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
It doesn't need a past but It needs a present and Bond will be quite younger. He can't be the same old Bond.
Yeah, the 'Commander' thing makes little sense nowadays really, but keep it because it sounds cool, and that's the main thing really. As you say, they'll come up with a background for him but the chances of it coming up in a film are minimal to none at all, unless they do a new origin story, which to be honest I'm all for.
But as is the general rule with everything, if it works for the story I’m all for it. Little relevant hints about his background are fine, but I think we’ll effectively see Bond established as 007, being a Commander etc.
Yeah it's a fair point; I wouldn't necessarily want to see him growing up or anything, but I think there would be ways to sort of establish the status quo set-up of the movies with M, Q etc. without going too far into his background or repeating CR. Him being recruited in a different way, or perhaps even showing M starting the Double O section or something. It would be nice for the Double Os to be talked about as something new rather than something hinted at being outdated, which has been part of the films on and off for about 30 years now.
I quite liked how the Marvel films gave us a new Spider Man without going through the radioactive spider thing yet again, and yet we sort of saw him becoming the Spider Man we know. I don't think there's anything wrong with a new Bond series doing that, and considering they've only done it once with CR, there are plenty of ways to do it. Horowitz even did it to a lesser extent with Forever And A Day and I think it was generally well-received.
I think it’d be cool to see a Bond already established as 007, but one who’s sent on a particular mission which in some way hardens him/makes him more the Bond we know in some way. As you said with the Spiderman example that’s basically the precedent with big franchise reboots (I always go on about this film but that’s The Batman in a nutshell! I’m sure it’ll be the case with the new Superman film too).
I’d love the 00 section to be explored a bit more though and think that’s a nice idea. There may well be a precedent with it with Nomi in NTTD. Nothing too major, just a bit of background, maybe they’re depicted as outliers/at odds with the rest of MI6. Whatever works and is relevant for the story.
I'm curious, and my knowledge of the British Naval ranking system is admittedly quite limited; in what way does Bond's title of Commander make little sense these days?
Personally, with the focus on the physicality that Bond has progressively moved towards as he became less of a spy and more of an action hero, I'd always like to keep those details even if they're not a big deal. Being an SBS Commando prior to MI6 made a great deal of sense to Craig's Bond, especially with his appearance and skills, without it being a huge focus. The only reason "Commander Bond" was leaned into more heavily for NTTD was to separate Bond from MI6 even further, so it worked nicely there. What is essentially just seasoning became something that served a purpose.
Don’t forget Carte Blanche by Jeffery Deaver! It did do some great world building. It’s a shame that it never got a proper follow up.
It makes less sense because today Naval Intelligence was eliminated and was unified with Military Intelligence, Air Intelligence etc. to make one Defence Intelligence Staff, nowadays known as Defence Intelligence.
So while Fleming's Bond was a career spy who got naval titles as cover and reward for his spying, today it probably doesn't make that sense for Bond to spy with Defence Intelligence and be given a Naval rank over a Military or Air Force One. The more generalised intelligence also just lessens Bond's connections with the Navy: instead of actively choosing Naval Intelligence or serving the Admiralty, Bond's just working for the Ministry who chooses the Navy for him.
In terms of the modern day equivalence that makes the most sense, realistically it would be Bond being a Naval Attache in an Embassy as cover to spy for either MI6 or Defence Intelligence. That sounds quite boring I suppose but of course there's room for some action there.
For Bond's backstory, while being a veteran is not necessary, I think it would probably make a lot more sense for to start with some war involvement. If Fleming's Bond could influence World War II from America and Hong Kong, then realistically any iteration could influence any war that partly affects Britain from afar in way where the backstory doesn't have to change too much for each war. You can kind of just fill in the blank.
I've always thought that something like Spymaker would be a good origin film for Bond.
Reflsin has come up with a much better answer than I was going to go for, which is that Commander is a really quite senior rank (there's quite a few captaining very large Navy vessels, including the one we saw in NTTD!) which I don't think many career officers attain much before their late 30s, and to rise to that rank whilst barely being in the Navy as Bond basically has to be, and also at such a young age, is a touch unlikely; although I can't pretend to have extensive knowledge of the Navy or spies! And also, he's James Bond, so maybe he could do it where others can't :)
James Bond's Dossier - Military Record
According to that Bond rose to the rank of Commander around the age of 25-27.
That’s it. Perhaps we’ll get another one with the new Bond (again, it’s very much for fans/promo stuff but that’s fine. I remember reading another one which was written as a sort of psych evaluation on Bond. Presumably it was for SF but I actually found that one quite cool).
No backstory, no rookie agent. Just Bond going back to basics, off to M's office to get briefed, flirt with Moneypenny, then popping off to Q for the latest gadget, and then onto a new mission by himself, with the Scooby gang safely locked up back in London.
No personal angst, no long lost baddie brother, no daughter in tow, no female agent trying to nick his 00 number, no reminders of his past, no dwelling on a past love.
Just give us one more of Bond being Bond again, like he used to do it. Nobody does it better...
But I get what you mean. I don't think it'll be quite that 'straightforward' and follow the outline to the tee as the Moore/Connery films did though (ie. Bond goes to M's office, gets his mission etc. Worth saying that GE and TLD played around with the formula/began and developed the story at slightly different points, even though they included things like a briefing scene of some sort, Q giving Bond his gadget etc. Come to think of it the later Craig films include these things in some form too...)
That said it could well go the other way and reintroduce those typical Bond formula elements too in ways we haven't seen in a while... But I think even then they'll try to do something slightly different with it.
Agree whole heartedly. Just get back to the basics.
In a way going back to basics would be doing something different with it, bizarrely.
Probably the last classic Bond film in the very traditional sense was TLD, back in 1987 which is 37 years ago now (that is shocking in itself)! :-O
After that we had Bond going rogue just about every other film, the Scooby gang out in the field with Bond, revenge driven storylines, double agent baddies, etc. and it was a trend that started with LTK, which became the new norm.
I wouldn't say it's a traditional Bond film, at least in the way we're discussing it. It even has the personal element there (Bond knowing Pushkin), the double agent baddie, a clear sense of conflict between Bond and M, and we even have quite extended involvement from Q, M and Gray 'out in the field' during the first quarter (incidentally we began to see the latter in the Connery and Moore films as well. All this is a long, organic development in that sense - same for the 'personal' stuff with Bond - and it wasn't just something LTK did and every other film ran with). It's really not a bad thing either. I like TLD.
If anything TND relies much more on the classic Bond structure - a fast paced PTS, set up, Bond being called in by M (ok, the 'briefing' is in a car, but it works), and then a Q gadget scene in the field.
I would like it to go in a new direction it hasn't gone before, if that's an evolution from where it has been recently that's okay.
Bond goes rogue in TLD and disobeys orders several times. Koskov is a double agent. Q appears in Czechia to help Bond with his mission etc.
I love TLD incidentally.
I'd say the last totally bog standard Bond movie where those things don't happen is probably TND.
Bond got emotionally involved, went off the books, took revenge etc. in the Fleming books, so I think it is reasonable to use some of those angles in the films.
Actually, if TLD counts as a bog standard entry then QOS probably does. He gets a mission, follows it, meets a standard evil villain, doesn’t go rogue (M thinks he does but she’s wrong: he goes more rogue in TLD), kills the baddie at his secluded base, no friends from MI6 HQ helping… it’s standard. He doesn’t even fall in love with the female lead, which is presumably what we’re after.
If we’re looking for a film where Bond has no emotional involvement or doesn’t lose someone he cares for then, well I’m not sure what we’d have to go back to. Moonraker? DAF? But these are outliers really, and even in those he has a romantic interest.
In a world where even the latest episode of the new Batman cartoon has more dramatic complexity than those (and I’m enjoying it), I think it’s unrealistic to hope that a whole movie will be like that.
When did Bond go off the books in the Fleming novels? The rest I agree with.
I suspect the both will keep it simple and refer to him as "Commander" and explain no more. But if they do explain more, to keep as faithful as possible Bond should gain the title through intelligence and not through active service
On the contrary. The Craig era has allowed a whole new plethora of creative ideas to flood the gate now for better or worse.
Sure, that's why we are waiting for the next movie. ;)