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 mean, a big part of Bond anyway is the clothes, the cars, the locations, and this was the case during the Craig era. Otherwise it's just very specific but potentially empty visuals. It may or may not be relevant to the film nor is it a creative/aesthetic decision.
I'm 25 FYI, and that sort of thing stinks of something a 40+ year old producer would come up with to impress 'da kids'. Just come up with a gripping story that reintroduces Bond. How you do that will take time and work. Also comparing Bond to shows with that Tik Tok/Instargram popularity like Euphoria is nonsensical because Euphoria is a show that people picked up on because a) it's quite relatable to many as it's about teenagers in contemporary society and b) the heightened melodrama is emphasised by the visuals - lots of elaborate camera movements, bright colours, the grainy 35 mm etc. Very different to Bond. It's actually somewhat surprising that Euphoria even managed to capture that zeitgeist.
As for a young Bond, I don't think it works as the story because we know where Bond will end up, especially if it's as early as his Navy days. The film will have to be very referential to what audiences know about Bond - and this will be through the films. Ignoring it will make it... well, not a Bond film. One of the Craig era's biggest failures is that it relied too heavily on the iconography of previous Bond films and didn't do anything new with them. They even tried to do the whole 'young Bond' thing initially in CR and it didn't pan out. For better or worse I suspect we'll get a reboot but for the best potential for drama, I'm pretty sure we'll have to have Bond as a 00.
Well said.
For me, it is as simple as this - I don't think the producers will repeat by doing what they just did for the past five films. The pendulum should swing.
I sometimes think and say something along the lines of the "instagram style"-thing, but honestly, I can't really put a finger on it.
The charge that this is something an older producer would come up with to be hip, is certainly one that sticks, eventhough I am not 40+ either. So that certainly has to be taken into account.
I think, what it comes down to for me is that somehow the Craig era, especially since Skyfall, has felt just kind of old. In Skyfall that is of course by design and it is fantastic and with Bond in general, there is that great history, so that is probably always built in a bit, but SP and NTTD especially feel like films made by 50+ year olds with a lot of disposable income, for 50+ year olds with a lot of disposable income. They are still good enough (well, NTTD is) that other audience groups are drawn to them as well, but to me that has really been the target demographic for Eon/Bond for the last 10 years.
That doesn't mean I want the next Bond to wear Balanciaga or Supreme, or that all iconography should be thrown out, but a younger actor, some fresh locations and costumes and plots that maybe don't all revolve around retirement, family, legacies and haunted pasts would go a long way to make the films feel fresher.
I suspect the series was in a similar place when Moore left the part. Everything felt a bit old, younger viewers weren't as interested, but the series was still generally successful. I think these things straighten themselves out with a new actor, but again the Producers need to put in the work to come up with a new vision for the next era of the series.
Anyway, I agree. There's certainly a fatalism to Craig's later films. For what it's worth SF is generally well regarded among people my age, often by those who don't like Bond films. I'd argue it's because of the strength of its story and perceived quality (especially in comparison to its successors).
Anyway, let's see. My gut instinct is that the budget for the next film will be smaller after NTTD. Apart from that anything's fair game. I certainly hope elements of the Craig era are retained while others are retired. NTTD especially had a streak of the fantastical within it (the Cuba SPECTRE party, Safin as this otherworldly, revenge stricken villain, the nanobots etc.) mixed with these rather dark moments that I'd like to see them have another crack at. Ideally with a tighter, more grounded story with less fatalism/more humour. Bond having an arc/personal stuff hinted at as a character is fine, especially nowadays, but I don't think going into his past is required and I'd like to see him as the flawed, enigmatic secret agent (who often functions similarly to a hardboiled detective rather than a Le Carre esque spy). A younger Bond is good too, and I hope the films are less referential to the 60s Bond films going forward. The clothes, gambling, cars, exotic locations, gadgets (should they be grounded enough to work with the tone/be integrated into the story) are great. More erotism - not necessarily sex as this is something older demographics generally bang on about and aren't necessarily the same thing. Bond in the books often sleeps with one or occasionally no women. A well written femme fatale Bond girl, great chemistry between her and Bond etc. This is what I'd personally like to see, but again it's one of many directions they can go in.
When Dalton got the part, nobody knew who he was. It was great to have someone young in the role, but Dalton didn't have the easy star quality that Moore had. These days everyone praises him, but at the time he was considered lacking - the general public was used to Moore's in-on-the-joke style of superhero, and Dalton was so much more serious. I didn't enjoy TLD that much (still don't), but I thought LTK was great, and that Dalton worked much better in that much more serious story. One of my friends from 6th form at the time rolled his eyes at the mention of Dalton and said he wasn't as cool as Roger Moore was, and that was a not uncommon view as I remember it.
I do remember the enthusiasm when Brosnan took over, and he had a similar light touch to Moore, though he could play it more serious, too. Amazing how quickly his films became so forgettable, though.
I don't think Eon will have a good idea of which direction to take the films in. Or what kind of Bond they want. My guess they will be arguing amongst themselves as much as we are.
So then one could argue that one way to honour, continue and emulate those early films isn't to take original things from them and planting them in the 21st century, but to try and replay what they were and meant at the time. Thrilling, sexy, funny blockbusters that paved the way for a whole genre and an enduring series. The obvious problem is that that is for more easily said than done and again, with the rate of change we experience currently, you'll most likely end up with something like the Brosnan era, where you have f.e. a lot of "futuristic" tech that looks way more goofy now than any of the stuff in Connery or Moore's films.
Now I am just rambling. I guess what I want for them to try is to be thoroughly modern and for Bond to be in his prime.
A good example is the Bond girls. Obviously a few have had their share of criticisms and audiences expect something a bit more from female characters in this series. It's been like that for a while. We've had the 'Bond's equal' trope during the Brosnan era (Jinx, Wai Lin etc) as a way of modernising this aspect of the series but it's debatable how well it worked. That's why I mentioned having a more femme fatale style Bond girl - one who has agency in the story, has flaws, goals of her own as well as agency in the story, but isn't designed to be 'cool' or 'strong' as such. Arguably that's honouring the source material if it's a character in the vein of Tiffany Case or Honey Rider (from the novels).
It was not 50 years old at the time, but cars had undergone SIGNIFICANT change, when Connery's Bond went on a picnic with Sylvia Trench at the beginning of FRWL, w/an old Bentley. It was true to the books, sure. Even so, your points are very well taken ! Besides, what proves a Rule as well as an Exception ?!?
On a wider note, surely, TG-M shows that the audience yearn for a simpler, more traditional adventure movie where emotion has it's place but action, cheering and flag waving are the main ellements. The irony (to me at least) is that these should be easier to write than the complex, intertwined, episodic scrips from the DC era. I dont think it would happen but I would bet that, in a quiet moment, McQ has re-imagined Bond in this way and added huge potential to maintream audiences and takings. Linked to this, for that direction to work, IMHO, we need a younger actor who shares the boyish charm and acting skills of Cruise (thats a tough call) but thats on another thread.
Yeah I'd like that.
I think doing it as well as TG:M does it looks deceptively simple and it requires a great deal of skill.
And yeah, I think audiences want something a bit more escapist, especially after how heavy and 'personal' the latter half of the Craig era was. Still though, it does require actual creative decisions to be made and isn't just a case of 'big budget, big action scenes'. Again, you can still have a relatively grounded Bond adventure that leans into the fantastical, perhaps has a touch of darkness in places (LALD and DN being examples). You'd still have to have 'emotion' and character arcs, but they'd touch on different things than the latter half of the Craig era.
Now, there's no need to explore this again. I do feel Bond should be more of a 'mysterious dark stranger' in the next one, but even Fleming's Bond had struggles. There's a few times where he considered quitting the Service altogether, his cynicism towards his job was always there, and of course there's his dislike of killing in cold blood/the idea of assassination. Such ideas are ripe for being explored in a future film. Not to mention the many goals and backstories of Bond girls within the novels.
"Peeeeeeeeel back certain layers to his character. See what hidden demons may be lurking'.
Agreed ! There are some great scenes in the books - or enough there upon which to amplify - that were barely used or not used at all in the films. That's fine - FRWL is terrific though it presents just enough of Tania with the villain to appreciate what the villain wanted from her, for example. But the great scene in TB the novel, wherein Domino and Bond spend some quiet time together and she makes a story out of what she sees on a cigarette pack is interesting and has its own charm. I get that TB the movie wanted no such slow-downs, and had enough of the non-action scenes. But, as you say, these sort of things could be explored. Additionally, bring back Sylvia Trench ! Both she and Bond knew, I believe, that each of them was free to pursue interpersonal fun with other folks, yet they still were there for each other in their own way. I would not call it simply Friends With Benefits, but it seemed to be along those lines.
Personal struggles would be fine, but entire movies shouldn't be centered around them. I thought TWINE did this well. Bond and Elektra have an intense relationship but it never gets in the way of the movie itself.
And yes, Bond needs to become more anonymous again, someone who is defined by his actions and not his past, his emotions, or his inner world. He needs his spiritedness and charisma back, something that's been completely lacking since at least QOS. Starting with SF, watching Bond was like watching a gravedigger.
CR and QoS were great at making the character emotional instead of introducing canon for plot’s sake. I don’t see how revisiting his birth home or making Blofeld his step brother added any depth to the character. But the way they dealt with the love, betrayal and revenge of Vesper was masterful subtle character building and well woven into the story.
Brosnan's dodgy acting always got in the way of much of TWINE for me ("He knew about my shoulder, knew where to HURT me?" etc.)
Again, I feel it's more of a case of finding out what to explore with Bond's character. I agree with others, the foster brother subplot in SP felt needlessly dramatic and added nothing. Bond is still that mysterious figure in SF, even with the hints of his backstory (which were well established in other books and films incidentally). He simply came off as more a Byronic hero, which is fine and is always there with Bond to an extent. I don't want every film to attempt this, and I think the SP subplot with Blofeld went way overboard with these concepts and descended into silliness.
I love the early Bond films, especially the Connery ones, but I don't think we're going to see Bond as a straightforward 'flat' character like that again simply because modern audiences engage with onscreen heroes differently nowadays and are willing to call BS on certain things. It's boring too. Arguably making him like this is antithetical to the source material (over time I've personally come to hate moments like Bond killing Dent in cold blood in DN because of how interesting Bond's conflict about assassination was in the novels). Not sure where the gravedigger thing comes from - the Bond of Craig's iteration can be stoic, but Craig played the role with charisma and humour too. While I dislike SP Craig does have that Connery in GF coolness to him, and in NTTD Bond becomes weirdly more 'talkative' after his retirment. But yeah, Bond can certainly be less broody but still be a rounded, interesting character with an air of mystery around him.
While BB and MGW insist they decide the direction first, I think it depends a lot on the actor. I see some that could pull off the Sean Connery swagger, some that would be comfortable with a more dramatic take, some that would be able to do both, and some neither.
Yeah, I think they did so for Bond/Safin's encounter during the climax. Apparently it wasn't working as written... which is odd as what we ended up with doesn't work either, muddles Safin's character and boarders on cliche.
Yeah, I think much of the direction depends on the actor. Certainly was the case with Craig.
I think Brosnan would have been better suited for a film like Spectre.
https://screenrant.com/james-bond-26-reboot-no-time-die-difficult/
Key points:
While Bond’s death might seem the perfect foundation for a reboot by wiping the slate clean, this was not deemed necessary for Casino Royale.
How Bond 26 shall set the tone for 007 is already set to suffer because its story somewhat relies on a reset to the franchise – whether this reset is a partial or complete one is currently unclear. Bond 26 cannot pick up where No Time To Die left off, but it also cannot ignore the significance of audiences having witnessed 007’s death.
Bond 26 has the difficulty of following a successful arc with the requirement of incorporating change: a lack of tonal distinction, after all, would make Bond’s death seem even more incongruous.
If Bond was to die, only to have the character return to cinemas with much of the same tone and personality, it would be hard to understand what distinguishes a Bond film from other action films.
Yes. The Craig era being its own continuity doesn't justify NTTD. Babs and MGW thought killing off Craig's Bond, Brofeld, and Felix would make it easier to start fresh with Bond 26, but it's actually the complete opposite, just as Brosnan's Bond dying at the end of DAD would have made CR feel very strange.
Bond being played by different actors over many decades is a far cry from killing the character and then resurrecting him. Multiple continuities doesn't give EON a license to cheat. Basic rules of logic still need to be followed. After all, you're still telling the stories of one man... or are you?
Which brings me to this point: everyone hated/hates the idea of James Bond being a code name. But what's the difference between that and having multiple James Bonds living completely different lives? Now it appears we have three different people named James Bond. James Bond A (Connery through Brosnan) fought during and after the Cold War and lost Tracy to Blofeld. James Bond B (Craig) only became a 00 after 9/11, didn't marry Tracy, had a kid with Madeline and Blofeld as an adoptive brother, and then was killed in a missile strike. Presumably James Bond C will have a completely different life narrative, as well.
Again, how is that different from the code name theory? If you're going to have multiple James Bonds whose lives have nothing to do with one another you might as well just use the code name idea.
The only way I can envision Bond 26 working is if NTTD is severely retconned. They cannot simply ignore Bond 25 by appealing to the "different continuity" argument.
Of course they could always go the 'Dallas' dream season route when actor Patrol Duffy exited the series in a fiery crash. A year later, after he determined leaving a successful series was not a wise choice, the producers brought Duffy's character back by wiping out an entire season by passing it off as a dream. In Bond 26, Moneypenny could pop awake, report to work and tell the new young Bond that she dreamt he was old, had a child, and was blown up.
Start fresh as if the previous 60 years hadn't happened.
I don’t understand the theory that they killed him for the sake of B26; I think they just did it for an ending to B25.