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
Again the wrap up for the craig era is easy to write and direct and should be a walk in the park MY CONCERN is while I don't mind a revenge film with you only live twice elements strewn about others might as it is the safe and predictable path the issue is how to get those people on board (biggest bang for you buck) and again for the life of me I can't think of how to show bond's new world as a diplomat for UK's Foreign office code named 7777 without it lasting an hour (again Bond and either Tanaka or a Tanaka substitute need to bond and for bond to realize that he is like the Samurai of old a warrior destined to fight evil forever and can't just give it up because others need to live a normal life) and there would be a considerable lack of action the only solutions
1. Stealling from Nightfire where the Tanaka substitute is nearly assanated by the Yakuza (or local mob if this isn't taking place in Japan) and Bond is forced into action
2. Gala's first two kills making her the new 007 (though considering how many complained about Bond not being in the action piece in TLD I am unsure if I want to push Craig's bond in this same situation)
again if this main issue is solved the rest of the film can fall in line (Swann can either show up accidentally or she as a Doctor is part of this diplomatic mission and the focus on bond as Diplomat and his push toward his old life would be enough of a difference I think)
In a nutshell. If you want period, read Fleming.
If the makers decide to adapt a Fleming novel at the time it was written then it has no choice than to be a period piece.
I'd like to see it done for television. Imagine faithful adaptations of Moonraker and Diamonds Are Forever!
You mean treated as special?
Treated 'better' means they give out more information, which means releasing information to the press and the wider world (who aren't really interested). And if there is nothing to tell what exactly do they say?
You think as fans we should be slipped a few secret nuggets of information via a web site like this?
The thing is, the producers have lives, they have better things to do than update a bunch of nerds on the progress of a film that the said nerds will probably hate anyway.
( If there is one thing you can rely on hardcore fans to do, it's pull a film apart bit by bit and roast it over a spit.)
Sadly Eon do not make Bond films for us. They make them for everyone, with a view to a healthy profit and a worthwhile addition to the franchise.
When there is something worth reporting they will do so. Via the usual channels.
It's increasingly clear that the current team's philosophy is not to churn the entries out on a 2 year cycle like they did previously. While I don't buy any arguments that this is due to production complexity and cost (Disney does it every year with both their Marvel and SW franchises), I have to accept it. What choice do I have? However, I certainly don't have to like it, and I don't.
If I had a choice between the previous 2 year cycle (even with the substandard, imho, films that were produced during the Brosnan run) or the 3-4 year cycle they are on now, I know which one I'd pick. Hint: It's not the more recent approach.
I only hope that once Craig is gone, EON adjust their approach once again and perhaps take us back to a more regular cycle. I believe a studio shakeup, an EON leadership transfer to the next generation and an actor change are all prerequisites for my hope being fulfilled.
But film Bond can frankly be set in any era then, so why the hang up about doing a period film.
People want Bond to move with the times,and he has to appeal to young and old.
A period film wouldn't appeal to the younger audience.
It's a slippery slope. Why not set one in the future?
The Bond films have always been action/adventure films. That's what sells.
We have to face it, they won't make a serious reproduction of a Fleming story and cut all of the action out. As barry says it's about box office.
Today's audience would probably prefer a Bond film set in their favorite decade: the 1990's.
Since they would have grown up during the Craig era and flatly refused to see any of the earlier entries (assuming pre-Craig Bonds would all be cheesy like Austin Powers), they'd probably think it would be cool to see 007 pull out a giant cell phone Zach Morris Saved By The Bell Style, and expect to see Bond sport a MacGyver mullet.
Sarcasm aside, I've always been a firm supporter of the idea of a cold war period Bond. Someone like Aidan Turner cast in the role could suit that style amazingly. I just feel the coolness of a cold war setting would go over many audience's heads.
Didn't someone awhile back post a pretty funny picture of Craig with 90's grunge band long hair?
Same here @Benny.
Moving forward with the time....but at a snails pace ;)
Definitely. Longer gap, as we have seen, doesn't guarantee a better film.
I remember a video of him from about a year ago, where he did the same thing. He literally said to the journalist "You won't get any Bond talk from me". Turner is probably the only one of the rumoured actors who refuses to comment about it.
Now, as for TV adaptations, spin-offs etc., I wouldn't like any of those. I'd rather have all the production focus on the main film series, perhaps at a slightly faster pace. Do one thing and do it as best as one possibly can.
But he's not evolving. EON has stayed away from placing Bond in the realities of a post-9/11 world. Yes, CR dealt with funding terrorism, but for the most part, Bond doesn't tackle today's world at all. It's too controversial. Bond doesn't and can't operate in the world of Zero dark Thirty, even though he probably should.
By placing Bond in the Cold War, there's no more concern about chronology, changing actors, etc. And the enemies make sense and don't offend anyone. And Spectre's dealings make more sense.
Nah. His part of the film sucked.
It might give interesting stories, but I don't think it is commercially interesting. They'd probably have to look for other sponsors. After watching a Bond film lots of people want to be like Bond in sense of style and fashion - that is commercially interesting. I think that will append less to period films.
I could deal with that, he's got that Fassbender-esque look to him
He's Irish, moved to London to pursue acting. Another Pierce Brosnan?
I agree.