1531 replies to this topic

[Captain Tightpants]

If you like, Terminus, I could run BOND 27 from the outset. Of course, this assumes that we have minimal description in the categories, then work on each item as a group and get some detail once all categories are fill before putting it all into write-up form.

[coco1997]

We still need to do Bond 26, lol.

Also, any progress made on the final part, terminus?

[Captain Tightpants]

Bottom post of the last page. That's there I got the BOND 27 from.

[coco1997]

Bottom post of the last page. That's there I got the BOND 27 from.

Whoops. I think terminus meant to say 'ULTIMATE BOND 26'.

[terminus]

Indeed. And it's now been corrected.

[Captain Tightpants]

Well, I'm still up for running it if you want to take a break. The only change I'd make is that when filling in fields on the initial write-up sheet, there's a fifty-word limit. Then we go through as a group and expand upon them before writing it up.

[terminus]

I'd agree to the fifty word limit - or maybe five lines (which should be similar) - unless they're describing a stunt or validating why they want to use a location (for example, say someone wants to use Vancouver, but would like to suggest specific places such as Grouse Mountain, Horseshoe Bay or Science World as integral locations within that).

I do think a pause before we plunge back in would be a good thing tho'.

One thing I have been discussing with coco1997 is whether we could make a break from using Daniel Craig and 'recasting' Bond to reflect that he's now (in the UB-verse) done five films. We could always replace him with Sam Worthington or Henry Cavill - give us the chance to change the feel of the movies, maybe inject a touch more humour.

I'd also like - and I think we've discussed this - doing a series of movies where the film is pinned down (with the exception of London and maybe a PTS location) to a specific continent ie UB26 could be set within the confines of South America, UB27 could see us setting the whole thing in North America, UB28 in Africa and so on. That'd give us, what? Six 'themed' films - it would also allow us to move around a lot more within a certain country (a North American movie could use both Miami and San Diego, for example).

I also pondered a string of several rounds where, taking a tip from the upcoming GoldenEye game, we'd 'adapt' the older Bond movies into ones for the Craig Era - starting with Doctor No and picking our next movie to tackel as/when. Not sure people'd be up for that, though.

The one thing I'm determined to keep in the next round is the group discussion that erupted in UB25 as that's what I've hoped for the project from the start.

Anyway - the jist of this current bit would be: Do We Dump Daniel Craig for UB26 - and if so, who do we 'cast' as Bond?

[coco1997]

I like the idea of doing a loose trilogy of sorts, terminus, using a new actor in the role--a semi reboot. Or, we could do a complete reboot and recast the entire MI6 staff, as well. Either way, a trilogy seems like it would be an interesting endeavor. If you've noticed, each Bond has done a different number of films from the others. If we wind up having "Choice of Weapons" stand as Craig's final film, that makes five films for him--and three for Bond #7 continues the trend. Maybe after that we could retire the Ultimate Bond series indefinitely.

What does everyone think?

[tdalton]

I like the idea of doing a trilogy, but at the same time I'd like to see Craig continue to remain Bond for that trilogy as well. I think that there's a lot of mileage that could be gotten out of having a trilogy to close out this fictional Craig Era, with his bringing about the end of Quantum (or dealing them a huge blow that it takes a while to recover from) and then bringing in a new Bond to take over from there.

I also think that things got left off in such an interesting place at the end of "Choice of Weapons" that it would be interesting to go forward from there and see what happens next. We left off with essentially a rebuilt 00 Section and a new 00 Agent in Goodnight (whose character arc from newly appointed 00 Agent to being stationed in Jamaica due to injury could be an interesting subplot to a final Craig Era trilogy). Both of those could be interesting things to explore while the events of a trilogy unfold to bring about an end to the Craig Era's Quantum arc while also setting things up for a different actor to step into the role after that.

[terminus]

Indeed - a change in Bond might jar with the subtle ongoing arcs (such as the Goodnight Arc) we've seen established over the course of the UB treatments. I'm happy with retaining Craig for the remaining three (and it'd keep with coco's theory about no Bond having done the same number of films - as Craig would then have done 'eight', one more than Moore).

I'd imagine Blofeld (or our Blofeld-like character, the Head of Quantum) would debut in the second if the trilogy - in a cameo appearance, a bit like the Blofeld appearance in Thunderball with someone else being the main threat and then becoming the main villain in the third and final film.

Likewise, I'd picture Goodnight being in the first film as the secondary girl in which she's injured and retired from active duty before she returns in the third film as Head of Station wherever that films locations end up.

[coco1997]

If we keep Craig, perhaps the eighth film should have some sense of finality to it? As in, Bond retires or "dies", thus providing a perfect opening for a reboot?

[terminus]

Possibly - maybe have the ending to the final treatment of the trilogy be ambiguous so that he could possibly be dead but possibly couldn't be, in the same fashion that Fleming teased Bond being 'out of action' at the end of FRWL and amnesiac at the end of YOLT. Which would allow the introduction of a possible new actor after the trilogy - or allow us to cut and jump and do a new reboot itself.

[tdalton]

Indeed - a change in Bond might jar with the subtle ongoing arcs (such as the Goodnight Arc) we've seen established over the course of the UB treatments. I'm happy with retaining Craig for the remaining three (and it'd keep with coco's theory about no Bond having done the same number of films - as Craig would then have done 'eight', one more than Moore).

I'd imagine Blofeld (or our Blofeld-like character, the Head of Quantum) would debut in the second if the trilogy - in a cameo appearance, a bit like the Blofeld appearance in Thunderball with someone else being the main threat and then becoming the main villain in the third and final film.

Likewise, I'd picture Goodnight being in the first film as the secondary girl in which she's injured and retired from active duty before she returns in the third film as Head of Station wherever that films locations end up.

Agreed with pretty much everything, although I think that perhaps instead of Goodnight being injured in the pre-titles of the second film. Since it's generally the case that the second film in trilogies such as the one we're discussing putting together here are generally darker in tone than either the film that comes before it or the one that follows it, perhaps putting Goodnight's injury in the pre-titles of the second film could help to lend that darker tone to that film.

I've actually been trying to develop a few ideas for potential storylines for either another entry of UB or perhaps just something on the side featuring the rebooted Goodnight character, and I think that one way to go might be to have the rebuilt 00 Section end up being significantly hampered by Quantum, leaving Bond almost as the lone-wolf against the organization after his fellow agents are incapacitated somehow. A part of this could be having Goodnight on her own mission during either the first film of the trilogy or (if we really wanted to be ambitious ) her own spin-off film, while also having the other 00 Agents on their own missions (although unseen), with all of the missions focusing on Quantum. Eventually we'd find out (sometime in the second film), that the plots that had been hatched by Quantum that the 00 Section had been trying to thwart were actually designed to force the agents to converge in one location (such as the clues they found on their own missions all led to the same place, where M sends them as a strike-force or something), which ultimately ends up being a trap. Goodnight could be injured saving Bond, while the other agents are either detained or don't make it out of the trap, with only Bond making an escape to continue going after Quantum. This trap sequence could be something similar in style to what we saw at the beginning of GOLDENEYE, although done much, much better and without the ambiguity of Trevelyan's fate. Then the entire event of the pre-titles kind of hangs over the events of the second film while Bond is trying to unravel the Quantum organization and find out who is behind the whole thing while investigating whatever the main plot of the second film might end up being.

And I do like the idea of Bond being "out of action" at the end of the third film, leaving things open, as has been mentioned, open for another actor to step into the role without necessarily having to reboot the entire thing (although that would be an interesting project to undertake).

[terminus]

I have discussed a radical overhaul of the franchise with coco1997 on occasion - we came up with some fairly interesting ideas and it's something I would be interested in doing in the future.

I think we discussed the Double-Oh Section being Bond, Goodnight and one other person so it's possible, as you've postulated, that an early sequence in the second movie (or indeed, the mid-point of the film - think the Miami Airport sequence in CR for an example) could feature all three agents being brought together with Goodnight being injured and retired from duty, the third operative being killed violently and Bond emerging comparatively unscathed.

I'm not opposed to a standalone Goodnight film in which she faces Quantum on her own mission - maybe set this between UB26 and UB27 - but I'd rather see it as a standalone instead of a chapter in the trilogy (a 'trilogy in four parts' as audio-company Big Finish says) to be honest.

[tdalton]

I have discussed a radical overhaul of the franchise with coco1997 on occasion - we came up with some fairly interesting ideas and it's something I would be interested in doing in the future.

I think we discussed the Double-Oh Section being Bond, Goodnight and one other person so it's possible, as you've postulated, that an early sequence in the second movie (or indeed, the mid-point of the film - think the Miami Airport sequence in CR for an example) could feature all three agents being brought together with Goodnight being injured and retired from duty, the third operative being killed violently and Bond emerging comparatively unscathed.

I'm not opposed to a standalone Goodnight film in which she faces Quantum on her own mission - maybe set this between UB26 and UB27 - but I'd rather see it as a standalone instead of a chapter in the trilogy (a 'trilogy in four parts' as audio-company Big Finish says) to be honest.

I was more or less joking about the idea of a standalone Goodnight film, but it could be something that could perhaps be interesting, but maybe it could end up being that rumored project that turns out to be something like the ULTIMATE BOND's version of the JINX movie.

On the idea of a Miami airport sequence, that sounds quite good. I could remember how many agents we had decided on for the 00 Section, but I think that the idea of having three like you've stated above is a fantastic way to go.

[terminus]

Nice to see we're essentially on the same page.

I think the underpinnings of the trilogy at the moment still allow a broadscope for development of the movies as individual films with individual plots. If we're going with an ending that's an homage to that of YOLT/FRWL then a neat title might be 'Shatterhand' - if it doesn't tie into the macguffin of the movie or the name of the villain, it can always be the name of the operation a la Thunderball.

[tdalton]

Nice to see we're essentially on the same page.

I think the underpinnings of the trilogy at the moment still allow a broadscope for development of the movies as individual films with individual plots. If we're going with an ending that's an homage to that of YOLT/FRWL then a neat title might be 'Shatterhand' - if it doesn't tie into the macguffin of the movie or the name of the villain, it can always be the name of the operation a la Thunderball.

Definitely agreed.

It sounds like we're talking about a stretch of films not too unlike TB, YOLT, and OHMSS, at least in terms of the fact that they feature basically the same villain (SPECTRE and Blofeld), but still maintain a sense of individuality amongst them. I get the feeling that we're looking for something of a medium between a loose "trilogy" like those three films and a trilogy that features three inter-connected films, where our three films would most likely reference each other and secondary plots (such as side-missions, character arcs, searching for the head villain behind Quantum, etc.) would carry over, but the main plotlines of each of the three would remain largely separate from each other?

[terminus]

Pretty much. A happy medium between them - something where Quantum is behind the plots, either directly or indirectly, but something where the plots of the individual movies don't necessarily impinge on the subsequent or preceeding films (ie the plot of TB about nuclear weapons doesn't impinge on the plot of OHMSS about biological weaponry).

I would like to put a ban on featuring China, both as a location or as a major player, in at least the first of the upcoming trilogy - as people have suggested, we did overuse China in UB23-UB25 and that's not something I'm keen on continuing further.

[terminus]

I'm pondering whether it might be an idea to drop the pro forma completely - for at least Bond 26 - as an experiment. I'll specify the plot (without naming villain, locations or any other factors) and then just open the gates to a general discussion - instead of someone deciding upon the villains name, locations and other factors in isolation it would be an overall group consensus.

[Captain Tightpants]

Hmmm ... well, that's me done, then. The plot is the one thing I'm good at developing; if you're taking that out, then there's no sense in me taking part in it.

[terminus]

So you don't want to participate just because you don't get to fill in the plot field? That's a very narrow viewpoint, I'd think, given all of the other factors you could have input with and influence.

Anyway - the abandonment of the proforma was just another concept I was throwing out, not something I definitely wanted to do. But, still, if someone reached the plot field in the proforma before you found your way onto the board to post - would you not want to participate?

[Captain Tightpants]

From the way you describe it, you set the plot. And that's that. There's not a hell of a lot more that holds any appeal for me; no room to smooth it out in places, or to try and take it in an interesting direction. Everything else is negotiable, but not the plot. And there's not much else I'm that interested in. Action sequences? Ugh. There's nothing harder or more boring than writing them. Picking which actor plays which character? Boring. The only reason I played in the first place was the freedom to work with the plot. Everything else was secondary. If the plot is set in stone from the outset, there's nothing left. Getting involved in the secondary stuff is too much effort for the final payout.

[terminus]

Still think you're being a smidgeon hyperbolic with your argument - let's look at how the plot could be specified yet leave enough room open for a lot of input and development on all fronts, picking a couple of plots of established Bond plots pared down to the very basics.

Doctor No: The villain plots to halt the NASA space program using a powerful radio signal.
For Your Eyes Only: Bond must recover a British code-device, the villain is also after it.
Goldfinger: The villain plans to pull of the greatest robbery ever - stealing gold from Fort Knox.

There is still massive space to influence the direction of those plots - the plot is only vaguely described in each of those, if we didn't know that Doctor No takes place in Jamaica, we could have the denuoement moved to a radio transmitter in Africa, the rest of the movie taking place in a variety of locations around the world. Likewise, FYEO - all we know is that Bond and the villain are after a certain device, we don't know how the British lost it, we don't know why the villain is after it and what he intends to do once he's found it and we don't know where the device was lost or where it will be found. In both situations we don't know what sort of character the villain is.

I was also suggesting that I prestipulate the plot in the event of the abandonment of the proforma in an attempt to give the project some sort of initial direction. I'm not entirely sure abandonment of the proforma is the direction to go, it is something I'm still thinking about and something I'd welcome input into from everyone.

Are there any changes we'd like to see in the proforma?

[coco1997]

I propose we keep the proforma and hope the coagulation of the story plays out as it did with "Choice of Weapons" (UB25). I say this because I think if we abandon it entirely, then we run the risk of allowing for some potentially petty squabbling regarding differing tastes on locations, actors/actresss, action sequences, etc. I for one like it the way it is and am anxious to kick start the next round.

[terminus]

I see your point, coco1997. It was really just an idea to throw out there - if the consensus is to maintain the proforma, then I'm happy to go with that.

If we do keep the proforma, as I mentioned above, are there any changes - extra fields, fields we should remove - that people would want to see happen?

[tdalton]

I propose we keep the proforma and hope the coagulation of the story plays out as it did with "Choice of Weapons" (UB25). I say this because I think if we abandon it entirely, then we run the risk of allowing for some potentially petty squabbling regarding differing tastes on locations, actors/actresss, action sequences, etc. I for one like it the way it is and am anxious to kick start the next round.

Agreed on all points, and I'm also eager to kick off the next round.

I do think that the idea of abandoning the proforma would be an interesting one and could produce a solid product, but I also think that if the process were to continue as it did on the "Choice of Weapons", then that would be the best way to go, as that was easily the best and most productive round of the game thus far.

[Captain Tightpants]

I may be forced to go into radio silence for te next few days, so if you're short on plot suggestions, I'll go ahead and make one now. It can't hurt.

Anyway, it's Bond vs. the internet. There's plenty of material here: groups like Anonymous that exist without shape or form until they carry out their activities, socia network sites that steal personal information, MMORPGs that engage in gold farming, betting syndicates that start manipulating the outcomes of everything from cricket matches to election results, etc.

[terminus]

Well - that'd certainly be an interesting starting point for the plotline to develop outwards from, CT.

If the demand is there, then I'd be amicable to opening the gates to UB26 now instead of waiting - don't start suggesting until we know for sure we're doing it, though. And then we'll decide, I'll post the proforma and we can begin to fill it in.

[coco1997]

Well, you know how I feel, terminus.

Also, this thread is getting a bit long to start another round of UB. Perhaps you should take me up on my suggestion to start a new thread in the "Bond 24 & Beyond" forum?

[terminus]

I do see your point with the new thread suggestion, coco1997, but not so sure the mods/admins would see it that way. I'd even consider a new thread in this forum, but that might be equally tough to get agreement too - could see the mods just merging the threads.