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
Another 15 minutes and I could rule the world.
If the PTS introduced the villain and perhaps the key characters, set up the plot, and included a gripping action sequence (and of course there was sustained tension afterwards until Bond arrived) then I can certainly imagine a Bond movie where he’s introduced late. Connery and Moore were effectively introduced that way in their films. Maybe 30 minutes is pushing it, but it depends. Also Bond would have to have a hell of an introduction scene. But honestly, it’s possible. I like the idea actually.
Yeah, if done right. I know 30mins is really pushing it. But if done right, it would feel like two films into one. The first half showing MI6 and the world living in fear and suspenseful action scenes and stuffs going on, because of the new advanced and supervillain, whom they only know by his voice and have never seen him. Then the second half, James Bond triumphantly enters the scene and begins his 007 thing on the villain...it won't be easy of course, but Bond wins at the end.
Introducing Connery and Moore later showed that the mission / threat to UK is the central point of the film, and 007 is part of the government machine deployed to counter the threat.
That’s preferable to me to the Craig era, where Bond is central to the film, supported by his little gang. Craig’s approach was fresh and interesting, but we’ve done the story arc of how James Bond began and ended his career as a 00. Let’s get away from the personal / superhero, and get back to the thriller.
Regarding the scenario. Maybe it could begin with a police investigation (perhaps a poisoning) which is escalated to anti-terror police / military special services, before the government decides to deploy the ultimate ‘blunt weapon’ - a 00. Bond could be introduced either in a The Spy Who Loved Me (novel) manner, or perhaps in a FRWL PTS punting-type scene.
Well, Craig's Bond is dead and the new bond can't be a cold war veteran.
Regarding Craig, if the Spectre rights had been acquired along with Casino Royale, that could have resulted in an awesome pentalogy without awkward retcons along the way. Imagine that. ;-)
I've been reading that 'After Fleming' book about the continuation novels, and I'm sure I remember John Gardner saying that he made up his plots as he went along rather than planning them out, and reading those synopses, my goodness it shows! :) I would be curious to know how many drafts he did.
I think there's something in it, it could be a fresh way of looking at it and build up anticipation. Maybe play around with time a bit: show a shortish sequence of events where things keep going wrong for the main characters, and then we see the same events again but Bond makes a triumphant appearance and was actually working behind the scenes all along, blowing all their stuff up! :)
M: "When's Bond arriving?"
P: "E.T.A. thirty minutes, sir."
M: "Right. Let's brief Q-branch first."
@007HallY @Troy & @mtm have already said it better than I ever could. If done right, it would work. I want to see Bond from the very first shot, for sure. But just to have a different style to a Bond film, I would like to see it that way. It's all about intense suspense, real thriller scenes and we would be engaged enough, until Bond shows up. The thing is, the film needs to start with gunbarrel sequence for this to work. So knowing that James Bond is around somewhere, and is coming to save the day, is something that would keep people interested.
yeah that's cool with me, dude. I'm just giving a counter-argument to why delaying the main protagonist would cause disengagement with the audience, and goes against natural storytelling and filmmaking. These character delays are for the antagonists usually.
Oh, yeah. It's probably not going to happen. I'm not sure Barbara would want to wait that long to unleash her new Bond. We hope for a blitz of a film for Bond 7's debut, though. I was just thinking of new ways to make Bond 26 feel fresh.
I'm not sure about disengagement, but I do think that when the next Bond film hits theatres, it's best not to beat around the bush. Fans will be excited to see the new Bond, new audience members will have to be sucked in from the start. When introducing a new Bond after a long hiatus (GE, CR), seeing that new Bond is a very big deal. Why delay that? If you can get the guy sold to your audience within seconds, the rest is easy.
Obviously, the few minutes before seeing Bond in DN and TLD weren't a problem, nor was Lazenby's introduction. But reserving Bond for after the OT, like they did in LALD, is something I'd rather not see repeated.
Well, I think it's absurd and you've hurt my feelings. I'll make it fresh, bro.
Nor does he need to be. The Bond in films doesn't need a past. Bond has always been a man in the moment. Keep him that way. Ignore his pre Double-O life completely. Do we really need to know what war (if any) he was a veteran of?
There are plenty of conflicts to draw on as the 2006 Eon dossier did.
Is he though?
Not a veteran in terms of active war zone combat I don't think. In From Russia With Love, Bond is said to have joined the Secret Service in 1938. During the war, it might be very probable that he (and the secret) was involved in sabotage, helping the resistance et cetera. But that doesn't line up with the potrayal of someone who served in active war.
In Thunderball, Bond claims he was "supercargo" (meaning: "sent by the owner of the ship"), that he worked for intelligence, and he was a "chocolate sailor," referring to the idea of a chocolate solider who doesn't fight. This again matches the idea that Bond was a spy and not a soldier.
In Live and Let Die, Bond says he spent part of the war at Station A (of the Secret Service). That's not normally where active officers of the Royal Navy spend their time.
Finally, in the YOLT obit it says that Bond in 1941 joined a department of the MoD (not the Royal Navy as would make the most sense if he was an active combatant) and dealt with confidential matters. Then M refers to himself approving Bond's job to continue with the same department after the war, where he continued his rise in rank to the "Principal Officer" title we hear about in Moonraker.
There is one mention of Bond and the Ardennes, but that could easily be Bond working with battle intelligence to find out what the Nazis were planning.
Basically, in summary, I don't think Bond needs to be fighting active warzones all the time. He could easily have come up handling arms running to terrorists or smuggling or whatever that required the same duties that he did about intelligence in World War II (and its potential knockon effects). I feel wary about Bond spending long periods of time in non-European war theatres because that impacts a lot of the cultural experience and impact of the situation.
Whether or not John Pearson is considered canon, he had fun coming up with this background for Fleming's Bond.
https://jamesbond.fandom.com/wiki/John_Pearson's_timeline
1940 is only when Bond is a part of the Royal Navy when he's expelled: however this has no basis in Fleming and I don't think this is the sort of thing to point to in saying that "James Bond must be a veteran." And anyway, Bond's work in the Royal Navy was far away from any theatre of action in Jamaica! Bond's work in the action was as a part of Naval Intelligence.
I enjoyed Pearson's work but it doesn't stand as "canon" through and through and I don't think that's enough proof to definitely assert Bond's active service. Otherwise we'd agree as a fanbase Moonraker shouldn't be adapted because it is fake, and ask for stories of Bond under the private employ of bankers.
In terms of Fleming's iterations of Bond's pre-MI6 work, I think the answer is relatively clear. I just want to keep in mind that we don't even know that Secret Service=MI6. As it is mentioned that Bond works in the Ministry of Defence, when MI6 is with the Foreign Office. I think it makes more sense to equate Secret Service with a sort of beefed up (but also civilian) Defence Intelligence, that controls all the foreign intelligence, both military and diplomatic.
Anyway, I think Fleming's work paints a clear story, whether you work with the FRWL timeline or the YOLT one: the info stays the same.
1. Joins the "Secret Service" (MoD) in 1938/1941, gets involved in Monte Carlo job (can be excluded if one believes YOLT over previous novels)
Evidence: YOLT/FRWL for the first bit, CR/MR for the Monte Carlo job
2. Gets the lieutenant title in 1941 so he can have the authorization to deal with confidential matters.
Evidence: You Only Live Twice
3. The Secret Service/MoD deploy Bond in Naval Intelligence (RNVR Special Branch) throughout the war, where he describes himself as "supercargo" and a "chocolate sailor." The RNVR "Special Branch" refers to non-seagoing members of the RNVR. Presumably this served as his cover.
Evidence: Thunderball
4. Secret Service/MoD deploy Bond in America with Station A "for a time." This implies work that wouldn't apply to proper sailor. Pearson ignores this and shifts this period to after the war.
Evidence: Live and Let Die
5. Bond finds himself in the Ardennes. Why is unknown but there are plenty of explanations that could be plausible that still maintain the consistent story of Bond in the Ministry of Defence rather than fighing (investigating strongholds, or like Fleming's own intelligence units, stealing documents).
Evidence: Dr. No
6. James Bond ends the war in Hong Kong (for some reason), discovers "pyjama coats". Again no reason to suggest he was actually involved in battle.
Evidence: CR, backed up by YOLT
7. Bond ends the war as Commander, applies to continue with the Secret Service (in the obit referred to as the Ministry of Defence). The obit makes it quite clear that Bond has been working for the same people from his joining of the MoD in 1941 to his continuation in 1945 to his "death" in 1963.
Evidence: You Only Live Twice
8. The rest: Bond does jobs in Jamaica with labour unions after the war, gets posted in Moscow (we don't know if that was during the war or not), becomes 007 in 1950, and the rest is history.
Evidence: LALD (Jamaica), MR (Moscow), FRWL (00 number).
It works for me.
The less the film Bond is tied to wars the better. In 1962 SC starred in DN at 32, too young to have been a WWII vet. RM took over the role in 73 and would also have been too young to be a WWII vet. GL too young to have been a Korean vet. TD also too young to have been a Korean War vet and British did not fight in Vietnam. As for Brosnan and Craig, Falklands, Lebanon, Afghanistan?
For me knowing Bond is a war vet doesn't add anything.
Personally, it’s not something about Bond I’d overthink. I wouldn’t mess around too much with it either. Just keep him as a Commander with a navy background and use this detail when or if necessary in the film should it suit the story.