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
It seems kind of stupid to go to the trouble of casting and establishing this ensamble MI6 crew in one movie just to disband it in the next one. Also because of how they have been involved in the plot with such relevant parts (their actions and how they drive the plot, not their characters).
As for Madeline, she doesn't seem to be a "love" of Bond's life (as Vesper or Tracy), she is just dragged into the action due to her involvement with Mr. White. She is his companion in this adventure and as many beautiful women before her she will be done after this. I'm glad Léa will have this main part but I am disappointed that after all this years and finally having Monica Bellucci cast she winds up being the Solange of this movie, (well, she doesn't seem to get killed, but she almost does nothing but give Bond the tip for the big meeting). I was hoping to have her be this sexy Fiona Volpe'ish villainous bitch, but oh well...
I wonder about those "clues" left by Judi's M... and what they say (obviously they give some sort of lead) and the DVD, would there be a video of her telling Bond a message or is it only data? Will we see Judi Dench again, if only in a recording?? And what about that Vesper video??? Would we be seeing that too?????? Oh boy! :(
On regards to the DB5, well, it has grown on me... kind of... If we look at it as if it was the one from CR, that would mean it would be Bond's own property and it is therefore understandable and rather considerate of MI6 to fix it up for him after the events of Skyfall.
This of course contradicts with Skyfall itself, where it is presented as the old DB5 from lore, although, could we say in this case it is MI6's car? which garage did he take it from anyways? is it some MI6 warehouse where they keep all the old gadgets that are indeed returned in good conditions or is it just some rented garage where Bond kept some of his personal effects, including the Aston? did they just give it to him?? (OK, i am ranting now!)
If this is not Craig's final outing, I hope there is NO MORE TO THIS STORY ARC.
It's nice how they are trying to tie up all the lose bits and form one continuous story, but if they do, then the only way for them to follw would be to have Oberhauser/Blofeld kill Madeline and that, apart from being a copy of OHMSS, would set Bond in yet ANOTHER vengeance trail and we have had enough of that. Seriously, how much does this man have to take: first Vesper, then all the crap from his childhood/getting "killed" by Eve/I hate my job/existentialist crap and now another of his women killed.
Again, it didn't seem to me as if a Vesper thing develops between the two, and probably that is not what they have in mind but it's enough with this personal issues. I want the next movie to be a standalone feature of him going on a mission and period. No more psyche exploration... they're making him look like some troubled-teen.
Anyways, I am glad with this outline, obviously some things will change, hopefully for the best.
FANBOY BIT: wouldn't it be awesome if at the end, when Bond and Madeline drive away in the DB5, we see this nice long shot of the car moving away (probably set to a subtle orchestral cue) and then, the captions reading "Made by Eon Productions Limited at bla bla bla" appear (as in the old movies) and then after a small while, the line "James Bond will return" appears below just as the bond theme starts blaring. Then the screen fades to black and the rest of the credits roll up. I think that would be a nice touch. :D
While the next actor that plays Bond they might dial back some of the emotion that the DC era has become known for. I don't imagine any actor taking on the role after Daniel is likely to want to play Bond like Connery or Moore played it. The next Bond will be looking for the depth that Craig has bought to it, actors who had thought I didn't want to play that role have likely re-evaluated their opinion because Craig had made the character much more.
I know some of you don't like this and would rather he was suave, deadly and hardly miss a step, no flaws just essentially a device for the story to play out around, just a mission and he gets on with it but I don't think any new actor is going to be wanting to play it like that. Pierce admits he never wanted to play it like he did and his interpretation was always at odds with what he wanted to do and what the script told him to do.
Some of us just look at this series with far too much nostalgia, wanting it to hark back to what it was before but the time for Bond the character standing still or going back is over. The character I believe will continue to evolve and for those who want Bond of old need look no further than Matthew Vaughn's latest Spy film (no thanks). Maybe this possible new franchise will sate your appetite more than Bond has of late.
Anyway back to Spectre, having now read the full length outline of the film last night I think what we are going to get is Craig's Bond style but with some of the old school Bond on a mission hijinks. This is fine by me, I don't mind hark backs to the previous era for elements before the reboot although I also still want what has become established with his tenure and I think from what I've read is what we are going to get. This although again is going to include the personal angle but you can't just drop that all of a sudden after it being a hallmark of his portrayal, Bond is no longer a device for a film to play around, it's about him and I believe the next man will want it that way as well, we'll be seeing someone who is a dramatic actor as well as having the build to pull the character off.
Bond the character is not going to return to days of old and those waiting for it will be waiting for decades till it changes back, the world just doesn't work this way anymore it's on the table and it's not going away.
I'm so looking forward to this film it sounds a blast as well as not becoming a bland shallow retread of past glories, I don't want Craig's Bond playing it like Connery or Moore, this is the character going forward the general public have embraced it and these films were never made for the fan base anyway they were made for mass consumption so get used to it and take those rose tinted specs of nostalgia off.
Of all the gumpf that I've read regarding the films outline, and bearing in mind I don't know how true it all is at this point;
Spectre - I love that they're bringing the organisation back. People say 'why go back to the past', but I say why not just re-imagine them for this modern era. It's an iconic name in Bondian lore, so why not?
Blofeld - Same as above. There's really little point in creating new names for villains when you can just as easily update the character. I think the villains in Craig's era have been weak. Le Chiffre was a shadow of the Fleming creation, Greene unthreatening and whilst Silva somewhat more rounded, his motivation was BS.
Mr.White - Such an underused character, but perhaps that's why so many are curious about him. Glad he's back. Swann is also very intruiging.
Blofeld/Bond history, Spectre tracking Bond since CR etc - Rubbish. Utter Rubbish. I can't believe Logan is so respected a writer when he's created such a contrived hook. It adds absolutely nothing to the canon, it's forced, cliched, sophomoric, awful writing.
Bonds parents - Again, I'm not sure if this was true or not, but there was some speculation that Bonds parents were involved with the Secret Service and had history with Blofeld and his own parents, and perhaps Mr.White aswell? Bonds parents, imo, should be left completely alone and not bought into any plot points whatsoever. They're sacred. He had parents, they died. Leave them in the past.
The above two points are just indicitave of trashy, poor writing. It lacks imagination in creating Blofelds motivation(why cannot it just be business? Why does Mendes insist on linking everyone in the Bond universe in an emotional sense?) It doesn't trust the audience to be emotionally hooked unless there's some BS personal vendetta going on.
M originally being a villain - Again Logan and Mendes, just WTF. Where is the respect for Bond's world here? Another cheap writing trick. Ralph Fiennes is a GREAT M. He brings so much class, integrity and authority to the part. He's someone for Craig to actually respect, after all the s**t-talk he gave poor Judi over the years. Can you imagine Bond breaking into Fiennes M's apartment? Thank god Fiennes is on another level and saw sense to refuse the villain role.
Bond retiring(for a Woman no less) - I get that in film, we need a beggining, middle and end. I get that the Bond franchise is simply a series within a series. I have no issue with Bond having little to no continuity from era to era; infact it's probably better that it doesn't lest the writers become beholden to what's happened before. It's none of that - it's his character. He does not retire from duty(correct me if I'm wrong and does this in the books, but my mind is blank and I'd willingly admit defeat). He's like Batman - he does not retire. The pull of his duty, of his need for risk and his addiction to his profession mean he does not retire. He cannot live a normal life, this is his life.
Not only this, but the act of him retiring negates what has happened in SF. It would also negate the events of CR if not for Swann obviously being a Tracy clone(daughter of a criminal/love story with Bond). SF starts with a complacent Bond who is seemingly disillusioned with life in the service. The whole film takes him on a journey of re-birth/reinvigoration and at the end he regains his mojo, so to speak. SP completely discards that with the action of him retiring at the end. We've already seen the Bond who willingly disappears from the Service. It was an interesting angle for the character to take. It takes a terrorist attack on MI6 to get him back. What will it take to get him back from full on retirement? Besides which, have we seen a Craig era Bond actually be fully commited to his duty and MI6? In CR he was a 38y/o rookie. In QoS he a rogue agent, and in SF he got shot at the start and spent 3 months on a beach getting hammered everyday, like a builder who lost his job. Where's Bond?
Otherwise it sounds great.
You guys essentially echo how I feel about this movie and I'm confident that this movie is going to be a critical and BO beast. It really feels like SPECTRE is going to be a perfect balance of classic and modern Bond and will play out in a way that pleases people more so than any if Craig's Bond movies (although we have to see about that).
Personally I feel that it is indeed possible to have a straight mission based story that comes with the intensity and depth the Craig era aspires to without the personal angles. With a bit of tweaking to the Bond/Vesper relationship that's what we pretty much got and with SF omit M ordering Eve to take the shot, omit MI6 from having lost the data and switch up Silva ' s background/motivations and then we have a straight mission - centric Bond movie.
Anyway, with the new additions and beefing up of talent and the overall approach in making SPECTRE, I think we're definitely in for a treat. Fans and critics are going to go bananas.
Where is @haserot when I need him?
I really doubt a Sam Mendes film will ever have a post credit scene...
Are we still introduced to ESB with him in bandages at the clinic?
If so, can't help but think this is setting up the possibility of more plastic surgery hijinks e.g. fake Blofelds, changing identities, even different actor's playing him later down the line.
No, the earlier drafts had ESB/Oberhauser/Stockmann appearing in bandages and with a drip in the Rome meeting...the shooting outline and later November/Dec drafts drop the Stockmann alias and the whole surgery point. BUT - the disfigurement for the climax will probably be a throwback to classic Blofeld, question is where and how they reveal the name.
Answer: taking longer breaks. Longer time between Bond movies doesn't mean they spending more time writing. It means they pursue other projects and the like. Logan didn't submit his first draft until, what, March? Purvis and Wade, of course, weren't event involved with SPECTRE until summer when they received the summons for their services.
Thanks for clearing that one up for me.
Thought it bit odd then at first that it's still referred to as a clinic in Austria. But having read the shooting outline again, realised there's no mention whatsoever to Blofeld being there now, it's seems to be just where Madeline works.
As for the name reveal, looks like this happens at the very end when Bond catches up with him after the copter crash. I'm guessing it means both ESB and Bond were orphans who were fostered by Oberhausen but Ernst took his name, either in childhood or as something to draw Bond in later.
Hopefully though, they've dropped that whole sorry mess.
ESB never was done properly and it's constant changing of actors playing the role turned the character into a joke, Charles Gray had done it long before Mike Myers started his shenanigans. A chance to evoke Fleming's literary version on screen is one that shouldn't be missed.
Just take the ESB and Spectre and plot new ground with them. They could pull back from this and go for a different villain in Bond 25 and then in 26 have a thrilling PTS without Bond where Spectre operatives spring Ernst from where ever he's held and boom we are into are next Spectre based entry. You don't even have to have him being the main focus just a new Spectre plot which Bond has to foil. The key is to reinvent them so that they fit into the modern world. Spectre's schemes should be truly terrifying and not OTT take over the world start WW3 type silliness.
also don't forget that it was reported publicly (not in the leaks), that Mendes was returning because he was also happy with the long-term ideas of the franchise. I don't know if it meant he knew SPECTRE was back, and if it was before he saw the script, but well..
As the very last change about ending known from the leaks is that
maybe the producers have something in mind for the future. Maybe they'll have a director will less mum/dad issues :) Maybe the new Bond will fight Blofeld without all the connections of the other fellow :)
"When you decide James, that you want to leave this life, I'll be here for you, but I won't wait forever". Then it says "Bond is torn but has to go". Then at the end he spares Blofeld and throws his gun away (leaving the life of killing behind), then leaves with Madeline.
I'm not even sure why this is still up for debate or why some are still denying this. It's not ambiguous at all imo. Assuming the ending of the shooting outline is the same ending we'll get in the film, Bond retires at the end.
This, along with the whole conclusion aspect to it (all the references and callbacks and links to the other Craig movies), and other stuff such as Sony being dropped as distributor (so a new contract could have been negotiated after this) makes me think it'll be Craig's last.
MP says "it's called a life James, you should try it some time". At the end of the film he has a life, he has Madeline, the woman he loves, and with all the SPECTRE stuff (which has been behind everything that's happened to him over the last three movies) behind him, he's free to move on.
But either way, whether it's Craig's last or not, Bond retires at the end of the shooting outline. That much I'm sure of.
Agree 100% with this. Exactly i how see it to.
And it would be a perfect (i say perfect because i think SP will be epic and one of the best movies in the series) for Daniel Craig to leave the franchise with SP, leaving his mark!
But even if he retires at the end (or not) there will always be ways to have him back (being Daniel or not). The most obvious would be killing Madeleine (a la OHMSS ending but in the beguining).
I believe Hinx did not 'bite it' under that train. Which means he's the prime candidate to do some damage either at the end of SP or at the start of B25.
I agree. Definitely.
It's just there must be something to that bullet hole in glass. Unless it's just another silly throwback 'nod', which it very well could be.
Careful now. Don't give them any ideas!
As it stands, if SP is the last Daniel Craig film (which I think it will be), it'll be the only one which has the GB at the start. So it'd sort of stick out when you look at it with the other Craig films.
Of course this wouldn't matter if they'd just put it at the start in QoS and SF but we have Forster, Mendes and Deakins to thank for that. I'm still pissed off about the SF one especially, at least in QoS there was sort of a story reason, in SF they sacrificed the gunbarrel (of the 50th anniversary film!) because they thought the opening shot looked nice. The shot was cool sure but would it have beaten a classic old school gunbarrel (either the original design or the Brosnan one, not the terrible new design) with some John Barry music to really cement the fact that Bond was back? Nah. What's even worse is that they used the classic design in the marketing, then when the gunbarrel finally did show up (at the end again) it was pretty much the same shit new design they used in QoS. That was just taking the piss.
BTW, what can you tell about the alleged
The problem with the retirement issue is this; I don't honestly see Sony getting dropped until Craig leaves and if this film is a huge success like Skyfall, you can bet your ass with all of these issues, Sony will hang onto Bond with everything they've got cause all signs point to Sony having to sell the rights to Spider-Man back to Marvel Studios and that is going to be an incredible loss. Place Bond into the lost pile too and Sony will be DOA for a good while, especially considering bond makes incredible amounts of money every two to three years. Not to mention I think Pascal and Broccoli have a pretty good working relationship so all things considered (and it looking like Pascal is probably going to keep her position) I'd bet they come to some sort of healthy agreement. Sony, despite these recent flaws, has done an impeccable job with Bond.
Also, there is no way Bond is going to stay retired. It's not in the character's nature. The man is the job. He doesn't get to love, that's the point, the job always strips it of him. It's like any other hero of this nature, they don't get a happy ending. Not to mention, with how fickle the movie industry is, they won't chance "rebooting" again with another actor if the Craig era wraps everything up in a neat little bow. No way in hell, especially not with the downward spiral reboots are suffering now; Godzilla, TMNT, Amazing Spider-Man, Evil Dead, Jack Ryan, RoboCop, Fantastic Four, Man of Steel... they all suffered as box office failures, critical failures or both and it's especially telling of FF because it's due in the summer and there hasn't even been a promotional shot of the cast yet! That's how scared they are. Casino Royale at least had the benefit of coming off of several successful reboots like Batman Begins.
What would they have to gain if they rebooted now with a new actor? Just start from scratch with Bond already being Bond with no ties to anything? They can't hint at an origin with a card game and an evil organization because that would muddy the water with the Craig era. They can't re-use Casino Royale or any of the original films because that's just wasting money and I can't honestly see filmgoers going to see remakes time after time of the Connery/Moore films. They would have to start from scratch with next to nothing of Flemings and that is a risky business, a risk I'm not sure they are willing to take. With all the homages, all the winks, all the nods, if Bond does walk away at the end, it will not be Craig's last and Madeline will not survive. Especially not with Blofeld still kicking. There will be a revenge film, I'd bet everything I own on it. They wouldn't set themselves up with the imagery of the bleakness of OHMSS's ending and all the potential sequels just to have Bond retire one film after Bond finally Begins again. After all, that was the whole point of this era, right? "Bond Begins, Bond isn't Bond yet, oh wait, now we have Q and Moneypenny, BOND IS BOND AGAIN!" To strip all that away and say, "Yep, let's start over again." is such an honest to God waste of time. The time for reboots has past. The newest trend (and we all know Bond loves jumping on trends) is giant movie universes in the style of Marvel and I'm willing to bet that Blofeld and Spectre are the beginning of a new era of Bond film, not the end with Bond retiring. All that's old is new again. I'd expect we see the return of Big Bad's, villain lairs, world domination plots, ect.
I think the sign off of Spectre is a lot more lighthearted than some think, I'm not so sure about a vengeful follow up as well, more character defining this early in? The use of the OHMSS bullet hole imagery I think is just coincidence unless there is page of that script that has been with held with a shocking conclusion but I just don't see a repeat of the Tracey situation with Swann but I could be wrong.
SF was about setting up the end of the Dench era and ushering in Mallory as M and the new team. I just don't see this being a full stop. Just because you've seen a screenplay out there, it might have some deliberately misleading content, they know an early draft leaked, surely they were likely to be more careful with most recent draft, I'm beginning to think there might be some misdirection going on for some of us smart arses who think they've sussed it out already. Don't be so sure you know everything, I think some of us are being a bit presumptuous. Yes this era has tipped the hat to some iconic moments from the series but actually borrowing plot points that have been used before, I don't see it.
I will laugh my head off if some of you have read the screenplay get the biggest shock of your lives come next November, I'm hoping we will all get a surprise, it's only just started shooting, things could well change.
--Sony leases Spider-Man from Marvel. Marvel isn't negotiating to "buy back" Spider-Man. Sony needs to do a Spider-Man movie every so often to retain the Spider-Man rights or else they revert to Marvel. Once Disney bought Marvel, pressure on Sony intensified to keep doing Spider-Man movies. It has been reported that Disney/Marvel and Sony are negotiating a deal where they'd co-finance Spider-Man films, let Spider-Man appear in Avengers movies, etc.
--Bond is an asset for Sony, but it makes less money for the studio than you might think. The New York Times, in 2013, did a detailed story about Sony in general. It specifically mentioned with Skyfall, Sony was third in line to divvy up the money, behind Eon/Danjaq and MGM.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/19/business/at-sony-investors-challenge-brings-unwanted-suspense.html?ref=business&_r=1&;