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
Facts, and Deke, rarely go hand in hand.
Yes, @Mathis1 , you’re correct: Knight has stated he will be writing the script based off of the idea that Villeneuve pitched to the producers (and which obviously won him the gig to direct Bond 26). Villeneuve will have a very firm voice on the story through the subsequent drafts.
Oh the horror of the union jack and the British flag 🙄 🇬🇧 like is the movie skyfall offensive now? 🙄
That's why you shouldn't listen to people who don't like James Bond. The franchise doesn't need Trojan horses ;)
Exactly 💯
Anyway, film Bond’s pretty unique in the sense that his Britishness/show of it (when he does so overtly) is often quite tongue in cheek, so it has this element of being somewhat apolitical and not chest thumping nationalism. It’s not done in a mocking way, but Bond can deploy a Union Jack parachute after a chase, or do a sort of light comedy skit featuring the Queen. SF I suppose has the most ‘sincere’ show of British imagery, and even then you get the bulldog joke. Bond’s loyalties/higher duty is to Britain of course, and often it separates him from the villains, but it’s easy to play around with how Bond goes about his job and there’s no reason MI6 have to be depicted as a wholly ‘good’ institution (ie. Like the Dalton and Craig films he could go against certain orders or go behind his superior’s back if something isn’t adding up. In that way Bond’s quite individualistic).
Also agree with 007HallY - while there's a bigger picture, Bond doesn't serve it blindly, he frequently navigates an individual path through it, informed by his own sense of loyalty and duty. That's how it should be, no? It's part of the fundament appeal of the character. For me, anyway.
The first rule of making any franchise film should surely be... keep the existing fans happy, and then go after new ones.
It's amazing how many don't follow that.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-15096805/Bond-writer-Steven-Knight-insists-raising-flags-celebrate-creative-nationalism-British-institutions-including-007-declares-better-stronger-bolder-new-script.html
I like his comments here.
At any rate, there's a lot they can potentially do with Bond's sense of duty in the context of a new adventure.
Good to see his mind is on the right place. I never doubt it.
Now just...carry on.
I think that's debatable: aiming for pleasing the fans can give you stuff like the Star Wars sequels, which kind of satisfied nobody by the end. Or, another way of putting it: Die Another Day.
I'd say with Casino Royale they weren't thinking of the fans first but just trying to make the best movie they possibly could. Lack of gunbarrel, Q, Moneypenny, gadgets etc. are not fan-pleasing decisions, indeed the ditching of Brosnan and hiring of Craig wasn't something you'd do to if you were looking primarily at keeping the fans happy, but in the end making a brilliant film meant it was universally met with approval and ended up a fan favourite.
I think the best thing they can do is to look at CR and not copy its tone or story or anything like that, but take a leaf out of its book to just make the best film -rather than Bond movie- they possibly can, which still gives us those elements which a Bond movie delivers.
Yeah, we had a really interesting thread somewhere about the form Bond's patriotism takes, he's surprisingly hard to read in some ways. I also would probably see it more as his sense of duty being his primary driver rather than full-on love for his country.
Yes, it’s an interesting topic! I think Bond is one of these heroes who represents ‘order’ in his values. Not in a strictly political way, but even if his duty is his primary motivation, it’s generally in service to the ideal of a safe, democratic Britain and keeping its status intact (although you can also argue he also has loyalties to the Western world in general, particularly with more ‘world domination’ storylines). He defeats villains who desire destruction or prioritise greed/anarchy to extreme degrees.
I suppose the question will be what they’ll do with all this in a new film. There’s no right answer. In the UK we live in a strange time where our established political order is on the verge of radically changing by 2029 (maybe anyway, who knows). On one level it’d be nice seeing a version of MI6 and Bond who are this force for order/good - this Intelligence superpower they could never be in our reality (much like how Fleming/the films depicted a post WW2 Britain - ie with that element of fantasy). On another level they could lean into that fear, with Bond potentially grappling morally with what he’s being asked to do perhaps but ultimately doing the right thing for a higher good (and there’s precedent for that too). Maybe something inbetween. It’ll be interesting.
Yeah I always think it's quite interesting that the underlying message of the Bond films and books is that Bond represents conservatism (small 'c'; although probably big 'C' too!). He is the status quo guy, with his classic suits, old cars, wood panelled offices etc. whereas the villains are always the ones in the nehru suits with the modernist lairs, trying to make new ideas happen. Goldfinger is even named after a modernist architect who Fleming hated! :D
That's a very interesting thought. I tend to think if anything it would go with a positive feeling about the country as Bond has always stayed away from politics, but yeah, I guess that might depend on where we actually go. But it's being written right now so will reflect today, probably an idealised version of today- minus all the flag nonsense which will be over by then!
Tell me more about the Brexit context of NTTD. I heavily dislike the defeatist themes of NTTD, as I think it is wholly antithetical to Bond.
I want a Bond film which celebrates the Good bits of Britain. We don't need a subplot about NHS wait times, or a small boat invasion going down the thames. Just keep it simple. And no traitors within Mi6 or Bond having some moral dilemma about his job.
Yes, that would be a very weird Bond movie... I'm fine with traitors and Bond having some sort of dilemma about his job though (neither are exactly unheard of in the films, and they're among many broad plot tropes for Bond - TLD and GE even have the double whammy of traitors and Bond having some sort of conflict about his job. It just depends on what they do).
Anyway, I'd say there's this sense MI6 (and Britain by extension) feel quite isolated compared to many other Bond films in NTTD. They create Heracles, this weapon made with the intention of making the country safer and perhaps even stronger (ironically), and when it all goes wrong you have M scrambling to rectify the situation. I wouldn't say it's a defeatist movie (it has quite fatalistic themes, but that's not necessarily unusual for Bond), nor do I think Bond movies should show its version of MI6/Britain through rose tinted googles, but I have my criticisms of NTTD.
I mention that because I don't want a Bond film having to make reference to every societal ill at the moment. I'm sure some writers would be itching for a chance to have Bond comment on them though.
The second point, I and many other are tired of the Purvis and Wade plot lines of going rogue and having moles in MI6. Yes, I wish they weren't tropes but they've become so.
There's not much of a margin between defeatist and fatalistic, I would say the vast majority of James Bond films are triumphant and full of vitality, and are the ultimate male fantasy. That's why people go to see them. Not even the film You only live twice has the fatalism of the novel.
and James Bond films always show Mi6 and Britain through rose tinted googles so I don't know what you're getting at. That's why people gravitated towards them after the fall of the Empire. It's not LeCarre.
No, I don't think Bond should comment on politics of the day just for the sake of it. But as I said I think it's a case where something from the wider world will feed into things.
I don't think the average viewer outside of these forums knows who Purvis and Wade are, nor do they care. If there was a traitor or if Bond had some sort of conflict in regards to his job in the next film I also don't think the average viewer would care either. In fact I can imagine some people here who might claim to dislike those things not even clocking onto It on initial viewing. It just depends on how these things are done, and ultimately Bond stories are very 'formula' driven. The same but different.
I'd say the fatalism of the YOLT novel is very similar to NTTD. Bond can never have a 'normal' life and will always be brought back into the spy game. There's more a tinge of destiny and purpose to it in this particular context (ie. Bond's going to ultimately come back and save the world, even if he sacrifices himself doing so). Defeatism is the acceptance of defeat without struggle.
They're not propaganda either. There's a distinction between depicting British intelligence as more of a superpower than it is in this heightened reality, and jingoistic nonsense. It's certainly not Le Carre I agree, but even in the novels Bond can be cynical and knows he has to do a lot of 'dirty work'. He has his conflicts with superiors, many of whom can be antagonistic towards him or are a bit stupid. Even in the Dalton films he has quite noticeable conflict with M (and unlike the Craig films the character doesn't get any sort of arc/comes out looking good).
I blame Mendes.