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
Really hope they don’t go overtly topical or “of this time”.
One thing I’d like in this next iteration, especially if the MI6 team is going to continue to get more screentime, is for Tanner and to be more of a confidant with a strong personal knowledge/relationship with Bond rather than essentially being M’s caddy (that’s Moneypenny’s role). I think he’s the one person who has an innate understanding of what makes Bond and M tick, and there’s some opportunity to use that to explore some of Bond’s feelings towards his life and occupation. The Craig era missed an opportunity and wasted Rory Kinnear’s talents. I’d like the next version of Tanner to be the Bond/M whisperer and a key player in how “the sausage is made” in MI6 and the 00 section.
M specifically mentions 9/11 though. The idea of bombing an airliner was very topical in that sense, same for a group like the Lord's Resistance Army having a part in this plan. M also explicitly mentions that she misses the Cold War, so it's relatively clear this film takes place during a certain era. CR is very much a film of its time (as all films, and especially Bond films, are to some extent). If it feels timeless it's not because of the context. It'll be the same with Bond 26.
I definitely think that in trying to modernise the next Bond they'll go back to the novels in some way. There's much they could do. Craig's Bond - who I wouldn't say was the first Millennial Bond but instead the first 21st Century Bond- had a distrust of authority and a tendency to go against orders for the 'greater good'. It's very much a Bourne-esque/post 9/11 action hero mentality, and is trope of its time, but I'm not necessarily sure that's something that would quite play as effectively today. It's not the most Fleming-esque interpretation of the 'blunt instrument' idea anyway.
I mean, we could get a Bond who is a lot more cynical than Craig's, prone to easily getting bored/depressed when not on a dangerous mission, and maybe has the type of casual relationships you described. He could, however, be less of a 'loose cannon' but someone who is more of a cog in MI6's machine - a great agent, a man who loves danger, but someone who has mixed feelings about the nature of his job. By the end of the film he could maybe go against MI6's orders for that 'greater good' but that premise in itself would separate this version from Craig's Bond in quite distinctive ways.
Agreed.
https://deadline.com/2023/07/actors-start-strike-preparations-a-week-ahead-of-extended-talks-deadline-1235430619/
This has been brewing for about six weeks and some heavy hitters like Jennifer Lawrence and Meryl Streep said a couple weeks ago they were prepared to strike.
The actors contract with the studios ended June 30, but they extended to July 12.
My personal feeling is that if they do go on strike, combined with the writers, on the back of a three year pandemic, the entire industry will be in disarray at the end of all of this (logistically, lots of delays because it’ll be a rush to cast actors, gets crews and rental of studio spaces; creatively, lots of projects won’t survive these delays)….
If the actors go on strike (and my producer thinks it’s a reasonable assumption at this point in the talks), we will have to apply for a waiver and should be given clearance. But I feel terrible for the industry over all. We are in such muddy times with the emergence of new technology combined with the studios seeking cost-cutting measures (where any savings usually end up in their pockets, 😂).
Most writers and most of the 160,000 members of the actors guild aren’t millionaires. The majority of these people are working pay check to pay check, so it’s key for them to receive fair living wages and working conditions…
Sad times. Probably the producers will start turning to the likes of Chat GPT AI to write new scripts....
EON, please don't. I'll do it for free. Really. 14 published books, plus 2 cinema scripts, lyrics for 2 musical albums, countless newspaper and magazine articles, and a couple of theatre plays, that's the curriculum. Just contact me by PM. I'll sign it on paper, I'll do it for free ;)
@jetsetwilly , you are correct: AI/CHAT GPT are absolutely one of the sticking points in these discussions.
How sad :(
It's difficult to know which direction but let's have a premise for B26...
First rule of fight club, old chap. Need to know basis. Just in case. I’m sure you’ll understand ;)
Give the new Bond some new shades to play. Gala Brand is welcome, as is a reboot of Mary Goodnight, who was done wrong the first time around.
I wonder if it even matters anymore. Will the target audience have any familiarity with the Fleming novels? As an original fan, the Fleming characters and stories are important to me. Not sure about audiences for whom Craig was the first Bond.
I agree with bringing back Goodnight as the Secretary for Bond, then also Vivienne Michel too.
I'd also liked to see Mary Ann Russell (it's a shame because she's replaced by Stacey Sutton in AVTAK).
Maybe introduce Loelia Ponsonby too and May, his housekeeper.
I'd also liked to see Bond spending more on his Royal Navy side as a Commander, maybe do what Fleming did before, have him operate an intelligence mission in a Naval Battle Dress, think of the AU 30 Unit that Fleming handled in Gibraltar, maybe something like that.
Maybe have Bond called temporarily to work with Royal Navy instead of MI6, working under a different boss instead of M, introducing him to different environment unlike the MI6 office, it would not be for long, just for a one film.
Have it a floating timeline as what their intention by introducing Bond in a new and different background far from Craig, and that Royal Navy is a good choice, because it would differentiate the new Bond from Craig's Bond, considering that Craig's Bond never worked with Royal Navy explicitly.
Who would question it? No one, because this new Bond is different from Craig's Bond, he lives in different environment and world far from Craig's Bond, he's a Royal Naval Intelligence Officer unlike the operative assassin like Craig's Bond.
Agreed.
This is where I'd begin as well. After all, character is action, action reveals character. And lucknfate is correct: it's not easy, especially after 60-plus years balancing on the creatives shoulders!
If they adapt these characters/plots like they did for CR, it could work. There's something about the Fleming DNA that still really works even in a contemporary film.
The problem with the Craig Era, they still kept Bond in his old grounds but they've done some experiments in that old ground, I want to see new things, and what they would do in the next incarnation? Seeing his past again? Another origin story? An old ground already.
It's like an old, used blackboard or canvas with full of stains from the past but they've put a lot of paints in there with different colors and as a result, it became more messy, why not try to get a new blackboard or canvas (as in clean paper), and do some creative output in there instead of adding more mess which wouldn't work? That's the problem, they're afraid to take Bond to different level.
They've been experimenting more than exploring, and what I'd liked them to do is to explore, there's so many things which they could take Bond, plots where it's interesting to see Bond getting in, but why they couldn't do that? Why they're keeping him in the same old ground with just adding some elements that just messing up the things more?
There's so many interesting concepts in Bond, his Royal Navy Background which was still not explored even to this day for example, concepts that's just ignore just for the sake of experimenting and overcomplicating what's obvious in the character (his past, his love life for example), and even redoing some things that's already done in the past.
Okay, we've seen his life, his past, that's enough no need to experiment it even more by giving him such family or any relative problems, enough with that.
Why not tackle the other sides or angles of the Bond character that hasn't been explored yet?
It doesn't necessarily mean to come from the books (although I'd liked to, but considering those people who have read the books, so I understand), but it's just so many interesting things happening outside but the Producers still not getting out of their comfort zones and focusing in their little world of giving Bond his personal issues regarding his past, his step brother, any other's past like M, Madeleine and etc.
Trying to make him relevant? But what they've done was to redo the same things over and over again.
We, fans are getting more creative than the scriptwriters, I'm afraid, we have a lot of things to show, to share, new things, those that are untold and unique but still keeping in line with the Bond character.
But even that is becoming a bit of a cliche, as is the "What's the backstory happening while the opening credits time jump that we can reveal later in the film?"...I hope they can show us something new.
Ultimately he is that in all of the films. M throws him at the rich industrialist he/she suspects of being the baddie, Bond basically accuses the guy to his face, waits to see if anyone tries to kill him (they do), and wages a one-man war against the baddie! :D
He's not exactly an elegant, surgical tool. Funnily enough, that is more what Ethan Hunt is, with all of his careful, elaborate mousetrap plans etc.
Whether he becomes something more than a blunt instrument, well that's an interesting thought, yes. I wouldn't be averse to seeing a more thoughtful Bond come up with some clever plans, do more investigation and detective work etc.
The average viewer won't necessarily care about the source material. No more than, say, a non-Batman fan learning that a new Batman film takes inspiration from a particular comic or whatever.
The similarities between Batman and Bond are that these sorts of fans (who do care about the source material) make up a part of the target audience, and the filmmakers themselves seem to care about keeping the DNA of this material alive in their films.
I always find what separates Bond from, say, an Ethan Hunt or Jack Reacher (or indeed most American 'Bond-esque' types) is that Bond isn't always the smartest or even strongest person in the room. He often doesn't know how a situation will play out. He's usually at a disadvantage - a typical Bond vs henchman fight involves a skilled and strong opponent such as Oddjob or Jaws, and Bond's success in these fights comes down to a mixture of luck and wit. Hell, Bond in the films often gets caught out, tricked by villains, or even captured (there are times in the books/films where he even does the latter purposely when he doesn't have a plan. If Jack Reacher or Ethan Hunt did this we'd expect them to have pre-planned this and get the upper hand relatively soon).
It's what makes Bond a far more interesting character than his counterparts I'd say - that he is a blunt instrument, a man who truly gets into dangerous situations that might be beyond his capabilities. He's also a man who survives despite all the odds being against him.
I think I'd disagree that it makes him more interesting: I think both are interesting angles, it just depends what you fancy on that day. I don't think there's anything inherently less interesting about a person who makes clever plans: I love heist movies and I also love Bond, so I don't think one way of doing things is better than the other.
There's a way of looking at it which says that 'Bond escapes by luck or a convenient gadget' is a bit too easy and it's trickier and potentially more satisfying to have someone who has planned everything out.
Oh it's only my own opinions of course. There are people who would certainly prefer those American characters over Bond.
Personally, I find that when the hero of the story is able to tell those around him exactly what he will do to get out of the situation, which moments later proceeds to happen, it takes away any sort of suspense. It's why I particularly hate Jack Reacher - he almost always has the advantage to the point where he's two steps ahead of everyone. With Bond on the other hand I find that when I watched these films for the first time I genuinely didn't know how he would get out of these situations. Often there's a sense that Bond doesn't know how these situations will pan out for him. Even if it comes down to a gadget or something.
It's at the very least what gives Bond something distinctive about him, and it's something that I find the series always leans back into in one form or another.
You could throw Indy into the mix too here. What I loved about Indiana Jones was that he escapes by luck even more than Bond does. There is a clumsy side to Indy, where he doesn't do things perfect, and is often in situations way beyond his capabilities.
Previously it has been mentioned that North by Northwest was an influence on the first Bond film(s). It's a premise I've always liked. I'd like to see more down to earth adventures rather than the megalomaniacs who plan to destroy the world.