388 replies to this topic

[tdalton]

The average moviegoer that would want to claim that Austin Powers ripped off Bond with the "twist" in question would really have to reach for that conclusion. The Austin Powers film predates SPECTRE by 13 years.

Regardless of how you feel about it being a ripoff of Powers or not (IMO, it absolutely is, because we know that Barbara Broccoli is very aware of the Austin Powers films), it's still an incredibly unnecessary and lazy plot device that has no place in a Bond film.

[Professor Pi]

The average moviegoer that would want to claim that Austin Powers ripped off Bond with the "twist" in question would really have to reach for that conclusion. The Austin Powers film predates SPECTRE by 13 years.

Regardless of how you feel about it being a ripoff of Powers or not (IMO, it absolutely is, because we know that Barbara Broccoli is very aware of the Austin Powers films), it's still an incredibly unnecessary and lazy plot device that has no place in a Bond film.

 

EON sued Mike Meyers over the title Goldmember.  They settled out of court, with DAD trailers attached to the Austin Powers movie as part of the settlement, unfortunately denying us the alternate title Never Say Member Again.

[tdalton]

Did they sue him over The Spy Who Shagged Me? I think that one's much more egregious in its borrowing of the Bond lore.

If they didn't, going after Goldmember seems like sour grapes to me.

Still, doesn't change the fact that their borrowing from Goldmember is rather silly, whether they intentionally did it or not.

[Professor Pi]

Did they sue him over The Spy Who Shagged Me? I think that one's much more egregious in its borrowing of the Bond lore.

If they didn't, going after Goldmember seems like sour grapes to me.

Still, doesn't change the fact that their borrowing from Goldmember is rather silly, whether they intentionally did it or not.

http://www.inthe00s....012348844.shtml

 

Maybe Mike Meyes can now sue them for stealing the brother backstory plot!

[tdalton]

He should, if only to be obnoxious (and drum up some publicity for a potential Austin Powers 4).

[Daddy Bond]

I would like to see a brighter (visually), more *fun* Bond, more along the lines of "The Spy Who Loved Me", but with some of the grit of the Bond era thrown in.  NOT the jokey, silly, Moore tone, but just less heavy and less morose. 

[Surrie]

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

 

Now that was a revelation - but one I welcomed!

[seawolfnyy]

I don't really know where the films should or will go. However, after watching Jessica Jones, I can vehemently say that David Tennant should be the next Bond villain.

[David_M]

Let Craig walk.  Bring in a new guy for the next one and never mention Madeleine one way or the other.  If we see Craig again, we remember she was with him the last time we saw him.  If we see a new guy, it's less of an issue.

 

This way Craig gets a "happy ending" and the next guy can do his own thing without having to "interpret" Craig's Bond.  The one thing "Classic" Bond gave each new actor was a clean slate; I worry this new continuity-obsessed version takes that away.

 

Understand, I do NOT want a reboot.  The last thing I want is to see an unformed, "learning the ropes" 007 taking another two or three films to get to Square One again.  Just have him show up fully formed and ready for action.

[Surrie]

Let Craig walk.  Bring in a new guy for the next one and never mention Madeleine one way or the other.  If we see Craig again, we remember she was with him the last time we saw him.  If we see a new guy, it's less of an issue.

 

This way Craig gets a "happy ending" and the next guy can do his own thing without having to "interpret" Craig's Bond.  The one thing "Classic" Bond gave each new actor was a clean slate; I worry this new continuity-obsessed version takes that away.

 

Understand, I do NOT want a reboot.  The last thing I want is to see an unformed, "learning the ropes" 007 taking another two or three films to get to Square One again.  Just have him show up fully formed and ready for action.

 

Couldn't agree more!!

[Double Naught spy]

The new film's PTS should begin with the revelation that Swann is really an undercover assassin Fembot.   Aside from opening up a slot for a new female lead, the ensuing fight against 'her' will provide Bond an opportunity to rue tossing away his weapon into the Thames.  

 

During the title sequence, Bond (and scantily-clad silhouetted woman) should be swimming around under the Thames searching for his gun.  As for the song, maybe they could coax Shirley Bassey back and get her to do a cover of "Happiness is a Warm Gun."

 

After the song, Bond should offer M a sincere apology:  "Sir, I realize that, throughout Skyfall, there was great effort into building you up for the audience as a worthy successor to Dame Judi Dench.  With that in mind, I'm really sorry that I didn't trust you enough to tell you about her 'message from the grave' that led me on my rogue mission to Mexico (which, ever since LTK, I've been doing more and more at an alarming frequency.)   It completely set the tone in SPECTRE of you being somehow untrustworthy and/or being ineffectually clueless regarding what is going on in your own agency.  And co-opting Moneypenny and Q into my rogue scheme certainly didn't help matters.  As to why Dame Judi didn't do the logical thing by sending you, her successor, the info about Sciarra - I really couldn't say."

 

After leaving M's office, Bond should interrogate Blofeld in prison.  At the top of Bond's list: Finding our exactly how Blofeld was "the architect" of anything that happened in Skyfall.   Maybe Bond could get Blofeld to confess that he was so busy taking credit for Silva's schemes that he completely forgot to hang up photos of Mathis, Greene, or anyone attached to Quantum of Solace.  (On a personal note:  It would be nice to see Blofeld's cat with him in prison so we could all rest easy knowing that the poor, innocent creature survived that record-shattering explosion!)

[tdalton]

The new film's PTS should begin with the revelation that Swann is really an undercover assassin Fembot.   Aside from opening up a slot for a new female lead, the ensuing fight against 'her' will provide Bond an opportunity to rue tossing away his weapon into the Thames.  

 

During the title sequence, Bond (and scantily-clad silhouetted woman) should be swimming around under the Thames searching for his gun.  As for the song, maybe they could coax Shirley Bassey back and get her to do a cover of "Happiness is a Warm Gun."

 

After the song, Bond should offer M a sincere apology:  "Sir, I realize that, throughout Skyfall, there was great effort into building you up for the audience as a worthy successor to Dame Judi Dench.  With that in mind, I'm really sorry that I didn't trust you enough to tell you about her 'message from the grave' that led me on my rogue mission to Mexico (which, ever since LTK, I've been doing more and more at an alarming frequency.)   It completely set the tone in SPECTRE of you being somehow untrustworthy and/or being ineffectually clueless regarding what is going on in your own agency.  And co-opting Moneypenny and Q into my rogue scheme certainly didn't help matters.  As to why Dame Judi didn't do the logical thing by sending you, her successor, the info about Sciarra - I really couldn't say."

 

After leaving M's office, Bond should interrogate Blofeld in prison.  At the top of Bond's list: Finding our exactly how Blofeld was "the architect" of anything that happened in Skyfall.   Maybe Bond could get Blofeld to confess that he was so busy taking credit for Silva's schemes that he completely forgot to hang up photos of Mathis, Greene, or anyone attached to Quantum of Solace.  (On a personal note:  It would be nice to see Blofeld's cat with him in prison so we could all rest easy knowing that the poor, innocent creature survived that record-shattering explosion!)

 

Don't give them any ideas.  Given the several questionable plot decisions they've made over the past several films, it might not be such a stretch to see them go in a similar direction.  

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

 

Let Craig walk.  Bring in a new guy for the next one and never mention Madeleine one way or the other.  If we see Craig again, we remember she was with him the last time we saw him.  If we see a new guy, it's less of an issue.

 

This way Craig gets a "happy ending" and the next guy can do his own thing without having to "interpret" Craig's Bond.  The one thing "Classic" Bond gave each new actor was a clean slate; I worry this new continuity-obsessed version takes that away.

 

Understand, I do NOT want a reboot.  The last thing I want is to see an unformed, "learning the ropes" 007 taking another two or three films to get to Square One again.  Just have him show up fully formed and ready for action.

 

Couldn't agree more!!

 

I agree too. But I have my doubts……I mean, I like the clean slate idea for every actor, but in the other hand, no Bond actor really has had that, except for Connery and Craig with the reboot. Thus, it would be a kind of new reboot if the next Bond doesn’t share any of the past from Craig’s Bond (beyond the same cast for the MI6 staff).

[Surrie]

With a new actor, EON will have to focus on some continuity aspects (MI6 characters for example) to avoid cries of outrage professing of another reboot. If they lost Q, Moneypenny and M again then we would almost be back to square one - just as we were at the start of Craig's era. IMO EON need to continue what they have started when they employ a new actor to take the reigns. 

[David_M]

I suppose, but what if you don't like what went before?  Would fans of FYEO have been as happy with that film if someone made a direct dialog reference to "your recent Moonraker mission"?  Would it have been better if Bond had told Octopussy, "You remind me of a girl I once knew named Andrea"?  Are people really that happy that Sheriff Pepper and Jaws made repeat appearances?  The beauty of the old system, frustrating as it sometimes could be, was that you could easily ignore any entry you didn't like without it very much affecting what came next.  In fact, to really enjoy OHMSS you almost have to ignore YOLT even if you did like it!

 

I didn't enjoy QoS, so I'm not that impressed when Blofeld claims responsibility for it (it doesn't help that no one really believes this was the producers' plan from the beginning).  And when people keep bringing Silva up, it only reminds us that he's been replaced by a much less interesting villain, this time.

 

The only thing certain is that if you set the start of the new Bond's timeline firmly in 2006, you're painting yourself back into a corner over the long haul.  The next guy will either have to be as old as Craig or we'll have to start turning a blind eye to "the age thing" again to get past it.

[tdalton]

I think it depends on whether or not there is a clear and coherent plan from the outset as to whether or not a more serialized structure for the Bond franchise could work or not. Being that this has clearly not been the case for this current "reboot", it's hard to judge whether or not such an approach could really work.

I thought they did a very good job of setting this new world up with Casino Royale, despite whatever misgivings I may have with the film. We had an exciting new Bond, a more serious approach, and a mysterious organization lurking behind the scenes that we had yet to truly meet. Jump forward to 2008 and we get Quantum of Solace. Now, I love this film, and rate it as Craig's best. But, nobody can say that this is what they had planned following Casino Royale because, quite frankly, there was no plan. But, at least this was a somewhat proper way to build upon the events of the previous film without having had a clear vision in mind with where to go. We're introduced to the villainous organization of the previous film and we get something of the revenge-minded plot that we should have gotten following On Her Majesty's Secret Service, but the revenge factor wasn't the focus of the film. We end on the note of Bond having "never left" and everything seemingly on track for the franchise to put the Vesper baggage behind them for good and move forward with Bond and M now in a fully trusting relationship and ready to begin taking on the Quantum organization wherever they reared their head in the world.

As much as people love Skyfall, this is where I contend that things truly fell off the rails. They might as well have rebooted the franchise again, because all of the work done to set up this new universe for Bond is completely undone, simply because the previous film didn't prove as popular as the one before it. Gone is Quantum, gone is the relationship between Bond and M built on trust, as we have to go through all of the trust issues yet again due to the weird blending of Alec Trevelyan and Scaramanga into the villain known as Silva. Coming off the heels of a film that seemed to set everything up for Bond to continue on in something resembling business as usual, albeit with a new organization to go up against rather than the usual one-off villain each time, adapting elements of Fleming's You Only Live Twice and The Man With the Golden Gun seemed to be a rather odd and inappropriate decision in terms of storytelling. Now, instead of ditching everything that was wrong with the previous films (i.e. the trust issues) and building on what worked there (the organization, the fresh start the reboot gave them), EON opts instead to ditch the good stuff and dwell on what didn't work about the previous two films. Instead of the fresh start that the reboot gave us, we fast-forward to old-man Bond who is washed up and out of step with the rest of the world. He and his department are no longer useful and he and M don't fully trust each other again. This is the sign of a strategy that is virtually nonexistent, that there is no plan for the films and that, despite trying to build continuity within what they're doing, they're still approaching it from the perspective of the old way of making Bond films, which is to wing it. Do one or the other, but you can't do both.

[plankattack]

This is the sign of a strategy that is virtually nonexistent, that there is no plan for the films and that, despite trying to build continuity within what they're doing, they're still approaching it from the perspective of the old way of making Bond films, which is to wing it. Do one or the other, but you can't do both.

Agreed, and actually committing to one would be completely new ground for EON, who from the start filmed the books as "one-off" adventures, and at most have paid lip-service to any sense of continuity within each actor's tenure. In their defense, it is a hard act to pull off, making a film that can truly stand-alone, as well as fitting into a story arc that is truly compelling, rather than as accompanying background. Has any other franchise really achieved it? 

 

The retconning in SP is most certainly  something I have an issue with, as I don't honestly think it really adds to the narrative in any meaningful way - a good idea on paper perhaps, but on-screen nowhere close with any kind of dramatic or emotional punch. But to be honest I don't think it came from a desire to pull together DC's tenure into one arc - I think it was instead just an excuse to re-mine SF for themes and ideas. As no fan of SP, it won't be a surprise when you hear me take the position that it was just one more lazy move in what I regard as one of the laziest films in the franchise. QoS at least had the opportunity to answer some questions raised in CR (whether it did that or not is everyone's opinion, of course  ), but I can't believe anyone walked out of SF really feeling like there was more to be decided.

 

I think EON should stick to what it's done best - standalone stories. No different from the original source material, where really only YOLT and MTWGG ask you to have read OHMSS. And the latter can be enjoyed without reading TB.

[tdalton]

I think that EON certainly could make a go of it in terms of coming up with a continuous story arc that could be successful with audiences, but they would have to plan it out in advance and stick to their guns, rather than panicking the moment that they don't get the reviews that they want from critics.  

 

A way of doing this that could potentially be having the best of both worlds for them would be to approach the series as though it's for TV.  By that, I mean that they could have a continuous arc over the course of several films, but the majority of each film would be self-contained.  Say, for instance, they decide to give Bond a continuous love interest, that could be its own continuous arc but always take place within mostly standalone plots from one film to the next.  Or, the much more likely scenario, give Bond an evil entity to go up against (SPECTRE, perhaps), much like they did in the 1960s, and have them be a recurring threat but with a new villain (Largo, Dr. No, Rosa Klebb, for example) as the villainous face of each successive film as Bond works his way through the organization on his way up the ladder to Blofeld.  

 

I like the idea of what they've attempted with the Craig films, but largely I think that they've failed in rebooting the franchise.  The first two films basically serve to reset the entire Bond universe, bringing everything into a new world where Bond is just starting out and we've never heard of the likes of Goldfinger, SPECTRE, and so on, but with Skyfall, they decided to go in the complete opposite direction and desperately try to tie everything back to the first 20 films, practically eliminating the reboot in the same way that they tried to eliminate the audience's memory of On Her Majesty's Secret Service and the Dalton films in previous "soft reboots" of the franchise.  It's a shame, really, because there was so much potential there to really move the franchise forward.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

I like the idea of what they've attempted with the Craig films, but largely I think that they've failed in rebooting the franchise.  The first two films basically serve to reset the entire Bond universe, bringing everything into a new world where Bond is just starting out and we've never heard of the likes of Goldfinger, SPECTRE, and so on, but with Skyfall, they decided to go in the complete opposite direction and desperately try to tie everything back to the first 20 films, practically eliminating the reboot in the same way that they tried to eliminate the audience's memory of On Her Majesty's Secret Service and the Dalton films in previous "soft reboots" of the franchise.  It's a shame, really, because there was so much potential there to really move the franchise forward.

I disagree; I don’t think they have failed in rebooting their series …. First of all, they didn’t try to eliminate OHMSS from the audience’s memory, is remembered in TSWLM and then again in a more explicit way at the beginning of FYEO, even in LTK it could be said that it is mentioned in a tacit way. Regarding SF, I don’t see such intent to tie everything back to the first 20 films, there’re just some little homages to earlier films- only that better made than the one to GF in QOS.  Finally, regarding the Dalton's films (and I would add, to a degree, QOS too), I have to agree at some point, but I don´t really see it as a deliberate intention to erase them, it’s more like EON doesn’t care to include them that much, because they know that those films aren’t popular enough, not only with critics but with the general moviegoer. 

[tdalton]

Regarding Dalton's films, I can only see it as a deliberate attempt to erase the films. They go to great lengths with the PTS of GE to make those events take place at the time that Brosnan was being courted for the role of Bond. They didn't have to set the pre-titles of that film in 1986 before Dalton's Bond had actually debuted. That could have easily taken place in 1990 and have had the same effect (and probably made more sense, considering they make no effort to make Brosnan look any younger in the pre-titles than he does in the rest of the film, despite almost a decade difference). Also, as other members have already stated, so I'm not going to back through them, there are lines here and there that kind of provide the tip off.

Regarding QOS, they cover a lot of the same ground in SF that they did in QOS. Despite finally coming to a point where they had a trusting relationship, we're pretty much back to square one with Bond and M revisiting the whole trust angle after it was already settled in the previous film. They also just do away with all of the groundwork that was set up in QOS, mostly regarding the Quantum organization but also the new rebooted cinematic universe that they started to build in both CR and QOS, and opt to portray Bond as old and out of step with the world, just a film after he was a young, immature agent that hadn't even reached his prime yet. I don't think the erasure of QOS is as deliberate as it was regarding TLD and especially LTK, but there's little to no effort to include it while they also make some effort to cover a lot of the same ground that it covered.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Regarding Dalton's films, I can only see it as a deliberate attempt to erase the films. They go to great lengths with the PTS of GE to make those events take place at the time that Brosnan was being courted for the role of Bond. They didn't have to set the pre-titles of that film in 1986 before Dalton's Bond had actually debuted. That could have easily taken place in 1990 and have had the same effect (and probably made more sense, considering they make no effort to make Brosnan look any younger in the pre-titles than he does in the rest of the film, despite almost a decade difference). Also, as other members have already stated, so I'm not going to back through them, there are lines here and there that kind of provide the tip off.

Regarding QOS, they cover a lot of the same ground in SF that they did in QOS. Despite finally coming to a point where they had a trusting relationship, we're pretty much back to square one with Bond and M revisiting the whole trust angle after it was already settled in the previous film. They also just do away with all of the groundwork that was set up in QOS, mostly regarding the Quantum organization but also the new rebooted cinematic universe that they started to build in both CR and QOS, and opt to portray Bond as old and out of step with the world, just a film after he was a young, immature agent that hadn't even reached his prime yet. I don't think the erasure of QOS is as deliberate as it was regarding TLD and especially LTK, but there's little to no effort to include it while they also make some effort to cover a lot of the same ground that it covered.

….Personally, I don’t care about Brosnan movies (I very rarely see them, even if they’re on TV), but I do understand that for other people it could be a bigger issue. In the other hand, I admit that I don’t like that they revisit the whole trust angle after it was already settled in the previous film; but I dislike even more that they set QOS as a direct follow up to CR, showing Bond as an immature agent that hadn't even reached his prime yet, when the whole intention of Martin Campbell (and I will dare to say, Fleming’s too) at the end of CR, was to show Bond as the completed character that we all know and love.

[tdalton]

I've always maintained, and will continue to, that I don't really care what Martin Campbell's opinion or vision for how Casino Royale set things up for future installments. His contributions are, for me, limited to entirely what is contained within the film and nothing more. Add to that, if he had gotten his way, either Goran Visnjic or Henry Cavill would have been Bond, which would have robbed Casino Royale of most of what made it good, which was Craig himself.

As for Fleming, I would agree with your assessment, but the film really isn't so much a great adaptation of his novel as it is an adaptation of a few of its plot points that, I can't really be all that bothered by how Fleming would have felt about where to take Bond in its follow-up. On this point, I'd also argue that Bond is pretty well fleshed out in Fleming's Casino Royale anyway. Granted, we're being introduced to him for the first time, but I don't recall it being an arc from immature rookie agent to the "Bond we all know and love" over the course of the novel. He's a bit more hardened at the end, due to being stung by Vesper's betrayal, but he's pretty much the same guy throughout. If anything was a mistake, it was the whole "rookie Bond" angle in the first place. They could have ditched all of that and made Casino Royale a stronger film because of it and, by virtue of that, Quantum of Solace an even better film as well.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

I've always maintained, and will continue to, that I don't really care what Martin Campbell's opinion or vision for how Casino Royale set things up for future installments. His contributions are, for me, limited to entirely what is contained within the film and nothing more. Add to that, if he had gotten his way, either Goran Visnjic or Henry Cavill would have been Bond, which would have robbed Casino Royale of most of what made it good, which was Craig himself.

As for Fleming, I would agree with your assessment, but the film really isn't so much a great adaptation of his novel as it is an adaptation of a few of its plot points that, I can't really be all that bothered by how Fleming would have felt about where to take Bond in its follow-up. On this point, I'd also argue that Bond is pretty well fleshed out in Fleming's Casino Royale anyway. Granted, we're being introduced to him for the first time, but I don't recall it being an arc from immature rookie agent to the "Bond we all know and love" over the course of the novel. He's a bit more hardened at the end, due to being stung by Vesper's betrayal, but he's pretty much the same guy throughout. If anything was a mistake, it was the whole "rookie Bond" angle in the first place. They could have ditched all of that and made Casino Royale a stronger film because of it and, by virtue of that, Quantum of Solace an even better film as well.

I don’t know…. At some extend, I would like the idea to not have such a rookie Bond at the end of CR; but in the other hand, I think some parts of the movie, perhaps particularly the action scenes, works better that way, because they make you fell more empathy for a character that you know that is in bigger danger, for not being the perfect professional yet.

[Professor Pi]

Speaking of the trust issues between M and Bond, the Brosnan era is inconsistent with this too.  In GoldenEye, M dresses down Bond and doesn't trust his fealty to the misssion.  Then in Tomorrow Never Dies she trusts him explicitly, defending him to her superior in the PTS and somewhat coldly sending him on a mission to see his ex to "pump her for information."  (How many drinks did she have in the car before saying that?!)  Then we're back to mistrust in The World Is Not Enough, where Bond is taken off the mission and not even given briefing papers despite his retrieval of the money from Spain.  He prods M, seduces the medical staff, and then gets re-instated.  After she's kidnapped and Bond saves her, then M seems compassionate about what he had to do with Elektra, and he's earned her trust again.  But then he's captured in Die Another Day and there's this whole rogue mistrust thing again.  That's part of the reason I prefer to watch them in the order of GE/TWINE/TND/DAD. 

 

If Craig comes back, I really hope we get a Shatterhand/Garden of Death story with some continuity closure to his era.  Then the amnesia angle gives EON the perfect excuse for one off missions again.  But they could also start that with the next movie if Craig doesn't come back.  I just sense that if they don't adapt the YOLT novel for Bond 25, they never will.

[Surrie]

You're right about the Brosnan era - I'd never thought of his relationship with M in too much detail before but it appears this changeable relationship became a custom of the Brosnan films that perhaps EON overused? Without thinking too much into it, I think ultimately it's a crowd pleaser for the majority of the audience. 

 

I agree in terms of closing off Craig's era. EON need to set up the stand-alone stories again for the next actor and amnesia would be an apt way of doing so. 

[DisneyGets007]

How about the Martian War story and the title for Bond 25 should be called 'The Great Martian War: Apocalypse Now'.

In the first-part of 'The Great Martian War' trilogy, Bond's mission to kill the German leader has been called off when the trumpet heard from the skies. Meanwhile, the Gods faces war with the race called The Martian; an ancient species from Mars; and tackle down their own leader called Karken, the last surviving leader from Alternative Mars. Bond is set to join forces with the FBI, CIA, Armed Forces, and the army of mythical gods to finish the Martians off.

[plankattack]

I love satire.

[hoagy]

As for the Great Martian storyline:  You dropped the time angle, but this would be a little close to the Tom Cruise recurring experience Edge of Tomorrow film.  As it is, the Bond producers have employed plot devices too familiar from T. Cruise's Mission: Impossible films.  For this reason -- and for this reason ALONE because otherwise it would be so cool -- I would suggest coming up with something else.  Alternatively, make the Martian stories but with Jinx in the lead...and bring back Hinx, but, like Jaws, he becomes nice the second time around.  And they become "an item" and have the Martians invading earth not because of water, but because they want to take all the minks.  So then the title could be -- yeah, you already know it -- "Jinx and Hinx Save the Minks !"  It would need a BIG budget to avoid being too rinky-dink...methinks...ok...I'll just slink away now, and I'll say it for you:  this post stinks.

[tdalton]

Maybe they could bring the Avengers and Justice League in as well, along with Ethan Hunt and Jason Bourne to face the return of the Martians from Mars Attacks!, creating the biggest crossover film in cinema history. 

[David_M]

 

 

As for the Great Martian storyline:  You dropped the time angle, but this would be a little close to the Tom Cruise recurring experience Edge of Tomorrow film.  As it is, the Bond producers have employed plot devices too familiar from T. Cruise's Mission: Impossible films.  For this reason -- and for this reason ALONE because otherwise it would be so cool -- I would suggest coming up with something else.  Alternatively, make the Martian stories but with Jinx in the lead...and bring back Hinx, but, like Jaws, he becomes nice the second time around.  And they become "an item" and have the Martians invading earth not because of water, but because they want to take all the minks.  So then the title could be -- yeah, you already know it -- "Jinx and Hinx Save the Minks !"  It would need a BIG budget to avoid being too rinky-dink...methinks...ok...I'll just slink away now, and I'll say it for you:  this post stinks.

 

This could work if the bad guy's lair is hidden inside the Sphinx.

 

 

 

Maybe they could bring the Avengers and Justice League in as well, along with Ethan Hunt and Jason Bourne to face the return of the Martians from Mars Attacks!, creating the biggest crossover film in cinema history. 

 

Don't forget the superhero with a proven track record against the martians:  Santa Claus.