162 replies to this topic

[Odd Jobbies]

 

Well put, Pi.

I'd add that Eon have only written themselves into a tricky corner if Craig doesn't stick around for 25. However, it would be so incredibly naive to have left themselves in that position that i'm of the opinion that despite all the ambiguity they already have Craig signed up for 25.

I imagine that they're hoping the ambiguity will generate some 'is he/isn't he/whose next' tabloid speculation to keep the brand alive in our thoughts in the interim before 25 roles into pre-production proper.

I think YOLT is undoubtably the material they seek to tap next. Which as i said above is something to savour. I expect the amnesia/brainwashing story line to end 25 and begin 26 with a new actor re-learning his identity as Bond.

Not so much a tricky corner as a fork in the road.

If Craig does return for Bond 25 then thn end of SPECTRE sets up the start of the new movie. Bond going off to live a new life but returning to the colours at some point because ESB is once more at large and potentially causing trouble. Revenge, in the form of something happening to someone whom Bond is close to or respects may also figure.

But, if SPECTRE really was Craig's final movie, the slate can be wiped clean to an extent. A soft reboot, as happens with a new man in the role. The Whitehall team in place but not necessarily a story linked to SPECTRE to follow that film.

Of course it could be argued that in the late 1960s a change of actor - Connery to Lazenby - didn't interrupt the Bond-v-Blofeld conflict continuing. But for it to coninue here, credibly, one would need Craig in place, possibly along with Madeleine and of course ESB (though the facial disfigurement, and the history of Blofeld changing his appearence in the novels would allow casting of someone other than Christoph Waltz in the role.). What I'd have a little difficuly with would be Lea Seydoux and Christoph Waltz returning, cast with "A N Other" as Bond. Better to let the new man battle a new adversary in Bond 25, then return to face Blofeld - probably played by a different actor - in a future movie after that.

 

I agree with all of that, which is why i think it's already a done deal.

 

Eon would surely acknowledge that the first time around starting Fleming's strongest storyline (Blofeld/Tracy) and then having Connery quit, so that it's told via 3 different Bond actors with story continuity seen as collateral damage was a total mess that they'd rather have avoided. So i'm sure they wouldn't want to repeat that mess, which is why i believe they wouldn't have embarked once again on this storyline if they didn't have Craig in place to continue/finish it.

 

Sure Craig sounds sick'n tired of Bond at this current time, but after such a marathon production i'm sure they all crave a break and sympathise. But as much as Craig's frank interview style may be at times a little too frank for Eon's (more so Sony's) liking, it makes great headlines and there's no such thing as bad publicity.

 

So i agree that if Craig goes, then they need a soft reboot and certainly can't continue this Swann/Blofeld storyline; perhaps they could indeed explain Blofeld's change of appearance with some contrived plastic surgery exposition, but how very naff it would be to explain Blofeld's change, yet pretend Bond hasn't changed at all, despite it being a different actor! For this reason if they change Bond, then they can't refer to Blofeld's change. In short it would be a messy affair to rival the 60s/70s mess and i don't see Eon allowing that to be a possibility, so my money's on Craig being in 25 (which i'm very happy with).

 

If i'm wrong and they're once again playing dice with continuity, then the opportunism of again squandering the Blofeld arc, instead of saving it for Bond 7 gives whomever they cast as Bond 7 the torrid task of not only stepping into Craig's highly accomplished shoes, but doing so amid some very thin and desperate exposition about the demise of his relationship with Swann. Worst still forgetting it ever happened, which surely means forgetting they have Blofeld in the clink. It's a repeat the 60s fiasco.

[Guy Haines]

Well put, Pi.
I'd add that Eon have only written themselves into a tricky corner if Craig doesn't stick around for 25. However, it would be so incredibly naive to have left themselves in that position that i'm of the opinion that despite all the ambiguity they already have Craig signed up for 25.
I imagine that they're hoping the ambiguity will generate some 'is he/isn't he/whose next' tabloid speculation to keep the brand alive in our thoughts in the interim before 25 roles into pre-production proper.
I think YOLT is undoubtably the material they seek to tap next. Which as i said above is something to savour. I expect the amnesia/brainwashing story line to end 25 and begin 26 with a new actor re-learning his identity as Bond.

Not so much a tricky corner as a fork in the road.
If Craig does return for Bond 25 then thn end of SPECTRE sets up the start of the new movie. Bond going off to live a new life but returning to the colours at some point because ESB is once more at large and potentially causing trouble. Revenge, in the form of something happening to someone whom Bond is close to or respects may also figure.
But, if SPECTRE really was Craig's final movie, the slate can be wiped clean to an extent. A soft reboot, as happens with a new man in the role. The Whitehall team in place but not necessarily a story linked to SPECTRE to follow that film.
Of course it could be argued that in the late 1960s a change of actor - Connery to Lazenby - didn't interrupt the Bond-v-Blofeld conflict continuing. But for it to coninue here, credibly, one would need Craig in place, possibly along with Madeleine and of course ESB (though the facial disfigurement, and the history of Blofeld changing his appearence in the novels would allow casting of someone other than Christoph Waltz in the role.). What I'd have a little difficuly with would be Lea Seydoux and Christoph Waltz returning, cast with "A N Other" as Bond. Better to let the new man battle a new adversary in Bond 25, then return to face Blofeld - probably played by a different actor - in a future movie after that.

I agree with all of that, which is why i think it's already a done deal.
 
Eon would surely acknowledge that the first time around starting Fleming's strongest storyline (Blofeld/Tracy) and then having Connery quit, so that it's told via 3 different Bond actors with story continuity seen as collateral damage was a total mess that they'd rather have avoided. So i'm sure they wouldn't want to repeat that mess, which is why i believe they wouldn't have embarked once again on this storyline if they didn't have Craig in place to continue/finish it.
 
Sure Craig sounds sick'n tired of Bond at this current time, but after such a marathon production i'm sure they all crave a break and sympathise. But as much as Craig's frank interview style may be at times a little too frank for Eon's (more so Sony's) liking, it makes great headlines and there's no such thing as bad publicity.
 
So i agree that if Craig goes, then they need a soft reboot and certainly can't continue this Swann/Blofeld storyline; perhaps they could indeed explain Blofeld's change of appearance with some contrived plastic surgery exposition, but how very naff it would be to explain Blofeld's change, yet pretend Bond hasn't changed at all, despite it being a different actor! For this reason if they change Bond, then they can't refer to Blofeld's change. In short it would be a messy affair to rival the 60s/70s mess and i don't see Eon allowing that to be a possibility, so my money's on Craig being in 25 (which i'm very happy with).
 
If i'm wrong and they're once again playing dice with continuity, then the opportunism of again squandering the Blofeld arc, instead of saving it for Bond 7 gives whomever they cast as Bond 7 the torrid task of not only stepping into Craig's highly accomplished shoes, but doing so amid some very thin and desperate exposition about the demise of his relationship with Swann. Worst still forgetting it ever happened, which surely means forgetting they have Blofeld in the clink. It's a repeat the 60s fiasco.

Yes, I think they need to "finish it, James", to coin a phrase. They'll have to be very careful about giving away the plot this time - tighten up on security against hackers and the like. But if in two or three years time we have a cast list which reads thusly.......

"Daniel Craig as Ian Fleming's James Bond 007 in......." followed by the other cast members but rounded off with;

"Special appearance by Lea Seydoux. With Ralph Fiennes as M.... and Christoph Waltz as Blofeld",

then we have a shrewd idea of the fate of at least one character and that, as you say, the finale is a done deal.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

 

 

 

Well put, Pi.
I'd add that Eon have only written themselves into a tricky corner if Craig doesn't stick around for 25. However, it would be so incredibly naive to have left themselves in that position that i'm of the opinion that despite all the ambiguity they already have Craig signed up for 25.
I imagine that they're hoping the ambiguity will generate some 'is he/isn't he/whose next' tabloid speculation to keep the brand alive in our thoughts in the interim before 25 roles into pre-production proper.
I think YOLT is undoubtably the material they seek to tap next. Which as i said above is something to savour. I expect the amnesia/brainwashing story line to end 25 and begin 26 with a new actor re-learning his identity as Bond.

Not so much a tricky corner as a fork in the road.
If Craig does return for Bond 25 then thn end of SPECTRE sets up the start of the new movie. Bond going off to live a new life but returning to the colours at some point because ESB is once more at large and potentially causing trouble. Revenge, in the form of something happening to someone whom Bond is close to or respects may also figure.
But, if SPECTRE really was Craig's final movie, the slate can be wiped clean to an extent. A soft reboot, as happens with a new man in the role. The Whitehall team in place but not necessarily a story linked to SPECTRE to follow that film.
Of course it could be argued that in the late 1960s a change of actor - Connery to Lazenby - didn't interrupt the Bond-v-Blofeld conflict continuing. But for it to coninue here, credibly, one would need Craig in place, possibly along with Madeleine and of course ESB (though the facial disfigurement, and the history of Blofeld changing his appearence in the novels would allow casting of someone other than Christoph Waltz in the role.). What I'd have a little difficuly with would be Lea Seydoux and Christoph Waltz returning, cast with "A N Other" as Bond. Better to let the new man battle a new adversary in Bond 25, then return to face Blofeld - probably played by a different actor - in a future movie after that.

I agree with all of that, which is why i think it's already a done deal.
 
Eon would surely acknowledge that the first time around starting Fleming's strongest storyline (Blofeld/Tracy) and then having Connery quit, so that it's told via 3 different Bond actors with story continuity seen as collateral damage was a total mess that they'd rather have avoided. So i'm sure they wouldn't want to repeat that mess, which is why i believe they wouldn't have embarked once again on this storyline if they didn't have Craig in place to continue/finish it.
 
Sure Craig sounds sick'n tired of Bond at this current time, but after such a marathon production i'm sure they all crave a break and sympathise. But as much as Craig's frank interview style may be at times a little too frank for Eon's (more so Sony's) liking, it makes great headlines and there's no such thing as bad publicity.
 
So i agree that if Craig goes, then they need a soft reboot and certainly can't continue this Swann/Blofeld storyline; perhaps they could indeed explain Blofeld's change of appearance with some contrived plastic surgery exposition, but how very naff it would be to explain Blofeld's change, yet pretend Bond hasn't changed at all, despite it being a different actor! For this reason if they change Bond, then they can't refer to Blofeld's change. In short it would be a messy affair to rival the 60s/70s mess and i don't see Eon allowing that to be a possibility, so my money's on Craig being in 25 (which i'm very happy with).
 
If i'm wrong and they're once again playing dice with continuity, then the opportunism of again squandering the Blofeld arc, instead of saving it for Bond 7 gives whomever they cast as Bond 7 the torrid task of not only stepping into Craig's highly accomplished shoes, but doing so amid some very thin and desperate exposition about the demise of his relationship with Swann. Worst still forgetting it ever happened, which surely means forgetting they have Blofeld in the clink. It's a repeat the 60s fiasco.

Yes, I think they need to "finish it, James", to coin a phrase. They'll have to be very careful about giving away the plot this time - tighten up on security against hackers and the like. But if in two or three years time we have a cast list which reads thusly.......

"Daniel Craig as Ian Fleming's James Bond 007 in......." followed by the other cast members but rounded off with;

"Special appearance by Lea Seydoux. With Ralph Fiennes as M.... and Christoph Waltz as Blofeld",

then we have a shrewd idea of the fate of at least one character and that, as you say, the finale is a done deal.

 

EON should reboot their series again in “Bond 25” with the next Bond actor (and I think they should do the same with every new actor onwards), but without another origin story, and they could keep the recently introduced same MI6 cast. All of this reboots would contribute, to keep outdated and believable the continuity of each actor’s era.

And Blofeld/SPECTRE could (if ever) reappear with the eight Bond actor in the series, or at least in the second entry of the next Bond.

[Dustin]

Does a reboot - and one with the other cast members staying in place at that - really contribute anything to continuity or believability? I'm highly sceptical about that. In all likelihood it's probably only one more hurdle for the next actor to take, on top of an already tough enough job. Mind you, I can live with several different versions of Bond, we all can. The problem is whether Bond can, too.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Does a reboot - and one with the other cast members staying in place at that - really contribute anything to continuity or believability? I'm highly sceptical about that. In all likelihood it's probably only one more hurdle for the next actor to take, on top of an already tough enough job. Mind you, I can live with several different versions of Bond, we all can. The problem is whether Bond can, too.

It didn’t really bother, at least not for the general moviegoer, to stay with the same actress for M from DAD to the big reboot of CR. Nonetheless, they could also change the MI6 cast if they want, especially if we have to wait around four or more years for the next Bond, my main point is that they should reboot (without another origin story) with every new actor, that way we could avoid the challenge to have to believe that, for instance, Brosnan Bond was already active in 1963’s FRWL mission as is somehow suggested in DAD on his visit to Q-branch.

[Surrie]

 

 

 

Well put, Pi.
I'd add that Eon have only written themselves into a tricky corner if Craig doesn't stick around for 25. However, it would be so incredibly naive to have left themselves in that position that i'm of the opinion that despite all the ambiguity they already have Craig signed up for 25.
I imagine that they're hoping the ambiguity will generate some 'is he/isn't he/whose next' tabloid speculation to keep the brand alive in our thoughts in the interim before 25 roles into pre-production proper.
I think YOLT is undoubtably the material they seek to tap next. Which as i said above is something to savour. I expect the amnesia/brainwashing story line to end 25 and begin 26 with a new actor re-learning his identity as Bond.

Not so much a tricky corner as a fork in the road.
If Craig does return for Bond 25 then thn end of SPECTRE sets up the start of the new movie. Bond going off to live a new life but returning to the colours at some point because ESB is once more at large and potentially causing trouble. Revenge, in the form of something happening to someone whom Bond is close to or respects may also figure.
But, if SPECTRE really was Craig's final movie, the slate can be wiped clean to an extent. A soft reboot, as happens with a new man in the role. The Whitehall team in place but not necessarily a story linked to SPECTRE to follow that film.
Of course it could be argued that in the late 1960s a change of actor - Connery to Lazenby - didn't interrupt the Bond-v-Blofeld conflict continuing. But for it to coninue here, credibly, one would need Craig in place, possibly along with Madeleine and of course ESB (though the facial disfigurement, and the history of Blofeld changing his appearence in the novels would allow casting of someone other than Christoph Waltz in the role.). What I'd have a little difficuly with would be Lea Seydoux and Christoph Waltz returning, cast with "A N Other" as Bond. Better to let the new man battle a new adversary in Bond 25, then return to face Blofeld - probably played by a different actor - in a future movie after that.

I agree with all of that, which is why i think it's already a done deal.
 
Eon would surely acknowledge that the first time around starting Fleming's strongest storyline (Blofeld/Tracy) and then having Connery quit, so that it's told via 3 different Bond actors with story continuity seen as collateral damage was a total mess that they'd rather have avoided. So i'm sure they wouldn't want to repeat that mess, which is why i believe they wouldn't have embarked once again on this storyline if they didn't have Craig in place to continue/finish it.
 
Sure Craig sounds sick'n tired of Bond at this current time, but after such a marathon production i'm sure they all crave a break and sympathise. But as much as Craig's frank interview style may be at times a little too frank for Eon's (more so Sony's) liking, it makes great headlines and there's no such thing as bad publicity.
 
So i agree that if Craig goes, then they need a soft reboot and certainly can't continue this Swann/Blofeld storyline; perhaps they could indeed explain Blofeld's change of appearance with some contrived plastic surgery exposition, but how very naff it would be to explain Blofeld's change, yet pretend Bond hasn't changed at all, despite it being a different actor! For this reason if they change Bond, then they can't refer to Blofeld's change. In short it would be a messy affair to rival the 60s/70s mess and i don't see Eon allowing that to be a possibility, so my money's on Craig being in 25 (which i'm very happy with).
 
If i'm wrong and they're once again playing dice with continuity, then the opportunism of again squandering the Blofeld arc, instead of saving it for Bond 7 gives whomever they cast as Bond 7 the torrid task of not only stepping into Craig's highly accomplished shoes, but doing so amid some very thin and desperate exposition about the demise of his relationship with Swann. Worst still forgetting it ever happened, which surely means forgetting they have Blofeld in the clink. It's a repeat the 60s fiasco.

Yes, I think they need to "finish it, James", to coin a phrase. They'll have to be very careful about giving away the plot this time - tighten up on security against hackers and the like. But if in two or three years time we have a cast list which reads thusly.......

"Daniel Craig as Ian Fleming's James Bond 007 in......." followed by the other cast members but rounded off with;

"Special appearance by Lea Seydoux. With Ralph Fiennes as M.... and Christoph Waltz as Blofeld",

then we have a shrewd idea of the fate of at least one character and that, as you say, the finale is a done deal.

 

 

With Craig 99% returning IMO, then I think this would be the only route they could really go in order to give him the send off his Bond deserves. If they focussed on the YOLT novel adaptation for Bond 25 as his final outing it would undoubtedly be a perfect way to end his era and leave the door open for a new actor to step in. The amnesia arc of YOLT could even act as a soft reboot for the next actor, but keep the MI6 team and focus on stand-alone missions again and we don't have to keep revisiting Bonds past. 

[Bucky]

I don't mind they change the title but I would love to see something like "Based on the novel 'You Only Live Twice' by Ian Fleming" in the opening credits for bond 25

[Revelator]

Interesting note: according to the Taschen book, John Logan's first stab at Spectre was titled "The Death Collector."

 

To be honest, I'm no no longer very keen on seeing the unused elements from YOLT shoehorned into the next Craig film, especially after what the filmmakers did to Blofeld. Fleming's original is best served with either a full adaptation or none at all. So perhaps one should give up on the movies and settle for what remains the closest adaptation of YOLT--the excellent Daily Express comic strip, recently re-anthologized in Spectre: The Complete Comic Strip Collection.

[Dustin]

It is indeed questionable how much, if any, of YOLT's story would in the end find its way into a present day Bond film. The book has a totally different balance, largely consists of Bond talking with different middle aged men, conversations which will mostly have to be scrapped for various concerns and sensibilities. And even the action is low-key by today's cinema standards. Chances are the book today would have to be similarly expanded the way CASINO ROYALE was done, only more so and with the problem to fit the new version of Blofeld and Tracy/Madeleine into the picture.

[Major Tallon]

Blofeld could have wormed his way (or bought his way) into the hierarchy of the Yakuza, whose secret headquarters is protected by the Garden of Death (that mass suicide park would never fly in today's world).  We could have an infiltration by Bond, or by Bond and Madeleine (or whoever they chose to be the girl), to reflect the contents of the comic strip.  Fans who want a large-scale battle scene in the finale could have a good-guy ninja assault on the location.  I've always been intrigued by the comic strip's treatment of the final Bond-Blofeld duel, where Blofeld's back is broken and he falls, paralyzed, across the mouth of the geyser.  He begs Bond for help, presenting Bond with the moral dilemma of whether to save the arch-criminal, but the decision is taken out of his hands when the geyser erupts, and Blofeld is simply vaporized.

 

Thoughts?

[Bucky]

Blofeld could have wormed his way (or bought his way) into the hierarchy of the Yakuza, whose secret headquarters is protected by the Garden of Death (that mass suicide park would never fly in today's world).  We could have an infiltration by Bond, or by Bond and Madeleine (or whoever they chose to be the girl), to reflect the contents of the comic strip.  Fans who want a large-scale battle scene in the finale could have a good-guy ninja assault on the location.  I've always been intrigued by the comic strip's treatment of the final Bond-Blofeld duel, where Blofeld's back is broken and he falls, paralyzed, across the mouth of the geyser.  He begs Bond for help, presenting Bond with the moral dilemma of whether to save the arch-criminal, but the decision is taken out of his hands when the geyser erupts, and Blofeld is simply vaporized.

 

Thoughts?

 

It could work. If they figure out a plausible way to have Madeleine involved, perhaps Bond could still end up with her if he does lose his memory.

[TheREAL008]

Once again, people need...NEED to let go of YOLT. It's never going to happen. I like the original aspects they've done up to now and EON shouldn't retread on previous material anymore. 

As for Ms. Swann, I like her. She could be the next Tracy but I'm hoping not, maybe have her as the sole one who got away like Tiffany. Perhaps reintroduce Tracy sometime later on down the road.

[Odd Jobbies]

'Shoe horning' is itself the problem with all the poor adaptations. CR was great because it told the story of Fleming's novel, updating and expanding upon it (as did FRWL).

 

But Eon's habit of cherry picking ideas, moments and characters from the novels and then shoe horning them into an original screenplay has surely been proven by the many weak movie entries that are Fleming in title only to be squanderous and short sighted. CR gave hope that Eon had learnt their lessons, but who knows?

 

YOLT is a great story that despite already being a movie remains largely untold onscreen. If they stick to Fleming's story, updating and expanding as with CR it could sublime.

 

As for a 'Suicide Garden' not flying in today's world, try this - The Suicide Forest of Japan:

 

http://www.dailymail...odies-year.html

[Bucky]

Once again, people need...NEED to let go of YOLT. It's never going to happen. I like the original aspects they've done up to now and EON shouldn't retread on previous material anymore. 
As for Ms. Swann, I like her. She could be the next Tracy but I'm hoping not, maybe have her as the sole one who got away like Tiffany. Perhaps reintroduce Tracy sometime later on down the road.

I am not expecting them to revisit yolt, but that will stop me from hoping and theorizing about how it could work in the modern series.

[Surrie]

'Shoe horning' is itself the problem with all the poor adaptations. CR was great because it told the story of Fleming's novel, updating and expanding upon it (as did FRWL).

 

But Eon's habit of cherry picking ideas, moments and characters from the novels and then shoe horning them into an original screenplay has surely been proven by the many weak movie entries that are Fleming in title only to be squanderous and short sighted. CR gave hope that Eon had learnt their lessons, but who knows?

 

YOLT is a great story that despite already being a movie remains largely untold onscreen. If they stick to Fleming's story, updating and expanding as with CR it could sublime.

 

As for a 'Suicide Garden' not flying in today's world, try this - The Suicide Forest of Japan:

 

http://www.dailymail...odies-year.html

 

 

 

Once again, people need...NEED to let go of YOLT. It's never going to happen. I like the original aspects they've done up to now and EON shouldn't retread on previous material anymore. 
As for Ms. Swann, I like her. She could be the next Tracy but I'm hoping not, maybe have her as the sole one who got away like Tiffany. Perhaps reintroduce Tracy sometime later on down the road.

I am not expecting them to revisit yolt, but that will stop me from hoping and theorizing about how it could work in the modern series.

 

 

In agreement with the above, it would be nice for EON to adapt YOLT more accurately on-screen. However, it will only work if they follow whatever formula they did for CR. They pulled that one off - I would be more than happy if they did this more accurately for YOLT. 

[Odd Jobbies]

'Shoe horning' is itself the problem with all the poor adaptations. CR was great because it told the story of Fleming's novel, updating and expanding upon it (as did FRWL).
 
But Eon's habit of cherry picking ideas, moments and characters from the novels and then shoe horning them into an original screenplay has surely been proven by the many weak movie entries that are Fleming in title only to be squanderous and short sighted. CR gave hope that Eon had learnt their lessons, but who knows?
 
YOLT is a great story that despite already being a movie remains largely untold onscreen. If they stick to Fleming's story, updating and expanding as with CR it could sublime.
 
As for a 'Suicide Garden' not flying in today's world, try this - The Suicide Forest of Japan:
 
http://www.dailymail...odies-year.html

 
 

Once again, people need...NEED to let go of YOLT. It's never going to happen. I like the original aspects they've done up to now and EON shouldn't retread on previous material anymore. 
As for Ms. Swann, I like her. She could be the next Tracy but I'm hoping not, maybe have her as the sole one who got away like Tiffany. Perhaps reintroduce Tracy sometime later on down the road.

I am not expecting them to revisit yolt, but that will stop me from hoping and theorizing about how it could work in the modern series.

 
In agreement with the above, it would be nice for EON to adapt YOLT more accurately on-screen. However, it will only work if they follow whatever formula they did for CR. They pulled that one off - I would be more than happy if they did this more accurately for YOLT.

Well, I think that basically they adapted the novel - something they haven't done since TB. And they were pretty lose adaptations.

WITH YOLT they cherry picked from the novel, with an original screenplay by Dharl I believe. They went back to fleming for OHMSS (which is why it's so damn good) but henceforth each script seemed a desperate scramble to steal and amalgamate Flemings novels for each film without much care for the next. It seemed to become completely dependent upon audience reaction rather than character and story development.

IMO disaster that was DAD finally forced them back to the source material. The formula for that would appear to be sticking to Fleming story and character arcs, with the nessisary tech and cultural political updates and more visceral action which is what differentiates cinema from the novel. With CR they finally got it right and it's hard to draw any other conclusion than much of that is owed to Craig's influence. Thereafter they've gone it alone without Fleming, other than nods, moments and Craig's always Stella performances.

If only they had another Fleming novel that, like CR, had never been commuted to film..... Oh, they have - YOLT

[Professor Pi]

If they do it right, and augment it with some topical concerns, the YOLT novel could be the masterpiece they seek.  The first part of the film could introduce Irma Bunt and a plan for Blofeld's escape. It's such a departure from Fleming's usual structure.  To really explore and educate Bond and the audience about a culture.  And to have an angst-ridden Bond drinking with Tiger, reflecting on life only to find purpose again, would be something we haven't seen before.  Shatterhand's castle could be so creepy and different. And Craig is the actor to pull it off.  If they really developed the characters with Kissy and "Taro" after the climactic Castle of Death battle, say a solid 30 minutes of the film before an amnesiac Bond goes off in search of his identity.  It could be such an existential exploration of the character.

[Odd Jobbies]

If they do it right, and augment it with some topical concerns, the YOLT novel could be the masterpiece they seek.  The first part of the film could introduce Irma Bunt and a plan for Blofeld's escape. It's such a departure from Fleming's usual structure.  To really explore and educate Bond and the audience about a culture.  And to have an angst-ridden Bond drinking with Tiger, reflecting on life only to find purpose again, would be something we haven't seen before.  Shatterhand's castle could be so creepy and different. And Craig is the actor to pull it off.  If they really developed the characters with Kissy and "Taro" after the climactic Castle of Death battle, say a solid 30 minutes of the film before an amnesiac Bond goes off in search of his identity.  It could be such an existential exploration of the character.

That it could. Eon have proven capable of such bold moves by casting Craig and totally rebooting. It seems only right to end his superb run with the same balls.

[Surrie]

 

If they do it right, and augment it with some topical concerns, the YOLT novel could be the masterpiece they seek.  The first part of the film could introduce Irma Bunt and a plan for Blofeld's escape. It's such a departure from Fleming's usual structure.  To really explore and educate Bond and the audience about a culture.  And to have an angst-ridden Bond drinking with Tiger, reflecting on life only to find purpose again, would be something we haven't seen before.  Shatterhand's castle could be so creepy and different. And Craig is the actor to pull it off.  If they really developed the characters with Kissy and "Taro" after the climactic Castle of Death battle, say a solid 30 minutes of the film before an amnesiac Bond goes off in search of his identity.  It could be such an existential exploration of the character.

That it could. Eon have proven capable of such bold moves by casting Craig and totally rebooting. It seems only right to end his superb run with the same balls.

 

 

This is what I have my fingers crossed for. 

[dtuba]

My idea for B25 would be this: Start off with Bond entering MI6 HQ. Everyone is shocked and amazed to see him enter. Then have him attempt to assassinate M like in the novel of TMWTGG. Cue the titles. After the title sequence, we flash back to Bond in the Morocco hideout being needle-tortured by Ober/Blofeld. The idea here is that the needles did cause Bond to lose his memory, that all the post-torture events in SP never happened, and that somehow amnesiac Bond was brainwashed and sent back to London in order to kill M. I don't know what would happen to Swann in this scenario.

 

I honestly don't really want to see this as part of B25, but it would acknowledge that the last 40 minutes of SP were ridiculous and attempt to make some sense out of it (in a very meta way, I know).

[Surrie]

My idea for B25 would be this: Start off with Bond entering MI6 HQ. Everyone is shocked and amazed to see him enter. Then have him attempt to assassinate M like in the novel of TMWTGG. Cue the titles. After the title sequence, we flash back to Bond in the Morocco hideout being needle-tortured by Ober/Blofeld. The idea here is that the needles did cause Bond to lose his memory, that all the post-torture events in SP never happened, and that somehow amnesiac Bond was brainwashed and sent back to London in order to kill M. I don't know what would happen to Swann in this scenario.

 

I honestly don't really want to see this as part of B25, but it would acknowledge that the last 40 minutes of SP were ridiculous and attempt to make some sense out of it (in a very meta way, I know).

 

This isn't a bad idea - but I can forsee a lot of people crying out if they write-off the end of SP... "I was all just a dream" type of scenario. But, if they did it well enough then it could actually be quite brilliant. They would have to bring Swann back for Bond 25 and perhaps use her as an instrument in rescuing Bond from himself?? 

[Dustin]

Actually, the more time has passed since I saw SPECTRE the better I like the idea that at least the part from the torture scene onwards was a bad hallucination. But I doubt they would really go down a route where you'd have to have seen the last film to understand (better) what's going on BOND 25. I suppose decisions on in BOND 25 are really only going to be made once the new distribution deal is secured. And then likely not in too bold a direction, however tempting it may seem for us.

[SecretAgentFan]

In any event, such a plot twist would leave a bad aftertaste, IMO.  It would basically say either "We fooled you" (the IT WAS ALL A DREAM-copout) or it would imply that the filmmakers knew everything after the torture scene was rubbish.

 

I guess it´s better to take SPECTRE as one of those Bond films which had lots of promise but did not really pull it off (TMWTGG, AVTAK, TWINE, DAD) and start fresh with BOND 25.

[Dustin]

Agreed about the aftertaste. Especially since we know nothing like that was intended originally. It's a total surrender, a capitulation in face of the lacklustre finish and nothing of the sort is going to happen. They will stride forward as they always do.

[SecretAgentFan]

Maybe that´s the best thing they can do.

 

I really feel as if SPECTRE was Craig´s DAD - and it is better to move forward and change than dwell on the past.

 

I also think that the allusions and pastiche-like elements that Mendes talked about favorably in many interviews are what keeps the films from developing like they did between the 60´s and 70´s.

 

Instead of catering to the "old" fans or what the mass audience supposedly wants from a Bond film they should concentrate on the core elements and reinvent them.

 

And please, without the "this time it´s personal and everything is connected"-angle.

[tdalton]

We're stuck with "this time...it's personal".  It's not going anywhere. 

 

Agreed about the aftertaste. Especially since we know nothing like that was intended originally. It's a total surrender, a capitulation in face of the lacklustre finish and nothing of the sort is going to happen. They will stride forward as they always do.

 

I'm not sure them going that route with be the biggest of leaps.  EON has a habit of retconning (heck, look at SPECTRE itself), ignoring, or trying to erase unpopular entries from existence.  While they've never gone to the lengths of what is being suggested, and we know that they won't do it, but it would just be the next step in the evolution of how they respond to poorly received Bond films.  

[Dustin]

Well, it was not that poorly received, just not on the level of its predecessor. Let's not forget many Bond films had to deal with bad reviews in the past; it used to be a given critics would hack them to shreds for many years. Only in the recent past -and with aspirations to gain Academy Award accolades - did professional cinema critique turn a softer eye on the Bond brand. And financially it is still a decent business even if it didn't run as strong on all markets as was desirable.

[tdalton]

Cubby didn't seem as sensitive about it as the current regime is, though.  They've made massive changes to the franchise based on reviews and public scorn heaped upon the films in ways that Cubby most likely wouldn't have.  Tomorrow Never Dies was seen as too much of a Rambo-esque action film, so they flipped the script completely and went for, and failed, with a drama the next time out.  Die Another Day was seen as a massive creative failure, despite its huge box office, and they completely rebooted the franchise the next time out.  Quantum of Solace proves to be unpopular, so they abandon the reboot entirely, after just one film.  

 

I just want to see EON have something that resembles a plan that's a bit more than the fly-by-the-seat-of-their-pants routine they currently operate under.  I'm not saying that they need to plot out every single plot detail over the course of several films, but just having a general idea of where they're headed would be nice, and having the courage to stay the course even if one film doesn't make the box office of its predecessor would be a nice change in attitude as well.

[Professor Pi]

My idea for B25 would be this: Start off with Bond entering MI6 HQ. Everyone is shocked and amazed to see him enter. Then have him attempt to assassinate M like in the novel of TMWTGG. Cue the titles. After the title sequence, we flash back to Bond in the Morocco hideout being needle-tortured by Ober/Blofeld. The idea here is that the needles did cause Bond to lose his memory, that all the post-torture events in SP never happened, and that somehow amnesiac Bond was brainwashed and sent back to London in order to kill M. I don't know what would happen to Swann in this scenario.

 

I honestly don't really want to see this as part of B25, but it would acknowledge that the last 40 minutes of SP were ridiculous and attempt to make some sense out of it (in a very meta way, I know).

 

This is basically the gist of Dennis Franich's Entertainment Weekly review "SPECTRE ending:  A serious attempt to explain it."  In a "Bond timeline" thread, I took this one step further and posited that not only was the ending of SPECTRE in Craig's head, but also was the rest of the Bond canon, from Dr. No to Die Another Day.  One can even include CR'54, CR'67, and NSNA in there.  The films become period pieces in Bond's dying fever dream.  The callbacks in CR-QoS-SF-SP instead become seeds planting ideas for hallucinated dreams.  This inversion is ludicrous, I know, but also gives a way to unify all the films and explain inconsistencies among them.  It also jives nicely with Hoyte Van Hoytema's dreamlike cinematography, and Oberhauser's "I'm the man inside your head" taunts once he proclaims he's Blofeld.  The producers even met with Christopher Nolan about Bond24 and used his editor, Lee Smith, so I wouldn't be surprised if this Memento/Inception idea came up.  Until Bond 25 comes out, that's how I'm now viewing Bond films.

 

My guess is EON will be vague in following up on SPECTRE, the way DAF sort of but doesn't really acknowledge OHMSS, or FYEO sort of has Blofeld in its PTS, but not officially, and the way GoldenEye sort of but not really ignores its predecessors.

 

If B25 explores the amnesia angle, then this can always be the case--that Bonds 1-20 occur in CraigBond's head after Bond 21-24, and maybe B25.  I doubt EON will ever embrace this, negating the third act of their last film, nor should they as it insults their fanbase and casual audience.  They've made worse film scripts and never ret-conned them to such an extent.  But it makes SPECTRE more interesting than it actually is, and gives a more plausible explanation of its ending.  As a unifying theory, it's more consistent than the code name, alternate timeline, or separate universe ideas.

[SecretAgentFan]

Cubby didn't seem as sensitive about it as the current regime is, though.  They've made massive changes to the franchise based on reviews and public scorn heaped upon the films in ways that Cubby most likely wouldn't have.  Tomorrow Never Dies was seen as too much of a Rambo-esque action film, so they flipped the script completely and went for, and failed, with a drama the next time out.  Die Another Day was seen as a massive creative failure, despite its huge box office, and they completely rebooted the franchise the next time out.  Quantum of Solace proves to be unpopular, so they abandon the reboot entirely, after just one film.  

 

I just want to see EON have something that resembles a plan that's a bit more than the fly-by-the-seat-of-their-pants routine they currently operate under.  I'm not saying that they need to plot out every single plot detail over the course of several films, but just having a general idea of where they're headed would be nice, and having the courage to stay the course even if one film doesn't make the box office of its predecessor would be a nice change in attitude as well.

 

Before SPECTRE I was absolutely sure that there was such a long-term plan.

 

Maybe there actually is.  But it seems to me that they neglected their plan in favour of giving too much freedom to Sam Mendes.

 

For me, he really is the main culprit here.  So much of SKYFALL, IMO, was done very well, but in the end I attribute this not to him but to Roger Deakins and Javier Bardem.  They actually make the film so worthwhile for me and add new or at least interesting elements to Bond.  It also helped to have the framework of Purvis´ and Wade´s original script.  Which Mendes reworked through Logan, ushering in some of the contrivances that utterly bogged down SPECTRE.

 

However, Mendes got the credit for making SKYFALL the biggest Bond at the box office (not counting inflation, I know).  And with him still riding the award success for "American Beauty" (no other Mendes film actually got the award attention anymore, lest people forget) and some of his theatre work, he was considered the new golden boy by EON and SONY.  Someone they just had to rely on, giving him the keys to the kingdom, so to speak.  Since Craig loved to work with him (of course, all actors love to attach themselves to prestige directors, feeling secure and basking in their glow because it makes them look intelligent and award-worthy themselves) Mendes was firmly established as the only guy who could direct Bond again.

 

Thankfully, the lukewarm critical reception of SPECTRE put a dent into that image.  And EON, I believe, is clever enough to notice that Mendes is like any other good director: only good with good material, but to be reigned in and kept under check.  On SPECTRE, it seems to me, he either just got too much creative freedom or he was not that interested in Bond anymore, thinking he will get away with just ploughing throw the exhausting demands of that kind of production.

 

Either way, I hope that EON is now ready to move on, concentrating on giving the films a new lease of life for the future - just as they did after DAD.