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
That's not what I'm getting at though. You don't just course correct because you have a different face in front of the camera. I don't even know that there's a "correction" to be made. I'm talking about the inherent direction they go in for the next era, which, yes, would be heightened and amplified by selecting the right actor for the job.
I'm talking about the segue from DAD to the "Bond Begins"-type beginnings the Craig era had. I doubt we'll get a retread of that yet again, so it makes me think on what bigger storyline or character ideas they might come up with to really shake things up all over again, if they don't take an easier approach of standalone adventures yet again, which I suspect won't be the case.
And to be fair, it’s not as obvious as it was in 2004. Bond doesn’t have any rival series outshining it creatively or financially. It’s not a given that something more lighthearted will automatically prove successful (in fact going too far in this direction might not be beneficial). Same for something darker or grittier. Both the Craig and ‘classic’ eras are in the past, and we’re likely not returning to them. So this is truly about reinventing Bond as BB likes to say.
It’s one of the tougher jobs the Bond series has had to be honest.
Very good points here. I also see it being a lot harder now, since it's not like NTTD was a box office bomb or absolutely loathed by critics and fans alike. It won't be an easy task at all, making me even more curious as to whether they go in a radical new direction or play it somewhat more safe instead.
Totally agree. I'm the same.
I have tried various different authors books - Colonel Sun, Zero Minus Ten, Devil May Care, Cart Blanche, Solo, followed by the Horowitz trilogy, but none of them really capture the true essence of Fleming, even though all these writers have tried to do so.
Fleming had a unique way of writing, an unusual way of weaving his inner feelings, thoughts and personality onto the page, so we were getting an insight into Fleming's head, rather than reading a fictional story about an English spy.
This is what separates the Fleming books from everything that followed.
For me the Bond formula is more than a script. It's a combination of elements best defined by GF. The PTS, the gun barrel opening, the bombastic title song, the car, and a Bond so casual and relaxed on screen you weren't sure if he were acting or not. Peter says Bond films are an event. For me they once were. Today a Bond film is another film that I hope will entertain me. They usually do, even when they are mucked up. But they don't appeal to me the way they used to.
I suspect the next iteration of Bond will not be for me. It will be for today's adolescent brought up in a world of technology and whose idea of Bond may be from a video game rather than a novel, and who may never see an old Bond film. Yesterday I was on a flight that offered a menu of a couple of hundreds films. It took some time to find one I wanted to watch. Plenty of F&F, Marvel, DC universe, and animation. Lots of stuff I didn't want to see. Frankly, nothing seemed new. Stylistically there is a sameness to so many action, thriller, and adventure films. Will what will ring the bell of a younger audience resonate with me?
The image of Craig's last outing as Bond that sticks with me is his wearing suspenders (braces.) I know it wasn't intended, but it had a grandad feel to it. The passing of a generation. The old guy, the old ways, blown to bits. Hello next generation.
Yeah, they could easily do either one.
If I were a betting man, I’d say there’s more likely to be elements from the later Craig films that will remain. Then again that’s not saying much as his last three films slowly reintroduced ‘traditional’ Bond story elements and became more fantastical. I can see maybe Bond 26 maybe having similar tonal variances between darker, more horrifying moments alongside comparatively lighter ones that we got in NTTD. I can see perhaps the villain having more sympathetic motives, certain things being more fantastical alongside comparatively grounded moments, and a personal element to Bond’s involvement in the story (not to say we’ll get a rehash of Brofield or that Bond will know someone connected personally, but there’ll likely be something that Bond is conflicted about during the film). I could be wrong but I also can see them being more willing in this era to lean into some of those older Bond tropes than they were at the beginning of the Craig era - gadgets, the gun barrel, a more traditional M briefing etc.
At the end of the day I don’t know though, and there’s a million different directions they can go in. There’ll no doubt be big differences from the Craig era even if just story wise, but I don’t know about a complete creative departure from what came before.
Weird aside, but Craig seemingly favoured braces in his costumes (or was given them to wear). He wore them with his tuxedo throughout his films. Even crops up in some of his other costumes. I actually don’t have any major feelings about them, it’s just always stood out to me. I think he looks great in them with his tuxedo.
I think Dalton may have worn them with his tuxedo too, but I could be wrong. To be honest I’d take them over Moore’s flares or Lazenby’s frilly tuxedo shirt…
Great post!
I hope they can escape the shadow of Vesper and give us something/someone different. Eva Green was amazing but it's time to move on.
Can you imagine if DAF-TSWLM all leaned heavily into Tracy? Not just the passing mentions but Tracy as a major plot device, over and over.
As Vesper herself said when she removed the necklace, "It was time."
This bond lost the love of his life, his best friend, his boss, another friend, he had everything stripped from him. To not explore some lighter territory with the character now would be stale and redundant. The series only stays fresh by continually renewing itself, and I think after only releasing 1 film in the past decade (by the time Bond 26 is released) they will want to announce Bond is back with a capital B. There is so much more imagination and creativity to this series than has been on display in the last 20 years or so, and it's about time they dipped their toes into that again.
And no, that doesn't mean I think we'll be getting slide whistles and tarzan yells either.
I love this.
And I’d love to see M needing Bond’s help and inviting “James” to his private club, Blades.
This sequence in the book did reveal much of Fleming’s Bond (hence why this book is the only one from these early days that I love as much as his latter output). And I think this could also work for showing us this new cinematic Bond in action (after an explosive PTS, of course).
We can see the energy of this younger 007 as he grows excited to trap this cheat in a card match (whether it’s Bridge or not doesn’t bother me, just make it fast and cinematic).
Like Drax of the novel, this new character will call on Bond a day or two after the embarrassment in Blades, to ask for his help. This will lead us into the bigger plot/story…
The entire sequence could be ten to fifteen minutes after the PTS and used to firmly plant who this Bond is; we will see him slyly set a trap for the cheat; we will be shown how he’s a couple steps ahead; we will see his relish in embarrassing the antagonist (and also having a luxurious and celebratory bottle of champagne with M (maybe with M allowing Bond to choose the bottle— then regretting it right after as the price will be one of the highest on the menu!))…
Nice call @echo …
I dunno, off the top of my head it could be something like this: a high profile British Government Official and friend of M's is being blackmailed into giving up top secret information by some sort of shadowy figure (what exactly they're being blackmailed for could be due to anything - corruption, something to do with gambling to preserve the Blades aspect with Bond having to tease out the mysterious figure during a card game, or even something a bit more mysterious/nefarious etc.) The Official has in confidence gone to M for help, and M has in turn sent Bond to investigate, uncover whoever this figure is, and assassinate them. Again, all very much off the record stuff. Bond accepts the mission but is seemingly uncomfortable about the whole matter.
Think Bond meets the Sherlock Holmes story A Scandal in Bohemia I suppose (in the sense that Bond is working for someone morally grey, and of course he'll inevitably meet a woman during his investigations, as well as stumble upon something much larger). Much like, say, TLD, it'll also involve Bond saving the day by defying M's instructions in some form.
Yes, please!! If we get that AND Nolan, I will literally faint.
Honestly the scooby gang should be played by solid but lesser known actors, then they don't need such meaty roles in each film. Having M, Q and Moneypenny more involved hasn't improved the stories IMO, I think "if it ain't broke don't fix it" applies here, and they should go back to one scene per film each.
To be honest, conflict between Bond and M is pretty common anyway, even when the latter has limited screen time. We see it during their first meeting in DN with M replacing Bond’s gun, when he admonishes Bond about starting a personal vendetta against Goldfinger/threatening to replace him with another 00. It’s there in OHMSS with M taking him off of Operation Bedlam, and in TMWTGG where he seems constantly annoyed with Bond being targeted/messing up the mission. It’s certainly there in the Dalton era between Bond being reluctant to assassinate Pushkin in TLD, and of course what happens in LTK goes without saying. It’s certainly there during every film of the Brosnan era (I’m sure I don’t even need to cite these). I’m likely missing other examples too…
So yeah, there’ll most likely be conflict between Bond and M, however minor. And that’s fine. Without something deeper between the two men (or indeed people) M could potentially be a boring character.
Therein lies the challenge of reinvention and originality.
Same for if M didn’t consider Bond their best agent at some point.
I feel if a Bond/M scene was just an exposition dump with nothing going on underneath that, it’d be a pretty worthless scene. We tend to be shown a lot of what’s happened prior to the briefings in the films anyway, as well as after, so rarely is the exposition completely integral. Without something deeper you may as well just have Bond get his info from one of those Mission Impossible briefing tapes (honestly though, even in MI they tend to give Hunt bosses with whom he has some sort of conflict with).
I do agree that it’s mainly about what they do differently from the Craig era. But there are so many paths to take with a new M that I don’t think that’s a problem.
I envision this short story being adapted in a similar manner to TLD, playing out in the first act, and then building on from that.
Yes, if you don’t have conflict you don’t have drama. May as well have a robot if they agree perfectly, as you say. And also as you say, they’ve always conflicted in some way, it’s their dynamic. Off the top of my head I can’t think of a single Bond film where they don’t clash in some way.
The monotony is killing me. It is not exciting for me if it is every film.
Some conflict is good, but since hiring high-profile actors like Judy Dench ironically we've been stuck with a lot of interactions where M is just losing their temper. There is more to M and Bond than conflict, there is more to drama than shouting.
I don't expect full le Carré-style subtlety, but give me something with more tones than this.
And honestly, when I think Dench's M and Bond together in the Craig films, I actually struggle to think of any where she's losing her temper with him. She's pissed off with him when he breaks into her flat in CR, but after that not many spring to mind. Usually they're having quite introspective conversations (including that one).
You might as well say that we don't want any more scenes where Bond and the villain disagree; it's just part of the dynamic of the stories.
In Dr No the interaction between M and Bond over his choice of gun doesn't involve M getting angry and/or shouting, and it's still good:
Lots going on there, showing you that Bond likes to do things his own way, and that M knows him well enough to know he's going to try and walk off with the Beretta - he doesn't even look up when he tells Bond to leave it. Lovely scene, no voices raised.
But where are all these ones where though? Really it's something we got more with Fiennes (maybe once each at the beginning of his two films as M?) than we did Dench, but those weren't the only interactions they had in the film, and as I think as 007HallY pointed out recently, it's something we probably got on percentage more from Robert Brown than either of the recent Ms: and I'd say he certainly shouted more than either of them. I can't recall Dench's M ever raising her voice at him, to be honest.
Here's a nice M scene I'm sure we all like, where M gets annoyed at Bond, disagrees with him, gets prissy about him not following orders on the sniper mission, shouts at him and threatens to replace him. It's a lovely scene too and works well at this point in the movie as the stakes are raising.
There's also been plenty of scenes between M and Bond in the last five or so films which haven't involved any serious disputes and more on the level of that beretta scene- look at most in Skyfall. Honestly, listing them would take too long.
I’ve actually never read a Bond comic before! I’ve heard others talk about that one before though. It sounds quite cool.
Well, to be honest Bond and M’s relationship in every version essentially boils down to conflict and then ‘he’s my best agent’. You can’t really avoid that.
But I really think you’re underselling M in the Brosnan and Craig eras. Take Dench’s M in Craig’s first three - in CR she clearly sees Bond as a bit arrogant and a loose cannon, but a very effective agent. Clearly there’s an issue of trust there, but she lets Bond do his thing and even puts him on the case later when MI6 decides to take down Le Chiffre (albeit while putting a tracker in his arm and monitoring him). QOS is about M facing the possibility that Bond has gone off the rails with a personal vendetta. Not only that but she has to negotiate the idea of her superiors in Government doing deals with Green (incidentally this M seems much more impulsive/less by the books, much like this Bond, and clearly has a similar dislike of MI6 doing this). Obviously by the end of that film she sides with Bond and learns to trust him implicitly, letting him go off and complete the assignment. In SF Bond is definitely her top agent. Her impulsiveness, however, nearly gets him killed, and of course this mirrors what happened with Silva. Like the previous films you’ve got a similar kinship between M and Bond with both being the old guard at MI6, seen to be of questionable use in the modern world by their colleagues, and are effectively ‘played out’. After she fails to attain the list and MI6 is blown up, the film is about her trying to make things right in the context of losing her job, which is great character drama and points to the guilt she displays throughout the film. She lies to cover for Bond’s health too of course (it’s certainly development - I can’t see M in CR doing that!) It doesn’t end well for her obviously, but at least in her dying moments she claims she did one thing right, and even in death seemingly encourages Bond to stay on where he’ll do the most good.
To be honest, I’d go as far to say all that’s actually more interesting than a lot of Le Carre I’ve read. It’s definitely not one note and shows actual character progression, not only between her and Bond, but with M as an individual character. I can only remember her shouting at Bond in CR when he breaks into her flat. Other than that it’s cold admonishments (ie. ‘Look at what your charms can do James’, ‘ran out of drink where you were?’), the occasional but somewhat distant heart to hearts, but more often than not it’s them being businesslike with each other.
https://readallcomics.com/james-bond-solstice-2017/
Ah thanks, I’ll definitely give this a read when I can. Like I said it’s one I’ve heard a lot about here (I like the idea of the plot thread where Bond’s gadget malfunctions too. Great material to adapt for a film, even if very loosely).
Yes, Brown's M is angry and shouty, lacking Bernard Lee's warmth and subtle humour. I think he's really a product of Moore's era and just seems an obstacle to be overcome. I don't hate him, but perhaps the weakest M we've had. Of his films I only rewatch Licence to Kill regularly, so I tend to forget what he's like. I'm not sure I can think of any scenes that I feel are similar, as Dench's M feels so much more spikey to me. Perhaps near the end of Skyfall, I'll have to pop the Blu-ray in the player this weekend. Generally I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.