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
"James Bond Will Return...in..."
Remember those days? The benefit of having an ongoing plan in story material, even if the Bond actor changed. Instilling confidence in the brand. Totally agree. And I agree with others wanting to see Fleming material used or dipped into, even perhaps material from Bond novels. Also I say dump P&W and Waller-Bridge "with immediate effect"; they must be able to find better writers with some fresh ideas or thinking more aligned with Fleming's, or there must be some writers like that just itching to get on board--and stay away from woke feminist baloney.
Quentin Tarantino directing is an interesting idea. I can see how he could tell the story well and get good direction and good-looking shots, but I get the impression he goes for too much emotion, whereas I hope to see the absolute bare minimum of emotion in a Bond film. And I get the idea he'd monkey around with the dialogue too much, making it sound like Bond on acid. Still, it's an idea.
Bond actor: white, preferably British, hopefully not from outside the UK, dark hair. Much as I've liked Craig, better personality or acting range than Craig, like how Connery (or almost all other Bond actors) had better chemistry or interactions with women (was it their attitude? Probably not more testosterone but a different attitude, perhaps like not caring as much, though Craig has had some of that, not caring. And like how Connery was able to toss off one-liners...and like Moore, who had at least some of these abilities but also some sophistication or refinement, which also shone through in Moore's mental acuity. Tricky finding a balance though, to not lose Bond's hard, blunt edge.
I say this as a QT fan but are growing tired this so called idea he knows everything, especially when he mocks Kincaid and calls him a farmer in that podcast.
QT would certainly not compromise, he wants his voice and vision stamped on everything, whereas I think Nolan could bend to it, although I question that as well. Dear QT is just in love with himself and thinks that no one knows things better than him.
His last 3 films have stunk of self importance and tested their viewers with their pretentiousness, OUATIH I enjoyed but best screenplay, are we having a laugh?
Better acting rang than Craig, have you seen his output, the series has never had a more versatile performer, take a look at his C.V.
Let's see the film first.
I'm all for a miniseries, but they should not get rid already of Whishaw, Fiennes & Naomie Harris.
Craig's timeline is too explicit, I will be most surprised if they don't reboot.
They may well keep some of the other cast but this film is almost definitely a full stop.
We shall see how NTTD ends.
The only thing that's certain is that this will be DC's final outing.
Definitely. They might hold over some of the actors, but the DC tenure is strictly contained in terms of character.
How is that diffrerent from what I said? This arc is over, yes, but all depends on how NTTD ends.
IF he retires, yes, then it would be not very wise to "lure" him back in. But even with a marriage the "current" Bond could still be back.
If it ends with him getting married for forget it, this isn't Mission Impossible.
I'd get ready for a clean slate for Bond, possibly with hold overs as @RC7 said but they might just recast entire.
They only kept Dench because of her pedigree and how she was so well received in the role, Craig was fairly unknown and they probably thought it wise to have a recognisable face in the role of M despite a new timeline.
I have a lot of time for Fiennes and think he was terrific in SF but served with poor material in SP, I hope he gets some good scenes, although this looks like he'll be office bound for the most part.
Though Fiennes is not acting royalty like Dench is so if they go down the route of recasting even M I won't be surprise.
Though one thing is very sure DC's timeline is done, if it isn't I'll eat my hat.
This may sound closed minded, but IMO the only person we should ever see Bond marrying is Tracy.
If Bond is indeed married to Madeleine in this film, I think it tampers with that well known bit of Bond history too much. Just would seem wrong to me.
I have a feeling the film may have an ending similar to either CR or SF where Bond is essentially the Bond we know and love. Just a hunch.
I'm really torn as to whether I'd want the Scooby Gang version of MI6 to continue after Craig.
A hard re-boot may be in order. Personally I'd prefer a recast of the traditional MI6 staff: M being Sir Miles as opposed to Mallory. Moneypenny not being named Eve, and Major Boothroyd as Q.
Tarantino should have directed Brosnan as Bond. I have zero doubt it would have been highly entertaining and salvaged Brosnan's reputation. It would have been a great fit.
Won’t happen.
They should reference the pre-Craig era but not the Craig era. It’s quite clear they are two different things.
Apart from Casino Royale, I never jump to any of DC’s films if I want to be entertained - that’s what Connery’s films do for me. I’m so sick and tired of the revenge-filled, self-contained, brooding, “this time it’s personal AGAIN” storylines.
I think what I want is less modern Bond and more Fleming material in the next era, please.
Just make sure you're great. You've ot to push yourself as far as you can. But it's worth it. It's James Bond -
On Connery being chosen and how the first film Dr. No was progressing, Fleming wrote, "The man they have chosen for Bond, Sean Connery, is a real charmer -- fairly unknown but a good actor with the right looks and physique". In the book Casino Royale, Vesper says, 'He is very good-looking. He reminds me rather of Hoagy Carmichael, but there is something cold and ruthless in his ... ' (photo below). In the book Moonraker, Gala Brand thinks, "...he was certainly good-looking. Rather like Hoagy Carmichael in a way. That black hair falling down over the right eyebrow. Much the same bones. But there was something a bit cruel in the mouth, and the eyes were cold".
Wikipedia quotes Fleming as saying Bond "was a compound of all the secret agents and commando types I met during the war". Bond is a heavy smoker and sometimes takes benzedrine. "Throughout Fleming's books, Bond expresses racist, sexist and homophobic attitudes." Fleming had gay friends but said his books were "written for warm-blooded heterosexuals." Fleming: "I don't think that he is necessarily a good guy or a bad guy. Who is? He's got his vices and very few perceptible virtues except patriotism and courage, which are probably not virtues anyway ... But I didn't intend for him to be a particularly likeable person."...and..."James Bond is a healthy, violent, noncerebral man in his middle-thirties, and a creature of his era. I wouldn't say he's particularly typical of our times, but he's certainly of the times." And he was not intended to be an infallible superman type.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Bond#/media/File:Hoagy_Carmichael_-_1947.jpg
THIS!
Never thought of introducing Craig's tenure into the floating timeline that was Connery through Brosnan. Continuity be damned, this would be the best way forward I think.
You're a bloody genius @Birdleson
Totally agree. It's all part of the same timeline, even when it isn't. What EON made fairly clear from the start was that the continuity of the novels was a very secondary concern for them. I sort of see Craig Bond in CR as pre dating Dr. NO.
Exactly. Some contradictions, sure, but the series is already chock full of them. Would hardly make a difference.
I'd take Nolan over Tarantino in a heartbeat. It's been a while since I watched a vintage Tarantino film, but the last was Once Upon a Time in Hollywood and I found the pacing really off-putting. Nolan's Batman Trilogy solidified in my mind that he should direct a Bond film. It's clear Nolan's a Bond fan having been inspired by OHMSS for the final dream in Inception. Nolan would make a sleek Bond film, IMO.
Plus Nolan lifted virtually the entirety of the LTK PTS in Batman. Although the fact he loves Bond doesn't mean he's right for Bond. Having said that I'd like to see Nolan given a go at it.
My vote for the way forward would be to take just a bit of Moore's lighter touch, globetrotting, and romance. Add that to Craig's more visceral physicality and I think it could really work.
I still think Hiddleston could do this - The Night Manager feels like a good template. But dammit EON, you need to move faster before everyone ages out of these roles!
How do you know for sure? Are you EON's secretary? ;)
As far as the MI6 regulars go, I'd envision at least some of them staying. Wishaw's Q is popular with a younger demographic, so if he's up for it, he's probably staying.
Fiennes is a Bond fan and likes playing M. He filmed his scenes for NTTD spread out over a long period because of other projects. So if EON is okay with that method and is okay with paying Fiennes a hefty sum, I don't think he'll go out that quickly.
Harris is something else. As Moneypenny, I suppose it's essential the actress has some chemistry with the man playing Bond. So that's to be determined.
And Kinnear... Well, he won't be missed hugely if he's not in Bond 26. If the script calls for Tanner, he'll probably reprise his role. I mean, why recast?
Fiennes really isn't great in the role. He's too close in age to Craig for starters. And there doesn't appear to be any real 'take'on who his M is.
Maybe his iteration for the new Bond will be better, just like Dench’s was re imagined for the Craig era. He’s the only current actor I’d keep for Bond26. Then again he is one of my all time favourite actors, so I would rally for it, wouldn’t I? 😉
I think he’s great as Mallory, it’s only in SP - where the dynamic seems have drastically changed - that his character feels a little flaccid. Their relationship in SF builds to one of mutual respect by the final scene, with M clearly the figure of authority and Bond respectful of that. Within 15 mins of SP they’re seen together for the first time, with Bond in petulant mood and M equally abrasive. Shoe-horning Dench into proceedings is the main issue.
It would’ve been more effective, imo, to learn (post-credits) that M himself (Mallory) had established a connection between ‘Sciarra’ and an anonymous source in MI6 - cue Bond taking off on an unsanctioned mission to Mexico City.
On his return, rather than the slanging match in his office you have them meet at Blades. M is naturally pissed at Bond’s actions but agrees the intel was worth the fallout. From here the two of them are in it together and trust no one, even to the point where they fleetingly suspect each other. Ultimately M risks his own position because of his loyalty to Bond and we lose the protracted sense of ‘rogue-like’ behaviour where everything is designed to be done without M’s knowledge until the final act.
Big 👍 for this.