No Time To Die: Production Diary

14004014034054062507

Comments

  • edited September 2016 Posts: 5,767
    Anyway here's an idea if they want to continue on from SP: Swann dies of natural causes? Some sort of disease? Open with her funeral or whatever, then news of Blofeld's escape and exile in some foreign enemy territory (maybe Russia? Play up the current tensions between them and the US, say things have escalated), who refuse to hand him over (because he's working on some scheme for them). Bond realises that life's too short, that for all his skills and experience he couldn't save Madeline from cancer or whatever she died of, decides that since he's eventually going to die anyway why not in service of his country. Goes back to MI6, taking on what essentially amounts to a suicide mission (go in with no backup, if he's caught he's disavowed, to kill Blofeld).. Bit contrived but despite my desire for a YOLT adaptation, I would rather have something more original than "Blofeld escapes and kills Swann, Bond is out for revenge".
    A natural death in THE series about a license to kill would be too depressing. And seriously, it would turn Bond even more into a mind full of darkness.
    The darkness might suit Batman and even Bourne, because they´re different characters. If Eon insist on continuing ripping off character elements from other franchises, they could at least realise that franchise numero uno at the moment is the MCU, which has all kinds of characters, not just sinister, brooding ones. Colour.



    octofinger wrote: »

    So to actually give SPECTRE a future in future films, the crime syndicate needs to be both effective and entirely secret again. Obviously, the organization needs to be a modern interpretation again of the 1960's SPECTRE. . .

    . . . So that during the rest of the film Bond can do a plain, solid, secret mission again! No more personal backgrounds, instead more secrecy!

    Good in theory, but EON have wrong-footed themselves here, haven't they? By creating the 'family' relationship between Bond and Blofeld, now everything is personal. Once you create the "foster brother/author of all your pain" connection, it's impossible to send Bond on a mission that isn't personal, unless it's a mission that doesn't involve Spectre at all.

    Unless of course you want to reboot again.
    No need to reboot again. Just ignore half of the last film. It´s a Bond tradition, and they did it just two films ago.



    Risico007 wrote: »
    Swann is clearly set up as a new version of tracy Bond and Mr. White as the new Draco ironically enough I had the idea of White's Daughter being a bond girl back in 2010...
    The similarities end at the surface.

  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited September 2016 Posts: 9,117
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    It's pretty clear Bond and Madeleine are going away, and Bond is leaving MI6 (and not just going on temporary leave). It's the only thing that makes sense with what we're given. Bond just going on holiday for a while with plans to return to MI6 soon after makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
    I disagree. It's not clear to me at all what he's doing and I think that was the intention behind that ending. It's open ended. One can interpret it anyway one wants to, and that was the point behind it.

    Considering Bond needed to give his old life up to go with Madeleine (and in front of M he tosses his gun and walks away without a word), then takes off with Madeleine at the end after Q makes it pretty clear he's going away, it's pretty darn obvious what Bond is doing.

    He knows Madeleine won't accept him while he's still attached to MI6, so he had to let that part of himself go to head off with her. He's not just taking a week or two off, he's doing this with his future in mind.
    Again, I disagree with you. It's obvious to you, and you've interpreted it one way. I can go with that, but it's only one interpretation, and certainly not the only one.

    Bond has been known to do rogue things in the past on many occasions in the films, and even more so recently. So throwing the gun in the river and walking away with Madeline rather than putting a bullet in Blofeld's head is hardly conclusive. I'd throw the gun away in the spur of the moment as well if I had just decided not to kill the author of all my pain. It's symbolic more than literal.

    Who knows what happened between that time and his picking up the Aston. It could be the 'overdue holiday' he mentions at the start, or it could indeed be that he is leaving for good.

    Regarding Madeliene and her protests in London, there are other instances of Bond girls saying one thing and then changing their mind (Anya threatening to kill Bond after the mission is over is just one example).

    Ultimately they kept this open ended so they could go in a number of directions. Make it Craig's swansong (if as you say, he's left for good) or make him come back for a confrontation with Blofeld (as you prefer) or come back for a standalone (as they did with SF, and which I'd prefer).

    The longer this drags inconclusively without news, the more likelihood Craig is out or we have a standalone imho.

    I'm with @bondjames here.

    The throwing of the gun is merely because it is useless and the mission is over as the police have control of Blofeld now. So he slings it and walks into the arms of the Bond girl like any other Bond film.

    Also Q's line 'I thought you'd gone' always sounds strange to me. If I saw a colleague who I thought had resigned I think I'd say 'I thought you'd left.'

    I'm afraid I can't articulate the subtle difference and maybe it translates into other languages as being definite but for me it comes across more than Bond forgot his phone and just popped back.

    They seem to be going out of their way to make it ambiguous so both readings of the situation are equally valid to me.
    boldfinger wrote: »
    Anyway here's an idea if they want to continue on from SP: Swann dies of natural causes? Some sort of disease? Open with her funeral or whatever, then news of Blofeld's escape and exile in some foreign enemy territory (maybe Russia? Play up the current tensions between them and the US, say things have escalated), who refuse to hand him over (because he's working on some scheme for them). Bond realises that life's too short, that for all his skills and experience he couldn't save Madeline from cancer or whatever she died of, decides that since he's eventually going to die anyway why not in service of his country. Goes back to MI6, taking on what essentially amounts to a suicide mission (go in with no backup, if he's caught he's disavowed, to kill Blofeld).. Bit contrived but despite my desire for a YOLT adaptation, I would rather have something more original than "Blofeld escapes and kills Swann, Bond is out for revenge".
    A natural death in THE series about a license to kill would be too depressing. And seriously, it would turn Bond even more into a mind full of darkness.

    Gardner tried it when he was running out of ideas and it wasn't really a winner. You just end up with Bond moping around miserable the whole time and he cant shag any Bond girls or he'll look like a callous dick.

    If we're bringing Blofeld back (and I can't really say how they can't if Craig stays) then things are going to get personal so we might as well bring Madeline back too and turn it all the personal shit up to 11.

    We could have the over the top MR/DAD of personal Bond stuff:- flashbacks to his parents dying a la Batman Begins, flashbacks to him and Ernst as teenagers and then a finale where they go at it to the death. And then perhaps with this done to death we might be able to start with a totally fresh canvas with the new Bond and just have a stand alone mission.

    It clearly boils down to if Craig returns or not. If he does we're pretty much guaranteed to get a Bond v Blofeld extravaganza. If he doesn't we can forget the mistakes made in SP and start again from scratch and build SPECTRE up over several films.

  • Posts: 16,226
    IF Craig comes back it's obvious Bond 25 will be linked to SP and his earlier films.

    If he doesn't come back. Bond 25 will have NOTHING to do at all with the Craig-era.

    I agree. If we do in fact have a new actor for Bond in B25, the Craig timeline will probably be scrapped altogether. With so much effort devoted to creating a continuity and re-introducing established characters for the 1st time, having someone like Aidan, Hiddleston, Idris, Jaime Bell, Cavill, or whoever step into Craig's very specific Bond world could be laughable. I firmly believe once Craig leaves the other MI6 regulars will be recast.
    GoldenEye erases the Dalton era and even goes as far as to place Brosnan specifically in 1986- when the world thought he should have been Bond in the first place. The only link, other than Desmond as Q, was Wade mentioning a friend in the DEA. Some could interpret that as a reference to Felix from LTK, but even that is a bit of a stretch.
  • edited September 2016 Posts: 4,617
    I am reminded of the ending for Dirty Harry where Harry takes his badge from his wallet, looks at it thoughtfully and then throws it in the lake. Its hard to be more certain re the metaphor/symbolism for Harry quiting the force. But box office always wins and he came back Magnum Force etc etc with no reference to his resignation. But you can buy another badge. MS really does get in the way.
    PS actually, its very different, Callahan still shot the bad guy! we do get closure


  • Have to disagree with you. Ian Fleming's version of SPECTRE was a result of the times. Post War Soviet paranoia. That had shifted through Moore's years, to Dalton, to the Post-Cold war Bond. Then Post 9-11 Bond. Bond is a product of the times, and it would be silly and outdated to do this whole Russian paranoia thing again.

    Michael G. Wilson said it the best, that whatever scares people is what Bond's next mission should be. The last decade and a half it's been terrorism and it's anonymity.

    Agreed, but I think contemporary terrorism just presents too great a challenge to EON (and anyone else who's making mass-market blockbusters).

    The "Russian Threat" was vague enough that you could work with it thematically, and not get too on the nose (save perhaps Moore's "that's detente, comrade!"). Note that, for instance, the films never touched on Vietnam or the Falklands. Too real.

    Similarly, a film that deals with Islamic terrorism is always one more attack from being completely 'wrong.' How would audiences feel about a movie that features a mall attack if it opened a day before Westgate, or a promenade attack following Nice, or whatever?

    Bond films are to some extent constrained by their genre - they're not dramatic, wonky political thrillers like Syriana or Body of Lies or something. So if they're going to engage with 'terrorism,' it's only as a backdrop for character and action. The solution is that so far they've engaged with vaguer stuff, like 'surveillance,' or 'climate change,' or else engaged with terrorism very tangentially (Le Chiffre sponsors terror, but that was just a entree for a card game, and Blofeld's involvement in terror had very little screen time and was just a foil for his personal relationship with Bond).

    I think a Bond film that really engages with terrorism in a straight "MI6 versus Terrorists" way - like Spooks, for instance - could be interesting, but it's a hell of a risk for EON.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    It's a good point. I'm sure they have some regret about siding with the Mujahideen (from Arabic mujāhidūn, “those who engage in jihad”) in TLD.
  • dominicgreenedominicgreene The Eternal QOS Defender
    edited September 2016 Posts: 1,756
    octofinger wrote: »
    Have to disagree with you. Ian Fleming's version of SPECTRE was a result of the times. Post War Soviet paranoia. That had shifted through Moore's years, to Dalton, to the Post-Cold war Bond. Then Post 9-11 Bond. Bond is a product of the times, and it would be silly and outdated to do this whole Russian paranoia thing again.

    Michael G. Wilson said it the best, that whatever scares people is what Bond's next mission should be. The last decade and a half it's been terrorism and it's anonymity.

    Agreed, but I think contemporary terrorism just presents too great a challenge to EON (and anyone else who's making mass-market blockbusters).

    The "Russian Threat" was vague enough that you could work with it thematically, and not get too on the nose (save perhaps Moore's "that's detente, comrade!"). Note that, for instance, the films never touched on Vietnam or the Falklands. Too real.

    Similarly, a film that deals with Islamic terrorism is always one more attack from being completely 'wrong.' How would audiences feel about a movie that features a mall attack if it opened a day before Westgate, or a promenade attack following Nice, or whatever?

    Bond films are to some extent constrained by their genre - they're not dramatic, wonky political thrillers like Syriana or Body of Lies or something. So if they're going to engage with 'terrorism,' it's only as a backdrop for character and action. The solution is that so far they've engaged with vaguer stuff, like 'surveillance,' or 'climate change,' or else engaged with terrorism very tangentially (Le Chiffre sponsors terror, but that was just a entree for a card game, and Blofeld's involvement in terror had very little screen time and was just a foil for his personal relationship with Bond).

    I think a Bond film that really engages with terrorism in a straight "MI6 versus Terrorists" way - like Spooks, for instance - could be interesting, but it's a hell of a risk for EON.

    Well, you know Barbara. ;)

    I would find a Bond movie like that very, very interesting. Body of Lies style meets Bond-escapism.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    IF Craig comes back it's obvious Bond 25 will be linked to SP and his earlier films.

    If he doesn't come back. Bond 25 will have NOTHING to do at all with the Craig-era.

    I agree. If we do in fact have a new actor for Bond in B25, the Craig timeline will probably be scrapped altogether. With so much effort devoted to creating a continuity and re-introducing established characters for the 1st time, having someone like Aidan, Hiddleston, Idris, Jaime Bell, Cavill, or whoever step into Craig's very specific Bond world could be laughable. I firmly believe once Craig leaves the other MI6 regulars will be recast.
    GoldenEye erases the Dalton era and even goes as far as to place Brosnan specifically in 1986- when the world thought he should have been Bond in the first place. The only link, other than Desmond as Q, was Wade mentioning a friend in the DEA. Some could interpret that as a reference to Felix from LTK, but even that is a bit of a stretch.

    Those are very good points! I always wonder why the PTS is set in 1986. It's of course a bit sad for Dalton but I guess back then it made sense as the general public indeed didn't really love him, especially in the US. LTK still was a monetary success mind you.

    I never look back and think "what could have been" but it's sad really that Dalton never made it big.

    One thing I have to say though, whenever I show some Bond-newbies TLD, LTK and some other Bond movies, Dalton is always immediately liked best. Happened quite a few times now, last time this Spring with a work colleague of mine (27 years old) who had never seen a Bond film in his life!
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Dalton's the man.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    @haserot I think that's the narrative they'd want people to believe because it makes it seem like they had a clear direction in mind, etc, but imo it was much more complicated than that and until Craig signed on it was all up in the air.

    This very site reported that they'd heard Brosnan was the top candidate for CR as late as 2005, due to the lack of a clear alternative (I think how the producers and Campbell were disagreeing about casting, he wanted Cavill they didn't etc, makes this believeable, as Brosnan would've been a safe pair of hands)

    https://www.mi6-hq.com/sections/articles/bond_21_brosnan_back.php3?t=bond21&s=bond21&id=0915

    Well, this site reports a lot of stuff - it doesn't always mean it's true... I'm not questioning the integrity of the site, because they do a fabulous job and have connections that 99.9% of us arent privy to... but everything should taken with a grain of salt.... Was falling back to Pierce an option since no clear cut front runner emerged for the role of 007 in CR? Yes.. it doesn't mean that they offered him anything, or he was in fact returning until Craig showed up and did a screen test.. I remember all that stuff with Sony wanting a more "recognizable face" in the role, and Cavill being Campbell's man until EON put their foot down and said Craig is the guy...

    the truth always lies somewhere in the middle... i dont believe they had a rock solid plan in place once they let Pierce go and decided to reboot everything - but they knew thats the direction they were aiming for... they obviously didn't have a grand scheme in place, because look at how they had to retcon everything between CR and SP - a little foresight could've prevented a lot of that..
  • Posts: 16,226
    Dalton is huge! I've always been a strong supporter of his 007. It's great his work is being more appreciated now.
    During the Brosnan years, his reign was considered a miss-step. The series had wobbled off course and was now back on track. It will be interesting to see what is made of the Craig era when someone new takes over.
    I often wish fans could appreciate all the eras and not turn their back to what had immediately come before. When Pierce was Bond, I certainly was thrilled and wouldn't even dream of replacing him until after his 6th or 7th outing. At the same time, I still loved the Dalton films and hoped the Brosnan would eventually adopt a similar tone to, say, TLD.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    I'll have a terribly hard time adjusting to a new Bond after Daniel. Ever since I really got into Bond in a big way, Dan has always been Bond, so to imagine a future time where that's no longer the case is a drag, and I've enjoyed his work immensely, to put it mildly. I don't envy the next guy to take over, who will be unfairly judged by me as a result of my attachment to Craig's era.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited September 2016 Posts: 4,399
    .... I also don't think EON are following Marvel, I just think that in this case Marvel are outdoing Bond in how they used their secret organization. SPECTRE needs to feel like a massive revelation and I want to feel their power, but I didn't get as much of that as I wanted in SP. We got to hear all the stuff the organization was involved in worldwide, but never saw any of their horrific control in action aside from the bombing they perform of Africa to get them to join with Nine Eyes. All we have to go on is White's story of why he quit and Blofeld's bragging. They also cut the backstory of SPECTRE's creation and the flashback of White and Blofeld meeting from the film, which is another potential strand of story lost forever that would've been far more interesting.

    @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7... you sir have hit the nail directly on the head with your comparison between how Marvel is handling Hydra and how EON botched S.P.E.C.T.R.E in the new movie... in CR and QOS, they had actually begun building up QUANTUM in the perfect way - giving us glimpses in, but not giving us everything (and QUANTUM could've still been SPECTRE in the end, had they not had Greene say the name to Bond at the end - all he had to do was say "I told you everything I know about the organization." - and also not have those Q pins as well).......but once they regained the rights to Blofeld and S.P.E.C.T.R.E, they just threw all that potential down the drain by trying to squeeze it all into one film - when it easily could've, and should've been stretched across multiple films going forward.... but they probably weren't sure what Craig's plan was going forward, and wanted to shoot their load with him while they had their chance.... they played their Ace card waay too soon..

    there are obviously ways they can continue forward, still with S.P.E.C.T.R.E, even with Blofeld captured - it will take come creative writing in order to do so, but it's still possible.... but they obviously botched their reintroduction into the series, big time IMO.
  • royale65royale65 Caustic misanthrope reporting for duty.
    Posts: 4,423
    Yes, the chap after Craig has some large boots to fill. Second only to Connery, one might say.
  • bondjames wrote: »
    It's a good point. I'm sure they have some regret about siding with the Mujahideen (from Arabic mujāhidūn, “those who engage in jihad”) in TLD.

    Yes . . . shame, that. In fairness, it was the style at the time - I think Rambo 3 is dedicated to "the brave warriors of the mujahideen" or something. And it really illustrates the problem well: I think that the Afghanistan angle definitely gave TLD some interest, but it sure hasn't aged well.
  • Posts: 5,767
    I'm with @bondjames here.

    The throwing of the gun is merely because it is useless and the mission is over as the police have control of Blofeld now. So he slings it and walks into the arms of the Bond girl like any other Bond film.
    It´s also a big statement regarding Bond making use of his license to kill. In CR and QoS M pulled her hair out over Bond killing everybody, then by the end of QoS Bond finally left his first adversary alive. The end of SP shows that he´s even more in control, considering he´s dealing with such a personal confrontation. Plus, SP made a point of having M point out that the license to kill is also a license not to kill. As did Bond himself in SF.

  • Posts: 1,092
    The_Reaper wrote: »
    Yep. As usual, you and I are on the same page. I can't even fathom a reality where they don't go this route. They JUST got the rights back to Bond's biggest bad guy. They have to keep going. I say two more with Blofeld, a nice little trilogy like they had before.

    To whom are you referring @The_Reaper? To my idea, which in essence is all about not holding back and go full throttle on Blofeld and SPECTRE, albeit in a more beloved Bond-esque way I think. More screentime for Blofeld, YET he hides in complete secrecy, FRWL-style.

    Or, are you referring to @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 's Marvel-esque idea, which in essence sounds -forgive me for saying this @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7- more like his belief in what he thinks will happen. Not necessarily his desired treatment of Blofeld and SPECTRE.

    My idea:
    I want SPECTRE to be..............secret and effective again! Guys, let's not forget that SPECTRE and Blofeld have been entirely compromised by now! That's very clear from the finale of SPECTRE. MI6 must have loads, bucket loads of information now to dismantle EVERY scheme or operation SPECTRE has a finger in.

    I'm surprised NO one is really addressing that. So to actually give SPECTRE a future in future films, the crime syndicate needs to be both effective and entirely secret again. Obviously, the organization needs to be a modern interpretation again of the 1960's SPECTRE. More of a Bilderberg-esque secret brotherhood as designed by Sam Mendes, and less of the cheesy Ken Adam-style syndicate. But again, it needs to be hiding in complete secrecy again, just like in "FRWL" and "TB". And obviously, James Bond should not be able to compromise SPECTRE again, like he did in Rome.

    The same goes for its head, Ernst Stavro Blofeld. Blofeld is NOT like "The Dark Knight"s The Joker. He's the secret head of counter-espionage syndicate SPECTRE, just like 'M' is the secret head of MI6. Letting Blofeld escape, or letting him being on the run constantly only destroys the mystique of the character. Blofeld therefore needs to hide in secrecy again in Bond #25. Let him....disappear. There are many interesting story ideas to let this happen. But please don't make an entire movie about Blofeld's escape.

    Best thing IMO is to let him escape in a neat, clean, typical Blofeld-esque way. No 'The Joker' stuff please. And all of this during the first 20 to 30 min's of the film. So that during the rest of the film Bond can do a plain, solid, secret mission again! No more personal backgrounds, instead more secrecy!

    "From Russia With Love" IMO could still serve as the best template on how to make SPECTRE and Blofeld become secret again.

    @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 's idea:
    @Gustav_Graves, I'm sorry, but EON aren't just going to let Blofeld hide away again, especially with how much Waltz would cost them.

    If Blofeld is back in a Craig-starring Bond 25, it's going to be a full-out conflict between the two, in a film that holds nothing back and pulls no stops. There's no reason not to throw everything and the kitchen sink at this thing since EON have already used up a modern interpretation of SPECTRE at the tail end of Dan's era. They started it, now they must finish it.

    It would've been far more interesting to see SPECTRE develop throughout a new actor's era as they did with Connery back at the very start, but they've blown their chances of that now and have to make due with what they've got.

    It's a shame Marvel got to the idea first, but it would have been interesting to see SPECTRE infecting MI6 from the inside as hidden in plain sight sleeper agents gaining control in secret for decades working in the same headquarters as their enemies in each major nation's intelligence services.



    Whomever said the part I bolded, my friend, which I believe was "the other guy." (=
  • edited September 2016 Posts: 11,119
    The_Reaper wrote: »
    The_Reaper wrote: »
    Yep. As usual, you and I are on the same page. I can't even fathom a reality where they don't go this route. They JUST got the rights back to Bond's biggest bad guy. They have to keep going. I say two more with Blofeld, a nice little trilogy like they had before.

    To whom are you referring @The_Reaper? To my idea, which in essence is all about not holding back and go full throttle on Blofeld and SPECTRE, albeit in a more beloved Bond-esque way I think. More screentime for Blofeld, YET he hides in complete secrecy, FRWL-style.

    Or, are you referring to @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 's Marvel-esque idea, which in essence sounds -forgive me for saying this @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7- more like his belief in what he thinks will happen. Not necessarily his desired treatment of Blofeld and SPECTRE.

    My idea:
    I want SPECTRE to be..............secret and effective again! Guys, let's not forget that SPECTRE and Blofeld have been entirely compromised by now! That's very clear from the finale of SPECTRE. MI6 must have loads, bucket loads of information now to dismantle EVERY scheme or operation SPECTRE has a finger in.

    I'm surprised NO one is really addressing that. So to actually give SPECTRE a future in future films, the crime syndicate needs to be both effective and entirely secret again. Obviously, the organization needs to be a modern interpretation again of the 1960's SPECTRE. More of a Bilderberg-esque secret brotherhood as designed by Sam Mendes, and less of the cheesy Ken Adam-style syndicate. But again, it needs to be hiding in complete secrecy again, just like in "FRWL" and "TB". And obviously, James Bond should not be able to compromise SPECTRE again, like he did in Rome.

    The same goes for its head, Ernst Stavro Blofeld. Blofeld is NOT like "The Dark Knight"s The Joker. He's the secret head of counter-espionage syndicate SPECTRE, just like 'M' is the secret head of MI6. Letting Blofeld escape, or letting him being on the run constantly only destroys the mystique of the character. Blofeld therefore needs to hide in secrecy again in Bond #25. Let him....disappear. There are many interesting story ideas to let this happen. But please don't make an entire movie about Blofeld's escape.

    Best thing IMO is to let him escape in a neat, clean, typical Blofeld-esque way. No 'The Joker' stuff please. And all of this during the first 20 to 30 min's of the film. So that during the rest of the film Bond can do a plain, solid, secret mission again! No more personal backgrounds, instead more secrecy!

    "From Russia With Love" IMO could still serve as the best template on how to make SPECTRE and Blofeld become secret again.

    @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 's idea:
    @Gustav_Graves, I'm sorry, but EON aren't just going to let Blofeld hide away again, especially with how much Waltz would cost them.

    If Blofeld is back in a Craig-starring Bond 25, it's going to be a full-out conflict between the two, in a film that holds nothing back and pulls no stops. There's no reason not to throw everything and the kitchen sink at this thing since EON have already used up a modern interpretation of SPECTRE at the tail end of Dan's era. They started it, now they must finish it.

    It would've been far more interesting to see SPECTRE develop throughout a new actor's era as they did with Connery back at the very start, but they've blown their chances of that now and have to make due with what they've got.

    It's a shame Marvel got to the idea first, but it would have been interesting to see SPECTRE infecting MI6 from the inside as hidden in plain sight sleeper agents gaining control in secret for decades working in the same headquarters as their enemies in each major nation's intelligence services.



    Whomever said the part I bolded, my friend, which I believe was "the other guy." (=

    I see :-). No hard feelings hehe. But I do find it a pity....that some people actually prefer to.....copy-paste Marvel once again, instead of sticking to a rich, colorful filmography of 24 (26) Bond films. Inspiration enough from within if I may say so. That's what should be the starting point, not Marvel.
  • SuperintendentSuperintendent A separate pool. For sharks, no less.
    Posts: 871
    It clearly boils down to if Craig returns or not. If he does we're pretty much guaranteed to get a Bond v Blofeld extravaganza. If he doesn't we can forget the mistakes made in SP and start again from scratch and build SPECTRE up over several films.

    Why do we need SPECTRE again at all? Isn't it boring?

    I never understood this desire to have the same villains over and over again. I think we've seen enough of them for a lifetime. Using SPECTRE and Blofeld again after Craig is done is lazy and unimaginative. Fan fiction, basically.

    If they absolutely have to reappear, I'd much rather see them in a TV series based on original novels.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    ColonelSun, its true Brosnan was cast, even did all the publicity photos in the tux etc. None of them, least of all Brosnan was expecting MTM productions to renew Brosnans contract for Remington Steele at the 11th hour! When they did, Broccoli and Co had no choice but to drop Brosnan, as they weren't going to have a TV series riding on their publicity!
    Dalton was offered it first, but other commitments prevented him from signing, when Brosnan was dropped, Daltons scheduling had changed and he was available!

    So can we read into this that Dalton was Cubby's first choice over Brosnan? I'm slightly confused.

    I can believe that Cubby took some convincing over Brosnan in 94/5 if that's true, as Brosnan is the only truly bad casting decision Cubby made IMO. Obviously not from a commercial standpoint but creatively speaking.
  • edited September 2016 Posts: 11,425
    It clearly boils down to if Craig returns or not. If he does we're pretty much guaranteed to get a Bond v Blofeld extravaganza. If he doesn't we can forget the mistakes made in SP and start again from scratch and build SPECTRE up over several films.

    Why do we need SPECTRE again at all? Isn't it boring?

    I never understood this desire to have the same villains over and over again. I think we've seen enough of them for a lifetime. Using SPECTRE and Blofeld again after Craig is done is lazy and unimaginative. Fan fiction, basically.

    If they absolutely have to reappear, I'd much rather see them in a TV series based on original novels.

    I kind of agree. I'm not sure I ever found Spectre that gripping in the first place. All a bit too campy and Austin Powers. Quantum was fine as it was.

    For me this is the big tragedy of the Mendes era. Craig started off so strongly and with a fresh slate, and Mendes has just brought us back to where we were before rather than continuing with the new trajectory. It feels like a big missed opportunity and sadly there's a bit of that Brosnan era staleness creeping back in.

    It started with SF for me. The cuff popping, 'health and safety' gag' and DB5 nonsense. Not so much flogging a dead horse, as animal necrophilia.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    But I do find it a pity....that some people actually prefer to.....copy-paste Marvel once again, instead of sticking to a rich, colorful filmography of 24 (26) Bond films. Inspiration enough from within if I may say so. That's what should be the starting point, not Marvel.

    Very true. Marvel's sausage factory has nothing to teach us. Apart from the virtue of planning v making things up on the hoof.

    There you @Gustav I agree with you. It's easy - if you speak sense I agree. Try it more often!
    It clearly boils down to if Craig returns or not. If he does we're pretty much guaranteed to get a Bond v Blofeld extravaganza. If he doesn't we can forget the mistakes made in SP and start again from scratch and build SPECTRE up over several films.

    Why do we need SPECTRE again at all? Isn't it boring?

    I never understood this desire to have the same villains over and over again. I think we've seen enough of them for a lifetime. Using SPECTRE and Blofeld again after Craig is done is lazy and unimaginative. Fan fiction, basically.

    If they absolutely have to reappear, I'd much rather see them in a TV series based on original novels.

    Agreed. SPECTRE is a cliche now and it's hardly as if SP did anything to reinvigorate it with creativity and originality.

    But after taking 50 years to get the rights do you really imagine they are going to let it lie? We're stuck with it I'm afraid and, like the DB5 they think that's what the punters want (and maybe it is to be fair), so it's about making the best of it.
    Getafix wrote: »
    It clearly boils down to if Craig returns or not. If he does we're pretty much guaranteed to get a Bond v Blofeld extravaganza. If he doesn't we can forget the mistakes made in SP and start again from scratch and build SPECTRE up over several films.

    Why do we need SPECTRE again at all? Isn't it boring?

    I never understood this desire to have the same villains over and over again. I think we've seen enough of them for a lifetime. Using SPECTRE and Blofeld again after Craig is done is lazy and unimaginative. Fan fiction, basically.

    If they absolutely have to reappear, I'd much rather see them in a TV series based on original novels.

    I kind of agree. I'm not sure I ever found Spectre that gripping in the first place. All a bit too campy and Austin Powers. Quantum was fine as it was.

    For me this is the big tragedy of the Mendes era. Craig started off so strongly and with a fresh slate, and Mendes has just brought us back to where we were before rather than continuing with the new trajectory. It feels like a big missed opportunity and sadly there's a bit of that Brosnan era staleness creeping back in.

    It started with SF for me. The cuff popping, 'health and safety' gag' and DB5 nonsense. Not so much flogging a dead horse, as animal necrophilia.

    Well we have always had these cycles so I don't think it's anything to get too worried about. Although it's disappointing how the Craig era turned out it's not like we've plumbed DAD depths.
  • edited September 2016 Posts: 12,837
    I think now they have the rights they should use Blofeld and SPECTRE sparringly. If Craig returns they basically have to bring Blofeld back. If not then give them a few years off. Maybe skip the next actor out entirely. And when they do return don't waste time reestablishing them. Make it clear that Bond and Blofeld are old enemies in this new continuity (since the next actor will likely be another reboot), just keep the details vague.

    I started an outline for Bond 25 if Craig returns (I wrote one before for if he doesn't, it was basically a modern adaptation of MR using Islamic terrorists as the villains) and this is what I came up with

    A PTS follows an armed police unit in Paris who take down a Spectre cell there. The detective heading up the operation radios in to indicate that it'd been a success, and this message works its way back to James Bond. Bond is in some flash busy looking United Nations HQ, he's the commanding officer of a worldwide operation to capture and round up Spectre's remaining members. On the wall is a list of targets, a map indicating known Spectre safehouses around the globe, etc. But he's miserable. Moody. Someone comments that it could be because of his girlfriend leaving him while someone else suggests it's because of the transfer of Blofeld.

    We see flashes of news coverage of the trial which is taking place in London, where Blofeld is being held in a secure wing of Belmarsh. Also in the news is the escalating tension between the west and Russia, due to the situation in Syria. On the way to the trial, the police convoy transporting Blofeld is attacked. Helicopter gunships tear it apart, and Blofeld is lifted to safety.

    After the title sequence Bond is briefing a number of officials on the current situation, including M. Bond explains that while the captured members have led to Spectre being systematically torn apart, the only place they have a lack of intel on is Russia. This is due to the Russians cracking down on western agents on their soil, due to ongoing tensions between them and the west, and their vague communication when referring to progress made on their side of the Spectre operation. Bond then states that it's therefore the most likely place for Blofeld to hide.

    When the meeting is over Bond takes M aside. Blofeld escaping was the last straw. He wants to get back in the field, he requests a return to active duty under the 00 section. M questions why, his new post is a much more lucarative, rewarding job and Bond himself seemed adamant that he was resigning from active duty. Bond says that he's changed his mind. M attempts to bring up Madeline, asking how she'd feel, but Bond isn't having any of it. M tells him to think about what he really wants before leaving. Moneypenny is outside and asks after Bond. M says he's worse than they thought. Moneypenny isn't surprised. M asks Moneypenny about Madeline. She tells M that from what she's heard, his relationship with Madeline fell apart. And Moneypenny isn't surprised. After quitting the service Bond couldn't stay away and jumped at the chance to lead the anti Spectre task force, so it was no surprise that Madeline wasn't happy about this and things eventually broke down between them. Domestic life simply didn't suit him. M tells Moneypenny that Bond wants to get back in the field. They both agree it's a bad idea. He's too old and the case is too personal.

    Months later, a meeting between the nations leads to a huge argument. The US demand Russia turns over Blofeld but the Russians claim that he isn't there. The others want to send in UN ambassadors to monitor the operations progress but the Russians insist that they'll treat any foreign agents on their soil as an act of war. M is frustrated. While this endless politicking continues, Blofeld is still out there. Wearily, he tells Moneypenny to get him Bond.

    In a helicopter en route to the new MI6 headquarters Bond is briefed. They need someone on the outside to go into Russia and see for themselves what's going on. Bond has the greatest knowledge of how Spectre operates and is the most knowledgeable about their bases and safehouses given his position as leader of the task force. It's also the most plausible scenario: due to his personal connection to the case (the brother connection, Vesper, Madeline, etc), it'd be easy for Bond to be passed off as a rogue agent once he was found out. And due to his former career at MI6, it's also plausible that he could meet up with contacts, etc, of his own accord. Bond is given instructions: he'll have to quit his current job, and then it's been arranged for a blind eye to be turned on a freighter bound for Russia. Once there, he'll collect a drop containing money, ID, a gun, etc, and from a local garage, a Q branch equipped Triumph Bonneville T120. After that he's on his own. Before he goes Q has a couple of things for him, and admits that he's actually missed the disruption and excitement Bond caused. They exchange a warm/friendly goodbye, as Q wishes Bond luck. Moneypenny takes him aside on his way out of the building and begs him not to go. She asks why he can't just walk away but Bond is adamant that he's going to stop Blofeld. He leaves and heads off.

    Not sure where to take it from there but basically Bond would find out that the Russians are hiding Blofeld in exchange for his services as a spymaster and access to his resources. But Blofeld is playing the Russians, using the Syria situation to his advantage and trying to trigger all out war so that he can profit from it using a network of arms dealers he's established, and from there use the profits to go back into the shadows and build up a new organisation. I'd want Wright's Felix involved too because of it being the last Craig film. Basically the theme of the story is Bond's inability to quit and walk away. He's tried but he can't. And eventually, this would kill him. He can go out in a blaze of glory at the end. I think Bond dying could be a great ending and could really set the Craig era apart (avoiding confusion when the next actor arrives). From there I'd go with a reboot with a Bond in his prime on a more standard mission.

  • The thing I do see in interviews with Sam Mendes, is that, for the sake of his own reign as Bond director, he actually wants Daniel Craig to retire. Perhaps because if Daniel Craig does retire, his Bond films get that bit of extra shine in the near (and long-term) future. So maybe Sam Mendes is a bit afraid that a future Bond director, who directs Daniel Craig one final time, will actually do better than him.

    In a way I am not fond of that kind of attitude. It's as if the Bond franchise should be like Sam Mendes' idea, or should wither and die after him.

    Make no mistake, I admire Mendes' films A LOT. But for the sake of the franchise....for the sake of a more standalone-like approach, I do think it's better if Daniel Craig returns one final time with a different director. Here's a nice interview that really digs into Mendes' (and Craig's motivations) to do Bond films:
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    To be honest, I like what they started with Quantum and they should have continued with that trajectory. Throwing in Blofeld and SP so soon was poorly realised fan service. Even the "big reveal" of Frans being Blofeld meant absolutely nothing.

    As much as I hate to admit it, I think going forward EoN need to continue and try and course correct Blofeld/SP with Bond 25 and try to tell the most compelling story they can and then be done with it. It's a real shame because with a little patience and the right talent to reintroduce Blofeld and SP, the character and the organisation could have made a tremendous and impact full return; but such as things are, we have to hope for the best from a bad situation.
  • edited September 2016 Posts: 1,296
    I like Brady's idea of having SPECTRE to infilatrate and compromise MI6 from all sides, traitors and turncoats everywhere, this is where the movies need to go if they want to stay interesting and memorable like a Marvel movie. Also this is just my opinion but I think Madeleine needs to return, trip and break an ankle so Bond can leave her.
  • Posts: 1,985
    Cant for Craig to be Bond one last time in Bond 25. I know I sound like I'm trolling but I'm that confidant he will be back
  • Posts: 1,296
    @thelivingroyale I don't want Bond to die at the end, they already killed M and that was bad enough. Let's focus on telling a good story instead.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    I really think we should be getting some news, instead. Otherwise, I'm going to start seeing nightmares in result of some crude ideas suggested in this thread.
  • Posts: 1,092
    I'll have a terribly hard time adjusting to a new Bond after Daniel. Ever since I really got into Bond in a big way, Dan has always been Bond, so to imagine a future time where that's no longer the case is a drag, and I've enjoyed his work immensely, to put it mildly. I don't envy the next guy to take over, who will be unfairly judged by me as a result of my attachment to Craig's era.

    I as well. I have always been a huge fan of the films, having seen everything from OP through TND in the theaters. But then DAD I skipped because I had soured on the series after 3 lackluster duds from Brosnan and the fact I still pined for Dalton. When CR came I didn't really care until everyone said it was awesome. When I finally saw it, man I was back into Bond in a big way and have been ever since. These ten years with Dan have been great and I still hope we get at least one more with him.

    It's gonna be weird moving forward with someone else wearing the tux.
Sign In or Register to comment.