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
In a nutshell, there is no right answer here, it's just a matter of preference: If you have an interest in fitness and/or prefer to see Bond do his thing in a realistic world, more aligned with our own reality like CR/QOS, then it's likely you'll want the Bond physique to appear realistic too, and what is expected to match his activities of confronting real-world danger with deadly precision, landing insane stunts etc.
If your idea of Bond's world is a more fictional vibe - that heightened reality seen in the more fantastical/less grounded films that transports you away from our reality, then you might prefer Bond to look like the 'everyman'. A build somewhere between Connery and Brosnan is more relatable to the average guy who doesn't work out, and seeing that guy take on three assailants or scale a mountain offers a different level of escapism which stems back to 'Bond Physics 101', where the laws of physics are more distorted. There's a certain appeal of that slim guy taking on much bigger things than himself and succeeding, despite the odds.
I am pretty much Moore's build, but with broader shoulders (and Brosnan chest hair!). I used to work out at home 20 years ago and was gobsmacked with the results after just 6 weeks, getting that V-shape and lumps of muscle on my back (seriously, it's not hard to get that look in a short time - making a start and sticking with it after being satisfied with the results is harder). Unfortunately, after moving house, I got out of the routine and have regretted it ever since. I'd like to get back into working out at home but first, have to get one health issue out of the way that requires surgery.
If we're going with a more built Bond, then QOS is the preferred look for me, as he was leaner/more subtle than the previous film. Standards change over time, and it'll be fascinating to see how cinematic Bond is portrayed in the next era.
I don't like the idea of obviously separate continuities, sliding timescale notwithstanding. I don't want to see another cycle of Bond's origin, Bond meeting Q for the first time, Bond deciding to leave the service to be with the woman he loves, etc. Jump me into the action with Bond as an established agent.
Yes, movie Bond was especially likeable when he physically imposed himself on Pussy.
+1. I'm still waiting for an answer as to why smoking is bad but drinking six Vespers in a row is not.
And this is coming from someone who hates smoking (had to dump my girlfriend because she smoked indoors all the time) and loves strong drinks.
I think it's because you can basically divide people into smoker or non-smoker, whereas people who drink alcohol vary the amount more. I don't think I've met any smoker who regularly goes days without smoking, let alone weeks. I have a friend who is constantly trying and failing to give up smoking, and it's murder. I like a couple of glasses of wine, but I can and do avoid drinking alcohol three or four days a week, and it's not that difficult. Smoking is just that much more addictive, it's extreme.
Well, unfortunately yes, I don’t think that was supposed to make Bond unlikeable. It does to us now of course.
I actually wouldn’t mind a new origin. They’d have to handle it in a different way to CR of course, but I don’t mind seeing these relationships become established.
One option which was suggested was to see M setting up the Double O section; I think that could be fun.
I have to assume they won't want any comparisons to the last era, or with CR-- a jewel in their crown.
I am guessing we will have a Bond that's established as 007.
As for smoking @NoTimeToLive , there were some reasonable answers posted yesterday.
My gripe with having Bond smoke is the exposure of what smoking is, and what it does. As I said yesterday, you can't put the paste back in the tube on this one. This is not a moral judgment, I just could never believe a modern Bond would be able to do what he does whilst being a smoker. It'd be the same as having a soft and doughy and out of shape Bond. I wouldn't be able to accept it in the slightest. Not in today's world.
And drinking for whatever reason, is still the number one socially acceptable drug out there. It's not in the same league as smoking, and the effects of smoking and it's impact is pretty immediate (from the way the chemical smell clings to hair and clothes, to how it dries out the mouth and can make breath smell horribly, to how it negatively impacts lungs upon the first drag (hence why most first time smokers cough violently when they inhale).
That's also in response to @CrabKey --its not me morally judging smokers, rather how unbelievable that a modern James Bond could do what he does while lighting them up.
In real life, so long as you're an adult and not affecting others, do whatever you want, I could care less. But having me sit in a cinema and watch James Bond smoke, then in the next scene watching him have a foot chase and fight? I'd be taken right out of the film. It's the exact same thing, for me, as if he were not an athletic Bond, doing incredible stunts. It's not even believable in the fantasy world of cinema.
On the flip side, watching a Bond have one martini then bed a lady in the next scene, I wouldnt bat an eyelash.
Watching him guzzle six Vespers in a row, and seeing him melancholic and hiding his slur, as in QoS, wasn't showing some cool side of James Bond. It was showing a man taking time out on his recent adventure to mourn (and, as we do, feel a little sorry for himself). Then he's back to being 007 upon landing...
I'm excited at the likeliness that this next era will be it's own unique style, distinguishable from everything that came before. It's impossible to predict - perhaps EON will give us something we didn't know we needed. I've been looking at the recent comics to try and gauge which direction the films could go, but hey, who knows, EON could throw a curve ball and gift us with a close adaptation of Moonraker complete with Gala and a card cheat villain. Change the title though.
I can imagine a 'year 2' type beginning for Bond 26. Not an origin story, but a significant mission for Bond for whatever reason.
Yes indeed, although as you say, apart from the PTS that is really what CR was. It wasn't exactly his first mission- he's even clearly the senior agent of the two in Madagascar.
If they wanted to show him actually joining SIS from Defence Intelligence or something, I wouldn't be averse to that. We haven't seen that before.
But like @007HallY just posted, I could see that year two or year three thing happening. A younger Bond but he’s established as 007. He’s has a few assignments. He has a few scars (internally and externally).
But I think Blofeld and certainly Vesper won’t be making appearances. And if Leiter is involved in this era, I have to imagine that they already know each other, to some capacity (once again, I don’t think the producers want any confusion or anything to be compared with the last era, and specifically CR).
You’re right, @QBranch … a lot of missions dropped in the films that happened off screen that could be the catalyst of a story. I like that!!
Meanwhile, over at Spy Command, reminds us again of our amnesia (I love that he keeps this at the forefront; this is the third article posted. It’s a reminder to be very skeptical of the rags):
https://hmssweblog.wordpress.com/2024/06/01/tabloids-and-amnesia-part-iii/?unapproved=35983&moderation-hash=2abc285d2fb90112efa91f00cdff5a5f#respond
In the film he plays this movie star Tom Rider and he's meant to be an egotistical idiot, but it doesn't seem like a "performance within a performance" as much as it does as ATJ trying too hard.
I'm sorry but I can't get past his voice, I don't know if it was intentional, but as soon as he opened his mouth the audience I saw it with burst out laughing.
Yeah, a character actor could have had more fun with that part. Imagine Cruise himself in his Tropic Thunder-ish cameo mode (although I know it's not exactly fair to say someone isn't as good as Tom Cruise!). Hannah Waddingham is having an absolute ball in it.
It’s a really good fun film though I thought, did you enjoy it?
One funny thing was when we went to see it there was one of those pretentious b/w perfume ads where ATJ is swimming with a whale (?) before the film, then in the film there’s him doing a spoof pretentious perfume ad as Rider! If I were the perfume brand with the whale I wouldn’t be too happy about that! :D
That’s why I made the bet with @bondywondy , 😂. If ATJ was to win the role, it’d be done through the protocols of casting a new Bond actor (auditions and auditions comparing different actors playing the same scenes— best man wins). There was no way they were going to just anoint ATJ (or anyone else, without seeing other actors. It’s arguably one of the biggest roles to win (with Batman and Superman)).
I didn’t even want a prize for the bet! If ATJ was cast as was being reported, I’d have paid Bondy the equivalent of a hundred dollars, or whatever the number was, 😂.
The entire thing was ridiculous.
Maybe Goldfinger, Tracy, Scaramanga, etc.
I know this is kind of taboo but it is going to be another reboot after all.
https://geektyrant.com/news/mahershala-ali-and-tom-hardy-to-star-in-nyc-crime-thriller-77-blackout-from-director-cary-joji-fukunaga
Does anyone think Fukunaga will be back for the next Bond film ?
I was happy to read this announcement during Cannes. But I don’t think Fukunaga will be back for Bond.
Rebooting those iconic characters is a big no-no for me. I want to preserve them in amber and move forward. My criteria goes something like: If the villain died in his/her respective film, they remain dead. Blofeld should always return but not necessarily in every era. Bunt can return, but either Bond doesn't see (re-meet) her, or he gets revenge as a straight follow up to Maj. (Bond kills Bunt, but Blofeld gets away again and the end of the film leads into DAF)
On that note, what if the next era doesn't have its own continuity, but are all prequels and sequels to older films?
I think it will depend on the success of his next film and whether Eon finds a unique profile to direct Bond 26, and the schedule of this project.
If 77 Blackout is quickly made, meets with success, at least critically, and if, in the meantime, Eon has not made progress on Bond 26 or has not found an interesting profile to make this film, I would not be surprised if Fukunaga is actually approached. However, if the film is a failure, I don't see why Fukunaga would be approached.
Still, since 77 Blackout is only in pre-production at the moment, I hope that Eon will have made progress on Bond 26 in the meantime and that it will be filming by the time Fukunaga's film is released.
That’d make me quite sad. I’d hope they’d hire talent to think outside of the box. It’s fine to be influenced by the colorful history of these films, but prequels and sequels would hurt the soul.
Craft new stories.
Embrace the rich history, but give fresh spins (something familiar with a fresh twist).
Direct sequels and prequels would be a no-no…
EDIT : @George_Kaplan i just saw your post. Thanks for liking the idea!
And @talos7 I get the frustration …
So now "death of the author" no longer applies even though you applied it to Fleming in the post I quoted? At least try to be consistent with your own logic.
If Fleming intends Bond to be unlikeable, he isn't because the reader's point of view matters.
If EON intends Bond to be likeable, he is because the viewer's point of view doesn't matter.
I struggle to get it.
That's a good point, I can't argue with that.
Trust? Dude, it's not religion, you don't have to "trust" Fleming. He created Bond. Either you like his vision for the character, or you don't.
Also, "charming" and "unlikeable" are not mutually exclusive. Lots of bad people get in positions of power despite being, well, bad people, exactly because they're charming.