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
That is why I think, starting with Bond 26, they will be ready for a change in tone. No, not with Tarzan yells or talking a wild tiger into backing off and sitting down, not with doofus local law enforcement (which started in DAF, not LALD -- in fact, the change in tone started with Connery's last Eon Bond, not with Moore's appearances). They tried to achieve this before, going from Dalton to Brosnan, and it went off-track I expect they'll get it done better this next time coming.
It will be next to impossible to do this without a reboot.
Well it won’t be possible to keep them, because Bond has left the service in this timeline. He may well return at the end of NTTD, but I doubt it.
Did Dalton's Bond have Tracy in his past ? or Dr. No, and so on ? Quite apparently not.
And likewise for Brosnan's Bond, and for Craig's Bond. Brosnan clearly did not have any of his predecessor's missions in his past, and the same for Craig. Likewise for the women in their lives.
I really think we'll get a complete reboot this time round, of course it depends on the choice of actor and the general direction, but I think it's safe to say the producers won't want to be tied down to the Craig arc going forwards.
I believe we'll see a new Q, Moneypenny and possibly a new M. I think with the continuity the series has tried to create with Craig's films, they'll see the box office recipts and try to continue in that same vain with the next actor. Another thing is people who watch Marvel films now, love continuity and feel that everything needs to be explained to them, I feel this will bleed over to Bond in general audience's thinking, so I reboot will be easier to explain
Well yeah, he did. It gets mentioned that he was married. Moore’s explicitly had been married to Tracy, Brosnan’s is shown to be uncomfortable when asked about marriage, suggesting he was too.
Exactly. All the pre Craig Bonds were married to Tracy.
Although some fans regard DAF as a follow up to YOLT, erasing OHMSS, I tend to think of Connery in DAF post grieving. He's let himself go a bit, gotten a little slower, mourned and aged. However by the time of the PTS, he's gotten enough energy back to viciously manhunt Blofeld, and get back to his old GF era self. :)
So it's cooked in for Connery and Lazenby, Moore, Dalton, Brosnan. There's nothing to separate it from them. Doesn't have to be presented on screen or in dialogue. It's there.
Felix to Della: "He was married once. A long time ago."
I like that idea, it I also like the idea of the Craig era being its own separate entity. I’d love for the next Bond film to be the final reboot this series undergoes for awhile.
That’s why I think Forever and a Day is a great blueprint. It can give an origin story, while being a one off, which is why it can work for both the fans and creative side of things. I know a lot of people don’t like continuation novels but FAAD makes a great starting point for the next movie.
While I don't think there is a need to go back to Bond's first mission for the next era, I'm not strongly opposed to such a prospect either, and, in that case, taking clues from Forever and a Day would seem natural. However, a straightforward adaptation wouldn't be as interesting as a reuse of the novel's premise (for his first mission, Bond is tasked to investigate the murder of the previous 007 and meets an untrustworthy femme fatale who is going to be sort of a mentor to him), while changing most of the story, from the supporting cast of characters and the threat to the locations.
Rather than the French Riviera that has already been visited many times by the series, such premise could take place elsewhere, in parts of the world where Bond has never been to the screen before. After Craig, I really hope Bond will visit new locations (Central Africa, United Arab Emirates, Nepal) or will return to places that have not been seen for a very long time in the series (India, Egypt, Japan, Brazil).
There is this idea going around that audiences today want everything explained to them and tied together in neat little bows, Marvel-style. I wonder whether that is really true for a general audience that would come out for a good Bond film and whether that is more of a narrative put forth by all the bloggers and vloggers who earn their advertising money by writing and narrating explainer articles and videos about all of the connections between films and foreshadowing and comics lore and easter eggs and whatnot.
I remember what it is now: Electra asks Bond if he 'has ever lost a loved one'. There's a pause, he looks a little uncomfortable and shifts his weight, and then changes the subject. I think it's fairly clear we're supposed to associate that with Tracy and that he's sensitive on the subject (a bit like the mention of his marriage in TSWLM).
It could relate to losing his parents, but I don't think filmgoers were aware of his being orphaned at that point...? Was it first mentioned in CR?
It was first mentioned in Goldeneye in the Soviet cemetery. Regarding Tracy, while I agree with you, I suppose that, for audience that would have only seen Brosnan's previous films, it could be a reference to Paris Carver.
Yes, good points both, that works.
In terms of continuity I do see Brosnan as more or less in the same continuity as Dalton: the opening of GoldenEye is actually set the year before The Living Daylights, and Bond is being evaluated by the new M (he knew her 'predecessor': possibly even Bernard Lee's M judging by the portrait on the wall), perhaps because she read in his file that he went rogue in Isthmus?
And as Dalton was married, it kind of follows that Brosnan was too. His Bond even knows the Bond family motto, which he was only told about by Sir Hillary Bray! :)
Casting a new Bond is obviously challenging but there are clear positives.
PS In terms of future tone, one issue re going for a lighter tone is that it will bring Bond closer to MI. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? The darker tone of the DC era has created "clear water" between Bond and MI IMHO
Personally, I hope that the next era will be synonymous with a clean slate. No mention of Vesper, Madeleine. Everything will depend on the age that will be given to the future iteration, on his experience but, if the idea is that this Bond has already been an agent for a few years, it might be smart, nevertheless, to suggest or even to openly say he had a tragic love affair in the past, and that this experience structured his behavior and shaped his psyche. The audience would then have the choice of interpreting this reference (is it Vesper? a similar character?) and the door would remain open. This leads me to say that I wish the next Bond will still express regrets or will have tears when the plot calls for his humanity. I however agree about the family connections.
I just hope that when Bond 26 gets around the writers/producers feel less need to hark back to the past films. Spectre was almost as bad as Die Another Day for spot the reference. One or two small subtle references are the way to go, like Bond going undercover as an Ornithologist in DAD, that was perfect and would have been enough for me.
I think with NTTD, it looks like they've nailed it with references being subtle
Thanks for the reminder ! They really mixed it up with Dalton's pair of films. New Bond, clearly not of the same generation as the prior three actors, but bringing back the same M -- not just the same actor. New Bond, but a mature one, who already was musing about leaving the job (in TLD). They lined him up with a new Felix actor -- a vastly underwritten Felix, and the actor looked like "Mr. 80s" -- and had the better idea but not until the following film, to bring back David Hedison. That was odd, in and of itself -- were we just supposed to forget the Felix from the prior film ? Oh well, they changed Felixes during Connery's run like it was of no concern at all. They were on quite a roll and it didn't matter. One of the things I like about TB was that the Felix was -- though blonde -- evocative of the DN Felix. Same body type. Connery's other Felixes looked like desk jockeys.
That is kind of Bond's thing though: he dresses classically, his home is chintzy, he works in an oak-panelled classical building, he drives an old car (in Fleming too) whereas the villains all wear modernist nehru collar suits and live in Ken Adam-futuristic lairs - Bond has always represented the old and the new is seen as evil.
I'm not sure that's a great thing (and it's kind of a slightly disturbing message in many ways), but it is true to Bond. I think you're right to say that Moore's Bond was probably the most modern and up-to-date (in regards to his present day) that Bond ever got. I wouldn't necessarily mind them dropping that angle.
I think it would be weird if the new Bond actor keeps referencing Vesper or Madeleine. They're just so tied to the Craig era, and aside from SF, are constantly brought up in the narrative.
It's not like Moore/Dalton/arguably Brosnan with a brief mention of Tracy every third film or so...
PS there is great potential for banter between Bond and Q if offered an electric car.
The Batman might be terrible for all we know..