An old Brosnan coming back would be, for me, one of the better outcomes that we could get, but it’s not going to happen. I’d much prefer that over Aaron Taylor-Johnson or any of the other names that are often brought up around here.
What we are going to find out when Amazon announces a new actor and then, more importantly, when the new film finally releases, is how much gas is left in the tank of this franchise.
Pierce also said “I’m not looking to go there. I’m quite happy with my career. I’ve done it, it was wonderful. Delightful kind of notion to contemplate." I contemplated it as well while wearing my rose tinted glasses. I love Pierce and have very fond memories anticipating his Bond movies. But it’s in the past. Bond should be younger and new for each generation. Pierce saying Bond is with him for life, while a simple statement of fact, means a lot to me on its own.
Terrible idea.
Another Bond begins would be awful.
Agreed. Bond’s first mission as a double-oh in Casino Royale was exactly the right amount of prequel for me, I have no interest in going back further.
It should be something like GoldenEye, an estabilished, experienced Bond, doing his work, no wokeness, no silly plots.
They could have the film start with Bond’s birth and it’ll be the best thing this franchise has delivered in a decade, if for no other reason than it actually stars James Bond.
Amazon has taken control of this thing at the exact right time to give themselves a soft landing. EON screwed things up so royally before selling things off and the literary side of things is doing their best to do even worse, so Amazon has an extremely low bar to clear moving forward.
A couple of things:
Actors thought to be in the running to play Bond include Spider-Man star Tom Holland, 28, Bridget Jones hunk Leo Woodall, 28, SAS Rogue Heroes leading man Connor Swindells, 28, plus Hero Fiennes Tiffin, 27, and Kit Connor, 21.
Irishman Paul Mescal, 29, is also said to be in the frame along with Saltburn’s Jacob Elordi, 27.
The article mentions rumours about a ‘pre-boot’ with the youngest Bond ever - but these names are not really terribly young. Nor would a 50s/60s setting really be pre-anything Bond. It reads like an AI summary of fan discussions, from Tarantino’s period CASINO ROYALE to the inclusion of Tom Holland since we learned about Pascal.
Mind you, that needn’t mean it’s entirely hot air, though. The new powers that be might decide their course just along those lines.
I’d have to be majorly convinced about 1950s/60s period pieces, and those actors mentioned don’t excite me. If this is the real reaction to Craig Bond’s death in another film series I feel it’s a silly and extreme overreaction. I’d greatly prefer for Bond to be of the present, and see what he’s doing now. Fingers crossed it’s just another Sun article.
This approach does have a major advantage: whatever politics–societal, sexual, racial, etc.–are depicted, any criticisms could be deflected by saying: “Well, that is the way it was back in 19xx.” It is a neat way out of the bind of producing films in the mid-2020s about a state-sanctioned assassin with all that is going on in society at the moment. The best villain (or the villain who can best generate a consensus) may be one from the past–akin to Jurassic Park’s dinosaurs.
Are we not addressing the fact that this is from ‘The Sun’ and we shouldn’t take it seriously
It would be gutless to sidestep contemporary life and retreat into the past, denying this generation their own Bond. I like the Moore era because it’s from the 70s. I like the Brosnan era because it’s from the 90s. They’ve both become period pieces with time. Do we have modern day artists singing in a retro timeline? What happens with product placement? It brings the relevancy issue to the forefront, and Bond is absolutely not a relic. But this would make him one. I can’t deny my enthusiasm would take a hit if they went down this route. I could stomach a TV series but not the mainline films.
1000%. The essence of Bond has ALWAYS been that he’s the cutting edge man of his time. Going back to the 50’s or 60’s would be nothing less than a confession by the makers that he has no place in contemporary society – in which case, why bother? We already HAVE a bunch of 1960’s Bonds.
Why would CraigBond‘s death be an issue they „have“ to deal with? Nobody had to deal with LeeM‘s death except recasting the role (and so on).
If the new regime really thinks that only doing prequels is possible now they completely misunderstand what made the movies successful.
Uh, guys, I think you may have missed something. These ideas range from not the best ('50s or '60s time period) to horrible (Bond in his 20s and each actor listed is worse than the last). I got about a quarter of the way into one of these articles before I realized: hey, it’s April Fool’s Day. That’s what these ideas in these articles read like. It’s a bunch of bull. It can’t be true. They’re too bad to be true.
Are you telling me Amazon went from making two good, solid decisions about the James Bond franchise (hiring Amy Pascal and David Heyman and parting ways with Jennifer Salke) and their almost immediate next step within a week is to come up with ideas so bad that Salke would have come up with them? Might as well have kept her on. 
No, this has to be an April Fool’s joke. And I will treat it as such.
Dross
Sums it up for me. Though this might be one of those ‘twice-a-day’ occurrences, it’s really a shoddy rumour piece that might be a forum summary rather than actual plans. If this was seriously the sum total of Pascal’s, Heyman’s and Amazon’s combined efforts to restart Bond it’s creative bankruptcy before we even started.
What @Skyfail and @Dustin said. All the “articles” from The Sun are like April fools jokes, and these are all remarks said on Twitter when Pascal was hired because Twitter seems to only know her for Spider-man and not the fact she part of the group of 4 for Casino Royale’s casting and, as Martin Campbell has said, she was one of the two who voted for Craig…
Will David Heyman and Amy Pascal switch who’s truly in charge of Bond films, akin to Cubby and Harry, or Michael or Barbara?
Also, I would say use PB’s films as guides as they have a bit of everything, in terms of tone.
The THR reporter article did say that there will be an in-house producer who will really produce the next film…