Realistic & Serious Story Ideas for Bond 25 (...to be used by EON Productions Ltd.??)

1303133353638

Comments

  • Posts: 5,611
    I wrote this in another thread... I'm sure @noSolaceleft will have fun ripping across these waves:

    I'd like to see one nasty sonofabitch with Ernst, this time around.

    We know he was arrested, so what has prison life been like for Ernst?

    And how are the writers/producers going to play with time? SP, after all, seems to be only a few months after the events of SF. Which dates the last film in the year 2012-13...

    By the time B25 opens up, six years would have gone by.

    Has Blofeld been in solitary this entire time? What has it done to this megalomaniac once he's released? I hope he literally chews off the faces of his subordinates... Just one nasty beast, that will now reek absolute havoc, not only on those who put him away, but, of course, destroy James Bond within that big plan.

    And perhaps that big plan is a lure, to snare his rival (a la FRWL); perhaps this is what brings Bond out of retirement (if he is, indeed in retirement?)? And both he and M know this is obviously a set-up-- but they're dealing with Blofeld, and there really is no choice in the matter: trap or not, Bond has to walk into the lion's den.

    And yes, no Madeleine is necessary, nor even needs to be mentioned (after all, in the film world, it was six years ago, not four!).
  • Shardlake wrote: »
    Whereas I'd be happy with that and I can see something like that happening possibly I'm not sure whether a wider audience would like it although I could be wrong

    It seems like an excuse to go down the Logan route, why not just a balls out Bond entry to end on instead? Though I'd be happy with something along those lines if done right a real big film instead of an introspective one like you suggest would be fine as well.

    I guess we'll see come towards the end of 2019, lots more speculation to go until then.

    The problem with this that as Bond fans we can say Fleming did it first but no doubt some outside the fanbase will be drawing parallels with Bourne you can bet it.

    Rather than echoing Fleming so much how about a celebration of the cinematic Bond to end on Craig's era?

    I understand where you're coming from and a big celebration of the cinematic Bond is something I'd been asking for since CR but I think we got that with SP. I guess the execution is up for debate (personally I think they did a great job) but I can't think of any tropes they didn't tackle. We got gadgets, one liners, they even did the whole strong silent henchman angle. There was still a personal/subsersive angle to it but at this point, it wouldn't be a Craig film without one.

    I just think that it's too good an opportunity to pass up. They've set up YOLT and Craig is the perfect actor for it, so it'd be a crime to not do that imo. I'd have been happy with a straightforward cinematic Bond film but I think if they wanted to go down that road they should have recast. I don't see the point in a change in direction for Craig's last one. They've started down this path and so I think should see it through. Take the personal/introspective stuff to its natural conclusion and bring things full circle with a proper gritty Flemimg adaptation like the one he started with.

    I think the audience would be happy with it if it was done well. Since CR broke the mold and still turned out to be a big hit anything is possible imo. And like you said, Logan has sort of set a precedent, that was a big success so I bet these sort of films will be all the range now, and EON do love following trends. And they can always go back to a more straightforward Brosnan esque take with the next guy (that's what I hope they do either way actually).

    True you'd get people on the internet saying they ripped off Bourne. But I'd happily endure that to get an adaptation of my favourite Fleming novel. If they do it well we could be seeing awards buzz along the lines of CR and SF again, the publicity from that would outweigh a couple of people on the internet complaining about it a Bourne ripoff because they haven't read the books.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited August 2017 Posts: 3,951
    I don't want a big battle at the end. In YOLT Bond doesn't tell Tanaka or anyone else who Shatterhand really is because he wants to kill Blofeld himself, and I think that adds to how gothic and surreal the finale is. There isn't loads of soldiers storming the castle, it's just one guy, in the middle of the night, climbing the wall into hell.

    I want it to be as faithful to YOLT as possible. The PTS can be Bond and Madeline enjoying their new life intercut with news reports about Blofeld escaping, and then Madeline dies. Cue titles. Afterwards we cut to months later. Moneypenny visits Bond in his flat and he's an alcoholic wreck. She calls M to let him know how he's doing. After he hangs up M is revealed to be having dinner with James
    Molony who asks if the call was about the former agent he was telling him about earlier. M says he knows it's none of his business any more but he can't help but feel worried about him. Molony suggests giving him an assignment but M says he's in no fit state for field work, and Molony asks what about the trouble with the Japan business. M visits Bond at Blades where he's gambling away the rest of his MI6 severance and offers him a new job in the diplomatic section as 777. They need access to the Magic 44 tech off the Japanese (make it a spy satellite or something?) because the Americans aren't playing ball, and he wants someone he can trust on it. So he sends Bond to Japan. Bond meets his contact at the airport but is watched by someone in the shadows: Hinx (but looking slightly different, some sort of disguise/sugrery). He calls in to tell Blofeld that Bond is in Japan and, paranoid, Blofeld sets up an assassination attempt using his Yakuza contacts, which leads to a fight on a bullet train. Bond and his contact interrogate the last survivor and follow different leads, while at the same time Bond is still trying to convince them to share the Magic 44 tech (so we can still get a lot of the travelogue stuff but there actually being a mystery to solve keeps the audience engaged and adds a bit more action). In the end they trace it back to Dr Shatterhand who Bond's contact has had issues with for some time because of his suicide garden. He shows Bond a photo of him and his assistant and Bond recognises them as Blofeld and Hinx. Bond offers to kill them in exchange for the Magic 44 tech and trains as a ninja, slowly getting back to his old self, and stops off in the island fishing village for a few days, meeting Kissy (but not named Kissy, no reusing one off characters) while he formulates a plan. On the evening before Bond is to kill Blofeld they have sex and the old 007 is finally back. She swims out with him past the sharks, showing him the best route, and wishes him luck. Bond climbs the wall and makes his way through the garden, dodging the heavily armed mercenaries, and finally spots Blofeld, who's clad in full Samurai armour, and is meeting a man who Bond recognises as a North Korean general. Bond is captured by Hinx. When Blofeld interrogates him Bond realises his just how much he's lost it, and realises that what's left of Spectre want nothing to do with him. Only Hinx is still loyal (hint at a relationship between the two in the same way there was with Blofeld and Bunt). That's why he's holed up in the garden surrounded by armed guards. But Blofeld is leaving soon; he's made a deal with the North Koreans to come and work as a spymaster for them, a helicopter will come to collect him the next day. The North Koreans are quite keen on him handing Bond over but as a Samurai, Blofeld has more honour than that and will give him a chance to fight for his freedom. Bond duels with Blofeld and kills him. He escapes Hinx and the mercenaries and arranges for the castle to be blown up using the trick with the volcano (didn't he plug it with the chair? I can't remember it's been a while since I read it), the he starts to fight his way out, gunning down corridors full of guards in an intense gunfight and taking a few hits in the proccess. He uses the hot air balloon to escape bit Hinx jumps after him and grabs hold of him, Bond manages to kick him off back down towards the castle just as it explodes but the eruption knocks him out and he falls into the sea. We see his funeral where Kincade, M, Q, Moneypenny, Tanner, Felix and Camille are there, so the audience think he's dead, but then it cuts back to Bond in the sea and he's rescued by Kissy. She nurses him back to health but he has amnesia. One of the kids on the island is watching the news on a crappy looking TV set and something comes on about North Korea. Bond thinks it seems familiar (fresh in his mind because of the stuff with Blofeld) and leaves for Pyongyang as it's revealed Kissy is hiding a pregnancy. And that's the end. We don't get the brainwashing stuff. Just end it with a Bond who doesn't know who he is, walking straight into enemy territory just after pissing them off, with all his friends thinking he's dead and not knowing he's just fathered a child who'll grow up without him. James Bond will return in a soft reboot with a new actor.

    Needs a lot of polish but broadly I would be reasonably happy with that.

    Some comments:

    - I'm worried about the lack of action. I would be fine with it personally but they have to sell it to a general audience who expect big set pieces. I'd make the bullet train sequence the stand out set piece but given we've just had a fight on a train in SP I'd have something more along the lines of Mission Impossible with most of it taking place on the outside of the train (probably have Bond's initial contact as Dikko (Geoffrey Rush, chewing the scenery, is the obvious choice) assassinated on the train and Bond chasing the killer). The finale has a decent amount of action so we really only need one other big set piece which I guess should be near the beginning so probably a Bourne Supremacy style PTS that kills off Maddie.

    - Bringing Hinx back is inane. The guy would've comfortably had his neck snapped by the barrels. The obvious henchman should be Bunt. No one has yet improved on Tilda Swinton as casting and I'm picturing an older Fiona or Xenia but without the sex appeal and trying to shag Bond. She'd be the one who kills Maddie in the PTS and then the first act intercuts between her breaking Blofeld out of prison and Bond being depressed. She'd also be there at the end in the interrogation scene which would give things more heft than Hinx standing in the corner.

    - Even though it doesn't really have the same ring as Vladivostok I guess Pyongyang is the only logical option. NK being in bed with Blofeld is reasonable though and Magic 44 can be some sort of Macgufffin that everyone wants that gives military supremacy in the region and Blofeld is flogging it to the Koreans.

    - I wouldn't have Bond shag Kissy until after he gets amnesia. It would detract from his revenge on Blofeld if he had just slung one up another bird 5 mins earlier.

    - I'd only very subtly hint at Kissy's pregnancy. We run the risk of the audience then expecting to see the kid in the next film and to have Bond gallivanting round with Short Round would be a disaster.

    The only question after all this would be where to go next? Would we never find out what happened and leave the Craig era as it's own self contained timeline and do a soft reboot? Seems a shame that we wouldn't get the assassination attempt on M.

    If this film was a success and the audience were desperate to see know what happened next might Dan be tempted back one more time for a TMWTGG adaptation? Or would the new actors first scene be coming back from NK?

    I tend to agree with your posts, so there's quite a lot I like here.

    We are almost certainly headed for a Tracy-esque killing of Madeleine. Let it be Bunt.

    They need to leave Hinx in SP, where he belongs. We don't need more of that.

    There was a recent Colin Farrell Japanese suicide forest movie that bombed horribly so I am wondering if the "garden of death" should be relocated to another country. If it's Japan, and if it follows the novel closely, I see them casting Ken Watanabe as Tiger.

    I hate the idea of switching out Russia for North Korea. I think they should steer away from any unfortunate DAD comparisons.

    I still think that Russia is, and always has been, the obvious choice for an antagonist to the West, and certainly for Bond. I wouldn't have a problem with Craig closing out his era in Vladivostok (it certainly fits his portrayal to a T) and then the next actor appearing for the attempted assassination (maybe--and I hesitate to resurrect it--having had plastic surgery).

    If the cliffhanger crosses main actors, Bond 26 would need to follow up Bond 25 pretty quickly, maybe two years if they have an actor in mind? It would require Eon to be unusually forward-thinking.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,432
    I don't understand the thinking behind another actor taking on the mantle/narrative Craig leaves behind. It's time specific. They've addressed his age explicitly and made it quite clear time is passing - unlike the rest of cannon where, within reason, time is relatively static, just updated to the year it takes place. The cleanest option post-Craig is to revert back to the pre-Craig model where they aren't bound by any level of specific narrative continuity.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited August 2017 Posts: 3,951
    I think Craig's narrative is compelling enough for the next actor if they can streamline it going forward (the occasional visit to Vesper's grave: good, stepbrothergate: bad). His is an era of palpable danger, where anyone except Bond can die (Vesper, Mathis, even M). The idea of M dying is pretty radical for Bond.

    There's something sad about the diminishing returns of a regular reboot--Spiderman, anyone?--that I don't want happening to Bond. Better for them to try to write themselves out of the SP corner in an interesting way. Necessity is the mother of invention, and all that.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,432
    echo wrote: »
    I think Craig's narrative is compelling enough for the next actor if they can streamline it going forward (the occasional visit to Vesper's grave: good, stepbrothergate: bad). His is an era of palpable danger, where anyone except Bond can die (Vesper, Mathis, even M). The idea of M dying is pretty radical for Bond.

    There's something sad about the diminishing returns of a regular reboot--Spiderman, anyone?--that I don't want happening to Bond. Better for them to try to write themselves out of the SP corner in an interesting way. Necessity is the mother of invention, and all that.

    But the Spider-Man comparison is null and void. Bond doesn't have an origin story to tell. You can simply produce an unconnected film with a brand new lead that features a fully formed Bond and the audience will buy it. It wouldn't even be a re-boot, it would be exactly what they did with George, Roger, Tim and Pierce. You'd essentially be saying, the DC thing was an experiment, this is returning to the format of old, with a contemporary spin.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe JK ROFLing
    Posts: 7,157
    They need to push things to an end point. Either strip it down to the bare characters and remove as much spectacle and set pieces as possible, or ladle on more explosive action and massive vistas. That's is one positive about the way SP ended - there are a few courses they can take from here. Storywise, it's a minefield out there, but tone and structure wise they have options. To me it seems that Craig is back half to help his career and half because they enjoy a strong working relationship. I don't think Bond 25 will be a spectacle film. I think it will be a very bleak, toned down film that will explore an old Bond and map out past relationships. It will be probably the most stripped back craig film, slow paced and reflective of the whole era. It will be much more about the Craig Bond than a traditional adventure.
  • edited August 2017 Posts: 4,124
    Is this the first Bond movie where we know for sure that its the actor's last whilst the script is being written? There are opportunities to build in themes re endings and saying goodbye that will resonate with saying goodbye to DC. If done correctly, this would be great and something never done within the Bond series.

    If done badly, it could be cringeworthy.

    I know not all agree but, looking at how well SF did, there is a pure logic with looking back at that movie and trying to see why it was embraced. (less action, more character arc, patriotism etc)

    Wouldn't it be great if DC's last Bond had both the critical and box office success of SF?
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 3,954
    SP might have had more action but what Ropey action it was, devoid of any thrill just vanilla and generic.

    With the exception of the PTS every big set piece was terrible, so give me SF's action light approach, that film had tension and thrill and also if the climax of SF isn't action sequence I don't know what is.

    In answer to your question @thelivingroyale you ask why criticise SP then crave for a big set piece close to the DC era, well I don't think SP was what some claim it was.

    That may have been the intention but because it couldn't leave the personal Bond element with Skyfall and had to continue it I don't think it was as traditional as some make out.

    It tried to be but by clinging onto all that personal nonsense I got no sense of a plain mission for Bond, the main concern was Bond confronting his past and finding out Oberhauser was ESB, the other stuff was just window dressing and pretty poor dressing at that.

    Mendes was the wrong guy for this supposed kind of approach he couldn't just make a Bond film it needed to be something else as well. SF was something different but it went as far into digging into the past as it needed to but instead Sam couldn't let sleeping dogs lie.

    I want DC to get a proper big style ending which says JAMES BOND with capital letters, SP was not that film, no personal baggage just a JB film please.

    That's what I'd like but I'll settle for the YOLT approach as well.
  • Fair enough @Shardlake. I get what you mean, for me that was what I liked about SP, the meshing of the two styles of Bond (realistic Craig Bond and old school classic Bond) but I can see why it might not have worked for some fans who would have been happy if they'd gone all out on either approach (I think @bondjames for example is in the same boat as you, loved early Craig and would have loved an all out classic Bond film but the mix of both didn't quite land).
    RC7 wrote: »
    I don't understand the thinking behind another actor taking on the mantle/narrative Craig leaves behind. It's time specific. They've addressed his age explicitly and made it quite clear time is passing - unlike the rest of cannon where, within reason, time is relatively static, just updated to the year it takes place. The cleanest option post-Craig is to revert back to the pre-Craig model where they aren't bound by any level of specific narrative continuity.

    I agree with this. It'd be weird to carry on from Craig with a new actor and gradually transition back to the old model while knowing that those four or five continuity heavy real time films still happened to this guy earlier on. Might have worked if they'd gone stand alone after QoS or even SF, but it's all too tied together now to let the next actor just pick up where he left off. I think the Craig era is one story, not the beginning of a bigger/looser narrative.

    That's why when he's done I think they should go for a clean break. Give the Craig era a definitive closed off ending, make it its own self contained thing ala Nolan's Batman, then they can go back to the old looser approach to continuity with the next actor.
  • edited August 2017 Posts: 11,119
    Maybe it's an idea to turn Irma Bunt into the main villain of Bond #25? Let her do the 'revenge' department of S.P.E.C.T.R.E. throughout the film. And also market Irma as the lead villain. By doing so one could remove Blofeld entirely for the next film or only let him take the stage as a cameo.
  • Posts: 4,124
    Maybe it's an idea to turn Irma Bunt into the main villain of Bond #25? Let her do the 'revenge' department of S.P.E.C.T.R.E. throughout the film. And also market Irma as the lead villain. By doing so one could remove Blofeld entirely for the next film or only let him take the stage as a cameo.

    That's got to be a preferable option
  • Posts: 11,119
    patb wrote: »
    Maybe it's an idea to turn Irma Bunt into the main villain of Bond #25? Let her do the 'revenge' department of S.P.E.C.T.R.E. throughout the film. And also market Irma as the lead villain. By doing so one could remove Blofeld entirely for the next film or only let him take the stage as a cameo.

    That's got to be a preferable option

    Yes, I have been thinking about this for quite some time now. Even thinking of changing my story treatment to that fact. Just imagine that actresses like Helen Mirren, Tilda Swinton or Meryl Streep are going to make Bond's life very hard in Bond #25, in a FRWL-esque cat and mouse game, with some details from the YOLT book as well.

    And above all, have the producers ever worked towards creating the best possible send-off for a Bond actor? I don't think so. On the contrary. Connery, Moore, Brosnan....the big ones never got a proper send-off. Perhaps only Connery's unofficial outing in NSNA could be a blueprint...

    Yeah baby, I see a marvellous 25th Bond film in the making!!
  • Posts: 10,255
    Maybe it's an idea to turn Irma Bunt into the main villain of Bond #25? Let her do the 'revenge' department of S.P.E.C.T.R.E. throughout the film. And also market Irma as the lead villain. By doing so one could remove Blofeld entirely for the next film or only let him take the stage as a cameo.

    If Blofeld isn't the main threat, it'd be strange to send off Craig with another SPECTRE agent. At that point it would make more sense to do a separate villain.
  • edited August 2017 Posts: 4,124
    Irma is a perfect vehicle for continuing the Spectre theme by dealing with the double issue of the Watz performace (most agree it did not work) and the fact he is in prison. It also opens an opportunity for a new female lead and a new dynamic that we have not seen within the DC era. Helen M has bags of sex appeal and some deadly flirting etc provides great opportunity for some good dialogue and memorable scenes.

    It all makes sense to me.
  • edited August 2017 Posts: 11,119
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Maybe it's an idea to turn Irma Bunt into the main villain of Bond #25? Let her do the 'revenge' department of S.P.E.C.T.R.E. throughout the film. And also market Irma as the lead villain. By doing so one could remove Blofeld entirely for the next film or only let him take the stage as a cameo.

    If Blofeld isn't the main threat, it'd be strange to send off Craig with another SPECTRE agent. At that point it would make more sense to do a separate villain.

    Not sure about that. In DN the main threat is an operative of S.P.E.C.T.R.E., Dr. No. To be honest, I have a distinct feeling that the Bond producers want to kill of Bond on screen for the very first time - or at least make it appear that Bond will be seriously injured near the end (I am sceptical about that idea, but that's besides the point). To me it would be great if S.P.E.C.T.R.E. would be behind that. And it makes sense as well, since Blofeld was completely humiliated at the end of SP. So let's not focus on Blofeld, and let another S.P.E.C.T.R.E.-agent take over completely - just like Blofeld took over in FRWL to avenge the death of Dr. No. Irma Bunt - or Nena Blofeld - could be great antagonists for such a scheme.

    Ooowh, and to touch some real-life events, one could have a look at Ivanka Trump perhaps :-P:
    hero.jpg
    tilda_swinton_okja.jpg
  • Posts: 4,124
    Remember Nicole Kidman in Paddington. (shes 50 now), evil but so so sexy, thats the perfect fit
  • MinionMinion Don't Hassle the Bond
    edited August 2017 Posts: 832
    I had a dream a few weeks ago where MI6 had mostly taken SPECTRE down in the four/six years Bond had left the service. However, Bond gets pulled out of retirement to team up with 006 (reprised by Sean Bean, but not as a villain this time) to infiltrate a SPECTRE hideout along the same lines as the Atlantis base from TSWLM. There they'd have to survive various death chambers (alike the Dr. No novella) as they traversed the lair to reach the few remaining operatives keeping SPECTRE alive.

    The reason Bond is pulled out of retirement? To get info from an imprisoned Blofeld to find this base. As others have suggested, he'd take on a more Hannibal Lector role in the story and escape towards the end of the story to be the main baddy of B26 (as an insane samurai hopefully!) Also, Mr. Hinx was the one who rescued Blofeld, with even more of him replaced by metal bits than before.

    Not necessarily suggesting this as a super serious idea, but as a dream it kept me quite entertained. :)

    EDIT: Oh, and although this didn't happen in my dream, I'd have Blofeld murder Madeleine while Bond was away on his mission; gone and unable to help her. Unlike Tracy, Bond doesn't even get the satisfaction of a final moment with her... leading into a YOLT like story for the next film.
  • Minion wrote: »
    I had a dream a few weeks ago where MI6 had mostly taken SPECTRE down in the four/six years Bond had left the service. However, Bond gets pulled out of retirement to team up with 006 (reprised by Sean Bean, but not as a villain this time) to infiltrate a SPECTRE hideout along the same lines as the Atlantis base from TSWLM. There they'd have to survive various death chambers (alike the Dr. No novella) as they traversed the lair to reach the few remaining operatives keeping SPECTRE alive.

    The reason Bond is pulled out of retirement? To get info from an imprisoned Blofeld to find this base. As others have suggested, he'd take on a more Hannibal Lector role in the story and escape towards the end of the story to be the main baddy of B26 (as an insane samurai hopefully!) Also, Mr. Hinx was the one who rescued Blofeld, with even more of him replaced by metal bits than before.

    Not necessarily suggesting this as a super serious idea, but as a dream it kept me quite entertained. :)

    EDIT: Oh, and although this didn't happen in my dream, I'd have Blofeld murder Madeleine while Bond was away on his mission; gone and unable to help her. Unlike Tracy, Bond doesn't even get the satisfaction of a final moment with her... leading into a YOLT like story for the next film.

    That's a cool pitch and I do like the idea of seeing a SPECTRE without Blofeld (I think the scrapped TSWLM plot for example is really interesting) but I'd prefer it if they just did YOLT now. I was happy with SP as the end to the Craig era, one more I can get on board with, but I'd rather they didn't drag the story out any longer than that.

    I'd like Bond 25 to be Craig's last, send him out on a high with the YOLT adaptation we've all been waiting for, and then get a fresh start with a new actor and change in direction to something more fun and straightforward (preferrably no more than two or three years later). SPECTRE can come back in a good few years. I think they should use them now they've got the rights back, but use them sparringly, keep them and Blofeld returning as an event. They really overdid it in the Connery/Lazenby era imo. He's Bond's arch enemy sure but he shouldn't be his only enemy.

    And whenever Blofeld does come back post Craig (I think give him and SPECTRE an actor off, don't consider using them again until we're on Bond no 8) I'd prefer it if they don't do their first meeting again. Make it clear he and Bond have history, but keep it vague. Don't go all continuity heavy again.
  • edited August 2017 Posts: 11,119
    RC7 wrote: »
    I don't understand the thinking behind another actor taking on the mantle/narrative Craig leaves behind. It's time specific. They've addressed his age explicitly and made it quite clear time is passing - unlike the rest of cannon where, within reason, time is relatively static, just updated to the year it takes place. The cleanest option post-Craig is to revert back to the pre-Craig model where they aren't bound by any level of specific narrative continuity.

    One could also slowly undo that aspect of a specified time; to slowly tone down the specifi narrative continuity that has been started in 2006. And as a matter of fact....that hasn't been done before really.
  • 007Blofeld007Blofeld In the freedom of the West.
    Posts: 3,126
    with Daniel returning I think Blofeld will be involved don't know what they will do with him but hopefully something exciting and give creditably back to Blofeld I like Spectre but I think the way they handle Blofeld was a bit poor but can be fixable. As for anything else I would love a return of Felix helping Bond on a mission hopefully we can get Bond out of London for the climaxes its getting a bit repetitive and no more personal stuff and childhood and just full straight on mission stuff m gives bond a mission and bond heads out and we m congratulate bond when mission is accomplished no more everyone against mi6 government stuff and no more m in the field.
  • 007Blofeld007Blofeld In the freedom of the West.
    Posts: 3,126
    peter wrote: »
    I wrote this in another thread... I'm sure @noSolaceleft will have fun ripping across these waves:

    I'd like to see one nasty sonofabitch with Ernst, this time around.

    We know he was arrested, so what has prison life been like for Ernst?

    And how are the writers/producers going to play with time? SP, after all, seems to be only a few months after the events of SF. Which dates the last film in the year 2012-13...

    By the time B25 opens up, six years would have gone by.

    Has Blofeld been in solitary this entire time? What has it done to this megalomaniac once he's released? I hope he literally chews off the faces of his subordinates... Just one nasty beast, that will now reek absolute havoc, not only on those who put him away, but, of course, destroy James Bond within that big plan.

    And perhaps that big plan is a lure, to snare his rival (a la FRWL); perhaps this is what brings Bond out of retirement (if he is, indeed in retirement?)? And both he and M know this is obviously a set-up-- but they're dealing with Blofeld, and there really is no choice in the matter: trap or not, Bond has to walk into the lion's den.

    And yes, no Madeleine is necessary, nor even needs to be mentioned (after all, in the film world, it was six years ago, not four!).

    That sounds pretty good
  • Posts: 4,124
    How about Monica Bellucci returning?

    "Welcome James" implies that it was a set up and Bond only attended the meeting due to the info supplied by Lucia.

    So was Bond set up by Lucia who was working for Blofeld? This could also explain why she was seduced so quickly after the funeral and how stupidly easily Bond gained entry into the meeting. She was also under used, be great to see her back in a meaty role?

    She could come back to taunt Bond on how easily he was fooled and actually she is near the top of the Spectre management tree?

    just a thought

    PS There is an issue with the 2 Spectre guys getting shot by Bond in Lucia's home. That is an issue.

  • RC7RC7
    edited August 2017 Posts: 10,432
    RC7 wrote: »
    I don't understand the thinking behind another actor taking on the mantle/narrative Craig leaves behind. It's time specific. They've addressed his age explicitly and made it quite clear time is passing - unlike the rest of cannon where, within reason, time is relatively static, just updated to the year it takes place. The cleanest option post-Craig is to revert back to the pre-Craig model where they aren't bound by any level of specific narrative continuity.

    One could also slowly undo that aspect of a specified time; to slowly tone down the specifi narrative continuity that has been started in 2006. And as a matter of fact....that hasn't been done before really.

    Clean break for me. Why 'slowly' tone it down? Let Craig wrap up his era then kick on with a fresh interpretation. Doesn't make sense to go any other way.

    Also I think people are getting carried away with the whole, seedling of ideas that come to fruition later down the line. We are in the twilight of Craig's run. No setups, just wrap ups, please.
  • Posts: 4,124
    I think the final scene has the potential to be iconic IF they get it right and a massive missed opportunity if they get it wrong. As with SF for example, the final scene does not have to link directly to the plot so they have some flexibility. Im sure its something the writers are thinking of already.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 3,954
    It all comes down to Bond 25 if they can get themselves out of this corner they painted themselves into, I don't see the point of ending the DC era on a standalone. They've taken the plunge they need to go all in and finish this era good and proper.

    I can't see anything else but rebooting when Craig is finished, you really can't have a new actor pick up the timeline of this era, it needs to be a full stop.

    No we don't need to go all origin again, just start as Dr No did back 1962, an established experienced British Secret Agent being sent on a mission, no personal baggage just a rollicking good Bond film for the ages.
  • Shardlake wrote: »
    It all comes down to Bond 25 if they can get themselves out of this corner they painted themselves into, I don't see the point of ending the DC era on a standalone. They've taken the plunge they need to go all in and finish this era good and proper.

    I can't see anything else but rebooting when Craig is finished, you really can't have a new actor pick up the timeline of this era, it needs to be a full stop.

    No we don't need to go all origin again, just start as Dr No did back 1962, an established experienced British Secret Agent being sent on a mission, no personal baggage just a rollicking good Bond film for the ages.

    Agree with every word of this. A stand alone Craig film for his last would be pointless. Give him a proper ending that follows on from what they set up in SP. Means we'll technically get a reboot but I feel like people are too worried about what that would entail. It doesn't mean more origins and backstory, it doesn't mean anything except it's nothing to do with the Craig films. TLD and GE could easily be classed as reboots. All they need to do after Craig is make a new Bond film with a new actor that doesn't address the end of the last one at all. Job done, reboot over.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 3,954
    Shardlake wrote: »
    It all comes down to Bond 25 if they can get themselves out of this corner they painted themselves into, I don't see the point of ending the DC era on a standalone. They've taken the plunge they need to go all in and finish this era good and proper.

    I can't see anything else but rebooting when Craig is finished, you really can't have a new actor pick up the timeline of this era, it needs to be a full stop.

    No we don't need to go all origin again, just start as Dr No did back 1962, an established experienced British Secret Agent being sent on a mission, no personal baggage just a rollicking good Bond film for the ages.

    Agree with every word of this. A stand alone Craig film for his last would be pointless. Give him a proper ending that follows on from what they set up in SP. Means we'll technically get a reboot but I feel like people are too worried about what that would entail. It doesn't mean more origins and backstory, it doesn't mean anything except it's nothing to do with the Craig films. TLD and GE could easily be classed as reboots. All they need to do after Craig is make a new Bond film with a new actor that doesn't address the end of the last one at all. Job done, reboot over.

    I think the fear for some is looking at the likes of Spiderman, they've now done origins story 3 times and rebooted it twice.

    Reboot is a fearful word for many but I think the next Bond needs to start with an all fresh timeline, something that begins and ends within itself, yes you have recurring characters but nothing as connected as the DC era, this way it makes it easier for the baton to be passed on.

    The way they dealt with the DC era makes it very difficult for us to believe another actor as Craig Bond continuing.

    I imagine they'll want to use SPECTRE and ESB again as they waited so long to get the property but hopefully they'll tease it out and learn the lesson of trying to retrofit things to make it work like they did with SP.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 It was this or the priesthood.
    Posts: 28,231
    Shardlake wrote: »
    Shardlake wrote: »
    It all comes down to Bond 25 if they can get themselves out of this corner they painted themselves into, I don't see the point of ending the DC era on a standalone. They've taken the plunge they need to go all in and finish this era good and proper.

    I can't see anything else but rebooting when Craig is finished, you really can't have a new actor pick up the timeline of this era, it needs to be a full stop.

    No we don't need to go all origin again, just start as Dr No did back 1962, an established experienced British Secret Agent being sent on a mission, no personal baggage just a rollicking good Bond film for the ages.

    Agree with every word of this. A stand alone Craig film for his last would be pointless. Give him a proper ending that follows on from what they set up in SP. Means we'll technically get a reboot but I feel like people are too worried about what that would entail. It doesn't mean more origins and backstory, it doesn't mean anything except it's nothing to do with the Craig films. TLD and GE could easily be classed as reboots. All they need to do after Craig is make a new Bond film with a new actor that doesn't address the end of the last one at all. Job done, reboot over.

    I think the fear for some is looking at the likes of Spiderman, they've now done origins story 3 times and rebooted it twice.

    Reboot is a fearful word for many but I think the next Bond needs to start with an all fresh timeline, something that begins and ends within itself, yes you have recurring characters but nothing as connected as the DC era, this way it makes it easier for the baton to be passed on.

    The way they dealt with the DC era makes it very difficult for us to believe another actor as Craig Bond continuing.

    I imagine they'll want to use SPECTRE and ESB again as they waited so long to get the property but hopefully they'll tease it out and learn the lesson of trying to retrofit things to make it work like they did with SP.

    It's really not a big deal. You take a new actor, you make new films, it's not a difficult formula. I view every Bond outside Sean and George (for the obvious linkage) as a different man in a different timeline from the rest anyway, so it doesn't matter if a reboot happens; they're all essentially reboots anyway. The parts are all played differently in some way by the actors and time is always changing, so it makes more sense to view every era as a fresh Bond in a fresher world.

    Use the new actor and just throw him into it. Audiences won't care and fans will view it as the greatest thing that's ever happened after a string of continuity heavy films even if the film isn't grand.
  • Lately this bullocks news from the crappiest of crappiest British tabloids were surfacing:

    https://www.express.co.uk/entertainment/films/866716/James-Bond-25-Elon-Musk-space-rocket-Daniel-Craig-Moonraker-Roger-Moore

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/tvandshowbiz/4687427/daniel-craigs-new-james-bond-film-to-feature-massive-spaceship-designed-by-billionaire-science-guru-elon-musk/

    We Bond fans know which sources are trustworthy. And definitely these trash-papers are not among them.

    Still, the idea kind of...interests me. And to be honest I think it is not a very bad idea. It was one of the reasons I created this topic. And I am wondering if it would be a nice idea...IF it was re-imagined in a more serious Craig-style kind of way.Sci-Fi is rapidly becoming Science-Fact no?
    Now I'm glad some of the negative media attention towards the ongoing narrative of 'possible successors of Daniel Craig', is fading away a bit and is changing into a more positive discussion about realistic ideas for future Bond films. And perhaps such a discussion might even excite Daniel Craig to come back once more after "SPECTRE".

    Here are some ideas that I have already worked out in a short screenplay treatment. I would love to have your feedback. And off course feel free to post your ideas for a great, unique, 25th Bond adventure as well:


    The 'Bond goes into space' idea:
    I have been thinking of this myself as well. Look, there's quite a big trend in recent years to produce scientifically sound and more realistic sci-fi films again. I'm not talking about space opera, like "Star Trek" and "Star Wars". But I do think movies like:
    --> "Sunshine" (2007, Danny Boyle).
    --> "Moon" (2009, Duncan Jones),
    --> "Europa Report" (2013, Sebastián Cordero),
    --> "The Last Days On Mars" (2013, Ruairi Robinson),
    --> "Elysium" (2013, Neill Blomkamp),
    --> "Oblivion" (2013, Joseph Kosinski),
    --> "Gravity" (2013, Alfonso Cuarón),
    --> "Interstellar" (2014, Christopher Nolan) and even the upcoming....
    --> "The Martian" (2015, Ridley Scott).....
    put the space-based sci-fi genre in a new light. Above movies were, mostly, produced in close cooperation with NASA, thus having a more serious and realistic feel. Moreover, these movies also did tell us something. Like every good sci-fi, they put up a mirror in front of us; a mirror to todays geopolitical world we live in.

    Having said that, I think something similar can be done with Bond 25. And as of 2015 it simply isn't that 'cheesy' anymore to go into space. Back in 1979 there wasn't a real space station (exception is perhaps Mir), but nowadays this 'thing' is really in geostationary orbit:
    693259main_jsc2012e219094_big.jpg
    The_International_Space_Station_seen_from_Space_Shuttle_Discovery_after_the_STS-124_mission.jpg

    So why not developing a plot/story that is partially based on the ISS?? Christoph Waltz said earlier this week that his role could be compared with Elon Musk. But hey, perhaps Elon Musk is even larger-than-life than the fictional Oberhauser? This man is today's Drax. He co-founded and is co-financing commercial space travel with his 'Space X' rockets at this very moment. Such a guy could be wonderfully translated into a Bond villain, who wants to destabilizing the relationship between Russia and The West, by destabilizing the only real peaceful international community on Earth: the people who are living on the ISS. Perhaps one could do something sinister with a new commercial 'module' that will be docked to the ISS, but that has some sinister, dangerous secrets.

Sign In or Register to comment.