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 think the only category was: "Which lower-selling ones can we pair with higher-selling ones?"
Bond was killed off in NTTD was he not. Not sure where they go from here but there has to be another Bond release somewhere in the future. Should be something of a puzzle trying to fit the pieces back together but there's no way I'm giving up on the character just yet.
Isn’t the old expression less is more?
Maybe we don’t need to know to much about what makes Bond, Bond. We know he’s the guy that saves the world. Just let him get on with it.
I guess Forever and a Day showed that, in fact. Fleming himself increasingly believed in a plot arc which wound through the books, so I guess it doesn't make sense to argue with the master.
I couldn't agree more, this is exactly what I want too mate.
I actually don't consider CR an origins story. At most it shows his first official mission as 007 (although even this might be debatable), and obviously it shows us one of the most important events of Bond's life - namely Vesper's death. But otherwise we don't learn anything about Bond's past and the fundamental traits of the character are all there (ie. this isn't a version of Bond so young he has never worn a tuxedo, as early drafts included).
I've said this in the past, but I don't think a film about a young Bond in the navy would work. I'd even be hesitant about a film structured around him trying to attain his 00 license. I think Bond being 007 (or indeed having been) is one of the things that makes a Bond adventure work as much of the character is so intertwined with his profession. That said a film about the character early in his 00 career and still not quite in his prime could work (or the 'year 2' premise that The Batman ran with and as @Ludovico mentioned). Dependent on how heavily they want to lean into it I think this will give them the best creative options in terms of establishing the new Bond and this new 'universe'.
So I guess my answer is a straight adventure by default, but I think it's more complicated. Bond 26 will be a reboot regardless and at least a small portion of the film will set up what this new 'universe' looks like.
And I think a reintroduction would be a good way to do it, a new Bond with an updated backstory... I will want to see where he's starting from.
But I definitely don’t want to see any trite Forever and a Day sort of stuff, and I don’t want them to retread any ground that CR already covered (the two kills, learning not to trust people, learning to be less of a reckless blunt instrument).
I don’t think Bond would be in the navy anymore. He was always a chocolate sailor and original backstory that Fleming laid out in his obituary is quite dated now.
Nowadays I think he’d be SAS or SBS. And I think a film showing how he’s recruited could work. Maybe you could do a PTS with him on some special forces mission that comes wrong, during which he gets the attention of MI6, and they come knocking because they need someone off the books with no link to them for whatever reason. He does such a good job that he gets recruited at the end, fast forward to him as 007 in the next one.
It does run the risk of feeling a bit pointless, because at the end of the day he’s going to be doing 007 stuff no matter what, so he may as well just be 007 from the off. But if they wanted to cast a younger actor than they had before, then I think a story like that could work.
Yeah that's the sort of thing I'd be up for seeing. Something a bit new.
I actually reckon Bond's naval background will be maintained for a few reasons. Firstly, the producers seem keen on keeping aspects of the Fleming character alive, and I suspect his naval background will be one of those things. Secondly it's not something that crops up often in the films anyway, and I don't think the average viewer would find it weird that Bond is a former naval Commander (or indeed care). It's just not something that most people think about. I mean, it's telling that CR's later drafts completely removed all mentions of Bond being a former SAS soldier.
Other than that I actually like the idea that Bond didn't start out in one of the elite forces. I dunno, certainly the Bond of the Craig era seemed willing to disobey MI6 orders in order to get the job done, which to me doesn't seem consistent with someone from a purely SAS background (it might just be me, and obviously this is fictional, but I think one of those elite forces would have a much more stringent authoritative hierarchy, even compared to the navy, which someone like Bond wouldn't necessarily thrive in if he started out there). I also get the sense that Bond is a man who has learnt most of his skills not by virtue of being in one single unit, but by impressing his superiors, being offered training that fit with his experience and interests, and as a result 'worked his way up' through this system to the 00 section. No doubt he would have had training with a force like the SAS - again, if a film wanted to explore this in any detail - but I just don't see him as a former SAS soldier.
I really don't wish to see a Bond begins re-boot. I think CR was enough and really how much different would it be to re-boot? I don't wish for every new actor to get the Bond begins treatment. To me the next fella should just be Bond with all his faults and foibles. I would like to see some aspects of the character played up in this version. His weakness for women. In the series it has been used as a way for villains to gain the upper hand. Craig had no female enemy agent use her wiles on him. Connery, Moore and Brosnan all had this and I think it would be refreshing to see it's return.
After Vesper's betrayal, I think any "female enemy agent" would have come off as watered down and derivative. Craig had better than a femme fatale: he had a tragic and doomed love interest. One of the reasons why I think Vesper's memory might be carried on in future Bonds, like Tracy used to be.
Lets die into the director chair and have a fantasy question. At one time or another both of these gentlemen have been rumored to have interest in directing a Bond movie. Whether they had done it with any success is a matter of debate. But lets ask the question and see what you would have rather have had happen.
Would you have rather had a Steven Spielberg directed Bond film OR a Quentin Tarantino directed Bond film?
If it was the young Beard, I’d take him over Tarantino (his action beats would be unbeatable)…. If it’s present day The Beard, I’d take Tarantino (whether it be the young, or present Tarantino. He’d be much more interesting than present day Spielberg. I may not like the end result of the Tarantino film, but I know I wouldn’t be bored, and I know he’d make daring choices that no one else would have the balls to consider)….