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
Craig has to stay. As the only Aryan Bond, he would have been Hitler s fav Bond by far.
Hahahaha classic one TF ....
'OF COURSE!! Mr White!'
And lets not forget Q's magic ring scanning exposition machine with its patented SPECTRE octopus software that conveniently puts all the past villains on a individual tentacle for the thicker viewer.
With the Marvel juggernaut refusing to show any sign of slowing down in its dominance at the box office is that strictly true? Cinema seems to be a creative wasteland these days but people are still going through the door. Its TV which attracts the sophisticated audiences now.
Smashing buildings to oblivion is sophisticated? Its not even entertaining. The first time you see it it has a wow factor but the finale of of Man of Steel and Avengers are soporifically dull.
Anyway is this whole 'is continuity a good or bad thing' debate even the real issue? My perspective is not that continuity in Bond is necessarily a bad thing, although I will qualify that by saying that one piece of advice from her father that Babs is often fond of quoting is 'If in doubt go back to Fleming'. Fleming hardly ever had continuity as we have come to know it in the Craig era. Yes there's a reference to Vesper here or a few lines about Tiffany there but until the Blofeld arc there's never really any major continuity between the plots. And even then OHMSS, YOLT and TMWTGG are fairly self explanatory even if you haven't read the previous book (or TB in OHMSS's case). Its never a big thing in Fleming and I tend to go along with Cubby that Ian knew best.
However I digress. If they wanted to do a whole series of interconnected films comprising one story arc over the Craig era then fine. Its something we havent had before why not give it a whirl. The only trouble is they only decided on this strategy when they came to make SP rather than in pre production of CR. They tried it half hardheartedly in QOS but then abandoned it in SF only to then decide to do the mother of all hamfisted retcons in SP.
Its not the idea thats bad. Its just that the execution is abominable.
You'd know that if you bothered reading the discussion. I'm done wasting my breath explaining my position.
Bond is the only character in all the films (and for pedants Judi's M I suppose) so 'continuous development of a set of characters over numerous films' is somewhat thin. Tanner for example goes from non entity to non entity in the space of three films. Mallory, MP and Q do most of their arc in SF and are pretty much business as usual in SP (unless you are counting the revelation of Q's cats?).
Bond has one arc between CR and QOS where he goes from hothead to seeing the 'big picture' and another during the course of SF where he starts finished and then regains his mojo. SP tries to address the points raised with Vesper on the beach; 'accidie' with the life he has chosen and giving up the service but is terribly bungled. The conversation on the train between Madeline and Bond was shaping up to be as good as the Bond/Vesper dinner scene after the poker game but then they had Hinx lumber in from nowhere and ruin it.
Bond's character arc goes from rookie to burnt out and over the hill to being a double O agent at his peak again. To say it is 'clear and cohesive' and 'continuous' is a bit of a stretch frankly. I'm happy for you if it all hangs together perfectly in your mind and is one fantastic whole across the era but where you see 'clear and cohesive' I see 'all over the shop'.
Good for you that it works for you but I think you're giving the writers far too much credit as if it does work it does so in spite of their efforts rather than because of them because the one undeniable fact about the Craig era is that they were making it up as they went along. Let's not start claiming it is all one great opus that interlinks seamlessly when, even if you are a fan of the Craig era (which in the main I am), you are deluding yourself if you consider it anything other than a botch job.
I can understand how you can rationalise things in your own mind so it all makes sense and I do that myself when I'm watching to give it a veneer that it all works and try to kid myself that everything is fine. But at the back of my mind I'm conscious that I'm having to do half of the script writing in my head here to hold it all together and I'm not prepared to just drink the EON Kool Aid and say its all a triumph because an audience shouldn't have to do that if you are competent at storytelling.
I think that has always been Eon's plan and that that is what they will do.
I do expect both Seydoux and Waltz back for Bond25, that is of course if Eon can manage to get the thing made in the next 10 years.
I jest, but time is marching on
Bond #25 to me should indeed feature Daniel Craig and should be set in the new timeline, that was initiated with "Casino Royale" in 2006.
However, I want the following changes:
--> The continuity should be less centered around the character James Bond. James Bond should be in this adventure not touching any personal backgrounds and storylines.
--> Except for a short intro in the first quarter of the film, in which Léa Seydoux has a cameo role. It features a short, but emotionally heavy, split-up scene, similar to Pussy Galore in the novel "Trigger Mortis" and Tiffany Case in the novel "Diamonds Are Forever".
--> It will last only 12 min's after the main titles sequence. After that? Bond is on his own. No personal background stories, no further emotional and deep interactions anymore with a leading girl (Vesper, Madeleine, Judi Dench' 'M').
--> Bond #25 will then unfold as a smart espionage thriller similar to "From Russia With Love". With that I mean that S.P.E.C.T.R.E. returns, but this time it's shadowing Bond, to humiliate him. And Bond doesn't know during this film of the very existence of Ernst Stavro Blofeld. MI6 thinks he's dead, but S.P.E.C.T.R.E. knows better.
--> By doing so, we can let Christoph Waltz return as Blofeld. HIS character however will be more complex than Bond. He's out there to humiliate 007. So while we get rid of the personal background stuff with Bond, we do see it resurface with Blofeld.
--> However, and I must stress this out again, during Bond #25 there will be NO direct contact between Blofeld and Bond. When the end credits kick in, Bond is unaware of the existence of Blofeld, while the viewer sees an even more psychopathic Blofeld pulling the strings from a new secret lair (Seychelles?).
--> In the meanwhile, Bond is bedding a Bond-girl at the very end of the film, in a very traditional, slightly sexist scene (reminiscent of Severine and Bond shower scene?)
Why do I think the above story is a good idea?
It leaves a much better option open after Bond #25 for a new actor to become James Bond 007, while at the same time maintaining the MI6-crew, and also the new, more secretive S.P.E.C.T.R.E.-members. Bond #25 then becomes less personal and emotional from Bond's viewpoint. He's in Bond #25 finally the executioner of M's orders, and a traditional formularic fashion.
What do you think guys? :-)
I hate the idea of shoehorning Madeline in just for her to ditch/be ditched by Bond. I hated it in Trigger Mortis too where it had zero bearing on the plot (what there was of one) and felt like a short story tagged onto the start before the book proper got going (although fair play to Horrowitz the lesbian twist was a nice touch).
MI6 think Blofeld is dead? Why? Presumably if he fakes his death in prison the authoriteis would notice hes not dead when they drag the corpse out the cell. So he escapes from prison then escapes then fakes his own death? Why would MI6 believe that? It would be obvious he would fake his own to death to get them off his back.
What is the point of having Blofeld return but not have him interact with Bond? So we get Waltz back playing Blofeld but we need another main villain for Bond to go up against but who no one will care about because we are waiting for Bond and Blofeld to face off (which you are saying we never get).
Its too late now to have Blofeld doing a FRWL/TB by just orchestrating things in the shadows. The cat is out of the bag and we all know its Christoph Waltz. This is what should have been done in SP and then he is revealed in B25. Not the other way round.
And then having built this all up you say we hand over to a new Bond actor to get the payoff of the final confrontation with Blofeld (which would not be Waltz as he said he's only coming back if its Dan)?
Sorry but I'd sooner get P&W back after they'd spent all day in an Amseterdam coffee shop than let you near the B25 script.
Why on Earth would anyone want to have Lea or Waltz back, let alone Hinx.
It will never happen luckily anyway.
It could be years before B25 even gets started so no one will remember Waltz or Lea anyway. They'll just remember leaving the theatre thinking SP was no SF.
I'm starting to think so, too. Several months ago, I thought we'll be getting a sequel, but I'm not so sure now.
SP was not that loved to make everyone crave for the sequel, and I think it's an easier and safer solution for EON to go for a new story and characters than to think of a non-cliched continuation of this one.
But I wouldn't put my money on either one, anything is possible.
Oh yes and still am. But the plot of SP is nothing that should be continued.
Blofeld always got away, no need to bring him back in Bond 25.
Bond 25 should be a simple mission given to Bond by a grumpy M. Moneypenny sending James off with some chit-chat and Q providing Bond with some super-gadgets and a fabulous car.
No mention of Spectre or the past whatsoever and most important never ever do I want to get anything about James Bond's personal past in a Bond movie again.
What era do some think this is? The Moore era was over in the 80s.
The main thing I agree with--no more reference to Bond's past, and no more revenge. (After all, revenge is part of the province of SPECTRE, everything Bond is against.) What might help is new writers! We've had largely the same writers for the last SIX films--Purvis and Wade throughout--though of course CR was based on the Fleming book. Yes, focus on the past can stir action and even rage, but it also siphons away full attention, energy and action from the present and even future, and can be a crutch. How about some original thought?! I enjoyed SPECTRE, and I own the DVD, but thinking about it now, for me it doesn't really "crackle", the dialogue doesn't linger with me. You'd think with the Bond brand, one of the most commercially-successful film franchises of all-time, the producers would make sure the scripts are the best they can be. I admit there are a lot of elements that go into a great Bond film, and it can be tough to find the right balance. But I'll bet there are some other scriptwriters out there who could do better than the latest set of writers. Why not take a chance!
So the main things I'd like to see: a top-notch script/story with memorable dialogue; a credible villain; and a believable threat with the ability to endanger as many people as possible to test Bond to his very limits to try to overcome it.
I think you shouldn't ask people what they think if you're going to throw a strop when they don't lavish you with praise.
Either that or come up with better story ideas.
Yep. If Dan comes back then they simply have to continue.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: you can't desperately retcon everything so it's all interlinked into one massive story and then just turn your back on it.
You put continuity on the map with the Craig era EON. Ok fine. So now let's see it conclude then. Leaving Blofeld in prison without a mention whilst Dan goes off on a standalone mission is not only a cop out but an admission that you royally f**ked it up with SP and have no idea how to get out of it.
I certainly won't be upset. That's the last thing I want now, but if it happens, which is possible, I would look for the positives.
Another Craig-Waltz film definitely means the death of Blofeld and the end of Spectre, which is a good thing because then they won't be returning for the foreseeable future.
Unless they come up with a brilliant idea for Bond 26 - Blofeld's son takes Spectre over and hunts Bond to revenge his father's death.
Yes. And regardless of what it is, it's a Bond film after all, and I'll be there to see it on the first day.
You put a well-needed smile on my face buddy ;-).
A very good point actually.
I like to add something to this trilogy though. It's more of a villain's trilogy, and less of a Bond trilogy. The focus is on SPECTRE, whereas the Bond character could be more or less replacable by different actors.
Having said that, and reading Christoph Waltz' latest comments about the fact he wasn't that satisfied with his portrayal.............Why not give Waltz a 2nd chance? And this time with a new director? And perhaps we could turn it a bit more into a Blofeld movie instead of a Bond movie?
A) The ending of "SPECTRE" is both the most open-ended ending as well as the most closed-ended finale that we've ever seen!
B) The ending of "SPECTRE" may have given Daniel Craig his desired ending and in essence looks like the perfect closure for his portrayal. Especially from the viewpoint of a creative cast member, like a screenplay writer. But what to do with Bond #25? Simply cast a new actor? Let the entire MI6-team resign? Mothballing Blofeld and SPECTRE again?
C) On the other hand, we have seen how certain comic book franchises are too frequently using the reset button for the sake of continuing the franchise. Look what happened with "Batman vs. Superman". Ben Affleck was cast as the new Batman, Zack Snyder's first half of the film in essence tried to hard to copy the Nolan-esque darkness and grittiness from his trilogy. And it didn't work, especially not from the viewpoint of a CFO. Financially (and critically) Warner considered the flop. Perhaps because "The Dark Knight"-trilogy still is too fresh in people's minds.
The Bond franchise is therefore in need of a much slower, gradually decrease of continuity driven storytelling with lots of personal and historic ties between characters, as opposed to a fierce, blunt, rather uncreative reset button in which we reboot the franchise once again.
I believe this can be done, but only if Daniel Craig returns one more time, if Blofeld goes underground again. Only then Bond doesn't know of Blofeld anymore, while Blofeld can become the secret 'puppet master' again.
So, I think we simply have upped the Bond franchise to such high levels quality-wise, that it may become difficult to retrieve the more standalone Bond films with the occasional continuity reference, like we had in the 1960's, 1970's, 1980's and 1990's, in the blink of an eye. I think a reboot isn't the option (And make no mistake, if a new actor becomes Bond, if a completely new MI6-team is casted, if SPECTRE and Blofeld are mothballed, it WILL be seen as a reboot by the press).
So again, we need to gradually get rid of continuity driven storytelling with lots of personal and historic ties between characters over the course of the next Bond film, no# 25. As opposed to the 'uncreative reboot button'. Then, we give Daniel Craig a more traditional open-ended happy ending. Craig can leave on a much higher note, and we continue Bond #26 with a new actor, perhaps the same MI6-team and adventures that are more standalone in character as of film #26 and onwards.
Blofeld is held in custody, but Spectre is still out there. Spectre makes some demands to release it's leader. CraigBond has to try and hunt down the remaining members of Spectre. There will a new villain leading the organization. Or Blofeld is still being kept in custody, but Spectre is still working under a new leader and CraigBond needs to put a stop to what ever they're planning. Maybe have Blofeld pulling some strings. Escape in the end maybe seemingly die and then have an open ending, leaving room for the next actor and directors and writers to do what they want with the characters.