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
If this is Swann. I can guarantee that Lea Seydoux will play a significant role in the film. Which probably explains why we haven’t heard about any other female casting (aside Lupita). She’s the lead again.
https://www.instagram.com/hollybeauties/p/BvkC8aFg9nA/?utm_source=ig_share_sheet&igshid=12v1xskmnu20
I agree, Lea is back for a major part in Bond 25.
Agreed. I offered this same prediction one hour ago.
What's interesting is that since Madeleine was the one who made Bond quit in SP, now in the sequel she will be the one who makes him come back to his job. If our speculation turns out to be true. You can't escape the past, especially if it's a dark one.
Then the notion of childhood trauma as a curse chasing the victim is something really in the vein of Fukunaga's previous work. Plus, it would be very interesting the theme about Bond being cursed with his assassin life, at the same time, no matter the choices he makes.
how do you know thats how it plays out. sounds good though
Just pure speculation sir, based on the info we had (young blonde girl resembling a young Madeleine, the trusted reports [Baz + Variety] that both this Norway scene and Matera will feature in the beginning of the movie etc etc).
Agree 100% - dreams and nightmare sequences are not in the style of Bond - the scene is a real character/action scene which will have dramatic meaning later on…
i hope not bbecause if that opens the film i bet theres no gun barrel
Based on what?
Well, that's up in the air I guess. I do think, because Bond is out of Mi6, the gun barrel may seem wrong -- but Cary is clever, he may know how to plant the GB or re-work it to suit such an opening.
@Gareth007. There’s absolutely no reason why the gun barrel still can’t be used to open the movie.
If the gun barrel doesnt open the film i will be very upset, regardless to how great film end up. Thats how much it means to me and other bond fans. It's a thrilling moment and special when you go see a bond movie, its what makes you realise your here for a 007 movie, not a generic action flick. But im sure it will return if it did in spectre.
Yes I understand the gun barrel could still take place, but i dont see how it would fit in well if its a flashback without bond appearing. The fact that this sequence is a flashback is bothersome to me anyway. dont think flashbacks fit well for bond films.
Ah, sorry I missed your post, but yes, I am with you on this. I think there is a lot of sense to opening the film that way - it covers quite a bit of ground, re-establishes a key character from SP and leads to the present in a gripping and dramatic way. And also feels very Cary Fukunaga.
I think you're bang-on here, @ColonelSun. Adding a few thoughts of my own:
-If they're leaning hard into continuing SPECTRE's characters and story, and I believe they are, it makes sense entirely that the remaining splinters of the organization would be just as interested in vengeance against Madeleine as they would Bond. She led him to Blofeld's lair, as did her father. They're as responsible for its destruction as the secret service agent who shot the fuel tanks.
-I love the duality in the idea of the PTS split between Madeleine running from SPECTRE killers (we assume) as a child, and then -- with Bond -- running from them again as an adult in the PTS. A mirroring, a layering, reaffirming for us (the audience) her greatest fear of taking up a life with Bond -- that she herself demonstrated, in "I can't go back to this life" -- they'll always need to be a step ahead of danger, of villainy. The thing she's tried so hard to run from follows her, her whole life. The spectre of death.
-Establishing this early also gives them an opportunity to avoid/subvert the too-obvious OHMSS/Bourne Supremacy comparison. I heartily agree, Madeleine is going nowhere in terms of character death -- at least certainly not quickly, or easily. That's too simple. And then it also runs dangerously close to being a Taken movie, if Bond is out to avenge her. He's already done that. Craig's played it. He's been vocally grateful about being done with the Vesper story. Why would he want to do a version of it again? That's not exactly going out with a "bang."
-Side note: I'm realizing now that "Let's go out with a bang" probably could/should have fit as Bond's final line in Pierce's final Bond film. ;)
-Final point: we've heard a great deal about the filmmakers wanting to increase the prominence of female roles in the story. I can think of no better way to do that than to not only bring Lea back, but make her a central part of the film. What a clever and powerful approach to subvert one of the most classic Bond tropes in a forward-looking way. It's a powerful statement. "No. A female 007 lead is not disposable. She's not just interchanged for a new lead in the next film. This is a major character in Bond's life. With real equity. She's part of his story. He loves her. She's going nowhere." I love that.
Apologies for the lengthy post. But I'm hyped today!
who knows really? i suppose it could work.
:))
Potential for an interesting Casino Royale callback if...
Some of us here think it is NOT a flashback - check the SPOILER posts on last 2 pages - but it is a scene set in the past which segues to the present, just as the GE opening was set in the past, and then jumped to the present (in that case, after the titles).
Not saying a nightmare/dream is likely, just positing it as a way to get young Madeleine and present-day Malek in the same scene. I suppose Malek could be playing both father and son in two time periods but that would make things more convoluted...
thats a very good idea and would be cool, but i still prefer gun barrels opening the film with the circles across the screen. However, everyone is assuming daniel craig isnt working for mi6 just becuase he threw is gun and went off with madaline. doesnt mean he quit. He could be just on holiday, on his honeymoon or something
100% agreed. This sums up my feelings and ideas perfectly. Thanks.
Having said that the video of this