate threat. But they are a growing superpower, no?

Certainly are a rising power*, but I'm not convinced that they're out to violently subvert the international order in the same way Putin would like to. As for the South China Sea, I'd be more concerned with American dick-waving escalating matters. That's not to say the US has no place a stabilising agent in the Pacific or that China needs to be treated with kid gloves, but the constant talk of "containing" China coming from Washington should be a concern, not least of all to Australia.

As for China's alliance with Russia, I'm sure Beijing is perfectly aware of the fact that the place is a Slavic Somalia and they're just waiting on the Russians to drink and krokodil themselves out of existence so they can finally annex Siberia.

*Though, of course, they were already a great power several centuries ago. They just took a bit of a break.