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
That's right.
Plus, Disney makes *so* much money on the theme parks and merchandise that they come down hard on anyone who dares challenge them. Because Disney goes first in the timeline, Eon has the benefit of sitting back, watching Disney, and copying their legal tactics. If there's one thing MGW understands, it's the law.
Some Canadian director wanted to adapt FYEO, based on public domain laws. Not sure where that project went, if anywhere.
It's possible once the novels enter the public domain, a Bond purist might want to make a Bond film true to a novel and not worry about the familiar elements we associate with an EON production. Those elements are pretty well baked in. It would be like a Stars War film without the Star Wars theme.
Without the traditional elements we identify with an EON Bond film, we'll end up with something along the lines NSNA. Not a bad film really, it just didn't feel like a Bond film even with SC.
We'll reach a point where there are so many Bond novels of wildly varying quality, Bond will cease to be unique.
So maybe this long pause is more than about Bond 26.
As per the above, it’s unlikely for the reasons we set out. Danjaq/MGM would likely have a legal case even after the copyright runs out due to their trademark on the character.
With NSNA, McClory et al had those deep pockets but they also had an enforceable legal agreement from 1965. And critically, they had Connery.
Could, theoretically, someone try to do a faithful film adaptation of CR? Sure.
But every element of that film will be scrutinized by copyright lawyers, and anything that looks like it comes from an Eon film--or even a Fleming novel that has not yet passed into the public domain--will be scrubbed.
You thought the NTTD delays were long? Just wait.
Anyway, the Bond theme can't save them forever. These elements are a creative prison for EON.
What on earth does that even mean.
You can't be fresh if you depends on the brand.
Sure
Not really. It's just something that comes back every now and then for Bond.
To the question at hand. Based on the treatment of IP by other companies I do wonder if Bond would be Bond. EON does know what the audience wants and does their darnedest to deliver. They made adventures that demanded the big screen. If they go, does the new company want to narrow the scale? Do they want to create a "universe" of which Bond is a character within? I think it raises enough questions for me to say I hope NTTD is NOT the last EON produced Bond film.
You can bet the next era will see Bond taking a *ahem* back seat while an anthropomorphic spy car goes on his own adventures, finding himself in cross country races and chasing sporty female Astons. Returning in Deebie: Rather Stocked Fully Loaded; Deebie Goes to Monte Carlo (again); Deebie goes bananas etc. (this last one is the revenge sequel after Deebie's love interest gets drowned by the evil Jag with the eyepatch)
And yes, I will happily continue to buy the toy Astons released with each new film!
What if EON choses to re-boot the series again with an origin story of Bond?
If we begin from scratch again would the movie going public respond to this? What are the pros and cons of starting over? What age would you like to see a new Bond be? Do you think this is a viable way to take the next film with a new actor?
Have fun and think about the next fella and what the first film might look like if it was a "re-boot".
I think that's what they're going to go for. Which will be a reboot, but not exactly Bond begins.
CR was Bond’s first mission as 007 (I guess anyway) but it’s certainly not an origin story akin to the 2010s Spiderman reboot or Batman Begins. Bond’s already an established agent/professional/killer, in his prime, and is pretty much a version of the Bond we know. An origin story would probably show Bond prior to becoming 007.
You can do it I guess. We know for instance Project 007 will seemingly be about Bond attaining his 00 status. That’d certainly be different to CR if done in a film, but I can’t see it happening.
If you mean we go back to the point CR did (basically Bond’s first mission as 007, or even a very early one) then it wouldn’t be as striking as many are likely to think here. Forever and A Day did it. A Bond film could have a similar premise with a recently promoted Bond being sent on a mission. I’d argue that’s not radically different to even a ‘year 2’ concept.
Honestly, short of them doing something really weird like focusing on Bond’s navy days or showing him as a kid it’s really not a big deal.
I've thought for a while that you could even show the Double O section being formed for the first time; that'd be a new spin on it.
On a side note, in many ways SF and to a lesser extent SP are just as much if not more origin stories than CR. But that's for another topic.
Interesting.
Considering that they spun an entire movie out of Madeleine's one line in SP, I'd say they could come up with a movie built around, say, Bond's assassination of the Japanese cipher clerk.
The thing about Bond is he’s a pretty enigmatic character who rarely looks back himself. Even in GE, SF, and SP there’s a sense of restraint in how much they tell us (Bond certainly never talks about his past too openly and certainly not sentimentally), and with SP and GE specifically it’s much more about the villain’s past than Bond’s.
Personally, I think Bond’s most interesting as a seasoned professional - preferably when he’s 007. I don’t think we need to know too much about his past and I think showing his family directly is a big no-no (Bond is a loner fundamentally, and Fleming makes clear he has no living relatives), and in practice an origin film would be surprisingly boring.
Yeah. Well put. CR did it brilliantly, so don't need an origin story anymore...and like you said it can be boring. In fact, I think Nolan was the first director to make an origin story interesting with Batman Begins. Because before Nolan, most directors usually showed the character's step-by-step evolution in such a linear way that most scenes become boring and lack rewatch value. CR did it brilliantly without following Nolan's non-linear style.
SF showed Bond's past well too, But SP perhaps went a bit too far, all in all, it wasn't that ultra-terrible. So for the next era, they can continue with the villain and his past. The femme fatale and her past. Felix's past, Q's past, etc. They can do anything, but just let Bond be Bond and let him remain mysterious, without us knowing anything more about him...maybe little sprinkles here and there, but nothing too profound or it being the main plot.
I think SP only fumbles insofar as the idea of Blofeld and Bond knowing each other as kids is a bit eye rolling. Otherwise there’s actually even less about Bond’s past than in SF and how it impacts him.
I like Batman Begins, but the non linear origin story I don’t think benefitted Man of Steel (haven’t seen it in a while, but it’s a very strangely ordered film - IIRC we see Kent saving people earlier on in the film as an adult, but later in the narrative, which feels like it should be a later decision in the story that makes him become Superman). I’m glad CR didn’t go down the route of a Bond in his 20s who’d never worn a tuxedo before (that’s another issue with a Bond origin story like that - it’s not Bond as we know him, whereas you can more easily have a Batman/Superman one as their origins are baked into the concept of their characters. Again, Bond’s more mysterious).
An origin story works better for a superhero, as it is inherent to the genre: an ordinary person receives extraordinary powers, in one form or another. For crime fiction, adventure stories or spy thrillers, origin stories risk looking like a dramatised CV, or a biopic. In fact, they are pretty much fictional versions of biopics. And biography gets in the way of story and plot.
I am interested to see how Peter Parker got superpowers (albeit not as often as it has been depicted on the big screen), or how Bruce Wayne became Batman. But how James Bond turned into 007, I think it should remain mostly background. I love to see how he got his Aston Martin in CR, but I don't care for a story that would explain how he loves this particular brand of car, or when he drank his very first martini.
I did not know that, that's fascinating.