388 replies to this topic

[Surrie]

 

 

It would be nice if they started Bond 25 without having to mention Madeleine, having just let the characters go off at the end of SPECTRE. In previous Bond movies, many, many final scenes included Bond with the Bond girl for them to never be mentioned again in the following film. I don't see anything wrong with this, although I suspect the production and creative teams won't leave it this way.

If they do that, it'll be a total betrayal of the thematic and character progressions made in SPECTRE.

Sure. But that's perhaps more due to the fault said progressions were not nearly as developed and articulate as they should have been. For many casual viewers SPECTRE had exactly the back-to-business feel to it we often missed in Craig's tenure. The full impact of the final frames was largely lost on many.

 

 

I would prefer if Swann did re-appear in Bond 25. I'd love to see more of the relationship progress, but I wouldn't want the creative team to kill her off!! If she lives but never features in the franchise again, then I'll accept that the end of SPECTRE was just an audience pleaser. If she could return, and not die in the similar fashion of Craig's other women, then for me it would feel like more thought has gone into the script than merely using her as a pawn to kick-start the next movie. 

[Harmsway]

Sure. But that's perhaps more due to the fault said progressions were not nearly as developed and articulate as they should have been.

I won't disagree. But the next film should still do its best to respect what SPECTRE tried to do, rather than just tossing it aside.

[Dustin]

Definitely. However flawed some of SPECTRE may be, it would be much worse if its most important element, Bond actually 'going home', was ignored in favour of the next big thing in BOND 25.

[DaveBond21]

Surely the involvement of Waltz or Seydoux depends on their availability in 2018? What if they are doing something else, or doing something just as big, or not acting any more, or dead (God forbid)? 

 

Also the average cinema goer won't remember who the Bond girl was in SPECTRE or what the last scene was.

[RMc2]

 

 

 

It would be nice if they started Bond 25 without having to mention Madeleine, having just let the characters go off at the end of SPECTRE. In previous Bond movies, many, many final scenes included Bond with the Bond girl for them to never be mentioned again in the following film. I don't see anything wrong with this, although I suspect the production and creative teams won't leave it this way.

If they do that, it'll be a total betrayal of the thematic and character progressions made in SPECTRE.

Sure. But that's perhaps more due to the fault said progressions were not nearly as developed and articulate as they should have been. For many casual viewers SPECTRE had exactly the back-to-business feel to it we often missed in Craig's tenure. The full impact of the final frames was largely lost on many.

 

 

I would prefer if Swann did re-appear in Bond 25. I'd love to see more of the relationship progress, but I wouldn't want the creative team to kill her off!! If she lives but never features in the franchise again, then I'll accept that the end of SPECTRE was just an audience pleaser. If she could return, and not die in the similar fashion of Craig's other women, then for me it would feel like more thought has gone into the script than merely using her as a pawn to kick-start the next movie. 

 

 

Me too! It's tricky one, to be sure. It would be a big shame if they opt for the old device of using her death as motivation for Bond. Especially given the public reaction to both SP's and SF's troublesome treatment of their female characters. And because both Craig's films and the Bourne films have already used this device.

 

It's a tough one, for sure. Figuring out a way to make Madeleine part of the story without just being a damsel in distress, and without unduly discarding her. At the same time, it would be nice to give Craig a proper send-off with a happy ending. (I for one don't feel satisfied with SP as the conclusion to Craig's arc.) How best to do it?

[Hockey Mask]

Kidnapped. Saved. Killed. Credits.

[sharpshooter]

If Bond 25 is Craig's last, I'll be wanting Wright back as Felix. A team-up of some kind would be all kinds of awesome.

[Surrie]

I still think it would be a great round off to Craig's era if Swann did return as some sort of Tracey (OHMSS) character, but maybe this time and in this Bond Universe we could have a different ending for him? 

[DamnCoffee]

If Bond 25 is Craig's last, I'll be wanting Wright back as Felix. A team-up of some kind would be all kinds of awesome.

 

Agreed. My idea for Bond 25 has Bond teaming up with Felix in New York and going to Japan where they investigate the Garden of Death only for the climax to involve him getting lowered into a pool of piranhas. He surives of course. But in future appearances, he'll have a wooden leg or something.

[JSDude1]

Yes she becomes some kind of Tracey Bond in in Jame's life, however I like what others have written about amnesia or some other option (witness protection) keeping James from her (and their possible child) after a period of time.

[Agent 76]

One thing I don't want is M, Tanner,Q and Moneypenny running around killing bad guys and saving the world, that's a job for James Bond.

 

Getting the help of Felix or another double 0 agent once in a while I don't mind.

 

 

The focus should be on Bond

[The Shark]

Apart from Felix, since Mathis's death we've been missing the archetype of the older, avuncular comrade in arms (Kerim Bay, Tanaka, Columbo). Kincade served that function but it'd be nice to have a character more involved in the plot.

 

Another reason is Craig tends to play off better with older actors and actresses. See his great chemistry with Malcom McDowell in Our Friends in the North, Derek Jacoby in Love is the Devil, Anne Reid in The Mother, and Judi Dench in Skyfall.

[coco1997]

Apart from Felix, since Mathis's death we've been missing the archetype of the older, avuncular comrade in arms (Kerim Bay, Tanaka, Columbo). Kincade served that function but it'd be nice to have a character more involved in the plot.

 

Well, if BOND 25/SHATTERHAND is in some way a re-adaptation of "You Only Live Twice," you may get your wish.

[Odd Jobbies]

Obviously Swan will come to a sticky end at the hands of Hinx (or Blofeld having been freed by Hinx), echoing OHMSS' ending, but this time all in the pre-credits. Then Bond's back on the revenge path. They could stretch this Waltz vs Craig saga over another 2 movies , it all depends upon the influence of the writer and director they hire next.

 

Either way this will doubtless end in The Garden of Death and Bond's amnesia, setting up his brain-washed return in B26 or 27.

 

Did anyone notice the apparent loose end of the Blofeld drilling away Bond's ability to remember faces. Apparently Bond either has a unique brain physiology, or Blofeld has a bad aim... Most likely it was just weak writing in a script so re-written that it was hoped we'd forgive this leap of logic amid the much larger plot contrivances.

 

However, another perspective is that they plan to revisit this. I doubt the'll go as far as the 80's soap Dallas and have Craig wake up to find his escape from Blofeld's crater was a post-drilling fantasy!

 

But what if they do use this later in a new spin on the amnesia Fleming gave Bond at the end of YOLT

[coco1997]

In a perfect world, Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson would sit down with Daniel before hiring a screenwriter for the next film and give him a friendly ultimatum, basically making him commit to a set number of future films. If he only has interest in doing one more, then that should dictate the story for BOND 25.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

The only problem that I see with the amnesia theme, is that everyone that it's not really familiar with Fleming' Bond novels, will make (foolish) claims that it's a rip-off from the Jason Bourne franchise.

[Dustin]

In a perfect world, Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson would sit down with Daniel before hiring a screenwriter for the next film and give him a friendly ultimatum, basically making him commit to a set number of future films. If he only has interest in doing one more, then that should dictate the story for BOND 25.

That's not how things work nowadays. The Broccolis and Craig agreeing on a future number of films - that's only the start of it, so many more things come into the picture, do they like the script, do they get the directors they want, does production flow nicely and without quarrels, does the next production perform as projected in markets A-B-C? And so on and so forth, and it's not just Eon and Craig, it studio execs, it's MGM, it's distribution partners all having their say. And they all want to cover their bases and hedge their bets.

Nowadays contracts have so many options it's a little wonder some projects - particularly the ambitious ones - make it from the planning stages to the screen at all.

[tdalton]

I think EON needs to just plan things out with the assumption that Craig is only doing one more. If he surprises them after that by agreeing to do more, then they can adjust accordingly, but I think it's pretty clear he's only doing one more, if that.

[Dustin]

Eon, in practically their entire history, made it clear time and again that they navigate their ship on sight. One film at a time, no further. They do have plans for the future, but these plans have always been so vague and without deeper detail that they allowed them the freedom to adapt to every change of fashion and lead actor. There is no 'greater story' as in The Lord of the Rings' or the Potter films. There is only the current film and that one left them with all kinds of options and that's in all likelihood what BOND 25 and then BOND 26 will leave us with, too. They want to continue producing Bond films, but that's already as far as it goes.

[FlemingBond]

where do i want it to go?

i'd like it to get past the Vesper-Quantum-Spectre storyline they're stuck on

[Odd Jobbies]

The only problem that I see with the amnesia theme, is that everyone that it's not really familiar with Fleming' Bond novels, will make (foolish) claims that it's a rip-off from the Jason Bourne franchise.

That's a fair point, but i think they should suck it up and do it anyway. They've got the line that it was Fleming's idea before Ludlum's that i think the press and public will be satisfied with.

 

And besides, they already faced that storm when they rebooted Bond in such an obviously post-Bourne manner and the comparison were not a problem. I think the lesson is that so long as you do it well, then you can do anything and lets face it, nobody does it better...

 

(Sorry, couldn't resist that cheesy line  )

[tdalton]

That's a fair point, but i think they should suck it up and do it anyway. They've got the line that it was Fleming's idea before Ludlum's that i think the press and public will be satisfied with.
 
And besides, they already faced that storm when they rebooted Bond in such an obviously post-Bourne manner and the comparison were not a problem. I think the lesson is that so long as you do it well, then you can do anything and lets face it, nobody does it better...
 
(Sorry, couldn't resist that cheesy line  )

I would think that being accused of ripping of Bourne with the next one would be better than being accused of ripping off Austin Powers, as they were this time around.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

 

I would think that being accused of ripping of Bourne with the next one would be better than being accused of ripping off Austin Powers, as they were this time around.

 

First of all, I don't have heard anyone accusing SP to being a some kind of rip-off from the Austin Powers franchise..... And even in that case it would be a very different accusation, because Austin Powers movies assumed itself as inspired (via parodies) on Bond, unlike the Jason Bourne franchise that usually denies and even show themselves-Matt Damon, against the Bond influence.

[tdalton]

The twist of the film is a ripoff of Austin Powers in Goldmember. That's been discussed at fair length on these forums.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

The twist of the film is a ripoff of Austin Powers in Goldmember. That's been discussed at fair length on these forums.

Yes, that could be the point.... perhaps discussed "on these forums", but the world that really matters for the studio execs it's mostly outside fan forums.

[tdalton]

We're not the only ones to pick up on it. It's been mentioned quite a few times beyond these forums as well.

The sad thing is that it's an unnecessary plot twist and, given that EON has acknowledged that they are aware of the Austin Powers films in past interviews, one that they absolutely should have avoided. The Bond films should not be taking plot points from films that spoof them.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

We're not the only ones to pick up on it. It's been mentioned quite a few times beyond these forums as well.

The sad thing is that it's an unnecessary plot twist and, given that EON has acknowledged that they are aware of the Austin Powers films in past interviews, one that they absolutely should have avoided. The Bond films should not be taking plot points from films that spoof them.

My point stands still.... Even if we agree (and I don't) that there's a such rip-off from Austin Powers, the majority of the general moviegoer didn't notice.

[Hockey Mask]

With the spot on parody of Austin Powers I'm guessing the typical movie goer will assume the plot twist in Austin was a take on the Bond series. With two dozen Bond movies, a reboot, decades of books and a villain from the 60s most will assume it began with Bond. And it is a plot device as old as Kane and Abel. I have no issues with it.

[Surrie]

With the spot on parody of Austin Powers I'm guessing the typical movie goer will assume the plot twist in Austin was a take on the Bond series. With two dozen Bond movies, a reboot, decades of books and a villain from the 60s most will assume it began with Bond. And it is a plot device as old as Kane and Abel. I have no issues with it.

 

I agree entirely. Before anyone did anything - Bond did everything... well almost everything!

[hoagy]

Surrie -- Bond, indeed, has "done it all before."  As he asked Silva, "What makes you think this is the first time ?"