News Daniel Craig signs up for Bond 25, Christopher Nolan in talks to direct

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/20...-25-christopher-nolan-admits-talks-producers/

 

Still to be fully confirmed, and I'd read something recently where Nolan had said he'd kinda want to do the first one of a new Bond rather than another Craig one. And much as I really admire Nolan do we need another 2.5 hour + bloated Bond film?

Apparently negotiations got a bit tense

 

The Nolan quote (which is hardly conclusive that he's in active talks to direct the next film) reportedly comes from Playboy although the Telegraph doesn't link to any article.

I would be very interested in seeing what Nolan would bring to James Bond.

 

Craig deserves to do one more. SPHINCTRE was such a huge letdown, I hope they can come up with a somewhat original idea this time.

 

Actually, Dunkirk is supposed to be just under two hours. I know, I'm shocked too.

I don't know, as much as I love Craig and his Bond, and as flawed as Spectre was, I thought it was a perfect send off for the Craig Bond. I wouldn't object to another movie with him, but all the same if Spectre were his last that would be fine too.

To be fair, the Bond franchise hasn't exactly been a bastion of originality in a long time. Indeed, all the movies are more or less the same plot when you get down to it.

 

That is shocking, in a good way, I like Nolan a lot, but as with a lot of high profile directors these days he seems to have somewhat lost the ability to edit!

As for plots, well they used to at least vary it a bit. It's important to remember that in 1989 something very unusual happened. Bond went properly rogue. Hadn't really done before and wouldn't really do again until DAD, and then almost every fecking film thereafter (I kinda let Skyfall off the hook because he didn't fake his death to go on a {Archer}RAMPAGE{/Archer} he just wanted to retire) but in every other film of the 21st Century Bond goes rogue, completely disobeys orders. I'd like it if in the next film M gives him a mission and he completes it, or sure he'll cut corners and maybe exceed his orders like he always had, but at the end of the day he'll nominally follow the chain of command and obey his bloody superiors.

I'd also like them to quit psychoanalysing him (we get it because there isn't much psyche there to analyse) and I'd like it if they didn't try to link the next one to every other thing in the Craig era like they did with Spectre.

A longer version of this rant can be found here

 

I love Craig as Bond - Casino Royale is right up there with From Russia With Love in my book, but his films have steadily declined in my opinion. It would be great if he could go out on another high.

I'm not a fan of the Nolan films I've seen, with the exception of The Dark Knight. However, I'm looking forward to Dunkirk and think Nolan might be capable of pulling off a good Bond movie. I'd like to see him give it a shot...

 

Daniel Craig is a horrible James Bond, he doesn't have the look, the feel, the personality of a great Bond. Plus when he was 35 he looked OLD!

But at this rate I would just like a James Bond that isn't 3 hours of useless shit that somehow cost 300 million dollars.

 

I like Craig's portrayal of Bond.

And I hope the movie will be four and a half hours long. I feel like I'm getting better value and more product for the exact same ticket price if the movie is a lot longer. Ninety minute feature films? Pfft, what a ripoff.

Kor

 

I thought that when he was first cast, but he simply owned it in Casino Royale. The walk, the physicality, the air of surpressed violence, and most surprisingly the buried sensitivity and pain. The scene with Vesper in the shower was worth the casting on its own.

 

Brilliant Bond and great to hear he will do one more. I suspect they will carry on from the ending of Spectre and my guess is his new love will have to die to get him back into MI6

 

That's always been my fear if he came back, that we'd just get Spectre 2. One can only hope if that's the case that Waltz and Seydoux get more to sink their teeth into. I'm not very fond of Madeline, but killing her off just to get Bond back in the game would be terribly predictable.

 

I'm sick of Bond movies being a series. I want to go back to the days where they were separate movies with thin threads that tied them together. I'd also like them to be decent again but I guess you can't always get what you want.

 

Am glad they tried something different with the Craig era but I expect them to go back to the old formula for the next actor. The Box Office and general reviews would seem to indicate a positive reception of the Daniel Craig era but you can't please everyone of course

 

Skyfall was definitely a stand-alone story that really had no narrative or thematic connection to the plot-line that ran through both Casino Royale and QoS.

But then SPECTRE came along and did a quick and dirty retcon to messily tie the hitherto separate and disparate CR/QoS and Skyfall storylines together to take full advantage of MGM finally having the rights to use Spectre and Blofeld in film.

Kor

 

I think that's my problem. You want to have a series of Bond movies either plan it better, or just barely connect them like the older series.

 

Yeah there's no reason for Spectre to link to Skyfall, and it diminishes Silva somewhat because there was no indication he was anyone's henchman (clearly Le Chiffre and Dominic Green were). I hate the need to tie everything together, and that's another problem with the modern Bond's everything has to be connected. Why? The rate they're going Bond will probably discover M is his dad and Q is his second cousin twice removed in the next one.

I can understand the idea that making things more intimate can make for a more emotional connection, just not all the time, and this has been a problem with the Bond producers on occasion. when they just redo the same thing without even skipping a film or two. Don't get me wrong, what makes Bond is the tropes (and one of the issues I have with CR and QoS is that in some respects they don't always feel Bond enough) but you can overdo it. Take the two Bond girl trope. Either one's good and one's bad (and will die) or, even if both are good, one of them will die. When it works it's fab (see Goldeneye) but I like it when the trope is subverted as in Dalton's films (TLD has a single Bond girl, LTK has two but they're both on the side of the angels and, crikey, they both survive!) In fairness the DC era has somewhat gotten us out of the 90s notion of this (Natalia/Xenia- Paris/Wei-Lin- Elecktra/Christmas-Jinx/Miranda).

I'd just kinda like an old school adventure next time out. Make it gritty or not, make it realistic or not, I just want it to be self contained, and whether it's about a lunatic who wants to flood Holland or a criminal smuggling heroin out of Afghanistan I'd rather that person was their own boss and not just another retconned flunky of Blofeld.

 

In other news, the fourth NuTrek movie will reveal a previously unknown brilliant, scheming temporal villain who was actually behind the scenes the whole time, plotting, masterminding and orchestrating the operations carried out by Nero, Khan, and Krall in a centuries-long scheme to undermine and erode the Federation out of personal resentment because he was secretly Kirk's long-lost adopted brother in the prime reality who got some bad breaks in life.

Not really, but that's what SPECTRE kind of felt like.

Kor

 

Dr. Evil turning out to be the brother of Austin Powers must have been the first time in history that something is parodied (more than a decade) before it's even introduced in the parodied work. And that's the interpretation of events that's nice to the Bond producers.

 

And the weird thing is that the producers specifically cited Dr Evil and wanting to avoid comparisons then went with the brother story. It's like they only saw the first two AP films!

Spectre works better if you figure Blofeld doesn't give a shit about 007 but is actually fixated on Madeline Swann.