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
I haven't seen the second Hitman film, but the trailer for it put me off. Why can't they get Agent 47 right? :-??
Just walking around holding a gun near your face does not make you a credible actor to play Bond.
Comes across as a poor man's Gerard Butler or an even poorer man's Craig Fairbrass. Awful.
Because Hollywood isn't interested in faithfully adapting the source material for the screen. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if there wasn't a vault of screenplays somewhere in LA that they delve into every so often and pull one out that's close enough to whatever the hottest video game is at the moment and then some minimal work is put into tailoring it for the existing property and into production it goes. Some of these game adaptations are so far off that this seems to be the only way that some of them could possibly be put together.
As for the two actors who have played Agent 47, I don't think that there's been anything wrong with them. Both Olyphant and Friend are good actors. Sometimes, and this is often the case in video game films, the material is too poor for anyone to overcome.
in Brexit In The Morning
in Brexit For Dinner
in For Queen And Union
in Fear And Loathing In Britain
in Leave Of Balance
in The Brexit Referendum
in Article 50
You know, the last two are rather catchy.
Wouldn't surprise me. Speaking of Wild Wild West, wasn't the massive spider towards the end of that film itself lifted from Kevin Smith's aborted Superman Lives?
The film itself is not necessarily groundbreaking as cinema, but in the context of Bond I would say it is. It would ideally be the first film for a new Bond. It would take someone of Craig's calibre to sell it right out of the gate.
Actually first off here's the teaser trailer. Roughly. The impact of this trailer would be increased if we didn't know yet who our new James Bond is.
We're in M's office. "Six agents dead," the trailer begins. Quick couple shots of this; an assignment gone wrong perhaps an agent getting shot, another's car exploding. M is addressing, presumably, Bond. "All done by a vicious traitor."
We cut to a rather menacing villain type. Shaved head, doing violent, brutal stuff. I'm thinking we see him snap someone's neck in a bare knuckle fight or something. Just something that's really f---ed. This is only a teaser trailer but I want it to establish quickly that this is not your grandma's Bond movie. Something with an edge so hard that the Craig films might as well be made of Jell-O.
We cut between our presumptive new James Bond and our presumptive villain, both in action, a few times, and also the gunbarrel which proceeds a bit further each time we see it. But Bond in the gunbarrel is silhouetted, we cannot see his face. The agent is addressed as "007". Our agent asks something like "What's his name?" Before we cut once more to our "villian", who states determinedly:
"Bond. James Bond."
BANG! The gunbarrel completes, and the silhouette clears to reveal our new James Bond... the villain, now with a full head of hair. /trailer
Whoa whoa whoa whoa! Put the pitchforks down! James Bond is NOT actually the villain! He didn't kill those agents! He has been set up Mission:Impossible style in our pre-credits sequence.
Now. Bond going rogue has happened before. LTK and QoS. But. Has he ever been branded, truly, a traitor? Has he ever been condemned a la Alec Trevelyan, had his codename stripped and given to another agent? No.
Bond goes on the run, changes his appearance, and integrates himself into the criminal underworld to find the person who set him up, bring him to justice, and clear his name. He's sharing the screentime with the new 007, who is on Bond's trail but who also ultimately uncovers Bond's innocence and works alongside him to bring the REAL villain to justice. There are elements of LTK in there but not to the extent that this film pushes. The implication is that Bond has lost himself in this world for weeks, if not months.
Now, spoiler alert, but to assuage everyone's fears: the new 007 does not remain 007. Once Bond wins, he gets his codename and licence to kill restored, and the new 007 becomes 006 or 009 or something. I like 006. I even like maybe having his name be Alec Trevelyan. Not because he's going to turn traitor in a later film; purely as a fun throwback to Bond fans. This would be a total reboot of the character, a younger agent, sort of a reflection of Bond's younger self. There's the possibility for him to appear in future films as a cameo or supporting character, but it's not necessary. He is sort of the deuteragonist with Bond in this one, as the film is as much about Bond taking down the villain as it is Trevelyan pursuing and investigating Bond.
This is all a very rough idea still, as it all sort of came to me at once. But I actually really, really like what I've got in my head so far.
This is why...
A: it shouldn't be for several films
B: It should be a new Bond's first film, after one or two tenures where he's gone on several adventures, maybe even put Blofeld behind him. Where he's given and lost for years saving the world, and now it's not entirely unfeasible for him to turn traitor and snap
But I also agree with your point
I should elaborate.
Craig's Bond appears to have a self-contained narrative. Whether he does one more or not. That would mean his adventures would be a non-factor. We'd be back to the days of the first 20 films. A sense of continuity in the notion that this character has been on all of his past adventures, but not a specific "beginning" and "end" per se. This would be the first film in this timeline where he's gone rogue at all. I didn't specify this, but M also has extreme doubts about Bond being a traitor. He assigns Trevelyan with taking Bond down second; investigating him and whether or not he truly is a traitor first.
WTF, @StirredNotShaken, are you DisneyBond whateverhisname in disguise?
Excuse me? I've been a member here since you were getting your arse wiped. I've had my bouts of inactivity but I'll thank you to avoid comparing me to, of all people, Disney. Are you a troll hiding in plain sight? Oh right, you are.
Craig really needs two more films to do the novelistic YOLT/TMWTGG arc justice. He is the perfect person for that job. Sadly, it probably won't happen.
I like the Rupert Friend idea a lot.
I like the idea of the new 007 mirroring Bond's younger self. To really sell this I think you'd need a rugged, middle aged sort of actor. Maybe even hint at the Blofeld/Tracy stuff in conversation (since it's a reboot you could incorporate that as part of his backstory), to show that he's a more seasoned agent, especially compared to the more idealistic younger guy.
I agree to an extent. I think that if Spectre had really nailed what it was trying to be, which was on some level some kind of a modern update of On Her Majesty's Secret Service, then I'd be all in favor of seeing Craig continue on for You Only Live Twice and The Man With the Golden Gun. But, with SP being the film that it is, I don't really feel as though this era has earned the YOLT storyline, and I'd honestly fear how poorly it would turn out given the level of writing we've seen from the franchise under the watch of the current regime. There's no doubt they'd have top-level talent in front of the camera and in the director's and cinematographer's chairs, but without the writing, it's all for nothing.
Welcome to the club. :)
Bond set up and having to fend for himself is interesting, but as others have said, is a bit close to the 'rogue' scenario which has been overused.
Perhaps a compromise may be to have him sent by M to infiltrate the criminal underworld intentionally, in order to get close to a supervillain, rather than being 'set up'.
PS: I think there is a thread specifically for B25 ideas:
http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/13322/realistic-serious-story-ideas-for-bond-25-to-be-used-by-eon-productions-ltd#latest
Let alone that the beginning you described above reads more like a Jason Statham flic than a Bond film.
I find the assumption that SP somehow tried to be like OHMSS quite unfounded. And given the history of much more entertaining Bond films with no better scripts, I find it unjustified to blame the writers more than the director and producers.
Not saying that it was trying to be a direct remake or anything, but they were clearly trying to set Madeleine up as a Tracy-like figure. Her background is similar, Bond makes a deal with her criminal father to keep an eye on her (marriage in OHMSS, protection in SP), the two fall in love, which is expressed after she saves Bond in a critical moment (car chase in OHMSS, Hinx fight and torture sequence in SP), and so on.
The rest of it, of course, isn't an OHMSS remake, but the dynamic between Bond and Madeleine is meant to mirror Bond and Tracy, especially given the "We have all the time in the world" line that was cut from the end of the film.
It can be in the scripts or in the trailer all it wants, but those are not the film.