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
Did you make that? Really too funny.
I think this is all probably true; an expanded "Bond universe" can be started in ways like this. I think the crucial factor lies in introducing new characters in films of their own that are interesting in and of themselves, without any references to Bond, and to reveal these films are part of the "Bond universe" only at a later stage. The Split/Unbreakable situation. If you begin by thinking whether Natalya or Silva --already existing characters-- can be interesting in their own films, you're doing it wrong. It's about creating new characters to later integrate with Bond. It can't be done with Bond girls, but it can be done with villains and other agents. The number of existing hardcore fans is of no importance if you do things like this, because you begin by making films without capitalizing on Bond at all, working with mainstream audiences, and only reap the rewards of "crossover appeal" at a later stage.
I pray to God nothing like this happens, but I have no reason to think the Bond producers are entertaining the idea in any serious way.
So how come Dunkirk was released this year? Should've been 2016 or 2018 according to that?
But I take your point - Babs and MGW just seem to have lost their desire.
I would've enjoyed seeing a prequel of Bond and Trevelyan working together on a mission.
The thing is - outside of us on forums like these, would anyone even remotely care for such films? Forget the discussion about Bond fan base and whatnot. Does anyone actually believe there is a market for a Bond villain film without Bond? Or a Bond girl film without Bond? Sean Connery made Bond films without Goldfinger or Red Grant, Roger Moore made film without Jaws or Solitaire, Pierce Brosnan made Bond films without Natalya, Daniel Craig made Bond films without Vesper or Silva. Would any of the opposite examples had worked? Who would want to watch a Goldfinger solo movie without Connery Bond? Or a Jaws movie without Roger Moore winking at him? Or Natalya's every day life without Brosnan? Or Silva hacking stuff without Craig Bond hunting him down? That's the main argument that is very hard to prove for Bond spinoffs. Would anyone care about a solo movie about a villain to introduce his character before Bond takes him down? Even myself as a big Bond fan, I don't have any interest in a Le Chiffre, Silva or Stromberg introduction film, I'd just skip it and go straight to the actual Bond film with with Craig Bond/Moore Bond or whoever. The entire franchise resolves around Bond, in 24 films he outnumbers the hours of screen time of every other character at least 20 times over. Even the cult classic Bond characters like Jaws, Goldfinger, Oddjob have no point in existing if Bond isn't there for the confrontation.
IMAX short feature. Clever concept and resolution. Focus on one location, maybe two. Same Bond actor as the latest films, or get another actor to fill in if that's what it takes.
Then stick the dang thing on a Bluray with the next film whenever it goes to disk. Easy.
None of those characters were written with a view to support a spin off so its not surprising that none of them have any spin off potential. They were there to work around the main character (Bond) and most are just cardboard cutouts in terms of their lack of depth or potential to hold a movie on their own. You can either create a new character that appers in mainstream Bond and then spin off or go down the Bourne Legacy route of having a brand new character who exists within the same World.
A spin off movie can exist in the World of MI6 but have no direct connection with Bond himself. We know from GE that agents sometime work together but we also know from the Bond series that most of the time they work alone. Which works well in terms of another double 0 agent who works with M, Q, Tanner. But they would have their own completely seperate back story, set of skills, character and relationships with the supporting characters.
We know that there are mulitple double O agents managed my M. To follow one of these agents on a mission IMHO does not threaten Bond in terms of his ability to his job and for us to follow him on future missions.
Forget the discussion about whether a Bond related spinoff is theoretically possible for 1 minute, please. The point that me, @RC7 and a few others are trying to explain here is there is no market whatsoever for such spinoffs films if James Bond himself is not featured in these films. No one is arguing there isn't storytelling possibilities for Bond villain spinoffs, Bond girls spinoffs, or Double 0 agents spinoffs. The cold hard fact you don't want to understand is no one even remotely cares for any movie that doesn't feature Bond. And the whole discussion we had today only concerns a potential cinematic medium. No matter what A list actor/actress you cast as the lead in a Bond spinoff, and no matter how interesting and multi-dimensional that character may be, the spinoff will massively underperform (if not be a box office flop) compared to the previous or future Bond film the character will appear in. Nobody on this planet has any interest in seeing any kind of MI6 regular, main villain, ally character or Bond girl in their own film where James Bond is not featured in. People want Bond 25. No one will show up to a Q spinoff, a MP spinoff, or even an introduction film for Irma Bunt (if she will be in B25) if Daniel Craig's Bond won't be in it. And if Craig Bond does show up, it might as well be Bond 25 instead of wasting everyone's time.
I wish I could speak with such certainty
And I wish you could understand the facts presented to you because this whole discussion will keep going round in circles until you do.
On the TV medium, games medium, marchandise medium, comics medium and novel medium there is a world of possibilities for a Bond universe. Cinematic Bond wise, there is only a demand for actual Bond films, and nothing else.
But what's the point? Why make this instead of a Bond film? I was going to invest in EON and they said do you want shares in the Bond series or the new made up random double 0 agent series I think I might plump for the former.
The only benefit that could come out of this is then the PC brigade could have their female Bond/black Bond/gay Bond/wheelchair Bond/tranny Bond/single parent muslim with one leg on heroin Bond without a) it affecting the main series b) the rest of us having to put up with them banging on about it.
'Double 0 Diversity'
001 - Idris Elba
002 - Gillian Anderson
003 - Graham Norton
004 - Tanni Grey Thompson
005 - Sue Perkins
006 - That Nadia who used to be on Bake Off
008 - Grayson Perry
009 - Stephen Hawking
M - Ralph Fiennes*
Q - Ben Wishaw
Moneypenny - Naomie Harris
Tanner - Rory Kinnear
An explosive new series set inside the glamourous world of James Bond (just without James Bond) brought to you by legendary producers Barbara Broccoli, Michael G Wilson and Tony Hayers that follows the thrilling espionage adventures of the Double 0 Diversity section.
Episode 1 - Casino Right Royale Cock Up
The team's first mission doesn't quite go to plan when 006 is denied entry for refusing to remove her veil and 004 and 009 can't get up the steps.
Meanwhile back at HQ 005 gets into a slanging match with Tanner arguing over who has the least screen presence.
*Afraid as the incumbent M youre automatically committed to doing 5 seasons of this dross. Should've checked the small print on your conetract Ralph.
What if it was a blofeld film?
In a way, it's kind of how I feel when watching the 1967 CASINO ROYALE spoof, even though it's got David Niven as Sir James and a ton of other agents claiming the number of 007.
Nope. I don't care. No Bond not worth the time.
I agree with that. Bond doesn't have enough appeal to sustain a Marvel/Star Wars style assembly line universe (and thank god for that). But there is potential for it to be expanded. But they have to earn the audience and the crossover appeal first.
Split is probably the best example of this. I know it's a bit of a cult classic but would the majority of cinema goers really cared about a sequel to Unbreakable? That's not really something that has mass appeal. But Split was a great film in itself first and foremost that did very well because of good reviews/word of mouth. And then the Unbreakable link at the end has drummed up excitement for the next one.
Same with Bond. You're not going to have fanboys queuing round the block for the next installment in the adventures of 008, sticking around for the after credits scene with a special Tiger Tanaka cameo that sets up Moneypenny 5. But Bond's world is interesting. If they make good, original stories and find a way to link Bond into them in the future (e.g. setting up a future villain or future Bond girl in their own film), that could potentially be a really rewarding experience for the audience.
I'm not keen on the idea at all because I think any sort of spinoff would dilute the brand but I don't think it'd be the end of the world either. I mean technically the Conjuring movies and various spinoffs are a shared universe and they're really good for the most part, it doesn't feel like that franchise has been played out/run into the ground at all. I'd be pissed off if they just did what every other blockbuster seems to be doing and tried to do a Marvel style universe that all feel the same and just an excuse to set up the next one, but I think some lower budgeted films (Split, Conjuring) have shown that doesn't have to be the case.
But like I said I think any sort of film spinoff risks making each film feel less special, less of an event. It's always a big deal when Bond comes out, at least here in the UK. The cinemas and everywhere else go all out with the advertising, you hear about it on the news, you get TV specials promoting it, etc. I've got older family members who won't know or care about Avengers or Star Wars in the slightest but will ask me about the new Bond film when it's coming out because they'll have heard about it. It's really something special. Start pumping out spinoffs and I'm worried you'd lose that. I'm open to a Bond TV series that has nothing to do with the films, and I'd like them to start making proper Bond video games again, but that's about it. Don't run it into the ground, leave the films as they are (although getting them out a bit more often would be nice).
It sounds good on paper but there is no way to make it work. Of all the audience who went to see DAD, CR, QOS, GE, TSWLM or whatever, the % who would have shown up for an introduction film for characters from those films is practically zero. How many people do you think would show up to see Natalya's daily life as a Severnaya technician? Or Stromberg's every day handing of his business empire? Or Le Chiffre travelling around the world meeting various villain to collect their money? Or Colonel Moon trafficking blood diamonds to buy hovercrafts? Or Dominic Greene's doing shady deals for 2 hours? Or Max Zorin going to the horse races on weekends while having random business meeting on week days? No character that appear in Bond films will ever work on their own without James Bond also being present.
Rather than deal with absolutes, it is interesting to at least discuss what maybe possible? It is a discussion forum after all.
"good, original stories" "link them in future" - this is what would be required. Not take old characters from previous Bond movies that were never designed for that. But to create stronger, deeper characters that can stand on their own two feet and support their own plot lines.
"Bond's world is interesting" Surely we can all agree on that? and to explore it some more via different avenues is something IMHO worthy of discussion/consideration.
If anything, this discussion demonstrates the limitations in some of the existing characterizations (unsurprising, because most exist only in a 2 hr timeline).
A tv series which expands on the universe with deeper and more meaningful depictions (which would be possible over 12 episodes or so), could help to create excitement for an upcoming Bond film, even if Bond were never featured in the tv series or even mentioned.
Ultimately the tv series must stand on its own two feet, be interesting in itself, and not depend on Bond for survival. The stories and portrayals must be rich and self sustaining in themselves. Some characters can then populate future Bond films from time to time (not essential, but possible).
Well, I'm saying you can make a standalone film about a group of villains (perhaps from a criminal organization facing off against another one-- there you have a confrontation), without telling anyone it's set in the Bond universe, and then make another film in which said villains face off against Bond. With those that survive, you can make more standalone films, with Bond nowhere in sight, before they face off against 007 once again. That's a way of introducing interesting, fleshed-out characters apart from Bond. Shyamalan's Split did it; all you have to do is make a good, commercial film that stands on its own. You can't do that with Bond girls, only with villains and other agents. But you can do it.
Goldfinger, Silva and the others are not interesting enough when you imagine films centered around them, but that's because you only know them from the Bond films they were in. It's another thing to introduce a character in his own film. And there are plenty of films about villains.
Well those are characters who already exist, they were written for a specific film, so of course they wouldn't work in their own film. The idea here would be fleshing out a character in their own film before tying it into Bond and setting up the next Bond film at the end. Basically making a new film that stands on its own merits with a character worthy of carrying their own movie, and then reaping the benefits afterwards in the next Bond film. And there's already an example of this working. Split was basically one long villain origin story setting up an Unbreakable sequel, but it worked because it was a good film on its own. It didn't try to set up a universe or have loads of links and nods, it just told a good story really well and then at the end teased a crossover with another story. And if you did that with Bond it'd resonate even more because unlike Unbreakable people actually care about Bond. And you make the villain examples sound deliberately boring but there have been tons of great films made about the rise to power and day to day activities of criminals. And it wouldn't matter if not all the audience members had seen the introduction film because the new Bond film would still give them all the information they need (this is the bad guy, Bond is after him). The events of the introduction film would probably just be mentioned in M's briefing.
I don't want to see this happen. But to say "nope, not listening, wouldn't work" over and over is incredibly shortsighted imo, especially when I've already given a very successful example of what I'm talking about. If it worked with Split, which in the end set up a sequel to a film that most people had either not seen or forgotten about, then it'd work with a recognisable franchise like Bond. That is, as long as the film itself is good in its own right. Make a good stand alone film first, make money off the crossover appeal in the next one is the idea.
Not saying it's a good idea, just trying to point out there are more approaches to the concept than just traditional spinoffs or a Marvel style universe. And if it was a good film I think it would be successful.
To be fair the script that P&W wrote for it has a good rep, and they used some ideas from it in Casino Royale - the original Jinx script is supposed to be more in the tone of CR rather than DAD.
Who gave you that messed up eye Le Chiffre? Yo mamma?