MovieChat Forums > No Time to Die (2021) Discussion > Where to go with Bond after this?

Where to go with Bond after this?


GQ has in interesting article about Daniel Craig and his Bond run and the dilemma for the producers moving forward.

Whatever you many think of Craig's Bond, there's no no denying that he has put a very unique spin on Bond. His Bond is the most serious Bond of all -- with the possible exception of Dalton's version.

Craig's Bond is mostly humourless, cynical. Some people like this. Some don't. All other versions of Bond though have been portrayed with varying degrees of camp and comedy.

Craig's Bond has suffered real world damage both physically and emotionally.

We've seen Bond get punched or beat up a few times in other movies, but he always emerges with barely a scratch. (Did Roger Moore's pretty face ever suffer even a minor cut?) Craig's Bond bleeds and screams when he gets roughed up... his knuckles get raw from punching opponents.

Emotionally, we've seen him live with the consequences of a lost love over several movies. (Yes he suffered a loss in OHMSS, but that event and its consequences were promptly ignored in the subsequent movies.)

All of Craig's movies have been connected either directly or indirectly. Craig has been in the role for fourteen years(!) and one of the themes that has run through his films has been his age and his weariness of the spy business.

So the producers and the franchise has a real dilemma right now.
Where do they go from here?

They can't continue the current iteration of Bond. Aside from the fact that it would be jarring to see a new actor carrying on with the same loose story, a younger actor would suddenly undo all that business with Bond getting too old to carry on.

Do they then consider these movies a one-and-done series within the bigger franchise and re-boot the series and story with the next actor? Go back to square one again?

Maybe they do stories that take place between the events of the Craig movies, and just hope we accept the change of actors? Or just revert to the old formula of stand-alone movies that have no connection to each other other than having the same actor?

Personally, I liked that the producers re-invented the character as darker and grittier with a longer multi-movie narrative. But now that's it's over, it's hard to see where they can go with this franchise, and still keep it fresh and popular.

Ideas? Thoughts?

reply

They either go back to the traditional formula or the franchise dies.

reply

Pretty much. The way they're going with it, sounds like it'll be Bond in name only.

reply

It's either a reboot with a new actor (maybe too soon after just a few films?) or return to the traditional enemy of Russia/Smersh etc or a current theme of terrorism with some spin?

reply

Frankly it seems this movie is more of an On His Majesty's Secret Service type of Bond which really means you can't just go on without changing Bonds. Maybe it's time for a reboot, and maybe the next should be revisiting earlier stories updated for modern times. God knows their movies that were void of Flemings original books have sometimes been complete shit, they may be better off going back to the source material instead of trying to come up with their own idea.

reply

If they want to keep things traditional, they have to pull a Pierce Brosnan and cast very on point with the most cliche sort of Bond imaginable. They went too grim and gritty with Craig, they focused too much on a deep dive character study with him. You can't just swap out actors and carry on with all that. I think they should cast someone like Hiddleston, handsome and charming and elegant and most importantly, already has an association with more lighthearted fun movies. This will make the transition back to fun Bond far easier to accept. Bring back the outlandish villain plots and let Bond enjoy his job again.

reply

It's already been stated that Craig's Bond is a thug. He didn't have to be, but that's direction they went. Suave and sophisticated he isn't, but rather cold and detached. Craig's Bond is modeled after the Bourne movies and his previous role from Layer Cake, so that seems like that's where the tone of the character came from.

I don't know if this next movie is setup to be continued or not, but assuming it's done, then you start anew. You can keep the sub-cast of M and Q and Moneypenny, but a new actor as Bond. I would still go on and done movies. They could've used spectre, but I think they screwed up that storyline already so they should start with something new.

I like dark and gritty movies, but that isn't James Bond.

reply

I'd like to see them make period movies, back in the 60s (ish) but have new stories rather than a reboot. Have 007 back in the classic style as well.

reply

It's where James Bond belongs, I can't think of any other literary character that has strayed from his time period for so long, sure Sherlock Holmes and Tarzan have but they always go back to their original time periods with most adaptions.

I'd have Bond back in the 50's at the height of the cold war, and then onto the 60's with later movies.

reply

The problem is not that the new Bond films are too gritty. It is that they are written and directed so poorly. Productions companies never learn the right lesson. That first Craig movie was fantastic. Easily in the top 3. Then they started sucking and is IS NOT due to the lack of campyness.

reply

various options for where to go after NTTD:

-stay modern and continue Craig-verse (same M, Q, MP, but new Bond actor as Craigs Bond)
-stay modern/reboot with young Bond (maybe redo the novels)
-go retro set in 60s (maybe redo the novels)
-do a CGI/deaged anthology movie series (a CG Connery 60s Bond film/Moore 70s/Dalton 80s/Brosnan 90s)

reply

I'd like an all new cast for everyone... M, Q, Moneypenny, as well as Bond. No need to redo the novels, just use the classic villain characters but with new stories.

reply

At one time Quentin Tarantino mused about doing a Bond movie set back in the 60s. I think his take on the character would be mesmerizing.

reply