The new 007

[batguy]

In the 1st season of 'Knight Rider' the car was talking with an AI, it was bulletproof, it was fast, and it could jump stuff.

By the later seasons, KITT could be out in the parking lot of a casino, while Hasselhoff was inside winning at the blackjack table because KITT was magically making his dice land on a certain number.

There IS a difference.

 

[HeartBlade]

I think the problem with sci-fi gadgets is the modern era. What gadget could you give James Bond that 'Mythbusters' hasn't already debunked? 60 years ago there was a lot more room between "we already have it" and "we know it's impossible." Today that window is pretty narrow when it comes to physical gags.

Today there is a big gap between 'available' and 'implausible' other tech fields, like AI intelligence. But that just doesn't lend itself to action movies as well as car ejection seats & flying rocket backpacks.

Eh its not like everyone has a PhD in physics. If you can give some half-baked logical argument of why something “could” work, I think that is enough even if its not actually feasible at the present or if ever.

Having a laser in a watch that could cut through metal is not feasible in real life but is still a cool gadget. A mini flashbang Bond could shoot from his watch or the exploding pen are also cool ideas even though in reality, it wouldn't be possible to implement enough explosives for that huge explosion in that tiny pen but still work as “cool spy gadgets” even in this modern era based on the idea that the government has access to better tech that is not available in the commercial sector.

 

[dascoyne]

Dear Hollywood. I don't want a deconstructed Bond, a character study or social commentary. Please watch RRR and give me some of that.

 

[Darth Lars]

I guess I've never seen an issue with Bond gadgets being unrealistic. That's always been half the charm.

I think that at their best, they have always been at the edge of what is possible, and mostly just unusual.

The Aston Martin Vanquish was definitely over the line to ridiculous.

 

[batguy]

I think that at their best, they have always been at the edge of what is possible, and mostly just unusual.

The Aston Martin Vanquish was definitely over the line to ridiculous.

This.

For a gadget to be novel/cool there has to be some reason why it's not common in real life. That calls for some combination of expensive, illegal, not wanted by a normal person, and physically impossible.

 

[AMSW]

Grantchester fan and I think James Norton would be a good choice

 

[HeartBlade]

I think people are pro-Cavill right now because he is getting screwed over by the studios, seems to care about fans, and is a pretty good actor.

If they want to continue with a brutish 007 like Craig, I think Cavill would be great after seeing his performance in Fallout. He was the bad guy but was great at being a "practical hammer" with some comedic moments.

It really depends on the writing and direction for future Bond movies now though imo. With Craig, they went the narrative route and essentially gave us Bond's full story from inception to death. Kind of hard to go back to one off adventures like the previous entries.

 

[Cephus]

I get really tired of people screaming "Everything James Gunn is going to do is bad because he fired Henry Cavill!" He did nothing of the sort. It isn't like Cavill was under contract with Warner to do more movies. They decided to go in a different direction. They didn't owe Cavill anything. He just didn't get called back for Superman Legacy. Big deal.

 

[Solo4114]

I think people are pro-Cavill right now because he is getting screwed over by the studios, seems to care about fans, and is a pretty good actor.

If they want to continue with a brutish 007 like Craig, I think Cavill would be great after seeing his performance in Fallout. He was the bad guy but was great at being a "practical hammer" with some comedic moments.

It really depends on the writing and direction for future Bond movies now though imo. With Craig, they went the narrative route and essentially gave us Bond's full story from inception to death. Kind of hard to go back to one off adventures like the previous entries.

Well, they'll either do a hard reboot (as in, "None of those other movies ever happened before in this universe.") or they'll do "It's a code name."

There's basically no way to incorporate Craig's Bond into a new thing and (A) maintain the narrative consistency and message of the Craig films, or (B) explain how he didn't really die because...er....reasons? Also he has a new face! Because also more reasons. LOOK, JUST SHUT UP AND GIVE US YOUR MONEY, OK?! YOU WANTED YOUR SPY GUY AND WE'RE GIVING HIM TO YOU BECAUSE WE CONTROL THE TRADEMARKS INVOLVED AND WE SAY THIS SPY GUY IS "JAMES BOND," OK?!

 

[batguy]

The new Bond will probably either start a new continuity in a soft way, or maybe they will just ignore the issues. People don't go see Bond movies for story arc continuity. It's one of the tools that can be used to make a movie interesting but nothing more.


Honestly I think modern Hollywood tries a little too hard to maintain continuity in some of these franchises. It's a bonus but it isn't always worth the PITAs. I mean, if they build the next Bond movie around settling up a new guy/character, that's a compromise. That movie could have been doing something else with that screen time. Sorta like how we don't need every other Batman movie to spend 20 minutes re-hashing his origin story again.


The kid in 'Terminator 2' was a 10yo and the movie took place in 1995. Cameron had to do that to cram in a 13yo actor playing John when it was only 7 years after Sarah got pregnant. But what's kind of lost to history is that most of the viewing public didn't even care. I remember being told by several people before I saw the movie "they fudged John Connor's age a little older". Most of the public didn't even pay attention to the 1995 setting technicality. They thought the movie took place in the present (1991). The attitude was "Oh, okay, so they skipped John up to being in junior high". Nobody was saying "The movie would have been great except the timeline was fudged so I hated it."

 

[Paul Andrew]

Previous to the Craig films (correct me if I'm wrong) it didn't seem like the Bond franchise cared too much about continuity beyond the occasional wink and a nod recurring character type of thing.

I would be surprised if they made any attempt to connect the Craig Bond to whoever the new one is. It will probably just be another iteration of the character, with the possibility of one or two folks reprising a version of their characters.

 

[HeartBlade]

Previous to the Craig films (correct me if I'm wrong) it didn't seem like the Bond franchise cared too much about continuity beyond the occasional wink and a nod recurring character type of thing.

I would be surprised if they made any attempt to connect the Craig Bond to whoever the new one is. It will probably just be another iteration of the character, with the possibility of one or two folks reprising a version of their characters.

Yeah. The only concrete one was "For your eyes only" with Bond laying flowers on Tracy's grave after her death in OHMSS despite being played by different actors. Previous Bond movies were loosely connected and basically standalone films, hence why the "code name" theory became so prominent with the adventures happening to different "Bonds."

The new Bond will probably either start a new continuity in a soft way, or maybe they will just ignore the issues. People don't go see Bond movies for story arc continuity. It's one of the tools that can be used to make a movie interesting but nothing more.

True but once you introduce an overall narrative, its hard to go back to a serial format. Going the code name root is probably their best bet given that it would sort of fit their narrative format and allow them to go back to one off stories without issue from the Craig fans.

 

[batguy]

True but once you introduce an overall narrative, its hard to go back to a serial format. Going the code name root is probably their best bet given that it would sort of fit their narrative format and allow them to go back to one off stories without issue from the Craig fans.

Yeah, but why bother to explain ANYTHING to move forward now? They don't have to. It takes up screen time. It pulls the viewer out of the movie for a couple minutes. It potentially causes complications. I see a smelly little pile of drawbacks and no benefits.

They could just wheel out a new actor at the beginning of his career (or in the middle of it; I don't care). All the other characters in the movie know him as 'James Bond'. Problem solved.

 

[blewis17]

Previous to the Craig films (correct me if I'm wrong) it didn't seem like the Bond franchise cared too much about continuity beyond the occasional wink and a nod recurring character type of thing.

I would be surprised if they made any attempt to connect the Craig Bond to whoever the new one is. It will probably just be another iteration of the character, with the possibility of one or two folks reprising a version of their characters.

They did reference Bond's previous marriage(s) between films, but it was not the center of attention. Bond "married" Kissy Suzuki but more for his undercover mission. The Lazenby-Bond's dead wife Teresa ("Tracy", killed by Blofeld) is referenced in 'The Spy Who Loved Me' (1977, Moore) and 'For Your Eyes Only' (1981, Moore) and 'Licence to Kill' (1989, Dalton).

For Your Eyes Only

Would it be better to have James Bond ALWAYS be the same character in-universe, or a new agent that takes on the name of James Bond and mantle of 007? It could go either way. To my understanding, the film Bonds were always supposed to be "the same guy" with the same history. Well, until Never Say Never Again, when they legally couldn't use all of the Bond characters and history... but that's another story.

 

[HeartBlade]

They did reference Bond's previous marriage(s) between films, but it was not the center of attention. Bond "married" Kissy Suzuki but more for his undercover mission. The Lazenby-Bond's dead wife Teresa ("Tracy", killed by Blofeld) is referenced in 'The Spy Who Loved Me' (1977, Moore) and 'For Your Eyes Only' (1981, Moore) and 'Licence to Kill' (1989, Dalton).

For Your Eyes Only

Would it be better to have James Bond ALWAYS be the same character in-universe, or a new agent that takes on the name of James Bond and mantle of 007? It could go either way. To my understanding, the film Bonds were always supposed to be "the same guy" with the same history. Well, until Never Say Never Again, when they legally couldn't use all of the Bond characters and history... but that's another story.

View attachment 1729593

Yeah, its been officially established that "James Bond" is the same person and not a code name. Although some directors liked the code name theory, Craig Bond basically established "James Bond" being the same guy in all iterations with both Skyfall showing his home and No Time to Die with the new "007" not taking the "James Bond" code name.

The code name theory is popular but pretty sure it can been "debunked."

 

[AJK001]

At one point in OHMSS, Lazenby looks at the camera and says "This never happened to the other guy". I think that was more for laughs as they had already established that he was the same Bond as in the other films.

 

[VanPersie]

Personally I still think Bond should now be left and never come back.

For me a big part of Bond's appeal from the 60's to the 90's was the fact the films would show places that an average audience would only ever dream of. Coupled with a ready made "bad guy" in terms of the Soviet Union/Russia for the majority of it now, who wasn't a major concern in terms of affecting real life marketing/box office.

In recent decades, places like Japan, Austria, Egypt et al, just aren't the mysterious and wonderfully exotic places, simply because almost anyone can now book a flight there, watch endless programmes/youtube videos on a device that sits in their pocket everyday.

 

[Bloop]

I don't think it matters if there's a reason there's a different actor playing Bond, or even

Spoiler: Spoiler if you haven't seen 'No Time To Die'

if the character actually died onscreen.

Did it "make sense" for M to suddenly be played by Judy Dench, and continue in the role as they rebooted the franchise with 'Casino Royale?' (I'm not the biggest Bond aficionado, so I honestly don't remember if there was ever an explanation). Does it "make sense" for Bond to have been a spy in the 1960s, yet still be around in the 2020s? They even referenced the Aston Martin that Connory drove, bringing it back as "his father's car." Is Bond his own father? Or is it just that this is a long franchise based on characters that have become ageless, with little continuity between films?

Code name, no code name, it doesn't matter. They can just do a new film with a different actor as "James Bond, 007" and the public will accept that because we're used to it. We've had 6 actors play Bond (not including David Niven, of course). We're also accustomed to reboots of other franchises with different actors - Superman, Batman, Spider-Man to name just a few.
Does the continuity matter after 'No Time To Die?' Maybe to some, but I doubt it will matter to most. The Craig series of film did make a point of continuing this iteration of Bond's story, so I'd assume there will be a break from that. But we still could see the same actor playing Q, for example (as Douglas Llewellyn did from the 1960s-1990s,) Just as Dench carried over to the Craig films.

I do kind of like the idea of a period Bond film, as suggested prior, setting it back in the 1960s. I thought the X-Men First Class films squandered the opportunity to keep those characters further in the past, choosing to time jump by decades with each film. Especially with how Dark Phoenix ended up supposedly being set in the 1990s yet it had no bearing on the film and didn't even really look like a period film (the film obviously had other problems too).

 

[VanPersie]

I don't think it matters if there's a reason there's a different actor playing Bond, or even

Spoiler: Spoiler if you haven't seen 'No Time To Die'

if the character actually died onscreen.

Did it "make sense" for M to suddenly be played by Judy Dench, and continue in the role as they rebooted the franchise with 'Casino Royale?' (I'm not the biggest Bond aficionado, so I honestly don't remember if there was ever an explanation). Does it "make sense" for Bond to have been a spy in the 1960s, yet still be around in the 2020s? They even referenced the Aston Martin that Connory drove, bringing it back as "his father's car." Is Bond his own father? Or is it just that this is a long franchise based on characters that have become ageless, with little continuity between films?

No explanation about Dench’s M.

When did it say it was his father’s car, when in Casino Royale he won it in a poker game at a hotel?

Code name, no code name, it doesn't matter. They can just do a new film with a different actor as "James Bond, 007" and the public will accept that because we're used to it. We've had 6 actors play Bond (not including David Niven, of course). We're also accustomed to reboots of other franchises with different actors - Superman, Batman, Spider-Man to name just a few.
Does the continuity matter after 'No Time To Die?' Maybe to some, but I doubt it will matter to most. The Craig series of film did make a point of continuing this iteration of Bond's story, so I'd assume there will be a break from that. But we still could see the same actor playing Q, for example (as Douglas Llewellyn did from the 1960s-1990s,) Just as Dench carried over to the Craig films.

I have a feeling the whole cast will be changed to try and distance them from the end of NTTD.

 

[Lightning]

I do kind of like the idea of a period Bond film, as suggested prior, setting it back in the 1960s.

Me too, seems like a natural way to make the next chapter unique. Plus with Russia being antagonistic in real life it works well.

I have a feeling the whole cast will be changed to try and distance them from the end of NTTD.

I hope not, just pull an extreme Dench, and have them as the 1960s versions of the characters.