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
That should clear up any concerns for continuity
Since CraigBond canonically became 007 in 2006, he can't possibly be any of the previous ones. But I agree that what they did during the Craig era was stupid.
Like do people who think that seriously think that a character like Blofeld survived being dropped into a smock stack as a cripple if that was the case, or that he was his brother the entire time, even back in FRWL?
However, I feel the Craig era MI6 staff are different characters from their Fleming counterparts.
Neither Dench nor Fiennes are Fleming's Miles Messervy, and I don't believe Ben is intended to be Major Boothroyd.
I don’t believe that necessarily, but I do buy that Brosnan’s Bond in some way has experienced all the missions of previous films.
In that case, I can believe the same of Craig in Skyfall.
I know, such a mess - a 60 year old series coming off of one of its most financially/critically successful run of films with the guarantee of many more. That and the fact that they can do whatever they want creatively going forward.
I do agree though, each Bond actor's tenure, hell even each Bond film arguably, is different and they're probably best viewed as standalone stories (or universes one could say) in a wider series. The end of NTTD only cemented that. Audiences get it and it's nothing new. We already have so many versions of Bond between the continuation novels, graphic novels, films etc. Again, it should be taken as an opportunity to do something different, but it'll require that slate to be wiped relatively clean (ok, things like the Bond theme and gun barrel likely won't be going, but the cast of the Craig era, any of its storylines, heck even those of the 1962-'02 era can go. You now have a chance to set up a new version of this character distinct from anything that came before. Personally, I'm astounded some fans aren't more excited by this possibility).
Whereas I'm not sure I even buy that the Bond of AVTAK ever went up in space. I don't feel like those films are connected.
Which isn't a problem with either, it's just different ways of doing it.
Yes, and I think it really is time to wipe the slate clean now without the nostalgia we've seen in the Craig films with the DB5 and M's office and all that- that feels played out now. As you say, keep the Bond theme and the gunbarrel but I would say that should be it. Everything else new, no looking back.
Yes, I'd like to see a slightly different office, as well as a different approach to things, even if broad elements of the Bond stories are there in the next one (Bond girls, allies, the theme, gun barrel, villains etc. which is why I say the slate should be wiped 'relatively' clean). It's why I've said in the past I'd prefer if we went without a Q in the next one and found some other way of introducing Bond's gadgets and cars (if any) in the typical 'Q briefing/Chekov's gun' set up. They could perhaps consider an alternative to Moneypenny with Loleila Ponsonby or something too and give the relationship between the future Bond/M (or even Tanner) a fresh dynamic. And yes, no visual and nostalgic call backs. There's no need for a DB5 or a lair that looks like the one from DN.
Regardless though, I think an important job for the producers and writers in the early stages is coming up with how this future Bond will differ from Craig's, and indeed other iterations of the character. I say this because I think they have a good grasp on what traits Bond should have that is applicable to each version. Most of these are subtle, and this isn't even accounting for an actor's individual take on the role which might have an impact on the script. I mean, if Craig's Bond was a man who often went against the orders of MI6 to complete his missions, will the next Bond be more of a 'blunt instrument' and is there potential for some interesting story ideas in that? What would a younger version of this character bring to the table? Is there anything that's there in other media iterations of the character (the novels mainly) which haven't been explored in the cinematic versions? Once they've locked those big ideas then they can start coming up with what this new Bond universe and story will look like, and indeed find a new actor.
And to be fair, a lot of TGM is about interpersonal drama between the characters, and it's that which makes the ending more exciting and tense.
However, this time they will plot it out carefully before they start.
They might have some ideas of a general direction, but in a way I'd be surprised if they plot it out fully. If you do that then you're constraining your directors of films down the line you haven't even hired yet.
Here are my criteria for the reboot:
Also, the reliable DeuxMoi has posted that work has begun on Bond 26 and that Denis Villeneuve is the director they are after. Deuxmoi usually posts accurate stories months before they are announced. I could count numerous examples - the most prominent being Barry Keoghan's true role in The Batman. There have been a ton of others. Most recently the cast of the film version of Wicked and the Hunger Games prequel.
Bond isn't quite like that. In fact in many ways the Bond franchise made a name for itself by going the other way, turning Bond's car, which IIRC in the books simply had a concealed place for his gun (was this taken from Chandler's Marlowe?), into something more outlandish. I think Goldfinger really pushed the franchise that little bit further into fantasy, and though the franchise flirts with going back down to earth, it's never been able to stay away from those things that stick in the public's consciousness as Bondian: the scarred villain, the outlandish villain's lair, the gadget-laden car, the indestructible henchman. It even jettisoned the PPK for the more modern P99, then went back to the more iconic pistol. Bond can't ditch too many of its recognisable elements before it becomes just another spy/action franchise, it needs visually identifiable elements like the PPK and the DB5 because Bond lacks a strong visual identifier like Batman's costume. You're not going to mistake Batman for anyone else, but Bond? He's just a guy that sometimes wears a tux. If they'd kept the facial scar that would have helped, but they didn't.
Some people here are talking about getting rid of things like the DB5. Well, I think if they do get a person of colour to play Bond, they will probably compensate for such a strong visual shift by making sure visually iconic elements are in play front and centre. The DB5 and PPK may not be from the books, but they are linked so strongly to the Bond franchise that they act as a security blanket to change - Pierce looked so much like everybody's idea of Bond that the producers felt confident switching to the P99 after his debut, but with the slightly off-model Craig the franchise went the other direction, and we got the PPK and DB5 back.
No matter what direction the makers go in for the first film, they will attempt to balance the various aspects of Bond as they move along, swinging between gritty realism and fantasy, serious drama and humour, struggling to find that impossible film that everybody seems to like. They're going to be all over the place, as usual.
I do think that one thing that Bond will share with the recent The Batman is that they will have a top-notch cinematographer. The Batman looked absolutely gorgeous, and since Skyfall the Bond franchise has prided itself on looking quality.
On his first mission, Bond’s life is saved by a senior agent, Blackwood, who then goes on to retire.
Bond is assigned to shadow an alleged arms dealer. Whilst “on his watch” , the dealer is assassinated and questions are asked by M whether Bond was “trigger happy” ?
A whole series of unauthorised “hits” then take place across Europe against various targets that were being monitored. M is put on gardening leave as it as it’s possible he has either sanctioned the hits himself personally or has lost control of his department. M asks Bond to investigate and teams up with a female Swedish agent, Astrid, who also needs to clear her name from an unauthorised hit in Malmo.
As they get closer to the truth, Bond attends Blackwood’s retirement party. Blackwood reveals that he is the leader of the “hit squad”. After a career as an agent, he has given up on the internal politics and sensibilities of government. He sees evil across the land and his team, he claims, “has done more good in a year than MI6 has done in fifty”. He has recruited agents across Europe and asks that Bond joins his team.
Bond rejects the invitation and realises that he is now a target of Blackwood’s team. He confides in Astride re Blackwood’s role. She reveals she is actually a member of Blackwood’s team and has been shadowing Bond and reporting back. Fight ensures and Bond kills her.
Bond informs M of his discovery. His reactions are mixed. Staggered that the team has existed on his watch but relieved that he is “in the clear”. He orders Bond to bring Blackwood in.
Bond tracks him down and a final climactic set piece takes place. This ends with Bond taking the upper hand. Coming to terms with what he has done and his bleak future, the unarmed Blackwood notes that Bond has one bullet left and requests, as a double O agent, he performs his duty. Bond refuses but does hand him his Walter. Blackwood thanks Bond who walks away and we hear a single shot.
Yes I agree, the only reason I compare the two is because The Batman wasn't much of a departure from the Nolan films, and I think we're likely to see the same rejig but-not-completely in the next Bond. I would expect it to be less of a total core change than the one between DAD and CR, anyway.
Bond should just be a newly-minted 00. It can just be stated that he's new (a bit of a wink to the audience).
A strong younger Bond/older M dynamic has distinct possibilities (especially if they start with a MR or even Colonel Sun-inspired script).
I think CR will be the template for Bond 26 (how could it not be?), which brings us back to Fleming. The smart money is that Eon will go back and carry on with the pieces of Fleming that are left.
A more faithful THR, anyone, incorporating Liz Krest and Fidele Barbey? The Seychelles is one of the few destinations that still feels exotic/out of reach. There aren't many...
I like it.
I agree with Charmian Bond becoming a regular. Same with May. They should be given a chance or two for the Cinematic Bond.
I can't see how it could be..? They've only just done it. And it's such a mad story that it would stick out.
I could see them adapting the bulk of TMWTGG but saving that opening (which has little to do with the rest of the story) for Bond 27 or 28. They've got to establish the new Bond first before they brainwash him, unless they want to be accused of ripping off Bourne again.
And introducing Q and Moneypenny over the course of several films...they got a lot of story mileage out of that delay, last time around.
I don't see them doing May or Loelia ever, actually. Maybe a Goodnight reboot, though.
Maybe not a regular, although I'd be interested to see how that would work, but I'd still like Charmian to be introduced to the film universe in some way. As I've said, Vicky McClure would be ideal, I'm sure she can do a passable Scottish accent. I'd add Loelia along with May, I think they should at least get some time in the spotlight.
I think they should avoid any ground covered by CR though, so I wouldn’t want it to end with him becoming 007 (that in itself seems like another origins cliche too). I’d end it with him being approached by someone mysterious who’s implied to be a spook. Then fast forward to him already early in his career as 007 in the next film. Don’t think we need to see the two kills again or anything like that.
Yeah I think there are plenty of ways to do it which wouldn't cover the same ground as CR. I don't dislike the Charmian idea even, I could imagine there being a way of doing that.
As I mentioned earlier in the thread, I think you could even do a plot where Bond is the very first double-O - have M approach him in the SBS or DI with the idea of setting up the double-O section, needed for a specific mission perhaps.