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
Ha, i had a discussion with another user about this when they said that bond series should be simply fantasy instead of male fantasy. I still hope they return to the good ol' days of these male fantasy of Connery Era, this is how bond should be.
This trend goes all the way back to Die Hard, compounded over time by Liam Neeson's interchangeable films...it gives the actors "something to do."
And to be fair, most of the best Bond novels have a strong motivating personal element as well: MR, OHMSS, YOLT, TMWTGG, for starters.
It’s almost like there’s a script writing course and one of the lessons is “your hero has to have a personal motivation to fight the antagonist, on top of all other reasons” and everyone learns this rule then they pass the course and they end up writing the same script that everybody else on the course is writing too.
But there are various different ways you could do these "personal motivations".
I agree that in 2020 (21, 22, 23, 24...) "kill (or investigate or whatever) this man because I told you to" is no longer enough. The (geo-)political situation is just not set up for that anymore. They got away with it in CR because at that time the War on Terror was big enough in everyones minds. I don't think that is the case anymore.
So you end up with a) why is Bond buying into this and b) why is a British agent doing these things. SF and SP have basically answered this by saying: This Time It's Personal!! There are bits about the feeling of Lost Empire in SF, but it's not the driving force.
So I would love for a very smart British writer to get into those questions. To find a reason why a (British) man would lead a live like this, do these things, in the 21St century and what that means.
Or we can just do "bad man do bad thing. go kill."
I've no doubt about that, it's whether those in charge are interested in returning to such a formula or not.
Yeah, that's the lingering worry.
EDIT: Also, in response to the idea of bringing back the "male fantasy" days of Bond, I think we all know it'll never happen with the way the world has become.
Very old. The trope has been running for a long while now, it's very tiring, though I also get the irony in me wishing for a return to the formula we had for literal decades. At least it offers up a lot more variety still.
Maybe for B26, they can do a scaled-back personal element, like, say, the novels MR, FYEO, CS.
"This time it's personal" ironically has become routine now - it doesn't really feel special anymore. If the next actor's era contains more traditional Bond films, that would actually be quite refreshing at this point! Strange to think that the last traditional Bond film (DAD) was almost 20 years ago now!
And bring back Q:s assistant R, and let funnyman David Spade play him
There are still a lot of untraditional bits in DAD - first time we saw Bond tortured, Bond was still a rogue agent, CGI bullet in gunbarrel
The '90s were pastiche. The '00s and '10s (and '89) were experimental, in a good way.
And no more lasers in watches, cars etc or this stuff......
Nothing underwater?
1. Reboot it once again, adapting Anthony Horowitz' Forever And A Day, ending with him being promoted to a 00 agent;
2. Adapt the Jeffery Deaver's Carte Blanche;
3 and 4 - William Boyd's Solo, AH's Trigger Mortis or vice versa..
5. Just go on, without continuation like in Craig's movies..
And, as for the actor, I think it's absolutely undisputable that Aidan Turner would be the perfect choice now!
Also - I'd make the films bit more.. "old school", meaning not so Jason Bourne/Mission Impossible-like (IMHO - neither like Skyfall (too dramatic)). Yes, beautiful cinematography is beautiful to see, but.. make it smaller, do the Sean Connery style..
I'd be 100% up for this too, but I would like to see all remaining Fleming material get completely exhausted (and adapted accurately) before moving on the continuation novels.
And I suppose I don't need to put what those novels are, but just once more for those on the back seats - MR, DAF, TSWLM, YOLT, TMWTGG.
How would you handle the titling problem with those? There are of course already movies with these names, and you can hardly call it "Moonraker - Part Deux".
I take it, you would prefer it if they just straight out said: This is Moonraker and we're going to do a close adaptation - taking a lot of suspense out of it, instead of doing something like DAD (or the original Moonraker movie) again, where they kind of backdoor parts of the book into a slightly different setting.
BTW: I'm currently reading Moonraker and loving it. I don't know if the similarities between Drax and Elon Musk are a great hook or would make it too strange to do it in say 2024.
What are you guys' thoughts on the relative importance of director, actor and writers - and the longevity of each - in the future? I think it's pretty clear that the actor should be in it for a long time and not just one or two movies.
Traditionally, there has been quite a lot of continuity with the writers, but I believe a lot of fans feel like P&W might have lost their fastball a bit. Even though I personally don't need a whole overarching story and interconnected universe for Bond, there is something to be said for having some kind of red line in the writing credits to avoid something like Star Wars, where movies started to actively retcon stuff from the previous film.
As for directors, I feel like they have gained in (perceived) importance in the last 20 years and if there is continuity in the acting and writing (and producing), this might be the area where we will continue to see change. I think it would be interesting, if they could find somebody for say a trilogy of movies or even as a kind of producing director like on a TV series or like the Russos for the MCU, but it's also probably unlikely that they get the calibre of director they want to sign for such a long timeframe (or this would officially mean a Bond film every six years so everyone involved can go do others stuff, too).
That's a very interesting question.
I have the impression that today the Bond movies stands out from other film series by a form of excellence, which notably involves the hiring of directors if not prestigious, at least recognized, like Mendes, Fukunaga or even Boyle, opposing the directors usually hired by Marvel Studios for example (the Russos, Joss Whedon) who would not be considered as auteurs. This is probably why the audience easily associates Nolan, because he became a recognized filmmaker, with Bond series, which wouldn't occur to them for superhero movies, including DC ones. It seems to me that it is something quite prestigious for Eon.
In this context, the question is to know if, for the future, they will want to keep this cachet or return to something less prestigious and more common to the current cinematographic landscape.
If we know since how it ended, it seems to me that what happened with Boyle, at least at the beginning, was interesting: Eon contacted a respected filmmaker and offered him to direct the next Bond, he accepted and began to work with his screenwriter. This formula, if it differs from what was previously the custom with Broccoli, Maibaum and Wilson, is, in my opinion, the one that should be followed by Eon at least for Bond 26. It gives of course a preponderant importance to the director but it seems to me that it is in this course that the series should follow thereafter. The counterweight would be that the director hired would precisely be too well recognized and would lack enthusiasm to devote himself over the long term to this series and, on this, Paramount found a gem with McQuarrie who offered stability and a promise of quality for the Mission: Impossible series, acting more as a showrunner than anything else. So I guess the ideal would be for Eon to find a profile close to McQuarrie and already recognized for his cinematic skills; Fukunaga would probably have been the right choice.
Thus, I think the next Bond actor should be an unknown, without really any commitments around, which would allow him to dedicate himself to this role for at least four movies, without delaying the production of each installment. In this context, the recognition would therefore come from the director and the screenwriter who would represent a counterbalance that would avoid a personification of the series from the star as is the case today with Craig. According to this distribution, the actor would only be a tool in the service of the continuity of the series, without overwhelming it.
Adaptations in all but title name. Scenes stolen and adapted properly, woven into a new script, 80's Maibaum style. Think FYEO, OP, TLD and LTK where Maibaum did this perfectly.
By the way, although I doubt it, I really hope that the PTS of Bond 26 will be an adaptation of those said chapters, seeing Bond return to London after being believed to be dead and his assassination attempt on M. This would be the perfect way to establish a new status quo and introduce a new Bond to the screen.
Nevertheless, I totally agree with you that the next actor would have big shoes to fill, which makes me think that Eon will take a more or less long break before begin production on Bond 26.