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
Welcome back @RC7. We need your calm, collected approach. Thanks for splashing the cold water of reality over us: Cubby would never let one of us steer the ship; his daughter and step-son the same. The idea is ludicrous.
In the end, Bond will be fine. As he always has been. There have been so-called dark days before (the Box Office of OHMSS in the States and GL's near expungement from the records; a mere five years later, Saltzman's gone, TMWTGG bombs (as far as Bond goes); is Moore in or out?... and so on...)
As I've said before, I guarantee B25 will happen. And I guarantee that some will love it, some may just like it, others will be meh about it, and lastly, but not to be forgotten, some will hate it.
Of the directors on the short list, we know Villeneuve to be out at this point, and he was perhaps the one best suited to deliver on the SF thing. Mackenzie could go either way. Demange definitely seems more of a scaled-back, action-oriented sort of guy, but of course I wouldn't put it past him to deliver a more emotional, drama-driven film. And he seems to either now be or at least have been at one point the closest to getting the gig. Boyle entering the picture is interesting. Like Mackenzie I also see him capable of giving us either a CR/QOS style or SF style film, per the plans of Eon. That said, I do see him more as a Forster than a Mendes. It'll be interesting to see who they go for; and now really I'm not sure how much we'll be able to surmise from that selection alone!
The other half of what I meant to say was that I hope they decide to go in the direction towards which QOS pointed—try to find a better balance of Fleming, the style of early cinematic Bond, and a 21st century spy flick which doesn't favor its 21st-century-ness in an all too Bourneish way.
Even if it has to wait for Bond 26, I'd like something that looks less to the past (SF, SP) next time out, something that glances less sideways at other franchises, and something that could be perhaps used as the blueprint for a Bond film going forward. Basically that old fan jag about how Bond should be leading the charge instead of following the pack, etc. etc. I don't think we've had a blueprint of what this new rebooted series is yet. It's like how you can see DN in the DNA of every Bond film that followed. I still think there's a DN to be found in this rebooted era. A DN that's not DN itself, of course. DN will always be with each of the films, but it's been 56 years. Some questions need answered after so much time. How is the spirit of Fleming relevant anymore? What aspects of filmmaking can Bond push because of the stories it tells?
Another one is how the franchise goes on when the Fleming material is used (or mostly used) up, to the extent that it can't sustain an entire film. Eon has been attempting to answer this question since LTK, whose answer failed commercially at least. The GE answer was successful, however—repackage the films in greatest hits form—and so this is what they went with for the entire Brosnan era (parts of TWINE excepted, one of its admirable features). CR came along at just the right time to renew the franchise, just when a dash of Fleming was needed. And Fleming it had! An entire novel. That doesn't help really answer the question. Despite the shift in tone from DAD, there's a little bit of Brosnan-era hangover in it as well. There's also the same matter of why QOS's answer failed, too: the obvious, dated influence from BATMAN BEGINS, Bourne, and the like.
SF and SP don't offer a way forward either. SF looked to the past (as it should've on the fiftieth anniversary) in addition to looking in the mirror, at the institution of Bond itself—admittedly different but can only be done credibly once. SP also glanced backwards to detrimental effect. What it was is certainly not what should be a model.
Finding such a blueprint might best be served at the start of a new era. I'd be fine with it coming at any time, really. The QOS-inspired route might already have passed. It's been ten years. I still find that way intriguing, though. It seems others might as well, the recent comments above re: having Marc Forster come back. I'd be on board with that.
Whatever is the model, I do think there is one awaiting out there that hasn't been hit on yet, that does something new, something which is to the film landscape now what the original 60s films were to the movie landscape then, and that's really where I'd like one or both of these next two films to head.
I also agree with you about lingering DAD hangovers in Craig's most praised entry. I believe that's on account of P&W, whose shtick has become quite tired. News of Hodge gives me confidence that we are finally going to break that cycle for good. Let's hope.
Like you I think a gritty and fierce QoS style (without frantic Bourne style editing or obvious plot thefts) could still work today. It just needs a younger actor who can combine the edginess with a little more cinematic suave and more impressive narrative flourishes.
I personally would prefer if they wait for the new era before driving forward with a new blueprint. No need to waste it on someone who's got a foot out the door.
I won't shoot it down. In fact, I think it's highly possible, but not because they are keen on planning ahead (they've shown very little ability to do that).
Rather, I believe it's because they have been advised to look at options for a sale (either of Bond from EON to another owner, or more likely of MGM via either a public IPO or via a direct sale). In such situations, future scripts and directions help an acquirer to assess a value for the franchise (which is a large part of the empire).
Totally agree
Your last line is exactly the problem. There was a time when that average guy knew he would see the next James Bond movie in any case (and he was looking forward for it!).
Sorry, but I shoot down that idea. And when it has hit ground I will kick it some more. It's not that I wouldn't love if they were working that way, but sorry evidence and empiric simply say "NO!!!"
I'd like them to get back to doing the basics well. Great stunts, visual flair, coherent plots, beautiful girls, soaring melodic scores, a sense of joi de vivre, well delivered (rather than cringey) bon mots and a good time at the movies. Most importantly, they need a Bond who one can believe women would gravitate towards and men would admire/fear. Bond should be the embodiment of British style and elegance, while still being deadly.
The competition has always been there, even during the days of Indy.
---
It's not their modus operandi but they may be forced down that path due to a larger business arrangement. This distribution deal has taken long enough, and I'm certain there's a lot going on behind the scenes. Bond is the jewel in the crown and this has all the signs of major due diligence.
I am also quite sure that just about every poll they made since then told them that people perceive it as a rather boring movie.
People who go and see Bond movies will always go and see Bond movies. For the vast majority who don’t have the time and money to invest in such a saturated market they’ll wait and see what the ‘craic’ is when promotion starts to gear up. There’s no constant champing at bit on the scale of a SW or Marvel release.
If EON put the pieces of the jigsaw in place in a manner such as SF they end up with a monster critical and commercial hit on their hands.
Like every Bond before it, B25 has every chance of success and every chance of relative failure.
The continuity aspect they gave us with SP (which, let's face it was a very successful film and was watched by many), signaled an end. Their writing team even said as much before they were rehired.
I'm quite certain that we are about to see an FYEO vs. MR scenario (in terms of relative box office performance) for B25 if they continue with what we currently know. Perhaps they are ok with that, and actually are shooting for a scaled down effort with relatively less financial pull (why a distributor would agree to this I don't know, but anything is possible). If so, then fine. Maybe they are choosing to prioritize a critical sweep this time (like FYEO, which was more favourably received by critics in comparison to MR) in order to set up Craig's post-Bond career (Broccoli may feel she owes him at least that much, after robbing him of his prime acting years in this gig he seems to dislike).
If however they believe they can duplicate a QoS to SF scenario at the box office I believe they are dreaming. The situation was quite different then. Their Bond was younger, 'wrist slash' hadn't even been born yet (and hadn't done significant PR damage for the actor, if not the franchise), and the drumbeat for a switch hadn't even begun. This time around they're already talking about it one+ year before the next film is out.
Moreover, the shadow of SF is a large one. It will be difficult to top it critically or at the box office.
I’m not saying that B25 will be akin to SF directly, just that the pieces of the jigsaw were worked into place very effectively for that entry. There’s every chance they can achieve that again, whether the pieces of the jigsaw are large or small.
It’s highly unlikely, I’d say impossible, to do SF business again and they’ll know that, I’ve no doubt that isn’t the aim, but it’s completely possible to construct a film that delivers critical success and financial success (relatively speaking), if of course the budget doesn’t spiral.
The only risk is that the critics still savage it (they can be very difficult with a series once something has hit the highs that SF did). It's almost like they want to be the ones to control and determine the success going forward.
The way around that of course is to throw in some arugula vegetarian helpings to satisfy SJW. Seems to be the ticket to getting a positive critical appraisal these days. Just lay off the red meat.
Yeah, it's important to remember how things move on. Craig's Bond is a production of the mid 2000's, and there's no escaping that. When I go back and rewatch films from that era, it's startling how quickly they have begun to age. There was an air of going to far to be taken seriously. That's were I believe all these reboots came from in the first place, the need to establish a plausible version of a classic character. It's funny to watch how thorough these films were with their character development and world building, almost going to far to establish credibility. Films are a lot less self conscious about that now, and this is down in part to the onset of Comic book movies which are will to venture into outlandish or bombastic territory. Fortune favours the bold and break out hits like Avengers, Guardians of the Galaxy and Deadpool were instrumental in this cultural push. Not forgetting successful revamps of established properties like Jurassic World and Fast and Furious and Mission Impossible which purposefully pursued a lighter tone.
At the same time, despite appearances on the surface, Bond seems to resist change. Over a decade since the first film, we are seeing the same real world plot lines, and repeated sorry beats reused over and over. There is a slight, surface level attempt to lighten things up, but even that feels half-hearted.
Like you, I don't buy into the "the signals don't point in any direction" rhetoric we're often witness to. There is considerable evidence to suggest that EON have painted themselves into a corner with their own bad decisions. Actions have consequences, and when you make enough mistakes and allow yourself to become complacent, that has an effect on your reputation and brand. Just because it's Bond doesn't make a different. I don't buy into the narrative that Bond is immune to ever falling behind. No company is ever to big to fail and no property is ever beyond reproach. As soon as you start to think you're invincible that's when things can really run away from you. I think Cubby understood this, which is why he took such care with TSWLM and GE. He new that it's much easier to maintain credibility than it is to regain it once it's lost. Barbara has been extremely cavalier in this regard, it's as if she doesn't realise when she is sailing close to the wind, and that has truly worrying implications.
EON (or whoever gets the series after they move on) will either create a new 'contained' characterization like the Craig era for Bond #007, or they will go back to a timeless approach of the past. My preference is for the latter, but I'm not sure that will happen.
I think many fans and the general public recognize that the Craig era is a bit of an anomaly. More people still associate Bond with the pre-boot era imho, despite this path having lasted for 10+ years.
It's easy enough to take it back to the earlier style if they want to imho. They just need the right guy to do it with and the right director/script, that's all. They also have to want to do it wholeheartedly (and not half-assedly, as they did with the last entry).
I'd like the Craig era once it's over to be left in it's own self contained universe really.
This may sound odd, but I kind of want the old regulars back post Craig.
M being Admiral Miles Messervy, and Q - Major Boothroyd. Also a Moneypenny who's first name is not revealed to be Eve.
In B26 I want to see Turner, Hiddleston or whoever it may be walk into the padded door office greeted by Moneypenny , flirt with her then meet with an old school M. I'd love the next 007's actor's world to be Fleming's only set in the present.
Same applies to M really. I'm not really attached to Fiennes, in fact I think they should swap out him and Harris for 26 if it's a reboot just to make that clear, but Lee was Fleming's M bought perfectly to life. Can't be topped. May as well go a different route like Dench did (I'm talking Brosnan era Dench, I think surrogate helicopter mum Craig era Dench was too drastic a change).
Are you not just describing Spectre?!?
It was the most cliched, formulaic Bond film we’ve had in a very long while.
The story recycles a lot the classic elements. Beyond the superficial elements (the padded door, the Moneypenny flirting, gadgets from Q, cars with weapons, silent henchman etc), the plot and villains were literally taken from another Bond film (YOLT).
I really hope we get something more original.
______________________________________________________________________________________
The Boyle for Bond 25 idea never seemed right to me…
Danny is a filmmaker with such a hyper-kinetic and individualistic style, which doesn’t seem to fit Craig’s era. Both Martin Campbell and Sam Mendes (the latter in particular) have established a more stately and sombre tone, not exactly one devoid of humour or invention, but decidedly more “serious”.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Boyle made his musical and his standalone idea with John Hodge became Bond 26. Danny Boyle would be a perfect fit to introduce a new Bond. I think Boyle is the perfect filmmaker to made a snappy, vibrant and fun Bond film. I think either him or Edgar Wright are the perfect choices for a more “fun” reinvention of the franchise.
I think the producers should steer clear of the auteur path for Bond 25. They need a filmmaker who can finish Craig’s era within the same register his previous films were set within.
Personally, if Villenueve, Demange and Mackenzie are out. They should turn back to either Campbell or Mendes. The film is supposed to shoot before the end of the year and they need a competent director to come in. I think if they went with an indie filmmaker, they would just be overwhelmed at this late a stage. I wouldn't even be adverse to Marc Forster coming back (though I've heard woeful things about his post-Bond work)
Agree 100%
Mendes or even Campbell are preferable to Boyle, Villainuere, or Yan Demange. 3:-O