No matter who is cast, I don't believe EON will veer far from the "grittier" aspects of the Craig films. IMO, they will probably (hopefully) move away from the personal/ biographical angle of those films. While Hiddleston and also Turner would be well suited to play upon the "Gentleman Spy" aspect of the character, I believe both are also well suited to the violent, cold blooded assassin part of the character, possibly to an even more jarring effect (especially under the direction of a Nicolas Winding Refn). Another name I'm surprised hasn't come up much is Charlie Hunnam. He's British and built like a 6'1" version of Craig.
While Hunnam seems to be a good actor but I think his resemblance to Craig takes him out of the running, I feel EON will hire someone who doesn't look like the last actor to play Bond.
It's kind of a 'Known unknown' as it could just as easily work in his favour. Mrs Zaphod approved, although Chris Hemsworth would get her vote. She also likes Turner but feels that Hiddleston 'just seems right' once again time will tell. I don't think we'll get any kind if announcement for some time...
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
Whoever the next Bond will be, the Bond series will complete the metamorphosis into the British equivalent of Mission Impossible.
Well, let's hope not ...although action-heavy is undoubtedly the trend. Still hoping that with the New Guy will come a renewed focus on story/plot...and Bond as the coolest secret agent ever :007)
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Whoever the next Bond will be, the Bond series will complete the metamorphosis into the British equivalent of Mission Impossible.
Ironically, the MI series didn't start out that way. The first MI film was very much a reflection of the vision of its auteur director, Brian De Palma. MI was a stew of elements from the TV Series, Bond films (Cruise in a tux looked like Bond's American raised nephew getting in on the family business), and a good dose of Hitchcock. In many ways, Tom Cruise was actually an odd choice for the lead. The subsequent MI films were built around Cruise as superspy/superhero and some outlandish stunts. I'm not knocking the MI films as I have seen them all and enjoyed them....but they are still basically derived from the Bond films, albeit Americanized, modernized and tailored to Tom Cruise.
With regards to the next Bond film, I'm sure there will be plenty of action but the real question is to what scale? Big stunts? Huge battles? Explosions? or more old school Bond action like hand to hand combat, gun battles, suspenseful moments or cliffhangers?
I remember when True Lies came out and everyone was saying that it was the way Bond films were going to go. Big improbable stunts and crap acting. It certainly looked like it for a moment when Die Another Day came out, but fortunately things got back on track with Casino Royale.
The beauty of the Bond franchise is that the audience willingness to accept a new actor in the role allows the series to find its feet when it loses its way and to experiment with the formula slightly.
I'm hoping that the next Bond will be a more gritty, espionage based Bond without the reliance on gadgets.
It is getting a bit tedious with Bond having a tricked out car in each film. I don't mind him having a cool car per say, but I'd rather skip the car gadgets and have him grab a sniper rifle or machine pistol from the boot.
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,652MI6 Agent
Definitely Bond being a car enthusiast is a pedigree that he inherited from his creator, so that even Bond villains and allies (Felix's Studillac) drove curiosities of their day. The car gadgetry really took off from Fleming's cue with GF though the movie version was on steroids. However, it's cool to watch Bond's use of the modest yet exotic Sunbeam in DN and though there wasn't much car action in FRWL, we still got to see a version Bond's Bentley in his moments of leisure, which is the true soul of Bond's car fetish in his world.
The DB5 would still be ok to see, IMO, but only as a classic car used in Bond's leisure like the way it was featured in GE and TND (it was out of place plot-wise in CR) and I'd be okay with seeing Bond using non-descript cars during his missions, even beaters and rental cars if the situation called for it.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
I was thinking about Henry Cavill, who in my opinion would make a very good Bond were it not for him being Superman, and I just seemed to notice how much he looks like Pierce Brosnan.
When his name was being bandied about in 2005 as Bond, I have to wonder if many people would even have noticed the change between actors. Had they decided to cast him instead of Craig, it would probably be one of the smoothest physical change transitions in series history.
Is that just me? I can't believe how similar they look.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,990Quartermasters
Cavill was my first choice in '05, despite him being admittedly (probably) too young at 23...he's dark-haired and classically handsome, if obviously larger framed than Brozzer (bodybuilding regimens aside). With his current Kryptonian physique, he's certainly too buff to be Bond, and with a DC Universe franchise commitment, his Bond ship has clearly sailed...a classic 'might have been.'
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Cavill instead of Craig it would have still been a full on reboot and it would have been just as obvious to anyone and no mistaking Cavill for Brosnan's Bond, especially in light of the 30 year difference in age. At 23, Cavill would truly have been a fledgling "OO". Cavill does have the more traditional cinematic Bond "look" of dark hair and around 6'2" in height like Brosnan but has a much larger frame. It really puts into perspective how young Cavill was at the time of CS when you realize that he is only 33 now.
I just hope the budget of the next film isn't as massive as Spectre's, what was Spectre's budget? 250-300 million? Interstellar only had a budget of 165 million and that film took place in space. It seems with Spectre they just threw so much money into it but the end result was still mediocre.
I just hope the budget of the next film isn't as massive as Spectre's, what was Spectre's budget? 250-300 million? Interstellar only had a budget of 165 million and that film took place in space. It seems with Spectre they just threw so much money into it but the end result was still mediocre.
True but CGI is cheaper than practical effects, as you know Bond producers try to make everything as real as possible. Explosions and destroying stuff are pretty pricey! )
I just hope the budget of the next film isn't as massive as Spectre's, what was Spectre's budget? 250-300 million? Interstellar only had a budget of 165 million and that film took place in space. It seems with Spectre they just threw so much money into it but the end result was still mediocre.
True but CGI is cheaper than practical effects, as you know Bond producers try to make everything as real as possible. Explosions and destroying stuff are pretty pricey! )
I wouldn't be surprised if Spectre used way more CGI then Interstellar. Christopher Nolan detest's the use of CGI.
I agree about the budget. $150 million should be plenty to make a Bond film. We don't need "bespoke" cars and exploding desert lairs. We do need a decent plot and a classic score. Those things don't require obscene financing.
Unless my memory is faulty, there was a sizable number of folks who post on this site who were all for "bespoke" cars and exploding desert lairs and a return to the "formula". Part of the problem with SPECTRE (and I don't think it is a bad Bond film by any means...I quite enjoyed it) is EON tried to make the film be all things to all people; a veritable Bond's greatest hits collection. With so much crammed into one film, some things are bound to fall a bit flat while others would have benefitted from more screen time (Monica Bellucci/Lucia for example).
Unless my memory is faulty, there was a sizable number of folks who post on this site who were all for "bespoke" cars and exploding desert lairs and a return to the "formula". Part of the problem with SPECTRE (and I don't think it is a bad Bond film by any means...I quite enjoyed it) is EON tried to make the film be all things to all people; a veritable Bond's greatest hits collection. With so much crammed into one film, some things are bound to fall a bit flat while others would have benefitted from more screen time (Monica Bellucci/Lucia for example).
I wanted those things but I think some of them were badly implemented (car chase poor and the lair was very poor and underused, especially the escape which was a doddle). Everything sped up too fast from the moment they reached the lair to the finale. I guess they spent too much time in the first half of the movie, the finale especially was a mad dash that I found a little out of place when I left the cinema.
In a nutshell I think they did cram in too much - the PTS felt a tad long also (not sure if it was in actual timing).
Not sure how they could have reduced it though apart from maybe dialogue sections. The clinic would have been dull without the Plane chase, the train section was a highlight, so was Mr White meeting.
Maybe somehow they should have skipped the Hotel part and the Morocco scene started on the train, reduce the SPECTRE meeting (appears to drag a little) and a lot of the Mi6 intercut sections and things like Bond chasing to Tanner on a launch boat. They kind of needed another half hour for the essential last two scenes
Despite all the above I enjoy SPECTRE - I just thought it was going to be a masterpiece with all the ingredients and the trailer with the new OHMSS theme blew me away (maybe best trailer ive seen). The end scene, driving off with Madeleine put a smile on my face as it was long overdue.. All in all its a mixed bag!
I think Skyfall greatly benefitted from the smaller budget it had in comparison to QOS and especially SP. Because outside of the PTS most of the action is on a smaller, more intimate and character driven scale that to me harkened back to the early Connery films. It had that similar grounded real world feel of From Russia With Love. Whereas a lot of the SP just reeked of Brosnan era pointlessness and ridiculousness. I think SP is an example of when striving to go "bigger and better" backfires.
Unless my memory is faulty, there was a sizable number of folks who post on this site who were all for "bespoke" cars and exploding desert lairs and a return to the "formula". Part of the problem with SPECTRE (and I don't think it is a bad Bond film by any means...I quite enjoyed it) is EON tried to make the film be all things to all people; a veritable Bond's greatest hits collection. With so much crammed into one film, some things are bound to fall a bit flat while others would have benefitted from more screen time (Monica Bellucci/Lucia for example).
I'm not against those things being included if the execution is good. But the execution of SP was incredibly poor. My point is that with less money to burn on screen, EON seems to concentrate more on trying to make a good film. When the script is lousy, they tend to just blow things up and hope that people will overlook the flaws in favor of the spectacle.
Bringing it all back to the topic of this thread, I think Hiddleston has the potential to thrive in a tight, character-driven film. So I think that's the type of film they should make. They always talk about wanting to make a modern version of FRWL - it would be great to see them actually try to do it.
Budget certainly needs to be cut. SF grossing $1bill is not going to be the norm. Possible yes, but not likely every time out. I think cutting the budget back to $150 mill would be a very smart move going forward.
I wish they stuck with the DB10. It was far better on screen than I thought it was going to be. But if that was Daniel Craig's final Bond than I guess it's best that the new Bond get a new car. And stick with it this time. The best thing about the DB5 is Connery stuck with it even though it was wrecked in Goldfinger. Same with Roger Moore and the Lotus. I think the continuing theme through the Brosnan and Craig Bonds is always wreck the car and get a new one for the next movie.
I wish they stuck with the DB10. It was far better on screen than I thought it was going to be. But if that was Daniel Craig's final Bond than I guess it's best that the new Bond get a new car. And stick with it this time. The best thing about the DB5 is Connery stuck with it even though it was wrecked in Goldfinger. Same with Roger Moore and the Lotus. I think the continuing theme through the Brosnan and Craig Bonds is always wreck the car and get a new one for the next movie.
The DB5 is the only car to come back, now in 6 films. The DBS from OHMSS can be seen in Q's lab in DAF, so in a way it came back. But that's the last of Bond's cars that comes back in another film. None of Roger Moore's Lotuses are featured in multiple films; he drove three over 2 films. The white Lotus in FYEO is a different model (Turbo Esprit) from the one in TSWLM (S1). I agree that it would be nice for Bond to drive the same car in multiple films again. The DBSes in CR and QOS are very similar, but it would have been nice for them to have been the same.
I wish they stuck with the DB10. It was far better on screen than I thought it was going to be. But if that was Daniel Craig's final Bond than I guess it's best that the new Bond get a new car. And stick with it this time. The best thing about the DB5 is Connery stuck with it even though it was wrecked in Goldfinger. Same with Roger Moore and the Lotus. I think the continuing theme through the Brosnan and Craig Bonds is always wreck the car and get a new one for the next movie.
The DB5 is the only car to come back, now in 6 films. The DBS from OHMSS can be seen in Q's lab in DAF, so in a way it came back. But that's the last of Bond's cars that comes back in another film. None of Roger Moore's Lotuses are featured in multiple films; he drove three over 2 films. The white Lotus in FYEO is a different model (Turbo Esprit) from the one in TSWLM (S1). I agree that it would be nice for Bond to drive the same car in multiple films again. The DBSes in CR and QOS are very similar, but it would have been nice for them to have been the same.
The DBS was kinda identical. In Casino Royale it was a concept car, in Quantum it was already a production version - it would be pretty unreasonable for them to create another one that would look exactly like the one in CR (altough I prefer the CR version to be honest).
I wish they stuck with the DB10. It was far better on screen than I thought it was going to be. But if that was Daniel Craig's final Bond than I guess it's best that the new Bond get a new car. And stick with it this time. The best thing about the DB5 is Connery stuck with it even though it was wrecked in Goldfinger. Same with Roger Moore and the Lotus. I think the continuing theme through the Brosnan and Craig Bonds is always wreck the car and get a new one for the next movie.
The DB5 is the only car to come back, now in 6 films. The DBS from OHMSS can be seen in Q's lab in DAF, so in a way it came back. But that's the last of Bond's cars that comes back in another film. None of Roger Moore's Lotuses are featured in multiple films; he drove three over 2 films. The white Lotus in FYEO is a different model (Turbo Esprit) from the one in TSWLM (S1). I agree that it would be nice for Bond to drive the same car in multiple films again. The DBSes in CR and QOS are very similar, but it would have been nice for them to have been the same.
The DBS was kinda identical. In Casino Royale it was a concept car, in Quantum it was already a production version - it would be pretty unreasonable for them to create another one that would look exactly like the one in CR (altough I prefer the CR version to be honest).
But would it have been unreasonable for them to be painted the same colour? They made a choice to make them different cars by painting them different colours.
The DB5 is the only car to come back, now in 6 films. The DBS from OHMSS can be seen in Q's lab in DAF, so in a way it came back. But that's the last of Bond's cars that comes back in another film. None of Roger Moore's Lotuses are featured in multiple films; he drove three over 2 films. The white Lotus in FYEO is a different model (Turbo Esprit) from the one in TSWLM (S1). I agree that it would be nice for Bond to drive the same car in multiple films again. The DBSes in CR and QOS are very similar, but it would have been nice for them to have been the same.
The DBS was kinda identical. In Casino Royale it was a concept car, in Quantum it was already a production version - it would be pretty unreasonable for them to create another one that would look exactly like the one in CR (altough I prefer the CR version to be honest).
But would it have been unreasonable for them to be painted the same colour? They made a choice to make them different cars by painting them different colours.
Paint change is cheaper - I mean it's still paint, they just used a different mix. The production version of the DBS had a lot of small differences compared to the concept, so creating the very same car again would be just too expensive (especially since they used like 12 in Quantum, most of them were destroyed if I recall correctly). I don't understand the paint change however - it was clearly not the very same DBS obviously. The nice thing about that was that I assumed the DBS was a standard operational vehicle for every 00 agent, since Bond already had two.
The DB10 was just another part of the film that was massively hyped up and rightfully so. Of course the only screen time it really got was in one of the most forgettable and boring chases in the series.
Getting back to the business of who will drive the next Bond car ie who will be the next Bond. I now have had the opportunity to see much more of Aidan Turner (I didn't realize I had the ability to stream Poldark). I have to say that after watching the first episode of the show (which I enjoyed and look forward to seeing the rest) I was impressed with the possibility of Turner as Bond. First of all, Turner has screen presence that belies his Craig-like height and displayed a physicality that would work well for Bond. The thing that surprised me most however was his intensity and delivery which immediately reminded me of Timothy Dalton. In fact the more I watched Turner the more he reminded me of Dalton. So at this point my first choice remains for Craig to return. However, if there is to be a new Bond I would be very comfortable with either Turner or Hiddleston....it's basically a coin toss for me between the two.
I wish they stuck with the DB10. It was far better on screen than I thought it was going to be. But if that was Daniel Craig's final Bond than I guess it's best that the new Bond get a new car. And stick with it this time. The best thing about the DB5 is Connery stuck with it even though it was wrecked in Goldfinger. Same with Roger Moore and the Lotus. I think the continuing theme through the Brosnan and Craig Bonds is always wreck the car and get a new one for the next movie.
The DB5 is the only car to come back, now in 6 films. The DBS from OHMSS can be seen in Q's lab in DAF, so in a way it came back. But that's the last of Bond's cars that comes back in another film. None of Roger Moore's Lotuses are featured in multiple films; he drove three over 2 films. The white Lotus in FYEO is a different model (Turbo Esprit) from the one in TSWLM (S1). I agree that it would be nice for Bond to drive the same car in multiple films again. The DBSes in CR and QOS are very similar, but it would have been nice for them to have been the same.
I thought Moore's Esprit was close enough (at least when I was a kid) to might as well be the same or upgraded version. He does have that joke about getting the Lotus back together again.
I figured that Bond at the end of Casino Royale asked for another DBS for the job of getting Mr. White out of the country. They probably weren't going to repair the crashed one in time.
The DB10 was just another part of the film that was massively hyped up and rightfully so. Of course the only screen time it really got was in one of the most forgettable and boring chases in the series.
I actually liked that chase and all the scenes with it in the movie. I just hated that he ditched it. But that was all for the story and a Moore like sequence.
Comments
It's kind of a 'Known unknown' as it could just as easily work in his favour. Mrs Zaphod approved, although Chris Hemsworth would get her vote. She also likes Turner but feels that Hiddleston 'just seems right' once again time will tell. I don't think we'll get any kind if announcement for some time...
Well, let's hope not
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Ironically, the MI series didn't start out that way. The first MI film was very much a reflection of the vision of its auteur director, Brian De Palma. MI was a stew of elements from the TV Series, Bond films (Cruise in a tux looked like Bond's American raised nephew getting in on the family business), and a good dose of Hitchcock. In many ways, Tom Cruise was actually an odd choice for the lead. The subsequent MI films were built around Cruise as superspy/superhero and some outlandish stunts. I'm not knocking the MI films as I have seen them all and enjoyed them....but they are still basically derived from the Bond films, albeit Americanized, modernized and tailored to Tom Cruise.
With regards to the next Bond film, I'm sure there will be plenty of action but the real question is to what scale? Big stunts? Huge battles? Explosions? or more old school Bond action like hand to hand combat, gun battles, suspenseful moments or cliffhangers?
The beauty of the Bond franchise is that the audience willingness to accept a new actor in the role allows the series to find its feet when it loses its way and to experiment with the formula slightly.
I'm hoping that the next Bond will be a more gritty, espionage based Bond without the reliance on gadgets.
And lets move on from the DB5!!!!!
The DB5 would still be ok to see, IMO, but only as a classic car used in Bond's leisure like the way it was featured in GE and TND (it was out of place plot-wise in CR) and I'd be okay with seeing Bond using non-descript cars during his missions, even beaters and rental cars if the situation called for it.
When his name was being bandied about in 2005 as Bond, I have to wonder if many people would even have noticed the change between actors. Had they decided to cast him instead of Craig, it would probably be one of the smoothest physical change transitions in series history.
Is that just me? I can't believe how similar they look.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
True but CGI is cheaper than practical effects, as you know Bond producers try to make everything as real as possible. Explosions and destroying stuff are pretty pricey!
e.g. its been said the car chase alone cost more then the entire budget of U.N.C.L.E. wether that is strictly true I do not know but crazy if it is.
The car chase was mediocre and just like the Bond girls (Severine, Skyfall / Bellucci SPECTRE) the DB10 sadly was discarded far too quickly
I wanted those things but I think some of them were badly implemented (car chase poor and the lair was very poor and underused, especially the escape which was a doddle). Everything sped up too fast from the moment they reached the lair to the finale. I guess they spent too much time in the first half of the movie, the finale especially was a mad dash that I found a little out of place when I left the cinema.
In a nutshell I think they did cram in too much - the PTS felt a tad long also (not sure if it was in actual timing).
Not sure how they could have reduced it though apart from maybe dialogue sections. The clinic would have been dull without the Plane chase, the train section was a highlight, so was Mr White meeting.
Maybe somehow they should have skipped the Hotel part and the Morocco scene started on the train, reduce the SPECTRE meeting (appears to drag a little) and a lot of the Mi6 intercut sections and things like Bond chasing to Tanner on a launch boat. They kind of needed another half hour for the essential last two scenes
Despite all the above I enjoy SPECTRE - I just thought it was going to be a masterpiece with all the ingredients and the trailer with the new OHMSS theme blew me away (maybe best trailer ive seen). The end scene, driving off with Madeleine put a smile on my face as it was long overdue.. All in all its a mixed bag!
I'm not against those things being included if the execution is good. But the execution of SP was incredibly poor. My point is that with less money to burn on screen, EON seems to concentrate more on trying to make a good film. When the script is lousy, they tend to just blow things up and hope that people will overlook the flaws in favor of the spectacle.
Bringing it all back to the topic of this thread, I think Hiddleston has the potential to thrive in a tight, character-driven film. So I think that's the type of film they should make. They always talk about wanting to make a modern version of FRWL - it would be great to see them actually try to do it.
The DB5 is the only car to come back, now in 6 films. The DBS from OHMSS can be seen in Q's lab in DAF, so in a way it came back. But that's the last of Bond's cars that comes back in another film. None of Roger Moore's Lotuses are featured in multiple films; he drove three over 2 films. The white Lotus in FYEO is a different model (Turbo Esprit) from the one in TSWLM (S1). I agree that it would be nice for Bond to drive the same car in multiple films again. The DBSes in CR and QOS are very similar, but it would have been nice for them to have been the same.
The DBS was kinda identical. In Casino Royale it was a concept car, in Quantum it was already a production version - it would be pretty unreasonable for them to create another one that would look exactly like the one in CR (altough I prefer the CR version to be honest).
But would it have been unreasonable for them to be painted the same colour? They made a choice to make them different cars by painting them different colours.
Paint change is cheaper - I mean it's still paint, they just used a different mix. The production version of the DBS had a lot of small differences compared to the concept, so creating the very same car again would be just too expensive (especially since they used like 12 in Quantum, most of them were destroyed if I recall correctly). I don't understand the paint change however - it was clearly not the very same DBS obviously. The nice thing about that was that I assumed the DBS was a standard operational vehicle for every 00 agent, since Bond already had two.
I thought Moore's Esprit was close enough (at least when I was a kid) to might as well be the same or upgraded version. He does have that joke about getting the Lotus back together again.
I figured that Bond at the end of Casino Royale asked for another DBS for the job of getting Mr. White out of the country. They probably weren't going to repair the crashed one in time.
I actually liked that chase and all the scenes with it in the movie. I just hated that he ditched it. But that was all for the story and a Moore like sequence.