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
If they ever do a proper-novel adaptation of MR, then there's no way they're gonna reuse that title again, it's more likely they would adapt the novel, but using the title RISICO.
I do think Bond 26 will be a relatively original plot, but one with ideas adapted from the Fleming novels. I mean, there are some cool things from MR that they can work with. A spin on the Bridge game has perhaps been done too many times in the series though. Same for a villain lying about their origins/posing as a rich philanthropist. That said I've always loved images like Drax's team of scientists all having identical moustaches/shaved heads. There's a sort of creepiness to it. A spin on the blowtorch torture with Bond purposely aggravating the villain in some way to escape can be incorporated. Same for the cliff explosion. Perhaps even the idea of a suicide/a villain's employee having a mental breakdown setting off Bond's involvement etc.
It'll be hard to top the backgammon game in OP. That took the best elements of the MR bridge game.
Identical moustaches/shaved heads was in TWINE.
Blowtorch was OP (again!) and DAD PTS.
Cliff explosion was the (white) glacier surfing in DAD.
I think MR may be the most adapted novel, but paradoxically the least faithfully adapted one!
I can't remember the shaved heads/moustaches in TWINE. Maybe The rest is there I guess loosely, but there's still elements they can adapt in different contexts, lines they can use etc.
Yes, I agree, it's a novel they've never adapted faithfully and yet have taken lots of pieces from. There's still much there though. Bond's day to day working life is an interesting element (we never get to see this in the films, same for a character like Loleila Ponsonby who I feel is more interesting than any iteration of Moneypenny), the little insights into his relationship with M under certain circumstances (ie. M asking him to do him a favour and calling him 'James' as opposed to Bond which is something I feel can be used). It's a rich novel certainly for material, and I'm sure we'll see elements of it in future Bond movies.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11289623/Hes-not-joking-Biden-warns-Putin-deadly-using-tactical-NUKES-Ukraine.html
Genuinely crazy times were living through. Assuming we don't get destroyed before Bond 26 is made (!).... maybe an Octopussy type plot would reflect the times.
If they wanted to be topical they could create a Putin-type villain, but I highly doubt they’d make that character the dictator of Russia.
Personally, I find the weird psycho werewolf murderer a much more interesting concept to adapt for a film.
The plot can be over the top with a Stromberg type sea lair or more realistic. Sea battles with ships or mini subs! Or sea drones! And deadly sharks!🦈
NTTD did go that route with nanobot technology - but you could go further in future films. I don't mind more realistic Bond films too. Maybe a mix of both styles is worth considering for future films.
In that sense I think SF integrated the cyberterrorist aspect to a more effective degree, and Silva's ultimate plan has more weight to it. I mean, we could have a future villain doing something dastardly with cryptocurrency, AI technology or manipulating stock trades, but it needs to be in aid of something bigger.
I'd love Bond 26 to be grounded again, some of the more sci-fi elements of NTTD felt out of place in the Craig era
I'd also love them to cast a lesser known actor as the villain again, that way it's more unpredictable and you're not slave to the actors schedule.
I think the villains should have some sort of motive that is clear and reasonably informs what they do, and that the scheme itself feels appropriately high stakes, especially for Bond. The motive doesn't need to be revenge as per GE, SF and NTTD, but this does work. Hell, a villain like Elliot Carver just wants to be the best media mogul in the world and will play God to achieve this, that's all you need really. It's far more understandable than a character like Safin who in one half of the film wants revenge, and once that plot line is resolved completely changes his motive to world domination for some reason... The plan doesn't have to be world domination or a 'ticking clock' thing either, but again it has to be impactful, and as per SF a low key plot built around trying to destroy a single person and what they stands for works well, especially given that it hits close to home for Bond.
So yes, by all means have AI, drones, some cool driverless cars etc in future Bond films. After all it somewhat reflects the world we currently live in. But I think the above rules apply.
I get that. I think as much as people groan about the 'personal' elements of Bond and other franchise films nowadays, it's understandable that this is something writers lean on. I mean, you have a film like The Batman which did a very similar thing with its villain to NTTD - that's to say give them a sympathetic backstory where they've been 'wronged' in some way and want revenge. It's silly if you read it on paper (actually sillier than Safin's actions during the first half of NTTD in a way), especially with the required plot contrivances/convolutions, but people go with it because it's easy to understand and work with. So long as you keep this motive throughout - again, Safin's character falls apart in NTTD once he destroys SPECTRE and hence has to be given another scheme and in turn motive altogether. It becomes confusing.
It's why I find the Craig era Blofeld so frustrating. He has no motive when it comes to his actual scheme in SP. His fixation with Bond/the murder of his father is separate from his criminal enterprise, which is just something he randomly does. Even the Blofeld of the early films wanted money.
Yes, agreed about SP.
Nine Eyes showed some promise as a villainous scheme but the movie needed that final dastardly twist.
I'd actually really like to see this. Strip it back, and use MR, just re-title it, update Drax's backstory, and update the Moonraker itself. Keep everything else the the same as the book.
Or maybe roulette? Canasta?
They got lucky with CR because poker was in the zeitgeist.
And the backgammon in OP is great because it's an appropriately "clubby" sport.
(People get caught up in the Tarzan yell and clown suit but OP does have one of the better-written scripts, at least on a scene by scene basis.)
That isn't the topic of this thread, but the fact that Blofeld seems to have omnipotent surveillance capabilities before Nine Eyes goes live, might be the biggest plothole in the entire series. No one cares about the countdown at the end because it is totally unclear what it would allow him to do that he wasn't already able to do.
And that's before we get into C apparently being the only one pushing that policy - which is just gone with his death - but there still being a whole new building (!) for it, on the Thames (!) which noone seems to be working in at the moment it is supposed to go live (?) and preparing and then unraveling something like that from both a foreign and security standpoint and a public service IT standpoint would probably take at least a decade.
But that's enough about that film.
I do wonder if they could go a bit more old school with it and have the more personal conflict be between the villain and a secondary character and Bond initially just comes in to help that character, gets pulled in, saves the day and goes on his way. Is that too "80s TV show"?
It would allow a good writer to still have emotional beats in there, but we don't have to embark on another spiral of "but this time it's even more personal!". It is personal, but not necessarily for Bond. And I'm always a sucker for stories exploring Bond's (or generally the main characters) official duties as a civil servant and the personal costs his actions have for those more closely involved.
I can actually forgive the fact that a new building was written in, and that no one seems to be working in it. At the end of the day it's a Bond film, and contrivances can be forgiven if you're enjoying yourself in the moment.
Otherwise yes, the lack of clear threat of the Nine Eyes programme does somewhat spoil the film. And makes the countdown somewhat underwhelming... like I said it's not a bomb, so won't do any sort of permanent damage.
I think that'd be good. I'd like to have a future Bond film where the story begins as a relatively routine mission, possibly as you said involving some sort of conflict between the villain and a secondary character, that slowly spirals into something much more sinister. A bit like some of the Fleming novels I guess (ie. in MR Bond helps out M solve a minor gambling issue which gets him involved in the later events of the story, or in GF where Bond helps out Du Pont... in another gambling related issue come to think of it.... or the FYEO short story etc.)
One's could say it's not so different from Elektra's scheme from TWINE, although here it was more about creating a situation favoring her economic interests, didn't involve Middle East oil fields and was limited to Istanbul.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochabamba_Water_War
I thought Amalric was quite good in an understated role. He wanted a scar or some tic but the director wouldn't let him:
'According to Mathieu Amalric (Dominic Greene), his character does not have any distinguishing features to make him more formidable, and to represent the hidden villains of society: "He has no scars, no eye that bleeds, no metal jaw. I tried everything to have something to help me. I said to Marc Forster: No nothing? A beard? Can I shave my hair? He said: No, just your face." Amalric also described Greene as "not knowing how to fight, so James Bond would be more surprised. Sometimes anger can be much more dangerous. I'm going to fight like in school."'
Where QoS failed, IMHO, was to have Quantum say it was a test run for some sort of world water domination.