133 replies to this topic

[Dustin]

That element of being in conflict with the mission and at odds with Whitehall has often been present. Just think of OHMSS when they were prepared to pay up and Bond had to go on 'holiday' to do the attack on Piz Gloria with his soon-to-be father-in-law. One could find traces of unease when Scaramanga claimed he and Bond were the same. And also when he was up against 006 or when it became apparent he might well have shared Silva's fate in SKYFALL. The mission is rarely cut-and-dried and often there are hints of a not so glorious element in the story.

The difference now is that there is a definite risk future storylines will become charged with a political reasoning that will not sit well. They will certainly not want to show Bond fighting against a large part of the audience - yet some will no doubt call for just that. And this is hardly the route to success for a franchise of the 21st century. It's still a fact without alternative that Bond earns a huge percentage of his box office outside the UK.

[Orion]

Well, strangely, China makes up alot of that market, yet Bond films have never shyed away from villainising the Chinese government even as recently as Skyfall.

[Dustin]

That's probably not that big a deal as long real world politics don't do the same.

But I don't actually think China was really openly depicted as aggressor in SKYFALL anyway. Silva was working against them, going supposedly beyond the call of duty, which was why M felt entitled to betray him to the Chinese. When they in turn told him about it he became their asset - but nothing indicates he's working on their orders when SKYFALL starts. He seems to be wholly self-employed and even the SPECTRE connection doesn't ring true.

At the most China seems to be vaguely present in the backstage region, the way it was used since GOLDFINGER and THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN.

[SecretAgentFan]

When was the last time Bond really went against the leaders of one nation?  "From Russia with love", I guess.  Apart from that, the bad guys are always unhinged, crazy "bad apples".  That´s what works in order to not offend any country in which the films have to rake it in.

 

And this is what will happen in future Bond films, too.  I guess BOND 25 will just not take any stance against all the politicians which currently threaten our society but feature Bond against a villain (and his organization) that we all can hate.  And since he always was at odds with his boss he still can disobey him in the typical Bondian way.  Which does not make him sympathize with either political fraction and just enforce his own way to get the job done.

 

I believe, however, that the days of Bond getting backup by the military for the big showdown are over.  That would position him too much as a foot soldier for governments.  Bond will continue to be going solo or duo with a Russian/Chinese/American female spy.

 

So, it looks as if that would still make it possible for Bond to be entertainment without offending any political idea.  Also, the films could move more into escapism again, featuring villains like Stromberg or Drax with outlandish plans.  Although in days like these outlandish seems to be the new realistic.

[Dustin]

Escapism definitely. Perhaps with a threat or an element interpolated from current society, like done in the Black Mirror anthology. A cult, a drug working by visual stimulants, influencing human behaviour by means of a virus and a short range transmitter. I could even see Eon going a route leading into science fiction again - which Bond has often been before even if we leave out MOONRAKER. Deep sea bases guarded by sharks, robotic killer drones, swarms of nano-spies, so on you get the idea. Something between the all-out fantasy stuff of the Marvel universe and the relatively 'real world' feeling of the last few films.

In effect the return to DIE ANOTHER DAY - but that is probably the best bet for BOND 25.

[Pierceuhhh]

Perfect opportunity to break out an unused Fleming title...

STATE OF EXCITEMENT

Bond battles a colourful American billionaire Serrafimo Spang who operates out of a private ghost town and is plotting to secede Texas from the United States!

[Agent 76]

Also, the films could move more into escapism again, featuring villains like Stromberg or Drax with outlandish plans

Hear, hear!!

[RMc2]

I would quite like a return to the more low-ke, Chandleresque plots of classic Bond - for instance, Bond starts a simple mission investigating an art smuggling operation, which leads to a bigger scheme involving government control or something.

 

As far as I can recall, the last Bond movie to take that approach was License To Kill (even it was outlandishly scaled even from the PTS).

[Orion]

The issue with that approach is why you'd send a OO on "a simple smuggling matter", its using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut. Brosnan and Craig's eras both went with the notion of you have to justify why you'd send a government approved hitman. You could go back to Fleming's approach, the idea that the fact he's a spy is just an excuse for one man to keep having adventures, but would that be accepted in 21st century? I mean I'm fine with it, but will a casual audience?

[SecretAgentFan]

Scaling down the missions would not be a problem if they offered an intricate global danger.  CASINO ROYALE works because of that.  

 

It´s all about expectations.  In the 80´s and 90´s audiences expected outlandish plots from Bond.  After the Craig years the evil plots of the main villains were much more down to earth.  Maybe audiences right now would accept a smaller scale mission.

 

After SPECTRE I would welcome a "little" tale.

[MISALA1994]

Doesn't sound like P&W have been working on a script for Bond 25...

https://hmssweblog.w...ting-007-films/

+1

[RMc2]

The issue with that approach is why you'd send a OO on "a simple smuggling matter", its using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut. Brosnan and Craig's eras both went with the notion of you have to justify why you'd send a government approved hitman. You could go back to Fleming's approach, the idea that the fact he's a spy is just an excuse for one man to keep having adventures, but would that be accepted in 21st century? I mean I'm fine with it, but will a casual audience?

 

That's a good point, and I agree I can't see it happening in Craig's finale, if he makes another one. The logical extension of SP is to open with Blofeld escaping, have MI6 ask Bond to come back, then have him refuse until something dramatic (like M being kidnapped by Blofeld) forces Bond to return (echoing his motivation in SF). A bigger scheme will emerge in the second half of the film, but yes I wouldn't describe any of that as a 'low-key mission'.

 

But when Bond 7 comes around, I hope they go for a low key plot like the smuggling idea.

 

 

Scaling down the missions would not be a problem if they offered an intricate global danger.  CASINO ROYALE works because of that.  

 

It´s all about expectations.  In the 80´s and 90´s audiences expected outlandish plots from Bond.  After the Craig years the evil plots of the main villains were much more down to earth.  Maybe audiences right now would accept a smaller scale mission.

 

After SPECTRE I would welcome a "little" tale.

 

I absolutely agree! But sadly I can't see it happening. If SP was Craig's MR, I'd like his FYEO. Yet for some reason I don't expect this iteration of EON to make that.

[SecretAgentFan]

At this point one apparently cannot expect anything.

 

Kind of sad after a string of box office champions, with Bond awareness higher than in decades.

 

On the other hand, positively viewed: everything is possible again, we can only be surprised.

[RMc2]

I like your positive outlook, SAF. I'll try to share it!