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

1262729313238

Comments

  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,904
    Another reason to do it.
  • edited May 2017 Posts: 676
    @Thunderfinger You are right, and I am aware. Although Arnold often made an effort (incorporating Surrender melody into TND, YKMN into CR, etc) - aping Barry's approach.
    Milovy wrote: »
    @noSolaceleft I did know about that! Kind of awkward, and a roadblock to using the title.

    I'm wondering for decades how this supposed coincident came to happen, since it's not really a household name anywhere in the world. I don't know it for sure, but I'm quite convinced for myself that Fleming at least had heard of the books and since he (as Kennedy) was quite a fan of German traits, I wouldn't put it behind him to have actually read them.
    Wouldn't be surprised if he simply lifted the name from the books. He did after all use names of real life friends, enemies, etc. to name several of his characters.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited June 2017 Posts: 8,438
    I don't think the idea of introducing a new Bond with a traditional M scene is such a bad idea. Imagine if the PTS was devoted to establishing the villain, and then once the song is over we open in M's office. It's quiet, perhaps just the sound of a clock ticking. The door opens but the head of Bond is cut off in the shot. M and Bond greet each other and exchange idle conversation as Bond casually walks over to the chair. He sits down - BAM! You see the face of the next actor for the first time. M proceeds to brief Bond on the evil villain that we established in the PTS and already know a bit about. Since we are ahead of Bond a bit here the actually information isn't important, but we are getting a feel for the type of Bond this guy is. Then Bond leaves, and there's a brief scene with Moneypenny. Again, we're learning more about this Bond by how he reacts differently. Crucially, he and Moneypenny aren't psychoanalysing each other, they're flirting. Then Bond heads to Q, and again it's a different relationship the two have, so we are seeing a slightly different side of Bond. These 3 little scenes needn't take more than 2 minutes each, but by the time he heads out his mission we feel like we know a bit about this Bond. The flirting with Moneypenny and joking with Q are no longer perfunctory, because they are there to set up the character we are about to go on this adventure with.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    I'd prefer a Bond introduction to come from an original moment, where we know his principles and "rules" of operation while on a mission. TLD does this beautifully, as does CR. In both cases Bond is put through straits that show us what kind of man he is. Dalton's take is underscored as a hard, yet soft type for his refusal to shoot a woman, and we get hints of his distaste for his work. When he later refuses to kill Pushkin without investigating the man's possible innocence first, we see that M's orders are those he feels the need to circumvent at times.

    In Dan's case we learn of his coldness and duty in silencing the family man of Dryden, and his tutelage of Carter in Madagascar shows us that it isn't his first rodeo. As Mollaka runs off, Bond's sloppy traversal style contrasts with the fluid terrorist, symbolizing the man as a wrecking ball (running through a construction site, no less). His storming of the embassy to save Mollaka's would-be victims from his bomb shows his boldness and how many international laws he'll soil to do what's right. The scene not long after, with Bond challenging M in her own flat while sneaking data for his mission, tells us all we need to know about him, on mission and off. Driven and unrelenting, to a fault.

    The first twenty minutes of the respective films build up Bond like no others, only matched by Sean's debut in DN. Every beginning moment cements the man each actor plays, and it's done completely originally to detail the unique Bond. That's why I'd hate to see Bond #7 introduced in a fashion even more boring than him resting up at his flat, a la LALD. I think it'd be a big and unoriginal mistake to have the debut of a new Bond happen during the same string of scenes (M briefing, Moneypenny flirt, Q's workshop) that were already done to death by the late 60s. How many more times do we really need to see the same recycled fluff to the plot, when so many more compelling options are available?
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,359
    The first twenty minutes of the respective films build up Bond like no others, only matched by Sean's debut in DN. Every beginning moment cements the man each actor plays, and it's done completely originally to detail the unique Bond. That's why I'd hate to see Bond #7 introduced in a fashion even more boring than him resting up at his flat, a la LALD. I think it'd be a big and unoriginal mistake to have the debut of a new Bond happen during the same string of scenes (M briefing, Moneypenny flirt, Q's workshop) that were already done to death by the late 60s. How many more times do we really need to see the same recycled fluff to the plot, when so many more compelling options are available?

    Well said! I'd add that the better M/Q/Moneypenny scenes are the offbeat ones: M/MP/Bond in OHMSS (the softer side of M!), the wedding scene in OHMSS, even MP at Ascot. They show us different sides of the supporting characters, not the same old, same old.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    @echo, the series has had moments where things were flipped, which helps to make it less stale. Like most of the issues with this series, the 60s saw how tired it was getting, but everything after relied so much on formula. Young and Hamilton (as well as Gilbert in a minor capacity) realized how old the same set-up would get, so from the very start each movie had a different sort of feeling and structure to the M briefing, Moneypenny flirting and Q scenes.

    DN's entrance of Boothroyd had a function beyond throwing Bond's utility belt at us, it was used as an opportunity for Bond and M to challenge each other over what weapon was better, building their professional relationship and giving us a backstory on Bond's previous 6 months in hospital. Because Bond was called to action by M from a lavish casino, we get a hint of how he spends his leisure time off the job.

    In FRWL the M briefing is cleverly juxtaposed with the same sort of briefing between Tatiana and Klebb, where the relationships of the respective pairs are contrasted starkly, and the woman and man see each other for the first time in photograph form.

    By the time GF came around the hat gag was already flipped on its head, and Moneypenny threw the hat this time around. Additionally, the M briefing was used less to funnel exposition about Goldfinger, but to show Bond and M butting heads over what to do about the man as Bond's personal thirst for revenge was put into question.

    In TB the high stakes of the plot again flips all the rest of the usual elements on its head. Bond has no briefing and is sent right to a war room of sorts, and there's little time for him to have any flirting with Moneypenny, underscoring that this time there's no room for funny business. For the first time in the series, Bond gets gadgets in the field, as Q comes to him.

    YOLT staged the M briefing on a ship out of the office, and once again Q was in the field and yet Tanaka is the one that gives most of the best gadgets to Bond.

    And of course OHMSS just flips everything on its head, showing the office life of Bond crumbling instead of dealing out to us the same structured moments. And of course, the hat toss to Moneypenny at the wedding it a beautiful sendoff to a moment that had begun in the very first adventure.

    As the series went on, a lot of this cleverness had been expunged, and all the briefings and gadget moments all went the same place, over and over and over again, no matter who the Bond was. The Craig era has been so refreshing to me for doing away with that fluff for the first two, and in the most recent two flipping it and not making everything feel the same. The casting of a young Q makes Bond the curmudgeon now, adding a whole new young/old layer to their dynamic as characters that has never been seen, and this Bond and Moneypenny truly have a strong energy between them that feels like true attraction. Dan's chemistry with the major players and his uniquely dry humor revitalize tired material. I'm not thrilled we're back to the same old, but at least the paint is a bit fresher than past coatings.
  • edited June 2017 Posts: 12,837
    If they wanted to go a bit more fun/experimental, how about a Life On Mars sort of plot? Modern day, Bond is on a mission (PTS), big action scene. Lets say he's chasing a terrorist. He's injured and falls into a coma.

    Wakes up in the 50s/60s. The M, Q, Moneypenny, of this world are all still the same people but are different because of the time period. And this alternate reality has its own version of the bad guy from the PTS. Bond has to finish his mission (stopping him) to wake up, and to do that has to adjust to the new era, come to terms with the lack of technology, the new rules (Cold War), etc.

    It'd be very out there but for a series that's lasted 50 years and has pretty much proven that it isn't going anywhere ever, Bond could afford to play it a bit less safe with the plots imo.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Bond is espionage, not sci-fi.
  • Posts: 1,162
    If they wanted to go a bit more fun/experimental, how about a Life On Mars sort of plot? Modern day, Bond is on a mission (PTS), big action scene. Lets say he's chasing a terrorist. He's injured and falls into a coma.

    Wakes up in the 50s/60s. The M, Q, Moneypenny, of this world are all still the same people but are different because of the time period. And this alternate reality has its own version of the bad guy from the PTS. Bond has to finish his mission (stopping him) to wake up, and to do that has to adjust to the new era, come to terms with the lack of technology, the new rules (Cold War), etc.

    It'd be very out there but for a series that's lasted 50 years and has pretty much proven that it isn't going anywhere ever, Bond could afford to play it a bit less safe with the plots imo.

    Oh my God! Where do you guys get such idea from? The franchise is already struggling enough when it comes to acceptance with young people. The last thing they need are experiments like that.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,438
    I'd prefer a Bond introduction to come from an original moment, where we know his principles and "rules" of operation while on a mission. TLD does this beautifully, as does CR. In both cases Bond is put through straits that show us what kind of man he is. Dalton's take is underscored as a hard, yet soft type for his refusal to shoot a woman, and we get hints of his distaste for his work. When he later refuses to kill Pushkin without investigating the man's possible innocence first, we see that M's orders are those he feels the need to circumvent at times.

    In Dan's case we learn of his coldness and duty in silencing the family man of Dryden, and his tutelage of Carter in Madagascar shows us that it isn't his first rodeo. As Mollaka runs off, Bond's sloppy traversal style contrasts with the fluid terrorist, symbolizing the man as a wrecking ball (running through a construction site, no less). His storming of the embassy to save Mollaka's would-be victims from his bomb shows his boldness and how many international laws he'll soil to do what's right. The scene not long after, with Bond challenging M in her own flat while sneaking data for his mission, tells us all we need to know about him, on mission and off. Driven and unrelenting, to a fault.

    The first twenty minutes of the respective films build up Bond like no others, only matched by Sean's debut in DN. Every beginning moment cements the man each actor plays, and it's done completely originally to detail the unique Bond. That's why I'd hate to see Bond #7 introduced in a fashion even more boring than him resting up at his flat, a la LALD. I think it'd be a big and unoriginal mistake to have the debut of a new Bond happen during the same string of scenes (M briefing, Moneypenny flirt, Q's workshop) that were already done to death by the late 60s. How many more times do we really need to see the same recycled fluff to the plot, when so many more compelling options are available?

    I don't think you've quite grasped it. it's about setting up the character before you demonstrate the character. Sometimes it's better to withhold things for a little while and build anticipation rather than opening straight on an action scene.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    If they wanted to go a bit more fun/experimental, how about a Life On Mars sort of plot? Modern day, Bond is on a mission (PTS), big action scene. Lets say he's chasing a terrorist. He's injured and falls into a coma.

    Wakes up in the 50s/60s. The M, Q, Moneypenny, of this world are all still the same people but are different because of the time period. And this alternate reality has its own version of the bad guy from the PTS. Bond has to finish his mission (stopping him) to wake up, and to do that has to adjust to the new era, come to terms with the lack of technology, the new rules (Cold War), etc.

    It'd be very out there but for a series that's lasted 50 years and has pretty much proven that it isn't going anywhere ever, Bond could afford to play it a bit less safe with the plots imo.

    Oh my God! Where do you guys get such idea from? The franchise is already struggling enough when it comes to acceptance with young people. The last thing they need are experiments like that.

    I don't think young people are the ones that need troubling accepting where Bond has gone. It's usually crotchety veterans who long for old days that can't come back.
    I'd prefer a Bond introduction to come from an original moment, where we know his principles and "rules" of operation while on a mission. TLD does this beautifully, as does CR. In both cases Bond is put through straits that show us what kind of man he is. Dalton's take is underscored as a hard, yet soft type for his refusal to shoot a woman, and we get hints of his distaste for his work. When he later refuses to kill Pushkin without investigating the man's possible innocence first, we see that M's orders are those he feels the need to circumvent at times.

    In Dan's case we learn of his coldness and duty in silencing the family man of Dryden, and his tutelage of Carter in Madagascar shows us that it isn't his first rodeo. As Mollaka runs off, Bond's sloppy traversal style contrasts with the fluid terrorist, symbolizing the man as a wrecking ball (running through a construction site, no less). His storming of the embassy to save Mollaka's would-be victims from his bomb shows his boldness and how many international laws he'll soil to do what's right. The scene not long after, with Bond challenging M in her own flat while sneaking data for his mission, tells us all we need to know about him, on mission and off. Driven and unrelenting, to a fault.

    The first twenty minutes of the respective films build up Bond like no others, only matched by Sean's debut in DN. Every beginning moment cements the man each actor plays, and it's done completely originally to detail the unique Bond. That's why I'd hate to see Bond #7 introduced in a fashion even more boring than him resting up at his flat, a la LALD. I think it'd be a big and unoriginal mistake to have the debut of a new Bond happen during the same string of scenes (M briefing, Moneypenny flirt, Q's workshop) that were already done to death by the late 60s. How many more times do we really need to see the same recycled fluff to the plot, when so many more compelling options are available?

    I don't think you've quite grasped it. it's about setting up the character before you demonstrate the character. Sometimes it's better to withhold things for a little while and build anticipation rather than opening straight on an action scene.

    I'd say it's grasped. Setting up the character is covered in the examples above, and you immediately grab the audience by giving them something intriguing to watch. It's no secret why the vast majority of the Bond actors' portrayals were built on the tail of a sequence that put them in situations that tested them and showed us what we're made of. I'd rather get the sense of a new Bond out in the field on a mission during their first major scene than watch them bicker with M, flirt with Moneypenny or steal Q's lunch. It's why I'm such a critic of formula, where you force the film to be choked by the very chain that it's tied to against its will.
  • Posts: 12,837
    Bond is espionage, not sci-fi.

    I wouldn't say it's sci fi at all. To make things clear, he doesn't wake up in some other dimension. This is all in his head. But yeah might be a concept better suited to say, an episode of a Bond TV series, instead of devoting a whole film to it (especially given how long they take to make these days). Still think it'd be fun though. A fish out of water scenario that Bond quickly finds himself adjusting to and enjoying (being able to smoke indoors, insitutionalised sexism, for him it'd be like waking up in heaven) that can highlight how much things have changed from Connery's day to now but showing that Bond is still Bond no matter what era he's in.
    If they wanted to go a bit more fun/experimental, how about a Life On Mars sort of plot? Modern day, Bond is on a mission (PTS), big action scene. Lets say he's chasing a terrorist. He's injured and falls into a coma.

    Wakes up in the 50s/60s. The M, Q, Moneypenny, of this world are all still the same people but are different because of the time period. And this alternate reality has its own version of the bad guy from the PTS. Bond has to finish his mission (stopping him) to wake up, and to do that has to adjust to the new era, come to terms with the lack of technology, the new rules (Cold War), etc.

    It'd be very out there but for a series that's lasted 50 years and has pretty much proven that it isn't going anywhere ever, Bond could afford to play it a bit less safe with the plots imo.

    Oh my God! Where do you guys get such idea from? The franchise is already struggling enough when it comes to acceptance with young people. The last thing they need are experiments like that.

    It says in my post where I got the idea from (Life On Mars). I wasn't aware that Bond was struggling to get "acceptance" with younger people but if it is then I'd argue that my point about playing it safe stands even more.

    It's not just the plots either. It extends to the casting (Bond goes all over the world and yet always seems to find himself in stories full of white faces), the little details (like how he can't smoke any more because smoking is bad, when he literally kills people for a living), the way in which the series shamelessly follows trends (MR with Star Wars, DAD with Fast and The Furious/XXX, Craig with Bourne/Batman, etc), pretty much everything.

    Bond plays it way too safe for a series that's gone on as long as it has imo. And when there is the opportunity for something a bit more fresh and exciting they almost always turn it down. Cubby turned down Spielberg in his prime, just after Jaws had come out, in favour of keeping things in house and sticking with the same old safe pairs of hands. Then his daughter did the same with Tarantino and Matthew Vaughn.

    At the end of the day the mass market family friendly Bond films have to continue. I wouldn't have it any other way, that's what made most of us fans after all. But Bond is pretty much always going to be an enormously successful brand so why not have some fun and do something a bit more different and exciting every once in a while.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Those risks are nothing I'm interested in, at all. Quirky storylines where Bond has an adventure in his head, and attempts to make light of his past interpretations is far, far too meta, and more suited to a C level comedy than anything related to spying. I also don't agree that Bond can't be what he needs to be now. He doesn't smoke in the current era, but I think that's also because he's fit and would need to have a regimen that cut out that kind of stuff from killing his lungs. Everything else is there though, the unashamed appeal of women (while also giving them depth), Bond's vices of the drink and flesh, and all the flaws that make him interesting, from his brashness to his tumultuous dynamic with his job. If we're going to lament the death of Bond as we know him because he doesn't light up a cig in a few scenes, we've lost it.

    Onto other things, there's been times where Bond took zero risks, that's impossible to deny, but at times the alternative would've been disappointing or ill advised. I am so happy, for so many reasons, that Tarantino didn't get his hands on Bond, for example. Just because something is new or wacky and original to a concept doesn't mean it's going to be a success. Bond has to meet very specific goals and at times I think EON were smart to turn down changes that could've ultimately gone awry. We saw this with the likes of Tamahori, who just took the brand and made a mess of it. That's the kind of wacky new ideas I really don't want to see, especially when the director in question was a fan of the codename theory. Fleming help us.
  • edited June 2017 Posts: 4,617
    I think one of the biggest challenges is coming up with a decent bad guy, and, connected with that, a decent plot for the bad guy to plan/attempt. Once you have that, things fall into place as the stakes are high and Bond has to "up his game" to deal with the bad guy.
    But there are only so many types of threat and only so many types of motivation. Just focussing on this part of the movie, it really is very hard to come up with something that feels fresh but still "Bondian". If you look back at all of the series, its usually the bad guy who creates the plot and Bond (via orders from M) reacts. Its unusual for Bond to be proativice and set the plot. So IMHO, he have to start with the bad guy first.
    Privateers in space was done in YOLT but it is now a reality so it could be returned to IMHO, struggling for anything else.
  • Posts: 1,162
    If they wanted to go a bit more fun/experimental, how about a Life On Mars sort of plot? Modern day, Bond is on a mission (PTS), big action scene. Lets say he's chasing a terrorist. He's injured and falls into a coma.

    Wakes up in the 50s/60s. The M, Q, Moneypenny, of this world are all still the same people but are different because of the time period. And this alternate reality has its own version of the bad guy from the PTS. Bond has to finish his mission (stopping him) to wake up, and to do that has to adjust to the new era, come to terms with the lack of technology, the new rules (Cold War), etc.

    It'd be very out there but for a series that's lasted 50 years and has pretty much proven that it isn't going anywhere ever, Bond could afford to play it a bit less safe with the plots imo.

    Oh my God! Where do you guys get such idea from? The franchise is already struggling enough when it comes to acceptance with young people. The last thing they need are experiments like that.

    I don't think young people are the ones that need troubling accepting where Bond has gone. It's usually crotchety veterans who long for old days that can't come back.
    .

    As I mentioned somewhere before I know, via quite a few sports clubs, many young people in the range from about 16 to 35, and while they all are fond of spy movies (with the girls preferring Bourne and the boys leaning towards MI) they are almost completely indifferent towards the recent Bond movies. They now see it as an affair for the elderly and miss the fun of yesteryear, which they seem to have enjoyed a lot judging from the way they talk about old Bond movies. TSWLM for example is constantly mentioned by them and they all seem to love it.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,359
    Bond has had to chase down relevance with the young audience for years. That's because the series has been around for 50+ years.
  • Posts: 4,617
    I put on TSWLM for my kids (11 and 13) to see Roger Moore at his peak. Thier reaction?
    "It's in colour!"
    You forget that, for them, this is ancient history. MI just "presses their buttons" whilst Bond doesn't. Is Bond just too "establishment" ?
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited June 2017 Posts: 8,438
    I just don't think it's as simple as "innovation good! formula bad!" Both can be done well or poorly, depending on the execution. There's nothing inherently dated or passe about a briefing scene, or a bit of office flirting etc. Its a question of how it's done. Obviously if they try too hard to homage the old films then that would be a problematic. But by the same token originality is not an achievement in and of itself.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    If they wanted to go a bit more fun/experimental, how about a Life On Mars sort of plot? Modern day, Bond is on a mission (PTS), big action scene. Lets say he's chasing a terrorist. He's injured and falls into a coma.

    Wakes up in the 50s/60s. The M, Q, Moneypenny, of this world are all still the same people but are different because of the time period. And this alternate reality has its own version of the bad guy from the PTS. Bond has to finish his mission (stopping him) to wake up, and to do that has to adjust to the new era, come to terms with the lack of technology, the new rules (Cold War), etc.

    It'd be very out there but for a series that's lasted 50 years and has pretty much proven that it isn't going anywhere ever, Bond could afford to play it a bit less safe with the plots imo.

    Oh my God! Where do you guys get such idea from? The franchise is already struggling enough when it comes to acceptance with young people. The last thing they need are experiments like that.

    I don't think young people are the ones that need troubling accepting where Bond has gone. It's usually crotchety veterans who long for old days that can't come back.
    .

    As I mentioned somewhere before I know, via quite a few sports clubs, many young people in the range from about 16 to 35, and while they all are fond of spy movies (with the girls preferring Bourne and the boys leaning towards MI) they are almost completely indifferent towards the recent Bond movies. They now see it as an affair for the elderly and miss the fun of yesteryear, which they seem to have enjoyed a lot judging from the way they talk about old Bond movies. TSWLM for example is constantly mentioned by them and they all seem to love it.

    I wouldn't be looking for wise youths at sports clubs, but if that's how one perceives their beliefs, more power to the lads. I am just of the belief that Bond can be funny without being a parody, or crossing a line too far. In short, rekindling what was lost around 1969. I'm sure nostalgia endears them to earlier films that were shown to them on the TV, and the world is a garbage place that needs escaping from, but I don't subscribe to the belief that these new films are depressing or dark. If people think that, they have a very limited cinematic catalogue to pull impressions from. I consistently laugh and smile my ass off through every Craig film, and I wouldn't do so in a dark or depressing film, unless the movie/s pulled off my favorite form of wit, black comedy. Maybe then I'd chuckle once or twice.
    I just don't think it's as simple as "innovation good! formula bad!" Both can be done well or poorly, depending on the execution. There's nothing inherently dated or passe about a briefing scene, or a bit of office flirting etc. Its a question of how it's done. Obviously if they try too hard to homage the old films then that would be a problematic. But by the same token originality is not an achievement in and of itself.

    I will always appreciate the attempt to do something new than one that just does something you can find in literally over 20 other films, and done better in at least half of them. The series needs to continue to get to a place where it doesn't try to be Connery, and do what the 60s films did because they were 60s films. Since that time none of the one liners have worked from Moore to Brosnan (or the minor hint of them in SF) and the MI6 scenes were tired come the 70s, and near comatose now.

    Let's take inspiration from the right stuff from the 60s-the spacious and dynamic sets, the mood, the story structure, the use of Bond as a detective, one major location staging the action-and drop the stuff that was too of its time. Those elements I listed will always be interesting, but the ones that've been done to death won't, because they are limited and there's no way to reinvent that wheel. Once you've seen one M briefing, flirt scene or Q talk you've seen most of them all, and the one liners are so cringey I just don't even want to go there.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,246
    I'm sure this has been mentioned by someone; I wouldn't try to re-invent the wheel on the next Bond but within that I'd like to see a stand alone adventure with a strong, credible villain who's main weapon of choice the use of EMP attacks to obtain his goals. The PTS could be the use of the weapon over a large city to establish the threat.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_pulse
  • Posts: 676
    @talos7 Haven't they done that in GoldenEye?
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Milovy wrote: »
    @talos7 Haven't they done that in GoldenEye?

    I think he's joking. (I hope).
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    talos7 wrote: »
    I'm sure this has been mentioned by someone; I wouldn't try to re-invent the wheel on the next Bond but within that I'd like to see a stand alone adventure with a strong, credible villain who's main weapon of choice the use of EMP attacks to obtain his goals. The PTS could be the use of the weapon over a large city to establish the threat.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_pulse

    I want Bond films to take a break from tech-based villainy. I'm well past it at this point, honestly. The reversion to more stripped back plots where Bond faces men with his fists and guns are far more interesting, because they remind of the old Cold War days where boring hacking and technological strikes didn't exist.

    I'm not against a villain using an EMP strike to black out a city like London to stop Bond catching up with them, as that'd be an interesting visual, but to use technology as their modus operandi or as the whole theme of their villainous acts have been done already. Mendes played with this theme with Silva and Blofeld, so let's just retire it for a long while.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,246
    And YOLT and TSWLM aren't basically the same, or GF and AVTAK?
    No, I was not kidding. The threat from weaponizing EMTs is greater now than ever. GE is over 20 years old. With a fresh approach and effective antagonist It's a viable threat in an age of almost total dependence o electronics.
  • Posts: 676
    I want Bond films to take a break from tech-based villainy. I'm well past it at this point, honestly. The reversion to more stripped back plots where Bond faces men with his fists and guns are far more interesting, because they remind of the old Cold War days where boring hacking and technological strikes didn't exist.

    I'm not against a villain using an EMP strike to black out a city like London to stop Bond catching up with them, as that'd be an interesting visual, but to use technology as their modus operandi or as the whole theme of their villainous acts have been done already. Mendes played with this theme with Silva and Blofeld, so let's just retire it for a long while.
    Agreed. I want a villain plot that has more material stakes next time around.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    talos7 wrote: »
    And YOLT and TSWLM aren't basically the same, or GF and AVTAK?
    No, I was not kidding. The threat from weaponizing EMTs is greater now than ever. GE is over 20 years old. With a fresh approach and effective antagonist It's a viable threat in an age of almost total dependence o electronics.

    I'd say there's great variety in those examples, but the point is missed. We've just come off two films that saw the use of hacking to destabilize a city, and another where tech was used to control information. Having three Bond films in a row revolve around the same concept of technology vs. man isn't something I'd want to see.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,246
    Visually the use of an EMP over a major city would give the film opportunity for some spectacular scenes of destruction while establishing the real, physical danger of the threat. This combined with a strong espionage story that, while character driven, isn't personal could make for an exciting old school bond film. This would not be a technology vs man story; the weapon would be just a tool.
  • Posts: 4,617
    One of the things that struck me recently when viewing TSWLM was how fresh it felt. Obvioulsy, fashions changed etc but what I mean is that its not bogged down by the Bond history. It's too busy dealing with the present (and creating iconic Bond moments of it's own) to worry about the past. The new Lotus is just a great example of bold, fresh thinking. Recently, the heritage of Bond has almost become a ball and chain in terms of being dragged back to historical references. It does become tiresome and perhaps contributes towards younger fans preferring Bourne etc as Bond has become a little too "knowing" rather than being fresh and contemporary/
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    patb wrote: »
    One of the things that struck me recently when viewing TSWLM was how fresh it felt. Obvioulsy, fashions changed etc but what I mean is that its not bogged down by the Bond history. It's too busy dealing with the present (and creating iconic Bond moments of it's own) to worry about the past. The new Lotus is just a great example of bold, fresh thinking. Recently, the heritage of Bond has almost become a ball and chain in terms of being dragged back to historical references. It does become tiresome and perhaps contributes towards younger fans preferring Bourne etc as Bond has become a little too "knowing" rather than being fresh and contemporary/

    Bang on.
Sign In or Register to comment.