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
No more outer space, diamonds, sunlight arrays, nano anything, chips with every agents name on it, blowing up MI6, rogue agents, Bond showing up at M's residence, Bond resigning, facial transformations, threats to shut down MI6, Bond never being shot by multiple shooters firing hundreds of bullets.
Oh, wow! What's left? That's where the reinvention comes in. And it won't be with the writers who for the most part are responsible for the things I don't want to see again.
Hopefully EON are true to their word and there's a complete reinvention of Bond from the ground up.
And did EoN say a “complete” reinvention? Or a reinvention?
And weren’t they discussing this concept in the context of: a new era, a new Bond? What are the evil forces Bond will fight today and tomorrow?
I fear your idea of a “complete reinvention “ is to make a U-Turn back to clown suits and raised eyebrows.
But diamonds are forever.
I agree.
One of the ways to reinvent Blofeld is similar to how I felt they should have reinvented the Joker after The Dark Knight: bring in his longtime partner in crime: Harley Quinn. Which they did. Same could be done for Blofeld and Irma Bunt. We know that Blofeld will be back, (he is Bond's archenemy after all), why not use his hired help.
Just look at the paloma sequence from Bond 25, that's a great vision for where to takes things in Bond 26. It's the one part of the film which recieves universal praise from fans. It's been years since Bond and the bond girl had some playful interplay, kicked some ***, and the music during that part is very vibrant and energetic. It's like EON allowed the oppressive seriousness of the Craig era to be lifted for one scene.
I think sometimes people misinterpret quite what 'reinvention' means. I would consider Goldeneye to be continuing in the tradition of classic bond, but it's not identical to the Connery or Moore bonds. Capturing the spirit of classic Bond and making a carbon copy aren't the same thing. For an example, The Force Awakens is a carbon copy type product, where except for brief moments with Han and Chewie it never really captures the energy of the OT. I would consider SP and Bond 25 in this category as well, lots of iconography in front of your eyeballs, but the all important essence is missing. An example of what gets it right would be the Creed films. Despite being very different, they do justice to the originals where it counts.
With regards to "pulling a u-turn", I think there are certain elements of bond that never go out of style. If you found an audience who has never watched Bond and showed them the skii cliff jump from TSWLM, I think they'd have virtually the same reaction as an audiences in '77 did. The larger than life bond never went out of fashion, that's a myth. EON simply stuffed it in the back of the closet and instead we got rather mundane chases in SP and Bond 25 which lacked any real pizazz or spark.
People told Speilberg you can't make those old adventures serials work for the eighties, they're far too old and passé. But he did it anyway, and it became one of the most celebrated franchises of all time, called indiana jones. It worked because they didn't just do the same thing again, they UPDATED it for the modern sensibilities of the time. So when people assume lighthearted bond means travelling back to the 70's and doing reheated roger Moore films, its actually not the case. It means taking the breezy, quirky tone of those films and updating (or "reinventing") it so that it works for the modern day but still keeps the classic spirit intact.
Wow. I truly never heard about this.
As far as I could find, no one told Lucas and Spielberg that no one wanted an old-time swashbuckling adventure because it wouldn’t fly in the 1980s.
Instead they were turned down by every studio because of the BUDGET and Lucas’s OFFER :
“Lucas wanted to fund Raiders of the Lost Ark himself, but lacked the money.[12] Lucasfilm offered the project to several Hollywood studios. They rejected it, in part because of the proposed $20 million budget, but also because of the deal Lucas offered.[12][30] He wanted the studio to provide the budget, have no creative input and allow him to retain control of the licensing rights and any sequels.[30] The studios considered this deal unacceptable.[12][30] They were also hesitant because of Spielberg's involvement due to his having delivered a succession of films over-schedule and over-budget;[30] his recent effort, 1941, was both over-budget and a critical failure. However, Lucas refused to do the project without Spielberg.[17][30][32]
Paramount Pictures president Michael Eisner compromised with Lucas, agreeing to his deal in exchange for exclusive rights to any sequels and severe penalties for exceeding the schedule or budget. Lucas reportedly negotiated a salary between $1 million and $4 million plus a share of the gross profits, though a separate report stated he received only net profits. Spielberg received up to $1.5 million as director and a share of the gross profits.[12][19]”
I feel with these big, successful movies there's always a bit of myth-making around them in hindsight, usually from the creators. From what I understand Cubby Broccoli certainly did this with several aspects of the Bond series. I mean, disputes over budgets are pretty dry in comparison to the narrative of the out of touch studios not understanding a creative vision.
The above was started because a post mentioned that people are wrong to think the Bond series couldn’t go back to being “classic Bond”, just as the studios turned down Indy because they said a film that was a 1930s type serial adventure wouldn’t fly in the 1980s.
I hadn’t heard the studios turned down Lucas and Spielberg, and it shocked me that any studio would turn away these powerhouses, in their prime, because of the story they wanted to film.
Doing a deeper dive, I found no mention of studios turning them down because a swashbuckling adventure wouldn’t fly in the ‘80s. It was all about the dollars and cents.
So, once again, this poster took a bit of truth and twisted it to fit their narrative (just like when they write about averting the writers strike, or writing about what many Bond fans want in the upcoming films); opinions are opinions, but one starts lying when one wants the opinions to be considered as fact.
To be completely fair it may well be one of those 'myths' that's so well ingrained amongst general viewers (to the point that it's mentioned on the mostly user written IMDB trivia) that the original poster may not have known the full background. I certainly didn't before you posted that/looked it up myself. Like I said, boring disputes on budgets are always less interesting, albeit more likely to be the case, than creative disputes.
In fairness I don't entirely disagree with @Mendes4Lyfe says about what they want for Bond 26, and can see where they're coming from/agree with certain things they say. I just disagree with them when it comes to the finer details if this makes sense.
Fair enough :)
@007HallY 👍🏻
I agree with you on most points, with just a few quibbles: I agree with Bond being less indestructible, particularly that Bond should not bounce back from serious injuries (such as torture) with no real consequences… but I think things like catching the gun are good, more sophisticated fight choreography is good (as far as I’m concerned, that is), I’d like to see evidence that Bond has been trained in hand to hand to a high degree rather than him just being scrappy.
I would like to keep the lack of groan-inducing jokes, to be replaced by more wit.
I’d like to see them stop screwing with the gunsight opening - C.R.’s was worth doing, but generally I’d like to see the film open with the traditional version.
=D>
Try looking at this:
If they're making Bond more realistic, reduce his drinking, it's fine in necessary occasions, and also not too much to the point that he already drank a bottle and could still function properly.
That's also one of the unrealistic things about the Craig Era.
I think Moore did this better by just having drink in necessary occasions like when in dinner or meeting with a girl, or at the end of the film, but when he's in the middle of adventure, he's not drinking too much, despite of Moore being campy, and lighthearted, he's not that much on booze.
I mean the classic Bonds in general were never that much on booze like Craig, they didn't drank liquor like fish, and that's one of the things I prefer in the Classic Era, the Craig Era turned Bond into an overly alcoholic guy.
The Cuba scenes in No Time To Die had him drinking a liquor constantly while fighting a baddie, and asking myself that he could still function and fight, he drank a lot in that Cuba sequence, the same with Paloma, it's just unrealistic that despite of how many shots they've taken, they could still function normally.
To be honest, I think this is more or less how Bond's drinking should be in these movies. It's much closer to the spirit of Fleming's novels, and I do think there's something about the character's relationship with alcohol which is... well, very British really (we are a nation who enjoy our drink a bit too much sometimes, even if it is rather enjoyable).
The next iteration of Bond is going to be a tough one to sort out for sure. But Bond is a bad boy, and bad boys do bad things. He drinks a lot, has lots of sex, and does implausible things. He doesn't have to abide by Miss Manners and do what polite people do these days. If Bond's behavior offends, there's an easy solution for the offended. The solution is 'quit looking over the ten foot fence at the naked man in the yard next to yours.'
It is, but then so his smoking habit?
It's very Fleming yet are removed because it's out of place these days, drinking was also out of place these days, especially for those people like Bond.
I mean some people were saying that booze is very unprofessional and therefore a thing for wrecked or low class people.
A thing for low class gangsters who gets involved with riots, fights, and rumbles, well that's how modern films depict booze.
Like if you're a heavy drinker, you're likely to be a low class person in the society who makes troubles. 😅
Booze for some people is a deed of criminal or gangster thing, no longer a symbol of sophistication.
That's the thing with Bond, he's a sophisticated guy who enjoy luxuries and fine things, and drinking or booze too much is no longer considered a part of that these days.
I'm not sure where you're getting this idea that booze is considered unsophisticated across the board nowadays. People still go to fancy restaurants and pair their meals with fine wines and cognacs etc. People still drink cocktails at upmarket bars. Many of the patrons of said establishments drink a lot. If there's an association with drinking being for 'gangsters or criminals' it's completely contextual. I'd argue it's more or less similar to when Fleming was writing his novels.
While people are slightly more aware of the long term effects of drinking alcohol, I can say from personal experience almost everyone I know drinks. Sometimes a bit too much, even if they're physically active or have physically demanding jobs.
I don't think it's just a case of Bond 'enjoying luxuries and fine things'. Bond is man who often runs the risks of never returning from his missions. In the novels it's not just that he enjoys expensive meals and drink because it's paid for on his expense account (on the contrary, Fleming's Bond has moments where he found the very idea of extravagance horrid) but because they are indulgences he enjoys that he might not get to experience again. The novel Bond wasn't a drunk (surprising as it may seem), and on duty he didn't drink to excess, but he did have a habit of drinking too much when not on a mission that even he knew wasn't beneficial to his health. Again, it's because of that mentality, and it's important to the character. It's understandable that such a man who constantly lives on the edge and risks his life might have a fondness for drink (same for sleeping with women too). These are vices and a reason for indulging in them that people can understand even today. Smoking perhaps has a 'devil may care' connotation in the right circumstance, but it's not an intoxicant so I don't think is needed to get that message across in a modern film given the restrictions most countries have put on it in public indoor places (although many people do smoke even today).