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
hell of a skill to do martial arts in high heels ;)
Yes, I guess Nomi could turn out to be bad, but I really don't think she will.
I think it's mad we haven't had a female main villain for twenty years. Just for the sake of variation if nothing else!
...but I agree it won't happen :)
Exactly, so what sense does it make to be riding a 2006 motor in 2026? You make a film to fit the tone and sensibilities of the time, not what was popular 20 years ago. FYI, people generally like OHMSS because its incredibly well crafted, not just "because Bond gets married", lol. By that reasoning they could have filmed anything and as long as there's a marriage scene in there somewhere and fans would love it.
I never denied that CR and SF are popular, but that doesn't make copying what they did many years later a good idea. If you keep trying to make the same type of movie over and over with exactly the same tone and style, you end up with the Jason Bourne franchise, slowly losing steam over time. Bond has literally built a nearly 60 year legacy off changing with the times, and cutting out the dead weight periodically. As much as Craigites like to glorify the 2006 - 2012 period, it can't be denied that the record since then has been far from great. Its really just those 2 movies that people like, and audiences have already moved on. Craigites have this weird idea that the majority of people are still stuck in that era with them, the fact is that whilst popular at the time this run of films have been largely overtaken by the likes of Mission Impossible since 2015. But we should find out more about that by how Craigs Swanning performs (hopefully) this October. I'm guessing the steady post-Skyfall decline continues, but let's sit tight and find out.
Because if you watch any big film now you'll notice that sort of thing is still going down extremely well. Look at the Marvel movies for instance.
Throwing out what works now would be the opposite of cutting out the dead weight.
Bond gets married in YOLT, it's at #14 in the poll. So no, that reasoning is not right at all.
Fans love the relationship angle, they cry at the ending. This is not some wild and crazy theory. I suspect you probably quite like that part of the film too: most of us do.
I keep repeating that I'm not saying that they do everything the same but you seem to think I'm saying they should keep the exact same style..? I've no idea where you're getting this from.
What I am saying, and was the single sentence which you took exception to in the beginning of all this, is that audiences like to see him being affected personally, a bit of drama in the mix.
'Craigites' 8-|
Notice the most recent Mission Impossible increased the personal involvement of Ethan to the mission.
I very much hope so. No better basis for the next film. Especially with a new actor.
Audiences have moved on, expectations are different now to what they were back in 1995. Look at all the Netflix dramas that do very well with the masses. They are usually emotional dramas, not fun romps. And when it comes to Bond look no further than SF and CR in terms of what ticks most peoples boxes, critics and fans alike.
I am hazarding a guess NTTD will do extremely well at the BO, assuming the world gets back to some normality and people can go to the cinema again. If it does, then don't expect drastic changes with the next Bond film.
Definitively agree. While I don't know if it would be ideal for Bond 26 specifically, the opening chapters of TMWTGG would be a great PTS for a new actor and a great way to introduce him to the audience.
After every era comes to an end there is always a change of direction. It wouldn't be "moving with the times" if they kept doing things the same way from 2006. Thats literally what they did with Bourne and the franchise fizzled out. People got bord of the same schtick after the fifth film, and the new TV series never even got past one series. Just look at the gap between LTK and GE and how much they updated the style of the movies. LTK feels slow and listless in comparison to GE which is far more modern kinetic and punchy. The dialogue, and one liners all help to add to this effect. I think after Craig bales out, the next films will undergo a similar transformation and SF, SP will feel very plodding in future years. They really like to overdo the long establishing shots in those two, and the dramatic pauses and moody atmosphere (say for the Scotland sequence) all soak up a lot of screen time. Its weird that they haven't made a film under 2hrs 20 for a while, and B25 appears to be the longest yet.
As far as Bond 25, the movie likely won't make back its own production costs, which are rumoured to be north of 300 million. The gap between SP and B25 is only a few months short of the same gap that LTK - GE had. And this time instead of a revamped style and a completely fresh portrayal, we have the same Bond actor and reconstituted plot elements which weren't that popular to begin with. I don't know many who are big fans of the character Madeline Swann, or Waltzs Blofeld for that matter. People have been losing interest since 2015, when SP failed to gained the critical or financial success of SF. As much as some devote Craigites love to venerate 2006 - 2012 as a peak for the franchise, that era came to an end a long time ago now. We have to accept that what we have left is the remainders or leftovers. No Bond who is around for more than a couple years goes out on a high. At best B25 will be an interesting film for fans to look back on, and be a modest success, however anyone thinking it will rise up and reach the heights of SF or even SP again I think are in for a rude awakening. Theres simply no steam left for that, they're dragged things out for too long now. SF was released in a cauldron of enthusiasm and hope, not just for Bond but for everything British. Patriotism was at an all time high, and then the film seemed to carry that lantern and run with it. I think we can expect huge wait for the next Bond film some time between 2026 - 2028. Even if B25 makes back its budget, it'll take a long time to truly nail down where to take the franchise next, cast a new Bond etc. EON seem completely out of energy these days, I suppose as Micheal and Barbara get older, so they are likely to make the process take as long as possible, if they even want to continue.
It will be interesting to see where the next film goes, and how the series will be rebooted. We don't know when that will be though. It could be a few years away yet, and a lot will depend on how audiences tastes are at the moment in time, what kind of action flicks are doing well. This will be a deciding factor and influence in the direction of the next film. CR and QoS were influenced by Bourne, and SF and SP were influenced by Nolan's Batman.
I don't have faith Eon could plan far ahead enough for that, though.
Could work, though.
Somehow I have a feeling there will be a long enough gap between NTTD and B26 that origin stories, multi-verses, and most of what's popular now will have probably played it's course. Audience tastes may be completely different by then.
Who knows? Maybe Speilberg's WEST SIDE STORY will be such a hit it spawns a whole new era of musicals and we'll get to see the Craig's replacement break into song and dance very 20 minutes?
Just kidding.
The original idea for The Living Daylights was to show Bond in his time in the navy.
I am on record as saying the series could benefit from returning Bond to the midst of the Cold War (late 50s/early 60s). While TMFU was not a Box Office smash, I really think it was on to something. I loved the look and feel of that film. The cars. The fashion. The music. Alicia Vikander was a great non-Bond Bond girl.
While I love Bond no matter the era, I have to admit that the technological advancements of the 21st century make the spy game a little less interesting (SF made it fresh; SP made it dull). Furthermore, EON would have a lot more flexibility in creating villains who fit that time period but also speak to today. Both WW films are a terrific example of that: a reminder that the problems of the past still plague us.
Eon is onto something, always making the *films* contemporary.
We could get more a more regular schedule for 007 movies, if all goes to plan.
Maddeningly, they don't really go anywhere with that idea after it is articulated in that scene and they have the tendency to make technology all-powerful and have it be incredibly stupid in the next scene.
Without needing to ape them any more than has already happened, both Bourne and M:I have shown that you can still do interesting plots and some cool tradecraft scenes in the modern world. I think the Bond franchise has been a bit over-cautious in the Craig era, because they have been burnt with weird techno-ideas during Brosnan's run. But I personally feel like society's relationship to technology has changed enough to maybe give a slightly more futuristic Bond a go again. The trick is always to have the tech enhance the man and not just have him be the wielder of something everyone could use to solve the situation.
I agree. And SF handled it very well. But then having to basically hear the same stuff again in SP made me fear that we'll be reminded of this, explicitly, in every film going forward.
Clever scriptwriters can get around the unfortunate "deus ex machina" aspects of technology and gadgets always getting Bond out of jams, as with the simplicity of a rope on a canoe. With today's tech, for example, Bond could be captured, loses his gadgets, escapes and must find another way to prevail.