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
"development of its next film towards its production" doesnt necessarily mean a Bond film. Its very loosely worded. It could be the Othello project.
Is Swift really a risk? I mean, she’s the top selling female vocalist/musical artist working today. Which means, she’s the most mainstream artist working today. The quality of title songs may vary for many throughout the Craig era, but none of them were risks, at least on paper.
The best two songs from the Craig era are YKMN (the best) and NTTD (second best). What adds to my praise of both these songs are lyrics that actually make sense. Lyrically, YKMN has the most original and spot on lyrics in the entire Bond series. Read the lyrics without the music. Great stuff. Eilish also good, but not in the same league.
A great Bond has a spectacular sound and great lyrics.
Best and risky are two different things.
Is she the best choice? Not sure. That determination depends on the quality of the song. Is she a risky choice? Not at all. First, Swift is the most popular musical artist in the world. Second, her style and range as an entertainer isn’t much different from the musicians that performed the three most recent title songs.
Which is why I hope she isn't chosen or a singer with a similar style. For me part of the Bond is experience is an explosive title song.
But I say just go with Oasis (now that they're back together) or Muse, bands that are a perfect fit for Bond.
I've posted this elsewhere but Gaga doing the song and playing the lead woman would be awesome. It'd never happen but I'd love it.
Or, heck, maybe have her play the villain.
Not saying they’ll go for an origin story or a 24 year old Bond, but I wonder if they’ll be more willing to go for a ‘year 2’ type concept - a younger Bond at a very early stage in his 00 career, aged 30, and still learning the ropes in many ways (so not quite the seasoned professional very much in his prime that Bond was in CR, but not a complete fresh face either).
Only reason I’m speculating that is because both BB and MGW made clear they preferred a 30 something year old actor for the part. I don’t think they’ll go early to mid 20s young, but perhaps given how well the game is coming along (supposedly anyway) it might spur them to take that creative risk they might not have in the past. I know EON have been involved with its development, so maybe it’s provided a fresh take.
Considering the speculation and rumors around Bond 26’s time period, the question no one has yet to ask IO Interactive is in what time period does Project 007 take place. Assuming EON really does reboot the series with Bond 26, does it make sense to have two separate but concurrent origin stories in a major AAA video game series and a multi-million dollar motion picture?
I guess anything is possible but having both series tackle a young James Bond seems counterintuitive and confusing for a general audience. I wonder if either Project 007 or Bond 26 is a period piece. Maybe both projects are more aligned than the powers that be are willing to admit right now. Could Project 007 be a prequel series? This doesn’t necessarily fit with IO Interactive’s claim that they’re making their own original James Bond. But could that be a placeholder until casting is completed/announced?
I think they're different things so it wouldn't really matter if there were similarities, especially with something as broad as a younger Bond. And like I said, I don't think EON are up for doing an origin story of a pre-007 Bond on film. It's more about them being more willing to embrace a younger Bond, which to be fair could give them some story opportunities.
Did they not say Project 007 was a modern day Bond? I could be making that up or getting confused with reading something about them embracing some of the Craig era's grittiness.
Oasis and Muse???
I’m not sure their participation would be hyped among anyone below the age of 40. Might as well take a look at Eric Clapton and The Rolling Stones while we’re at it.
You’re probably right. I can’t help but to compare Project 007’s/Bond 26’s dynamic to that of the Batman Arkham games and Christopher Nolan’s Batman films. The Arkham series of video games ran concurrently with Nolan’s Batman trilogy. More specifically, The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises.
Even though Arkham and Dark Knight are both Batman properties, the aesthetics were completely different. Arkham being a more comic inspired or comic accurate portrayal of Batman versus Nolan’s Batman in our real-world take.
I just feel there’s an opportunity for Project 007 and Bond 26 to not only give us Bond at different points in his life and career but to have noticeably different aesthetics. This may not matter to most people. I’m not even sure it matters to me. But I can see a scenario in which Project 007’s pitch included a visual guide that didn’t simply look like graphically updated versions of every Craig-era game.
To put it another way, why not make the new cinematic Bond (whoever he may be) the same model and character in both Bond 26 and Project 007 if the only difference is where Bond started in his career? That’s not an insignificant difference but it’s not a hard one to reconcile away. It would be somewhat disappointing if the only difference between game and film is that one stars a young Bond/007 in 2012 and the other stars a young Bond/007 in 2026.
But maybe I’m overthinking it.
No, I agree that it's a great chance to do two different things. They might not want to do an origin story on film, but a with a video game it's a great opportunity (it arguably works better as a concept in that medium anyway as the player will have to navigate the game in order to gain 00 status, which is what I presume the idea of the video game is).
That said I don't think they'll be completely divorced from each other either. All the Bond video games have had more than a bit from the film series in them, even if they're their own thing. Anyway, I think you can do two very different things while having a younger Bond in both. Again, Bond 26 doesn't need to be an origin story, and Project 007 likely won't simply be an updated version of the Craig era/its games as you said. They can have their own identities while sharing those common elements.
+1. The easiest way for Eon to go after the younger audience is with the song. That's how we ended up with Sam Smith and Billie Eilish.
Adele was more of a consensus singer, as Swift would be.
You can say the same thing about Bond in general. The audience is older.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/no-time-to-die-box-office-friday-1235029067/#! Billie Eilish didn't exactly bring in the teens for NTTD. You're simply not going to get the Deadpool/Despicable Me crowd going to see Bond no matter what pop star of the week you get to do the song. You might as well get someone who's guaranteed to at least do a decent one.
And I'm below the age of 40.
Really the only thing that has changed substantially over the decades is the lead actor.
Why not continue making a traditional Bond film, only with the youngest actor ever. It'll work just fine. Every Bond film is set in the time it is made. Bond will use current technology, as we all do. Instead of fretting over how it will appeal to teens and the generation ahead of them, just make a Bond film.
1965 was long ago.
But feels like yesterday to me. To this day nothing tops watching Goldfinger on the big screen and experiencing how the world changed because of it.
How would you say the world changed because of GF? Not having a go or arguing, just genuinely curious.
I'd argue that the clammering and furore about tickets for the Oasis re-union tour more than disproves that point. Still have most of my peers complaining that they didn't get some. Certainly not comparable to The Rolling Stones or Clapton.
That being said, not really pushed about them either way. They'll probably have fallen out again by the time the film starts shooting.
Lol. I hope not. The last paragraph is funny, though. I think if they do fall out again, they might not be taken seriously as a Band...ever again. I'm hoping their age controls them better now.
"Goldfinger" elevated the spy genre to new heights, setting a template for future Bond films and espionage thrillers alike. Its blend of action, wit, exotic locales, and larger-than-life villains captured the imagination of a public enthralled by the intrigue of espionage amid Cold War tensions. The film's portrayal of sophisticated espionage reflected and amplified the era's fascination with intelligence agencies and covert operations, mirroring the geopolitical climate of suspicion and competition between superpowers.
Fashion and style in the 1960s were significantly influenced by Bond's impeccable wardrobe and demeanor. Sean Connery's portrayal of Bond introduced a new standard for male elegance and coolness. Tailored suits, narrow ties, and the understated use of accessories became aspirational for men seeking to emulate Bond's sophistication. This influence extended beyond clothing to encompass a lifestyle characterized by refinement and an appreciation for the finer things, aligning with the decade's burgeoning consumer culture.
The film's emphasis on gadgets and technology tapped into the 1960s' enthusiasm for innovation and the space age. Q's array of ingenious devices, particularly the iconic Aston Martin DB5 equipped with an array of spy tools, sparked a public fascination with cutting-edge technology. This not only entertained audiences but also reflected society's optimism about technological advancement and its potential to transform daily life.
The release of the film Goldfinger in 1964 had a profound impact on television, driving a surge of spy-themed series. Following the success of James Bond, TV networks quickly capitalized on the public's fascination with espionage. Shows like The Man from U.N.C.L.E., Get Smart, Mission Impossible, the Wild Wild West and I Spy emerged, mirroring the mix of adventure, technology, and suave protagonists seen in Goldfinger. These programs borrowed heavily from the film's formula of gadgetry, stylish heroes, and elaborate villains, reflecting the spy craze that Goldfinger helped fuel. Spy culture became a TV staple, catering to audiences craving similar thrills at home.
In merchandising, Goldfinger spurred an explosion of branded goods. The film's iconic gadgets, such as Bond’s Aston Martin DB5 with its built-in weaponry, became symbols of luxury and coolness, leading to replicas and toy versions for mass consumption. James Bond merchandise, including action figures, clothing, and accessories, became wildly popular, cementing the character’s influence in consumer culture. This trend extended beyond toys, as fashion items, perfumes, and other luxury goods branded with the Bond name were marketed to adults eager to adopt some of 007’s sophistication.
"Goldfinger" also played a significant role in shaping perceptions of women through the introduction of the "Bond Girl." Characters like Pussy Galore, portrayed by Honor Blackman, were presented as strong, independent, and skilled, yet ultimately falling into traditional roles by the film's conclusion. This dichotomy highlighted the evolving yet conflicted attitudes toward gender roles during the 1960s, a decade marked by both the rise of second-wave feminism and lingering traditional expectations.
Children, too, were affected by the Goldfinger phenomenon, even though the movie was intended for adult audiences. The film's gadgets, cars, and action sequences were especially appealing to younger viewers, leading to a flood of Bond-themed toys and games. Toy companies produced miniature versions of Bond’s gadgets and vehicles, allowing children to emulate their spy hero. The fantasy of being a secret agent captured the imaginations of young boys and girls alike, solidifying Bond's role as not just a movie icon but a cultural figure that influenced playtime and childhood aspirations.
Music from "Goldfinger" left a lasting impact on the decade's cultural soundscape. Shirley Bassey's powerful performance of the film's theme song became iconic, influencing the style of movie soundtracks and popular music. The song's brassy, bold arrangement and dramatic vocals encapsulated the film's grandeur and became a template for future Bond themes, intertwining cinema and music in a way that resonated with the public.
Lastly, "Goldfinger" mirrored and influenced societal attitudes toward wealth, power, and morality. The opulent lifestyle of both Bond and the villainous Auric Goldfinger reflected the era's complex relationship with materialism and ethics. The film indulged in the allure of wealth and luxury while simultaneously critiquing greed and corruption, themes that were particularly resonant during a time of economic prosperity and social change.
In summary, the release of "Goldfinger" significantly affected 1960s culture by shaping cinematic trends, influencing fashion and lifestyle, reflecting societal attitudes, and encapsulating the spirit of the era. Its legacy is evident in how it captured the imagination of a generation and set the stage for the enduring popularity of the James Bond franchise and the spy genre as a whole.
There you go. Now if we could just get another Bond film that does this.
Honestly, I'd say Goldfinger was a cultural phenomena because it was so depoliticized and fantastical when compared to the previous two films. There's very little Cold war paranoia in it, and Auric is nearly on the level of a Batman villain with his outrageous scheme. Same for his goons. It's all very "comic book," especially compared to the more grounded novels and subsequent film adaptions.
It's certainly the definitive Bond movie, though.
We won't get this until Babs and MGW ditch the personal plots, the meta-commentary on Bond's pop culture status, the cheap Freudianism, and the 3-hour runtimes.
Fair enough, I get what you mean.
They sound like typical teenagers/very early 20 year olds to be honest (probably in whatever time period). But the last one might have a point and it comes back to what we've been saying. They just need to make the best film they can, however way that is.
I would say though that you’re rarely going to get too much wisdom from people very young, and when it comes to films most audiences have no idea what they want until they see it.