OV9

Yes

I'm assuming a massive truckload of cash was what finally persuaded them to give up creative control. Seems like its been a long standoff, just waiting for the size of the truck to get bigger.

stand by for 15 shit spin off series following every main character…

Daniel Craig was a decent Bond but I’d mentally prepared myself for the franchise to go rapidly downhill (basically ruined) after he left. Looks like I was right to do so.

And Rich is probably correct.

Will the next Bond drive a Corvette and drink Bud Light?

Mito Man wrote: Fri Feb 21, 2025 8:26 pm Will the next Bond drive a Corvette and drink Bud Light?

No but they'll use an Alexa.

Bond’s already been done wrong several times and he’s fine

Hopefully this means the movies will be reliably available now though.

If you sail the high seas you'll find the movies in all the regular places.

And yes, they'll spin it off to death. Q back story, Young M back story, Moneypenny love story, etc etc.

Simon wrote: Fri Feb 21, 2025 10:19 pm If you sail the high seas you'll find the movies in all the regular places.

And yes, they'll spin it off to death. Q back story, Young M back story, Moneypenny love story, etc etc.

James Bond Junior!

Wait, what do you mean they already did that?

Start getting Bond wrong? That would suggest Lazenby was a good Bond, which is clearly wrong.

This below from that article, imo, is exactly what’s they’ve got wrong over the years. if you want a different character who’s radically different to bond, make a new franchise. But that’s hard, because then you’d have to actually write a story that’s good enough to carry itself.

"As time has gone on, being able to reinvent that character and have him perhaps change with the times, has been the secret to his longevity.
"But I wonder if we're now in a situation where the times have changed so much, that James Bond now feels as if he belongs in a different era, and it needs something really radical to keep him relevant today."

Bond needs a cheeky charm, so he needs to be a killer but with the doff of a cap, a whitty retort and a karate chop.

Dave!

We can’t even agree on the best bond so how will we agree they’re doing it wrong?

The actual actor is less important than the writing of the film imo. The character of Bond should always stay roughly within the constraints of the original character (as far as is possible - otherwise it’s not Bond), but i don’t think it matters too much whether it’s George Lazenby or Daniel Craig.

we’ve seen good and bad bond films with the same actor (goldeneye Vs die another day) and we’ve also seen great actors play terrible characters because the writing was shit (christopher Shultz, Remi Malik).

Doing Bond right, is making a good film based around the original character of James Bond.

Rich B wrote: Sat Feb 22, 2025 7:56 am The actual actor is less important than the writing of the film imo. The character of Bond should always stay roughly within the constraints of the original character (as far as is possible - otherwise it’s not Bond), but i don’t think it matters too much whether it’s George Lazenby or Daniel Craig.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p027nygj

Spin off city was my first thought when I read the announcement. Depends how much they choose to stretch the definition of ‘original’.

Nothing will change tbh. New films will come out and every 10 years people will earnestly explain why Bond must always be white

ZedLeg wrote: Sat Feb 22, 2025 12:04 pm Nothing will change tbh. New films will come out and every 10 years people will earnestly explain why Bond must always be white

who’s your favourite Bond?