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

Go get Henry Cavill, toss him in a tux, and make him the lothario everyone loves. What they did in Goldeneye was perfect - Bond doesn't change but the world around him does. They can call him a relic but he doesn't give a #$## - he still chases tail, blows up everything, and saves the day.

reply

Not likely to be Cavill.

i. He's already done the spy thing with The Man from UNCLE. He was fine in that showing that he could do some light comedy, but otherwise didn't really project an aura of menace. Even in the MI movie as the villain he wasn't really intimidating.

(FWIW, I've seen clips of his Witcher series and all I get is 'subpar Conan'.)

ii. Bond producers tend to pick established, but below-the-radar actors. Cavill has been pretty high profile for a number of years now.

I don't have any predictions of my own. I've read a few lists here and there and most of them are names I don't recognize. So, it's likely to be one of them.

reply

Agree to disagree - I thought his Man from UNCLE character was exactly what I want in Bond. Swagger, cocky, hiding the fact he could kick ass. I also thought he was awesome in MI. I was actually hoping when they cast him in that he would be groomed to be the successor to Cruise in that franchise (rumor was that was Renner in MI4).

reply

Eh. The way they're going with this, the can shut it down for all I care. It's Bond in name only.

reply

I’m fine with whatever direction they take, just not a “woke” Bond (i.e. gay Bond, female Bond). I have no problem with LGBT or female action characters, but they are not James Bond.

reply

The Mission Impossible films are better Bond movies than Craig's.

Craig looks like an alcoholic and and doesn't fit the part.

The "realism" stupidity that was popular when these came out is boring. It made Batman stupid, for instance. But, for James Bond is was VERY stupid. Spies in WWII had PLENTY of high tech gear, like guns that went UP YOUR ASS. Meanwhile, Bond has nothing in this.

That is not creative.

Also, the plots are dull and in Skyfall it was totally stupid. He's alone for no reason with an old lady and machine guns against squads of soldiers.

Mission Impossible is made with much higher quality. They need to make Bond films like that.

reply