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
Back in the stone age?
interesting...
He wants to set it in the early 90s and give Bond an iPod as a gadget :))
Makes me utterly greatful that EON is still in charge :-O :))
grateful.
feel free to disagree; also the piece is not ENTIRELY serious. No need for nasty lil emojis.
Good God. It's a fair attempt at a pitch that will not be used and at least marginally more imaginative than some of the autopilot cut and paste jobs mooted
if we must talk i-pods? the tech in bond is 5 minutes into the future. Ergo, he has an i pod in the late 90s/early 2000s / a version of, MAYBE. And in any event, my pitch indicates it sets up an arc that does end..in 2005 (i pods ahoy!). Necros used a killer walkman in living daylights; i pod is part of the james bond radio logo. It's an in joke. So there! Thanks for reading. x
And sure, Bond tech is set 5 mins into the future, but I'm not sure he'd carry a bit of hi-tech which is itself disguised as something from 15 years in the future which no-one has seen, otherwise it's a bit of a pointless disguise.
I don’t know how well a truly faithful adaption would work but I had been working on a fan script with the Moonraker novel as an inspiration based on the concept of M essentially sanctioning a mission based on his distrust of a national hero industrialist who happens to be in his social circle. The bridge game probably won’t age well but you could easily replace that with something more contemporary and interesting to watch.
I also reimagined a new Miles Messervy as less of a bureaucrat and more of a Machiavellian who still has some Bondian field agent type instincts and a heavy disdain for the Whitehall bureaucrats. Tanner has a bit more of an elevated role as Bond’s best friend/confidant in MI6 and his foil being a family man with everything to lose and the innate instinct to play things by the book and do the political maneuvering M isn’t particularly interested in. I think the dynamic of Bond and M egging each other on to do the job by any means they see fit and engage in some diplomatically “naughty” behaviour while Tanner reigns both of them in when he needs to but while allowing them to bend the rules where necessary would a fresh change up from the status quo. Also good way of adding some complexity to M without framing the character as incompetent, which happened with both Dame Judi and Ralph.
A sword fight, for instance. I'm pretty sure this is exactly how Die Another Day started. ;)
I didn't know it was your pitch either, @TheQueensPeace. And neither would I refer to my own pitch as 'interesting'. That's for others to decide, no?
Exactly!
↑ Hey, this guy really knows what he's talking about!
and of course, if you loathe it: no probs. Emojis, fun pokes etc all good
But i do make some 'interesting' points; proven by the fact that it elicited reaction at all, for good or ill! x
It doesn't take long to research when iPods came out ;)
Elba and Cavill as Bond wouldn't be the worst things, no, but I'm surprised many fans don't care enough to want a better actor in the main role.
It's like all people want is a new Bond poster, not a new Bond film.
But I am wondering how you could take that idea and make it still feel recognisably Bond. As flexible as the brand is, that flexibility is always within the confines of his own heightened spy world. How do you slot enough of the traditional ingredients into a war movie to make it feel like Bond, without it feeling contrived? Maybe you could start it with him in the Marines, but then have him recruited by MI6 a third or so onto the film, maybe just as a temporary asset for some plot related reason. End it with M asking if he’s ever considered a career change, fast forward to him as 007 next time round?
I don’t really like the idea of a 90s setting. If they ever did a period piece (which I’m not overly keen on anyway, I’m worried it’d feel inauthentic) then I’d prefer it if they set it in a decade we hadn’t actually seen in a Bond film before. 40s or 50s, World War 2 or the time of the early novels. I think I could get on board with that, despite generally preferring Bond to move forwards, and reflect the times. But I definitely don’t like the idea of them evoking memories of an era of cinematic Bond that’s already been and gone. Still though, it’s a more novel pitch than just setting one in the 60s again, I’ll give you that.
Couldn’t disagree more on Cavill too, I don’t think he’ll get an audition again and I’m pretty happy about that. He looks the part, but I just don’t think he’s capable enough as an actor. I thought he was very robotic in UNCLE, and Tom Cruise acted circles around him in MI. I‘m also not sure playing it safe is really what’s needed following Craig, I’d like to see someone reinvent it again personally. And I was a bit confused by this part
“But it is TIME for obvious and to use that imagery and safety and establishment to rebel against identity politics by championing genuine freedom and inclusivity.”
I’m struggling to grasp what you mean at all here to be honest.
I can sort of see why that sentiment might exist, but combined with Cavill hopes, it all feels a little "strive for mediocrity" to me.
Why would I want a return to the 90's, when it's easily the worst Bond decade. I literally have wiped out all the Brosnan films from my collection (and memory). To me, the franchise ends with LTK in 1989, and starts again with CR in 2005, after a very long hiatus.
The last thing I would want is a return to that Godawful era.
Yeah to be honest I want the opposite, something completely new. I’m ready to move on from the Craig era tropes, but that doesn’t mean I want to jump back to the old formula. I want another reinvention personally, and while I find it fun to kick ideas about, I don’t really have a set idea of what I want that reinvention to be. I’ve learned that the easiest way to be a Bond fan is to just leave your preconceptions and expectations at the door. The Craig era helped me to realise that, because I really wasn’t keen at first (it was just so different) but I gradually really warmed to it.
So, all I ask is they surprise me. And to be fair to them, they’ve been doing a pretty bloody good job of that for the last twenty years, so I’m sure they will.
Yes I'm the same, I'd like to be surprised too, but like you I haven't the faintest idea what they could do next! :)
I don't envy them the task to be honest.