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
Sounds like a terrible idea tbh. I'd like to see a proper functioning corrupt-free MI6 get on with completing whatever the mission is. No organizational moles or double agents. It's tired and played out. This a perfect opportunity for Bond to do something different.
All ideas welcome matey !
I rhink it would make sense for Annapurna and MGM to merge (buy out the hedge funds that own MGM). But given how volatile Hollywood is right now, who knows?
I'm going to say no to all of that. Sorry.
No more corrupt members of the secret service, or someone coming back from their past.
Bond has been missing presumed dead before at the end.
And in no way do I want Tom Hardy as the next Bond. No idea where people get the idea he'd be a good OO7. Good actor, maybe a villain, but not Bond.
@jake24, will you be updating page 1 with the news from my post on the previous page?
My post SPECTRE pessimism makes me feel Boyle's "great idea" could be something along those lines. A corrupt MI6 leading to a "personal" mission, with a decidedly non Bondian ending for the film that would probably fit right in with what other franchises may be doing.
As for Tom Hardy, I'd say 98% of the photos I've seen of him in no way suggest to me James Bond. I have to actually see a photo of him sans facial hair, with a Bondian haircut to imagine him in the role. That pretty much applies to every name mentioned as a possible heir to the licence since SPECTRE.
The only photos I've seen of Aidan Turner that make him resemble Bond are from that AND THEN THERE WERE NONE series.
I hope the next actor that does take the role actually looks like a Bond in his every day life. Sean did (then), same with Roger, Tim and especially Pierce.
Look no further than Henry Cavill ;)
That is a plus in his favor. He's usually seen looking quite dashing in interviews. Smartly dressed, clean shaven with excellent Bond hair.
"Henry Cavill for Bond? Yesh pleashe, count me in!"
- Some random old dude on the street.
The audience was asking for a more realistic take in 2005, and EON delivered that to widespread acclaim.
Regarding the current hedge fund owners, I hope Kevin Ulrich (CEO of majority owner Anchorage) has a plan. After all, they paid $260M to buy out Barber (after giving him a hefty $15.4M severance package) in order to keep him away from launching a bid for three years.
Three years? Guess what that means? If these clowns don't get their organizational affairs in order by then he'll be able to come back just in time for B26 to create havoc, potentially delaying the next film. So I certainly hope MGM gets acquired prior to that because I can't see them going into a better place fiscally by then (B25 will certainly help, but it won't be enough).
I don’t see the audience ‘asking’ for anything. I see a few people on here, but I’m not sure they count given they’re on a Bond forum.
In 2005 Bourne and Batman had rendered Bond’s trajectory null and void. Daniel still has mass appeal, largely because he’s a fantastic actor, and they’ve hired another intriguing director. Some people want them to ape M:I, but clearly they have no intention of doing that. Nor will they once Craig hangs up the Walter Imo. It’s going to be heavy few years for a number of you.
Bond has followed trends since the 60's ended. It has aped many different franchises and genres over the years. Is it any wonder they they made a gritty reboot with more realistic feel shortly after Bourne and Batman Begins came on the scene? The real question is why should EON stop doing something that they have done very successfully for several decades? Why start looking inward, when they have built a legacy on being adaptive to what audiences are responding to?
Oh, and about Craig having mass appeal, he is playing one of the most famous characters on the planet, that may have something to do with it. Let's see him have a financial success without wearing the tux and drinking martinis first, before we comment on his starpower.
Cavill is obviously interested and tailoring roles to court being considered as Bond. Call him bland or boring, but it comes down to what the filmmakers give Bond to do. He can assist greatness where there's a great mission involved.
The rumours have been around a long time. Don t you mean confirmed locations?
Yes that's exactly what I meant to say
If the point is Bond shouldn't have changed that's pretty conflicted considering the history of the franchise and examples given. No less the over the top success of the last four Bond films.
My thought: the filmmakers actually haven't stopped making Bond films after all. The formula is alive and well and stronger than ever on a track back to the Connery days. The focus on the Bond character was overdue, missing Fleming's Casino Royale story that establishes the character. That being a one-off would miss a golden opportunity for a franchise with no end in sight. And as the four films progress and build elements of the longtime film formula I hear more complaints about them. The fantastic, the humor that's supposedly desired are criticized as out of place. In these Bond films.
What exactly did EON stop doing?
I suppose you could claim that OHMSS owes a little of the brainwashing techniques to The Manchurian Candidate and Saltzman’s very own The Ipcress File, but it’s a push to claim that the producers were following any current big trends at the time. Same goes for Fu Manchu movies which hadn’t really been seen since the 1930’s and 40’s. Some might bring up the 50’s The Adventures of Dr. Fu Manchu short-lived television series, but it didn’t cause much of a stir. Though that’s not to say that Fleming wasn’t inspired by Sax Rohmer‘s creation for Dr. No to begin with, it’s just that the movie itself wasn’t following any current trends.
The humour in the last two films felt tacked on because it didn't correspond with the overall tone. When it comes to the story, Skyfall and Spectre have a self-seriousness about them, which makes the Moore-isms they include (like the surprised onlookers during action scenes) feel really forced because they clash with the brooding and personal story being told.
They haven't stopped doing anything, it's more the fans which have changed. Back in 2002 there was an outcry that Bourne was eating Bonds lunch, and what did EON do, they quickly fired their current actor and started on rebooting the entire franchise to fit in with this new world of action movies. And the result was one of the most heralded and beloved entries in the franchise, everyone cheering EON along, right? The trouble is nowadays there are many franchises which are essentially doing just what Bourne was doing back then, only whereas Bourne was gritty and realistic, mission impossible is fun and over the top. The difference is that this time, I don't see any outcry, or concern from any fans out there. It's like Bond should just live in its own vacuum, which is strange since there has never been a point in the last forty odd years where it has felt necessary to do that. So why now? That the Change we're talking about here, why should EON suddenly stick it's head in the sand when they have build a legacy on doing it better than anyone else? If Mission Impossible is eating Bonds lunch, since when has Bind been one to shy away from proving it is the better franchise, like countless times before? Bond have the best back catalogue, for sure, but does that really prove it is top dog in the here and now?