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
You went a bit negative on the end there, but I am starting to lean more and more in the direction that they should focus on one film and one film only and not try to re-build the franchise on day one. Get one very good film done. See where you stand. If the actor worked and can or wants to do another one, keep him. If it's a one-off, that's fine, too.
For a long time, I've thought they would need to take the long view. Find a guy who commits to doing 4 films in 15 years. Get a producing director to oversee the whole thing. Have at least an outline for all of those films, before you start shooting the first one. And the more I am reflecting, the more I feel like that is way too much and they should instead just do one good film.
My post must be poorly written. I didn’t mean to disparage George Lazenby as asexual, just that he wasn’t that well received. I can just imagine the next hire to be bland.
Whenever I try and imagine a ‘best case scenario’ it’s always with some sort of caveat. For example I could potentially see them nailing the actor for 007 but tripping up on the kind of film they want to make for two or three films. Similar to Sir Roger Moore maybe. But I find this less likely because I, for whatever reason, have no confidence they will get the main casting decision right.
A bland Bond isn't the worst-case scenario. The worst-case scenario is a bland and ugly Bond. ;)
It is true that Hollywood makes things very complicated and the obvious is no longer obvious.
1. They deliver a satisfactory product and the public enjoys a moment of resurrected awareness of the series. However, this does not sufficiently steer away from the gradual erosion of the legacy, highlighted by the global cultural decline, now worsened by the foreboding withdrawal of the original owners.
2. Motivated by creative anxiety and the cautionary approach of stakeholder maximization, they seek the lowest common denominator of derivation and adequacy, producing a picture replete with replicas and lacking inspiration, thereby revealing a fundamental misunderstanding of, and misplaced authority over, the Bond mythology, as well as the public consciousness.
3. Aware of the ominous trajectory of the current series, hastened further by change of ownership, endangered by the context of a failing industry, and disassociated from a rapidly fracturing global audience, they deliver an extraordinary response. To ignore the enclosing darkness of the global zeitgeist would avoid a unique opportunity for truly heroic storytelling. As George Lucas recognized in Empire Strikes Back, delivering a somber, dark, threatening and uncomfortable story would ensure the legacy of a masterpiece…
History is offering Bond 26 the stage for a consequential narrative. I believe we should admonish our undeniable national neglect in the threat of globalization. Bond is a hero and representation for the ideal of Mankind; therefore, this action could lead to a pivotal cultural renaissance for the entire world.
Cinema's fictional guise for sociological intervention grants us unique opportunities. Today, the operation desperately needed is a collective pathos. Bond 26 is perfectly poised to execute a cinematic statement against this unspoken global cultural catastrophe; channeling our resistance through his mythical iconography, reviving our most sovereign natural gift: identity. It could inspire Britain to renewed national strength, and stir an awakening which will echo the call for honour, courage, idealism across the world.
Scenario 1 would deliver only momentary relief. Scenario 2 would only accelerate our devolution. Scenario 3 would, after profound and silent uncertainty, achieve immortality in cinema and move the very world we live in...
Now divorced from its true parents, the future series has every risk of becoming self-conscious and lazily sustaining appeal. I do recognize the talent and skill of current attachments. However, I beware this legacy in the hands of a packaging company. I dread the consequence of those who have already so easily started the content factory machine with safe and frequent collaborations. Whereas it took the original and intimately familiar owners so long as this to honestly admit they had no answer to Bond's newest purpose.
Audience Perspective: We have already accepted the “record-breaking” numbers and relentless marketing of Barbie, Rings Of Power, Star Wars and similar properties. Notwithstanding, let us ask ourselves if hindsight proves those valid.
Insider Perspective: You cannot imagine the woeful reality behind the scenes right now. The pride and secrecy of this decrepit industry has installed complete idiots in the most prominent positions around this national treasure, shielding producers who are no less ignorant, much more fearful, desperately uninspired and tragically derivative.
My despair is all the more bitter for this undying and irrational hope in me that our world is even capable of Scenario 3.
Nor are most aware of the mysterious cause for capitulation by the original owners.
Nor the fear and trepidation enjoining them from any further or slightest participation or comment…