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
Great suggestions and I concur 100%. I would only add one more ingredient to this - throw in a PROPER adapted unused scene or two from the Fleming novels too (TLD, LTK style). Even if the mainstream audiences don't get it, we Fleming purists and Bond fans will. And this shouldn't detract from the high gloss, high octane thriller you've outlined here, but keeps all fans happy then.
Which would give us pain face grimacing, loud yelling and over acting galore... <:-P
+2. Particularly with the art house directors! Have some action directors come in that know how to have heart in a story. Emotion is welcome in a Bond story just don’t over do it (TWINE, SP). Also, if EON is interested in a multi story arc, planning ahead and keeping people is the first way to go. The only time that EON pulled off the multi story arc well was Dr. No-From Russia With Love. Keep it simple EON. And have fun.
“I know. I knNNUUGGGGHHHHHAAAAA!!!”
Yeah completely agree. Don’t get me wrong, a Bond film that competes with MI’s stunts would be cool, but it’s not a necessity. You don’t have to go bigger to be better. The Raid 2 only had a budget of a few million quid, and the car chase towards the end seems insanely modest on paper compared to the likes of Bond, MI and FnF, but I still remember almost every single shot from it, and I found it just as thrilling as Tom Cruise hanging off that plane (if not moreso, because nobody can direct an action scene like Gareth Evans). Creativity is the main thing. I really liked how NTTD had a more visceral quality to the action again, but the only setpiece that felt at all inventive was the PTS.
If they're going to make a new organization, please don't retcon it like what they've did in Spectre like it's all connected, and forced like those villains that are meant to be standalones end up being forcibly connected, think of Silva being connected to SPECTRE, it's still laughable to me.
Please I hope they won't do this again.
I wish they went back to the old times where an organization (Old Spectre and Quantum) was just there sending their agents, making different kinds of threats, doing world domination plots and etc.
Or if they're doing some sort of connections, make sure that it's not forced or contrived.
The villains should be obvious that he or she was a member or agent of that organization, like Dr. No implying that he's a SPECTRE member.
Not that they didn't imply it, then all of a sudden when this organization was introduced, we are all shocked that they're also a part of that organization, which is not really meant to be, think of Le Chiffre and Vesper, they're supposed to work for Quantum, they're not supposed to be a part of SPECTRE, but the writers chose to shoehorned them into that.
They weren’t even named in CR, so for all we know they could have worked for either Quantum or SPECTRE, and one or the other isn’t really all that different anyway. A shadowy organization that has agents in every corner. That’s why I’m not so bothered by them changing the name from Quantum to Spectre because they’re that interchangeable.
True, I also feel the same way.
Skyfall would have been a great ending to the Craig Era.
Also it can leave the door open for a new actor when Mallory asked Bond about returning to the duty, then Bond replied "with a pleasure", and the gunbarrel, I feel like yes, his era should have end here, with new actor stepping up to the role and there will be standard missions, no more going rogue, this time it's personal.
Like yes, Bond already moved on, this is where it all begins, M was male again like in the classic movies, and Bond will protect Queen and Country again.
I can't help but to also understand those people saying that SP tainted his era, I can't really blame them in the first place.
Yes, I wish they will plan it better, the "connecting all of the movies", it's not really handled well in the Craig Era
In real life, sinister loose collaborations like these go under various names. It s not like they are all trade marked on the stock exchange, although quite a few are.
Yeah. That's it. But I'm still very happy Craig was brilliant in his era, even with all the problems.
Good point. Even in the novels Bond had to change his Universal Exports cover to Transworld Consortium because the old name became too known.
CR released November 2006. QOS planned release was May 2008, delayed to October. Skyfall planned release was originally Fall 2010. That would have pleased a lot of people, and showcases the intent of the filmmakers and producers before events extended schedules.
There is the plan, then reality takes over. Looking back Eon masterfully negotiated developments across the years to box office and critical success, and no less success with the audience. NTTD weathering the theater closures and uncertain future exists as amazing film history playing out, luckily they invested a lot of heart and class and top notch entertainment in their latest mission.
And the objections to the film content based on bad feelings for events taking place off screen (presuming the producers didn't plan enough) fall kind of flat.
So I'm back to the Charly Gordon view of: What is, is. What is not, is not. (Is that it? It is.)
This talk of demanding the filmmakers plan better (across 14 or more years) to me recalls a prescient Dilbert cartoon on planning and its potential worth.
Could not have said it better.
And honestly, why even bother with continuity? I don't think the Craig era benefited from it at all. You end up having to do terrible retcons to link all the movies together, so why not just take it one movie at a time instead? It's not like it didn't work for 40 years.
Yup. There’s no film series where everything goes according to plan. The MCU films for example went through a lot of changes during development. Things got pushed back. Some dropped altogether.
George Lucas famously made up his Star Wars saga as he went along, which is why we get odd developments like Luke finding out Leia was his sister. The closest he had to a plan was the prequels because he knew what the endgame was, but what exactly happens in the prequels was something he had to come up with and he struggled along the way, often turning in drafts way too close before cameras were expected to roll. Then there’s all the reshoots he had to do because he realized what he had shot wasn’t conveying enough story.
And then there’s Bond. Even back in the 60s they made the baffling choice of picking YOLT as the next adaptation before OHMSS, but that meant having to scrap the whole story and replace it with a new one involving space rockets and a hollowed out volcano.
I think the closest that EON can have a multi-film plan is if they start adapting the continuation novels, whether faithfully or loosely. Which would be cool because then they’d be able to announce the title of the next film at the end, like they used to from FRWL-OP.
The real achievement of the MCU isn’t that they had everything planned out for ten years, but that they were always able to make the adjustments work and to drop what didn’t work without it being too obvious and disruptive.
This is a boring thing to say, but Eon just have to be better at it. The problem isn’t (necessarily) that they decided too late to tie everything together. It’s that they tied it together badly. It’s not the ultimate sin to figure out a story as you go along. It’s also not fundamentally bad writing to start with an ending and write towards it. You just have to do it well!
Well, actually I don't like the idea at all, but if it were well executed it could be great. Maybe a trilogy?
Considering how Mickey G likes to emphasize that Eon isn't a machine factory, I kind of doubt a planned story arc will happen at all. My guess is Eon will continue to focus on one film at a time and then tie them in together as they go. Just like in the Craig era.
“I don’t think he smoked” was the best line in the franchise. Bond humorously corrects M claiming to have cared for, with gifts, the time-honoured employee that tried to have her killed. It conveyed subtly in one line what took Skyfall the entire dragged out Silva/Bond being shot/retirement/M dying plot to do.
Skyfall was unBondian and barely consistent at all. The only reason I think it did better with non-diehard fans is that it was a standalone film through and through. And because it was more child friendly than Harry Potter.
Yes. I think The Batman's a good example of a film which not only understands/adapts its source material, but does something new with the film incarnation of its character. Essentially it's what I suggested - a big franchise film which uses Film Noir tropes. I'm not saying Bond 26 has to have the same dark cinematography or be about a broody Bond hunting serial killers, but this film has to re-establish Bond, do something slightly different with his character/the tropes of the series, all while ideally more closely adapting/understanding Fleming's novels and remaining consistent with what makes the Bond films so enjoyable to watch. I mean, it's telling that Skyfall was the most successful modern Bond film (or indeed ever?) - a film which is very character based, smaller in scale than many other Bond adventures and plays with the formula of the movie series. Also, why would EON risk throwing too much money at this next film? NTTD cost about £300 Million and couldn't break even with advertising costs. They'll need to keep the next one to about £185-200 Million, hence stripping back on locations, the story itself etc.
My point is viewers want something different with these films that goes deeper than just 'luxury instagram' aesthetics and big action stunts (as @SomethingThatAteHim also pointed out it's more a case of creative action scenes being needed, not necessarily more or bigger ones). We have many unsuccessful action movies out there, Bond is and always has been better than them. All of these elements - the unique action sequences, the cars, gambling, sex - can be fitted with a story and character direction that is fresh and doesn't turn Bond 26 into a run of the mill action film.
Or they're ready to move on to Bond 8, a new actor in their reestablished franchise. Just business.
True, my friend.
Or Silva working for SPECTRE. All we get is a quick namedrop from Blofeld and then that random production still when Bond is walking through MI6. Completely unnecessary. Lol.
I vomited in my mouth and had a small stroke.
Is there a thread on this forum that collects unused Fleming moments/materials that could still be used?