› ›

Realistic & Serious Story Ideas for Bond 25 (...to be used by EON Productions Ltd.??)

1…1516182021…38

Comments

  • PanchitoPistolesPanchitoPistoles 2.0
    Posts: 4,619
    When I mentioned "simple plot" I meant movies like Carol or Mad Max: Fury Road (just to mention two 2015 releases). Both have a very simple plot with interesting and complex characters. Most thrillers and action movies have an overcomplicated plot. There is way to much stuff happening in Spectre.
  • Tuck91Tuck91
    Posts: 1,680
    Panchitos,

    I dont think we got to hear how you liked SP overall.

    any idea on what direction they are likely to move forward with & whether or not Craig & Waltz are returning. I know you had the scoop on things when SP was in production.
  • PanchitoPistolesPanchitoPistoles 2.0
    edited January 2016 Posts: 4,619
    @Tuck91 I thought it was very mediocre. I was expecting it to be about as good as GoldenEye was, and it did not meet that expectation. Spectre had an incredible cast & crew and it shows. Everything about the movie is great, EXCEPT the most important part: the script. It's messy, stale and overlong. Where is the surprise? Where is the fun? It is incredibly frustrating that every time the producers deliver a great movie they immediately forget what made that movie great (TND after GE, QOS after CR, Spectre after SF). It's the script, stupid! If CR and SF were 5 star movies, QOS was a 4 star one, then Spectre deserves 3 stars. It's the worst Bond film since TWINE. (Yes, DAD was better.)

    As for the future, I have no idea, but I am really hoping Blofeld won't return and although I really like Craig, I am also hoping this was his last Bond film. The producers should find a new Bond and should wait until Christopher Nolan is available to direct AND write. :bz
  • IamFoulgerIamFoulger
    Posts: 2
    Bond 25 Working Brief - Spoiler Alert

    Blofeld will not return
    Desire to return to simpler story line a la Casino Royale
    Martin Campbell will be asked to direct
    Storyline will be based on 'Man with the Golden Gun'; 007 is hunted as he provokes confrontation with a terrorist cell
    Baddie is motivated by death; not money
    Watch out for the scene when 007 cold bloodedly kills the baddies son in order to identify them and draw them out (they are initially disinterested)
    Bond confronts baddie at sons funeral;
    A female baddie is being contemplated
    Opening scene will be a prison break out - Bond is a prisoner and escapes - pursued by local militia
    Thomas Newman will not score film. Brian Tyler to be approached or return to David Arnold
    End will be Bond being suspended for disobeying order not to kill the baddie - she is linked to CIA
    Working title is 'To Do and Die'

  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited January 2016 Posts: 6,297
    PanchitoPistoles wrote: »
    FFourth, no personal stuff. And no, I don't want to see a Bond on a regular mission movie without any drama. I do want drama, but the drama should come from what's happening in the movie and not from Bond's past. Sixth, NO MORE THAN THREE main locations (including London). In Spectre, we spent about 15 minutes in Rome and 10 minutes in Austria. The movie simply had WAY to many locations. Fewer locations = less money spent and more time spent at each location.

    Some specific ideas: an asexual Bond girl, who can be very sexual when the mission requires it.

    I agree that too many locations weaken a Bond film. Examples are SP, QoS, DAD, MR.

    I think London has been too much a focus in the past few films (I liked it in SF as a main location as a one-off, but it was overdone in SP). Aside from a scene or two at the beginning and the end, give us somewhere new (at least until the inevitable faithful-ish MR adaptation).

    Miranda Frost was the kind of Bond girl you describe.
  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    edited January 2016 Posts: 11,119
    People already know what I wrote in the opening post of this topic. But guys/girls, just have a look at this crude, but totally effective cinematography from some of my favourite 'racing' movies:

    "Grand Prix", 1966 (directed by: John Frankenheimer, cinematography: Lionel Lindon):



    "Rush", 2013 (directed by: Ron Howard, cinematography: Anthony Dod Mantle):



    "Le Mans", 1971 (directed by: Lee H. Katzin, cinematography: René Guissart Jr. & Robert B. Hauser):



    It still amazes me that there hasn't been a proper 'car racing' Bond film yet! Just....read "Trigger Mortis". Such a film could be the more stylish, elegant equivalent of that way too 'street' "Fast & Furious" films.

    And here I'm gonna say something radical. I think the only Bond film that really captures 'car racing' in such a way that you actually 'feel' like you're in a car, is "On Her Majesty's Secret Service".
  • jbtwine84jbtwine84
    Posts: 19
    I'd like to see a chase and/or plot element in the next film involving docks/shipping wharf/import facility at a large port. Lots of places for Bond to cause trouble. I'd also like the next film to involve a car carrier (the type that transports multiple vehicles) which means cars flying all over the place.
  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    Posts: 3,157
    IamFoulger wrote: »
    Bond 25 Working Brief - Spoiler Alert

    Blofeld will not return
    Desire to return to simpler story line a la Casino Royale
    Martin Campbell will be asked to direct
    Storyline will be based on 'Man with the Golden Gun'; 007 is hunted as he provokes confrontation with a terrorist cell
    Baddie is motivated by death; not money
    Watch out for the scene when 007 cold bloodedly kills the baddies son in order to identify them and draw them out (they are initially disinterested)
    Bond confronts baddie at sons funeral;
    A female baddie is being contemplated
    Opening scene will be a prison break out - Bond is a prisoner and escapes - pursued by local militia
    Thomas Newman will not score film. Brian Tyler to be approached or return to David Arnold
    End will be Bond being suspended for disobeying order not to kill the baddie - she is linked to CIA
    Working title is 'To Do and Die'

    Trust him. He just knows.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,968
    Walecs wrote: »
    Trust him. He just knows.

    Ahh, this takes me back.

    @Gustav_Graves, now see, I've never watched 'Grand Prix' (those clips make it look thrilling so I'll have to see it soon), but branching off of our discussion from last night, that looks more enjoyable and engaging than 'Rush' was.

  • diego80diego80
    Posts: 2
    PanchitoPistoles wrote: »
    @Tuck91 I thought it was very mediocre. I was expecting it to be about as good as GoldenEye was, and it did not meet that expectation. Spectre had an incredible cast & crew and it shows. Everything about the movie is great, EXCEPT the most important part: the script. It's messy, stale and overlong. Where is the surprise? Where is the fun? It is incredibly frustrating that every time the producers deliver a great movie they immediately forget what made that movie great (TND after GE, QOS after CR, Spectre after SF). It's the script, stupid! If CR and SF were 5 star movies, QOS was a 4 star one, then Spectre deserves 3 stars. It's the worst Bond film since TWINE. (Yes, DAD was better.)

    As for the future, I have no idea, but I am really hoping Blofeld won't return and although I really like Craig, I am also hoping this was his last Bond film. The producers should find a new Bond and should wait until Christopher Nolan is available to direct AND write. :bz

    I absolutely agree with you. I don't think Craig is a good bond..

    But, since you talk about Nolan and so on, let me ask you a question: do you guys have
    any idea on WHEN the next Bond is coming out?


    there's always been some years hiatus between the series, do you know?
  • joshdeese93joshdeese93
    Posts: 352
    I would like to see an opening sequence where Bond (Craig) must assassinate someone with a sniper rifle in a public setting.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Set in Mexico City? ;)
  • GeneralGogolGeneralGogol
    Posts: 928
    This may sound idiotic, but what if the Blofeld that showed up in London and was arrested was not actually Blofeld, but a decoy - a Spectre agent doubling for No. 1. The decoy Blofeld dies in custody of "natural causes" ie. heart failure and is cremated while Bond is on holiday in Jamaica with Swann. Over the years since, the tentacles of Spectre continue to re-emerge in the form of seemingly unrelated biological and chemical attacks around the world. Bond follows the trail from Toronto to Tehran. The intel community believes that the threat comes from an Iranian state-backed enterprise, but multiple run-ins with the chameleon Irma Bunt (Tilda Swinton, who else) turn Bond's attention to her. He follows her trail to Japan, where of course her reclusive husband Dr. Guntram Shatterhand maintains a garden of death attracting suicidal hipsters and other nihilists, while Shatterhand tests his various biological weapons. The story continues as Fleming's novel, just not sure the Ama girl subplot is necessary. Bond slays the dragon and goes back to Madeleine.
  • GettlerGettler USA
    Posts: 326
    Makes for a better use if Shatterhand reveal. Blofeld faking his death.
  • GettlerGettler USA
    Posts: 326
    Makes for a better use if Shatterhand reveal. Blofeld faking his death.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Good idea. Also from Fleming and a great title in 'Shatterhand'.
  • JarvisJarvis
    Posts: 18
    New bond film bond had DB 11
  • dominicgreenedominicgreene The Eternal QOS Defender
    edited March 2016 Posts: 1,756
    What if we had a Bond film without MI6? Bond becomes more of a private mercenary (creates his own secret service??), starts working with the Americans perhaps?

    I can't imagine:

    - Madeline dying or getting captured, then revenge. Which would mean Blofeld would have to come back for this purpose. How else could he screw up Bond's life more? He can only exploit the only thing he has emotion with. Either that or just straight up try to kill him.

    - Bond exiling then coming back to MI6, for the third bloody time.

    - Events being ignored; that he left the service. Nor can you ignore the Vauxhall collapse or the demise of Nine Eyes. That would mean you'd have to introduce yet another "new" building for intelligence for the third time.

    Any of the above ideas would definitely cheapen the movie. So you have a few quality options:

    1) Bond story with little MI6 involvement. "Once Upon a Spy" would make a good title for that.
    2) Soft Reboot with Craig.
    3) New actor.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    dominicgreene wrote: »
    What if we had a Bond film without MI6? Bond becomes more of a private mercenary (creates his own secret service??), starts working with the Americans perhaps?
    I have made a suggestion like that a while ago, which is exactly what Bond should do. Bond, as an operative, can't really be in a world where spies aren't given carte blanche authorities due to political conflicts, unlike in the past few decades. So, the way I see it, Bond himself is some sort of a guardian of justice type of a mercenary to preserve the world's security from the hands of all the terror spreaders via organizations like Spectre, Quantum, etc. (or any freelancer, for size.)

  • fjdinardofjdinardo
    Posts: 1,970
    Bond 25

    American Horror Story MI6
  • dominicgreenedominicgreene The Eternal QOS Defender
    Posts: 1,756
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    dominicgreene wrote: »
    What if we had a Bond film without MI6? Bond becomes more of a private mercenary (creates his own secret service??), starts working with the Americans perhaps?
    I have made a suggestion like that a while ago, which is exactly what Bond should do. Bond, as an operative, can't really be in a world where spies aren't given carte blanche authorities due to political conflicts, unlike in the past few decades. So, the way I see it, Bond himself is some sort of a guardian of justice type of a mercenary to preserve the world's security from the hands of all the terror spreaders via organizations like Spectre, Quantum, etc. (or any freelancer, for size.)

    Agreed. This is the most logical way to take it IMO and would make for a really interesting direction and film.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    dominicgreene wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    dominicgreene wrote: »
    What if we had a Bond film without MI6? Bond becomes more of a private mercenary (creates his own secret service??), starts working with the Americans perhaps?
    I have made a suggestion like that a while ago, which is exactly what Bond should do. Bond, as an operative, can't really be in a world where spies aren't given carte blanche authorities due to political conflicts, unlike in the past few decades. So, the way I see it, Bond himself is some sort of a guardian of justice type of a mercenary to preserve the world's security from the hands of all the terror spreaders via organizations like Spectre, Quantum, etc. (or any freelancer, for size.)

    Agreed. This is the most logical way to take it IMO and would make for a really interesting direction and film.
    Better make that two.
  • JWESTBROOKJWESTBROOK
    Posts: 5,745
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    dominicgreene wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    dominicgreene wrote: »
    What if we had a Bond film without MI6? Bond becomes more of a private mercenary (creates his own secret service??), starts working with the Americans perhaps?
    I have made a suggestion like that a while ago, which is exactly what Bond should do. Bond, as an operative, can't really be in a world where spies aren't given carte blanche authorities due to political conflicts, unlike in the past few decades. So, the way I see it, Bond himself is some sort of a guardian of justice type of a mercenary to preserve the world's security from the hands of all the terror spreaders via organizations like Spectre, Quantum, etc. (or any freelancer, for size.)

    Agreed. This is the most logical way to take it IMO and would make for a really interesting direction and film.
    Better make that two.

    Isn't that what the 00 section was meant to be? A place where the government could kill and spy without oversight. I think the modern films have sort of hunted for modern-feeling plotlines by having the double-0-section have to deal with committees and politics.

    Instead of Bond create his own brand of mercenary, I think we should just go back to having the Double-0s be under M. and have the authority stop there. M. is appointed knowing what the best interest of the government is and is trusted to have his section act according to the government's interest without the politicians having to get involved.

    They don't want to know how it happens, it just happens. Throw some trust back in the franchise.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    JWESTBROOK wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    dominicgreene wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    dominicgreene wrote: »
    What if we had a Bond film without MI6? Bond becomes more of a private mercenary (creates his own secret service??), starts working with the Americans perhaps?
    I have made a suggestion like that a while ago, which is exactly what Bond should do. Bond, as an operative, can't really be in a world where spies aren't given carte blanche authorities due to political conflicts, unlike in the past few decades. So, the way I see it, Bond himself is some sort of a guardian of justice type of a mercenary to preserve the world's security from the hands of all the terror spreaders via organizations like Spectre, Quantum, etc. (or any freelancer, for size.)

    Agreed. This is the most logical way to take it IMO and would make for a really interesting direction and film.
    Better make that two.

    Isn't that what the 00 section was meant to be? A place where the government could kill and spy without oversight. I think the modern films have sort of hunted for modern-feeling plotlines by having the double-0-section have to deal with committees and politics.

    Instead of Bond create his own brand of mercenary, I think we should just go back to having the Double-0s be under M. and have the authority stop there. M. is appointed knowing what the best interest of the government is and is trusted to have his section act according to the government's interest without the politicians having to get involved.

    They don't want to know how it happens, it just happens. Throw some trust back in the franchise.
    Yes, but with the realism keeping up in the film industry, nowadays, I'm afraid a loose cannon 007 officially authorized by the British Intelligence is nowhere near to be seen. Since Casino Royale, the series has all gone playing politics and real-life indulgence injected into its spectrum, with political conflicts present all around the government authorities, undermining the process of neutralizing individual or collective threats (as it is in the real world). People see loose cannon heroes as villains, nowadays, if you catch my drift.
  • JWESTBROOKJWESTBROOK
    Posts: 5,745
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    JWESTBROOK wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    dominicgreene wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    dominicgreene wrote: »
    What if we had a Bond film without MI6? Bond becomes more of a private mercenary (creates his own secret service??), starts working with the Americans perhaps?
    I have made a suggestion like that a while ago, which is exactly what Bond should do. Bond, as an operative, can't really be in a world where spies aren't given carte blanche authorities due to political conflicts, unlike in the past few decades. So, the way I see it, Bond himself is some sort of a guardian of justice type of a mercenary to preserve the world's security from the hands of all the terror spreaders via organizations like Spectre, Quantum, etc. (or any freelancer, for size.)

    Agreed. This is the most logical way to take it IMO and would make for a really interesting direction and film.
    Better make that two.

    Isn't that what the 00 section was meant to be? A place where the government could kill and spy without oversight. I think the modern films have sort of hunted for modern-feeling plotlines by having the double-0-section have to deal with committees and politics.

    Instead of Bond create his own brand of mercenary, I think we should just go back to having the Double-0s be under M. and have the authority stop there. M. is appointed knowing what the best interest of the government is and is trusted to have his section act according to the government's interest without the politicians having to get involved.

    They don't want to know how it happens, it just happens. Throw some trust back in the franchise.
    Yes, but with the realism keeping up in the film industry, nowadays, I'm afraid a loose cannon 007 officially authorized by the British Intelligence is nowhere near to be seen. Since Casino Royale, the series has all gone playing politics and real-life indulgence injected into its spectrum, with political conflicts present all around the government authorities, undermining the process of neutralizing individual or collective threats (as it is in the real world). People see loose cannon heroes as villains, nowadays, if you catch my drift.

    Oh definitely, I see your point and I agree. I just think it would be healthier for the franchise to just re-frame that rogue aspect into what the 00 Section should be, instead of have Bond branch out.

    I'm saying just have the 00s be what they're meant to be again on film, and put Bond back in that world where he is commissioned to go and stop what the government can't officially confront.
  • JarvisJarvis
    Posts: 18
    In the next bond film bond gets the new DB 11 with modifications
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    JWESTBROOK wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    JWESTBROOK wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    dominicgreene wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    dominicgreene wrote: »
    What if we had a Bond film without MI6? Bond becomes more of a private mercenary (creates his own secret service??), starts working with the Americans perhaps?
    I have made a suggestion like that a while ago, which is exactly what Bond should do. Bond, as an operative, can't really be in a world where spies aren't given carte blanche authorities due to political conflicts, unlike in the past few decades. So, the way I see it, Bond himself is some sort of a guardian of justice type of a mercenary to preserve the world's security from the hands of all the terror spreaders via organizations like Spectre, Quantum, etc. (or any freelancer, for size.)

    Agreed. This is the most logical way to take it IMO and would make for a really interesting direction and film.
    Better make that two.

    Isn't that what the 00 section was meant to be? A place where the government could kill and spy without oversight. I think the modern films have sort of hunted for modern-feeling plotlines by having the double-0-section have to deal with committees and politics.

    Instead of Bond create his own brand of mercenary, I think we should just go back to having the Double-0s be under M. and have the authority stop there. M. is appointed knowing what the best interest of the government is and is trusted to have his section act according to the government's interest without the politicians having to get involved.

    They don't want to know how it happens, it just happens. Throw some trust back in the franchise.
    Yes, but with the realism keeping up in the film industry, nowadays, I'm afraid a loose cannon 007 officially authorized by the British Intelligence is nowhere near to be seen. Since Casino Royale, the series has all gone playing politics and real-life indulgence injected into its spectrum, with political conflicts present all around the government authorities, undermining the process of neutralizing individual or collective threats (as it is in the real world). People see loose cannon heroes as villains, nowadays, if you catch my drift.

    Oh definitely, I see your point and I agree. I just think it would be healthier for the franchise to just re-frame that rogue aspect into what the 00 Section should be, instead of have Bond branch out.

    I'm saying just have the 00s be what they're meant to be again on film, and put Bond back in that world where he is commissioned to go and stop what the government can't officially confront.
    I'd love to see the 00-section regaining their own posture and stand for what they were built. And I'd love to see the figures we called heroes in the old days (whom people call villains, today) become heroes again.

    But, sadly, that's not happening anytime soon... Perhaps sometime in the next decade.
  • JarvisJarvis
    Posts: 18
    The next bond film and beyond
    M is now head of the new MI6
    The MI6 building is rebuild't looks the same outside but is brand new building inside
    00 section has being reactivated
    009 has become lead 00 since bond has being away
    The first female 00 is introduced into bond films
    Bond did not resign at the end of spectre M put 007 on long term sabbatical
    Ms swan left bond because she got her life back and was no longer on spectre radar and could
    become a doctor again.
    Villiers is 0 head of 00 section
    The ppk is standard issue for 00 section and the p99 is standard issue for rest of service
    DB 11 is new bond car
    Blofeld is blacksite prison in a post credit scene he escapes
    The new villain is spectre has a private revenge but the revenge is part of bigger plan that could
    reshape the world
    Return of M ,moneypenny , Q , tanner
    If fiennes is leaving bond then give his M a good exit and introduced the new M
    Lots of Q toys
    Like to see Robson from Bronson bond era made the next M
    Also like to see a new MI6 shadow section introduced into bond based on SOE and operates like SOE that could become a film spin-off in its own right
    The CIS and nine-eyes have have being disbanded because they are both spectre
    And strong women characters
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    JWESTBROOK wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    dominicgreene wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    dominicgreene wrote: »
    What if we had a Bond film without MI6? Bond becomes more of a private mercenary (creates his own secret service??), starts working with the Americans perhaps?
    I have made a suggestion like that a while ago, which is exactly what Bond should do. Bond, as an operative, can't really be in a world where spies aren't given carte blanche authorities due to political conflicts, unlike in the past few decades. So, the way I see it, Bond himself is some sort of a guardian of justice type of a mercenary to preserve the world's security from the hands of all the terror spreaders via organizations like Spectre, Quantum, etc. (or any freelancer, for size.)

    Agreed. This is the most logical way to take it IMO and would make for a really interesting direction and film.
    Better make that two.

    Isn't that what the 00 section was meant to be? A place where the government could kill and spy without oversight. I think the modern films have sort of hunted for modern-feeling plotlines by having the double-0-section have to deal with committees and politics.

    Instead of Bond create his own brand of mercenary, I think we should just go back to having the Double-0s be under M. and have the authority stop there. M. is appointed knowing what the best interest of the government is and is trusted to have his section act according to the government's interest without the politicians having to get involved.

    They don't want to know how it happens, it just happens. Throw some trust back in the franchise.

    Yeah I like that. That way they rebuild MI6 but the double o's under M can operate independently under the guise of Universal Exports ...and M keeps his cool traditional office.. in the old building which is actually the new building in the Mendes films ..then with the old MI6 building rebuilt then it's the new old building but Bond doesn't work there ..or something like that.
  • tanaka123tanaka123
    Posts: 4,325
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    JWESTBROOK wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    dominicgreene wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    dominicgreene wrote: »
    What if we had a Bond film without MI6? Bond becomes more of a private mercenary (creates his own secret service??), starts working with the Americans perhaps?
    I have made a suggestion like that a while ago, which is exactly what Bond should do. Bond, as an operative, can't really be in a world where spies aren't given carte blanche authorities due to political conflicts, unlike in the past few decades. So, the way I see it, Bond himself is some sort of a guardian of justice type of a mercenary to preserve the world's security from the hands of all the terror spreaders via organizations like Spectre, Quantum, etc. (or any freelancer, for size.)

    Agreed. This is the most logical way to take it IMO and would make for a really interesting direction and film.
    Better make that two.

    Isn't that what the 00 section was meant to be? A place where the government could kill and spy without oversight. I think the modern films have sort of hunted for modern-feeling plotlines by having the double-0-section have to deal with committees and politics.

    Instead of Bond create his own brand of mercenary, I think we should just go back to having the Double-0s be under M. and have the authority stop there. M. is appointed knowing what the best interest of the government is and is trusted to have his section act according to the government's interest without the politicians having to get involved.

    They don't want to know how it happens, it just happens. Throw some trust back in the franchise.

    Yeah I like that. That way they rebuild MI6 but the double o's under M can operate independently under the guise of Universal Exports ...and M keeps his cool traditional office.. in the old building which is actually the new building in the Mendes films ..then with the old MI6 building rebuilt then it's the new old building but Bond doesn't work there ..or something like that.

    I quite liked the new old new building of not being at MI6 at Vauxhall Cross - the one homage in Spectre that worked. It brought back memories of watching the older Bonds for the first time with that office of M's.
Sign In or Register to comment.