It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
That’s the industry term :P I find it rather offensive myself. I agree with you on the other points. I do feel the films should be somewhat dark and menacing though, Aidan surely would benefit from such a direction.
I do think there's a tendency to view something like TG:M as some sort of 'magic formula' for the next Bond film, especially when words like 'woke' get thrown into the mix. In reality they are two different franchises, and Bond 26 is going to have to reintroduce a new Bond. If anything it'll have to reinterpret elements of the character/cinematic formula without reverting to some of that nostalgic iconography.
Yeah I've no idea why that word has been thrown into the mix. It doesn't even seem to have a meaning anymore, it just seems to refer to 'things I don't like'.
Yeah the nostalgic iconography as you say feels rather played out at this point. Keep the gunbarrel, opening titles, dinner jacket, Bond theme... and maybe that's it.
but everyone should read this, the author of Young Bond Charlie Higson's reaction about Bond being a Family Man.
Author behind Young Bond series criticises the latest film No Time To Die for portraying 007 as a boring family man
Charlie Higson joked that 007 should have triggered his girlfriend's ejector seat and resumed his adventure. The author 'absolutely hated' the flick as it was like watching 007 'mow the lawn'.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10953127/Young-Bond-author-calls-007-boring-family-man-latest-film-No-Time-Die.html#article-10953127
You sure you're even at the right forum?
The Craig era's interesting in the sense that it leaned heavily on the nostalgic iconography/characters but consciously played around with the cinematic Bond formula (rarely would Bond get the girl at the end, the gun barrel took four films to appear at the start, there's of course the end of NTTD which is... well, odd for a Bond film, to cite a few examples).
What we could see going forward is less of the superficial nostalgia, but ultimately more of that classical Bond formula, albeit with subversions. For what it's worth this has been done within the series in the past. LALD, for instance, has the typical 'Chekov's Gun' set up of the gadget - in this case the magnetic watch. When it comes time for Bond to use it to attract the boat during the crocodile jump it actually fails him as said boat is tied up. When he does use it it's in a way that we wouldn't expect (he turns it into a sort of hacksaw... lazy writing perhaps, but the idea is interesting).
In fact LALD is a film that doesn't actually contain many of the usual iconography/elements we associate with Bond. He doesn't get a car, he doesn't wear a tuxedo, there's no Q, the score is noticeably more rock oriented compared to the more orchestral music of John Barry... it's not a perfect film but it certainly reintroduced Bond, sold the new actor and is fondly remembered. It's even fantastical and rather light in places (albeit with a more grounded central plot and Bond doing more investigative work more akin to DN) which I'm down with. I do think that sort of creative impulse can be used similarly with Bond 26.
Essentially if the lead of the film ends up being a dud, or is at least uninteresting or flat, then you have a problem.
That's a good point mate, although I'm not overly keen on them making a film were the leading man isn't much like James Bond. Then they spend 2 hours trying to convince us that this man is the character we know and love.
I just don't fancy anything resembling another origin story
Yeah, fans often miss how much LALD changed the 'formula'.
I'd certainly be fine to lose the superficial nostalgia as you put it: the old car, the old M office etc. all being brought back - we don't need to do that again. Cinema's been leaning on that sort of thing too much recently anyway, and Bond needs a bit of a clear-out.
I don't know if that's something we can really worry about. They've shown how they know how to preserve the swaggering, self-assured core of Bond himself over the last few decades; hopefully they'd know how to keep that. I share the same worries with those actors: they don't really excite me as choices (Cavill at least has starred in a few films, albeit with less than stellar performances) but hopefully they'll find someone who leaps off the screen a bit more.
For me the worry is that when the producers decide to shake things up a bit, they just follow trends of what they perceive as 'cool', rather than doing something original. If I had to choose between them copying classic Bond style or copying what they think is the new cool from today's film charts, I'd rather they stick to Bond.
I must admit I'm not keen on those things either. I think we'll get a reboot but not necessarily an origin story. That will simply mean introducing us to this Bond and the new world he inhabits. I do think that a Cavill or a Turner aren't a guarantee of giving us that ideal Bondian performance though, and could easily fall into the trap of giving us something more akin to an impression of Bond rather than a fresh interpretation of the character like we got from Craig, Moore, Dalton etc. Like @mtm said it's a case where they don't personally excite me (although I accept I'm not privy to their auditions).
That said Cavill and Turner are notable in the sense that their cards are more on the table than the other candidates. I've seen The Man From Uncle and And Then There Were None and hence know more or less what we're likely to get out of a Bond performance from these candidates. I'm not sure if I'm too impressed with what I see, but these are just my instincts.
The way I wrote that wasn't fully clear perhaps. Bond does use the magnetic watch to its proper function once at the end but the typical 'Chekov's Gun' formula is subverted during the crocodile jump. We expect Bond to use his gadget to get out of the situation but that fails and he has to use his wits. It's really cool as an idea. I kinda wanna see something similar in Bond 26.
I think with Bond there's always going to be some form of trend following. With the early Craig films it was the influence of Bourne (the QOS camerawork, the idea of the Governments the hero works for not always being upstanding/being involved in shady plans, even moments like Vesper's drowning all evoke ideas/scenes from Borune). Then there's Star Wars in the concept of MR, North By Northwest in the helicopter scene in FRWL... not to mention we get into the problem of Bond trying to up its own formula and devolving into self-parody (Die Another Day).
I think Bond 26 could be an interesting opportunity in that sense. Assuming it starts afresh and doesn't actively use the nostalgic iconography of the DB5 etc. there's a whole world of story possibilities open. What will this new Bond 'universe' look like? Like I said I suspect it'll more closely follow the 'formula' than the Craig era (so Bond will get his briefing, investigate, meets the girl, the villain, maybe even has gadgets etc.) but ultimately do something different or subversive within those parameters.
Ooooh. That's a cool idea. It very much plays into the idea of Bond as this 'mysterious stranger' who is essentially an agent of Her Majesty's but also has that cynical/arguably sympathetic edge to him.
To be fair, we've got over 60 years and 25 Bond films. This is only the second Top Gun film, which came 36 years later. I think it is important that the essence of the character and who Bond is stays true to its roots, but I don't think the reverence to the "Bond formula" is going to be as important going forward. We're always going to have exotic locations, awe-inspiring stunts, the beautiful women, the action, the casinos/black-tie affairs, etc. I think the best lesson that came from the Craig era is that "the Goldfinger formula" can be more of a hinderance than a help when making a Bond film. I find Casino Royale and Skyfall to be the best of the Craig era and they are the two examples where I feel like they were first and foremost concerned with telling the most compelling story possible, while maintaining the Bondian aesthetic and sprinkling in the "formula" bits where appropriate.
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/magazines/panache/hunt-for-new-james-bond-is-still-on-but-007-producer-barbara-broccoli-says-the-role-can-be-prince-williams-if-he-wants-it/articleshow/92491389.cms
Always licking the royal boots. And Elba is back as top candidate I see. Interesting.
Certainly nothing to be taken seriously.
You just broke the prince’s heart.
Get ready for the increase in ticket prices!
That is unless they're very good at bluffing
There's of course another question here, which is: what exactly is the essence of Bond and how do they stay true to the character's roots?
I mean, does CR stay true to the character/his roots? Actually I'd argue not always, and there are many aspects of Craig's Bond in that movie which I find antithetical to Bond as a character (I find it difficult to see most other incarnations of Bond in the films/novels breaking into M's flat and having as much of an 'end justifies the means' mentality towards his job, at least without revenge or necessity motivating him. This is something we see more with Jack Bauer or Jason Bourne, Bond being more of a 'blunt instrument'... this is just me however, and others might think differently). Personally, I find SF to be Craig's Bond at his most... well, Bondian - a man who is slightly out of step with his own time, a man with many destructive vices, an underlying cynicism, but with the virtues of bravery and patriotism. Others would say it's SP where Craig gives his most Bondian performance and really embodies that Connery-esque coolness.
There are also many moments even in the classic Bond films that I find a bit off, as I'm personally a fan of the novels. I find it a bit weird when Bond casually shoots someone who is unarmed without blinking an eye, or indeed makes a quip after batting away someone's hand/sending them tumbling to their death off a roof. I personally connect more with the character who is rather conflicted about killing, and even admits to disliking it. I don't feel we've ever truly seen something in the films along the lines of the 'Reflections in a Double Bourbon' chapter in GF - Bond getting drunk after having killed a man, the bruise still on his hand, internally trying to shrug it off and be cavalier despite how clearly conflicted he is...
Is that more true to the essence of Bond than the man who gives a memorable quip after killing a defenceless opponent? Are the cinematic and literary Bond... well, simply different? Anyway, these are the questions I'm sure the producers will have to ask themselves going forward.
https://www.bondsuits.com/the-suits-of-ian-flemings-james-bond-illustrated/
I kinda want to see a modern version of the black and white dogtooth suit in a future film. Would be a nice little nod.
Also, while it's not explicitly stated in the novels, I think Fleming once wrote a letter (to whom I don't know) where he described Bond's clothes. Apparently he said that Bond favoured wearing short sleeved shirts under his suit jacket, much as the writer himself did! Sounds like a horrible idea to me personally.
But yes, the literary Bond did not live a life of extravagance when not on assignment in his clothing or eating habits. To be honest, I'd like to see Bond depicted as more of the 'mysterious stranger' that they sort of managed to do with him in the early Connery films and in many of the novels. We never really know of his past, he appears and investigates these often routine matters that turn into something more (they can and should still do character development, acknowledge his flaws/explore aspects of the character more so than the early films, but again while keeping that level of mystery about him). Perhaps a way of conveying this is through more minimal costume choices for the character? They can still be designer and tie into the brand deals these movies have, but ultimately convey this impression of the character.
The bigger question is how to make the film contemporary and fresh without loosing that feeling of tradition and elegance. Rich people rarely wear suits anymore and it’s cooler to be a hipster than preppy.
Yup.