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
It seems the only thing some people did yesterday was not agree with one or two people.
And I think there’s validity in asking: how would May propel the Bond narrative, or the story?
And to further emphasize that’s a great question is to point out that the “quiet scenes” everyone has used as an example are actual character reveals about Bond and his job, or story reveals— sometimes both at the same time (Bond isn’t merely having a shave in Goldfinger’s plane; he outsmarted his foe as he slyly avoided their spying while he activated his homer. Then, for good measure, he sprayed the mirror to give his opponent a further “F” you).
So, yeah, still not understanding the provocation, 😂!
But whatever, moving on…. 😂
Not that it adds much, but that’s likely the sort of reference we’ll get, and it could be nice.
Nice @007HallY , and that would be a neat little thing to slip in there. It would satisfy the fans and would be more effective than watching her puttering about as he eats a boiled egg, or having her in his ear as she scrambles his eggs…
That’s fun, I could go with that. The SF version would definitely make sense I think. It’s quite fun to think what opportunities in the old films they perhaps had to include her.
It’s funny, I was thinking of examples of Bond going about his domestic activities in the films, and I thought of NTTD and how we see his life on the island. But, and correct me if I’m wrong Peter, I’d say that’s there to establish his new life; and when we see him doing something as ordinary as cleaning his teeth, that’s both a bit of a character sketch and is actually (surprisingly!) important to the plot- as the toothbrush comes up later with all the DNA stuff.
That said, with a new Bond, establishing his 2020s lifestyle might well be a valuable part of the next film. It is really interesting to think about this stuff and how films like these are constructed.
Was this talked about? Who knows!
I think Eon should call it a day. They've killed off Bond. Barbara and MG will become billionaires if they sell up. They don't need that crazy amount of money but they could give some of the cash to a charity or to a film making school or something. They could use the sale of Bond to fund their own films. I'm just saying they can use the money in a productive way. They don't need to leave it all in a bank account.
Amazon may not produce better Bond films than Eon but they will come with a fresh perspective. For better or worse Barbara and Michael decided to kill off Bond so where is there to take the franchise? It's literally dead. I can't imagine Eon getting that excited by exhuming the franchise and rebooting it. We all know Barbara loved Daniel as Bond, she wanted him to carry on, so she's not going to have the same level of enthusiasm when casting the new guy.
I think Amazon should buy Eon's stake. Market Bond 26 as a brand new era. Maybe hire Chris Nolan or Edgar Wright. I know this sounds an awful suggestion but maybe go straight to streaming. Times have changed. If Eon have nowhere to take Bond let Amazon do what they want with Bond, streaming included!
Agreed @mtm , we are being shown Bond’s new life, and we get to see nice character things (like he’s been snipping and keeping newspaper clippings on Blofeld), the toothbrush scene appears small and insignificant, but it was a sly plant— a few short scenes later we see the toothbrush is being used to extract Bond’s DNA).
No wasted scenes… every scene should have a purpose for being there (after all, for every second of film shot it’s costing big bucks somewhere along the line of production…).
I don’t know @Jordo007 . But I always noted there are two dirty wine glasses on the kitchen counter, signifying Mr Bond likely had some company over in the recent past.
Oh man. That could have been something to play with, harkening back to Mr White warning: we have people everywhere…
Anyway, the movie is too long. A tighter cut would improve it a lot.
Anyway, that’s your opinion Deke and you’re entitled to it…. Anyway…
That's a good spot mate, I never noticed that.
@Denbigh that would have been a nice connection
It is, and; it is?!?!?!
And @Jordo007 … I don’t know why my eye was drawn to those two wine glasses, but I loved the touch. Put a smile on my face.
Given the ending of NTTD (
They can do a DAF, where they simply ignore the last films exploits altogether.
They can do a CR, where they make Bond a rookie agent, maybe on his first mission for MI6, but obviously not a remake of CR with gambling and Vesper.
They can make an entirely new timeline or revert back to the one of old from Connery - Brosnan. Not that there was a lot of continuity, and certainly not (imo) all of them playing the same James Bond. But that's a long and old debate that has no right or wrong answer. It's subjective to each of us.
If I had a choice, I'd prefer to see a man who has experienced the life of a OO agent.
Possibly early in his career, but still a blunt instrument. An assassin for his country.
Making Bond a rookie again would, maybe be too soon after CR, even though we're potentially looking at 20 years between CR and Bond 26, when other actors debuted as James Bond, it always felt like a continuation, albeit with a fresher faced actor.
See we need another GE by the looks of it.
I don't really care how it's incorporated, what purpose it drives the narrative, story, etc. I'll leave it to you scriptwriters to find a way of how it can be squeezed in so it still ticks the boxes.
These quieter moments are what I like in a Bond movie, that's all I know. It gives us a glimpse into the character of Bond, his daily habits, and also reflects the books too.
If it still manages to propel the story too in the process, then great! Everyone's happy.
Yeah. GoldenEye & The Living Daylights.
One thing's for sure, the cinematic James Bond is now firmly in 'superhero' territory, where each film can now have separate timelines and he can become a new 007, and die at the end, as many times as they want him to.
Perhaps they see the next Bond as another mini-series, like the Craig era turned out to be? I hope not, but as you say, it could go anywhere now.
I'd like the next movie to introduce James Bond quite late in the film. Set up the villain's plan first, and introduce an enemy that we genuinely don't like, (Safin and Blofeld were hardly scary in the last film, were they?). We need to see baddies doing bad things, so that when Bond is introduced, we look forward to them meeting up. Think of how the From Russia With Love novel was plotted. Bond wasn't in it till quite late, and by that time we'd already learnt to hate and fear Red Grant.
@Univex, @007HallY
I like the points you have brought up, friends.
When reading Fleming, I always get the sense too that he tried to make Bond less complex than he did. Bond's manners, frustrations and remarks have always felt to me as reflecting the maestro's struggles. Take Bond's offhand attitude towards certain things. Is that merely the character Fleming set out to create? Or is that Fleming himself trying to shrug off his feelings about the changing world?
@ColonelAdamski
I have always been fond of that idea too. FRWL, the novel, has a narrative structure that no Bond film has yet dared go for. Would it be the commercially smart thing to do? Probably not, since audiences want enough screen time with Bond, I suppose. But it certainly would be an interesting concept to explore.
Yes, very much this.
That's my personal preference: I'm not saying it's the right way to do it or the only way to do it or if anyone thinks differently they're wrong. It's a shame I have to make that clear, but there we go.
Our minds are aligned, @DarthDimi, my friend.
About your first answer, yes, absolutely, any psychological authopsy of the maestro, as you so aptly called him, will tell us that his creation is really his sublimation, as so often it occurs in ficcional writing. I always got that feeling, particularly after reading some biographies of the man. That being said, it's very well discussed between novelists that creating a character by way of sublimating one self and still maintaining the quality the piece requires is often times an impossible project. And Fleming succeeded brilliantly.
On your second answer. Absolutely, a few pages back I was trying to introduce the concept of having a brilliant spionage narrative in which to drop Bond at some point, a bit like in FRWL. Having a fantastically written context very well set up first, in which Bond then immerses himself is theatrical and a nod to great novelistic writing and film making.
That could even balance out the so called formula with the non canonical. If I were them, I'd be trying to find a great narrative. And then have our man Bond deal with it, as if he were us, now having to deal with what was given to us.
Very well thought out, my friend. Cheers