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
I certainly think Bond should always have an element of being stylised: Ken Adam wasn't suggesting that offices in the real world only looked good from one angle and all had sloped concrete ceilings :D
Bond is about style- that's why I think the Mendes films got that right: it shouldn't be the real world. I enjoy CR a lot, but it's set in a slightly boring representation of the world.
God that brings back some memories!
I agree wholeheartedly. Escapism and style is the first thing I think about when I think James Bond.
For the most part I agree with much of this, although I think CR was exactly what it needed to be, but I have to say the the "villain's lair" in SPECTRE was incredibly boring and realized. The Idea of it being in a crater was brilliant but the execution was extremely unimpressive, It really screamed for more visual panache and should have been the site of the main conclusion .
I think it could have been more, but I rather liked the stark 50s modernism of the place- it certainly had an intended style to it. It's what the Fleming villain bases would have looked like had Adam not reimagined them.
Yeah I'd agree there. There's a bit more going on visually in QoS.
The actual casino in CR with the lit up bar and all that actually looks a bit naff to me, which I'm not sure a Bond set should do.
Yes but I think it was a reacction to QoS. This movie was too modern, too Bourne.
Casino Royale was a perfect update but QoS went too far.
Personally I felt Casino Royale was more elegant than QOS in terms of its production design, and perhaps that’s down to Peter Lamont’s set design. QOS is perhaps the more stylistic of the two films, but the loss of Lamont is felt.
You hit the nail on the head there. QOS was a bit too much for me personally.
From my viewpoint, the Daniel Craig-era has provided enough of the seasoned and mature Bond, making a departure towards a younger character essential for injecting vitality into the series. Moreover, it is crucial to capture the attention of the younger generation, particularly Gen Z, who may perceive Bond as an antiquated and dusty franchise. To maintain relevance and ignite enthusiasm among this demographic, a younger, more contemporary Bond is imperative.
The decision to shift the focus to a younger Bond is not only about reaching a new audience but also about keeping the existing fan base engaged. Striking the right balance between appealing to the nostalgia of long-time fans and introducing a Bond that resonates with younger viewers is key to the franchise's continued success.
I firmly believe that setting the film in the 1960s, would be an uninspired choice. To truly revitalise the series, it is essential to break away from the familiar and venture into unexplored territory. The idea of a more modern and innovative approach aligns with the need for a fresh narrative that captivates audiences.
When contemplating potential actors for the role, Jacob Elordi and Harris Dickinson stand out to me as strong contenders. Their youthful energy, acting prowess, and ability to bring a contemporary edge to the character make them compelling choices for the iconic role. Embracing new talent is a step towards reinvigorating Bond and ensuring the franchise remains dynamic and appealing to a broad audience.
That said, I’m not sure if I want a ‘young’ Bond as such. I mean this in the sense that I don’t believe Bond, in any incarnation, is a ‘wunderkind’. Just logically Bond is an outlier compared to what would be a typical modern 00. Likely they’d be someone more like Nomi - younger overachievers, possibly with a background in the SAS which led them to the 00 section. They’re methodical and highly disciplined. Bond, with his background in the navy, his vices/risk taking, cynicism, and moreover his breadth of experience, would be a bit older, and likely has accumulated much more skills beyond Special Forces training. To me it’s more likely, and in some ways a bit more relatable, that he’d be a man of at least 33-34 while his fellow 00s are in their late 20s.
That’s not to say the actual actor has to be that age, but they do have to come across as older, as does the character in terms of the script.
Pushing from the wrong direction too! :D
As far as visual callbacks, fine. But subtle, not excessive. I certainly hope for a casino scene, and of course a distinctive Bond car that is not the classic Aston nor a BMW.
I'm on board with that. I'd like to see NewBond hit the ground running - do we really need an origin story or even to see him learning his trade? Anything new we do find out about him can arise from the particular story, as and when needed, no? So I hope that's still EON's thinking. Ok, MGW said it back in 2022, but hey, they haven't even thought about Bond 26 since so it should still stand, right? Cough...
Because the 3rd time is the charm.
Funnily enough I think the official bio didn't actually have him serve in the SBS, although he did train with them. He seems to have served in a special forces unit which I think is fictional, and perhaps named after Fleming's unit. It's a nicely done dossier.
https://www.mi6-hq.com/sections/articles/bond_21_007_dossier2
Yeah I definitely had SBS lodged in my mind too; it was weird to read it back and realise it didn't actually say he served with them. The bit about him then going to DI is interesting and quite believable.
I blame Mendes.
I know of people not liking the theme song. I was once one of those people. But I've come to like it. But I'm surprised about the car chase. Because a lot of people like it. I like it a lot. Combined with Arnold's Time To Get Out, it's fast, stylish, brief and very kinetic....like all the action in the film. The build-up to the car chase, even looked like they were introducing a new Bond....with all the intercutting with the Aston Martin, Car parts, Bond's eye's, Bullets, Guns, Quick fade-outs, etc. It makes it all the more stylish. I've always wondered why Campbell didn't do the same for Craig's Bond in CR. Maybe as Dryden was using, the elevator, it intercuts with Bond's eyes and his hands.....maybe fixing his gun's silencer. Although, In GE, Campbell teased us a bit before revealing Brosnan's Bond and I liked how he did it.
Thank you, some very good, clear, thoughtful examples of a contemporary Bond situated geopolitically post-Cold War.
Regarding North Korea, DAD kind of blew up in their faces, didn't it? I can only imagine the revenge enacted by real world Russian hackers today. Interestingly, the torture scenes at the beginning kind of anticipate real world CIA rendition and waterboarding.
QOS captured something of first world exploitation of third world resources, and the CIA came off as convincingly nefarious, with a Bond uncertainly or ambivalently related to both. Unusually complicated and more Le Carré than Fleming, QOS mostly worked for me, well representing the ambiguities and divided loyalties of real world politics and the intelligence agencies that serve it; but I'm not sure it worked for the real world money and production people behind Bond. And most Bond fans seem to hate it, so what do I know.
As a consequence, perhaps, the series retreated into nostaghia with SF. Unless we're meant to see Bardem as Assange, as you suggest, even in part. Someone perhaps more hero than villain for me. Ditto Snowden. If so, how are we to understand the series pivoting dramatically, even schizophrenically, with SP and its plot involving omniscient government surveillance and extrajudicial assassinations. With all the attention played to the Blofeld's brother aspect, most seem not to have paid it the attention it deserves.
Perhaps such wariness may explain the accompanying special concentration on the Bond character himself during the Craig years. Rather than a sop to Craig's ego, as it’s so often regarded, I think it was a mostly smart and largely successful move as a new means of emphasis devoid the certainties of the past.
For an excellent, mostly ensemble HBO-style 'prestige' spy series from France, and situated in the contemporary world, I heartily recommend Le Bureau des légendes. Lacks the superhero heroics of Bond, but still has plenty of drama, and a primary character not dissimilar to the loner, soulful Craig-Bond, played by Matthieu Kassovitz. You can find it under the title, The Bureau, with English subtitles. Bond could do worse than follow its example, except the demands of the box office would make it a non starter.
So I don't think we're meant to see Bardem as a direct mirror of Assange, but more as a symptom of a world turned upside down by Assange's revelations and political use of internet. Moreover, even if he considers that these films must be pieces of escapism, Mendes recognises that they have a political dimension and that they reflect the world which is contemporary to them.
Regarding Quantum of Solace, while it may have felt more Le Carré than Fleming, I don't think it has much to do with the film's mixed reception. I have the impression that the film was criticised more for its editing, its action scenes, the overall rhythm and the lack of certain iconic Bond elements. One could even say that, by being too focused on the action, the film does not have time to develop its antagonists and its geopolitical dimension that thus become fuzzy.
Bingo. It’s a movie that feels like it has no time to stop and smell the roses, which is an aspect I think is vital to Bond.
I was watching Andrew Ellard's video essay on it again the other day, and he suggested that the film would be better if the gunbarrel opened on the Aston arriving in Sienna, Bond getting White out of the boot, the interrogation, chase after Mitchell, and start the titles on Bond shooting at camera and killing Mitchell. Because then you have a setup, you have some stakes, you're drawn into the story and the following action scene means something. Fun though it is as an isolated bit of action, the car chase doesn't do any that and for my money just doesn't work as an opening of a movie- you can't skip that stuff when you're making a film. We don't know White's in the boot; there's no stakes or any character story there. The M/Mitchell scene has tension and stakes because we're introduced to them.
The climax of the car chase hinges on Bond pulling out a massive gun which, if you haven't watched Casino Royale in two years, you'd have no idea was even there and would feel a cheat.