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
How long does it usually take to figure out the next Bond?
The 60s wouldn't work as that would make Bond 80+ now. A retired Bond has no real legs as the actor could die in real life before a sequel even got made. I also don't think it would be a big draw with the young market.
I do think this would be the way to do it, if they wanted to do another origin story. Go back even further and explore Bond’s military service. It’d be a pretty fresh and unique direction. I wasn’t sure we needed another origin story, but Bond’s military service is fertile ground that I’ve always been curious about. Also lets them cast an actor young enough to build a new series around, without asking us to buy a fresh faced late 20s/early 30s year old as a 00 (I do like some of the suggestions this time round, but christ they all look so young haha). It’d give them a chance to literally grow into the role, and keep their era very varied. Could be an interesting approach.
The only thing I can see working against this idea is that the new video game is apparently an origin story, with a new Bond. Would they want two Bond origin stories coming out around the same time, or within a year or two of eachother? But I guess EON have never seemed too bothered about that side of things to be fair, so maybe it wouldn’t factor in.
How would you go about fitting TSWLM into a modern action film?
The only way I could see it work is if they include it in a bigger plot. Let's say Bond stumbles by a helpless girl, saves her and discovers she has an important clue that moves the story forward. Or something like that... I don't think you can make a modern action flick and have the plot revolve around saving one girl from some baddies.
However it would give them an excuse to go to Canada, something I would love to see.
I think it could work, if you the film start with a mission where Bond gets badly hurt and is sent to recuperate on holiday... and there he meets the woman, gets involved, but is hampered by his injuries and lack of gadgets/support.
The thing is, it does deviate from the basic Bond formula of multiple international locations, Q, Moneypenny, and M (except at the beginning), and multiple romantic interests. I'd be all for it, a smaller, more intimate Bond film with smaller stakes, but would the general public turn up for it? Would Eon take that risk? A film where the heavy lifting is done primarily by the writers, and where the stunts and set-pieces come second? I don't know. I'd really like the scripts to be tighter and feature more subtlety, but would others? Difficult to tell, until someone actually ponies up the money and takes that risk.
That's the thing. We would be up for it because we know the significanse, normal moviegoers expecting an action packed blockbuster would wonder why on earth they decided one girl out in the woods should take center stage. I honestly think it is completely unrealistic.
Barbara Broccoli: definitely
Michael Wilson: unlikely
Daniel Craig: nope
Ralph Fiennes, Naomi Harris, Ben Whishaw and Rory Kinnear: unlikely, but they may transplant one of them in a new continuity, just as they did for Judi Dench
Cary Joji Fukunaga: could go either way
Martin Campbell: would definitely be interesting, but he'd be at least 80 by the time Bond 26 is released. Unlikely
Hans Zimmer: likely
Purvis and Wade: could go either way. They have survived so many crises that they're basically the cockroaches of this franchise. As soon as something goes wrong, they get called back.
Phoebe Waller-Bridge: was invited by Craig, but she seems to have adjusted rather well, up to the point she got a proper credit. Likely.
Daniel Kleinman: could go either way. The titles for NTTD looked like his swan song
Mark Tildesley: could go either way. But they also have Dennis Gassner (who's in his 70s)
I would be sad if Whishaw doesn't continue. I think he is perfect as Q and I have really grown fond of that character! It creates no continuity issues for me if he is in B26, but later discussions have made me realize some Bond fans put more emphasiz on continuity than I thought... Would it bother people here if Whishaw returns for B26? I am genuinly curious?
Nothing. They are visionaries! Like me >:)
That's definitely the best road to go IMO: it's a catchy starting point that avoids the origin story while allowing the series to have a young and fresh Bond. I still think that this starting point can be preceded by a PTS that adapts the opening chapters of TMWTGG. In such case, your second idea seems more relevant, but the easy assignment could still work.
I liked this idea. It means that we could still have the same continuity started with Craig but with new actor as 007. Also Ralph Fiennes, Ben Whishaw and Naomie Harris could return as M/Mallory, Q and Miss Moneypenny.
What is there you don't get? Why should it never be faithfully adapted? It would have been a far better ending than what we got instead.
Easily. As an introduction scene to the new Bond girl (in this case Viv Michel). About to be raped at a closed down motel, Bond steps in to rescue her and kills the 2 nasty gangsters in the process.
Next.
Everyone to their own, but for me, Craig's last film ending with him
Yes, that is basically the version I suggested myself. But it's nice to see we agree that it's not suitable as the climax of a modern Bond movie.
No, there isn't that much material for a climax. Its great for an adapted short story and used as the basis for a script, a bit like how the beginning of TLD is used.
I also think it would be a mistake to have any of the current MI6 crew return for the next one, including Q (and I love Ben in that role.) I say that because they are indelibly linked to Craig's Bond. And with that stamped on the viewers' minds quite clearly, I think it would hinder rather than help move the next film forward. Bond 26 should definitely be its own story, different Bond. I personally do not see how they could update Moonraker (the novel) to be an interesting, viable modern Bond movie. I don't care to see another YOLT, certainly not closer to the novel. In some other stream of Bond films, I could enjoy a period set; but it just won't happen.
You can bet that Barbara and Michael have already thought about this and more. Maybe not in depth till the last year (remember this film finished production awhile ago) but they are keenly aware and want the franchise to continue. Cary has even given them some ideas of how to move the Bond films forward with the next movie. Oh to have been a fly on the wall for that chat. B-) I'm not worried about the future of Bond movies, but I am curious. 2022 will be intriguing. The only thing I feel sure about is it should be a fresh start all around, no returning actors.
So a) they were at the very least taking meetings about a full reboot after SP and b) Cary has spent some time thinking about that. Now obviously it's years later, we have the film that we have, which surely changes the outlook, even if they were considering a full reboot before, so not a lot to interpret into here, but I still found it interesting that that was where they were at after SP.
Just as they gave up trying to make a film two years in a row after TMWTGG, they gave up about the idea of making one every two years after QoS, especially as long gaps tended to benefit the quality of the next film (GoldenEye, CR, Skyfall). I think it was the boss of MGM who explained after Spectre that the next one should take three or four years.
Which is also why it would be a waste of time to have the new lead in another origins story. It's been already done in CR, and it would be hard to top that. In the best case scenario, the new fellow will be able to shoot from three to five films. Besides, the origins story was one of the things that made The Amazing Spider-Man (the Andrew Garfield reboot) so boring, especially as the first Spider-Man with Tobey Maguire had been made just 10 years earlier.
So, give the guy more space, have some stories related to SPECTRE and Blofeld, some others not, and take advantage of the much wider range of emotions that Craig brought to the part.
No offence to those saying just repeat the exact same formula as GR or GE for Bond 26 and that's all there is to it. It's pretty much guaranteed that's what they won't be doing. As @4EverBonded pointed out in his above post, Fukunaga had already had discussions about a future reboot and how to approach it before Craig was lured back one last time for NTTD. Christopher Nolan has also said he has a different approach for a reboot but refused to divulge any details, wanting to keep his cards close to his chest. If these discussions were simply along the lines of repeat the exact same formula, then there would be no real need to discuss it with different directors as it would just be a gun-for-hire appointment. You need to think outside of the box for Bond 26.
That's what I wrote about TMWTGG. During most of the sixties, due to having a lot of material to work from the original novels and the films being technically much less complicated to make (they can't use rear projection anymore...), they could produce one entry a year. Then, after Thunderball, the audiences were eager for high production values, or exotic settings that hadn't been shown yet, stories also required more work, they had to work with different leads for a few films in a row, and they mostly adopted a two-year production cycle starting with You Only Live Twice. TMWTGG was the only attempt to put together a film within one year (I assume it was because Saltzman and Broccoli had a deadline to honour with some investors), and it was poorly received. It felt formulaic and rushed, and it's obvious that, even without the legal issues, TSWLM wouldn't have been made in 1975.
The two-year cycle remained more or less the rule for three more decades, except for the gaps caused by various legal issues or the occasional delay. But it wasn't sustainable anymore by the time QoS was released. And most of the films that had taken at least three years to make (if we except Die Another Day) had been much better received than the films developed in less time.
It will be interesting to see what can be done with a new lead, stable financial backing from Amazon and full adaptation rights over the franchise (scripts don't need anymore to be scrubbed by some legal team to be sure they don't infringe on elements owned by Kevin McClory). But some bottlenecks remain. It's hard to come up with some original story that sounds true to the spirit of the franchise. The part takes a much heavier toll on the body of the lead actor than it did a few decades ago, in the days when Roger Moore nearly had a fork double to eat his greens. It can take years of negotiations to secure an exotic site, etc.