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’m glad they went in the direction they did though. They leaned less into Fleming’s TMWTGG for inspiration but more into YOLT, which is a story about Bond being ‘reborn’ (once in the form of recovering from his PTSD and then once at the end almost literally). I think for SF to work as well as it does Bond has to make a conscious choice to return to MI6, and him having a genuine chance to get out of the spy game at the start makes it more impactful.
That's a great point to be fair mate.
I love Skyfall and I wouldn’t change it. It wasn't so much as a criticism of Skyfall as it was of DAD, I've always felt they wasted that really interesting idea of Bond captured and what that would do to him you know
Oh yeah. DAD started off on such a great premise, but then completely abandoned that the moment Bond somehow stops his heart from beating. It was at that moment that the tone of the film changed.
Definitely the boldest idea in the Brosnan era up until that point.
I was thinking Bloodstone and Goldeneye Reloaded took place in between QOS and SF. It would make sense, because Blofeld could be looked at as Alec and Nicole's Boss.
I would like to see May adapted for cinema. I feel with devoting so much time to Bond's backstory in DC's era, that she might not feel as fresh as she could be. After having some time with her, EON could take some influence from Nobody Lives Forever. In the next era, the MI6 staff needs to be cut down in role size. They've arguably done everything with them that you do for now. May is part of Bond's life, she deserves some cinema time. As for other MI6 staff, I would like to see Ronnie Vallance and Sir James Molony make appearances. Also, if Blofeld is going to be reintroduced, it will be hard to keep him a secret. I just hope EON doesn't use the name change again. If the story calls for all of them, of course.
I always thought the opening to Colonel Sun would work. Bond playing a round of golf with Tanner, while being spied on by a man in sunglasses. I would even like to see the scene with M getting kidnapped at his home and Bond escaping while drugged.
As for introducing May, great idea! I'm all for showing as much as Bond's normal home life as much as possible that Fleming wrote - getting out of bed, doing press-ups, taking a shower, eating scrambled eggs that May cooked for him. Give me more of this any day, and less of pointless contrived villain backstories which include crap like Brofeld, Bond having a daughter in tow, etc.
This is what films like this are though: they’re about plot and driving the film, keeping it pacy and exciting. If you want reality show type stuff of a man eating eggs and going shopping then I think the books are the things for you, which is perfectly fine: they’re great. But scenes need to have a purpose in adventure movies, and these films tell me so much about Bond’s character already in scenes which also drive the plot forward or entertain.
Adding a character from Fleming will add nothing to any future movie.
They serve no purpose apparently to the overall plot of the film.
I don't know. Those kinds of things humanize the characters. You don't need to make them cry all the time.
It’ll probably be the same issue with a Silvia Trench/disposable girlfriend character as it is with May - that’s to say the character will usually add nothing to the story in practice. Also it unintentionally makes Bond come across as an a*sehole when he inevitably goes off and shags another woman. They’ll likely do what they did in SF if Bond has a one night stand if they play it more serious/to show how detached Bond can be, or more along the lines of the beginning of SP where him sleeping (or indeed going to) with a woman is implied, but essentially tongue in cheek.
Anyway, in essence, Moneypenny is that platonic relationship in Bond’s life anyway, and her role can conceivably be expanded to the point she serves a narrative use, even if it’s small. They could switch it up with a Loliela Ponsonby perhaps. But I’m not sure what an elderly Scottish woman who may or may not know about Bond’s job adds really, especially when you potentially have alternate female characters who actually work with Bond, can directly assist him, and even understand that side of him (and moreover you can do chemistry with such a character without Bond sleeping with her, which the Craig films did and I see no reason why they wouldn’t maintain that).
I'm not convinced that watching Bond at home with his housekeeper drives the character narrative forward in an interesting and cinematic way.
In every scene written, each character inside of it needs or wants something (related to their story and the film's story).. I'm not sure if wanting breakfast from his housekeeper is enough...
But watching Bond in action, like playing golf vs Goldfinger, now that has more character than a breakfast with May ever could be (Bond wants something, Goldfinger wants something, there's a load of tension in these wants, we see how "sly" Bond is, and the lengths that Goldfinger will go to get what he wants).
I also would find it strange that a man in his 30s or 40s would have a housekeeper. It doesn't seem to "fit"...
Oh, was referring to a hypothetical Bond’s lover, haha. Bad wording on my part I think
As usual, I find myself agreeing with @peter and @mtm. I don't see what story purpose May going through her usual routine with Bond would have, beyond (I guess) getting kidnapped.
Screenplays are ruthless and relentless. You get into a scene at the last possible moment and out at the first possible moment. If a scene doesn't serve the story, it should go. (Think of the French jail scene in AVTAK with all the gadgets. No forward story momentum, so it went.). These screenwriting rules apply even moreso with Bond films, which have always been fast-paced.
Also, a Sylvia Trench would make Bond come off as quite a cad. Recall how people (sometimes) complain about Bond shagging Ruby when he's already in a relationship with Tracy.
I'm always an advocate for more Fleming. Adding Fleming DNA adds to the overall feel of Bond, and you can really feel its absence in the films that don't, like AVTAK. But it should be a judicious use of Fleming for modern times. Not just dropping in a housekeeper because Fleming wrote a character in the fifties.
Besides, scrambled eggs at this point in the culture make me think of Frasier.
However, I don’t think anyone is suggesting that May be introduced as she was written by Fleming.
An updated version of a housekeeper in today’s fast paced lifestyle of those with a government job or a spy who is out of the country for lengthy periods.
Of course a golf match with a villain can add plenty to a story and add tension and slyness to Bonds character.
Is it not also possible to add something similar to a scene with Bond at home where we the audience feel he would be safe, and without danger. I’m not suggesting an action scene or anything overly dramatic, but it would be plausible to add such a character as May in a small scene without it being pointless.
Surely.
I'm sure a character like May could be added, but I think a lot of creative gymnastics would have to be done to give her a point, or a reason for being there, and I'm not sure that's worth it for such a minor character.
That's why in a lot of bio-pics, for example, they amalgamate several real life characters in one. Instead of having all these small bits go to three or four people that may, in a film, appear so small and insignificant, they combine the three or four into one character that will represent a stronger narrative push.
What May would represent in a Bond film seems, in this discussion we are having, so small, that whatever value she has could be combined into another character, like Moneypenny.
I think a much more relevant character is Molony. He has more value to a hypothetical story, to both the Bond and M characters, and to us as an audience...
@Venutius , that would make sense, and I think would have been a good choice. After all, Tanner was there to what? Exposition dump, and then hold out his hand for Bond when they arrive at Q's lab. Tanner was some fat that could have been chopped in Sp.
The way the world is heading, we could have that in a contemporary Bond film.
Yep, very well said as always Peter, it’s nice to know we’re on the same wavelength- you’re not wearing out your welcome at all and it’s always interesting to hear it from a story construction point of view, thank you for taking my thoughts onboard. I have nothing in particular against May or any of the other characters popping up, but it can’t be a starting point in the thinking: there has to be a story in place into which suddenly this character slots. The writers shouldn’t be coming at thinking ‘I want May to be in this, what can I give her to do’. Because when you look at NTTD and we even have characters like Nomi who actually don’t really do all that much in the story and their point almost just becomes someone for Bond to have an externalised conversation with so we can hear what he’s thinking and not much more (or indeed Tanner, as Venutius points out: in fact look at him in TMWTGG- what’s he there for?) , then a completely arbitrary character is a hard to see as being useful. I don’t think her existence tells us much about Bond as a person (we already know he goes away a lot, what do we care about his laundry) but if there’s a quick funny joke to be had about his home and it moves the plot forward, like Spectre had, then fine, no problem.
I guess the tricky thing is you have people complaining that there was too much ‘scooby gang’ stuff with the MI6 crew, and we want lighthearted fun adventure films, then there are other people who want even more people around Bond in London, making the gang even bigger, and wanting to see how Bond makes his bed and shaves etc. - it shows what a tough job Eon have trying to please everyone!
These aren’t books though, they’re adventure films. As I said before, Moonraker would be improved not one bit by seeing Roger reading about the crashed plane in the paper whilst he eats his eggs: we don’t need it- there are exciting things to get to and the next scene covers more ground. We’re constantly being told what kind of a guy Bond is in every scene- the films are much more about him than the books were in many ways: even his name was supposed to be rather bland and ordinary. That he has a slightly dull morning routine.. I don’t know what that would be telling us the audience.
Hopefully we can respect everyone’s opinions on this.
Appropo of nothing, I love Lashana's delivery of "I'm taking you back to Mother, darling." So cool.
I also think they used Tanner way too much in the Craig era, simply because he's a great actor albeit miscast in this role. The Moore and Brosnan eras did that much better, just using Tanner whenever the story called for it and not dragging the actor into every film.
Give me CR anyday. Bond feels like he is on his own except for Mathis. Q and Moneypenny are absent. The stakes feel high. The Scooby gang hasn't yet taken over what seems like a third of the narrative.
Wait for it...
I blame Mendes.
Yeah I think she's great, I just wish she had more of a part to play. I wanted her to actually win a couple of the skirmishes with Bond, much like Anya does in TSWLM, but he bested her every time which made it all feel a little pointless. Even if she'd had a side mission to herself, like getting Primo's eye (or whoever's eye that was Q was playing with, I lose track. Blofelds?) or something which she actually did effectively.
Don't get me wrong, I think what they did with Madelene was an improvement and Seydoux was given a little bit more to work with, but overall No Time To Die was let down by having to be a "sequel", more so than his death in my opinion.
It's the same for Safin as well really...
A character with a lot of potential let down by the time spent on continuing on from Spectre.
Yeah I wonder if her role changed a bit from the first drafts. It almost feels like she's in there because they lost track of why they put her in in the first place.
SO a contemporary Bond film?
Doesn't 007 call M 'darling' in that movie as well?
What a strange version of 007 we had in that film, eh? Dead dad 'darling' Bond.
I watched the most recent Jurassic Park film the other day, and at the end the new cast meet up with the old cast, and they're all there, Sam Neil and Geoff Goldblum and the new couple (don't know their names, but the girl looks like Agent Fields in QoS). And they even play a snatch of the proper JP theme when they meet up to show you what an important moment it was. I thought it was quite cool.
Oh yea, there's was black girl there with them too, she was playing a lesbian. Unlike the others, she wasn't in any of the other Jurassic Park films, but I'm sure she was vital to the plot in this one, and that's definitely why she was there.