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
If the above report is true and they want Denis to helm a “classy” / “throwback” toned Bond, I’m suddenly ecstatic about the possibilities.
Well in the books the numbers are random and not in any order, but I'm sure a bit of screenwriting flim-flam could explain it. Look at all of those various nonsense explanations for where Fleming got the number that have appeared over the years, from Elizabethan spies to telephone numbers to top secret document codes - you could even use one of them in the film.
I think any origin story would need to be careful to steer clear of 'this is where he got his martini from!' gimmickry with the iconography though; folks are a bit tired of that trick. So perhaps a very arbitrary explanation of the 7 number with no glorification would be the way to go. M looks at the clock, it's 7am, that's the code number sorted; on to the next thing to do.
Cubby’s run ended nearly forty years ago and the Craig era went on for the best part of twenty. The definition of “proper Bond” has changed, and they’ve got to sell tickets to more than just Alan Partridge types.
The reason I’m skeptical about that report is that a “classy”/“throwback” feeling film doesn’t really sound all that different in tone to the last three for me, and they keep emphasising how they’ll be reinventing it. I could see them approaching Villenueve though, he does seem like the sort of name they go for these days. But personally I’m hoping for something a bit more irreverant and modern feeling. Loved the last few but I’m a bit bored of the nostalgia and the prestige blockbuster feel now.
I too have tired of all the callbacks to the '60s films, starting with the Aston Martin. (It should have remained Connery's car only, although I will allow Lazenby because OHMSS is so good.) A younger Bond would probably drive an electric car.
I expect another climate change story soon because how could you not?
For all its faults, QoS did have some good ideas.
Also with the Aston Martin, I do think its prominence should be lowered after the Craig era but keeping it in the background would be a nice nod to the nostalgia and Bond's love of vintage cars from the books.
In fact maybe that could be how you introduce the new Bond. He's doing some maintenance when May tells him he's needed in the office. More LALD than GoldenEye but after a big PTS it could work if they wanted a more paired back Bond.
Producing the new 8-part reality series '007’s Road to a Million' for Amazon (“it’s looking really great,” enthused Broccoli)
Broccoli is director of the U.K. chapter of women’s advocacy org Time’s Up
Producing the movie 'Till' (releasing next month)
Broccoli is producing a musical of 'Sing Street' in Boston
Broccoli also has another stage production in the works with director Erica Schmidt
Wilson has written a new TV show they are hoping to produce (it's unlikely this is a James Bond Jr reboot as Broccoli was very against it the first time around)
Broccoli is chair of First Light, a youth-focused filmmaking initiative
Broccoli is also a founding member of the London Screen Academy and the president of the National Youth Theatre
Both producers advise the British Film Institute on its next 10-year policy
Yes it’s truly amazing. Not too mention that they are probably checking in on Project 007 and possibly even IFP with the books.
True, it should always be classy and stylish. I guess what I mean by prestige is the sense of every film lately having to feel like a big, long, awards season ready epic. I’d like a shorter running time and a bit more fun and playfulness in the feel of it, a lighter tone (we’ve had more gags lately, but the films have still been quite heavy), more willingness to embrace the camp stuff aesthetically (Saffin’s lair and goons were a bit drab imo), and maybe some zippier Edgar Wright/Gareth Evans sort of energy to the camera work of the action scenes, that kind of thing.
That's so true. The NTTD sets were like the emo version of Ken Adams.
And Billie Eilish the emo Shirley Bassey .
Okay yeah, I see where you're coming from.
Is the expression of an opinion one disagrees with really a pathetic whine? "The producers, financiers, and distributors" are not my words. I have no idea who was in on the conversation about the ending. Perhaps those conversations will be forthcoming. So far all I've seen are opinions about my opinion.
It's not really an opinion though, it's a made-up 'fact'. An opinion would be 'I didn't enjoy James Bond dying in the latest film'; an invented fact is that they "gave in to the wishes" of an actor, rather it being a creative decision that everyone decided on and agreed with. Having to invent a reality in order to back an opinion (that you didn't enjoy it) does rather become a whine, yes.
I wonder why you feel that you have to pretend that you do, then.
Dune was good at the hollow brooding that is the trend of current Hollywood. I don't like the trend, because it makes for utterly boring films. But it was still good at it. You can achieve atmosphere and still have a dense and gripping story despite what the hacks would have you believe.
Dune also is following the book. It's tone, etc., would not fairly be attributed entirely to current trends, as it follows the book.
Don't you find him too physically slight ? Sure, with time and exercise that may change...somewhat, but that much ?
I love the idea of the 00 Section being more prominently featured in the next one. If anything though I'd like to see the opposite approach in the sense that the 00 section could be very well established, but very much a covert group within MI6 - actually rather shadowy and below board. Much like the novels Bond's missions at the start of the film could be things like simple assassinations (so very much 'dirty work'), having to kill people like gangsters, drug dealers, defectors etc. Maybe have some sort of little backstory where the new M was previously a 00 so is more sympathetic to the 00 section while the rest of MI6 are suspicious of it. It'd be interesting if presented alongside a villain's plot that Bond ultimately stumbles into and requires him to save people for once (so this would be more a MR novel type scenario - not world domination but something pretty destructive).
If you wanted to keep it more grounded, you could even have a plot in this scenario where other 00 agents are being assassinated and M and Bond have to uncover why. I don't like the idea of rehashing the personal 'revenge against MI6' subplot we saw in SF, but what if you had, say, a rouge mercenary group who hunt down people/organisations they see as 'bad' for whatever reason, and have uncovered the 00 section. Ultimately this group believes they do more harm than good... Something like that might add that extra layer to the story - Bond would genuinely question whether being a glorified assassin truly makes a difference, and by the end him having to thwart this group's bigger plan (again, which would kill many people) would be a sort of redemption.
It'd be interesting in the sense that both ideas aren't origin stories - Bond would be a 00 agent for at least two years in these scenarios, and rather experienced in his job. You could just set him up as an agent who has never had to truly prevent something very grand, and in the process goes from being a glorified assassin to the Bond we're used to. Essentially it'd be depicted as 'going back to Bond's first big mission' I guess.
Updated: Jan 1, 2022 8:35 pm
Posted: Jan 1, 2022 8:32 pm
"I’m going to tell a story here, whether or not anybody remembers it or agrees with it," Craig said. "But it was 2006. Barbara and I were sitting in the back of a car driving away from the Berlin premiere of “Casino Royale.” Everything was going well. People liked the movie. And it looked like I was gonna get a chance to make at least another movie.
"I said to Barbara, 'How many of these movies do I have to make?' Because I don’t really look at contracts or any of those things. And she said, 'Four,' and I went, 'Oh, okay. Can I kill him off in the last one?' And she didn’t pause. She said, 'Yes.' So I struck a deal with her back then and said, 'That’s the way I’d like it to go.' It’s the only way I could see for myself to end it all and to make it like that was my tenure, someone else could come and take over. She stuck to her guns."
"And I had go and tell Michael and we waited to tell the studio! [Laughs] We wanted to get rid of him," Broccoli added. "That was the reality. It was like, make sure that this was the way that we get rid of Daniel."
Have long thought an interesting PTS would be Bond in his Navy days, with whatever happened then feeding the main story of the film a la the PTS of GoldenEye being ~a decade before the film.
To say that Craig “forced” the producers to kill off his Bond is to suggest they didn’t want to do that, but had no choice. To say they “gave in” suggests they were doing something they didn’t want to, and only did to please their actor.
The fact is: If the filmmakers didn’t like the idea of killing Bond, they simply would have never done it. Rumor is Danny Boyle didn’t want to do it so he walked off the film. Fair game! Craig wasn’t holding a gun to them. He was throwing in his ideas of what would make a strong story and they happened to agree with him and work on making the best film they thought they were making.
This is rumour, gossip, Internet speculation (the worst part of the Internet), and nothing more. The way I see it, Daniel Craig was part of a team; he worked dilligently and studiously with directors, screenwriters and producers to construct good if not great Bond films. But it is ridiculous to think that he only needed to make a fist or look "Babs" in the eyes and have everyone drop on all fours to lick his boots.
Yes, I know he suggested it 15 years ago, and I also know that the story involves the producers liking the idea, as you yourself prove there. That is not ‘giving in’ any more than they ‘give in’ to Purvis & Wade every time they write a script.
It also upsets a certain subset of Bond fans that Eon seemingly made Craig a creative partner, and tried to keep him on board as long as possible. Whereas with Brosnan, not only were most of his creative suggestions ignored, but they seemingly had no problem showing him the door and looking for a replacement.
One bit in the BEING JAMES BOND documentary that I thought was funny was when Michael G Wilson said Craig was the only actor that could “make the role feel more real, emotionally connected, and dramatic”, and it made me think Pierce Brosnan was sneering somewhere in the distance.