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
Bond, like Sherlock Holmes and Tarzan, has far outlived the time and space in which he was created. I think it a mistake to constrain the series within a grand continuity. It’s not necessary. It stretches credulity. But this conversation is complicated by the fact that the same family of producers have guided the series since the very first film (CR ‘54, ‘67 and NSNA notwitwstanding). This unique continuity of ownership is a guardrail against the most odious interpretations of the character, but it has made us complacent and resistant to change. The "Bond formula" is the franchise's most distinctive asset and its heaviest millstone.
There will be interpretations of the character that veer closer to Fleming, interpretations that are of their time, and interpretations shaped by the artistic genre in which they’re presented. A video game is as different from a novel as a movie is different from a comic book. But that’s the consequence of having a character stay popular for so long. That’s the consequence of keeping a character going beyond the lifespan of its creator. That’s the consequence of making a character into a multimedia empire. I’m not saying that every interpretation of Bond (or any character) is created equal but interpretation is the fertilizer that keeps Bond evergreen. We’ve had those interpretations tightly controlled either by EON or the Fleming estate. This won’t always be the case, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing.
One thing I will say is that what we will see in 2028 is a reverse of what we saw in 1995, when the coldwar ending and supposedly the world switched to peace and cooperation and the need for Bond went away. Now in the 2020's geopolitics has become alive in a far visceral way than it has been, and the question will be how Bond plays a part in the new world. Its almost as if we've come full circle in a weird. Bond was created in a cold war environment, then the fighting eventually ended and Bond had to find his own reason for existing, then the old Bond was killed off just as a new multi-polar world was being created, and now we will have gone back to were we started with a fresh character, facing a new world of threats. That's why my one solid story prediction which I think is ironclad is that I think the story will be much more well defined and intricate than the last few films. Think TLD where there's a lot of moving parts, not just vague ideas about nanobots or surveillance, or "mommy or daddy didn't love me".
I remember reading here that for NTTD an original idea was for there to be an impending hurricane going through Safin’s island. I guess the idea was that Bond would open the shutters/shield or whatever, thus opening Safin’s base to the effects of the storm/destroying it. I’m relatively sure I read it here anyway and haven’t made it up….
I think that broad idea could work. There’s something quite fatalistic about it, and I like the idea of Bond thinking on his feet/figuring out that’s the way to destroy the villain’s lair.
Indeed, @mtm. Hence why I think it could be refreshing to put Bond against the chaos of Mother Nature. Not as a "villain", mind, but as a dramatic background and obstacle.
I suppose we get a blizzard in OHMSS when Bond and Tracy hide in the barn. But other than that I can't think of any other example of Bond being in the midst of Mother Nature, and I'd be up for it!
I always thought an internal narration like the MC in The Killer would be interesting, though Bond might be less mysterious in that way.
Good catch!
I’d say yes to M featuring in every movie ideally (short of a FYEO type thing, and even then Tanner fulfils the role of imparting information to Bond), but not necessarily two to three Bond girls per movie. I do think there should be a supporting female character and love interests for Bond of some type though.
I think it’s just about what makes James Bond… well, James Bond. Take away some of those fundamental parts of the formula and there’s a sense it’s something different.
If anything I think the Craig era showed things could be shaken up, albeit while keeping that Bondian spirit in there. To be honest the series has always experimented with different creative directions while keeping the franchise distinctive and iconic, and it’s always stood apart from its contemporaries.
What is the true Batman? Does Batman need Robin in order to be “the” Batman? Does Batman need to be a billionaire? Does Alfred need to feature in every Batman story for it to be a proper Batman story? Can Batman be married or should he forever be a bachelor? Is Michael Keaton the true cinematic interpretation of Batman or is Robert Pattinson?
Bond, like Batman, has core characteristics that may be non-negotiable but everything else exists (or not) to serve whatever story is being told. Great Bond films have been made within the formula’s framework, and not-so-great Bond films have been made within that same framework. But there’s no law governing the franchise that says it can only exist in that particular framework. Even Fleming’s novels differ significantly (but not entirely) from each other if you group them as early, middle and late period books. You Only Live Twice is a different type of story than Casino Royale. Quantum of Solace is a different type of story than The Living Daylights.
If you're talking about Bond and what his characteristics are, then womanising is very central to his character. Like I said that doesn't mean there has to be three Bond women in a film. M is in some form pretty constant to almost every interpretation of Bond, and I think it's only under extraordinary circumstances that a Bond story wouldn't feature the character. It could be done I guess, but it'd be a very unusual Bond narrative.
I do agree though that dependent on the story and what EON want to explore in a particular film there's a lot of room for variation and interpretation. That's very natural and you can't really have a long running series without that. But a big part of the Bond films is also about staying true to the character and even those very broad expectations of 'the formula'.
Batman's the same by the way. The latest film is a very particular interpretation of the character, but ultimately it's a film that tries to stay true to the character and isn't just some consciously 'different' take for the sake of it. So ultimately I agree with you, and at the end of the day the specifics of this variation (and whether it works) are dependent on the story. That said I think the Bond formula is much more fundamental here in many respects, especially for the films (ie. they're very much good vs evil narratives, so there'll be an antagonist/villain and you can't really craft a Bond story without them. Bond will have allies as well, and 99.9% of the time it'll be M).
I didn’t mean to suggests, in a previous post, that Bond shouldn’t have a love interest or be a romantic lead. I was trying to illustrate, through rhetorical questioning, that so much of what we think as indispensable to the series can be creatively crafted or creatively bankrupt. The character of James Bond should be specific and consistent, but the series doesn’t have to be beholden to tradition for its own sake. Formula works until it doesn’t.
I’ve said before that the current fallow period in the series may be the most consequential. EON has the opportunity to asses the marketplace in a way that’s similar to but more significant than the break between ‘89 and ‘95. The nature of filmmaking and moviegoing is going through some drastic changes.
I agree broadly in the sense that they don't have to repeat the same thing every time. But I think when I tend to talk about the Bond 'formula' I personally think it can be about much more fundamental aspects of these stories than simply tradition or superficial/short term audience expectation (again, it's why I mentioned antagonists/villains - Bond films are, at the end of the day about good vs evil, so some character will fulfil that role. That's part of the Bond formula I'd say). But ultimately it's a case of what specifically they'd do that would be different, how it would work with the specific story/film in this case, and how it works with (or even builds upon) those fundamental aspects of Bond/these stories.
ROFL!
I understand “The Bond Formula” to be a summation of how these particular set of films are written, produced and sold (to the public). Every heroic story, going back to Gilgamesh, is about the battle between good and evil. But “The Bond Formula” is a fixed distinction of characteristics, themes and motifs.
In Double or Nothing, Sir Bertram Paradise does want to make climate change worse. Although that was the other Double-00s and not (arguably) Bond himself.
Ironically, the Absolute Batman comic run right now is dealing with what if Bruce Wayne wasn't a billionaire. And it's been getting great reviews, and at least three reprints to keep up demand. Same with Absolute Superman and Wonder Woman. Bond can be different in different universes. Preferably in the literary media only, though. Change up the cinematic formula too much, and the general audience will feel a bit alienated.
Also, on a side note, it is time for the cinematic Batman to start using Robin, Batgirl and other members of the Bat-Family again. Hopefully, The Batman Part 2 and The Brave and the Bold will truly follow through with this. I'm tired of Batman being a loner, and being almost too realistic. It's somewhat as tiring of a trademark as Bond resigning from MI6.
Whatever blockbusters precede the next Bond film, I hope the writers will trust their own writing to come up with something original rather than borrowed from or a reminder of other successful films.