Share your story ideas for BOND 26

1246714

Comments

  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    Posts: 1,350
    Venutius wrote: »
    I was thinking there'd be some scope there for Bond to demonstrate some infiltration and undercover skills, even if that might run the risk of it going a bit Who Dares Wins. Then it occurred to me: wouldn't a Make Britain Great whackjob be dealt with by MI5, not 6?

    Very good point. I think the workaround in Hammerhead is that there is originally a string of attacks on British institutions but outside of Britain that bring Bond into the picture and by the time the action turns domestic we're already in emergency mode and Bond just finishes the mission off. Kind of Skyfall-ish.
    Another way would be - and I really don't know enough about the two services to be sure this would be realistic - for someone to try to destabilize the independent governments of former colonies to re-built the Empire or some such. That should be a job for the foreign intelligence service, right? Would enable our ficticious screenwriter to get some exploration of the relationships between the former colonies and the UK going. A bit like the end of the TMWTGG novel...
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited May 2022 Posts: 14,793
    007HallY wrote: »
    It would have to be handled with care, for sure. It couldn't just be "everyone who likes England and wanted Brexit is actually a racist and a terrorist." That obviously wouldn't fly. It would have to be exceedingly clear that this person is going far above whatever would be acceptable and is a lunatic terrorist at the end of the day or just using right-wing rethoric for their own financial gain or whatever. I don't know who I would trust with writing a script that toes that line, but to have James Bond very forcefully show what his positive patriotism is as opposed to crazed domestic terrorism, could be good. That is of course deep in "What does Bond mean??!?"-territory and maybe it would be best to start the new actor off with a simpler plot.

    Yeah, I don't think having the villain be explicitly right wing would work. Also people engrossed superficially in either left or right wing politics can be a sensitive bunch at the best of times when it comes to media. No need for Bond to exasperate anything in that regard. I do like the idea of a villain's plan being in the name of 'the greater good' for Britain though.

    Yes, as you say NTTD did this a bit but it became a 'weapon fallen into the wrong hands' plot instead- you could do basically a reversal of Octopussy, where the rogue General Orlov character isn't on their side but ours.
    (Bond has done this before of course, where the MacGuffin plot of FYEO is just a reversal of the same thing in FRWL)

    It's a fairly bonkers film, but I actually rather like the central story of Billion Dollar Brain, the 1960s Harry Palmer film, where a crazy Texan millionaire decides to create his own army and go and destroy Russia independently. He thinks he's fighting for the right side (and God, incidentally) but of course everyone else knows he's only going to make things worse. I think that's quite a nice inversion of the normal superrich villain scheme and could be updated in an interesting way.
    Another way would be - and I really don't know enough about the two services to be sure this would be realistic - for someone to try to destabilize the independent governments of former colonies to re-built the Empire or some such. That should be a job for the foreign intelligence service, right? Would enable our ficticious screenwriter to get some exploration of the relationships between the former colonies and the UK going. A bit like the end of the TMWTGG novel...


    Yeah I like that a lot. It veers into the political, which EON don't like to do, but in such a way that no one would really take seriously I think.
  • edited May 2022 Posts: 4,597
    Instead of Bond going rogue, we could have a two/three other agents going rogue (becoming an unsanctioned "death squad"/vigilante) and Bond uncovering this. A kind of international version of "Magnum Force" (underated movie IMHO but I digress) ? It could produce an interesting moral subtext regarding when it's OK to "intervene" (ie shoot someone) and when not. But, also, pitch Bond against great advisories so plenty of potential for action but no "take over the World" stuff. It could also work quote nicely if we had a younger Bond pitching against older, more experienced and, by nature, cynical agents who had grown tired of watching despots/dictators/war criminals run loose whilst we sat and watched or chose to use non-violent sanctions which were interpreted as weak and ineffective. (sounds familier re where we are today?)

    ("It's not just a question of whether or not to use violence. There simply is no other way. You, of all people, should understand that.")



  • Posts: 2,564
    @patb There's a cool idea in there. I think there's chance we'll see a Bond 26 that a) has a more grounded plot in general, possibly not unlike that b) we'll see Bond going rogue less than in the Craig era.

    It's interesting that as early as DAD (ok, excluding LTK, but in the context of 'modern Bond') we had Bond going 'off grid' and against MI6 for either personal reasons or for the benefit of the mission. Craig's Bond took this to another level with Bond even breaking into M's flat. He wasn't as much a blunt instrument but an agent who did whatever it took to get the job done. A bit more like Jack Bauer in a sense than James Bond.

    I've said before that I think a return to that 'blunt instrument' is needed, but I'd like to see a Bond who can be cynical about the nature of his job. I think we're naturally a bit more sceptical of Government nowadays (even in SF and SP you had jabs at bureaucrats who were at odds with M and the 00 section) so MI6 won't be depicted as wholly good. Perhaps if a new M was the one more prone to going 'off the books' and was at odds with said bureaucrats and Bond simply followed his orders/trusted his instincts?
  • Posts: 4,597
    as with Magnum Force, the death squad would require a leader to co-ordinate, leak intel, provide infrastructure etc. M would be suspected of this and perhaps even suspended? It would be a nice test of the new Bond's trust in his boss.But, given the international nature of the "death squad" , it could turn out that someone at the UN or similar etc was responsible. Bond, himself could be implicated at the beginning as he was ordered to track an arms dealer pending further orders and they were "taken out" on Bond's watch so he is under suspicion (providing a personal motivation for him to track down the "death squad")
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 2,860
    I think the workaround in Hammerhead is that there is originally a string of attacks on British institutions but outside of Britain that bring Bond into the picture and by the time the action turns domestic we're already in emergency mode and Bond just finishes the mission off. Kind of Skyfall-ish.
    Another way would be - and I really don't know enough about the two services to be sure this would be realistic - for someone to try to destabilize the independent governments of former colonies to re-built the Empire or some such. That should be a job for the foreign intelligence service, right? Would enable our ficticious screenwriter to get some exploration of the relationships between the former colonies and the UK going. A bit like the end of the TMWTGG novel...

    Sounds good!
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,412
    I don't think Bond 26 will have a female villain.

    The difficulty that brings is Bond has to defeat the villain, but at this moment in time, it wouldn't look good on the Bond series if he killed a woman.
    If you had Bond defeat a female villain and then she is arrested, I think that would feel a touch disappointing.
    Many people were critical of Spectre for not killing Blofeld and keeping the door open for a sequel.

    If you look at Spectre and NTTD as an example, there was a real reluctance to kill off a female character after the backlash of killing of Severine. I personally think it would have been more impactful to the story if one of the women in NTTD had been a villain, it would have upped the stakes
  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    Posts: 1,350
    Thinking about this some more (also with having just watched and read Slow Horses), does MI5 ever really feature in Bond? There's a bit in Carte Blanche and again, some of the comics have a sub-plot where Bond is not allowed to carry weapons on British soil, but I can't recall the relationship between 5 and 6 ever being a thing in the films, right? I don't know if there's anything there - it's Bond after all and not Le Carré - but if it is untapped, there might be story potential.
    On the other hand: Get Bond out of the UK. He's been hanging around in London way too much lately.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited May 2022 Posts: 3,371
    Thinking about this some more (also with having just watched and read Slow Horses), does MI5 ever really feature in Bond? There's a bit in Carte Blanche and again, some of the comics have a sub-plot where Bond is not allowed to carry weapons on British soil, but I can't recall the relationship between 5 and 6 ever being a thing in the films, right? I don't know if there's anything there - it's Bond after all and not Le Carré - but if it is untapped, there might be story potential.
    On the other hand: Get Bond out of the UK. He's been hanging around in London way too much lately.

    Agree on MI5 featuring in the future bond film.
    Also GCHQ, I also want it to feature in a Bond film.

    Actually, I like that Bond will stay in the UK for the whole movie, like in the Moonraker novel, he's not going overseas even just for a scene, the mission and the action scenes will just be in UK.
    I mean Bond still went overseas in both Skyfall (Turkey and Macau) and SPECTRE (Italy, Morocco and Mexico), so him staying in the UK for the whole movie would be interesting.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited May 2022 Posts: 3,371
    I think guys, I've realized that based on what's happening on our forum, spam bots and etc., I think we can have this as a plot for the next Bond film:
    Look at this article:

    For security pros, spambots are known enemies. For the uninitiated, they are unknown entities. And yet they proliferate like ants at a picnic or teens on messaging apps. You might be receiving countless messages from bots every day, and even worse, a bot might be sending out unwanted emails from your computer right now, making you an unwilling participant in digitized mayhem.

    Before you understand how a spambot infects your computer and how it works, it’s worth exploring how they come into existence in the first place.

    Thomas Pore, director of IT and services at Plixer, a malware detection company, told Computerworld some of the gory details. It usually starts when hackers, many of them overseas, in places such as Russia and China, purchase a database of email addresses on the dark web.


    This is easier than it sounds, and it’s getting easier all of the time. When Yahoo recently announced that all 3 billion of its user accounts had been breached in 2013 — including information such as email addresses, passwords and dates of birth — the news probably didn’t surprise spambot creators. In all likelihood, they had been using that data in their bots for years. Spambots feed on email addresses and can’t run without them. The origin of any spambot always involves a collection of emails.

    This could have been a plot for a future Bond film.
    So the MI6 will work with GCHQ (Government Communications Headquarters) in order to stop this.

    * I've moved my post here, I've replaced my post with a new one in 'Where does bond go after Craig' thread.
  • Posts: 1,429
    Keep it simple like Dr. No. PTS is a crime warranting MI6 attention. We meet our new, younger Bond at a casino or an exotic location and he gets a call. No backstory needed. Just start as if this guy has always been Bond. No trilogies, no arcs.
  • edited May 2022 Posts: 2,564
    I think we'll almost certainly have a character arc for the new Bond, but not necessarily backstory. I'm actually fine with this. There's potential for some interesting ideas that don't involve foster brothers or going back to Bond's childhood home but do add something personal to Bond's character. It can be anything. For example:

    Bond 26: The film is about James Bond in his second year as 007 (so a similar concept to The Batman). Despite being a great agent, he's cynical about his job and has a conflicted attitude towards killing. At the start of the film Bond is considering resigning from the service. Throughout the course of the movie, however, he learns that he's drawn towards the danger of being a secret agent and that it is, in a sense, his true calling. He decides not to resign and embraces being 007.

    Bond 27: A year later, we see a more upbeat Bond who embraces his job. He's drinking more, however, having one night stands, gambling all hours of the night (think Fleming's Bond at the beginning of TB). He's also more reckless when it comes to his job. Throughout the course of the film he makes small mistakes due to this recklessness and it eventually leads him into a particularly dangerous situation. Bond has to use his wits to get out of this and by the end learns to taper his self-destructiveness.

    Or something along these lines. Can be applied to pretty much any type of Bond film but would add something a bit fresh.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,793
    I would certainly expect, and want, a character arc and story. I like to see them doing new things with him.
  • Posts: 724
    Gangsters are too small time for Bond to handle. That should be up to the police department. Not a MI6 agent.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 7,972
    Gangsters are too small time for Bond to handle. That should be up to the police department. Not a MI6 agent.
    Exactly… the films have to compete for attention and get butts in seats; they have to face off against the Marvels and DCs and Star Wars and FF- type films.

    Having Bond confront Horror and Sluggsy or visiting Spectreville is way too small for a Bond film.

    There’s a saying in Hollywood: concept is King…. And many of the suggestions are so
    small in scope they wouldn’t be considered as a television series, let alone a blockbuster film.
  • Posts: 724
    Bond should continue to face eccentric European criminals hell bent on destroying the world. It has worked so far.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,412
    I would rather them allow actors to speak in their native accents, some of Malek's accent took me out of NTTD a bit. Great actor but some of the dialogue and delivery was a bit sketchy
  • Posts: 12,213
    FWIW I actually liked the accent Malek did.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,412
    To each their own mate, it would be boring if we all agreed all the time
    I was excited about his accent when I heard the snippets in the trailers, but towards the end of the film when him and Bond meet again, it was distracting me from what he was saying a bit

    I'd love to see Bond come up against a former agent in the next era, I enjoyed it in Goldeneye and Skyfall.
  • LucknFateLucknFate 007 In New York
    Posts: 1,384
    I think as Calvin Dyson recently put it, Stromberg wanted to end the world because he could, and that's all you really need as long as they commit to it on screen. NTTD suffered by muddling the water needlessly imo. A person seeking self-affirmation is a terrifying thing.
  • Posts: 2,564
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    I would rather them allow actors to speak in their native accents, some of Malek's accent took me out of NTTD a bit. Great actor but some of the dialogue and delivery was a bit sketchy

    Thing is, Malek actually has a rather interesting voice. He can make it very flat and subtly creepy, which does come out a little bit in NTTD (admittedly it's hidden within his 'anyplace European accent', but still...) In an alternate universe I do think Malek could have made a great Blofeld in SP.

    But yeah, the cliched dialogue, the generic accent... the guy's also named Lucifer Safin for f*ck's sake... to paraphrase Mark Kermode, that's literally two letters away from sounding like Lucifer Satan.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    Posts: 3,371
    007HallY wrote: »
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    I would rather them allow actors to speak in their native accents, some of Malek's accent took me out of NTTD a bit. Great actor but some of the dialogue and delivery was a bit sketchy

    Thing is, Malek actually has a rather interesting voice. He can make it very flat and subtly creepy, which does come out a little bit in NTTD (admittedly it's hidden within his 'anyplace European accent', but still...) In an alternate universe I do think Malek could have made a great Blofeld in SP.

    But yeah, the cliched dialogue, the generic accent... the guy's also named Lucifer Safin for f*ck's sake... to paraphrase Mark Kermode, that's literally two letters away from sounding like Lucifer Satan.

    Wait, I thought Rami Malek told in an interview that his role wasn't connected to any religion that's why he accepted the part?
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,412
    I don't know what it is but I'm not excited for Bond 26, as much I'm nervous. It feels like the producers need to be radical with the direction of the series rather just being consistent.

    I'm not really eager to see another orgin story of Bond, I thought Casino was a masterpiece and I'd rather see them pick up with a new man in the early years of his 00 career, rather than his first year. We don't need to see how he became Bond, let's just see him as James Bond
  • Posts: 2,564
    MI6HQ wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    I would rather them allow actors to speak in their native accents, some of Malek's accent took me out of NTTD a bit. Great actor but some of the dialogue and delivery was a bit sketchy

    Thing is, Malek actually has a rather interesting voice. He can make it very flat and subtly creepy, which does come out a little bit in NTTD (admittedly it's hidden within his 'anyplace European accent', but still...) In an alternate universe I do think Malek could have made a great Blofeld in SP.

    But yeah, the cliched dialogue, the generic accent... the guy's also named Lucifer Safin for f*ck's sake... to paraphrase Mark Kermode, that's literally two letters away from sounding like Lucifer Satan.

    Wait, I thought Rami Malek told in an interview that his role wasn't connected to any religion that's why he accepted the part?

    Well, I think his specific concerns were that he'd be playing an Islamic terrorist (I can see why this would be a concern for him as an actor). Not that there was ever any such intention with Safin. Most likely Malek got the part because he's known for playing creepy, at times villainous characters and he's rather famous/has won an Oscar...

    The whole Lucifer Satan thing probably isn't as much a religious reference but, at least in the writer's minds, more a cultural one... it's very heavy handed and is a rather blunt way to signify 'evil' but still...
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    I don't know what it is but I'm not excited for Bond 26, as much I'm nervous. It feels like the producers need to be radical with the direction of the series rather just being consistent.

    I'm not really eager to see another orgin story of Bond, I thought Casino was a masterpiece and I'd rather see them pick up with a new man in the early years of his 00 career, rather than his first year. We don't need to see how he became Bond, let's just see him as James Bond

    I suspect they'll go down that route, or at least do something like The Batman and show him earlier but still essentially the character we know, albeit with a character arc throughout the film. Surely they would have learnt these lessons from CR (which very much drifted away from the 'Bond begins' premise and became a story about Bond early in his career). It's pretty difficult to do an 'origin story' with Bond. I mean, inherently as a character he needs a level of mystery around him and you'd get some overtly referential moments to later films/iconography if you did a 'Young Bond' type thing. This sort self reference to past films was done to death in the Craig era...

    Anyway, there's no precedent for doing a Bond origin story or exploring his navy days or whatever. Fleming's CR was never an origin story, and a major part of the character in the novels is that as 007 he has a myriad of flaws and character traits which are entwined with his profession and the nature of his job. It's far more interesting from a character perspective to explore a relatively seasoned agent, even if it's within his first two years as 007.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 2,860
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    I'm not really eager to see another orgin story of Bond, I thought Casino was a masterpiece and I'd rather see them pick up with a new man in the early years of his 00 career, rather than his first year. We don't need to see how he became Bond, let's just see him as James Bond

    Agree with every word of this. Linear origin stories can have their own appeal, but I'm hoping we hit the ground running with a Bond at the top of his game.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    Posts: 3,371
    Venutius wrote: »
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    I'm not really eager to see another orgin story of Bond, I thought Casino was a masterpiece and I'd rather see them pick up with a new man in the early years of his 00 career, rather than his first year. We don't need to see how he became Bond, let's just see him as James Bond

    Agree with every word of this. Linear origin stories can have their own appeal, but I'm hoping we hit the ground running with a Bond at the top of his game.

    A bit like Dr. No, I really liked that, the film opened to a Casino, his face was not shown then when he says his name, lights his cigarette, that's when he's introduced.
    I'd liked it to be the introduction for the next Bond actor.
    A man at the top of his game, being sophisticated.
  • edited June 2022 Posts: 2,564
    MI6HQ wrote: »
    Venutius wrote: »
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    I'm not really eager to see another orgin story of Bond, I thought Casino was a masterpiece and I'd rather see them pick up with a new man in the early years of his 00 career, rather than his first year. We don't need to see how he became Bond, let's just see him as James Bond

    Agree with every word of this. Linear origin stories can have their own appeal, but I'm hoping we hit the ground running with a Bond at the top of his game.

    A bit like Dr. No, I really liked that, the film opened to a Casino, his face was not shown then when he says his name, lights his cigarette, that's when he's introduced.
    I'd liked it to be the introduction for the next Bond actor.
    A man at the top of his game, being sophisticated.

    Something like that can be overdone arguably. They tried to introduce Lazenby's Bond much in this style - the lingering shots of the hands, the cigarette, the 'Bond, James Bond' before the face reveal. A part of it might be the fact that Connery was a tough act to follow, but I never felt that the hype injected into that introduction matched... well, Lazenby really. With Connery the introduction works because Bond is introduced a bit later, there's some audience expectation about meeting our hero for the first time, and Connery is a great screen presence anyway. With Lazenby the result is a little bit underwhelming the moment he says 'my name is Bond, James Bond' with that oddly wooden delivery he seems to use for half of the movie, and there's very little build up to Bond beforehand.

    They kind of overcorrected this during LALD and dropped us into a comedic scene with Moore's Bond. To be honest given Moore's presence on TV I think a similar introduction to Connery's would have felt superfluous and they were trying to do something new. It certainly gives you an idea of the tone they wanted. Dalton's introduction is spectacular - the other Bondian looking agents being killed one by one until you get that great John Ford-esque shot where Bond turns his head/the camera moves towards him. It's not too drawn out, but just right - the right amount of subversion and tradition. Brosnan's introduction is also cool - he's literally revealed in a toilet stall which is a funny little gag but the bungee jump scene sells it. Craig's introduction isn't even drawn out at all - no shots of the hands, no slow face reveal, not even an action sequence per say. The flashbacks, the editing, Craig's reaction to Dreydon's lines, however, are well done and subtly tell us a bit about this iteration of Bond.

    Anyway, they'll need to find an introduction that works for the new Bond, not just have a 'cool' reveal. They could do a similar one to Connery but only if we build up to that reveal like in DN - we need to see some of the villain's plot beforehand, learn of the stakes, have an idea of why James Bond is needed here and we need to get a sense of what he can do as an agent. To be fair this might work given they're presumably rebooting the franchise, so there might perhaps be more expectation around this Bond.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited June 2022 Posts: 3,371
    007HallY wrote: »
    MI6HQ wrote: »
    Venutius wrote: »
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    I'm not really eager to see another orgin story of Bond, I thought Casino was a masterpiece and I'd rather see them pick up with a new man in the early years of his 00 career, rather than his first year. We don't need to see how he became Bond, let's just see him as James Bond

    Agree with every word of this. Linear origin stories can have their own appeal, but I'm hoping we hit the ground running with a Bond at the top of his game.

    A bit like Dr. No, I really liked that, the film opened to a Casino, his face was not shown then when he says his name, lights his cigarette, that's when he's introduced.
    I'd liked it to be the introduction for the next Bond actor.
    A man at the top of his game, being sophisticated.

    Something like that can be overdone arguably. They tried to introduce Lazenby's Bond much in this style - the lingering shots of the hands, the cigarette, the 'Bond, James Bond' before the face reveal. A part of it might be the fact that Connery was a tough act to follow, but I never felt that the hype injected into that introduction matched... well, Lazenby really. With Connery the introduction works because Bond is introduced a bit later, there's some audience expectation about meeting our hero for the first time, and Connery is a great screen presence anyway. With Lazenby the result is a little bit underwhelming the moment he says 'my name is Bond, James Bond' with that oddly wooden delivery he seems to use for half of the movie, and there's very little build up to Bond beforehand.

    They kind of overcorrected this during LALD and dropped us into a comedic scene with Moore's Bond. To be honest given Moore's presence on TV I think a similar introduction to Connery's would have felt superfluous and they were trying to do something new. It certainly gives you an idea of the tone they wanted. Dalton's introduction is spectacular - the other Bondian looking agents being killed one by one until you get that great John Ford-esque shot where Bond turns his head/the camera moves towards him. It's not too drawn out, but just right - the right amount of subversion and tradition. Brosnan's introduction is also cool - he's literally revealed in a toilet stall which is a funny little gag but the bungee jump scene sells it. Craig's introduction isn't even drawn out at all - no shots of the hands, no slow face reveal, not even an action sequence per say. The flashbacks, the editing, Craig's reaction to Dreydon's lines, however, are well done and subtly tell us a bit about this iteration of Bond.

    Anyway, they'll need to find an introduction that works for the new Bond, not just have a 'cool' reveal. They could do a similar one to Connery but only if we build up to that reveal like in DN - we need to see some of the villain's plot beforehand, learn of the stakes, have an idea of why James Bond is needed here and we need to get a sense of what he can do as an agent. To be fair this might work given they're presumably rebooting the franchise, so there might perhaps be more expectation around this Bond.

    The introduction of Lazenby driving while smoking a cigarette was really great with him seeing Tracy's car passed and fast.
    I think the better introduction for him would be to reveal his face right when he came down from the car and starts fighting the bad guys, in that he could make an impression that this Bond was a fighter, great at the fight scenes.
    That scene was actually shot with Lazenby still wearing his hat, that would be a great introduction.

    When it comes to Craig, I don't know, that scene with Dryden was very much Batman for me, not Bond, the black and white, then the exterior of building was shown, very much like Batman/Gotham City for me.

    I'd just want a cool/Flemingesque introduction.
  • edited June 2022 Posts: 2,564
    MI6HQ wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    MI6HQ wrote: »
    Venutius wrote: »
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    I'm not really eager to see another orgin story of Bond, I thought Casino was a masterpiece and I'd rather see them pick up with a new man in the early years of his 00 career, rather than his first year. We don't need to see how he became Bond, let's just see him as James Bond

    Agree with every word of this. Linear origin stories can have their own appeal, but I'm hoping we hit the ground running with a Bond at the top of his game.

    A bit like Dr. No, I really liked that, the film opened to a Casino, his face was not shown then when he says his name, lights his cigarette, that's when he's introduced.
    I'd liked it to be the introduction for the next Bond actor.
    A man at the top of his game, being sophisticated.

    Something like that can be overdone arguably. They tried to introduce Lazenby's Bond much in this style - the lingering shots of the hands, the cigarette, the 'Bond, James Bond' before the face reveal. A part of it might be the fact that Connery was a tough act to follow, but I never felt that the hype injected into that introduction matched... well, Lazenby really. With Connery the introduction works because Bond is introduced a bit later, there's some audience expectation about meeting our hero for the first time, and Connery is a great screen presence anyway. With Lazenby the result is a little bit underwhelming the moment he says 'my name is Bond, James Bond' with that oddly wooden delivery he seems to use for half of the movie, and there's very little build up to Bond beforehand.

    They kind of overcorrected this during LALD and dropped us into a comedic scene with Moore's Bond. To be honest given Moore's presence on TV I think a similar introduction to Connery's would have felt superfluous and they were trying to do something new. It certainly gives you an idea of the tone they wanted. Dalton's introduction is spectacular - the other Bondian looking agents being killed one by one until you get that great John Ford-esque shot where Bond turns his head/the camera moves towards him. It's not too drawn out, but just right - the right amount of subversion and tradition. Brosnan's introduction is also cool - he's literally revealed in a toilet stall which is a funny little gag but the bungee jump scene sells it. Craig's introduction isn't even drawn out at all - no shots of the hands, no slow face reveal, not even an action sequence per say. The flashbacks, the editing, Craig's reaction to Dreydon's lines, however, are well done and subtly tell us a bit about this iteration of Bond.

    Anyway, they'll need to find an introduction that works for the new Bond, not just have a 'cool' reveal. They could do a similar one to Connery but only if we build up to that reveal like in DN - we need to see some of the villain's plot beforehand, learn of the stakes, have an idea of why James Bond is needed here and we need to get a sense of what he can do as an agent. To be fair this might work given they're presumably rebooting the franchise, so there might perhaps be more expectation around this Bond.

    The introduction of Lazenby driving while smoking a cigarette was really great with him seeing Tracy's car passed and fast.
    I think the better introduction for him would be to reveal his face right when he came down from the car and starts fighting the bad guys, in that he could make an impression that this Bond was a fighter, great at the fight scenes.
    That scene was actually shot with Lazenby still wearing his hat, that would be a great introduction.

    When it comes to Craig, I don't know, that scene with Dryden was very much Batman for me, not Bond, the black and white, then the exterior of building was shown, very much like Batman/Gotham City for me.

    I'd just want a cool/Flemingesque introduction.

    Yeah, I do think there's a case to be made that the face reveal could have been held off until after Lazenby's Bond started fighting. I do feel OHMSS suffers a bit in the sense that it attempts to reference the Connery films - the way the reveal of the actor is done, the gadgets seen in Bond's office etc. It feels like it's trying to assure the audience that this is still James Bond without necessarily selling us Lazenby's Bond if that makes sense. As I said, there's little build up to Bond (it's just a brief/forgettable 'where is 007' scene that feels like it could be cut) so it feels slightly off. I'm expecting Sean Connery and I get Lazenby. Doesn't help that Bond seems to follow Tracy out of pure coincidence/fate, whereas in the novel Bond is actually following her to make sure she doesn't do what she's about to do. The idea of starting on Tracy then revealing there's this silhouetted man watching her seems more interesting and would keep the audience guessing what's going on. Anyway, that's one of OHMSS many problems in adaptation for me.

    As for Craig's Bond, it's very much an introduction designed to look and feel very Film Noir. I must say, the black and white isn't necessarily my favourite part of the sequence (I'm generally of the opinion Bond cinematography shouldn't draw too much attention to itself in this way) but I really like it. Dryden's little taunts at Bond towards his informant's killing ("made you feel it, did he?" etc.) and Craig's subtle reactions/the editing used to craft the scene are one of the only times in the films I've gotten a sense of how Bond feels about this aspect of his profession - that is, killing people. In that sense it's rather Fleming-esque.

    I mean, how is Bond introduced in Fleming? In CR we see him at the casino table and he goes back to his hotel room. He checks his little intruder traps (the hair strands in the doors, talcum powder on the handles etc) and sleeps with a gun under his pillow. There's much internal monologuing but something like that could be cool. Bond silhouetted in a dark hotel room, putting on his shirt, putting on his tie... all ordinary stuff before he takes out the Walther from under his pillow, puts on the shoulder holster, sets up the traps. Then he walks out to carry out whatever assignment he's doing and the camera follows him from behind/the editing cuts around him until the face reveal. Something like that.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited June 2022 Posts: 3,371
    007HallY wrote: »
    MI6HQ wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    MI6HQ wrote: »
    Venutius wrote: »
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    I'm not really eager to see another orgin story of Bond, I thought Casino was a masterpiece and I'd rather see them pick up with a new man in the early years of his 00 career, rather than his first year. We don't need to see how he became Bond, let's just see him as James Bond

    Agree with every word of this. Linear origin stories can have their own appeal, but I'm hoping we hit the ground running with a Bond at the top of his game.

    A bit like Dr. No, I really liked that, the film opened to a Casino, his face was not shown then when he says his name, lights his cigarette, that's when he's introduced.
    I'd liked it to be the introduction for the next Bond actor.
    A man at the top of his game, being sophisticated.

    Something like that can be overdone arguably. They tried to introduce Lazenby's Bond much in this style - the lingering shots of the hands, the cigarette, the 'Bond, James Bond' before the face reveal. A part of it might be the fact that Connery was a tough act to follow, but I never felt that the hype injected into that introduction matched... well, Lazenby really. With Connery the introduction works because Bond is introduced a bit later, there's some audience expectation about meeting our hero for the first time, and Connery is a great screen presence anyway. With Lazenby the result is a little bit underwhelming the moment he says 'my name is Bond, James Bond' with that oddly wooden delivery he seems to use for half of the movie, and there's very little build up to Bond beforehand.

    They kind of overcorrected this during LALD and dropped us into a comedic scene with Moore's Bond. To be honest given Moore's presence on TV I think a similar introduction to Connery's would have felt superfluous and they were trying to do something new. It certainly gives you an idea of the tone they wanted. Dalton's introduction is spectacular - the other Bondian looking agents being killed one by one until you get that great John Ford-esque shot where Bond turns his head/the camera moves towards him. It's not too drawn out, but just right - the right amount of subversion and tradition. Brosnan's introduction is also cool - he's literally revealed in a toilet stall which is a funny little gag but the bungee jump scene sells it. Craig's introduction isn't even drawn out at all - no shots of the hands, no slow face reveal, not even an action sequence per say. The flashbacks, the editing, Craig's reaction to Dreydon's lines, however, are well done and subtly tell us a bit about this iteration of Bond.

    Anyway, they'll need to find an introduction that works for the new Bond, not just have a 'cool' reveal. They could do a similar one to Connery but only if we build up to that reveal like in DN - we need to see some of the villain's plot beforehand, learn of the stakes, have an idea of why James Bond is needed here and we need to get a sense of what he can do as an agent. To be fair this might work given they're presumably rebooting the franchise, so there might perhaps be more expectation around this Bond.

    The introduction of Lazenby driving while smoking a cigarette was really great with him seeing Tracy's car passed and fast.
    I think the better introduction for him would be to reveal his face right when he came down from the car and starts fighting the bad guys, in that he could make an impression that this Bond was a fighter, great at the fight scenes.
    That scene was actually shot with Lazenby still wearing his hat, that would be a great introduction.

    When it comes to Craig, I don't know, that scene with Dryden was very much Batman for me, not Bond, the black and white, then the exterior of building was shown, very much like Batman/Gotham City for me.

    I'd just want a cool/Flemingesque introduction.

    Yeah, I do think there's a case to be made that the face reveal could have been held off until after Lazenby's Bond started fighting. I do feel OHMSS suffers a bit in the sense that it attempts to reference the Connery films - the way the reveal of the actor is done, the gadgets seen in Bond's office etc. It feels like it's trying to assure the audience that this is still James Bond without necessarily selling us Lazenby's Bond if that makes sense. As I said, there's little build up to Bond (it's just a brief/forgettable 'where is 007' scene that feels like it could be cut) so it feels slightly off. I'm expecting Sean Connery and I get Lazenby. Doesn't help that Bond seems to follow Tracy out of pure coincidence/fate, whereas in the novel Bond is actually following her to make sure she doesn't do what she's about to do. The idea of starting on Tracy then revealing there's this silhouetted man watching her seems more interesting and would keep the audience guessing what's going on. Anyway, that's one of OHMSS many problems in adaptation for me.

    As for Craig's Bond, it's very much an introduction designed to look and feel very Film Noir. I must say, the black and white isn't necessarily my favourite part of the sequence (I'm generally of the opinion Bond cinematography shouldn't draw too much attention to itself in this way) but I really like it. Dryden's little taunts at Bond towards his informant's killing ("made you feel it, did he?" etc.) and Craig's subtle reactions/the editing used to craft the scene are one of the only times in the films I've gotten a sense of how Bond feels about this aspect of his profession - that is, killing people. In that sense it's rather Fleming-esque.

    I mean, how is Bond introduced in Fleming? In CR we see him at the casino table and he goes back to his hotel room. He checks his little intruder traps (the hair strands in the doors, talcum powder on the handles etc) and sleeps with a gun under his pillow. There's much internal monologuing but something like that could be cool. Bond silhouetted in a dark hotel room, putting on his suit, taking out the Walther from under his pillow, setting up the traps, putting on his shoulder holster etc. Then he walks out to carry out whatever assignment he's doing and the camera follows him from behind/the editing cuts around him until the face reveal. Something like that.

    In OHMSS as Calvin Dyson said, in the film it made more sense because it seems like Bond's loving of Tracy didn't worked in the book, he make love to her, but it's she who's stubborn and still walked her way out to attempt suicide, one of the flaws that I found in the novel OHMSS was the way Tracy treats Bond, it's like yes, Bond loves her, but this woman didn't loves him? It's Bond who's been pleasing her, but it's she who's trying to go away. Like I didn't know if she didn't liked him, did she hates him?, It's one of the reasons why i don't think Bond deserves Tracy.

    In the film it made a lot more sense, in that it's Bond's love who stopped her suicide attempts.
    I liked the film more (and really agreed with Calvin) in that she's attempting to do suicide, Bond stopped her, they make love and after that she's fine. It's like she found a hope when she meets Bond, and stopped being suicidal when she met him, it made a lot more sense. Agreed on the Connery references though, but I'm looking to the other part of the corner that it should be referenced to avoid the codename theory.

    About the opening of the CR, it has its fans for sure, it's a nice introduction, but I'm not just a fan of it. It really felt like a Batman film, like Bond was in Gotham city for some mission, I'm expecting James Gordon to make an appearance.

    I liked that opening scene in CR (novel), it has an air of mystery, suspense and thrill, very Bondian, your description of that is really great, thanks.

    Maybe we could have something of that as an introduction for the next Bond? I'm hoping. :)
Sign In or Register to comment.