My dream "Bond 26" would be directed by Martin Campbell and starring Henry Cavill, hands down. Regarding the story and tone I would like to see a "back to basic" approach, very much like License to Kill. A very down to earth spy adventure, with just enough tongue-in-cheek to blend the serious tone with some fun light heartiness
I completely agree on Henry Cavill and a simpler mission by mission approach instead of the grand over-arching approach of the Craig era that made the films sooooo boring and self-indulgent. I wouldn't do a period piece, it would limit the scale of the picture without excessive CGI, there's only so many rooms and alleyways you can film, but mostly because unless they do a trilogy then the eventual film would just be an isolated oddity. As for tone, I think somewhere between Living Daylights/Tomorrow Never Dies/Spy Who Loved Me would be right, the world is a gritty place and I wouldn't want to see a "nasty" film now, we need to get back to entertainment as Cubby said!
@@cinemar Fassbender would be a killer bond - Especially after have watched First class. Damn that gave me some Fleming vibes. But I do feel he is getting too old, he is 44 now and probably be in his late 40's before his tenure would even pick up speed.
Although Goldeneye isn’t my personal favorite James Bond movie, I think it’s easily the best. It takes Bond to back his Dark basics while adding the perfect amount of escapism which created the perfect cinematic Bond experience.
I mean, I'm glad Bond films always evolve with different tones. It keeps the franchise from getting stale. After Craig's long era of dark, gritty, and serious Bond (which I loved, BTW), I think the time is right to go back to that Brosnan era of a tad bit campy and light without going overboard and still feeling dangerous. I think the Cuba sequence of NTTD was a good proof of concept for the next Bond.
The problem is that it has the potential to feel overly gimmicky, and they just wouldn't have the balls to represent the period accurately (different gender norms etc.). There's also the product placement problem. They're making way too much off the current sponsorship deals, and those brand deals could never work within a period piece, unless those companies start producing retro looking items lol. There's also the argument that the movies should reflect the time in which they're made, which I kinda agree with. I'd rather see the films reflect the fears and anxieties of each era. Although, setting them in the present does have its drawbacks; like smartphones replacing gadgets, and communication being ever more accessible, to the point where Bond and Q can just be on earpieces for the entire movie, which really can kill suspense.
I agree with you that it would be nice to have someone relatively unknown like Connery, Lazenby, Dalton and Daniel Craig were. Cavil might do a good job but personally i wouldn't want Tom Hardy at all. He just doesn't fit the role in my opinion. Too rough and probably too old already
Hardy can play more up market characters if he tries. Most of his roles have been rougher characters. I think they need to chose somebody that is younger because by the time Hardy plays Bond he will probably be 47. Cavill might get to play 2 or 3 movies in his prime before his age would start to show.
@@bighands69 yeah hardy is a great actor and on screen he definitely can. The trouble is that playing James bond isn't just on screen. He has to be the front man for the brand in tv interviews and on the red carpet and everything else that comes with the role. He's a great actor i just don't see him as a good candidate for bond
I actually like the more"serious" Bond films better at this stage.I prefer a somewhat realistic spy adventure.For example,in From Russia with Love,all the scenes with Robert Shaw were excellent. I also like a kick ass Bond girl like Paloma,or a witty beauty like Vesper as opposed to Stacey Sutton or Tatiana Romanova. It's also important to find good villains that are both menacing and witty which can challenge Bond to make it suspenseful.For example,Scaramanga,Max Zorin,and Raoul Silva as opposed to Elliot Carver or Safin. For a good Bond film you need the right amount of chemistry with the actors and a story that builds with intrigue/suspense/tension. So,if you have the right ingredients,it can be gritty and/or fun.The problem is that a lot of Bond films lack in one area or another.It's really super difficult to put it all together. Craig's era had a lot of good stuff,but other than Le Chiffre and Silva,the villains weren't that interesting.Anyway,I'll leave it there:)
I would LOVE Cavill as Bond. To me, as you said, he just screams 007 to me. And couldn’t agree more about the need to shift to a more action-comedy style of Bond. We really need that after Craig, who don’t get me wrong was insanely good in his own way, but I think Bond should be at least a little bit silly again.
I'm on the Michael Fassbender train for the last decade. I think he could do brooding, suave, cool, charming, and rough. I think he'd be perfect. Cavill would be good, I believe he'd be very much a Brosnan type. He'd have to lose some muscle though imo. I think Hardy's a bit too rough for my idea of Bond.
Fassbender like Hardy is too old both of them will be pushing 47 before they play the role. Bond needs to be younger and more physicals. Perfect choice would have been Cavill 5 years ago. Brosnan was also too old when he got the role. His first movie he really looked the part but by the end he was getting too old. Same happened to Craig.
I hope Henry Cavill or Tom Hardy could take over as James Bond and I hope that Martin Campbell or Christopher Nolan to Direct Bond 26 and I have loved this video and I loved hearing your thoughts on both the future of the series and Bond 26
Fassbender would have been awesome in 40s-60s periodic Bond, rooted for him since I saw Inglorious Bastards. Too bad he is too old now :( To me he looks like Bond from the books.
I would personally like the next Bond to be an un known or little known actor. I remember I had only seen Daniel Craig in Layer Cake before he became Bond. If it had to be a well known actor, Henry Cavill would probably be the best choice.
@@ramencurry6672 Why? 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂 Hed be fucking terrible, hes about 65kg wringing wet, looks like a boy and looks like he would get blown over by a light breeze. Bond is supposed to be tough, not some woke millenial wimp.
I've said this as well. Around brosnan people said it was jaded and out of date, a 'relic of the Cold war' which in a way never truly "ended" if you will
@@Mark-lj1dj The key to him taking on Russians would be for him to taken on smaller organisations rather than the state. But it would be best to wait a few years before going down the Russian route.
@@Mark-lj1dj 100% fair enough. I saw him in two very different roles, happy Valley and grandchester, and I think he has the ability. Unfortunately, or fortunately, it's not our decision 🤷♂️🙂
I totally agree on the "period piece" idea. I would love to see Bond back in the post-WWII time and I think they could easily jump in time and cover the time during the Cold War, over 3-4 movies. And there might be room for some humour, perhaps some comments to reference things in the old movies. I think that product placement could work, perhaps in clothing, retro watches. And I'm sure some car producer can create a model for Bond.
Henry Cavill is really the frontrunner for role at this time with the current crop of British actors. He has the looks, physique, and acting chops to pull it off. He also has box office recognition and clout behind him. He's not an unknown and has proven he got weight behind him with regards to lead roles.
Henry Cavil, Tom Hardy and Aidan Turner are the perfect options for me. I think Turner is most likely to get it though. I’d hope EON would realize this year is the perfect time to bring in a new actor and get going on a new Bond movie. NTTD did well monetarily so I’d think they’d wanna build on that hype and success into this year. I’d like a Bond movie in the 50s-60s too but idk if EON is willing to do that
I only have 3 wishes 1. Back to a more fun and less melodramatic Bond. Unlikely though since dark is still all the rage 2. Back to stand alone films, I wasn’t a fun of linking all the Craig era films together. I’m happy to go back to stand-alone films that don’t have to tie into their predecessors. 3. More spy stuff.
If they do not want Bond sleeping around and using women why not have him friendly flirting with the women that is fun. They have taken out the fantasy from Bond and replaced with a joyless culture of dread.
Imagine a Tom Hardy and Christopher Nolan Bond trilogy set either in WWII with Bond in the navy or set in the 1950’s-1960’s. Because of Hardy’s age have it come out every 2 years like in the 70’s and 80’s.
It would be amazing but would never happen. There are other great directors out there as well other than Nolan who is tied up now with his next big project.
Not sure why people assume Nolan and Hardy go hand in hand. He cast JD Washington for Tenet [where Hardy was absent] so he'd probably go for someone else [and I can't see Nolan doing it without having full control].
I totally agree with Henry Cavil as Bond. I mean watch any interview he's in with women. They almost always swoon over the guy. I think that's a good start to playing Bond.
Hey DutchBondFan,I just wanted give my opinion on where the bond Franchise should go and as someone who personally grew up on Austin Powers and recently watched every Kingsman movies,I think the biggest issue with the Bond Franchise is that it overcorrected itself and is taking itself way to seriously and has removed alot of the Fantasy of being a super Spy. Kingsman really feels like an updated version of the Roger Moore era of films down to the eccentric villians,the even more eccentric henchmen,and the Evil Lair in a beautiful location.
I really like the idea of an 60 or 70 Bond I doubt we will get it but if they do it I'm pretty sure many oldschool fans would appreciate it as well. As for Bond himself I really believe we will get someone who isn't even on anyone's real wishlist. In the end I would like to see Henry Cavill or Tom Hardy if they go the oldschool Bond way or even if they just stick we the current time-line, both seem interesting and ready to nail it
Honestly, I agree with everything you said! A period piece Trilogy, or even just a fun reinvention of classic bond would be awesome! Let’s stay hopeful for the future and enjoy our beloved Spy’s 60th anniversary.
No more comical and dull Austin Powers twist rip offs. No more attempts to tie everything together directly. No more anticlimax third acts. No more 2 1/2 hour runtimes. Bond 26 needs to have learned it’s lessons from the Craig era, and hopefully be a fun cinematic experience again. As for score, I hope that David Arnold or Hans Zimmer return to compose, and as for Bond, we’ll have to see…
@@greatwuta I don’t mind 2 1/2 hour runtimes in general, but the last three films have gone in that direction, and it would be nice if it was more in line with the 1 5/6 - 2 1/6 hour runtimes that the old Bond films (except OHMSS) went for.
@@nethaendafendr You know why another reason why I think 2.5 hour runtime is the norm in today's films is because the closing credits is counted during the runtime.
Henry Cavill is pure 007! If the producers don't get on with it and let Cavill strut stuff they are stupid, he is the man to put the fun back into Bond and boy does the world need it!
Came here after The Man from U.N.C.L.E. movie starring Henry Cavill and I agree with you. I would love to see him played as James Bond. I hope his incarnation will be brought back the original roots from Ian Fleming's novels mixed with some elements from Sean Connery & Timothy Dalton with serious "back to basic" tone to the both old and new generation of movie audiences with Martin Campbell or Christopher Nolan as the director. Oh and I would love to see Timothy Dalton himself returns to the series as the new "M"(or maybe Felix Leitter), witnessing the first time an actor who played as Bond to be play a different character like M with Cavill played the new Bond. We can see a passing of a torch of a legend to another. I can't wait what looks like in the future.
i'd like to see a Bond film go back to the 1960's with the 60's spy tech of that age. It would be interesting to see that the twist would be that MI6 is the villain.
Yes, I think they should do a hard reboot once again but keep the stories timeless by keeping it cold war era. The lifestyle in the 50's was really classy.
Henry Cavill for Bond and Martin Campbell to direct. Hows about that? Also I would like them to get them out quickly, every 2 years like back in the day, or 3 years at the most.
@@bighands69 True but I think the budget will be more in the region of $100-200 million rather than the $250-300 of the recent Craig movies simply as a new Bond hasn't yet built an audience [and I expect the MI6 regulars, if there in it, will be new, cheaper actors].
You know since they’re rebooting the whole thing they could finally do the series properly by doing them in order of which the books went in instead of doing them randomly out of order like the old movies did.
I think that idea I would love for a TV series. Maybe 1.30 hour for each episode. Season 1 would be Bond versus SMERSH and Season 2 would feature the later books going agains SPECTRE for example. I think for movies it would get to confusing and predictable to do all of the books again, all of which titles we already have had.
All of the original books have been made into a movie (I could be wrong). I think they need to focus on new stories. And they need to keep the directors out of the script and story writing. The come in with their own big agendas and want to make it all about their project. Bond production needs its own writing team that they can stick with and the actor is there ot play the role and not for the role to become about the actor. The Craig era has been a disaster of epic proportions.
@@bighands69 And yet the Craig era have all been critical [no film below 60% on Rotten tomatoes] and commercial successes and Bond has received Oscar recognition which was rare in the past.
@@bighands69 The early Bond directors stamped there own style on the film [such as Peter Hunt with OHMSS] and the previous Bond's also had influences on the story [such as Roger Moore objecting to his Bond hitting women after 'Golden Gun'] so it's nothing new. Directors and actors will, and deserve to have, input which is true for most films.
I think that if the next Bond will be set in a retro world it will be for just one film. It's because if this approach fails it will be difficult to make continuous movies with the same actor. But one can dream
Good idea about the Bond reset. The Ian Fleming books are so brilliant. Why not simply redo the old books from the old times, but with modern actors and filmography. They could be more true to the books than the original movies.
I completely agree on Henry Cavill and a simpler mission by mission approach instead of the grand over-arching approach of the Craig era that made the films sooooo boring and self-indulgent. I wouldn't do a period piece, it would limit the scale of the picture without excessive CGI, there's only so many rooms and alleyways you can film, but mostly because unless they do a trilogy then the eventual film would just be an isolated oddity. As for tone, I think somewhere between Living Daylights/Tomorrow Never Dies/Spy Who Loved Me would be right, the world is a gritty place and I wouldn't want to see a "nasty" film now, we need to get back to entertainment as Cubby said!
Yes I thought that was a good pickup regarding Kingsman. It has definitely stolen some of Bonds thunder. It's cheekiness is what works. So yes it probably would be a welcome return to form if they played it tongue in cheek. Roger Moore's Bond is a perfect example. On the one hand you have Moonraker which is sooo over the top (but alot of fun btw) and on the other you have For your Eyes only. Which by some is considered to be Moores best. If you go poe faced grim you can't be funny. But if go tongue in cheek then there's room to go either way.
Sometimes you have to go backwards to go forwards - an excellent idea Dutchie and I totally agree! Let's go back to the 50's, 60's and really embrace the era and all that it has to offer in terms of flexibility and limitless possibilities! Great channel.
Casino royale was an effective updating of the original novel. Maybe the producers could try this with the other novels, firming them in the correct order. It would be great to see. Thunderball, majesty and for your eyes only done as a proper trilogy this time.
I keep thinking about the age issue: as of writing, Tom Hardy is 44 years old and Idis Elba is 49. Both ages are realistically tough to justify for a reboot (and Tom Hardy is hardly much taller than Tom Cruise). Maybe you can get away with the idea of a experienced individual finally getting to 00(7) status, but you would want someone younger. Henry Cavill - well, can you picture anyone who looks more than Bond should look (of course, in the real world he would be too insanely good looking to be a spy!)? But even at 38...it is not ideal. My ideal Bond would be someone in their early to mid 30s at the reboot, background story is 5-10 years military service, the balance in intelligence. Physically, Daniel Craig has set the minimal (high) standard: lean and athletic. Henry Cavill's superman like build is closer to a body builder but also more than saleable. Height would ideally be minimal 182 cm, ideally a bit taller. Henry Cavill looks are hard to come by, but they would keep the franchise strong with females and that has to be a consideration. But basically, you want dark, swarthy, brutal good looks, rather than some pretty boy who came from a Versace ad. One other thing that Daniel Craig had was a voice that owned the role: he somehow made it powerful, menacing, intriguing: there was tension, discipline, danger in it. Hopefully that will also be a feature of Bond 26.
Robert Pattinson is my pick, although Henry Cavil is a close second! Robert has proven his acting chops in The Lighthouse, not to mention his physicality in The Batman. He's young enough to do a whole spate of movies. Personally, I'd break away from the same tired formula, and distill Bond down to a much simpler premise. No comedy, larger than life plots or villains. I'd like to see Bond's time in the Navy, his motivations for joining MI6 etc.
I also like the idea of a 1950's period piece. That would be a good way to move the series forward while also honoring its history. Classic Cold War espionage would be a nice change of pace after all the modern technology in the Craig films.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I hope they don't mess with the character. The pressure will be there to do so. I'm not convinced it would succeed so it could backfire on them. I agree that the next Bond will likely be an unknown or less known actor. As for the tone of the films, I've been thinking about the 80s films and what John Glen did. He managed to balance a grittier Bond with some campiness. Okay, sometimes too much campiness. Overall it was a good balance. I would like to see what Nolan would do. Also would like to see what Boyle had in mind. The added benefit of Boyle is that there was a story in place, which might help get 26 out sooner.
The Bond Geek did a video on Boyle's idea which was a 'modern Cold War' idea with Bond taking on Russia. Perhaps more topical now than in 2018/19 but unlikely to happen as long as China is Russia's ally. I don't think Eon were that impressed with the script and wanted to bring other writers in which lead to Boyle's departure. Nolan is a bit of an unknown quantity given he's praised Timothy Dalton and OHMSS, but has also said 'The Spy Who Loved Me' is a fav. I suppose Tenet/Inception, which included Bond tropes with a Sci Fi twist, gives and idea of where he would go.
@Greg Elchert Throw in the fact he also worked behind the scenes on both OHMSS and Moonraker-show's his range [and he made is debut with the down to earth for Roger FYEO].
I do agree Naomi Harris was my favorite Moneypenny. In the original 20 movies, M and Q's role evolved but Moneypenny remained largely static so it was nice to see the character having more to do in Craig's films.
After such a huge turn of events in NoTimetoDie, I would like to see them do a little experiment; Do a few "one off" James Bond movies, and don't sign the actors to contracts. I wasn't the biggest fan of the Daniel Craig era, or how it ended, but it did show that they could go in new and interesting directions. Do a Henry Cavil James Bond movie, but set it in the 1960s. Follow up with an Idis Elba Bond movie, with an older and wiser Bond like in Never Say Never Again. A Rege-Jean Page film. A Henry Golding film. Tom Hardy. Cillian Murphy. Let them all have a chance. Doesn't really matter if they're getting "up there" in years, because it would always be intended to be a "George Lazenby" approach to the role. And if one particularly clicks, and is suitable, then run with a few movies with them. It doesn't HAVE to be a decades long role. Just bring back the suave, please. That's something that Craig's era was lacking too much of, for me. Like the actor. Didn't care for the brutish, brooding, Bond. So let's try a buffet of Bonds.
Danny Boyle said he's never working on a franchise film ever again after the way he was treated while working on Bond, because there's too much studio control. As for Nolan, I want him to make more original films. Nolan is one of the few directors studios trust to make original movies.
Keep Bond dark gritty and realistic. In my opinion the Daniel Craig era was the best. I got back into the bond films because of the change from the silly unrealistic stunts and narrow escape scenes that opened all the previous Bond scenes. It was also a relief to see a man who physically looked like he could do all the gritty fight scenes. When Pierce Bronson or Timothy Dalton was shirtless I was like nawwwwww Bruh!...
Henry Cavill potentially being the next James Bond makes sense since he was considered to play the role for Casino Royale, but he was overweight at the time. The only thing I can think of right now to continue with the films is to do a follow up to Die Another Day, but I’m not sure if Eon are willing to do that because it would have to be obvious that we’re going back to the first timeline of James Bond. There are countless ways they can do to continue the series, so it’s up to them to decide.
I think Henry could do it. I just feel that the general origin of James Bond still makes sense. His parents died from falling on a mountain climb, he has a dead wife, and he is designated 007. Edit: Get the director from Goldeneye or Licence to Kill back
Licence to Kill director John Glenn is 89 and long retired. Goldeneye director Martin Campbell is still working but is 78 [though I don't want to be ageist] and his recent films haven't set the world on fire so I'll be surprised if he got the nod.
The old James Bond is retired! This is the next century! A lot of things have changed! James Bond may have had a son, aside from a daughter before he died! His son has discovered his dad left him with a legacy to carry on with finding out he inherited his father's traits in becoming a new-age James Bond! He doesn't smoke, drink, nor do drugs, and is well-educated to deal with a new world that needs new changes! Good luck, Aidan Turner!
Excellent video! I love your idea of a trifecta of 60's era period films. I also believe Henry Cavill may have a better chance than advertised...after all, Pierce Brosnan was a TV star before being cast his 2nd time around so it's not just no-names who get the call! We can only hope! My top 2 pics are Cavil and Aidan Turner
My last True Bond was Pierce Brosnam. And I was a passionate fan since the Connery era. Simply, the Craig’s entries didn’t get me. Now, I am more an observer than an aficionado, that once I was.
the people that say they want bond to be black or a women etc. aren't really bond fans not saying i would hate a black bond he would have to be right i just dont think they should change him
I'm black and even I don't want to see a Black Bond. Write the character as the character was written. Sorry no female, gay, Chinese, Latin or trans Bonds for me.
As for casting Bond my 3 candidates are: Dan Stevens (apparently he can speak fluent French and German. Coincidence or meant for the role?) Chris Hemsworth (He'd make Bond fun again) Tom Cullen (he has shades of Connery in him, I noticed this in the film "The Other Half")
First off, great stuff. Great video, great thoughts, great points. My initial tendency and pick runs to Cavill as Bond being chosen, but I can definitely see Tom Hardy in the role. When Craig was chosen for Bond, my top choice was Michael Fassbender at the time. Now he's older than I want him to be to start out the franchise for a new run. Idris Elba is another great choice and been in the conversation for a long time, but older than I want to be to start out the franchise. That being said, Tom Hardy is as about as old as Fassbender, but I find him to be more youthful and fitting for today's James Bond, so I give him an out there. But Cavill is at the right place in his career and at the right age and time. And it's very hard to beat that natural Bond imagery in one's mind. Smooth, debonair, strong and in his prime. Richard Madden is also an excellent choice for the look of Bond and young for longevity. But I would like to stick to the British pick of actors. Granted, Sean Connery wasn't British and he was the first and positively iconic Bond of Bonds, but I very much like the theme of British actors being Bond and want to stick with that theme. Craig's personality for Bond was very much right on the money, especially with the times we're in. Craig's Bond personality wouldn't have to be maintained in my opinion, but going forward, the new Bond would need to have that signature tone that makes sense for this world and time and similarly made Daniel Craig so great out the gate. If I were going for Cavill as Bond, I wouldn't give his Bond's personality the smoothness it seems like he has given his look and demeanor. Not just because of Daniel Craig's portrayal but because, he may seem to some to be too cookie cutter for the role and safe based on look alone. Those of us who are into movies, should know that he's not, given his roles in Mission: Impossible - Fallout, Immortals, The Witcher or Man From U.N.C.L.E. - he has proven range in his acting abilities to do whatever he wants and carve out a charismatic Bond. But to accommodate for his look, the added element of edge would be very necessary to make a point of for him I feel. I'd give Cavill the edge of early Pierce Brosnan's Bond, the brute rawness of Daniel Craig's Bond and for his portrayal of Bond, probably make him the most technically skilled Bond there has ever been to show he's not phoning in his skills at a whim. I'd give him a Sherlock Holmes quality to his deductive reasoning (a character he has also played). I would do this to show that he is built for this quite literally and excels at it. Anybody that dare to step to him would be a fool and his enemies are there for his disposal. And I'd like to highlight some of the things Cavill does on his own like jiu-jitsu. Showing that Bond has this ability in his arsenal is like showing how much Bond has trained over the years in different forms of combat to finish off his adversaries. More technical aspects of Bond all day. Why is he so skilled? Why is he this good? Why he is truly a 00-caliber agent? Why he is considered one of the best of the best, if not arguably the best the Secret Service has. For Tom, he already seems to have that natural roguish element to him and the look that even though his Bond is clearly amazing at what he does, he'd still walk a fine line to serving England and be borderline fed up risking it all as a 00 agent and struggling with the dichotomy. Tom Hardy's Bond looks like he wears that dichotomy on his face already to me as an actor whereas Cavill's face seems as if he simply lives for the moment to be an agent without thinking twice. Tom Hardy's Bond in my mind seems like danger would follow him so to speak and he'd never really get much of a moment's peace because he's simply that guy. That's a good thing in my opinion, regarding to an interesting story. It'll be very interesting to see how they want to go about things and what they want to carve out of this new Bond. My main idea on the subject or what I'd like to see is that this new run not being about the beginning (done that) and for longevity sake, it won't be about the end of his career right now either. Let's meet him right in the middle. I can see "finding his why" being a very key theme in the next version of Bond. I can see the idea of self-discovery leading his compass this go-around than just passively accepting the inherent duties of his role. I'd like that the daily struggle for what he does and why he's doing it to be more prominent than ever in this next run... feeling more conflicted by the agency as to why his life was taken from him in service to England supposedly, the feeling of his life being disposable... and then discovering why he chooses to stay an agent for better or worse, and if it's for his own plans and purposes. Bringing more emotion and feelings to Bond's role and undoing his training to a degree opens him up as a character, just as I feel it did with Craig's Bond, but of course, we can seek to take it to a new level with this new Bond so that we can see why he does what he does rather than him just going with it and never considering he had a choice. Something like this has the ability to be a singular movie all in itself or could be extended over the course of the run of the new Bond. And this basically could come out of a perceived mid-life crisis or mid-career crisis that has him question the totality of his life and what he wants out of it. I feel like it gives him more layers as a character than him just blindly serving Queen and Country or to save millions or the world. It's a noble, courageous quality to just do it for those reasons, but because he was chosen for this life of servitude being an orphan and not ever of his own accord, it has the opportunity as a character for us to continue digging into his psyche as to what makes him tick and get more story out of our leading man. Though other 00 agents are going out into the field, he could question and have conflict regarding why his life is repeatedly on the line amidst all the other agents that could be called upon. Maybe even an added element by someone crooked within the British government regarding why he is selected often and pushed to be out in the field to potentially die sooner and cover what was done to him or to his family. This someone could be the villain of the story. And it leads Bond to clean house so to speak within the British government and gives him self-discovery within his life and family. And in the midst of it, we can see the empathy that seeps into his character's bones to be able to give his all on these missions like he does on a regular basis. We've seen some of these elements over time in some of the Bond films, but I'd make it more heightened and personal that ever so that even the very organization Bond works for has individuals within it that is secretly in cahoots against him. It takes the indestructability and excessive bravado that the character can seem to have and breaks it down for the character to move in new and different ways. And it could reveal over decades of the character being in film why he treats women and relationships the way he has in his line of work and why he may want to change that because now he realizes he really does have a choice in how he wants to live his life. I'd really want to build off that theme of finding what his commitment is beyond his skill and service to England. Playing up that struggle and finding deeper purpose for his selfless mission feels like the meat and potatoes of an interesting start for his story in my opinion.
I am kind of fascinating of the idea to put the next bond period back into the 60s or maybe 50s. Kind of back to basics, to give that period a touch of the present. But more realistic, more like From Russia With Love then Thunderball. But that could be too similiar to the Napoleon Solo of Cavill.
My predictions for Bond 26, if not for entire new tenure, regarding every aspect of it: who will play James Bond, who will direct and write the movie, what and who will appear and who won't in it and why, what the supporting characters like M, Q, Ms Moneypenny, Felix Leiter be like and why, can be summed up by saying: I feel like something big is coming, something like nothing we have seen up to that point, something controversial, maybe even polarizing - not everybody will like it, some may see it as a dealbreaker. Some will love it, some will hate it, but it's definitely something nobody expects. The truth might turn out crazier than speculations. I think Bond will venture all in head-first into completely uncharted waters. Think about it - a new clear slate opened and it's used to the maximum: Bond could be played by somebody completely unknown, someone whose name is not even mentioned among the possible choices. And the actor can even not be from Britain - George Lazenby was Australian so there's that loophole. He was accepted because, while not British, he was still from within the Commonwealth. The former British Empire was so vast it gives so much diverse potential to choose from. I can totally picture EON making use of said. Same goes for the director and screenwriters: EON could choose somebody completely unknown - maybe not a literal no-name, but what if someone with not-so-huge experience would be given his...or even her breakaway point, a chance to shine? Perhaps someone from the TV or streaming? They are owned by Amazon - maybe they will choose someone from Prime Video to direct and write? We spend much time about deliberating whether Bond will be black or female - but I dare to ask: what if the DIRECTOR and/or screenwriter(s) was/were female or POC? This is an aspect nobody is talking about, and I believe in current climate in cinema is not so ridiculous thing to bring up. Still talking about writers - maybe Phoebe Waller-Bridge will return as a writer? Maybe she will get a bigger part in writing B26? As for "going woke" and "being reworked for the modern audience" - it will likely happen, and we can do nothing about it. The question is not "if it happens", rather: "to what degree it happens". We've already got a sample of that in NTTD with Nomi becoming 007 and Bond dying, I believe they can push it even more forward. But I believe the reinvention would go much deeper than what Bond looks like or whom he sleeps with. I believe they are going for subverting the core basics that made Bond who he is for this 60 years, potentially wiping out the past, the legacy, to build something new from the ground up. Or maybe even from the underground up. If they'll feel really ballsy they can go for altering the world created by Ian Fleming himself. What if we'll get M, Q, Ms Moneypenny, Felix Leiter, MI6 etc. in versions like we never seen them before, or more precisely: we never expected them to see? That's what I feel is happening: EON is probably going for thinking completely outside of the box. Or maybe I am the fool here and this time EON will play it safe and go back to said basics? Only the future knows.
I recommend you watch an episode of the show called TIMELESS, Party at Castle Varlar. Sean Maguire plays Ian Fleming in the 40's behind enemy lines. My favourite episode of Television by far.
@@DutchBondFan I understand where you're coming from DBF, however I'm of an age where I can say that I saw Dr No in the cinema in 1962 and every movie since,and killing off Bond was the final curtain on what has been an excellent ( with one or two exceptions ) series.
@@moodyguymick Spectre was Craig's final Bond movie to me, with him driving off into the sunset with the girl with a smile on his face. James Bond was James Bond from 1962-2015.
"It is the ability to play the role well,that counts"..(whoever is selected to play Bond)..and let us always remember what Ian Fleming wanted in that fascinating character: Gallantry,boldness,self confidence,ironic sense of humor,and action,always related to a plot that has to do with current world events,and villain protagonists that play out within those world events.
I would love to see a Christopher Nolan take on James Bond. He makes incredible movies with trademark soundtracks. An even earlier origin story could be interesting as a one off.
What about a retro looking one, with 60s themes and design (clothing, cars, even the Cold War) but with modern day techs (smartphones, internet, streaming). This way they could include modern ads, but the classic feel could be there too. Pretty much like in the animated series Archer.
Oh my days, I also thought how would I bring back bond as the man from Flemings books, I came to your solution set bond back in the 50/60s so glad others feel the same way.
BLOODY BRILLIANT!!!! Your are so right on everything word on the video !! NO WE DO NOT WANT OR NEED A BLACK BOND , James Bond is a white British man , and NO ‘ that is not being racist!!!! Henry would be the perfect bond the way you edited this video is absolutely brilliant !!!!
I agree with everything you say - I can't see how they could continue with a modern day Bond - it just isn't fun ! Going back in time from the late 40s to the late 60s would be great - No PC, the gadgets, the clothes, the cars, the whole image shouts JAMES BOND !! Even the new novels are all set in the past. Nolan and Hardy would be tremendous for this ( a trilogy is a nice idea) Keep up the good content.
You say ''no pc' but just because a film is set in the past does not mean that it won't try to reflect modern sensibilities [Benedict Cumberbatch's character in 'Thinker Tailor...' being gay, expanded female roles in adaptions of SS:GB and The Ipcress File]. People talk about period pieces as if there are some 'magic wand against PC' when that is not the case. Period pieces also cost an absolute fortune so need to attract as wide an audience as possible so it will try to be positive especially with female characters. The novels are set in the past because most are trying to be part of Fleming's canon which only covers the 50's-60's. You can do the books in a period setting as they are aimed at a more niche /die hard audience than the movies [and Man from uncle and the king's men hardly set the box office alight]. Nolan has said that 'The Spy Who Loved Me' is his fav Bond so his take might be more fun and I agree on a trilogy, especially as it will be easier to get the films out every 3 years if it's a pre-planned story.
For me, the best actor for the next and new James Bond is Henry Cavill ; a good and charismatic actor who fits perfectly with the famous 007 ; I watched him in the movie "the man of UNCLE", very good performance in a spy character !
I’d love to see Martin Campbell return or Christopher Nolan get a shot at Bond. I think Aidan Turner, Richard Madden or Sam Heughan would make good Bonds and feel like they actually have a realistic shot of securing the role, unlike many frequently mentioned actors like Cavill, Hardy, Elba, etc.
I was thinking exactly of a Bond sat on the 60s, light hearted, when I saw Kingsmen. Totally agree with you, except I wouldn't go for a trlilogy, but for a single fantastic adventure, and my man would be Michael Fassbender. No Nolan, thou, he's incredible but his tone and editing is too personal. Congrats for the channel, I love your reviews and point of view
I like the idea of a period piece James Bond series. Why not? Sherlock Holmes works year after year. I would also like to see a remake of the early Bond films with a closer adaptation to the books and modern film technology.
I like Cavill as bond the most. He's a busy man but has my vote.
My dream "Bond 26" would be directed by Martin Campbell and starring Henry Cavill, hands down.
Regarding the story and tone I would like to see a "back to basic" approach, very much like License to Kill.
A very down to earth spy adventure, with just enough tongue-in-cheek to blend the serious tone with some fun light heartiness
But Cavil would have to lose some bulk. I do not need to see Superman play Bond.
I completely agree on Henry Cavill and a simpler mission by mission approach instead of the grand over-arching approach of the Craig era that made the films sooooo boring and self-indulgent. I wouldn't do a period piece, it would limit the scale of the picture without excessive CGI, there's only so many rooms and alleyways you can film, but mostly because unless they do a trilogy then the eventual film would just be an isolated oddity. As for tone, I think somewhere between Living Daylights/Tomorrow Never Dies/Spy Who Loved Me would be right, the world is a gritty place and I wouldn't want to see a "nasty" film now, we need to get back to entertainment as Cubby said!
@@cinemar
He has an athletic shape and it would not be difficult for him to make the changes.
@@bighands69 I wouldn't mind Cavil as Bond but personally I'd prefer Fassbender. Watch the xmen movie set in the sixties and you'll see what I mean.
@@cinemar Fassbender would be a killer bond - Especially after have watched First class. Damn that gave me some Fleming vibes. But I do feel he is getting too old, he is 44 now and probably be in his late 40's before his tenure would even pick up speed.
I want to see Henry Cavill as bond. That guy has the look, mannerism, everything to do the role. Thats' it.
His to old
@@filipesousa6029 he still 2 years younger than brosnan in goldeneye which is 41 y/o
Too wooden
Roger moore was 45 when he started
Aidan Turner.
I want the Bond films to go back to the sensibility of Goldeneye. It just struck the right balance.
I completely agree!
@@DutchBondFan 🥰
Although Goldeneye isn’t my personal favorite James Bond movie, I think it’s easily the best. It takes Bond to back his Dark basics while adding the perfect amount of escapism which created the perfect cinematic Bond experience.
I mean, I'm glad Bond films always evolve with different tones. It keeps the franchise from getting stale. After Craig's long era of dark, gritty, and serious Bond (which I loved, BTW), I think the time is right to go back to that Brosnan era of a tad bit campy and light without going overboard and still feeling dangerous. I think the Cuba sequence of NTTD was a good proof of concept for the next Bond.
@@jasonshaneyfelt1039 Completely agree!
I agree with you 100%. And if EON changes Bond's race and/or gender they will lose this lifetime fan.
That might just seal it
Idc about race, just as long as he’s from the British isles.
I do like the period piece idea. Ian Fleming's Bond. The 1950s. That would be awesome.
The problem is that it has the potential to feel overly gimmicky, and they just wouldn't have the balls to represent the period accurately (different gender norms etc.). There's also the product placement problem. They're making way too much off the current sponsorship deals, and those brand deals could never work within a period piece, unless those companies start producing retro looking items lol. There's also the argument that the movies should reflect the time in which they're made, which I kinda agree with. I'd rather see the films reflect the fears and anxieties of each era. Although, setting them in the present does have its drawbacks; like smartphones replacing gadgets, and communication being ever more accessible, to the point where Bond and Q can just be on earpieces for the entire movie, which really can kill suspense.
Amen brother! The early Cold War was Bond at his best.
I'd love to see this. And he better be drinking and smoking just as much as written!
I agree with you that it would be nice to have someone relatively unknown like Connery, Lazenby, Dalton and Daniel Craig were. Cavil might do a good job but personally i wouldn't want Tom Hardy at all. He just doesn't fit the role in my opinion. Too rough and probably too old already
Hardy can play more up market characters if he tries. Most of his roles have been rougher characters.
I think they need to chose somebody that is younger because by the time Hardy plays Bond he will probably be 47.
Cavill might get to play 2 or 3 movies in his prime before his age would start to show.
@@bighands69 yeah hardy is a great actor and on screen he definitely can. The trouble is that playing James bond isn't just on screen. He has to be the front man for the brand in tv interviews and on the red carpet and everything else that comes with the role. He's a great actor i just don't see him as a good candidate for bond
I also far prefer an unknown that can grow into the role.
@@jamesatkinsonja definitely. Somebody young enough and hungry for the role
I actually like the more"serious" Bond films better at this stage.I prefer a somewhat realistic spy adventure.For example,in From Russia with Love,all the scenes with Robert Shaw were excellent.
I also like a kick ass Bond girl like Paloma,or a witty beauty like Vesper as opposed to Stacey Sutton or Tatiana Romanova.
It's also important to find good villains that are both menacing and witty which can challenge Bond to make it suspenseful.For example,Scaramanga,Max Zorin,and Raoul Silva as opposed to Elliot Carver or Safin.
For a good Bond film you need the right amount of chemistry with the actors and a story that builds with intrigue/suspense/tension.
So,if you have the right ingredients,it can be gritty and/or fun.The problem is that a lot of Bond films lack in one area or another.It's really super difficult to put it all together.
Craig's era had a lot of good stuff,but other than Le Chiffre and Silva,the villains weren't that interesting.Anyway,I'll leave it there:)
I would LOVE Cavill as Bond. To me, as you said, he just screams 007 to me. And couldn’t agree more about the need to shift to a more action-comedy style of Bond. We really need that after Craig, who don’t get me wrong was insanely good in his own way, but I think Bond should be at least a little bit silly again.
No more gender politics. No more female James Bond. Just Bond being himself and we having fun watching him succeed.
Probably they’re going to go with a strong black transgender woman fighting the peril of toxic masculinity!
@@noahdanielg that'd be better than Spectre
@@jaimemurphy2208 At least more entertaining probably
@@noahdanielg They can release a short of it on amazon if they do it well.
I hope the next Bond becomes more like connery...confident guy who is strong and behaves normally to women, and not like a clueless idiot.
I'm on the Michael Fassbender train for the last decade. I think he could do brooding, suave, cool, charming, and rough. I think he'd be perfect. Cavill would be good, I believe he'd be very much a Brosnan type. He'd have to lose some muscle though imo. I think Hardy's a bit too rough for my idea of Bond.
Fassbender like Hardy is too old both of them will be pushing 47 before they play the role. Bond needs to be younger and more physicals. Perfect choice would have been Cavill 5 years ago. Brosnan was also too old when he got the role. His first movie he really looked the part but by the end he was getting too old. Same happened to Craig.
I loved him in the Alien Prequels.
I hope Henry Cavill or Tom Hardy could take over as James Bond and I hope that Martin Campbell or Christopher Nolan to Direct Bond 26 and I have loved this video and I loved hearing your thoughts on both the future of the series and Bond 26
Fassbender would have been awesome in 40s-60s periodic Bond, rooted for him since I saw Inglorious Bastards. Too bad he is too old now :( To me he looks like Bond from the books.
I agree he was great in that film!
I would personally like the next Bond to be an un known or little known actor. I remember I had only seen Daniel Craig in Layer Cake before he became Bond. If it had to be a well known actor, Henry Cavill would probably be the best choice.
Cavill is too cheesy
Harry Styles would be good.
@@ramencurry6672 Why? 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂
Hed be fucking terrible, hes about 65kg wringing wet, looks like a boy and looks like he would get blown over by a light breeze.
Bond is supposed to be tough, not some woke millenial wimp.
@@sandersson2813
Cavill is not cheesy why would you think that?
@@bighands69 He is the definition of cheesy.
All these chisseled actors like Cruise, Pitt, Clooney etc are cheesy.
If the last few weeks have proven anything it is that Bond is not outdated and irrelevant. New Cold War Bond movies!
The james bond of the books taking on the Russians suddenly became relevant again
Totally agree.
I've said this as well. Around brosnan people said it was jaded and out of date, a 'relic of the Cold war' which in a way never truly "ended" if you will
@@Mark-lj1dj
The key to him taking on Russians would be for him to taken on smaller organisations rather than the state.
But it would be best to wait a few years before going down the Russian route.
Given China is an ally of Russia I can't see Bond doing that given it would lose a massive film market.
For me, 2024 for a film release. James Norton for Bond. Directed in a style similar to The Living Daylights or Goldeneye.
I know its not a good thing to say but i don't really think he fits the role. Just not quite handsome or rugged enough. Just my opinion
@@Mark-lj1dj 100% fair enough. I saw him in two very different roles, happy Valley and grandchester, and I think he has the ability. Unfortunately, or fortunately, it's not our decision 🤷♂️🙂
@@paulcharter9066 i do agree though a slightly more classic feel might be welcome. Living daylights and goldeneye had a very good feel about them
@@paulcharter9066 I think he's a lot better as a support [Happy Valley which he was great in] than the lead [McMafia was very disappointing].
@@Mark-lj1dj disagree about him not being handsome or rugged enough
I totally agree on the "period piece" idea. I would love to see Bond back in the post-WWII time and I think they could easily jump in time and cover the time during the Cold War, over 3-4 movies. And there might be room for some humour, perhaps some comments to reference things in the old movies. I think that product placement could work, perhaps in clothing, retro watches. And I'm sure some car producer can create a model for Bond.
Henry Cavill is the embodiment of James Bond. QED. Not casting him as the next Bond will be a catastrophic mistake.
Nowhere near enough charisma.
Got my fingers crossed for Henry Cavill!
Really excited for Matthew Vaughn’s new spy movie Argylle starring Henry Cavill that is releasing this year. It is giving me vintage Bond vibes.
Henry Cavill is really the frontrunner for role at this time with the current crop of British actors. He has the looks, physique, and acting chops to pull it off.
He also has box office recognition and clout behind him. He's not an unknown and has proven he got weight behind him with regards to lead roles.
Henry Cavil, Tom Hardy and Aidan Turner are the perfect options for me. I think Turner is most likely to get it though. I’d hope EON would realize this year is the perfect time to bring in a new actor and get going on a new Bond movie. NTTD did well monetarily so I’d think they’d wanna build on that hype and success into this year. I’d like a Bond movie in the 50s-60s too but idk if EON is willing to do that
Well now it can be a cold war series again
I only have 3 wishes
1. Back to a more fun and less melodramatic Bond. Unlikely though since dark is still all the rage
2. Back to stand alone films, I wasn’t a fun of linking all the Craig era films together. I’m happy to go back to stand-alone films that don’t have to tie into their predecessors.
3. More spy stuff.
Amen to that, amen.
I kind of agree. I’d like to see a fat James Bond who loves women, martinis and food.
If they do not want Bond sleeping around and using women why not have him friendly flirting with the women that is fun.
They have taken out the fantasy from Bond and replaced with a joyless culture of dread.
In a way the old films were ties to their predecessors
@@randywhite3947 they had occasional references to previous films. They were in so way intended to be direct sequels to one another though.
Man, I completely agree with you.... give me the period piece, harken back to the 50s and 60s!!😀
Turner actually gives me Dalton vibes! I’d be happy with him or Cavill.
Imagine a Tom Hardy and Christopher Nolan Bond trilogy set either in WWII with Bond in the navy or set in the 1950’s-1960’s. Because of Hardy’s age have it come out every 2 years like in the 70’s and 80’s.
It would be amazing but would never happen. There are other great directors out there as well other than Nolan who is tied up now with his next big project.
Not sure why people assume Nolan and Hardy go hand in hand. He cast JD Washington for Tenet [where Hardy was absent] so he'd probably go for someone else [and I can't see Nolan doing it without having full control].
I totally agree with Henry Cavil as Bond. I mean watch any interview he's in with women. They almost always swoon over the guy. I think that's a good start to playing Bond.
I have the same effect. Should I audition? 😜
Also, you’re right. They need to push the reboot switch for Bond actor #7. Fingers crossed for Bond 26 and beyond.
I would love a return of Bond to its eighties silliness. Over the top gadgets, over the top Britishness, over the top humor.
Indeed, like Kingsman.
Hey DutchBondFan,I just wanted give my opinion on where the bond Franchise should go and as someone who personally grew up on Austin Powers and recently watched every Kingsman movies,I think the biggest issue with the Bond Franchise is that it overcorrected itself and is taking itself way to seriously and has removed alot of the Fantasy of being a super Spy. Kingsman really feels like an updated version of the Roger Moore era of films down to the eccentric villians,the even more eccentric henchmen,and the Evil Lair in a beautiful location.
I really like the idea of an 60 or 70 Bond I doubt we will get it but if they do it I'm pretty sure many oldschool fans would appreciate it as well. As for Bond himself I really believe we will get someone who isn't even on anyone's real wishlist. In the end I would like to see Henry Cavill or Tom Hardy if they go the oldschool Bond way or even if they just stick we the current time-line, both seem interesting and ready to nail it
Honestly, I agree with everything you said! A period piece Trilogy, or even just a fun reinvention of classic bond would be awesome! Let’s stay hopeful for the future and enjoy our beloved Spy’s 60th anniversary.
I would like them to go back to the 60s. Old school tech has so much more flair and fun.
I would love to see Henry Cavill be the new Bond! He fits the profile perfectly & would fo the role justice!
No more comical and dull Austin Powers twist rip offs. No more attempts to tie everything together directly. No more anticlimax third acts. No more 2 1/2 hour runtimes. Bond 26 needs to have learned it’s lessons from the Craig era, and hopefully be a fun cinematic experience again. As for score, I hope that David Arnold or Hans Zimmer return to compose, and as for Bond, we’ll have to see…
I agree with everything you just said except.........2 hours 1/2 runtime. That's been normal in current day movies in any genre.
@@greatwuta I don’t mind 2 1/2 hour runtimes in general, but the last three films have gone in that direction, and it would be nice if it was more in line with the 1 5/6 - 2 1/6 hour runtimes that the old Bond films (except OHMSS) went for.
@@nethaendafendr You know why another reason why I think 2.5 hour runtime is the norm in today's films is because the closing credits is counted during the runtime.
Henry Cavill is pure 007! If the producers don't get on with it and let Cavill strut stuff they are stupid, he is the man to put the fun back into Bond and boy does the world need it!
Came here after The Man from U.N.C.L.E. movie starring Henry Cavill and I agree with you. I would love to see him played as James Bond. I hope his incarnation will be brought back the original roots from Ian Fleming's novels mixed with some elements from Sean Connery & Timothy Dalton with serious "back to basic" tone to the both old and new generation of movie audiences with Martin Campbell or Christopher Nolan as the director. Oh and I would love to see Timothy Dalton himself returns to the series as the new "M"(or maybe Felix Leitter), witnessing the first time an actor who played as Bond to be play a different character like M with Cavill played the new Bond. We can see a passing of a torch of a legend to another.
I can't wait what looks like in the future.
i'd like to see a Bond film go back to the 1960's with the 60's spy tech of that age. It would be interesting to see that the twist would be that MI6 is the villain.
Yes, I think they should do a hard reboot once again but keep the stories timeless by keeping it cold war era. The lifestyle in the 50's was really classy.
Henry Cavill for Bond and Martin Campbell to direct. Hows about that? Also I would like them to get them out quickly, every 2 years like back in the day, or 3 years at the most.
Modern production is terrible. The productions are obsessed with big action. The last Bond movie cost $300 million to make.
I think the rush job of Quantum will have put them off 2 year gaps. 3 seems more realistic.
@@bighands69 The new film will be cheaper [which will rule out a period piece as there so expensive] as the new actor is always a risk.
@@jamesatkinsonja
I think they are going to go for big action with big budget.
@@bighands69 True but I think the budget will be more in the region of $100-200 million rather than the $250-300 of the recent Craig movies simply as a new Bond hasn't yet built an audience [and I expect the MI6 regulars, if there in it, will be new, cheaper actors].
You know since they’re rebooting the whole thing they could finally do the series properly by doing them in order of which the books went in instead of doing them randomly out of order like the old movies did.
I think that idea I would love for a TV series. Maybe 1.30 hour for each episode. Season 1 would be Bond versus SMERSH and Season 2 would feature the later books going agains SPECTRE for example. I think for movies it would get to confusing and predictable to do all of the books again, all of which titles we already have had.
All of the original books have been made into a movie (I could be wrong). I think they need to focus on new stories.
And they need to keep the directors out of the script and story writing. The come in with their own big agendas and want to make it all about their project.
Bond production needs its own writing team that they can stick with and the actor is there ot play the role and not for the role to become about the actor. The Craig era has been a disaster of epic proportions.
@@DutchBondFan Have you listened to the radio series with Toby Stephens? That's pretty much exactly that premise [and about 90 mins long].
@@bighands69 And yet the Craig era have all been critical [no film below 60% on Rotten tomatoes] and commercial successes and Bond has received Oscar recognition which was rare in the past.
@@bighands69 The early Bond directors stamped there own style on the film [such as Peter Hunt with OHMSS] and the previous Bond's also had influences on the story [such as Roger Moore objecting to his Bond hitting women after 'Golden Gun'] so it's nothing new. Directors and actors will, and deserve to have, input which is true for most films.
I think that if the next Bond will be set in a retro world it will be for just one film. It's because if this approach fails it will be difficult to make continuous movies with the same actor. But one can dream
Good idea about the Bond reset. The Ian Fleming books are so brilliant. Why not simply redo the old books from the old times, but with modern actors and filmography. They could be more true to the books than the original movies.
I completely agree on Henry Cavill and a simpler mission by mission approach instead of the grand over-arching approach of the Craig era that made the films sooooo boring and self-indulgent. I wouldn't do a period piece, it would limit the scale of the picture without excessive CGI, there's only so many rooms and alleyways you can film, but mostly because unless they do a trilogy then the eventual film would just be an isolated oddity. As for tone, I think somewhere between Living Daylights/Tomorrow Never Dies/Spy Who Loved Me would be right, the world is a gritty place and I wouldn't want to see a "nasty" film now, we need to get back to entertainment as Cubby said!
Yes I thought that was a good pickup regarding Kingsman. It has definitely stolen some of Bonds thunder. It's cheekiness is what works. So yes it probably would be a welcome return to form if they played it tongue in cheek. Roger Moore's Bond is a perfect example. On the one hand you have Moonraker which is sooo over the top (but alot of fun btw) and on the other you have For your Eyes only. Which by some is considered to be Moores best. If you go poe faced grim you can't be funny. But if go tongue in cheek then there's room to go either way.
Sometimes you have to go backwards to go forwards - an excellent idea Dutchie and I totally agree! Let's go back to the 50's, 60's and really embrace the era and all that it has to offer in terms of flexibility and limitless possibilities! Great channel.
Casino royale was an effective updating of the original novel. Maybe the producers could try this with the other novels, firming them in the correct order. It would be great to see. Thunderball, majesty and for your eyes only done as a proper trilogy this time.
Like you, I would love the next bond be set in the 1950s, it would be great.
I keep thinking about the age issue: as of writing, Tom Hardy is 44 years old and Idis Elba is 49. Both ages are realistically tough to justify for a reboot (and Tom Hardy is hardly much taller than Tom Cruise). Maybe you can get away with the idea of a experienced individual finally getting to 00(7) status, but you would want someone younger. Henry Cavill - well, can you picture anyone who looks more than Bond should look (of course, in the real world he would be too insanely good looking to be a spy!)? But even at 38...it is not ideal.
My ideal Bond would be someone in their early to mid 30s at the reboot, background story is 5-10 years military service, the balance in intelligence. Physically, Daniel Craig has set the minimal (high) standard: lean and athletic. Henry Cavill's superman like build is closer to a body builder but also more than saleable. Height would ideally be minimal 182 cm, ideally a bit taller. Henry Cavill looks are hard to come by, but they would keep the franchise strong with females and that has to be a consideration. But basically, you want dark, swarthy, brutal good looks, rather than some pretty boy who came from a Versace ad.
One other thing that Daniel Craig had was a voice that owned the role: he somehow made it powerful, menacing, intriguing: there was tension, discipline, danger in it. Hopefully that will also be a feature of Bond 26.
Robert Pattinson is my pick, although Henry Cavil is a close second! Robert has proven his acting chops in The Lighthouse, not to mention his physicality in The Batman. He's young enough to do a whole spate of movies. Personally, I'd break away from the same tired formula, and distill Bond down to a much simpler premise. No comedy, larger than life plots or villains. I'd like to see Bond's time in the Navy, his motivations for joining MI6 etc.
Robert is my choice too
I also like the idea of a 1950's period piece. That would be a good way to move the series forward while also honoring its history. Classic Cold War espionage would be a nice change of pace after all the modern technology in the Craig films.
I'm not too familiar with Henry Cavill but as much respect as I have for Idris Elba I don't think there's any need for a Black Bond.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I hope they don't mess with the character. The pressure will be there to do so. I'm not convinced it would succeed so it could backfire on them. I agree that the next Bond will likely be an unknown or less known actor. As for the tone of the films, I've been thinking about the 80s films and what John Glen did. He managed to balance a grittier Bond with some campiness. Okay, sometimes too much campiness. Overall it was a good balance. I would like to see what Nolan would do. Also would like to see what Boyle had in mind. The added benefit of Boyle is that there was a story in place, which might help get 26 out sooner.
The Bond Geek did a video on Boyle's idea which was a 'modern Cold War' idea with Bond taking on Russia. Perhaps more topical now than in 2018/19 but unlikely to happen as long as China is Russia's ally. I don't think Eon were that impressed with the script and wanted to bring other writers in which lead to Boyle's departure.
Nolan is a bit of an unknown quantity given he's praised Timothy Dalton and OHMSS, but has also said 'The Spy Who Loved Me' is a fav. I suppose Tenet/Inception, which included Bond tropes with a Sci Fi twist, gives and idea of where he would go.
@Greg Elchert Throw in the fact he also worked behind the scenes on both OHMSS and Moonraker-show's his range [and he made is debut with the down to earth for Roger FYEO].
I do agree Naomi Harris was my favorite Moneypenny. In the original 20 movies, M and Q's role evolved but Moneypenny remained largely static so it was nice to see the character having more to do in Craig's films.
Love that the Nightfire Bond intro theme is in the background
After such a huge turn of events in NoTimetoDie, I would like to see them do a little experiment; Do a few "one off" James Bond movies, and don't sign the actors to contracts. I wasn't the biggest fan of the Daniel Craig era, or how it ended, but it did show that they could go in new and interesting directions. Do a Henry Cavil James Bond movie, but set it in the 1960s. Follow up with an Idis Elba Bond movie, with an older and wiser Bond like in Never Say Never Again. A Rege-Jean Page film. A Henry Golding film. Tom Hardy. Cillian Murphy. Let them all have a chance. Doesn't really matter if they're getting "up there" in years, because it would always be intended to be a "George Lazenby" approach to the role. And if one particularly clicks, and is suitable, then run with a few movies with them. It doesn't HAVE to be a decades long role. Just bring back the suave, please. That's something that Craig's era was lacking too much of, for me. Like the actor. Didn't care for the brutish, brooding, Bond. So let's try a buffet of Bonds.
There is only 1 contender in the new Bond race, for me it has to be Henry Cavell.
Danny Boyle said he's never working on a franchise film ever again after the way he was treated while working on Bond, because there's too much studio control. As for Nolan, I want him to make more original films. Nolan is one of the few directors studios trust to make original movies.
Henry Cavill as a 50s or 60s Bond would be great. I think this community could use a little grounding after the Craig adventure.
Keep Bond dark gritty and realistic. In my opinion the Daniel Craig era was the best.
I got back into the bond films because of the change from the silly unrealistic stunts and narrow escape
scenes that opened all the previous Bond scenes. It was also a relief to see a man who physically looked
like he could do all the gritty fight scenes. When Pierce Bronson or Timothy Dalton was shirtless
I was like nawwwwww Bruh!...
How do I feel about doing a period piece Bond? Set in the late 50s and early 60s? HELL YES!
Thanks so much for closing with A View To A Kill. Probably one of the last really great Bond songs...
Henry Cavill potentially being the next James Bond makes sense since he was considered to play the role for Casino Royale, but he was overweight at the time. The only thing I can think of right now to continue with the films is to do a follow up to Die Another Day, but I’m not sure if Eon are willing to do that because it would have to be obvious that we’re going back to the first timeline of James Bond. There are countless ways they can do to continue the series, so it’s up to them to decide.
Like the pattern has been with Ghost Busters, Dr. Who, Oceans 11, Star Wars, etc. - I give you - "Bond, Jane Bond" - Vibrated not stroked
I think Henry could do it. I just feel that the general origin of James Bond still makes sense. His parents died from falling on a mountain climb, he has a dead wife, and he is designated 007.
Edit: Get the director from Goldeneye or Licence to Kill back
Licence to Kill director John Glenn is 89 and long retired.
Goldeneye director Martin Campbell is still working but is 78 [though I don't want to be ageist] and his recent films haven't set the world on fire so I'll be surprised if he got the nod.
It is possible to use product placement in a period piece.
I like how you've used bond music from the game. It's either from Agent Under Fire or Nightfire.
The old James Bond is retired! This is the next century! A lot of things have changed! James Bond may have had a son, aside from a daughter before he died! His son has discovered his dad left him with a legacy to carry on with finding out he inherited his father's traits in becoming a new-age James Bond! He doesn't smoke, drink, nor do drugs, and is well-educated to deal with a new world that needs new changes! Good luck, Aidan Turner!
Excellent video! I love your idea of a trifecta of 60's era period films. I also believe Henry Cavill may have a better chance than advertised...after all, Pierce Brosnan was a TV star before being cast his 2nd time around so it's not just no-names who get the call! We can only hope! My top 2 pics are Cavil and Aidan Turner
I’d love for Bond to be re-booted back in the 60s.
My last True Bond was Pierce Brosnam.
And I was a passionate fan since the Connery era. Simply, the Craig’s entries didn’t get me. Now, I am more an observer than an aficionado, that once I was.
Maybe the new Bond will pull you back in!
the people that say they want bond to be black or a women etc. aren't really bond fans not saying i would hate a black bond he would have to be right i just dont think they should change him
I'm black and even I don't want to see a Black Bond. Write the character as the character was written. Sorry no female, gay, Chinese, Latin or trans Bonds for me.
As for casting Bond my 3 candidates are:
Dan Stevens (apparently he can speak fluent French and German. Coincidence or meant for the role?)
Chris Hemsworth (He'd make Bond fun again)
Tom Cullen (he has shades of Connery in him, I noticed this in the film "The Other Half")
First off, great stuff. Great video, great thoughts, great points. My initial tendency and pick runs to Cavill as Bond being chosen, but I can definitely see Tom Hardy in the role. When Craig was chosen for Bond, my top choice was Michael Fassbender at the time. Now he's older than I want him to be to start out the franchise for a new run. Idris Elba is another great choice and been in the conversation for a long time, but older than I want to be to start out the franchise. That being said, Tom Hardy is as about as old as Fassbender, but I find him to be more youthful and fitting for today's James Bond, so I give him an out there. But Cavill is at the right place in his career and at the right age and time. And it's very hard to beat that natural Bond imagery in one's mind. Smooth, debonair, strong and in his prime.
Richard Madden is also an excellent choice for the look of Bond and young for longevity. But I would like to stick to the British pick of actors. Granted, Sean Connery wasn't British and he was the first and positively iconic Bond of Bonds, but I very much like the theme of British actors being Bond and want to stick with that theme.
Craig's personality for Bond was very much right on the money, especially with the times we're in. Craig's Bond personality wouldn't have to be maintained in my opinion, but going forward, the new Bond would need to have that signature tone that makes sense for this world and time and similarly made Daniel Craig so great out the gate.
If I were going for Cavill as Bond, I wouldn't give his Bond's personality the smoothness it seems like he has given his look and demeanor. Not just because of Daniel Craig's portrayal but because, he may seem to some to be too cookie cutter for the role and safe based on look alone. Those of us who are into movies, should know that he's not, given his roles in Mission: Impossible - Fallout, Immortals, The Witcher or Man From U.N.C.L.E. - he has proven range in his acting abilities to do whatever he wants and carve out a charismatic Bond. But to accommodate for his look, the added element of edge would be very necessary to make a point of for him I feel.
I'd give Cavill the edge of early Pierce Brosnan's Bond, the brute rawness of Daniel Craig's Bond and for his portrayal of Bond, probably make him the most technically skilled Bond there has ever been to show he's not phoning in his skills at a whim. I'd give him a Sherlock Holmes quality to his deductive reasoning (a character he has also played). I would do this to show that he is built for this quite literally and excels at it. Anybody that dare to step to him would be a fool and his enemies are there for his disposal. And I'd like to highlight some of the things Cavill does on his own like jiu-jitsu. Showing that Bond has this ability in his arsenal is like showing how much Bond has trained over the years in different forms of combat to finish off his adversaries.
More technical aspects of Bond all day. Why is he so skilled? Why is he this good? Why he is truly a 00-caliber agent? Why he is considered one of the best of the best, if not arguably the best the Secret Service has.
For Tom, he already seems to have that natural roguish element to him and the look that even though his Bond is clearly amazing at what he does, he'd still walk a fine line to serving England and be borderline fed up risking it all as a 00 agent and struggling with the dichotomy. Tom Hardy's Bond looks like he wears that dichotomy on his face already to me as an actor whereas Cavill's face seems as if he simply lives for the moment to be an agent without thinking twice. Tom Hardy's Bond in my mind seems like danger would follow him so to speak and he'd never really get much of a moment's peace because he's simply that guy. That's a good thing in my opinion, regarding to an interesting story.
It'll be very interesting to see how they want to go about things and what they want to carve out of this new Bond.
My main idea on the subject or what I'd like to see is that this new run not being about the beginning (done that) and for longevity sake, it won't be about the end of his career right now either. Let's meet him right in the middle.
I can see "finding his why" being a very key theme in the next version of Bond. I can see the idea of self-discovery leading his compass this go-around than just passively accepting the inherent duties of his role. I'd like that the daily struggle for what he does and why he's doing it to be more prominent than ever in this next run... feeling more conflicted by the agency as to why his life was taken from him in service to England supposedly, the feeling of his life being disposable... and then discovering why he chooses to stay an agent for better or worse, and if it's for his own plans and purposes.
Bringing more emotion and feelings to Bond's role and undoing his training to a degree opens him up as a character, just as I feel it did with Craig's Bond, but of course, we can seek to take it to a new level with this new Bond so that we can see why he does what he does rather than him just going with it and never considering he had a choice.
Something like this has the ability to be a singular movie all in itself or could be extended over the course of the run of the new Bond. And this basically could come out of a perceived mid-life crisis or mid-career crisis that has him question the totality of his life and what he wants out of it.
I feel like it gives him more layers as a character than him just blindly serving Queen and Country or to save millions or the world. It's a noble, courageous quality to just do it for those reasons, but because he was chosen for this life of servitude being an orphan and not ever of his own accord, it has the opportunity as a character for us to continue digging into his psyche as to what makes him tick and get more story out of our leading man. Though other 00 agents are going out into the field, he could question and have conflict regarding why his life is repeatedly on the line amidst all the other agents that could be called upon. Maybe even an added element by someone crooked within the British government regarding why he is selected often and pushed to be out in the field to potentially die sooner and cover what was done to him or to his family. This someone could be the villain of the story. And it leads Bond to clean house so to speak within the British government and gives him self-discovery within his life and family. And in the midst of it, we can see the empathy that seeps into his character's bones to be able to give his all on these missions like he does on a regular basis.
We've seen some of these elements over time in some of the Bond films, but I'd make it more heightened and personal that ever so that even the very organization Bond works for has individuals within it that is secretly in cahoots against him. It takes the indestructability and excessive bravado that the character can seem to have and breaks it down for the character to move in new and different ways. And it could reveal over decades of the character being in film why he treats women and relationships the way he has in his line of work and why he may want to change that because now he realizes he really does have a choice in how he wants to live his life. I'd really want to build off that theme of finding what his commitment is beyond his skill and service to England. Playing up that struggle and finding deeper purpose for his selfless mission feels like the meat and potatoes of an interesting start for his story in my opinion.
Totally agree with you about Henry Cavill, defo 1st choice and perfect as Bond!
I am kind of fascinating of the idea to put the next bond period back into the 60s or maybe 50s. Kind of back to basics, to give that period a touch of the present. But more realistic, more like From Russia With Love then Thunderball. But that could be too similiar to the Napoleon Solo of Cavill.
I want Bond films to be fun to watch again like the originals
Aidan Turner is my choice. He’s been in stuff but not a big star. Has the look.
Let him rest in peace.
He gave us all he had.
From Montreal with love, respect and admiration Commander.
My predictions for Bond 26, if not for entire new tenure, regarding every aspect of it: who will play James Bond, who will direct and write the movie, what and who will appear and who won't in it and why, what the supporting characters like M, Q, Ms Moneypenny, Felix Leiter be like and why, can be summed up by saying: I feel like something big is coming, something like nothing we have seen up to that point, something controversial, maybe even polarizing - not everybody will like it, some may see it as a dealbreaker. Some will love it, some will hate it, but it's definitely something nobody expects. The truth might turn out crazier than speculations. I think Bond will venture all in head-first into completely uncharted waters.
Think about it - a new clear slate opened and it's used to the maximum:
Bond could be played by somebody completely unknown, someone whose name is not even mentioned among the possible choices. And the actor can even not be from Britain - George Lazenby was Australian so there's that loophole. He was accepted because, while not British, he was still from within the Commonwealth. The former British Empire was so vast it gives so much diverse potential to choose from. I can totally picture EON making use of said.
Same goes for the director and screenwriters: EON could choose somebody completely unknown - maybe not a literal no-name, but what if someone with not-so-huge experience would be given his...or even her breakaway point, a chance to shine? Perhaps someone from the TV or streaming? They are owned by Amazon - maybe they will choose someone from Prime Video to direct and write?
We spend much time about deliberating whether Bond will be black or female - but I dare to ask: what if the DIRECTOR and/or screenwriter(s) was/were female or POC? This is an aspect nobody is talking about, and I believe in current climate in cinema is not so ridiculous thing to bring up.
Still talking about writers - maybe Phoebe Waller-Bridge will return as a writer? Maybe she will get a bigger part in writing B26?
As for "going woke" and "being reworked for the modern audience" - it will likely happen, and we can do nothing about it. The question is not "if it happens", rather: "to what degree it happens". We've already got a sample of that in NTTD with Nomi becoming 007 and Bond dying, I believe they can push it even more forward.
But I believe the reinvention would go much deeper than what Bond looks like or whom he sleeps with. I believe they are going for subverting the core basics that made Bond who he is for this 60 years, potentially wiping out the past, the legacy, to build something new from the ground up. Or maybe even from the underground up. If they'll feel really ballsy they can go for altering the world created by Ian Fleming himself. What if we'll get M, Q, Ms Moneypenny, Felix Leiter, MI6 etc. in versions like we never seen them before, or more precisely: we never expected them to see? That's what I feel is happening: EON is probably going for thinking completely outside of the box.
Or maybe I am the fool here and this time EON will play it safe and go back to said basics? Only the future knows.
I recommend you watch an episode of the show called TIMELESS, Party at Castle Varlar. Sean Maguire plays Ian Fleming in the 40's behind enemy lines.
My favourite episode of Television by far.
My vote goes to Henry Cavill.
The Bond franchise has run it's course. Time to cal it a day.
To me its like saying the FIFA World cup, (that is being held every 4 years since 1930) has run its course.. its a tradition never to end.
@@DutchBondFan I understand where you're coming from DBF, however I'm of an age where I can say that I saw Dr No in the cinema in 1962 and every movie since,and killing off Bond was the final curtain on what has been an excellent ( with one or two exceptions ) series.
@@moodyguymick Spectre was Craig's final Bond movie to me, with him driving off into the sunset with the girl with a smile on his face. James Bond was James Bond from 1962-2015.
@@naughtydog1617 I'd settle for that.
Cavill as Bond please... Can't wait!
"It is the ability to play the role well,that counts"..(whoever is selected to play Bond)..and let us always remember what Ian Fleming wanted in that fascinating character: Gallantry,boldness,self confidence,ironic sense of humor,and action,always related to a plot that has to do with current world events,and villain protagonists that play out within those world events.
I would love to see a Christopher Nolan take on James Bond. He makes incredible movies with trademark soundtracks. An even earlier origin story could be interesting as a one off.
What about a retro looking one, with 60s themes and design (clothing, cars, even the Cold War) but with modern day techs (smartphones, internet, streaming). This way they could include modern ads, but the classic feel could be there too. Pretty much like in the animated series Archer.
Oh my days, I also thought how would I bring back bond as the man from Flemings books, I came to your solution set bond back in the 50/60s so glad others feel the same way.
In the book For Special Services by Jhon Gardner James Bond faces Blofeld's daughter. I would like the next Bond to pick up where Craig left off.
BLOODY BRILLIANT!!!!
Your are so right on everything word on the video !!
NO WE DO NOT WANT OR NEED A BLACK BOND , James Bond is a white British man , and NO ‘ that is not being racist!!!!
Henry would be the perfect bond the way you edited this video is absolutely brilliant !!!!
Thanks a lot! 💪🏼
.“License to be offended” Exactly. Touché.
I agree with everything you say - I can't see how they could continue with a modern day Bond - it just isn't fun ! Going back in time from the late 40s to the late 60s would be great - No PC, the gadgets, the clothes, the cars, the whole image shouts JAMES BOND !! Even the new novels are all set in the past. Nolan and Hardy would be tremendous for this ( a trilogy is a nice idea) Keep up the good content.
You say ''no pc' but just because a film is set in the past does not mean that it won't try to reflect modern sensibilities [Benedict Cumberbatch's character in 'Thinker Tailor...' being gay, expanded female roles in adaptions of SS:GB and The Ipcress File]. People talk about period pieces as if there are some 'magic wand against PC' when that is not the case. Period pieces also cost an absolute fortune so need to attract as wide an audience as possible so it will try to be positive especially with female characters.
The novels are set in the past because most are trying to be part of Fleming's canon which only covers the 50's-60's. You can do the books in a period setting as they are aimed at a more niche /die hard audience than the movies [and Man from uncle and the king's men hardly set the box office alight].
Nolan has said that 'The Spy Who Loved Me' is his fav Bond so his take might be more fun and I agree on a trilogy, especially as it will be easier to get the films out every 3 years if it's a pre-planned story.
I wonder will they call Martin Campbell to direct the new one again if they did it would be so cool like 3 times in a row he’s directed a bond film
For me, the best actor for the next and new James Bond is Henry Cavill ; a good and charismatic actor who fits perfectly with the famous 007 ; I watched him in the movie "the man of UNCLE", very good performance in a spy character !
I’d love to see Martin Campbell return or Christopher Nolan get a shot at Bond. I think Aidan Turner, Richard Madden or Sam Heughan would make good Bonds and feel like they actually have a realistic shot of securing the role, unlike many frequently mentioned actors like Cavill, Hardy, Elba, etc.
My wishlist
-Henry Cavill
-Tom Bateman
-Rege Jean Page
-Henry Golding
-Richard Madden
I was thinking exactly of a Bond sat on the 60s, light hearted, when I saw Kingsmen. Totally agree with you, except I wouldn't go for a trlilogy, but for a single fantastic adventure, and my man would be Michael Fassbender. No Nolan, thou, he's incredible but his tone and editing is too personal. Congrats for the channel, I love your reviews and point of view
Henry Cavill: the quintessential Bond!
I like the idea of a period piece James Bond series. Why not? Sherlock Holmes works year after year.
I would also like to see a remake of the early Bond films with a closer adaptation to the books and modern film technology.