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
I fail to see how that's a reaction to what I wrote at all. I didn't mention Bond's reaction to it in any way. My point is that stealing the crown jewels is a fairly hackneyed old plot, but if there is some ideological element brought into it (and the idea of reparation is a fairly harmless one in the sense that it's not one of the hottest topics around) it makes it a bit more interesting and dramatic, even if ultimately it should end with a guy with a caseful of cash.
It's kind of not a million miles away from Higson's On His Majesty's Secret Service in terms of a British royalty-themed crime with an outwardly ideological motivation, but with a more mercenary one under the surface. Adding some layers to it makes it more intriguing.
I think you misunderstand: it's nothing to do with drama/soap; I'm struggling to see the issue with betrayal occurring again because it only happened once in the recent movies, nearly twenty years ago.
Great suggestions my friend.
The twist was going to be the "rogue CIA" assassin is actually Russian and Death To Spies being the title is clue to die hard fans like us. The death of the 00's would be a good endgame you're right mate, but I wanted it feel like Bond is M's last hope and him being successful in the mission is what earns him his 007 status and M's trust
I'm not keen on seeing Bond earning his 00 status again, but since that appears to be route Amazon are going down, I thought I'd have a crack at it.
Coming from a slightly different angle, in order to keep the crown jewels in play, the villian could be someone who already has enough funds for his Grand Scheme, but also desires to have the crown jewels for the sake of having them,
The issue then being how to involve Bond in the heist storyline, if the theft is just a theft, with no direct link to the villain's Grand Scheme
Are the crown jewels considered to be of such national importance that MI6 could be asked to become involved, rather than leaving it to Scotland Yard and Interpol?
Alternatively could Bond have a friend in Scotland Yard / Interpol who asks him to become involved in a private capacity, or who gets killed and leaves a message for Bond which causes him to become involved?
I think given their historical and cultural significance, yes, the crown jewels would definitely be that important. Look at what's happening in France at the moment. And the jewels in question are no longer in use, all they did is remain on display for tourists. Taking away THE most unique diamond in the world (not to mention the other things) would definitely put the stakes that high. There'll be questions of national security, maybe of terrorism even (if the burglary is accompanied by murder and destruction of state property especially), of government responsibility, that the crime would raise. And I know the jewels are in a way worthless: their have no official monetary value, not many people have enough money to buy them, let alone the desire, it's practically impossible to fence them, etc. But that would create an interesting dynamic and provide interesting themes for the next Bond film. It would also help shape an original villain, the way the aristocratic title worked in OHMSS.