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
Think bond will continue to follow the trend and keep copying villain plots of mission impossible where bond now takes on a ai villain now?
I guess you could just blend it in with a typical Bond villain plot. If a villain wants to, I don’t know, create a doomsday scenario like in TSWLM or MR then I can imagine AI being a great element to that (insofar as these weapons can’t be controlled/now have a mind of their own which Bond has to overcome). Or if it’s a FRWL type McGuffin it could be an AI weapon/machine or something along those lines (again, we have to get a sense of what specifically it can do, but it has potential).
Honestly, it probably would have been better than what we got! Actually if done right with a good villain, that’s a really chilling idea.
Anyway, I can see AI being included in some form (albeit likely not in the same way MI used it). For better or for worse it’s part of our world, and in the fantastical universe of Bond I can see villains using it for their own means, as well as allies utilising it to assist our hero in some way.
It's kind of hard to imagine it in a way different to MI: in the real world the danger is that AI would be the main villain and no one would have control, I don't know how you give that a human face and make it unlike the Entity.
What about a case where you think an AI has become ungoverned, but it actually turns out to be being manipulated by an evil mastermind, used much in the same way we would consider "safe" but just for evil ends.
For what it's worth I've heard it doesn't quite work in MI (but I can't say for sure one way or the other). I suppose the way of doing it is making sure AI has some basis in the villain's plan and just concentrate on their motives/develop it organically. Maybe the villain wants to create chaos for example or have some point to prove (maybe ironically it's that AI is dangerous), so will hijack some sort of AI weapon tech to go out of control/cause destruction (the villain themselves may not exactly know what the AI will do, but perhaps that's a scary concept in itself. Imagine a sort of mad Renard type villain using such an AI rather than developing his own plan).
The point is the whole story we are hammered with the idea there is a safe and unsafe way for AI to be used, and it turns out the safe way is actually just as dangerous.
Yeah that's a good thought.
It was a major noose around the neck of the last two Mission films, where even they weren't sure how to make the Entity intimidating.
I'd be trying to avoid it, to be honest.
But First Light wasn't just created by one guy, it was a whole project, so I don't know if that's quite true. Even if you have the tech, it still doesn't make up for the rift in talent/organisational structure.
Early Peaky Blinders dialogue was very good.
Judging Knight on Peaky Blinders and SAS Rogue Heroes were in capable hands. He does have a tendency to write his heroes into near impossible situations, only to be rescued by a plot twist or a character previously thought to be dead.
Edit Knight not Wright. Haha my bad thanks @Mathis1
His name is Steven Knight!
Steven Wright to Knight! We've had it all wrong. Steven Wright will knight the next Bond.
https://theguardian.com/film/2025/aug/17/royal-hatters-top-tailors-james-bond-lawyers-trademark-fight-team
This isn't going away anytime soon.
I don't even really understand what BB and MGW actually sold them.
Muffins! Does this mean Bond 26 is on hold?
They still own their share of Bond's intellectual property rights unless I'm mistaken? It's just that they can't contractually/legally make the films themselves and have negotiated a billion out of relinquishing those creative rights. God knows what's in the contracts. I'd guess to whatever extent there were negotiations with all kinds of clauses to ensure certain things (it's why I say I don't think this was quite the failure for EON many think). I think they said something about a third party company that will be created to hold Bond? Maybe that'll come later... no idea.
As far as Bond's copyright is concerned, Danjaq was still mentioned as recently as two months ago.
Ah cool thank you; I haven't seen it mentioned elsewhere. For example, on the main First Light site, the blurb at the bottom just mentions the Bond trademarks being under licence from MGM (whereas in the past it always said MGM/Danjaq in those circumstances).
Interesting to see Danjaq still being mentioned there, so I guess Danjaq is the entity involved in this new 'joint venture'?
Well that's the thing, what is this 'joint venture'? As you say, does it have a name?
And what were the creative rights it had to make the Bond films? In what shape was that? The rights to Bond were always (well, since Saltzman sold up) held jointly by Danjaq and MGM, so presumably they both had to agree to make a Bond film, and Danjaq would only agree to Eon making it, so Eon made all the films. But now Danjaq have agreed Eon no longer make the films, what did they actually sell? As you say, it's not their share of the ownership of Bond- was there actually previously a contract saying Eon had creative control? Or have they maybe sold MGM 1% of their Bond ownership to give them control, something like that?