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
Whether that would work with younger audiences, i don't know...
Well, GE's a film that plays with those Bond tropes a bit, and there's a personal element just by virtue of Bond knowing Alec (and of course it's the first time we get a mention of Bond's childhood in the films). I'd argue the tank chase is one of the most outlandish moments in the Bond series too (as I always love to point out with this and the SF digger moment - where did Bond get the key? No one should care incidentally. It helps that the action is depicted relatively 'straight' with no double taking pigeons or sound gags. But it's a really silly, fun, and quite frankly cool Bond scene done very confidently). I wouldn't say GE's a film that plays it safe as such, but just updates those tropes to that time period and gives us something contemporary but Bondian. If anything I think that's a great lesson going forward.
Great points @007HallY sometimes you need to just let go of the why and just have fun. Both the tank and digger sequence have this in spades.
I think a Bond begins can't be like Batman or even Spider-Man as Bond is Bond and we have never seen his childhood or get too bogged down into his upbringing. To me a Bond begins would be him out on his first mission or assignment as a double-o. I personally don't think this should be the tack on this new adventure.
... a la Operation Steel Cartridge from Carte Blanche.
Or perhaps we can have a Bond who we don't need to compare to any other film hero. Nor do we need to know why he does what he does. We meet him as cool, clever, cultured, and damn good at what he does. He's not hung up on the short comings of his country. Things are what they are. He believes in his job and doing it well. He takes pleasure where he can. He is not haunted by his past.
I'd argue there's been a personal element since LTK. I mean yes, you had some before, allusions to the death of Tracy mostly, but they were far and few between. With LTK, you have the revenge motivation, then in GE you have Bond fighting his former friend, then in TND Bond finds his former flame (quickly tossed aside, but still), and so on...
So I doubt they'll abandon the personal element in the next Bond movie. Especially for a new Bond. I don't think they'll play completely safe either: they'll take calculated risks.
I think the personal element comes down to just giving Bond some sort of relevant stakes, conflicts, compelling goals, or obstacles in the story. So effectively it's just about storytelling. Even the earliest Bond films had those in one form or another (in FRWL, for example, Bond of course has to 'play' Tanya in order to get the Lecter, despite having some obvious feelings for her. It's part of what makes Bond much more human in that film and it's the dynamic is a major reason I find that film better than DN. You've also OHMSS with Bond's relationship with Tracy being central to that story in general, TSWLM with Anya/the conflict, and numerous other examples).
But I think you're right, it's something LTK really leaned into and it's something they clearly think about (again it's simply about how to create a compelling story and film. I'd actually be worried if they didn't think about what story scenarios to put Bond in and how to make it entertaining).
Agreed that it would be concerning if they didn't give Bond some emotional stakes to drive the story forward, he can't be a robot.
Exactly. No Bond has ever been that I'd argue. Even in DN - which is arguably the most 'flat'/one dimensional Bond has ever been as a character (not a criticism in itself incidentally, 'flat' characters aren't inherently bad) - Connery's Bond shows some level of emotional investment by wanting to complete his mission/avenge Strangways and Quarrel. Not exactly deep, but it was consciously put there, and of course Bond's derision to No's megalomania is there for a reason. Bond should always have that level of humanity to him (he certainly did in the books, and the character certainly had his conflicts in Fleming).
Like you say, they really did set the template well in the very first film.
DN's a really interesting novel in the sense there's a lot going on with Bond as a character. Obviously it takes place after his recovery from the poisoning in FRWL, and the second chapter involves Sir James Molony effectively telling M that Bond has been stretched physically and psychologically since the War, and if he's not careful his best agent will suffer a break down (it's quite interesting that later on in the series we see Bond's health deteriorate slightly in TB as a second hand result of his boredom, and he becomes very jaded by OHMSS. That's not even mentioning the PTSD he suffers in YOLT). Bond becomes defensive at M for ordering him to replace his Beretta, and even after being subject of two assassination attempts (in what is supposed to be a routine mission) he constantly second guesses himself and worries what M will think if he believes he's lost his step. There's very much a sense his ego has been shaken by his ordeal in the previous book.
I remember Quarrel's death shaking Bond in the book (he even insists on going back to the body and saying sorry to Quarrel, which is very half heartedly adapted in the film and makes no sense even though Connery could have played that scene exceptionally well). He knows Strangways as well from LALD and is sceptical that he's run off with his secretary (there's more a sense in the book that Bond is at odds with the rest of the Civil Servants/MI6 lot in Jamaica due to this than in the film).
If I recall correctly the dinner scene with No is relatively similar to the film. I remember Bond thinking No completely mad and even contemplating outright stabbing him in the neck with the steak knife he's concealed at one point. I remember a moment later when he justifies (I believe shooting?) a guard in the back/in cold blood with the reasoning that it may well be the same man that killed Quarrel and Strangways and tells himself it's kill or be killed. So I think a lot of the personal stuff is in the book.
Not to forget that in DN Bond seems genuinely terrified of that spider.
... which isn't lethal, I might add.
It did come from Crab Key though. If it bit him I wonder if it would have given him Spiderman powers. :P
True, it can hover in mid air after all.
In the Bond universe it is.
Reboot? More product placement.
Granted, it just comes off a bit silly given they've already made an attempt on Bond's life at this point. So to go from shooting at him, to just trying to scare him off (unless they really are trying to frighten him to death here) seems a bit strange.
Ironically, Dr. No was released the same year that Spider-Man was first released publicly.
I think the tarantula is depicted as genuinely lethal. That's Hollywood science for you.
They didn't think audiences would realise how lethal a Centipede can be...
Probably right. Most people see a big scary arachnid, they'll assume it's dangerous. It does its job as a threatening visual.
I think of Honey being chained with crabs didn't translate so they were removed from the sequence.
Some have said they want to see Bond battle a giant squid like in the book of DN. I have a feeling it wouldn't translate well to the screen. However with CGI being what it is now, maybe this would be something worth capturing in a future adventure. Too costly for the film adventure of DN.
Goldfinger didn't have a buzz saw like the book but a "freaking laser beam". Sorry channeling my inner Dr. Evil. This created a fear of lasers in the public as it was done so realistic. By GE lasers were now in watches and the public bought it fine.
The producers were trying to bring the castle from YOTL to the screen but soon realized that Fleming had taken license as the castles of Japan were far from the coast due to fear of high tide or typhoons.
But if it be reboot then i think there should do what The Incredible Hulk did to Hulk. Where Hulk end in the woods, in The Incredible Hulk he be found in the woods. The Incredible Hulk feels because of that element (and that minimal 3 chacters played by other people return) has a bit of sequel feeling.
Earlier i said that there should take Quantum group element / Dominic Greene words as basic for Bond 26 with some help of John Gardner Novels.