Bond 25 Production Diary: Possible title leak (potential spoilers)

1159515961598160016012272

Comments

  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,090
    For me the first 3 Bourne films are much more atmpspheric, creatively salient, engaging and more gripping than any Bond film in recent memory and it's frustrating that since 2007's Boune Ultimatum, with the arguable exception of CR, Bond hasn't given us anything near as good. I'm really hoping that Bond 25 corrects this. Bond is numero uno and needs to be treated as such.
  • Posts: 11,932
    bondjames wrote: »
    boldfinger wrote: »
    bondbat007 wrote: »
    I thought MI3 gave Ethan Hunt pretty good character development. And I look forward to that continuing in the next one now that his wife is back in play.

    Bond is an archetype who has been given good character arcs through his 20 plus films. And that's totally fine
    Bond did splendidly without character development for 20 films. What I demand of both Bond and Hunt is a certain character presentation. I don´t get tired of mentioning Michael Mann, who manages to let even the smallest roles show character and past experiences, even if they don´t talk at all.
    I agree, although I think they did do character development during the progression of the earlier films. It was just subtle and cumulative within the context of the narrative unfolding, rather than via expositional layering, with the exception being OHMSS (essentially a one-off reboot).

    Like you, I think Cruise and Co. do something similar with the MI line, with the exception being MI3 which delved deeper into his personal life. It didn't work for me, and I'm glad they ditched it for the last two, although I gather the wife is back for MI:6.
    TripAces wrote: »
    LeChiffre wrote: »
    Benny wrote: »
    Locations. New Zealand.

    You'll be able to see the New Zealand countryside in the upcoming Mission Impossible : Fallout, if you like.
    Don't think Bond needs to follow suit again with MI

    No. MI already lead the way in death defying stunts.

    Problem is, I don't care if Ethan Hunt lives or dies. He's not a character worth investing in.

    I'd have a hard time even calling him a character to be honest, he's that bland and generic. More just a vehicle for Tom Cruise to do insane stunts. And that's fine, the stunts are pretty cool, and sometimes the films themselves are decent too (the fourth one especially felt so fresh and exciting at the time). But MI just feels so soulless compared to Bond for me. It's hard to describe but I just don't feel like it still has the same magic/heart there.

    I actually enjoyed the MI films more when they did their own thing and each one was pretty unique to the others. They just seem to be aping Bond now, exploiting the gap in the market the Craig era left them. And they ape it well to be fair. But it'll never be the same as the real thing.

    I know it's fashionable to bash Bond and praise MI nowadays but the two don't even compare imo. I know it was a TV show (part of a craze that Bond inspired) but I think MI will die with Cruise. I'm sure they'll try and carry on without him and we'll get some sort of reboot further down the line but it's pretty much all about Cruise and the stunts he pulls off. Once he's too old I think that's pretty much it. But Bond has more substance to it than that and will outlive all of us.

    Also, this isn't bitterness. I'm not one of those Bond fans who immediately craps on any rival series. Loved the Bourne trilogy and I really liked both Kingsman films. But MI as a series just doesn't do it for me.
    For me, he's as bland and generic as cinematic Bond was prior to this reboot (OHMSS and MI:3 being exceptions), and I'm perfectly fine with that. There have been enough films now so that fans have become accustomed to Hunt's personality and approach (as they did with Bond before him). Those of us who are invested in both characters can sense how he would act when confronted with a certain scenario. As Lane said in the last one, Hunt is essentially a gambler and risk taker, but with limits and morals.

    I don't think he's soulless at all, but that's a personal opinion. If one can't connect with a characterization, then I can appreciate how it could seem vacuous. I'm sure some said that of some of the more extravagant Bond entries, although I love them. So to each their own on that.

    Regarding the last two films aping Bond: yes, that's true. McQuarrie and Cruise are on record stating that they saw a gap and filled it. I'm extremely grateful to them for that, because I personally think the last two entries have been perfectly executed examples of how to create light, action oriented spy entertainment. To me at least, they capture the tone, spirit and style of some of the Gilbert and Glen films, with larger than life threats and death defying action set pieces executed to perfection.

    I absolutely love the Bourne series (due a rewatch soon), really liked the first Kingsman film (not too keen on the 2nd one though), and think MI, MI4 and MI5 are great (not keen on the 2nd or 3rd ones although they certainly have their moments). From what I've read, McQuarrie/Cruise are going to take a slightly different approach with the next one and I can't wait to see what they come up with. It's my most anticipated film of this year.

    Regarding broader discussion of Bond vs. MI (which always gets conflated with the conversation about the last few films for some reason), there is absolutely no comparison and I think most fans on this site would agree. Bond craps all over MI from a great height. It is by far the more iconic series, full of character, history, pedigree and culture. It is a series that transcends the actor playing him at any point in time, while MI exists as a vehicle for Cruise's vision, ambitions and bravado.

    I'm very happy that I'm a huge fan of both of these series, and any other well executed series in this genre.

    Cinematic Bond prior to the reboot still had more character for me. There might not have been much character development, he started off fully formed and stayed pretty much the same throughout, but Bond himself has always been an interesting and unique character, probably because the essence of Fleming's Bond has always been there. Hunt is just Tom Cruise in generic action hero mode imo. I'd struggle to list off any memorable traits of his like I could with Bond. Bond has always had that edge to him as well that makes him cool and dangerous. I think Hunt is just a lot more bland and forgettable in comparison.

    Put Bond in a small scale detective film like DN and he still shines because he's a great memorable character. If you did that with Hunt I think it'd be boring. The MI films are for the most part good blockbusters but once you get past the stunts and the action I don't think you're left with much else.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited June 2018 Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    boldfinger wrote: »
    bondbat007 wrote: »
    I thought MI3 gave Ethan Hunt pretty good character development. And I look forward to that continuing in the next one now that his wife is back in play.

    Bond is an archetype who has been given good character arcs through his 20 plus films. And that's totally fine
    Bond did splendidly without character development for 20 films. What I demand of both Bond and Hunt is a certain character presentation. I don´t get tired of mentioning Michael Mann, who manages to let even the smallest roles show character and past experiences, even if they don´t talk at all.
    I agree, although I think they did do character development during the progression of the earlier films. It was just subtle and cumulative within the context of the narrative unfolding, rather than via expositional layering, with the exception being OHMSS (essentially a one-off reboot).

    Like you, I think Cruise and Co. do something similar with the MI line, with the exception being MI3 which delved deeper into his personal life. It didn't work for me, and I'm glad they ditched it for the last two, although I gather the wife is back for MI:6.
    TripAces wrote: »
    LeChiffre wrote: »
    Benny wrote: »
    Locations. New Zealand.

    You'll be able to see the New Zealand countryside in the upcoming Mission Impossible : Fallout, if you like.
    Don't think Bond needs to follow suit again with MI

    No. MI already lead the way in death defying stunts.

    Problem is, I don't care if Ethan Hunt lives or dies. He's not a character worth investing in.

    I'd have a hard time even calling him a character to be honest, he's that bland and generic. More just a vehicle for Tom Cruise to do insane stunts. And that's fine, the stunts are pretty cool, and sometimes the films themselves are decent too (the fourth one especially felt so fresh and exciting at the time). But MI just feels so soulless compared to Bond for me. It's hard to describe but I just don't feel like it still has the same magic/heart there.

    I actually enjoyed the MI films more when they did their own thing and each one was pretty unique to the others. They just seem to be aping Bond now, exploiting the gap in the market the Craig era left them. And they ape it well to be fair. But it'll never be the same as the real thing.

    I know it's fashionable to bash Bond and praise MI nowadays but the two don't even compare imo. I know it was a TV show (part of a craze that Bond inspired) but I think MI will die with Cruise. I'm sure they'll try and carry on without him and we'll get some sort of reboot further down the line but it's pretty much all about Cruise and the stunts he pulls off. Once he's too old I think that's pretty much it. But Bond has more substance to it than that and will outlive all of us.

    Also, this isn't bitterness. I'm not one of those Bond fans who immediately craps on any rival series. Loved the Bourne trilogy and I really liked both Kingsman films. But MI as a series just doesn't do it for me.
    For me, he's as bland and generic as cinematic Bond was prior to this reboot (OHMSS and MI:3 being exceptions), and I'm perfectly fine with that. There have been enough films now so that fans have become accustomed to Hunt's personality and approach (as they did with Bond before him). Those of us who are invested in both characters can sense how he would act when confronted with a certain scenario. As Lane said in the last one, Hunt is essentially a gambler and risk taker, but with limits and morals.

    I don't think he's soulless at all, but that's a personal opinion. If one can't connect with a characterization, then I can appreciate how it could seem vacuous. I'm sure some said that of some of the more extravagant Bond entries, although I love them. So to each their own on that.

    Regarding the last two films aping Bond: yes, that's true. McQuarrie and Cruise are on record stating that they saw a gap and filled it. I'm extremely grateful to them for that, because I personally think the last two entries have been perfectly executed examples of how to create light, action oriented spy entertainment. To me at least, they capture the tone, spirit and style of some of the Gilbert and Glen films, with larger than life threats and death defying action set pieces executed to perfection.

    I absolutely love the Bourne series (due a rewatch soon), really liked the first Kingsman film (not too keen on the 2nd one though), and think MI, MI4 and MI5 are great (not keen on the 2nd or 3rd ones although they certainly have their moments). From what I've read, McQuarrie/Cruise are going to take a slightly different approach with the next one and I can't wait to see what they come up with. It's my most anticipated film of this year.

    Regarding broader discussion of Bond vs. MI (which always gets conflated with the conversation about the last few films for some reason), there is absolutely no comparison and I think most fans on this site would agree. Bond craps all over MI from a great height. It is by far the more iconic series, full of character, history, pedigree and culture. It is a series that transcends the actor playing him at any point in time, while MI exists as a vehicle for Cruise's vision, ambitions and bravado.

    I'm very happy that I'm a huge fan of both of these series, and any other well executed series in this genre.

    Cinematic Bond prior to the reboot still had more character for me. There might not have been much character development, he started off fully formed and stayed pretty much the same throughout, but Bond himself has always been an interesting and unique character, probably because the essence of Fleming's Bond has always been there. Hunt is just Tom Cruise in generic action hero mode imo. I'd struggle to list off any memorable traits of his like I could with Bond. Bond has always had that edge to him as well that makes him cool and dangerous. I think Hunt is just a lot more bland and forgettable in comparison.

    Put Bond in a small scale detective film like DN and he still shines because he's a great memorable character. If you did that with Hunt I think it'd be boring. The MI films are for the most part good blockbusters but once you get past the stunts and the action I don't think you're left with much else.
    Oh no doubt. I couldn't agree more with your comments. There really is no comparison between Hunt as a character and Bond.

    To be frank, I think there are very little characters in this genre who can compare with Bond. How can they really? Not only is there the literary canon to draw from, but also the rich (and arguably genre defining and iconic) cinematic history. It's night and day. Bond easily transcends the actor. Hunt certainly does not.

    Having said all that, I don't think we should take anything away from what Cruise has been able to achieve with Ethan Hunt and the MI series. They really are very entertaining films which punch well above their weight. As you said, this is a character that he took from a tv series no less, and due to his vision, commitment and flair he has created something which resonates with many people, and which fills a void for many Bond fans too in some respects (certainly those who aren't very enamoured with the current direction at least). It's certainly true that Hunt almost seems to be an exaggerated extension of Tom Cruise, but I'm perfectly fine with that.

    Like I said, I'm really happy he's still doing them, and putting his all into it. They fill a market gap and satiate fans of this genre. I look forward to more entries in this space, including the new female lead films.
  • Posts: 4,622
    Yes, having the MI films and even the Bourne films is a nice genre sidebar to Bond.
    Kind of like Man From Uncle and The Avengers in the '60s, although not quite.
    Those two series were very iconic in their own right. Uncle even had 8 cinema releases.
  • Posts: 4,694
    Put Bond in a small scale detective film like DN and he still shines because he's a great memorable character. If you did that with Hunt I think it'd be boring. The MI films are for the most part good blockbusters but once you get past the stunts and the action I don't think you're left with much else.
    I guess that´s why the stunts are the focus of the marketing. Well, as long as they dish the action out like in the last two films I´m happy :-).

  • mybudgetbondmybudgetbond The World
    edited June 2018 Posts: 172
    TheBondExperience shared this very interesting post on instagram:

    Mark Strong in Bond 25?

    E925_C112-23_BB-441_A-8_C45-00627_B126937.jpg
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your family
    Posts: 9,011
    I'd be fine with him as an ally of some sort, but definitely not as a villain.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.
    Posts: 31,186
    It'd be great if he joined, considering a lot of us thought he might join SP after he shared a photo alongside Craig before production was set to begin.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Isn't he on some new tv series called Deep State? I believe it's been renewed for a 2nd season for next year. So it's doubtful he will be in B25 but one never knows.
  • edited June 2018 Posts: 11,932
    jake24 wrote: »
    I'd be fine with him as an ally of some sort, but definitely not as a villain.

    Same, I think he'd be good as another 00.

    I think it'd be nice for Bond to have more actual mates in general really. I know he has allies but I mean people you could imagine him going to the pub with when he's not on a mission. There's only really Felix and Moneypenny that fit the bill. They don't have to go all buddy cop or anything and it doesn't have to be a recurring character. Just a couple of lines and dialogue to sell it. Could just be some minor character in London, another agent or someone else at MI6 who would otherwise just be spouting exposition. Show Bond being friendly with them to make it all seem a bit more real.

    One of the things I really like about the Brosnan era is how they did that with Robinson (honestly one of my favourite minor characters, way better than any Tanner imo). He's barely in the films at all but him and Bond actually seem to be friends. He's the only person at MI6 Bond is on first name terms with. He seems genuinely concerned for him at the start of TND, and in DAD when he's traded for Zao Bond immediately goes to say hi once he notices him. He didn't need loads of screentime or forced banter (I think GE is guilty of that in the PTS, love Brosnan and Bean together but I do cringe a bit the whole "buy me a pint" exchange). Little moments like that go a long way I think. It's nice and it makes Bond seem more like a real person.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded Dancing at midnight under the BeBop Moon
    Posts: 10,945
    Yes, I'd like him to have a good ally. And I do want Leiter back (J. Wright).
  • Posts: 1,316
    You guys wouldn't be fine with Mark Strong as a villain? Are you serious? I'd love that so much
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 7,681
    bondbat007 wrote: »
    You guys wouldn't be fine with Mark Strong as a villain? Are you serious? I'd love that so much
    Either ally or villain would be fine with me.
  • Posts: 4,694
    Yes, I'd like him to have a good ally. And I do want Leiter back (J. Wright).
    As cool as Wright was, I can´t stop imagining McConnaughey as Leiter.

  • edited June 2018 Posts: 1,503
    TheBondExperience shared this very interesting post on instagram:

    Mark Strong in Bond 25?

    E925_C112-23_BB-441_A-8_C45-00627_B126937.jpg

    I looked up the guy and he is legit Strong's personal trainer... so question is, is he messing about there or not

  • Posts: 2,369
    Giacomo Farci is a personal trainer and his Instagram page confirms that he works very closely with Mark Strong. Furthermore, check out his IMDB:
    https://www.imdb.com/name/nm6858933/

    He has extensive film experience and has worked with Strong on a number of projects.

    I feel this is a 100% leak and Mark Strong will be in Bond 25. I pray that he won't be a villain. I remember there was a brief spell around 10 years ago where Hollywood couldn't get enough of casting Mark Strong as a baddie. I hope Boyle is smarter than that.

    Perhaps Strong is affiliated with MI6 or Whitehall? I wouldn't mind if Strong was the henchman or a minor villain like Dimitrios, but not the big bad. Strong ha san intimidating presence and he's a solid actor. However, his casting feels obvious and is not particularly exciting.

    We all know that Daniel Craig and Mark Strong are very close friends (isn't Strong the godfather to his daughter?). Also, Strong has worked with Danny Boyle on Sunshine. It always felt less if Strong would in a Bond movie and more when.

    danny-boyle-wins-the-outstanding-contribution-award-and-actor-mark-picture-id849893402?k=6&m=849893402&s=612x612&w=0&h=gAVsu46ucCePrkoDZNwH11DMowXY9koGnuKNHdSIoDA=
    e625d839564005c4a5584851dbd96790.jpg

    Strong himself confirmed that he was almost cast in SF. Perhaps as either Mallory or Silva

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I'm pretty sure he plays an MI6 operative in Deep State. If so, it's unlikely he will be in B25 and the training shot is most likely in preparation for that series 2nd season.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 14,967
    He does play an MI6 operative in Deep State.

    However, I wouldn't rule him out of B25. I mean, why would the poster who is his trainer attach the hashtag "#Bond25" next to the post? It would degrade his reputation, wouldn't it?
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 7,681
    Agreed, @ClarkDevlin. I rarely jump to conclusions, but to me, this is as good as a confirmation.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 14,967
    I'd be very glad with him on board. Hell, I wish he was cast as Blofeld.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Fair enough. Unless he's having a bit of fun with the audience. After all, would Babs and Co. want this sort of announcement to be made in this manner? It seems rather anticlimactic in my opinion.

    Still can't see him being cast given he's in an ongoing series which deals with espionage and MI6 though, especially given his prior Kingsman involvement.

    I look forward to being proven wrong though, as I'm a big fan of his and had the privilege of seeing him (as I did his buddy Craig) on Broadway a couple of years back.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 14,967
    He could be working on Deep State and shoot the second season entirely until December. Who's to say he'll be filming his scenes in December for B25? He could come on board perhaps around late January or February. It's not impossible.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I wasn't referring to scheduling conflicts but rather the fact that if cast he will be in a tv series that is being shown globally (and for all we know may get a third season) and a major event film concurrently, both dealing with MI6 and espionage. It just seems unlikely to me, especially since his most recent well known role was as a sort of MI6 alternative operative (in Kingsman).

    Once again, happy to be proven wrong. Strong elevates anything that he is in.
  • BennyBenny Visiting Osato Chemicals later in 2019.
    Posts: 8,125
    I really like Mark Strong, be more than happy to see him in Bond25 in any capacity.
    Either a Saunders type MI6 ally.
    Or a Sean Bean style villain. Maybe not a former MI6 operative, but a strong villain. No pun intended ;)
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 14,967
    It's about time we had a strong villain.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    MGM owned Epix broadcasts Deep State in the US. Could this be the beginning of an MI6 universe? Hmm... :-?
  • Posts: 10,576
    I am sure DC would be chuffed to have his pal Mark Strong onboard?!
  • QuantumOrganizationQuantumOrganization We have people everywhere
    Posts: 1,187
    Perhaps we can finally have a Blofeld do over.
  • Posts: 8,248
    Perhaps we can finally have a Blofeld do over.

    I wouldn't be against that idea in the least.
  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    Posts: 2,009
    "Mark Strong" sounds like a Bond villain name.

    I hope he won't play an MI6 ally because I want to see Felix/Wright again, and two allies may be too many (no more Scooby gang, please). We'll see.
Sign In or Register to comment.