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
Well we know know that if SPECTRE does $1.1Bn, Sony expects to earn $35M from it - if the budget stays in 250$M zone. So that's why a 300M$ budget is a big issue for them.
The original plan was
Well said. I dont know why but it's always the Bond films mires than any other film series that attract nutty theories, ideas and getting usually sound people to get 6 when adding 2 and 2 together.
The excitement is fun, interesting and even scary at times but far too often people submit some really strange and silly notions that if applied would hastily facilitate the death of the series.
All too often when a new Bond film goes into production we get all sorts of secularised musings and by ow irrespective of what has and hasn't leaked, it's not all THAT clear how and if things will play out how we've already envisioned in our minds. For example, regarding the ending, I'm delighted Bond finally gets his close the film out with a girl moment but instead of Bond giving MI6 the, cold kiss of good by (that could be a good Bond title) I envision something more along the lines of TLD and GE. Of course I could be SO wrong but it's definitely something that makes sense considering many pressing factors.
The point would be to present new takes on these iconic characters as part of this seperate universe.
It may or may not be Craig's last but, if the ending is the same as the shooting outline then Bond definetley retires. That, along with the film feeling like a big conclusion, makes me think it'll be Craig's last. Yeah Blofeld is alive but I thought Bond sparing him was more to do with him "leaving this life" (spying, killing people, etc) like Madeline wanted him to, rather than setting things up for a sequel. Besides, if the outline is true, Bond tells him he's an orphan just like Bond, then leaves him to be taken in. So after all that jealousy, Blofeld finds out he was actually no more related to his own father than Bond was, neither were his biological children, and now he has to sit in prison and contemplate that for the rest of his life. To me that seems like a more fitting end for this interpretation of the character than Bond just killing him and it's a bigger victory for Bond too.
I could be wrong about this, we'll find out soon enough, but until then I'm sticking by my prediction and I don't think I'm jumping to conclusions. I'm making predictions based on the evidence I have (the shooting outline, Craig signing on for Bond 25 when the SPECTRE story was originally a two film arc, the leaked emails revealing details about EON possibly ditching Sony, etc).
On another note can anyone point me in the direction the of the three drafts I've been seeing people post info from.
Cheers again 00Dalton!
Thank god that's not happening, there's edgy and then there's ridiculous.
From reading the outline it doesn't seem as if
If he doesn't do that, isn't the ending really the same as all the other 'old' Bond endings where Bond ends up with the girl?
It's the gun part that's leading to all these rumours of it being his last. If they just drop that part, then it's just him going off with Madeline.
He could then forseeably just start a new mission in B25, just like Sean, Rog, Tim & Pierce did all those times before.
At the end of the day, as I've said before, money talks. If this movie makes money up to expectations, everything will be fine.
This Barbra and michael "blofield trilogy"
Spectre taking elements of thunderball and ohmss and in fact taking it's name from the most appropriate chapter title of thunderball (Though had bond 24 been named How To Eat a Girl I would of been most delighted)
So speculation time
Bond 25 will be a mix of the spy who loved me (novel) and on her majesties secret service taking a chapter title from ohmss
Probably happyness without a shadow
1. Irma Bunt...... really? was she really that important to warrant a reboot along with Blofeld?? - this does indeed frighten me about the possibility of even more past villains getting the reboot treatment..
2. The forced retirement angle.... again, really??... i know they (Sam and John) wanted to carry over themes from Skyfall, but christ, this is practically shifting the plot device from M to Bond in this film... and personally, going down this well again cheapens the resolution to SF - as at the end of the movie, it showed that Bond wasn't too old, and that the world still needed him.. but now, it's flipped right back around to him fighting the same age fight again..... i am not enthused by this at all.
3. The lack of a defined motive for the third act bothers me..
now, i am not basing my concerns based off gawker's opinion, because whoever wrote the article doesn't seem to be a fan of Craig's films (but I am), so i just looked at what they presented..... nothing will curb my enthusiasm for the next Bond film, but right now - i am a little worried that we are heading down the same road we did with QOS.
These things have all been changed in later scriptversions. Bunt is scrapped for example.
i hope.... and i hope it's not just damage control on Babs part.. because if Irma Bunt and her ears of elephant show up, i'll be a sad little camper lol...
and what is this business of Tanner committing suicide????
We are not jumping to conclusions, we are just speculating.
There is always the chance of them changing the final script, so we will never know til the movie gets out.
But i agree with you that the ending, on screen, will probably be more clear.
That is just a formula that is not as enduring and tímeles as the formula that brought the JB til today.
But .. just a thought!
Reading spoilers, leaks, and speculation rarely diminish my enjoyment of a film, so I went ahead and looked through some of the hacked material posted here and there.
Judging from some of the emails about the Bond 24 script, I can't say I was enthusiastic about some of the ideas. A lot felt stale, but the idea of Bond discovering a blood relative is flat out wrong and stupid. I hope sound minds prevail.
Re: Batman. The answer you're looking for is Nolan. After The Dark Knight released, WB wanted the films to begin their shared universe since Marvel was making their fronts. What stopped them? Nolan said no. While making The Dark Knight Rises, Nolan decided to introduce a character only to back the notion that anyone can be Batman as long as they have the tools, hence the theme of the film that it's not the man behind the mask, it's the ideal of the figure in the shadows. Unfortunately, that is wrong. WB wanted the name Robin to appease the fans, Nolan never wanted a Robin character and was explicit in saying so multiple times that a "Robin" had no place in his universe. What makes Batman unique is because of his drive, his never-ending quest to thwart crime so that no other little boy may ever have to watch his parents die in front of them, to protect as many in his beloved city as he can. As far as I'm aware, crime didn't just suddenly stop all because Batman lost the love of his life and he decided to retire. Realistic? Perhaps. Crapping all over the essence of the character? Entirely.
WB then wanted Nolan to headline and produce their shared universe to which, again, Nolan said no. Which is entirely the reason it took WB so long to get their shared DC Universe off the ground because they were in denial of Nolan wanting nothing to do with it. It had absolutely nothing to do with presenting new takes on iconic characters and more with the fact they were wanting a shared universe off the back of a highly successful trilogy and when told no were too scared to move on from their golden goose director in fear of failure.
As far as Bond retiring goes, I've said my piece. Regarding Madeline's words, I expect we'll be led to believe Bond is retiring but they'll heavily borrow from either OHMSS and Madeline will die in some sort of dramatic fashion by Blofelds doing or they'll DAF the relationship and have the two briefly live together, but, like many of Bond's women, she is out of his life by the next film because Bond is difficult to live with in a domestic setting, and she'll go back to something close to her previous life and leave Bond to go back to his habits and the job.
They can't reboot so soon and they won't, it's too big a risk. Even for Bond to take. Hypothetically speaking, what IS left for them to do with the character if they start from scratch? They've used the main Fleming stories, they've used the origin, the well is dried up. If they were to go again, it would either have no ties to Fleming's stories at all or it would be complete re-tellings and who in this fanbase wants either options, really? I'm already not thrilled that my completionist personality gets the better of me and I have to upgrade my Bond collection everytime a new set comes out but if I have to now go see and buy remakes of classics just to support my favorite franchise, I'll lose my mind. And if they really think they can one-up the classics or reboot the franchise for the second time in a decade (and be daft enough to think they can successfully pull it off again), then maybe it's honestly time for Mike and Babs to lay off and retire themselves.
And another dreary thought, if they do go the retirement route, does that mean we may not see the always dependable "James Bond Will Return"?
You definitely have a point here. There may be a limit in terms of how much of Bond's past can legitimately be explored going forward, given what has come before.
I also agree with other's comments that it's unlikely they will reboot again. Reboots aren't doing so well anymore and there is always the big risk that it may not catch on with those who've been moved by Craig's portrayal (like me for instance absolutely despising Garfield's Spiderman and longing for the return of Maguire).
However, I also don't think they'll necessarily go back to lighter fare any time soon. Why? Because EON has always been about following trends, not making them....at least since the 60's. The trend these days, as epitomised by Marvel and DC, is for deep studies in character, flawed protagonists, and big issues. A lighter PB type Bond runs the risk of just appearing banal compared to Marvel's tortured heros.
Therefore I think they will continue with the drama and depth. I just hope they renew their focus on superb stories of villainy (they've got a long way to go here and have much room for improvement), interesting character actors in the movies (they are on that route now which is good), and perhaps peel back a little more of the Bond layer without going overboard.
So focus more on the plots and the acting IMO without resorting to excess on exploring Bond's past or the reason for his behaviour.
And GE was incredibly successful. It got good reviews, it was a financial success and it helped kick start a new era of Bond.
There have been tons of Bond films without any ties to Fleming's stories.
Oh and Robin in Batman was still Robin even if he became Batman at the end. Throughout the film what does he do? He helps Batman, sorts things for him, takes up the fight against the bad guys when he isn't there. He's basically Batman's sidekick or, in other words, Robin. He was Nolan's take on an iconic character.
TDKR worked incredibly well and I can easily see EON wanting to mimic the whole closed off universe (with a clear beginning and end) for the Craig era. Besides, every Bond's era is, despite the odd reference to the past, basically it's own closed off universe anyway.
I don't think they'll kill of Madeline (too similar to Vesper's story) or just say "oh yeah, she's gone and Bond's back" at the start of the next film. It'd seem cheap to undo all the work this film has done, with Bond falling in love, etc, with just a line explaining it didn't work out.
To me I think it's pretty clear it'll be Craig's last.
*Bond retires and leaves with Madeline at the end, throwing his gun away (and I think based off what Madeline says it's clear he is retiring), getting a life like MP told him he should.
*Although C is killed, we don't hear anything about the 00 section being reformed. Maybe they would be once all the evidence came to light but it's still a lot of damage to undo and the whole "00 section ending" story further adds to the conclusiony feeling.
*We get tons of references to previous films, complete with the title sequence which uses images from the previous Craig films. This to me makes it seem like the conclusion of this story
*SPECTRE are destroyed and Blofeld is given a fitting end (after all that resentment he had towards the orphan he felt stole his dad for him, he finds out he was an orphan too, and has to contemplate that in prison for the rest of his life)
*Loose ends (Quantum, Mr White) are tied up.
*Bond is given one last mission by his old boss. I might be reading too much into this one but to me this seems fitting, to have Craig's final mission be one last mission from Judi Dench. It further adds to the finality of things.
*Craig signed on for Bond 25 back when Logan was still writing it and a two film story arc was rumoured. I think what seems to have happened is the SPECTRE story was compressed into one film once Mendes came on board and plans for Bond 25 may have changed.
*EON apparently want to drop Sony as distributor. Craig signed on for Bond 25 with Somy so this could make renegoiating a new deal more likely.
Unlike those shooting me down and telling me I'm wrong I've never claimed to be right about Craig leaving. I don't think anyone can tell yet. I've made predictions and guesses based on the evidence I have. If it turns out my predictions are wrong then I'll happily admit so.
What I am pretty certain of is Bond retiring, at least if the film is the same as the leaked shooting outline.
Also, the "always dependable James Bond will return"? We haven't seen that at the end since the Moore era haven't we? Hardly always dependable.
You make some very good points here. Although I don't think it will be his last, for me that's just a feeling. I can't argue with your rationale above which makes perfect logical sense.
It could be that EON already have a post-Craig era mapped out, at least at a high level.
Huh. I always noticed that in the old films but never in the newer ones. Don't know how I managed to miss that. Thanks @Thunderfinger :)
Huh. I always noticed that in the old films but never in the newer ones. Don't know how I managed to miss that. Thanks @Thunderfinger :)
That may be because you drink too much soda, and it is not immediately on the screen now as it used to be.
one more point to add fuel to the fire:
in the original screenplay RF's M was supposed to be the bad guy, so this could mean that this was supposed to be Craig's last. M turns out to be the bad guy, also, Tanner commits suicide. Then Bond leave to live his life in peace.
I wish they had kept the two story arc, Sam or no Sam! as for EON building a Marvel type universe ... better luck of pigs flying! these guys can't even hire some good writers to put together a decent script in two years time ... not a chance!