I would like Bond 26 to simply pick up were Brosnan left off, have Samantha Bond promoted to M and John Cleese back as Q. My plot would be Alec Trevelyan's son out for revenge
Although I'd love having the "classic" timeline back, I think the concept of revenge has been overused since SF. After Silva, Blofeld and Safin, I'm fed up with all these family stories.
What would we have this time ? "Bond, you killed my father Alec so I want to make you and your country pay for what you've done !"
I expect something else. A brand new adversary whose origins are not supposed to be detailed because I never really cared about what it all started with. The assumed bad guy status is a good formula and it always works with a good plot.
I want to see a modern version of Goldfinger, Kananga, Drax, Orlov, Zorin, Carver...
I'm not completely against picking up the Connery-Brosnan timeline again, but it would have to be more subtle than using Trevelyan's son. It gets extra silly because Alex Trevelyan wanted to revenge his own parents in GE!
I also don't think Samantha Bond has the nearly the weight as an actor as Dame Judy Dench has and S. Bond didn't make very much of an impression as Moneypenny. I think the same can be said about JC's version of Q. Cleese is also getting too old to start another tenure as Q.
I hope the new Bond movies will be closer to the traditional movies in style (fun, stunt-heavy standalone adventures), but with a completely new cast and content.
an interesting thought experiment, but 18 years have passed. Even if they did return to the old continuity for Bond26, theyd be picking a new generation of actors to play those roles. And despite the conclusive ending of Bond25, there were enough popular elements introduced with the CraigFilms I'm sure theyd keep a few, making Bond26 a mix of leftover CraigElements, classic elements, and all new elements thought to appeal to a new generation.
I'd only want to see Cleese back if he could write his own dialog.
Yeah I'm not sure there really is a timeline to return to; how would we even know if they did? Just start a new continuity for Bond. I'd be ready for something a bit more fresh.
I think we'll get the new Bond firmly established already as Bond (no new origin story) but I don't think there will be any carryover from any other continuity. It'll be fresh actors across the board.
but will he still keep the Aston Martin from Goldfinger in his garage for whenever the plot demands its appearance?
Honestly, I think they'll completely 'clean slate' everything. No more references to prior cars or anything. They had their victory lap already with NTTD in terms of showing off a lot of classic elements from the first 25 films, so I think there will be a desire to move forward and not reference past events to a large degree.
I hope Gymkata is right.
I think he is, but will the makers be able to resist referencing past events? The temptation to slip in straight faced jokes might be too much.
I do wonder at what point will they be forced to retire the classic Aston Martin? I mean, in another 20 years, it would run the risk of looking as ridiculous as having Bond drive a 1940s jalopy now...
Who knows? Maybe with this new Bond or his/her successor, what is used for the throwback Aston Martin might be the V12 Vanquish instead...
Wouldn’t make any sense.
the can‘t use the actors from „Die Another Day“ mainly due to age. Plus, the new movie would have to use a considerable amount of energy and time to create a few callbacks so that the average viewer will know, that the preceeding mission to Bond 26 took place over 20 years ago.
So they’ll probably start from zero again.
oh man, relativity of time and all that. you raise a good point. We dont have t imagine Bond driving a 1940s jalopy, because Fleming had him driving a vehicle even older than that.
in Fleming's Casino Royale, Bond says he bought his Bentley "almost new" in 1933
One of the last of the 4½-litre Bentleys with the supercharger by Amherst Villiers, he had bought it almost new in 1933 and had kept it in careful storage through the war. It was still serviced every year and, in London, a former Bentley mechanic, who worked in a garage near Bond's Chelsea flat, tended it with jealous care. Bond drove it hard and well and with an almost sensual pleasure. It was a battleship-grey convertible coupé, which really did convert, and it was capable of touring at ninety with thirty miles an hour in reserve.
wikipedia has a photo of a similar model from 1929. From Bond's point of view in 1952, this would be like one of us today still having a car purchased 2002 in perfectly good condition, I wouldnt even think twice if I saw someone with a car that recent.
We see ConneryBond with his Bentley at a picnic in From Russia with Love. It looked like an antique from my perspective even circa 1978 when i first saw the film, but would only have been 30 years old when the film was made. We see NivenBond with his Bentley in Casino Royale (the "funny" version), just a few years later, and in this context it looks like a detail to emphasise Sir James' status as an archaic pre-war Bond.
At the same time John Steed was driving a late20s Bentley on The Avengers, and it was one of many deliberate details intended to support his image as old-school gentleman, in contrast to Emma Peel's 1965 Lotus Elan.
I cant put myself in the mind of someone who was viewing at the time, but the Aston in Goldfinger doesnt look oldfashioned even now, just ostentatious. But that was 50-odd years ago, further in the past than that Bentley would have been even in CR67. As for the Bentley, maybe because it was built relatively early in the automobile's evolution, it has long read visually as prototypic, whereas by the time that Aston was built was well after the war, when car ownership was near universal and the general design had reached a more stable form
My bet is on a clean-slate, ready-formed Bond, with references back to earlier (pre-Craig) films creeping back in only in subsequent films, but disassociated from any specific previous 'continuity'.
I don't want any very clear continuity such as introducing Trevelyan's son. But I wouldn't mind something more vague like mentioning that Bond lost his wife on his wedding day.
I think we start as if DAD were the previous film, only with a completely fresh cast all round; I think carrying over M, for example, or Moneypenny or Q just mucks it up from a continuity standpoint. As great as they all were in the Craig Era. And please not another origin story, although I understand the temptation to maybe have Bond as a fresh-faced early thirtysomething not long out of the SBS.
It would be great if a new Q, male or female, was named Major Boothroyd again, and if a new M was named Sir Miles Messervy.
For me it wouldn't have to be a huge continuity issue if Ralph Fiennes bridged between the Craig films into whatever comes next, playing, in effect, a different iteration of M - as Dame Judi did, when she bridged between Brosnan and Craig. One significant casting hold-over is no bad thing. I guess that, if it was to be Fiennes, he'd just need to be "M" with no reference to the name Mallory.
Theyll definitely need a new Felix. should he come complete with all arms and legs attached? if so thats a new continuity
I see your point, Shady. Perhaps they could have Fiennes hold over - he is a brilliant Oscar winner, after all - but I can't tell you how many arguments I have with thicker fans who cannot accept that Dame Judi's M were two different people supervising two different Bond actors. It's exhausting 😑
You know who'd make a great, and different, M? Idris Elba.
He's the right age, has more than enough gravitas, would be a wink to the "Idris as Bond" crowd, and would also tie in with the comics, where we have a black M who has witty repartee with Bond and "holds Ms Moneypenny as much more important to the defence of the realm than Bond".
And I would love for the next Bond to simply be there, receive a mission briefing and go catch/kill the baddies. No origin story, no dangling plots apart from the usual evil organisation, no "This time it's personal". For "This time it's personal" to work, we need a lot of "not personal" missions as a contrast thereto.
EDIT: Oh, and nothing I would love more than seeing John Cleese back as Q.
I don't want Fiennes to continue as M. Generally I don't think anyone who was present at James Bond's wake should turn up in the new timeline. People would get confused, and with good reason. Even worse , they could see it as proof of the code name theory.
Idris Elba on the other hand would be a good M. He's a good actor with a lot of authority.
John Cleese is 82 years old and in my opinion not a very good Q. I would rather see Sally Hawkins as Q. Q is a gender neutral "name " anyway and gender was never central to the character. Sally Hawkins - IMDb
I think Idris Elba as M is a brilliant idea; and he could have the role (if he wanted it) for 20+ years. If I were Eon, I'd be ringing his agent as we speak.