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
Once No Time to Die is released and the consensus is in on how successful it is critically and financially, they'll keep their ear to the ground, and figure out what's working elsewhere because a lot can change between now and the scriptwriting process for Bond 26, let alone casting, which will in itself shape up what they go for in terms of tone and style...
...but I think we can be assured that they'll keep it modern. Whatever the case it'll be a James Bond film, cause no matter what the tone, style or point of reference, it has always remained the franchise we love :)
Dalton himself didn’t capture much imagination though: it was a lukewarm reception to him at best. Both Brosnan and Craig were immediately hailed as the successes of their movies when they appeared after. As you say, a serious Bond didn’t really bother people (TLD was probably lighter than FYEO!): Dalton just didn’t have the star power in the role.
I'm not really sure how you do a Bond spinoff, although I suppose Harris as Moneypenny could potentially have adventures with a different enough flavour to make them interesting and she wouldn't just be a Bond replacement, and I think she's really good, so I would possibly watch that.
1. Tom Hardy (or someone like him) is cast. Then we will have more Bond as Mr. ex-British special forces. A brute trying to be a gentleman. With stories about him infiltrating various criminal underworld organizations. Drug Cartels, armament king pins. The villain will be more like Largo in Thunderball
2. If James Norton (or someone like him) is cast, then we will have an Oxbridge grad and civil servant (with a brief stint in the forces). Who will try and infiltrate the corporate world. Big tech, Big pharma, Big Oil and High finance. The villain with be more along the lines of Elliot Carver in TND
Personally I am going to go with 1. given how much Jason Bourne type action heroes are popular with the general public.
Yes indeed: it is Bond's world so you would just end up wanting to know what Bond is up to! :D
But, I dunno: a Moneypenny Netflix series or something like that- a bit more conspiracy/techno thrillerish London-y thing... maybe even with a Q cameo... I could sort of see it working.
I have mentioned this before, but want to repeat that I would love a Wint and Kidd tv series, and also a Max the parrot series, possibly as a cartoon.
But if I was to give my own opinion on what they should do (maybe):
I would honestly tell EON to keep their eye on The Batman. I mean, we'll see what happens when we get closer to its release and after, but there's something about it that's connecting with audiences already. While the controversy of Pattinson's casting is apparent, it's certainly got its teeth rooted in the source material as well including a cast and crew that really speaks to modern audiences. And seeing Reeves' passion, I wouldn't someone like that (not specifically Reeves) giving James Bond a go.
I want a 30-minute, 20+ episodes a season sitcom about the office workers at MI6 who have to make all the unbelievable stuff that happens to their top spy work out somehow.
Do one season for one film in the franchise. Just imagine Steve in IT and Penny in Public Relations during Skyfall. Or Bruce and Lenny, the lovable North London guards, when Blofeld is brought in after Spectre. "Heard he's that Bond guy's borther." "Foster brother." "What?" "Foster brother. Everybody always says they are brothers, but it was like a two year thing." "How do you know that?" "He told me." "What?!" And so on and so forth.
I would also love a well produced docu-series - possibly even on YouTube - on the design and technology in Bond
Clearly, the world of James Bond as it exists today cannot be extended with spin-off. However, it doesn't mean it's impossible in the future. The Craig era really had this particularity to really be self-centered without presenting foreign intelligence services, automatically closing the door to any world-building. The previous continuity had this quality of introducing a whole mythology with various characters who, for some, could have been entitled to their own spin-off. I'm thinking in particular about Tiger Tanaka and Francisco Scaramanga (even if for the latter it would have been more of a prequel than anything else).
Bond 26 would gain I think to come back to this habit of creating a world of espionage, populated by colorful foreign agents and assassins. If that were the case, then consider a spin-off would appear much more natural and simple. Not that it is necessarily something I wish, but there would be something much less artificial. A new version Tanaka, or a similar character, for example, presented at first as an ally of Bond in a future installment could then be the subject of his own movie.
What I mean is there has always been incremental updates to the stories to make them feel like they take place in the modern world, but if we are reaching the point where the character himself is forced into occupying an antihero role for the rest of time, then perhaps we need to re-evaluate what takes precedence. Bond doesn't represent woke culture, and never has done, but is that necessarily a problem? Can't we just bite the bullet, accept the character the way he is and go along with it. Does bowing to the mob, and including some elements just to score woke points really improve ticket sales on opening weekend? The smart thing to do is to present the woke veneer of modernity that you or I inhabit as the layer of artifice under which the real work is done. We might have overlords and elites dictating our every move, but Bond is still part of the jungle. All he knows is life and death, success or failure. Fleming always used to write as if being a part of the most secret of service and seeing death on a daily basis, you almost become a different species all together, and Bonds hazing ritual into this life took place at the hands of Le Chiffre and that knotted rope. Craig has portrayed the character with a lot of humanity, that's his strong point, but it has meant that the character has almost become too human. I think that a darker take on the character would be well, in which he is not merely floating, flailing on top of a horrible business, but subsumed within it. But but to counterbalance this, the movies should also reintroduce a sense of humour, like a wicked dark cruelty, which we have seen before from Connery and Moore. The films need to move on from the realism they have sought to maintain since Craig arrived. I have no idea why people seem to think that the films must be serious and grounded in order to be a success. We've had decades of films that border on farce at times, didn't seem to matter too much, and being serious and poe-faced for the sake of it can be its own pitfall (see Quantum of Solace). This is very limiting, an in the past years we have seen franchises like Mission Impossible and Kingsman spring up to fill the void that Bond vacated. This is why I think Aidan Turner is perfect for the role, as I feel he could nail both the dark humour and also the introspective side, they it would need for someone to bridge that gap and portray it all convincingly in the same package. If you "Watch And Then There Were None" its a great prototype of how I could see the character in a few years.
There should keep good things from DC era. Opening of Spectre is good example.
Modern The Spy Who Love Me / Live And Let Die with cast of middle east or asian people.
Another Bond movie take place in VS or go to Ireland, Cypres.
Cyprus is a good thought: interesting political backdrop too.
Further to Pierce2Daniel's point about the Instagram generation, I wonder if Matera is the sort of destination we can expect to see more of i.e. slightly less well-known but extremely photogenic locations which Bond can sort of 'claim' onscreen.
In that regard Eon could consider adapting in some way Raymond Benson's second Bond continuation novel The Facts of Death (1998). The novel's plot deals with Cyprus, Turkey and the UK from a geopolitical standpoint.
I probably wouldn't, because it's fairly terrible! :D
PS its fascinating all the "fuss" we have had re race, gender and Bond whilst, via Skyfall (9 years ago) , we have seen a black, comparatively young (35) woman working shoulder to shoulder with Bond in the field and this hardly raised an eyebrow. If fans can try to put tradition to one side and just look at what could work re good story telling and established/ liked characters (and actors), a Naomi Harris spin off is just sitting there (or was) waiting to be made.
Films with other 00 agents I don’t really see the point of though: even if they were different to Bond they’d still be doing the same things as him, you’d likely end up with not-quite Bond movies; and then you’ve got Eon making rivals to their own series, which would be mad.
With Harris as Moneypenny I can imagine something a bit less action-based, probably more thriller-y, maybe even more drama-based.
...but what would differentiate a spin-off in the world of a modern, realistic spy even if slightly extravagant from just another spy film when the source material the entire franchise is based on is focused on one character?
Even with characters like M, Q, and Moneypenny - I just can't see how it could work.
It's been a long time since I last read it but I remember it being a decent enough plot and Bond novel in general. It could still be used as a starting point for a new Bond film plot.
Re the risks: to turn that on its head, the risks by not embracing a wider universe with different range of characters is that the franchise refuses to update and stuggles to keep up with it's competitors. Risk can work in both directions.
Of course, the execution is another issue. Dont get me wrong, it could be a stinker. But so could any movie. But the concept is sound IMHO
PS re the lack of original material, TBH, I think thats just push back based on tradition. How many movie fans know or care about the original Avengers written material? around the same as that who care about the original Bond books?
I tried reading it again about two years ago and I had to give up, it’s absolutely dreadful stuff- there’s a car chase where it really literally is just Bond pushing buttons. The baddies are a secret society who worship Pythagoras and triangles: there’s really nothing worth keeping there.
It will of course depend on whether Craig's supporting cast returns in Bond 26, but in the case it doesn't, it might be relevant and original to see Bond interacting with a new M (as in Goldeneye in a way) and while visiting his former superior. This could just be the occasion to bring Ralph Fiennes back as he expressed his desire to continue to be part of the series. Therefore, using Benson's situation, and why not make it the starting point of the story as in Facts of Death, albeit taking another direction, could be a bright idea.
I've not read it since I bought it in 1999 but I remember being impressed with the villain Konstantin Romanos and his organisation Decada which was like a trial run by Benson for the Union which first appeared in his next novel, High Time to Kill (1999). Granted, the Benson novels did tend to ape the sort of gadgets in cars that were featuring in the Brosnan Bond films at the time and in some of the earlier films. The brief from Glidrose was to bring the books in line with the current films with having a female M etc. so Benson was merely following that creative directive through in his Bond novels. In fact the groundwork towards that position had even started with the preceding John Gardner novels as the end of his last book Cold (1996) saw Bond about to go to meet the new female M after the retirement of the ailing Sir Miles Messervy.
If The Facts of Death were to be used at all (a big "if" I would imagine given the past history of the Bond continuations and Eon) then it would most likely only be adapted in part with original material making up the rest of the script. I don't think a full adaptation of any Bond continuation novel is really on the cards at the minute, especially while Michael G. Wilson is at helm. The Facts of Death (or any other continuation novel for that matter) could also be used, as @Herr_Stockmann suggests above, as a creative springboard should the writers find themselves between a rock and a hard place. In fact, it was just that type of creative bind during the writing of Spectre that led to the decision to adapt the torture scene from Colonel Sun when other original ideas weren't felt to be working in the scene between Blofeld and Bond.
Well no; it’s not the presence of gadgets which makes it bad: it’s that it’s extremely badly written. The problem is not that he was following their creative directive, the problem was that he was just a terrible writer.
Going to the old M’s place for dinner is fine (although not exactly fascinating or hugely exciting), but if that made it into a film we’d just get lots of people complaining about ‘Scooby gangs’ and Bond not being on his own enough etc.
Well, that's fair enough. I know Benson doesn't have a huge amount of fans in the online Bond community but I thought his books were passable for what they were. However, he wasn't really a writer and the Bond novels were his first works of fiction. He has went on to write his own fiction outside of Bond and has much more experience as a writer now. I'm much more a fan of Gardner myself who was a seasoned spy novelist but I don't feel the need to be unkind about Benson either. I know his Bond novels weren't everyone's cup of tea and criticism of him is to be expected. That said, he has his fanbase out there too just like any other Bond continuation author.
I don't know... People spoke about ‘Scooby gang’ because Q and Moneypenny were on the field and played an active role in solving the mission, rather than being secondary characters confined to a reduced appearance at the MI6 HQ. Begin a story with a sequence taking place at a dinner party attended by both the current and former M, serving as a starting point to the plot by leading Bond on a mission somewhere in a foreign country would be something radically different (as long as neither M takes part in the mission of course). I don't see why people would complain.
I disagree. As a teen, I remember vividly what a breath of fresh air TLD was, following the somnolent, geriatric AVTAK. The PTS had a younger Bond doing his own stunts, then a heavy dose of actual Fleming...
TLD has an amiable blend of fun and edge and it felt much younger and revitalized. True, the villains were not great and the third act falls apart, but that's true of many Bond films.