219 replies to this topic

[Captain Tightpants]

Like I said: there's nothing The Union can do that Quantum can't, and thus The Union is both redndant and unnecessary.

[001carus]

Okay, here are a few ideas I've thought of after recently seeing From Russia With Love.

I think it'd be brilliant get a Red Grant like character, creating a cat and mouse like battle between Bond and this assassin. The difference between this assassin and Red Grant is, this hitman will, by the end, have a somewhat personal relationship with Bond. He'll get under Bond's skin, Bond will catch him once, hold him up for questioning etc, but the assassin will once again escape and so on.

Of course, there's more to the story than just this testosterone fueled battle between the two. The assassin will be brought in by Quantum, who will play an underlying backdrop to the film. I'd think it might play out somewhat like TDK, in that there's this guy on the loose, after the protagonist, and by the end, the two have this personal relationship that will make it more than just "Another Bond adventure." This man should leave some scars on Bond to make him remember him later in life as an important man.

I think it's a good time to do this because Bond is now, apparently, the suave secret agent we all know, so less time will be spent on Bond's psyche. Therefore, it might be a good idea to focus on this psychological battle between the TWO.

It's also a good time for this to happen I think, because it still keeps the new films fresh, without ever pulling back to the old formula. It's still very Bondian though, because Bond is spying and searching around for clues to get to this guy.

In terms of Bond girls, I wouldn't mind seeing Gala Brand, because, once again, she's a unique Bond girl that's good for the series. She is however, a bit similar to Camille, so it might not be too wise to follow them both together.

Anyway, there we go. This is coming from someone who loved the most recent Bond films and convinced the right direction is with sticking to change (oxymoron?) to keep the series out of the rut it was in through Moore/Brosnan eras.

[Harry Fawkes]

BRING BACK ERNST STAVRO BLOFELD

[Captain Tightpants]

Why? Blofeld is dead in the water. He was a product of the time he existed in, and while he worked for the series then, the world is a very different place fifty years on. He has been parodied to death, and with each passing day, he will be less and less revelant and recogniseable to modern audiences. The frachise needs to look to the future, not to live in its past for the sake of a forced death march down memory lane.

[DamnCoffee]

BRING BACK ERNST STAVRO BLOFELD

No.

[Professor Pi]

Let the new baddie be called Dr. Guntram Shatterhand. We all knew it's a pseudonym for Blofeld from YOLT, but let him be his own person as far as non-Fleming readers know. Then the producers have their nod to Fleming with a wink to the fans, hopefully avoiding the McClory rights issues regarding Blofeld.

But other than that, no more Dr. Evil ... er, I mean, Ernst Stavro Blofeld.

[eddychaput]

Okay, here are a few ideas I've thought of after recently seeing From Russia With Love.

I think it'd be brilliant get a Red Grant like character, creating a cat and mouse like battle between Bond and this assassin. The difference between this assassin and Red Grant is, this hitman will, by the end, have a somewhat personal relationship with Bond. He'll get under Bond's skin, Bond will catch him once, hold him up for questioning etc, but the assassin will once again escape and so on.

Of course, there's more to the story than just this testosterone fueled battle between the two. The assassin will be brought in by Quantum, who will play an underlying backdrop to the film. I'd think it might play out somewhat like TDK, in that there's this guy on the loose, after the protagonist, and by the end, the two have this personal relationship that will make it more than just "Another Bond adventure." This man should leave some scars on Bond to make him remember him later in life as an important man.

I think it's a good time to do this because Bond is now, apparently, the suave secret agent we all know, so less time will be spent on Bond's psyche. Therefore, it might be a good idea to focus on this psychological battle between the TWO.

It's also a good time for this to happen I think, because it still keeps the new films fresh, without ever pulling back to the old formula. It's still very Bondian though, because Bond is spying and searching around for clues to get to this guy.

In terms of Bond girls, I wouldn't mind seeing Gala Brand, because, once again, she's a unique Bond girl that's good for the series. She is however, a bit similar to Camille, so it might not be too wise to follow them both together.

Anyway, there we go. This is coming from someone who loved the most recent Bond films and convinced the right direction is with sticking to change (oxymoron?) to keep the series out of the rut it was in through Moore/Brosnan eras.

I love the cat and mouse idea. Great thinking there.

Now if Barbara Broccoli and Michael G read these threads...

[Captain Tightpants]

How about a kind of "Frederick Forsyth does James Bond", with a relatively simple plot explored in detail behind the scenes? For example, operatives from an al'Qaeda cell start turning up dead, and MI6 believe the Mossad are behind it. Normally they would not interfere with this kind of thing, but MI6 have managed to get a man inside the cell and are afraid that if the Israelis continue, their years of hard work will have been for nothing. Conversely, Bond is aware that "the Mossad always knows", and starts wondering why they are targeting the cell they know to contain the inside man. Bond would have to stop an attack at the same time as he protects MI6's assests inside al'Qaeda without blowing the man's cover and without letting him be killed by the Mossad.

The "Forsyth does Bond" element would come in as Bond is forced to operate completely on his own, acquiring a passport for himself, establishing a safehouse outside MI6's jurisdiction for his use and so on, so that we can get a look at how espionage works in the Bondverse.

[Eurospy]

Good idea for a story, but again, not for Bond, not at the moment. No al'Qaeda please.

But I would want to see Bond dealing with Mossad, one way or another.

And concerning Blofeld, he belongs in the past, along with Roger Moore's portrait of the character. A fine portrait it was (as was the Blofeld character and the "hold the world for ransom" ploy), but not in frame with nowdays' cultures/societies/mindsets/place in fiction.

Edited by Eurospy, 08 February 2009 - 12:00 AM.

[danielcraigisjamesbond007]

The way I see it? After two failed attempts, Quantum is losing lots of money. They need a "get rich quick" scheme. What that would be, however, I don't rightly know. It would be an interesting plot point, though.

[Ultraussie (Jordan.adams)]

Risico.
It should stay completly true to the Short story, some of the details modernized, maybye some extra lines, but all the details the same.
Bond shoots the guy in the Lancia (Could be a Porsche Boxster!) and he goes limp on the wheel still "Driving".


New style gunbarrel.
At the end of the PTS. Its an epic fight. A closeup shot of the enemies gun, zooms in until it goes inside the weapon, he reloads it, you see the ammo being reloaded and stuff, but when the bullet goes into the chamber, the fight music turns to the Gunbarrel Bond theme, and the traditional dots go across a black screen.
It goes to the barrel, and the Bond walks across a white-tish wall, turns, shoots his PPK once, the camera drops suddenly to the floor, and blood pours down as usual. Instead of the silly camera waving, the camera/gun just before the end rolls 90 degree's sideways.
It turns to the tradiotional white dot, and then into a wave of fine lines and sexy ladies: OMGZ! Its the titles!


Brutal Bond
Yes please. Show no mercy DC.


Q.
"Oh grow up 007, you still know im a valid character for the times!"
He needs to come back. Even in a small role. And of course here comes the...

...GADGETS!
They'd have to be incredibly realistic, like a choking wire/Small detonater in Bond's Rolex/Sekio/Omega or something.
Tracking devices, FRWL style breifcase, all that stuff.
And it is possible to put machine guns and stuff in an Aston martin DB5 (Although it be incredibly expensive, which doesnt matter, and Handling may be affected) and I see now reason it cant go in Bonds next ride.
Prehaps a smoke screen or a few bonnet mounted machine guns would just do.

[DamnCoffee]

I think it would be an interesting one. Imagine the amount of pressure Quantum will be under, they're losing money fast, and since they're a shadowy orgnaisation, they will have trouble keeping a low profile, if they need a 'get rich quick' scheme. It would be very interesting.

[tdalton]

I doubt that Quantum has really lost all that much money in the grand scheme of things. In Casino Royale, the money that they lost wasn't even theirs to begin with (and they didn't really lose it anyway, it was Le Chiffre that lost the money), and Bond took care of the people who came to collect that money. In Quantum of Solace, although one plot may have been foiled, the supposedly far-reaching nature of Quantum and the idea that they "have people everywhere" would seem to indicate that they would be able to withstand the one failed plot. Bond also doesn't really appear to have scratched the surface of the organization too much, as I can't imagine that Yusef would be a high-ranking member of the organization since his basic job appears to be "recruitment" of new members.

I do like the idea, though, and I think that it would be great a few films from now, when Bond has Quantum on its last legs and it's becoming more and more desperate. Perhaps use it as a foundation for a more faithful adaptation of The Man With the Golden Gun, with Quantum hiring out Scaramanga to take care of the agents that are in pursuit of Quantum while they make one last attempt to regain their finances.

[Richard]

The best thing that could happen to the franchise would be to get rid of Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson. They are bean counters who impose creative controls that they are not qualified to make. Wilson has been wrecking the Bonds for a long time, and now Babs is out to outwreck her stepbrother. They know how to organize and administrate, but they don't nothing about the creative disciplines, and they have no talent for writing, directing, or acting. They are the worst enemy of the series.

Get rid of them!

Richard

Edited by Richard, 15 February 2009 - 03:29 AM.

[Captain Tightpants]

The best thing that could happen to the franchise would be to get rid of Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson. They are bean counters who impose creative controls that they are not qualified to make. Wilson has been wrecking the Bonds for a long time, and now Babs is out to outwreck her stepbrother. They know how to organize and administrate, but they don't nothing about the creative disciplines, and they have no talent for writing, directing, or acting. They are the worst enemy of the series.

Get rid of them!

Richard

That's funny, because aside from MGW's cameos - most of which have been silent - neither ne nor Babs have written, directed or acted in a Bond film. It's true Wilson used to write the films in collaboration with other writers, but He hasn't done that since LICENCE TO KILL. As they are the producers they are responsible for fronting the money to make the films, but they generally let the production team go their own way when it comes to making the film. They do keep a close eye on things, but they both let Marc Forster make the film he wanted to make in QUANTUM OF SOLACE.

So what, exactly, is the problem? And who would you replace them with? Babs and MGW are EON, and EON hold the rights to making James Bond films. There is no-one else with any qualification to produce them, and both of them have been inherently tied to the franchise for decades; after all, they're both related to Cubby Broccoli. If anything, they are more qualified to make the Bond films than anybody else beause they have been a part of the franchise for so long. Yes, they've seen the critical and commercial failures of some of the films, but that just means they have experience in knowing what doesn't work; they proved as much when they cast Daniel Craig.

All I can conclude from reading you above post is that you have no idea how Babs and MGW are involved in the process of making a Bond film because you have no diea how films in general are made. Getting rid of them would be the stupidest thing you could do, because their replacements would likely cast Will Smith as James Bond because of his billing power.

[Quantumofsolace007]

The best thing that could happen to the franchise would be to get rid of Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson. They are bean counters who impose creative controls that they are not qualified to make. Wilson has been wrecking the Bonds for a long time, and now Babs is out to outwreck her stepbrother. They know how to organize and administrate, but they don't nothing about the creative disciplines, and they have no talent for writing, directing, or acting. They are the worst enemy of the series.

Get rid of them!

Richard

That's funny, because aside from MGW's cameos - most of which have been silent - neither ne nor Babs have written, directed or acted in a Bond film. It's true Wilson used to write the films in collaboration with other writers, but He hasn't done that since LICENCE TO KILL. As they are the producers they are responsible for fronting the money to make the films, but they generally let the production team go their own way when it comes to making the film. They do keep a close eye on things, but they both let Marc Forster make the film he wanted to make in QUANTUM OF SOLACE.

So what, exactly, is the problem? And who would you replace them with? Babs and MGW are EON, and EON hold the rights to making James Bond films. There is no-one else with any qualification to produce them, and both of them have been inherently tied to the franchise for decades; after all, they're both related to Cubby Broccoli. If anything, they are more qualified to make the Bond films than anybody else beause they have been a part of the franchise for so long. Yes, they've seen the critical and commercial failures of some of the films, but that just means they have experience in knowing what doesn't work; they proved as much when they cast Daniel Craig.

All I can conclude from reading you above post is that you have no idea how Babs and MGW are involved in the process of making a Bond film because you have no diea how films in general are made. Getting rid of them would be the stupidest thing you could do, because their replacements would likely cast Will Smith as James Bond because of his billing power.

Captain get the champaign glasses cause i actually agree with you.


one minor thing is MGW and BB did suggest when to do casino Royale (with craig not brosnan which is brilliant) and they wanted to stay true to hte novel again brilliant And i think the come up with title and perhaps general ideas (which i love thus far) but other than that they don't do much except make thing run smmothly.


but yes Captain get the champaign glasses

[Richard]

Captain tightpan...

I've just given you an insider's insight, and you call me ignorant? On the contrary you are the ignorant one. You worship these people, I don't. Babs and Wilson exercise a rigid creative control over the development and writing process; they impose a specific agenda over the performances and over the director; less so last time around. They are not qualified to exercise creative control, but they do so to the detriment of their own franchise. If they knew anything about writing, they would never employ such amateur writers as Purvis and Wade. They employ people they can control under contracts that seal their control. They own the franchise and it makes money, and that makes everything alright. What they say in public promos is not the same thing as what happens on the set. Don't take my word for it when Bab even says so in one of the interviews linked off the main page "we are completely controlling" she says. Wilson is generally regarded within the industry as a hack. He did not collaborate with other writers, he simply took their scripts and ruined them. One example: I have Maibaum's original script to For Your Eyes Only, which he gave me. he thought it was one of his best and was terribly hurt at the changes imposed. It is a brilliant script and would have made a much better film. Wilson added new material that made no sense and totally screwed it up, to get himself in WGA and the royalties that come with the union contract.

I gather from reading your posts that you are one of those fanboy bullies who makes sure that only the hero-worship and glorious fantasy is represented on this forum. You have no practical experience in production and no personal knowledge of how things work. The fact is, you don't know what you're talking about.

Edited by Richard, 15 February 2009 - 07:40 AM.

[Captain Tightpants]

"Insider's account"? What are, you, the guy who chooses the tablecloth for the refreshments table at the press conferences?

If anybody's being narrow-minded, it's you. You seem to be the one forgetting the number one function of the producers: to make the best film that they possibly can, and one that not only caters to long-standing Bond fans such as members of the forum community, but to newcomers to the franchise as well.

The producers are the money-men (and money-women). Their responsibility is to source funds for the project they are working on, but the responsibility itself does not work there. There are a part of every decision that gets made, and for good reason: it is their money that is being spent. If they disagree with a particular decision, they have every right to change it.

See, the thing you don't know about writers is that we'll go off in whatever direction takes our fancy if you let us. Take Paul Haggis' original draft for QUANTUM OF SOLACE: it featured Vesper has having a son, and Bond had to protect him for theduration of the film. The producers vetoed that because they felt it wasn't in keping with the Bond franchise.

The problem with your argument is twofold: firstly, you have given no way of quantifying what makes a person "qualified" to make creative decisions. Sure, you can go to university and you can take a degree in scriptwriting. But that doesn't make you a writer. You either write, or you can't. The piece of paper that says you did the degree makes no difference either way. Likewise directing: Quentin Tarantino never went to film school, but he's one of this generation's best directors. He doesn't have a sip of paper that says he graduated from a degree in film direction, but he can still do it.

Secondly, you have no idea who should take over from Babs and MGW should they leave the franchise. No suggestions, no recommendations, only a very angry post saying that they should go because you don't like them. How are you qualified to know what is best for the franchise? How are you qualified to know who else would be suitable for the position? The thing is that Babs and MGW are the best-qualified people because they have been a part of the franchise for a very long time. We're not talking about the son of a king who inherited the kingdom and proved to be a despot because the power went to his head! We're talking about two people who have been deeply invovled in the franchise for decades, who learned their trade from the best.

It is the curse of being a producer that more often than not, they are playing the villain. They have to: it is their money being spent. Now, you might think I'm a fanboy who indulges in hero-worship, but you couldn't be farther from the truth because I'm willing to bet the posts of mine that you've seen have been exclusively limited to this thread. One person's opinion conflicting with yours does not make them a tyrant, a despot or a fanboy. Since you've passed judgement on me, I guess it's my turn to return the favour. It's pretty obvious you're someone who prides himself on being an "insider", even if you're just a shoe-shine boy outside Pinewood, and that you expect everyone to listen to your opinion and at least agree with it a little bit because you claim to know what you're talking about. However, the underlying fallacies in your post - you can't quantify what makes a person qualified and that you have no idea who should step into their place - make it pretty clear that you're nowhere near as well-connected as you claim to be. You might have known Richard Maibaum and you may even have had his ear. But tell me this ... if he was so upset with the changes made to FOR YOUR EYES ONLY, why did he continue writing for Wilson all the way through to LICENCE TO KILL? Don't say he needed the money; someone on his credentials could have easily made it outside the Bond franchise.

Ladies and getlemen of the jury, may I present Exhibit A: Johnathan Gabriel's Theory of Internet tardness: Anonymity + an Audience = tardness.

[Richard]

You're a child right? Or a teen? Your assumptions are erroneous. You're in over your head. You'll type all night and say nothing. Discussing anything with you is a waste of time. I have no trouble beleiving that your pants are too tight.

[Jim]

Why get angry?

It's only some typing.

None of us can have any impact.

I do wonder about the number of "industry professionals" hanging around here; is everyone terribly underoccupied? I suppose it's the economic situation. Or perhaps any industry professionals who are any good are busy.

I dunno.

You're in over your head.

It's a free internet message board, not a weapons depository. No qualifications required, other than patience.

[Captain Tightpants]

You're a child right? Or a teen? Your assumptions are erroneous. You're in over your head. You'll type all night and say nothing. Discussing anything with you is a waste of time. I have no trouble beleiving that your pants are too tight.

Maybe if you backed up your claim about just how "inside" EON you are, I might start taking you a little more seriously. "Might" and "little" being the operative terms. You see, it's easy enough to claim you're tight with the right people, especially if you want to add some credibility to you posts when you're new. I actually happen to personally know somebody who works on the Bond films, and she contradicts everything you say. Of course, you'll just assume I'm making that up.

So how about we each agree to ignore each other until we both go away, hmm? You stop second guessing me and my opinion based on the notion that I don't agree with you, and I'll overlook your the unkind words you havewith regard to my character in future posts. Because all you are to me is a series of zeroes and ones arranged on my laptop screen.

[Joe Bond]

Ladies and getlemen of the jury, may I present Exhibit A: Johnathan Gabriel's Theory of Internet [censored]tardness: Anonymity + an Audience = [censored]tardness.

We the jury find Captain Tightpants not guilty.

I totally agree with you Captain and I have no industry contacts but I can say that there is no way you could get new producers since like you said the producers are EON productions and can't be replaced unless they allow it to happen but it would be a mistake since I think because of their experience I think they are the best for the job. The way I see it I actually think that they are doing about the same as Cubby and Harry since they started out really good but they eventually went through a period (YOLT, DAF, LALD, and TMWTGG) and Cubby alone throughout the Moore movies where they made good but no great Bond films its just BB and MGW started making these Bond films first and have know started doing some great ones if they continue as they have with CR and QoS, they will most likely be creating another golden age just like how Cubby and Harry started off with. Richard, how can you say that they need to be replaced when they are responsible for CR which most respected board members around here call the best James Bond movie and it would not be as good as this without BB and MGW because they made the decision to cast Craig, to hire Martin Campbell who in turn suggested them to hire Paul Haggis which they did, and as far as I know they did not hinder Campbell's vision of the film.

I am not a BB and MGW fanboy because they have done some questionable things in the Brosnan era but I have to give credit where its due and since they helped CR become one of the best Bond films with QoS not far behind I think it shows that they have learned from their mistakes and whatever creative control they have they do it for the benefit of the series and how could you blame them for vetoing the Vesper child ideal which would of been horrible and overly melodramatic. As far as I see it BB and MGW are not any worse than Cubby and Harry in my opinion and I think it would be a nightmare if a different producer was in charge of the Bond movies since they would have no experience with Bond films and they could severely damage the series more so than BB and MGW because of this. And by the way I think FYEO is a pretty good film even with MGW's script.

[Eurospy]

Joe Bond, please don't take this as a pot-shot at you, but I do have to repeat something I mentioned before.

BB & MGW have done a rather good job with Bond in this Era of Craig. Yes, that is true, and IMHO, undoubtful.

BUT, what about the entire Brosnan Era, where they all seemed completely lost on how to properly approach Bond?

And anyway, don't they solely produce Bond movies?

I mean, they are in charge of the longest running franchise of the present, they already have a built-in audience, the mistakes made before should have taught them a couple of lessons.

Bottom line is, yes they seem to finally have got it right. But shouldn't they have a long time ago?

I mean, they aren't busy with anything else (production-wise) besides Bond.

Does it really take a genius (as a producer) to be able to get Bond right, after ALL this time, after SO MANY movies?

Do I consider them competent? For the moment, yes. But not in the Brosnan Era, not when they took so long to get Bond right, not when the only thing they produce is Bond.

[Dainshdude118]

I am your average geek, who has no industry connections what so ever, so i therefore have no idea what i'm talking about and am not allowed to have an oppinion, but anyone who made a film as outstanding as Casino Royale has to know a bit about the movie buisness, no?

[Conlazmoodalbrocra]

I want:
- New York
- Spain
- The classic Mi6 building back, rather than the horrid Quantum Of Solace one
- Q and Moneypenny
- More interesting lairs (such as the You Only Live Twice volcano)
- Martin Campbell

[Eurospy]

I am your average geek, who has no industry connections what so ever, so i therefore have no idea what i'm talking about and am not allowed to have an oppinion, but anyone who made a film as outstanding as Casino Royale has to know a bit about the movie business, no?

I disagree with you entirely. First I really don't see why just because one doesn't have industry connections or whatever is not entitled to an opinion.

Second, well, as much as I love Casino Royale (and I do, it's one of my top favorite Bonds), I'm not blind to its flaws. And it does have them. Two halves that could have gelled a lot better for starters.

And why did it take them so long to get it right? Especially, I again emphasize, since their sole productions are Bond. It's not like they've been busy with anything else. After all this time, they'd have to be complete jesters if they hadn't come up with something a bit more balanced and well-constructed by now.

A bit like that saying regarding chimps and Shakespeare.

Geniuses? Hardly.

[Dainshdude118]

I am your average geek, who has no industry connections what so ever, so i therefore have no idea what i'm talking about and am not allowed to have an oppinion, but anyone who made a film as outstanding as Casino Royale has to know a bit about the movie business, no?

I disagree with you entirely. First I really don't see why just because one doesn't have industry connections or whatever is not entitled to an opinion.

Second, well, as much as I love Casino Royale (and I do, it's one of my top favorite Bonds), I'm not blind to its flaws. And it does have them. Two halves that could have gelled a lot better for starters.

And why did it take them so long to get it right? Especially, I again emphasize, since their sole productions are Bond. It's not like they've been busy with anything else. After all this time, they'd have to be complete jesters if they hadn't come up with something a bit more balanced and well-constructed by now.

A bit like that saying regarding chimps and Shakespeare.

Geniuses? Hardly.

Sorry Eurospy, that was my poor attempt at humour regarding the masses of people who claim to have industry connections in order to add weight to their arguements

[Eurospy]

Sorry Eurospy, that was my poor attempt at humour regarding the masses of people who claim to have industry connections in order to add weight to their arguements

Ooops, went right over my head

Oh and another thing about thhose who say that it's the producers' money. That's right. But it is also their RESPONSIBILITY.

Chimps and Shakespeare...

Something which has been ignored by too many producers time and again. And I don't simply mean the Bond ones.

And that idea from Haggis about Vesper's child, was it really a script or a mere idea suggested by him of which he was much fond of? I thought it was the latter.

Edited by Eurospy, 18 February 2009 - 10:28 PM.

[Dainshdude118]

And that idea from Haggis about Vesper's child, was it really a script or a mere idea suggested by him of which he was much fond of? I thought it was the latter.

Surely they wouldn't let an idea that terrible get into even a pelimenary draft - at least, I HOPE they have more sense than that

[danslittlefinger]

http://justjared.buz...le-gq-magazine/

I definately think this woman should in Bond 23..couldnt find the other thread for future bond girls..