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
lmao
Also God I hope I'm wrong and it's not another 5-6 year wait for Bond 26 😅
I can see the logic in casting Joe Don Baker. I suppose there's an underlying idea that he could plausibly be someone with a Napoleon complex 'pretending' to be a General. A James Coburn type might have comes across as just a bit too much like a proper General if that makes sense.
That said, I 100% agree, Coburn would have been better.
I haven't seen that film in a long time, but I remember he played that part in a really interesting way - a good blend of menace with some dark comedy in there. Strange film from what I remember, but I liked it. Need to give it a rewatch.
Again, I think he would have been better. I suppose one thing to remember though is that the film came out long after TLD and perhaps to the producers they simply didn't see someone like Coburn plausibly conveying the 'fraudulent' nature of the character. You can apply the same logic to someone like George C Scott. But yeah, it's definitely a great 'what could have been'.
He can still have that dry, droll sense of humor. What I think would be interesting is if the audience was shown subtle expressions by Bond when he is observing the room, sizing a situation up, and even when feeling angry/vulnerable.
It would never be in your face, if you blinked you would miss it. However, once in awhile when Bond is trying to act calm and charming (especially in the face of intense pressure), you could see that there was something going on behind the mask. The key here is that Bond would never outright reveal what he is feeling or thinking, there would be these slight visual cues informing the audience of something deeper but that's it. There would be no scene where Bond ultimately breaks down, laying his emotions bare.
Oh, and I'd like Bond to be a bit more cultured again. Maybe not overly snobbish, but it would be nice to see him referencing art, an opera/symphony, or even his knowledge of history. It would also be nice to see Bond ordering a fanciful meal/drink that the Foodies out there would want to explore. It's little things like that that I would like to see.
I suppose from a script perspective they simply thought Koskov wasn't strong enough a character to carry the film as the main villain? It makes sense I guess, he's more of an opportunist than a villain with an ideologically influenced plan... maybe the writers didn't think it would play as well having this sort of 'twist' in a Bond film, and the audience would either have been confused or wondering where the main villain of this film was for sections of the movie... It certainly feels like Koskov's double crossing/the drama of the revelation was watered down somewhat, to the point where the reveal of him sitting in Whittikar's villa is rather unceremonious, simply because it's clear Bond is conducting his investigation under the idea that Koskov is a bit dodgy... I dunno...
To be fair, I don't think any of that was lost during the Craig era. In fact, save for the ending with M's death, this is pretty much Bond throughout SF. Even down to the dry humour (it was less 'quippy' than what we've been used to in some of the classic movies anyway). Heck, even the crying bit is understandable (Fleming's Bond did on occasion, including in LALD where he did so for the first time 'since he was a boy').
I get that. Maybe not necessarily referencing art or symphonies, but things which he would plausibly know about and have built up some knowledge of. So certainly food, drink and perhaps little bits and pieces of history having travelled throughout the world for his profession. It'd be nice to see him genuinely interested in it too.
One thing I'd like to see is Bond having to learn something new for the purpose of his job. Craig's Bond was more a 'man of action', so the films leaned into this, but in the novels we see Bond having to do this. In LALD he has to train physically in order to go through the climax at the end of the film, in MR we see him practicing little card tricks before the bridge game, he has to quickly learn about genealogy in OHMSS etc. I think something like this would showcase the next Bond's intelligence and just how difficult his job actually is.
Not sure if this was posted. Warning: some controversial points about NTTD and the future!
Now the question is, who else will come on board to write?
P&W aren't inherently 'bad' writers in this sense. They just get the ball rolling. It's the producers and those collaborating with them 'at the top' who have a lot of impact on the story/general script direction at this stage. Arguably the more interesting elements of even DAD were written by them, and apparently before further rewrites to make the film more action/fantasy orientated, the story was relatively grounded (stuff like Bond being captured/kept in a Korean camp, having to figure out who betrayed him etc. make more sense in this context). Again, it's early days, and what'll be more interesting is who else is brought on.
On what level are the producers involved in the writing process?
Maybe a P&W script with a rewrite by Haggis?
(I don't know what's going on with Haggis' trial but with Scientology you always have to wonder...)
I imagine P&W will be writing Bond scripts for the duration of the franchise.
Like Brofeld, I'd sweep the daughter thing under the rug as they butchered it in execution.
Difficult to say. It does seem to be a very collaborative process, whatever one thinks of the final results. I don't think Barbara Broccoli or Michael Wilson stand over the writer's shoulders, but I suspect they have discussions after each draft or treatment about what they want and will go through points for improvements. Additional writers will work alone and incorporate earlier drafts and get new scripts done by set deadlines. Then more meetings, more points for improvement, more drafts.
Even when I've worked on short films redrafts of scripts have lasted well into cinematography preparation. The good news is that they'll have a slightly longer pre-production time on this one to get the script to a suitable stage.
I'm going to bet Haggis won't be making a return to Bond. As you said though, with Scientology you have to wonder, but I'm really not familiar with the case...
Going from P&W's last few scripts we might get elements of Fleming thrown in there, just in an original story.
I liked how understated it was. "She has your eyes" feels a lot more Bond, and frankly less soap-operaish, than "she's your daughter."
Bond having a child is vastly different than Bond being a father.
It makes sense that Broccoli and Wilson would rely on who they know, P&W, to ground them a bit. The casting of the next Bond is a massive undertaking. Not to mention following Craig.
Really? I can't find this quote at all. If anything there are little details thrown into articles by journalists about Broccoli and Wilson carrying around editions of dog-eared Fleming books on-set to prove points (ie. https://variety.com/2020/film/features/james-bond-no-time-to-die-barbara-broccoli-michael-wilson-1203466601/) Also look at how much Fleming material was actually there during the Craig era. Oberhauser, the Garden of Death, the title Quantum of Solace, much of the themes of Skyfall (P&W even said they were 'steeped in Fleming' during the writing of this film, to the point where they clashed with Peter Morgan who was supposedly more interested in Le Carre, which is a subtle, but important aspect when writing a Bond script). Not saying it was all incorporated well, but it's there. At best they even understand how the novels work. I suspect they'll also be keen to keep that element of Bond's DNA alive, as they always seem to have done.
+1. There's a lot of Fleming in the Craig era.
Exactly. There's actually rather a lot still in Fleming left to adapt anyway, so it'd be strange for Broccoli to say such a thing. Not saying we'll get faithful adaptations of stories per say (although there are actually a few of those left between the novels and short stories), but ideas, characters, subplots will almost certainly be adapted and incorporated as they were during the Craig era.