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
I can definitely imagine Bond 26 having a similar broad framework to The Batman - a Bond in his second year or whatever as 007, going on a mission which proves important for him personally, making mistakes as you said etc.
The Batman actually has similarities to what the Craig films were doing as well. In The Batman Riddler is a sort of twisted mirror image of Batman not unlike, say, Silva is to Bond in SF, and both villains have similar 'sympathetic' motives despite doing horrible things (it's also similar in that sense to Safin, and with both him and Riddler I got similar 'incel' vibes). The only major difference is Riddler is actively inspired by Batman, and it's that realisation that changes him.
That and The Batman is a great film at recontextualising tropes we've seen many times - ie. Wayne Manor is now Wayne Tower, the bat cave is an abandoned underground train station, Bruce is a reclusive loner with clear psychological issues (which he always has been by the way, but this is an earlier version of the character who hasn't learnt to use his wealth/main identity for good, nor has be developed the playboy persona). It's still very much a Batman film though. I can definitely imagine it having a little bit of influence over the next Bond film, (again, very broadly) and I'm all for it. I know not everyone loves it but it's a beautifully crafted film.
I suspect it's going to be a Bond year 2 as well, with even maybe (maybe) allusion to Vesper. I also suspect SPECTRE might reappear in some capacity.
There may be allusion to Vesper, but I doubt SPECTRE would make a return, considering the way it's done in the Craig Era.
I can see them returning to one off villains or getting a new organization (that's why my proposal (which has a real life connection to it or had been discussed in real life) might work.
Thanks 😊, believe it or not, I've got that idea from the conspiracy theory in 60s about The Beatles being hired by Tavistock to trick people and act as how that organization told them to be, the same for many other rock stars in that time being hired by MK Ultra or something like that (like what I've read in the Mysteries of the Laurel Canyon), that's how I've got it, though it may be hard to believe (given the lack of proof), I'm not believing it in the first place myself, but for a film plot (especially a Bond film where world dominations are tackled), it's kinda interesting, Bond films do have their shares of outlandish ideas.
Bond is a fictional world by the way, it's just a film, after all, the conspiracy theory about the fake moon landing had been showed in DAF.
And yes, EON could make it a la what Elliot Carver have done in TND, with his way of manipulating the social masses with his fake news to start a war between China and UK, this villains could do it to evoke a psychological war, this could be interesting, if handled properly.
Exactly, and in fiction, I think, the creativity are endless, we could think of many ideas, thinking of real life events for a Bond film would limit our ingenuity, the imaginations and the possibilities of creating great stories and plots to entertain people, after all, the best Bond films didn't relied on real life events from news like OHMSS, CR, FRWL, and so many more, they're all a result of great imagination and creativity from Fleming himself.
Fleming never relied on real life news and considering he's a journalist, none of the Fleming books tackled real life events from headlines.
If considering Fiction, they could do a lot more things to Bond, EON doesn't need to limit themselves on just applying real life news to Bond.
Look at our ideas and proposals in this forum, those were creative and interesting for Bond to explore.
I would liked to add: If us fans were to be the given a chance, we could take Bond anywhere, and more interesting for that.
That's why if DAF tackled the fake moon landing which is a conspiracy theory, maybe they could turn such things into Bond plots, I'm on board with that! I think from the storytelling perspective, those were good or even great!
We could even have an Aleister Crowley like villain, why? LALD did this before with Baron Samedi and the Voodoo Cult.
Regarding standalone villains, I doubt they'll completely revert to that, mostly because nowadays franchises use returning adversaries and plenty of sequel hooks. So I suspect they'll hinted at SPECTRE or whatever evil organisation or shadowy villain they can think of in Bond 26, while making the story self-contained. Personally I'd like to see a revamped, modernised General Grubozaboischikov (spelling?), but I doubt he'll show up.
You can have Bond hell bent on tracking down Blofeld, but I'm not sure he entirely works without the personal element of him killing Tracy, or even, as per the Craig era, being responsible for Vesper's death (or being 'the author of all his pain' or whatever). They'd have to figure out a way to adapt that element, otherwise he becomes just any other recurring villain. I don't know if it's a place they'd want to necessarily go after the Craig era. And to be honest, I think the great thing about Bond is that it regularly has stand alone villains who are unique and interesting in their own ways.
A very subtle reference to Vesper would be cool. I'd actually kind of like to see the next actor approach Bond thinking about it as a version of the character who went through Vesper's death a year or whatever previously (again, I don't think it should be explicitly mentioned, but it could be an interesting way of approaching the character).
And think of it, given the familiar connection between Bond and Blofeld, how would they fix it in the next actor's tenure? So really, there's no way of bringing SPECTRE back, I think Barbara have hammered the nails on the wood by this point.
Those are the implications of what they've done by making Blofeld, Bond's brother, and killing him, like Bond, how would they make Blofeld back? And how would they avoid people's confusion regarding their relationship (in this next actor's era, they're possibly not foster brothers), it's going to be a bit convoluted, this would confuse people's minds, and I think Barbara had thought of it, they've put Blofeld and SPECTRE on the ground.
They may be obligated to bring Bond back, but in there's no way they could bring Blofeld back, I just don't see it.
I feel that they would be leaving SPECTRE to the Craig Era, but again, who knows? I'm not sure, I'm just making a conclusion based on what I've seen in Barbara's comments in the past after Craig bowed down from the role.
I'm not sure "full" standalone villains are a thing anymore with franchises. In the early novels, even the standalone villains were linked to SMERSH. Personally, I'd love them to reintroduce SMERSH and General G, but I suspect they'll use some iteration of SPECTRE instead. Easier, more recognisable, etc.
SMERSH would makes sense with the new Bond actor.
I get what you mean, but Bond villains are effectively stand alone villains 99.9% of the time (the only real exception to a main villain being Blofeld, or the occasional minor ones like Jaws or Mr. White) even if there's an overlying story/thing that links the films/books together. It's more or less part of the Bond formula - Bond meets the main baddie, and it's expected to be a different one each time. They don't tend to return because Bond kills them in order to defeat them.
I guess the issue with SMERSH is that it's a bit dated unless they're doing a period piece (even when Fleming wrote Bond it'd been dissolved from what I can tell). Maybe a rogue squad dedicated to killing spies could be a cool concept, but I'm not bothered about having a recurring organisation.
I mean if I was a scriptwriter charged to work on the next Bond movie, I'd come up with a synopsis about Bond having to investigate SMERSH, a shadowy organisation born from the fall of USSR, that may or may not exist with General G as a Keyser Soze character. But I think the first thing they'd change is SPECTRE instead of SMERSH and Blofeld instead of G.
How they would do that? I mean, are they making SPECTRE different from the Craig Era? Maybe they could do it without Blofeld, but it would still confuse people like: "I thought the remaining SPECTRE agents died in Blofeld's party in NTTD?".
And would the people accept SPECTRE without Blofeld? And if so, it would alienate the people, a bit, because Blofeld and Bond are foster brothers, it's still fresh in the people's minds, and how would they explain Blofeld's death.
Given these scenarios, it's like Barbara really put an end on it, like there's no way they could bring him or the organization back, they've closed the doors on SPECTRE and Blofeld by such creative decisions in the Craig Era.
The thing is, they could bring back Bond since he's the protagonist, but with SPECTRE/Blofeld, there were many villains that Bond could potentially face aside from Blofeld, again like @007HallY said, this is not Moriarty or Tom and Jerry, where even their rivals/counterparts are important as the main characters themselves, that's not Bond, he could still succeed, publicly, even without Blofeld.
Again though, it might not be where they'd want to go (although that said I suppose they depicted North Korea as the villains in DAD, and that was very relevant for the time). Even in that scenario though SMERSH would be a one time thing, and it'd be emphasised that it's not the real department that existed of the KGB (even the fictionalised one Fleming wrote about) but a recreated one.
It'd definitely put some distance between the Craig era and the new one. I don't think it'd confuse anyone at all really if they did include SPECTRE, but I just don't see why they would.
If they bring Bond back, they can bring Blofeld and SPECTRE. New continuity, new reboot, I don't see how more confusing it would be than it already is or has been.
And like I said, I'd rather use SMERSH, but I don't think they'll go for it. They'll go for what they find more marketable, not necessarily what's more original or creative.
Something close to what Warren Ellis proposed in his James Bond comic books run could work: SPECTRE is an active sprawling organisation, but whose members are new characters. John Gardner's work, which included a renewal of the organisation's leadership, could also be an inspiration.
Another possibility would be to have the organisation be lead by an unnamed Number One who may or may not be Blofeld, allowing the creative team to have some freedom and create something different.
I guess the issue with SPECTRE though is that they're slightly renta-baddies - they don't stand for much other than to just be bad, and that's not always as interesting as a slightly more high concept baddie. Like Carver, for example: a media mogul starting a war for ratings is a more colourful and catchy idea than an evil organisation which is just profiting from being evil, even though it does have a cool name and logo. Which, hey, sounds glib, but it's a movie and that kind of memorable audiovisual hook isn't bad.
An early draft of The Spy Who Loved Me, which began with a civil war within SPECTRE had a character named Number One, who was not identified as Blofeld but served the same purpose; this could definitely be an option to follow to maintain a classic dynamic, while also moving away from how Blofeld was portrayed in the novels or in the films.
I don't think Vesper will show up per se, I mean I don't think they'll have an actress playing Vesper. That said, I do think she'll be referred to, as per Bruce Wayne's parents or Uncle Ben: it's now part of Bond's background, so to speak.
Regarding SPECTRE, if the movies want to keep away from clear geopolitical antagonists, they'll have at some point to revert to it or something very similar. I think the main value of SPECTRE is that it's easily marketable: cool name, long history in the franchise, etc. At this point it's almost like an ancient evil. As much as I'd love to see SMERSH and Grubozaboischikov... I mean try to pitch them to EON. I'm not even sure of the spelling.
I think the producers will want as much of a clean break as they can from the Craig era.
With a focus on Bond I'm expecting. Falling in on the established film formula quicker this time.
Yes, that's what I also feel, a clean slate, no comeback from the previous characters, maybe I can see Felix playing a minor role, but there's a little chance it would happen (we didn't see Felix Leiter in the Brosnan Era, mainly due to what happened to him in LTK), but Blofeld and SPECTRE, there's no chance.
I think like Tracy though, I can see Vesper being alluded in the next Bond actor's tenure, while not directly by name (think of Anya's comment in TSWLM about the "wife killed" then Bond would brush it off).
I think the Producers would do it like what EON done in the Moore and Brosnan Era, a complete restart, but not forgetting the Craig Era entirely (they may put in some hints to clarify that he's still the same character, I think the Producers are aware of the codename theory by this time that they will, again, trying to avoid it).
Who knows? Maybe Kincaide will show up? Or maybe Camille who would go by a different name this time or whose name would not be referred at all (a la what happened to Pola Ivanova in AVTAK who's supposed to be Anya, or like Paris Carver in TND who's supposed to be a past Bond Girl and dropping some clues about their past relationship, "remember what happened in the desert?")
Who knows?