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
Purely as a thought exercise, there is quite a bit really — spa where a military figure is taken out and replaced (pilot) is essentially there, the GoldenEye is an EmP weapon (I.e usually nuclear) the ‘good’ Bond girl is there through association with both a related traumatic event and a prior relationship with the villain. Military having its secrets stolen by a separate group with insiders, and one theft of aircraft mostly being used to help obfuscate the theft of other military stuff. Both also have exploding pens, and Xenia’s similarities to Fatima have already been mentioned. Bond of course is being assessed by MI6 at the beginning, under the auspices of a new — possibly belligerent to double O’s— M. He seduces someone supposed to be assessing him as a means to bump through things.
It *isn’t* anything like a one for one version, or even any kind of homage, but there’s a fair amount in the DNA if you look for it.
I agree wholeheartedly =D>
We had 40 years of a franchise in roughly speaking the same continuity, followed by the closed continuity of the Craig era. The next film should reestablish what a Bond film looks like in the modern day when there no skeletons reaching from the shadows of the past, and no familial attachments. That's the question the filmmakers need to answer, and I think the only way to do that is to stop being afraid of leaning into the formula, and worried about it being too close to Austin Powers. Cinema has moved on from 2006, and I think today a more larger than life bond film that fully embraces the franchise legacy would be accepted on its own terms.
Really? Octopussy is more weird if you think about it.
For me it wasn't new and bold. It ended up being a pointless, so what moment. It didn't suddenly make everything else make sense. It didn't answer a nagging question. Most of all, I didn't care because there was no background to make me care or feel the least bit interested. Had Blofeld turned out to be a woman and spurned lover from Bond's past, that might have worked for me. But not the poorly written and poorly played mess we got. It was as if NTTD itself couldn't dispose of Blofeld fast enough by moving on to another villain equally as unimpressive.
If Never Say Never Again had a gunbarrel, a proper title sequence and score, it would've been so much better, those elements really what makes a Bond film, Bond film.
I actually prefer it to Octopussy, sure it's straightforward not taking it seriously as a film, but that's the problem, Never Say Never Again felt more like a Bond film compared to Octopussy which felt more like a children's show with colorful themes, circus, Bond in jungle, wearing a clown suit, a gorilla costume, twin circus knife throwers and characters doing unbelievable things, there's the snake charmer, there's the flying TukTuk, it's almost outlandish than Moonraker, at least Moonraker still had that Bond style with some maturity, unlike Octopussy which is just purely light and made for kids, then you have the dated, yet another absurd depiction of Indian Stereotypes and Culture.
It's just too far from Bond, there's even Bond doing a Tarzan Yell, wearing a Hawaiian Lei Necklace, and all, just felt absurd all around, it's when Bond almost turned into a cartoon hero, not a spy that the 1962-1981 established, it's the least Bondian from me, it's in my Top Five Worst Bond Portrayals for me because of how Bond was outlandishly played in the film, he veered more into a parody, a caricature.
Exactly. All of the last 3 bond films the villains had a history with either Bond or one of Bonds allies. The concept has been done to death at this point, I think most people would be over the moon to see a folder placed on the desk and bond opens it and learns of a completely new distinguished villain with no ties to his past and no scores to settle in Bond 26.
They haven't done this since "The Living Daylights". People act like this is something new but every Brosnan villain has a personal angle.
From what I understand the script for SP wasn’t helped by deadlines, and they had less time to work on it than SF.
I don’t know what EON have or haven’t done. As others have suggested it’s more likely they’re at a script development (or ‘blueprint’) stage. These things can take a bit of time unfortunately. There’s literally nothing we can do.
Personally I’ve never found NSNA’s Bond particularity Fleming-esque aside from a few superficial things (ie. The Bentley). If anything it’s more a film designed to evoke the cinematic Bond with the fact that it’s Connery, things like Blofeld’s white cat etc. Even the plot of NSNA isn’t quite as faithful to the novel as the EON TB is. Also not too sure if McClory was all that fond of Fleming’s novel for understandable reasons.
EON do understand Fleming’s Bond in fairness to them, and it’s not so much that the novels and films are separate entities but that they are adaptations. Even in the least Fleming of EON Bond films there’s always traces of the original stories in there.
Even TLD depends on a prior history with Pushkin for the plot to work. And AVTAK has not-John-Steed to make it personal for Bond. But recurring characters and ‘it’s personal’ has often been a Bond thing. (It was introduced in what… LALD the novel? By Fleming.)
And even then he knows Pushkin well, and ends up disobeying M's orders.
The Tears of Allah is more Fleming-esque than, you know, Bond in space or the volcano lair.
Now, with films like Spectre and No Time To Die, it's too heavy handed and through the personal angles of those stories, you lose sight of what the bigger picture was. Blofeld being James Bond's brother felt like it had no relation to anything being explored elsewhere in the film, and as we know, Safin was defined by his connection to Madeleine, which also meant that Safin's motivations became muddled and unclear. While I prefer No TIme To Die to Spectre and some other films in the franchise, you can see the seams of how the backstory was considered before they even knew what he wanted to achieve with this scheme.
And that means what? Again, films. Not books.
To be clear, NSNA wasn’t technically based on the novel but rather the original treatments that the novel was based on. There were very strict rules on NSNA and one of them was that it could only be based off the original drafts that were co-written by McClory and Whittingham. McClory could do whatever he liked with the movie, so long as it was within the parameters set by the drafts.
I would have loved NSNA to be closer to the novel, but that was never in the cards.
Hmm, debatable. There’s stuff in Fleming like villains hiding in a small base made to look like a bush, Dr. No having his island lair at Crab Key with a fake dragon protecting it, the Spang’s Western ghost town in DAF, Blofeld in his weird Japanese castle/death garden etc. Fleming’s novels had their share of bonkers and outlandish ideas.
Personally, I see something like the volcano lair as a larger scale version of something Fleming would do. It’s not a direct adaptation but it’s close in spirit to some of his more fantastical novels. The Tears of Allah in NSNA is fine but a bit lame for me personally. It doesn’t have the same strengths of set design or atmosphere as what we get in the EON films.
I think The tears of Allah is something like Mr Big's island. I mean It's Indiana Jones, of course, but it feels right for Bond.
I agree, there's no reason why bond can't simply meet a new villain and develop a grudge in very short order, which creates his "investment" to see him brought to justice. TMWTGG comes to mind, where Bond didn't know anything about Scaramanga beyond his Wikipedia synopsis, and yet by the end he admits killing him would be a "pleasure" besides his mission and you can read it in Roger Moores delivery. When they keep using the familial trope in the modern films it gives the stories a soap opera quality, that doesn't actually add anything to the serious tone they're going for.
Meh, kind of, but not really I’d argue. I think the main things about Mr. Big’s island in LALD was that it’s surrounded by barracudas and he decides to kill Bond and Solitare by dragging them through coral reefs/feeding them to said barracudas. It’s way more fantastical and strange in atmosphere.
Often the more megalomaniac Bond villains of the novels co-opt the natural land or build stuff on them to use as lairs, but there’s a sense they create their own twisted worlds in their place (again, think DN’s Crab Key base and dragon, or the Spangs with Spectreville). There’s often a strangeness to them. The Tears of Allah is an ok concept in theory but Bond infiltrates it with relative ease and Largo doesn’t do much as opposed to congregate his equipment/men there. So as silly as hollowed out volcanos or Drax building a mocked up French Chateau estate in LA sound in concept, to me they feel more in line with Fleming.
Like I said, EON do understand the novels. They just go larger with these concepts.
That's putting it mildly ;)
Yes, very true! But hey, spectacle and a healthy dose of outlandish-ness are some of the things I suspect we all like about Bond.
I don't know, people like realism too.
They can do, but Bond is more heightened reality. Even in Fleming Bond would be near death but after wrestling a giant squid in a mad villain’s death maze.
Film is a visual medium, so they present something fantastical to the audience.
The first Fleming novels were written in the 50s.
The Second World War was just behind everyone.
Travel wasn’t what it is now. Far easier for Fleming to transport the readers of his novels compared to how difficult it is for EoN to wow us today (I mean look at all the comments in these threads…)
Oh yeah, agreed. Like I said I think EON know that fundamentally Fleming’s novels had that sense of heightened reality and even outlandish-ness to them. They do a great job at translating it to the screen.