Bond 25 (2019)

Bond steals a submarine and goes haring around the world with a posse of good looking 'rocket scientists', as Don Rickles would say.

Hilly KCMG wrote:

Bond steals a submarine and goes haring around the world with a posse of good looking 'rocket scientists', as Don Rickles would say.

Title - 'Going Down'.

Control wrote:

Email it to babsybigtits@eon.com.

Any time you want to kick-start discussions in inactive subforums, feel free to do so. In the meantime, we can all go back to bitching about Sam Smith's title theme as if we didn't know that it was going to be a trainwreck.

Blunt Instrument wrote:

Hilly KCMG wrote:

Bond steals a submarine and goes haring around the world with a posse of good looking 'rocket scientists', as Don Rickles would say.

Title - 'Going Down'.

Approved. I'll head to Eon in the morning.

Control,

Love that avatar of Sean Connery meeting Dr Goodhead.

Hilly KCMG wrote:

Blunt Instrument wrote:

Hilly KCMG wrote:

Bond steals a submarine and goes haring around the world with a posse of good looking 'rocket scientists', as Don Rickles would say.

Title - 'Going Down'.

Approved. I'll head to Eon in the morning.

Good man. What's my cut?

CJB wrote:

Control,

Love that avatar of Sean Connery meeting Dr Goodhead.

You didn't see what she did to his shoes.  

Came across this while looking up SICARIO interviews. Denis Villeneuve says he'd love to direct a Bond movie.

http://www.comingsoon.net/movies/features/617335-interview-sicario-director-denis-villeneuve-takes-on-drug-cartels#/slide/1

He'd be a great choice.

Mad Men creator Matt Weiner is rumoured to be penning story outlines for Bond 25. Apparently they are gunna set it in the 1960s, but I don't think that could be true.

If Matt Weiner pens a Bond film, that would be one way to build on getting someone like Mendes on board. Bring in Christina Hendricks, too!

https://www.mi6-hq.com/news/index.php?itemid=11849&t=mi6&s=news

No way Bond 25 is set in the '60s if Craig is back. That wouldn't make any sense.

I'd love it see it at some point, though. I think it could be stylish and cool if done right.

Taking Bond back to the 60's? Sounds like someone wants to shaft Idris Elba.

CJB wrote:

Sounds like someone wants to shaft Idris Elba.

What Gravity wants to do with his personal life is none of our concern.

Jack Wade wrote:

No way Bond 25 is set in the '60s if Craig is back. That wouldn't make any sense.

I'd love it see it at some point, though. I think it could be stylish and cool if done right.

I'd love to see a film/television series set in the 50s and 60s that are faithful adaptations of Fleming's novels.

But, for Bond 25 onwards, I'd be stoked if Weiner was to jump on board and write Bond movies set in the present day. I imagine that journos were purely speculating that they'd become period pieces because of Mad Men's success.

James Bond smoking would be 2 edgy 4 da kids.

Wasn't Bond back to the 60s Tarentino's idea for Casino Royale?

Time's past for it regardless. Bond smoking would be one of those blasted e-cigarette things now surely.

CJB wrote:

James Bond smoking would be 2 edgy 4 da kids.

Brozza smoking the cigar in DAD still surprises to this day. Mendes said that he could show Bond killing 500 bad guys if he wanted, but being allowed to show him smoking? Forget about it.

FieldsMan wrote:

Mad Men creator Matt Weiner is rumoured to be penning story outlines for Bond 25. Apparently they are gunna set it in the 1960s, but I don't think that could be true.

If Matt Weiner pens a Bond film, that would be one way to build on getting someone like Mendes on board. Bring in Christina Hendricks, too!

https://www.mi6-hq.com/news/index.php?itemid=11849&t=mi6&s=news

After QUANTUM, I would have welcomed this idea. I honestly thought this series was shot. But, after seeing what Mendes did with SKYFALL, I think it'd be lazy to throw the film Bond back into the 60s. There's plenty that can be done with a modern day setting. They just need to start hiring writers and directors that give a fuck about the series.

Bond going back to the 50's/60's would be a dream come true, IMO. (although, they obviously couldn't do it with Craig). And yes, Tarantino wanted his Casino Royale set in the 50's with voice-over narration. He wanted it to be a faithful telling of the book.

...in other news, Jessica Chastain says she wants to be a Bond villain.

http://www.ew.com/article/2015/10/12/jessica-chastain-bond-villain

Quote :

“One of my goals is to play a villain in a Bond film,” Chastain told W. “People ask me if I want to be a Bond girl, and I say, ‘No, I want to be the villain.’ I’m waiting for that call!”

When Craig was selected, they actually did consider setting CR in the period the book was set, but decided against it so not to confuse people into thinking the film is a prequel to DR. NO. Setting it contemporary makes it a cleaner refresher.

When Craig does depart, I think this would be one way to go. Of course, that would mean dumping the entire cast they already established in Craig's films (unless they do what SHERLOCK did by doing a special period episode).

Jack Wade wrote:

CJB wrote:

Sounds like someone wants to shaft Idris Elba.

What Gravity wants to do with his personal life is none of our concern.

Serious question: how old are you?

Control wrote:

After QUANTUM, I would have welcomed this idea. I honestly thought this series was shot. But, after seeing what Mendes did with SKYFALL, I think it'd be lazy to throw the film Bond back into the 60s. There's plenty that can be done with a modern day setting. They just need to start hiring writers and directors that give a fuck about the series.

I'd say that they should go back into the time period in which they were written, which would mean setting the Fleming-adapted novels back in the 50's. But I digress.

But I see all kinds of problems going retro:

#1 They cost more to make and the bar for quality is higher because everyone with a Twitter account and a working knowledge of history will be sitting in the audience trying to pick apart any mistakes that were made in historical accuracy.

#2 If EON had done this when they were moving on from Moore it would have been a gutsy call. But they've allowed other people (MAD MEN precisely) to go out and show that a period piece will draw an audience. Maibaum wrote a treatment about Bond being a much younger man back in 1885/86 (it may be archived at The University of Iowa along with many of his other papers and projects) but EON turned it down, deeming it necessary for Bond to be mostly a fully formed character at the start of the film.

#3 EON has been too much of a follower post-Connery. They jumped on the Blaxploitation bandwagon with LALD, the Kung-fu bandwagon with 'Golden Gun', blatant admitted they were got on the sci-fi bandwagon with Moonraker after STAR WARS....I think they were inspired by RAIDERS OF THE LOST ark when the made Octopussy, but I actually like Octopussy so much I think with some minor adjustments it could have been Raiders 2.0. People seem to think LTK was a rip-off of MIAMI Vice (though I don't see it), and of course they totally overhauled the entire franchise at the Bourne Series made a little money at the box office (do you know if you added up the receipts of all the Bourne Films they would not have equaled what SKYFALL took in?). Makes me wonder why we were chasing Bourne to begin with. Why we retooled and reimagined an entire long-running series just to try and be "hip" and siphon off a few Bourne fans.

And now EON might be considering going retro? Like MAD MEN, X-MEN, and any other half-a-dozen big name tv shows?

Problem with Bond is the same problem PLAYBOY is having: having become victims of their own success, each entity struggles to figure out how to stay relevant:

PLAYBOY TO STOP PUBLISHING NUDEShttp://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/13/business/media/nudes-are-old-news-at-playboy.html?_r=0

Playboy gave rise to harder forms of eroticism; Bond has given rise to many imitators, bu he himself, like Playboy, has been stripped to a shell of his former being. If you don't recognize Playboy anymore, you probably wouldn't recognize Bond anymore. No longer is he allowed to leer lustily at a beautiful woman (it's "sexual harassment"); no longer is he allowed to smoke; no longer is he allowed to have meaningless sex (he has to care about her feelings in the morning); no longer is Bond allowed to just do his job; he now has to be shown to care about womyn's issues, even if it means dragging his "perfectly formed arse" to a public relations message dressed in high heels, a wig and a dress so that he can empathize with the kind of attention his unwanted advances cause others; to know what it feels like to be objectified.

Yeah, maybe both Bond and Playboy have peaked. Maybe it really is time to give them both a rest for a while.

Or maybe the studio can sidestep a lot of these issues by simply putting Bond back in the 50's. Works for me.

I would not be opposed to a Bond 'in period' although generally I prefer the notion of a non specific time frame and a universe that isn't too concerned with being 'ours'...the early Bonds felt just ahead of where we were at the time, it was never truly contemporary even when it referenced pop art. You can also look to the Batman films (those of Tim Burton more obviously but also Nolan's) which exist in a stylised modern world but which echo the 1940's in key areas...there are ways and places to visit where such an approach might work and we move back to creating a Bond Universe related to, but never quite as mundane as our own......that to me is far more resonant of Fleming than any of the pretentious grit and realism to series wallowed in for much of the Craig era.

I think too much discussion is based around the 1960s idea when we all know that that's not gunna happen inside the EON official series as we know it. What I'm more interested in is the validity behind Matt Weiner writing a contemporary Bond film, and whether people would like that.

lachesis wrote:

I would not be opposed to a Bond 'in period' although generally I prefer the notion of a non specific time frame and a universe that isn't too concerned with being 'ours'...the early Bonds felt just ahead of where we were at the time, it was never truly contemporary even when it referenced pop art. You can also look to the Batman films (those of Tim Burton more obviously but also Nolan's) which exist in a stylised modern world but which echo the 1940's in key areas...there are ways and places to visit where such an approach might work and we move back to creating a Bond Universe related to, but never quite as mundane as our own......that to me is far more resonant of Fleming than any of the pretentious grit and realism to series wallowed in for much of the Craig era.

Yes! And I think SF is a big, big step in that direction.

FieldsMan wrote:

Yes! And I think SF is a big, big step in that direction.

Indeed it was a step but more are needed in SPECTRE imo and I am just hoping the inherent lag of referencing CR and/or QOS wont work to the reverse.