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 like this idea too. Just don’t have Purvis and Wade write it, or Bond will go rogue with them!
I suspect if it were adapted for the screen today writers would be more willing to use techniques like in media res and flashbacks which Fleming uses in the first quarter of the novel. To be fair to Fleming he understood that Bond saving Tracy and then getting captured was the most dramatic way to start the story, so essentially worked his way backwards with the flashbacks etc. I do like that we first see her acting self-destructive with her driving, accumulating gambling debts etc. It interests Bond but we slowly see there's something more to her and something isn't right. She has her rather strange outburst after sleeping with Bond and her follows her, suspecting the worst. To be fair though I've not re-read that novel in a while but I do remember her outburst at the end feeling very tragic and oddly realistic for such a character. The fact is for such people with mental illness it isn't simply a case of sleeping with someone and finding 'hope' automatically. That's the type of nonsense you see in old films. Often they will reject or try to push away those who love or are trying to help them. It takes time. But hey, OHMSS is an old film so I can't blame it for that.
Personally, one of my problems with OHMSS as a film is the fact that it's a story that should be about a jaded Bond who's fed up with his job. Lazenby is 29, rather youthful and with the script he's given can't sell this. The scene where he temporarily quits the Service feels very strange because it comes across as more impulsive than something Bond has been thinking about for a while. In fact it seems to come from nowhere in the film. Someone like Dalton could have sold such a moment better during his tenure but Lazenby never convinced me of this.
I mean, I don't personally get Batman vibes from the CR opening. More Film Noir. To be fair Batman is pretty Noir inspired but the idea of a Bond waiting for someone to show up/holding him at gunpoint in the dark room seems more 1950s hardboiled detective than Batman to me. Incidentally Fleming was inspired by Raymond Chandler novels and Bond often goes about his missions/acts in a way not dissimilar to a Phillip Marlowe or Sam Spade type character.
Yeah, it'd be cool to see Bond doing that stuff. We haven't seen Bond 'getting ready' in this way since DN really (unless I'm forgetting an example). Certainly we haven't seen the hair in the door/talcum powder on the lock since that film. It would tell you much about this iteration of the character - the danger of his job, how he always has to be on his guard etc.
I also think that (as with Magnum Force) the group is uncovered via the help of forensics but here, it could be Q who, be defintion, is now also in danger. As Bond, end of act two, rejects the invitation to join them, the climax places Bond against a couple of the agents including the agent who saved him in the PTS.
Pushing things slightly but, I love the ending of Heat where we do see the good guy win and a moral outcome but there is clear understanding/empathy between the two providing a bitter sweet and memorable climax for the audience. (they tried this slightly in Goldeneye but that ellement failed IMHO) Possibly too complex for a Bond movie?
Yes, I know, cheesy but, (as with Top Gun - M) people love cheese.
My second fan fiction begins.
They wouldn't have done it after SP, but it might have been interesting if Safin were...Blofeld's son.
The character could even still be called Lucifer Safin... he would have inherited his Father's tendency to give himself a made up BS name.
And here - finally - is why I bring this up: Apparently this was supposed to be a huge, floating casino. I don't have a real source for that, but who needs a source for a Bond location? So it seems like there are these cruise ships in Asia, which they pack to the gills with gamblers and then drive out to international waters, where gambling goes on for a couple of days and then they drive back. The Global Dream II was supposed to be the biggest cruise ship in the world by number of passengers, not tonnage or cabins at a maximum occupancy of 9.000 in roughly 2.500 cabins. Meaning they wanted to pack this thing with 4 people to a room to get as many gamblers in there as possible, which is why it's not interesting for any western investors. And just as a kicker, this thing was supposed to be largly run by AI:
So a huge cruise ship full of casinos off some Asian coast that has extensive AI systems, facial and voice recognition and robots. Sounds like you could easily fit a Bond story in here. Only thing is, I don't know which one I'd find better: The finished ship, or the unfinished one about to be hauled to a scrapyard..
The details after this get fuzzier, I want to say it’s mostly a cat and mouse game between Bond and the warlord kind of like TMWTGG. M is Judi Dench-like and is more concerned about this villain than any other to come before. The biggest other sequence I remember is that the climax is that Bond and many innocent civilians get trapped in a shopping mall overnight, which the warlord locks them into and hunts them for sport for fun, like The Most Dangerous Game (no one else has a gun including Bond). So Bond has to try to save the civilians and somehow outwit the warlord without a weapon, but the dream ends before a conclusion.
Could you imagine Shaft played by a white actor?
It's just not the same thing, unless you think Bond is a famous whitexploitation character ;)
It only ever seems to be Shaft that people mention as a false equivalence. I'm pretty sure the last one was only a couple of pages back.
The batman really nailed the darkness well if that is brought to Bond that would be cool but then again I don't want a rehash of the Craig Era.
the big question is when the new actor will be chossen, the rumour about the oscars and 007 was just a clip, wish they found a actor soon and a new script is written already.
But then I guess The Batman sounds like a rehash of the Bale films, but apparently it isn’t.
Yeah it's pretty different I'd say. The Batman has more of him doing detective work than in the Nolan films, which I'm a fan of. I'm guessing you haven't seen it so I won't say too much, but there are also subtle differences such as the film questioning the character's tactics/worldview, both as Bruce Wayne and Batman, as well as Gordon/Batman's relationship with the police (it's much more antagonistic in The Batman than it was in TDK).
I wonder if we'll see some of these ideas bleed through into Bond 26? I can image a scenario where Bond and M operate similarly to Gordon/Batman - so more unofficially, Bond's missions sometimes 'off the book' due to some sort of antagonism between M/the 00 section and the upper realms of British Government.
I can also imagine Bond having to make choices in the film that lead to some sort of change/us seeing him as more the hero we know, which is very broadly an idea in The Batman. I dunno, it could be a case where because he operates more 'off the books' he can't always intervene in certain situations. Perhaps him stumbling across the villain/learning of a bigger plot will spur him to do so, even if it isn't directly in the interests of Her Majesty's Government/is more to save lives.
Sure, that's cool. I just mean that tonally it appears to occupy the same space as the Nolan films, but still does something different. So a new set of Bond films could still be as serious as the Craig ones, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they'll do the same thing.
Kind of, but I get what you mean. In many ways The Batman is actually much darker than the Nolan films (especially the opening with a rather brutal killing and a Batman monologuing Travis Bickle-esque thoughts in his diary). In other ways it's much more optimistic tonally. Maybe it's just me but I always felt the end of TDK was weird with Batman deciding to pit himself as 'an evil' against the rest of Gotham, presumably on the basis that they wouldn't be able to handle the city's 'White Knight' Dent becoming Two Face... I mean wasn't the whole point of the last two movies that Gotham as a city ultimately had that sense of goodness/humanity at its heart, and this would come out in times of peril? The scene on the boat with the bombs in that film exemplifies that for me... dunno, just felt a bit too pessimistic and cerebral, and I never felt it was really elaborated upon adequately in TDKR...
Anyway, I agree. I think the next Bond film will retain elements of the Craig era regardless, even if it's simply on a tonal level (Craig's later ones have their moments of lightheartedness, fun and fantasy between the drama to be fair...)
I know it's weird, but that's the only way that I could see to give Bond's personal arc a real closure.
For me it's still not closed, because there's Mathilde, some people might be thinking of what will happen to her, because she's Bond's daughter.
The new Bond film will e set in the eternal present, but move back in his lifetime - before 007 dies. Therefore, Mathilde will not exist
Ian Fleming's-sorta
Mathilde Bond 007
in
Beyond The Ice
Beyond The Ice...now there's a title I haven't heard in years!
I'd love to see Bond 26 pick up in the centre of a mission that's gone wrong and we get to see the new Bond thrust into the action and having to use his wits to survive.
Then after the PTS, I'd love to see Bond walk into the new M's office, get a mission and then the adventure kicks off
1. I find it a little boring and overdone that Spectre is organization doing evil for evils sake and world domination. My vision reinvents Spectre as a centuries old secret society imbedded in institutions and centres of power across society and the world. Initially they were a whistleblower organization of sorts, ensuring that the most powerful people and institutions in the world act in the best interest of society and the greater good. Somewhere along the way a charismatic figure named Ernst Stavro Blofeld begins to rise to power within the organization and cause an ideological shift fueled by narcissism and hubris. As his power grows, so does the nefariousness of Spectre’s activities and the threat to global intelligence/law enforcement agencies.
2. Either explicit or implied, previous trauma with a romantic partner has been pretty foundational to the character. I would launch the next reboot shortly after the death of Tracy. It’s not necessarily an origin for the character or even a revenge mission, but an established agent who thought he was on his way out learning what he can’t have (a romantic loving/family relationship), and how to live with that moving forward.
I don't know if I want to see something like that in the future. SPECTRE's goal was pretty clear during the Connery's era (and under Fleming's pen): money; they are a profit-seeking business and, despite all its flaws, QoS offered an interesting and relevant updating of that with Quantum and its greedy members.
Otherwise, I really like the idea, suggested for Spectre by a Sony executive, but ultimately unused, that consisted to make the organisation a private intelligence service. It would be all the more relevant today than it was in 2015, considering the current geopolitical context. To see Bond being confronted to a private military company, that could also happen to be a private intelligence service, using a network of mercenarie, hired by States or individuals, could be a nice way to update SPECTRE without changing much.
PTS - Bond is on a mission, kills bad guy, beds the woman
Main plot - Bond walks into M’s office, given thin paper folder, about (people?) smuggling, told to sort it out. Given gadget. Investigates smuggling, finds out there is a threat to worlds energy supply by famous megalomaniac, kills bad guy, blows up his HQ, leaves with woman. Can be brooding.
Nice and simple. No betrayal. No children. No daddy issues. No sibling rivalry. No resignations. No female 00s. Just sex and death.
I like that you thought female 00's was the problem...
This is what I think too, but for a new generation of Bond fans who have not read the books, or have read them but prefer the movies instead, then getting an actor who resembles and acts like Bond from the novels is not essential. He can be black, Asian, Chinese, Indian, hell - even a woman or a transvestite. Anything goes. As long as he can act great and look good in action sequences, this is the only deciding factor these days.
This is the bizarre world we live in...
I just don’t see a female 00 as credible. Can you imagine them hand fighting henchmen? It’s bad enough on tv shows, where a 8 stone (110 lb) female police officer grabs a 15 stone (210 lb) thug and twists his arm up his back, without that kind of nonsense in a 007 movie.
Also, we were delighted when we saw Craig Bond looking battered and bruised in Casino Royale - but do we really want to see a female 00 beaten up by a henchman?