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
I don't think you can do the brain programming and then re-programming plot anymore. That worked back then, because it was based on a way people thought the brain worked. Most people don't think like that anymore and I think it would fall flat.
Maybe this would be too slapsticky, but the twist for that sequence could be that MI6 has all these electronic/AI ways to test whether someone is who they say they are. These all throw red flags, when Nu-Bond is concerned, while all of the real people are sure it's him, because they know him. Whether that is down to error or outside malice, I don't know.
After that, I think it should go into a standalone mission.
The brain can be rewired, manipulated or planted with false information. I've been researching this in depth for a TV project about false memories of child abuse which happened in the early to mid 2000's and caused some adults and parents to be accused of abusing children, when, in fact, it never happened.
So I think the basic idea in TMWTGG novel could be effectively and imaginatively updated with what we know now.
It's more the de-programming part I am dubious about. Although, come to think of it, they aren't entirely sure it worked in the novel either, right? Which is why he is sent on the suicide mission.
And my point is more that audiences would consider this a hokey device in a modern film. He got brainwashed! But we de-brainwashed him! He is now again our hero.
As I say, I'm presently researching the subject matter for a TV project, so I am certain that, if treated in an intelligent, informed and realistic way, the premise of re-wiring a person's brain and/or planting triggers to carry out some secret and sinister agenda at a later date, would not be hokey at all. My idea is that Mi6, M, and even Bond himself do not know if the brainwashing - perhaps to kill M as per the novel - is really over. The mission, like in the novel, is to try to determine if Bond is okay now, and, after the mission's success, it seems he might be.. but the end hints that might not be the case.
Operation Calamari
I'm not sure if general audiences know/care how the brain works to be honest. I'm sure they could come up with a twist on the idea and make it sound plausible in the context of the film, possibly add some sort of technology to the mix (a bit like how NTTD used the nanobots to convey what is essentially a virus/poison).
Brainwashing is carried out all the time by the mass media. It s a sorry sight to behold for those who have escaped it.
Yes, I do agree with that. Like I said, to have the best impact I think it requires the audience to know that specific version of Bond from previous films. As an introduction I'm not sure if it would feel right.
As for brainwashing as a potential plot, again I feel it's a fine line between being a genuinely menacing villain's plan and hokey. It doesn't necessarily even have to involve the brainwashed people in question becoming assassins like in TMWTGG. If you wanted to ground the plot it could be about, I dunno, 00 agents being captured and tortured/brainwashed through whatever technique to reveal confidential information about MI6, after which they are killed. Something like that is relatively grounded and has the potential to be interesting.
I'd say this, the point is with a new Bond, the audience doesn't know him, and that's the whole point of taking this particular approach, Bond is a mystery figure this time. M, Mi6 and even the audience are not 100% sure about him and that's where the drama lies.
If the audience are familiar with this Bond already, then they already know that, no matter what has happened to him, he'll be okay in the end - my angle pulls that safety net away.
Here's my problem with all that - I don't think the power of that subplot fully lies in the audience questioning whether Bond will be ok in the end. I mean, the vast majority of the time (except in NTTD) Bond will be ok anyway. It would be the case with a new actor if he was in any sort of perilous situation in his first film too. We expect Bond to live to fight another day and come out on top. Even in TMWTGG Fleming bypasses the conflict of whether Bond will be 'deprogrammed' or not and just jumps to him in Jamaica looking for Scaramanga. Hell, the potential conflict of him being an effective agent anymore isn't teased much really.
The powerful thing about reading a brainwashed Bond try to kill M and renouncing the British Government is that it's not only a betrayal of his profession, but his values as a character. It's contrary to what we know this man believes in, and that which we've seen explored throughout the previous Fleming novels. All of this makes the betrayal hit even harder because we know who James Bond is. More importantly we know who Fleming's James Bond is.
Now, we of course are all familiar with who the cinematic Bond is very broadly, but he's a malleable character in this medium. Each time a new Bond is introduced it's through different and often very distinct ways that give the audience an idea of what kind of incarnation of the character they are - more humorous, gritty, brutal, serious etc. The point is even diehard Bond fans need to get to know the new James Bond. The opening of TMWTGG is about Bond doing something against his beliefs. That's why it's shocking.
It's a cool subplot, but it's tricky keeping that sense of betrayal, shock and even tension if we don't know that version of James Bond first. It dilutes the impact of the idea even if we slowly get to know him later.
Very intriguing. I do think the 'angle of introduction' is a critical element to get right for this next Bond era, given that we're coming from such a rich, interesting era of Craig (combining extremes of subversion and nostalgia at once).
This isn't quite a Brosnan situation. I'm not sure it will suffice to have 007 appear launching himself into a big stunt, or walking into a casino in a tuxedo. Those are the two most direct ways to announce "this is James Bond."
Even in Craig's case, because the opening sequence was the literal origin story of his 00-status, it accomplishes the same narrative goal. It was just tonally much edgier, and focused in its scope.
No, I'm all on board for something that's more extreme (narratively) and suggests some core disruption to the mythology in order to engage the audience in new and exciting ways. I loved how effectively Kim Sherwood achieved that in Double or Nothing -- and the way she "resolved" it at the end.
The producers did something so bold with NTTD in part, I think, because they realized the unique combination of actor/cultural moment/narrative foundation made it the best chance they would ever have to do it. Now, I would imagine, they have a similar appetite -- the slate is truly wiped clean, and they can do anything, and I suspect they'll want to push themselves to try to live up to that opportunity.
A film like The Batman is a good example of how to introduce a known character in a way that's in-keeping with the mythology, but at the same time does something different with audience expectations. The opening of that film involves a serial killer brutally murdering someone, and we thus expect to see our hero introduced in the next scene in a way that distinguishes them from this villain. Instead we get what sounds to be a slightly unhinged, Travis Bickel-like diary entry/voice over (it's actually a bit ambiguous for the first few moments whether it's meant to be Riddler or Batman). The first time we actually see Batman he doesn't even call himself Batman but 'Vengeance', and even the citizen he saves from a gang is afraid of him.
All the usual Batman flair and iconography - the signal, Gotham etc. - is there, but these elements subvert what we typically expect from the character. It gives the audience a sense of who this version of the character is - the conflicts they'll face in the film, the thematic idea that he and the villain are simply one step away from being each other. Not saying Bond 26 will copy this opening exactly, but I think it'll be a similar case where a 'traditional' introduction to Bond has some key subversions in there that will define the next Bond for audiences.
Love this comparison (great analysis!) and I think you're right. Bond and Batman have been sort of subtly joined at the inspiration-hip for awhile now (both 'gritty' reboots in mid-2000s, Bond's influence on Nolan's Batman, Nolan's influence in the direction of Skyfall and Spectre, particularly). I don't doubt they're looking at The Batman for some valuable insights about how such reinventions can be done right.
One of the things about that film that surprised me was just how....not re-invented it seemed, at times. There are certainly some cool innovations (no Wayne manor, the Batcave is a subway station, Bruce is visibly struggling with mental health, Alfred is younger, the Gordon relationship is more publicly accepted), but in terms of style, tone, and aesthetic it wasn't really that drastic of a departure from the films that preceded it.
Perhaps Bond's next era also will be different, without being that different, and in that balance they'll maintain the core of the formula that's sustained 007 for so long: giving audience something new, but always infusing it with lots of somethings "old" that are presented in new ways.
If a new Bond is presented in this way, and the audience does not know, for sure, who he really is, that raises the stakes and the drama in a way we have not seen before, but, to be fair, everything else u say is valid.
Yes, and I'd say it borrows a bit from the "best of every cinematic Batman" as well as committing to being fiercely modern in its execution. Almost a bit like the Brosnan Bond approach.
It's interesting, though, that it also goes back to the roots of the character in a similar way that (I would argue) Craig's Bond did.
Batman as a detective noir film had been so often talked about, but until The Batman, the films never could quite keep themselves close enough to the ground to pull it off. Even Nolan's films -- lauded, rightfully, for their realism -- are undeniably epic superhero movies at heart, in every sense of that phrase. All the Batman films have inevitably been "big Hollywood" pictures, with huge set pieces and high stakes. Even The Batman can't resist heading that direction in its third act -- but for the first two hours, it's firmly in that noir camp and all the better for it.
It's an interesting question that applies to Bond, too. Can they go back further to Fleming and be even more "literature-accurate" than Craig did? Is that even possible, without it being a period adaptation? Or should the films move the other direction, and try something totally different and consciously more cinematic, like the McQuarrie Mission: Impossible films or Brosnan's era?
Fukunaga's ending had more balls than Nolan's in TDKR.
I do wonder, after Craig's era (and particularly his ending), if there's a significant appetite among audiences right now for a more celebratory, enjoyable Bond era that's a bit more of a mainstream crowd-pleaser in its execution.
I have to admit to feeling a bit that way myself.
By all means, sign me up for bold narrative reinventions -- but there's definitely also a part of me that could easily digest a few consecutive Brosnan-esque adventures starring Henry Cavill.
If there's one thing Top Gun 2 got amazingly right, it's that audiences will still turn out in droves for earnest blockbuster cinema that embodies all the big, bold, emotional, uplifting reasons we love blockbuster cinema.
Dour deconstructionism can be wonderful, and often gives us rich and moving experiences, but it isn't the only way to sell tickets. And with the jeopardy facing the cinema/exhibition industry as a whole, this is a great moment in history to remind audiences of what that medium is, uniquely, capable of doing.
💯% @echo
Love this idea @ColonelSun … It knocks all expectations off kilter. I think having Craig Bond die, the filmmakers are now able to message that they had the balls to kill the character, and, although they won’t be doing that for a good long time (if ever), they’re not afraid to subvert and stretch the character in unexpected ways.
In fact I think they need a good dose of something this imaginative and groundbreaking (in this series), to forget about the mark Craig made on the franchise (whether one loves his interpretation or not).
Right? But do we really think EON aren't thinking of better and very clever ways of introducing Bond 7, because of NTTD's blatant ending? Even if it's a different continuity, this is the first time Bond dies. Another thing EON would be thinking is, if they should bring back the previous MI6 cast or not...as bringing them back wouldn't help Bond 7's original status.
EON do know how to launch a new Bond, but the ending of NTTD gives them extra reason to launch Bond 7 cleverly, even if Bond 26 isn't linked with NTTD. So I think the scripting process of Bond 26 needs to be ultra-good this time, even if we know EON always launch a new Bond in stellar fashion.
Everything is digital, but either some old MI6 records or something pertaining to the British state in general still exists in written form. There’s only one of it and it either needs to be protected, destroyed or the holder had some kind of power. Action ensues.
This could also be a great springboard for my recurring idea of having a Bond film investigate Britain‘s role in the world, MI6‘s position in Britain and Bond’s attitude towards all of that.
Cheers, and I agree, Batman and Bond have definitely had trend-related similarities. The Batman is stylistically a very impressionistic film (I mean, it's always raining, dark, the focus is often shallow, and the sound design is actually rather heightened when you re-watch it) which contrasts with Nolan's aesthetic choices, but I definitely get what you mean. It feels like a Batman movie in the same vein (or at least one that could logically follow on from) the previous films, even with those subversions we noted.
As for what you said about a more celebratory, escapist Bond film in your later post, I do think the great thing about Bond is that it can be many things even in a single film. It can have moments of darkness, absurdity, action, pathos, humour etc. Even NTTD, fatalistic as it was, actually had a broad range of tones within it (I mean, people cite the Cuba sequence as an example of something more 'lighthearted' but even those moments followed on from what is essentially a Horror-esque moment where all the SPECTRE members are brutally killed by the nanobots). It's very much the case in Fleming's novels too, that balance between escapism and reality. James Bond stories are also very different to the stories of the Top Gun movies too. So while we might have something for Bond 26 which is a bit lighter, I don't think the producers are going to abandon that attempt to create something broadly appealing but creatively interesting anytime soon.
Oh, and @ImpertinentGoon I really like that idea for a future McGuffin. You're right, P&W do reuse scrapped ideas so it's possible.
Agreed, both GoldenEye and The Living Daylights managed to be serious and fun at the same time, that's why they stand out for me.
There needs to be more Bond flicks like GE and TLD.