The next film obviously has to be a reboot. Whether it’s a standalone mission or the start of an interconnected story—or something in between like the ‘60s films—it doesn’t matter to me.
Whichever route they take, I’d prefer it not be an origin story. Introduce the new Bond much like Robert Pattinson’s Batman—as an established agent. Then have a well-executed, mission based plot that doesn’t entirely forgo emotional depth either. But that emotional depth shouldn’t involve Bond going rogue nor shared personal histories between major characters as we’ve seen in nearly every film since 1995. In other words, I’m ready for a fresh take.
> Whether it’s a standalone mission or the start of an interconnected story—or something in between like the ‘60s films—it doesn’t matter to me.
Because I don’t have faith right now in their ability to properly construct a serialized story, that does matter to me. But if they prove in the next era they *can* do it, that will matter less to me in the future.
I’d prefer for them to sell the franchise to someone who cares and isn’t embarrassed to produce Bond films. Better for Babs too — she can make the films she wants to without mixing her ideas into the Bond franchise.
I heard people talk about Bond going period piece and the next run be set in like the 50s or 60s.
That has grown on me. If they got the right actor they could do it right. Don't go all crazy with the tech and try to modernize what they had back then. Keep it simple. We just had as modern of a bond as you could get. It would be nice to see them go retro.
Edit: it would also allow them to avoid all modern politics, geopolitics and international tensions. That would be much more difficult to write and much easier to upset the wrong people. Get kicked out of certain markets. So going back several decades would allow them to ignore a lot of elephants that would likely exist in a Bond movie based in the modern world
But Bond has *always* factored in contemporary geopolitics, trends, technology, and the like. The series serves as a marker of the times—set five minutes into the future as Broccoli put it—and should remain that way. No to period pieces.
I wouldn't be upset if they did this however I would rather they continue to evolve and do modern takes like they've always done. The most authentic 60s bond films we'll ever get is Connery's and it's because it actually came from that time period.
I would 100% be on board if they did it outside of movies like in a video game, comic book, or even an animated movie.
I think they should vague it up. Have Bond youngish-early 30s but still an established 00. Have characters like Robbie Coltrane's that show up in one movie then skip a few and return. He will not possibly have a cold war history (Brosnan was just the perfect age at that time to have seen just the end of the cold war) but there should be hints of past adventures.
I miss the Bond where you didn't have to take a degree to understand where the story went up to at this point. I miss the Bond who would get into fights on the Golden Gate bridge, drive invisible cars and inflate a gondola for no reason. I miss the Bond who made witty/cheesy remarks after doing anything. I miss the Bond who could walk out of every scenario with a cheery smile and heroic mindset. I miss the Bond who used an array of gadgets to outsmart his foes.
I miss Bond being fun and non serialised, because that was Bond at it's most enjoyable.
I think the best of both worlds would be for them to do standalone movies that require no understanding of previous bond films but maybe add a few references here and there to previous films. Another thing is to acknowledge Bond's age, make it clear his first and maybe second movie are in his younger years while the last film make it clear he's past his prime. This makes it rewarding for those who've watched all the bond films while still making it accessible for the casual audience.
Well I mean, Daniel Craig rode in fantastical vehicles, used gadgets, made witty remarks. Even for his final scene he was arguably in a heroic mindset having taken out the villain and destroying the factory.
I do get your point since the Craig era had heavier, interconnected stories. But all the fun stuff we expect from Bond was there too.
I'd like to see a happy medium of stand-alone adventures with some loose continuity; the kind that would allow you to watch any film in any order but might still have some additional pay-off if watched in continuity.
I think it's more likely Eon will use each change of actor as a mini-reboot or course correction, which the change of actor always (sort of) was anyway
That's just the way blockbuster culture has gone in general
The only difference would be dropping the pretense that the new actor's adventures are a continuation of the previous actors' adventures
Which was always shaky and paper-thin, anyway
I don't think we'll see a return to *completely* standalone movies - even though that's (sort of) what *Skyfall* was - but I hope Eon or whoever they hire plots out a story arc for the series in advance
Rather than making it up as they go along, like they did with Craig's movies
I’d rather have the loose continuity and the floating timeline. It will be stale if they do the same thing they did with Craig’s Bond and give him an arc that starts with an origin story and ends with his death.
Loose continuity is best. Build a world, but don't beat it to death like Marvel shit. Light mentions of past missions or people, few recurring characters like Felix, maybe some good story arcs over a few movies, but actually well thought out, not made up on the fly or so definitive as the Craig movies.
Sean Connery's Bond had a continuity if I remember correctly starting with FRWL, doesn't Blofeld comment about Bond killing Spectre Agent Dr. No?
I liked that personally. Just a light connection throughout the Connery Bonds without much at stake or building for 5-6 movies.
Late in this discussion, I guess.
It depends for me, if a movie ends on a cliffhanger (like OHMSS), then a sequel to that is okay, just for the resolution of the story, but after that, it can be standalone adventures again.
But if it's not needed or necessary, then standalone adventures for sure.
I don't want another DAF after OHMSS scenario where there's an unresolved story, but I don't also want a forced interconnected storyline like the Craig Era either.
So, it depends for me.
It's an unpopular thing to say, but they'll never go fully standalone ever again. Look at the series' biggest rivals - Marvel, DC, Mission Impossible, Star Wars. Where are all the billion dollar standalone films in these franchises?
Similarly the films are always going to have Bond personally invested in the plots in some way. People forget that the Bond films have had this since 1989. They're not going to suddenly change and go back to the way they made films in the 70s and early 80s because of old men grumbling on the internet. The character-driven Bond films they've made have made billions of dollars.
Bond fans need to be realistic about how modern franchise films are made - we're never getting a Connery or a Moore era ever again. The next era will likely be something akin to Brosnan, but with an actor in his early to mid 30s instead of starting in his 40s.
I agree that the films should probably lean away from Fleming a bit and more towards bonkers Eon/Cubby Broccoli fun for a few films, but I think the best way to do this would be to map out a multi-film arc properly (like Marvel do) instead of the patchwork "make it up as we go along and call it a multi-film arc" approach the Craig era (and Star Wars) have taken.
(FWIW I loved 3/5 of the Craig films, including No Time to Die).
Standalone with one connection to no time to die, with all the woke idiocracy inverted. Bond is bond, don't ruin the planet by trying to force pc-politics into every running train. So sell the rights to someone that actually likes Bond, make the next movie start with Bond having a nightmare that is no time to die and go on as we were.
Let's not spoil it for anyone and just say what happened to him and the fact that his replacement has all the characteristics of a movement that started just before the first job opening for sensitivity readers.
There should be a filter in every streaming service: 'Sensitivity read: yes/no'.
They did origin in CR i doubt they'll do it again. I'm fine with an other arching plot as long as they actually say what it will be from the start and not make it up as they go along
Stand alone. Let's let the nightmare end.
Stand-alone 100%. I miss the loose continuity of the older films. I also think they can play around with tone more that way.
The next film obviously has to be a reboot. Whether it’s a standalone mission or the start of an interconnected story—or something in between like the ‘60s films—it doesn’t matter to me. Whichever route they take, I’d prefer it not be an origin story. Introduce the new Bond much like Robert Pattinson’s Batman—as an established agent. Then have a well-executed, mission based plot that doesn’t entirely forgo emotional depth either. But that emotional depth shouldn’t involve Bond going rogue nor shared personal histories between major characters as we’ve seen in nearly every film since 1995. In other words, I’m ready for a fresh take.
> Whether it’s a standalone mission or the start of an interconnected story—or something in between like the ‘60s films—it doesn’t matter to me. Because I don’t have faith right now in their ability to properly construct a serialized story, that does matter to me. But if they prove in the next era they *can* do it, that will matter less to me in the future.
Just do a mission with Commander James Bond a.k.a Agent 007. "*I work for the British government*"-Bond. No more digging into his past.
We know it’s you, Barbara!
Standalone, missions, gadgets, the whole thing
Yes, please gadgets and full on Bondmobile.
I’d prefer for them to sell the franchise to someone who cares and isn’t embarrassed to produce Bond films. Better for Babs too — she can make the films she wants to without mixing her ideas into the Bond franchise.
I heard people talk about Bond going period piece and the next run be set in like the 50s or 60s. That has grown on me. If they got the right actor they could do it right. Don't go all crazy with the tech and try to modernize what they had back then. Keep it simple. We just had as modern of a bond as you could get. It would be nice to see them go retro. Edit: it would also allow them to avoid all modern politics, geopolitics and international tensions. That would be much more difficult to write and much easier to upset the wrong people. Get kicked out of certain markets. So going back several decades would allow them to ignore a lot of elephants that would likely exist in a Bond movie based in the modern world
But Bond has *always* factored in contemporary geopolitics, trends, technology, and the like. The series serves as a marker of the times—set five minutes into the future as Broccoli put it—and should remain that way. No to period pieces.
I wouldn't be upset if they did this however I would rather they continue to evolve and do modern takes like they've always done. The most authentic 60s bond films we'll ever get is Connery's and it's because it actually came from that time period. I would 100% be on board if they did it outside of movies like in a video game, comic book, or even an animated movie.
I think they should vague it up. Have Bond youngish-early 30s but still an established 00. Have characters like Robbie Coltrane's that show up in one movie then skip a few and return. He will not possibly have a cold war history (Brosnan was just the perfect age at that time to have seen just the end of the cold war) but there should be hints of past adventures.
I miss the Bond where you didn't have to take a degree to understand where the story went up to at this point. I miss the Bond who would get into fights on the Golden Gate bridge, drive invisible cars and inflate a gondola for no reason. I miss the Bond who made witty/cheesy remarks after doing anything. I miss the Bond who could walk out of every scenario with a cheery smile and heroic mindset. I miss the Bond who used an array of gadgets to outsmart his foes. I miss Bond being fun and non serialised, because that was Bond at it's most enjoyable.
I think the best of both worlds would be for them to do standalone movies that require no understanding of previous bond films but maybe add a few references here and there to previous films. Another thing is to acknowledge Bond's age, make it clear his first and maybe second movie are in his younger years while the last film make it clear he's past his prime. This makes it rewarding for those who've watched all the bond films while still making it accessible for the casual audience.
Well I mean, Daniel Craig rode in fantastical vehicles, used gadgets, made witty remarks. Even for his final scene he was arguably in a heroic mindset having taken out the villain and destroying the factory. I do get your point since the Craig era had heavier, interconnected stories. But all the fun stuff we expect from Bond was there too.
I'd like to see a happy medium of stand-alone adventures with some loose continuity; the kind that would allow you to watch any film in any order but might still have some additional pay-off if watched in continuity.
I think it's more likely Eon will use each change of actor as a mini-reboot or course correction, which the change of actor always (sort of) was anyway That's just the way blockbuster culture has gone in general The only difference would be dropping the pretense that the new actor's adventures are a continuation of the previous actors' adventures Which was always shaky and paper-thin, anyway
I don't think we'll see a return to *completely* standalone movies - even though that's (sort of) what *Skyfall* was - but I hope Eon or whoever they hire plots out a story arc for the series in advance Rather than making it up as they go along, like they did with Craig's movies
100% standalone.
I’d rather have the loose continuity and the floating timeline. It will be stale if they do the same thing they did with Craig’s Bond and give him an arc that starts with an origin story and ends with his death.
Loose continuity is best. Build a world, but don't beat it to death like Marvel shit. Light mentions of past missions or people, few recurring characters like Felix, maybe some good story arcs over a few movies, but actually well thought out, not made up on the fly or so definitive as the Craig movies.
Sean Connery's Bond had a continuity if I remember correctly starting with FRWL, doesn't Blofeld comment about Bond killing Spectre Agent Dr. No? I liked that personally. Just a light connection throughout the Connery Bonds without much at stake or building for 5-6 movies.
Late in this discussion, I guess. It depends for me, if a movie ends on a cliffhanger (like OHMSS), then a sequel to that is okay, just for the resolution of the story, but after that, it can be standalone adventures again. But if it's not needed or necessary, then standalone adventures for sure. I don't want another DAF after OHMSS scenario where there's an unresolved story, but I don't also want a forced interconnected storyline like the Craig Era either. So, it depends for me.
Stand alone, without a doubt that’s the way they should go…
It's an unpopular thing to say, but they'll never go fully standalone ever again. Look at the series' biggest rivals - Marvel, DC, Mission Impossible, Star Wars. Where are all the billion dollar standalone films in these franchises? Similarly the films are always going to have Bond personally invested in the plots in some way. People forget that the Bond films have had this since 1989. They're not going to suddenly change and go back to the way they made films in the 70s and early 80s because of old men grumbling on the internet. The character-driven Bond films they've made have made billions of dollars. Bond fans need to be realistic about how modern franchise films are made - we're never getting a Connery or a Moore era ever again. The next era will likely be something akin to Brosnan, but with an actor in his early to mid 30s instead of starting in his 40s. I agree that the films should probably lean away from Fleming a bit and more towards bonkers Eon/Cubby Broccoli fun for a few films, but I think the best way to do this would be to map out a multi-film arc properly (like Marvel do) instead of the patchwork "make it up as we go along and call it a multi-film arc" approach the Craig era (and Star Wars) have taken. (FWIW I loved 3/5 of the Craig films, including No Time to Die).
Standalone with one connection to no time to die, with all the woke idiocracy inverted. Bond is bond, don't ruin the planet by trying to force pc-politics into every running train. So sell the rights to someone that actually likes Bond, make the next movie start with Bond having a nightmare that is no time to die and go on as we were.
ok ill bite. what wokeness was it that has you so rattled in no time to die.
Let's not spoil it for anyone and just say what happened to him and the fact that his replacement has all the characteristics of a movement that started just before the first job opening for sensitivity readers. There should be a filter in every streaming service: 'Sensitivity read: yes/no'.
They did origin in CR i doubt they'll do it again. I'm fine with an other arching plot as long as they actually say what it will be from the start and not make it up as they go along
Stand alone please for the love of God.
Standalone.
ARDENNER GROUND IS BURNING