With Bond 25 now back on track following the sudden departure of Danny Boyle due to creative differences, new director Cary Fukunaga (True Detective) has been chatting to Inquirer about Daniel Craig’s final outing as 007, during which he confirmed that it will continue the Bond arc which began with 2006’s Casino Royale.
“In [Daniel Craig’s] first Bond movie, Casino Royale, he brought an incredible amount of vulnerability and humanity to the character, which was a big shift from Pierce Brosnan’s run,” said Fukunaga. “In terms of what I can bring to change the character, Bond is on a character arc that started with Casino Royale, and I will be carrying that on. There will be changes, I am sure. As in any story, a character has to change in order [to have] a narrative.”
Asked about the reports that Ben Whishaw’s Q and Christoph Waltz’s Blofeld will both be absent from the movie, Fukunaga dismissed them as rumour, but wouldn’t confirm or deny the characters’ inclusions.
“We haven’t finished the screenplay, so there is no way that anyone could know that. Those are two extraordinary actors, so if there is space for them in the story, I would absolutely want them there. But I don’t know yet what it’s going to be… there will be the things in the Bond-verse that you have come to expect. I can’t say too much, though.”
SEE ALSO: Rumour: Richard Madden set to be offered James Bond role
Fukunaga is currently working on the script for Bond 25 with 007 veterans Neal Purvis and Robert Wade, ahead of a 2020 release date.
Mac says
James Bond isn’t supposed to have a story arc, the story begins and ends with each film. It’s a formula that’s worked for 50 years. There is no need to make 007 like Star Wars or MCU.
Sam Money says
While it is obvious that the producers had this thought process in the past, are we supposed to assume that there was no real story arc with Blofeld developing back on the day?
Are we supposed to ignore the fact that Roger Moore’s Bond laid flowers on the grave of his dead wife when Lazenby was still in the role? Are we supposed to ignore the fact that Dalton was also acknowledging his wife’s death in License to Kill?
There has been and always will be some continuity to the franchise. I don’t disagree that I think some of the elements of the films in recent years have gone too far to maintain continuity, but I also believe dismissing continuity in the past or films as “one-offs” created some illogical flow to the character and story development.
Mike Stevens says
It’s a bad idea…This ‘arc’ has weighed down Craig’s entire run at the character. I go to watch Bond because it’s not Transformers, or Marvel, etc…I expect a more grounded script, less gimmicks and death-defying stunts, done without robots and insufferably lazy CG…Continuing the arc is just dumb…The best stories have involved either the Soviets or rogue villains with memorably idiosyncratic dialogue…Spectre is hit and miss, the silliest entries including a wholly unconvincing Telly Savalas, a poor re-characterized Charles Gray and a wasted Christoph Waltz…
bhowza says
SPECTRE was involved in every pre-Moore movie except Goldfinger, including a passing mention by Dr No that he’s working for them. It probably would have continued if not for the rights conflict around Thunderball. Quantum was a decent substitute that they scuttled when they got the SPECTRE rights back, which made it all feel very sloppy, a Russian nesting doll of evil organizations. The idea that everything he’s faced was masterminded by a jealous step brother that he forgot about is really stupid.
Gurpreet Bhatia says
The arc has been hit and miss with Craig with a couple of ropey films in the mix. The question is how long does this arc continue, would we see it in Bond26 with a new 007 or a fresh arc or a stand alone film. Questions questions….