The involvement of a new creative team is a huge part of why I have any hope that the next film(s) could be exciting. The paths that the two eras that were overseen by the previous creative team at EON are almost identical, so we would know exactly what to expect moving forward. The parallels that GE/CR, TND/QOS, TWINE/SF/SP, and DAD/NTTD had in common are just incredibly close and we’d no doubt be headed for more of the same if a new EON Bond had made its way to theaters.
It should be different because the team making it is different. It’s been suggested that they’re making the new film based off a proposal from Villenueve. EON would have never taken a pitch from a director and would have shopped around for a director to who could get himself excited about the latest script from Purvis and Wade. We should finally have some fresh ideas in the room for the first time since the early Brosnan days, and that in and of itself is very exciting.
I’m excited because it represents the only real chance we’ve had to rid the franchise of all of the stuff that has been long overdue to be thrown out for decades now, and that was never going to happen without the type of change we’ve seen in recent months. If they botch it, then I’ll complain about it. But, I’ve got too many negative things going on these days to be upset myself with the fact that it’s one particular billionaire making the new Bond film as opposed to some other billionaire. So far, they’ve basically done what I would want done with a Bond film at this stage in its production.
They’ve gone so well that I’m willing to forgive them in advance for the fact that they’re not going to cast Rupert Friend in the role of Bond. (Although, I think they should take that suggestion and run with it, given my track record of being right on Craig as I think the second person on the old forum to endorse his candidacy for the role).
I have been on long running shows, and whenever fresh blood came in there was always a publicized hope of how that would rejuvenate everything.
It never did. It could not. Because once something is established successfully, the powers that be will never allow huge differences. They want the same which was successful. The few examples of big changes always ended with disaster. Because there is a reason why something is run successfully for a long time - those who are responsible know their stuff.
EON knew exactly what Bond was supposed to be, whether we hardcore fans liked it or not.
I am absolutely sure that BB knew before NTTD that there was no way to go but out. Craig‘s last film therefore was her way of saying: it’s over. And the whole delay which happened afterwards was just tactics in selling off the property.
And actually, I am okay with that now. Bond had a fantastic run. But it does not have to go on forever.
There is no fresh approach, let’s not kid ourselves.
Amazon now will just put a fresh coat of paint on it (see here: the prestige producers, director, writer) but everybody involved will know: they have no clue what to do differently, so they will do what came before. It will look shiny and cool - but it will not be anything revolutionary.
I will enjoy the 4ks of Connery, wait for the rest to be released in that pristine way, and probably check out the next film(s) on Amazon prime.
But Bond will go the way of Star Wars when Lucas sold it off.
I tend to have a bit more hope for it. Star Wars became a narrow, repetitive thing obsessed with the core trilogy after the takeover. In all fairness, that’s where Bond has at least to some extend been before. The takeover could also lead to some competitive versions not bothered by the ballast of the past.
I liked the Craig era and how it ended. But I don’t think that’s a reason to say everything is over. I believe younger versions of Barbara and Michael would have felt more fire to keep going. They reached the end of the line with their tenure but James Bond goes on, as he should. He’s bigger than all of us and I really do feel there’s plenty of life left.
While I’m open to new things, it’s not a dealbreaker for me if the next era doesn’t prove to be radically revolutionary, to tell you the truth. Just give me a good film. The James Bond cocktail has sustained itself through the generations until now. Hiring this creative team for Bond 26 can only be a good thing. I’m not sitting here wishing we had lower quality talent.
The good thing is certainly progress at BOND 26; many of us may remember times when there was either for years no visible evidence Bond would return (from Dalton to Brosnan) or prospects were significantly more shaky (QOS). I will likewise not expect too drastic a shift, even if I’d be open to a lighter adventure version of 007. In the end BOND 26 has to cut it with much younger people than I am now. I’ll follow the production and wish the team and the new guy all the best for the coming era. If it turns out to be utterly fantastic I’ll be pleasantly surprised and will enjoy it all the more for it.
It is interesting that one of the producers was the studio rep on Craig’s run, then both its director and writer were both at least rumoured to do Craig era Bond films at different points. Certainly would suggest they don’t to go too far from that.
I would add that SAS: Rogue Heroes, Knights series that does have spies, would actually be more comedic than Craig’s run as Bond tended to go.
„I’m hoping that, being a Bond fan for so many years, it will be imbued into me and I will be able to produce something that’s the same but different, and better, stronger and bolder.”
He really is setting himself up for scrutiny here.
Yeah, there’s really no winning when it comes to making statements about getting the Bond assignment, no matter where in the production you fall. He sounds enthusiastic, as does Villneuve, which is good enough for me.
Agreed. It doesn’t have to be a complete reinvention of the franchise, although that would be nice and a preferable outcome, but just doing something different from what EON was doing would be enough. Different types of stories and missions for Bond to go on, as opposed to the last two tenures of the franchise, which were incredibly similar to each other in terms of what they were doing in terms of the storytelling and the themes that they wanted to explore.
So it´s going to be a mix of Eastern Promises, Redemption, Peaky Blinders ans SAS Rogue Heroes with the Schmalz of Allied…so I think you´re dead on with dreary and sinister and no fun for miles to see
I know the Daniel Craig era is/was popular, and the initial urge would be to continue along those lines. However, the James Bond series (admittedly via EON) has often course corrected with each new 007, successfully perceiving the cultural landscape at the time–from the straightforward Sean Connery and George Lazenby eras to the more humorous Roger Moore to the serious Timothy Dalton to the more “fun” Pierce Brosnan to the dour Craig.
Following that history, we are due to have (and I believe need) more light-heartedness/fun with the next 007. Now, it might not be as humorous as Moore or even Brosnan, but we need to have more than what we got with Craig. Some humor and fun along the lines of the Connery era would great. I’m not saying it would have to BE like Connery because nobody can duplicate him, but a balance level of seriousness and humor/fun like that would be ideal.
As for those who are worried about Steven Knight being too serious, that may be true. However, the Bond films have almost always had multiple screenwriters whether credited or not to go over the scripts. So, even if Knight is light on the humor, I would assume (and hope) the powers that be at Amazon would hire at least one writer to bring out some/more humor and fun to get the script where it needs to be.
One thing that encourages me is that Knight (and Denis Villeneuve) really do seem to be big Bond fans and are excited about the gig. So that can’t be a bad thing.
He definitely will deliver the first draft, maybe work with Villeneuve on a second, and then the usual blockbuster process will demand at least one flavour of the month writer, with more uncredited contributions until the Knight draft is only a backbone at best.
I know I can come across as harsh or a sour puss, but I just want to be realistic about this.
Hiring a name writer, a British one, is a smart move, no doubt. But let‘s not forget that this also and maybe even foremost is a strategy. He could be gone as fast as Danny Boyle and John Hodge.
And even that does not mean a thing. In these days of PR speech nobody would say: „Bond? Oh, I never liked those. But the gig pays well and brings huge exposure to my career, so that‘s nice to have going for me now.“
Yes, I’m sure there will be a cowriter that will work with Steven Knight. Remember, that the only Bond movies that arguably have only one writer are LALD and MR. Even though that FRWL, YOLT, OHMSS, and TND have only one credited writer, there were other people who truly helped out for those movies in the story department (particularly on TND). So, we could get another writer along the way, (possibly Villeneuve himself). I think we’ll be surprised on who it could be.
Steven Knight may be bet known as a writer of serious drama today, but he does have a background in comedy. His earliest writing credits are for comedy programs, including the Detectives with Jasper Carrot.
However, I’m sure the tone of his script will depend on his own take on the series. I’d be interested to know his favorite Bond film and actor.
