Bond 25 (2019)

Erica Ambler wrote:

The Spy Who Loved Me Then 30 Years Later I Realised It Was Rape

A tidbit at the end of THR’s story claims that Boyle’s deal is now done, according to “a source”, which leads us onto the fun part: rumours about what exactly is in the draft Bond 25 script which John Hodge has allegedly completed. Now, this comes with very heavy qualifiers as it’s coming from a Reddit poster, but they’re saying Bond will be going up against a female villain (a first for Craig) who has a personal connection to Bond, a role for which Boyle is looking to cast an A-lister and currently both taking and scheduling meetings with “the usual suspects”. Furthermore, there’s a young female MI6 agent Bond is mentoring: she may have been cast already.

Quote :

Sketchy stuff for now, but – again, we’re taking this all with a pinch of salt – it sounds like the kind of complete change of direction that will justify the ditching of whatever was in the Purvis and Wade script (which is doubtless going to keep Bond scholars occupied for years to come) and wash away that SPECTRE taste while giving Craig’s run as Bond a unique finale.
Plenty to talk about here: who are your picks to buy MGM, or your fantasy casting choices for these two female roles? And what is this villainess’ connection to Bond?

http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2018/04/04/now-pay-attention-bond-25-rumours

Hilarious. Another personal connection to Bond. 

I can already see the tagline: "This time, it's personal."

I'll only fix the above formatting issues if someone gives me an edit button.

First comment nails it:

Quote :

"a female villain..."
Cool.
"...who has a personal connection to Bond"
Oh goddammit.

If this is true, it'll mark 30 years of the 'this time it's personal' trope in the franchise ... IMO it can be said to have truly begun in LTK with Bond's revenge on Sanchez for what he does to Leiter and Della, and has featured in some way in almost every film since.

Time to rest it after Bond 25, methinks.

Gosh, that's rubbish!
The double-0 section is an elite section and, IIRC, in Fleming's novels, it only consists of 3 (!) agents (not the dozen you see in TB, the film). There are various interpretations what you need to have accomplished to be granted double-0 status, as Fleming leaves it open at two successful assignments, BUT there was NEVER, NEVER a mentoring programme. You have to be a trained agent to be granted double-0-status and a very good one, too.
Double-0 agents need to work undercover in extremely risky missions; they cannot drag a protegé along. "Do you see how I prepare to trick this man, or wait, just try,...no, no, you have to...oh, now he has seen us. Lesson's over...Have you read the chapter about how to run away and avoid explosions in your textbook? You haven't? Now I have to write to your parents...In case we survive this, that is".  

Female villain with a personal connection? Hahaha, it's obvious. Mr Wint was right. M comes back.
"You let me die in that stupid chapel in Scotland...". I have forgotten M in my list of female MI6 personnel Bond gets killed. I was shortly wondering if Madelaine goes dark (THAT would be nice), but if they're casting someone new; it can't be Madelaine.

But I find it interesting that the author is aware of the debate among Bond scholars...

Want to lay odds on it's Tracy that's the villain that's personal or some such along those lines?

I can be a great deal more persuasive, Countess.
-So can I, *gunshot*

etc

Kath wrote:

Gosh, that's rubbish!
The double-0 section is an elite section and, IIRC, in Fleming's novels, it only consists of 3 (!) agents (not the dozen you see in TB, the film). There are various interpretations what you need to have accomplished to be granted double-0 status, as Fleming leaves it open at two successful assignments, BUT there was NEVER, NEVER a mentoring programme. You have to be a trained agent to be granted double-0-status and a very good one, too.
Double-0 agents need to work undercover in extremely risky missions; they cannot drag a protegé along. "Do you see how I prepare to trick this man, or wait, just try,...no, no, you have to...oh, now he has seen us. Lesson's over...Have you read the chapter about how to run away and avoid explosions in your textbook? You haven't? Now I have to write to your parents...In case we survive this, that is".  

It doesn't specify a double-O agent, merely a MI6 agent.

G section wrote:

Kath wrote:

Gosh, that's rubbish!
The double-0 section is an elite section and, IIRC, in Fleming's novels, it only consists of 3 (!) agents (not the dozen you see in TB, the film). There are various interpretations what you need to have accomplished to be granted double-0 status, as Fleming leaves it open at two successful assignments, BUT there was NEVER, NEVER a mentoring programme. You have to be a trained agent to be granted double-0-status and a very good one, too.
Double-0 agents need to work undercover in extremely risky missions; they cannot drag a protegé along. "Do you see how I prepare to trick this man, or wait, just try,...no, no, you have to...oh, now he has seen us. Lesson's over...Have you read the chapter about how to run away and avoid explosions in your textbook? You haven't? Now I have to write to your parents...In case we survive this, that is".  

It doesn't specify a double-O agent, merely a MI6 agent.

My point is that you wouldn't chose one of three elite agents for the top secret highly dangerous missions for mentoring.

Kath wrote:

G section wrote:

Kath wrote:

Gosh, that's rubbish!
The double-0 section is an elite section and, IIRC, in Fleming's novels, it only consists of 3 (!) agents (not the dozen you see in TB, the film). There are various interpretations what you need to have accomplished to be granted double-0 status, as Fleming leaves it open at two successful assignments, BUT there was NEVER, NEVER a mentoring programme. You have to be a trained agent to be granted double-0-status and a very good one, too.
Double-0 agents need to work undercover in extremely risky missions; they cannot drag a protegé along. "Do you see how I prepare to trick this man, or wait, just try,...no, no, you have to...oh, now he has seen us. Lesson's over...Have you read the chapter about how to run away and avoid explosions in your textbook? You haven't? Now I have to write to your parents...In case we survive this, that is".  

It doesn't specify a double-O agent, merely a MI6 agent.

My point is that you wouldn't chose one of three elite agents for the top secret highly dangerous missions for mentoring.

I don't see the issue. Bond has often been accompanied by quite cumbersome and clumsy allies throughout the series.

Kath wrote:

G section wrote:

Kath wrote:

Gosh, that's rubbish!
The double-0 section is an elite section and, IIRC, in Fleming's novels, it only consists of 3 (!) agents (not the dozen you see in TB, the film). There are various interpretations what you need to have accomplished to be granted double-0 status, as Fleming leaves it open at two successful assignments, BUT there was NEVER, NEVER a mentoring programme. You have to be a trained agent to be granted double-0-status and a very good one, too.
Double-0 agents need to work undercover in extremely risky missions; they cannot drag a protegé along. "Do you see how I prepare to trick this man, or wait, just try,...no, no, you have to...oh, now he has seen us. Lesson's over...Have you read the chapter about how to run away and avoid explosions in your textbook? You haven't? Now I have to write to your parents...In case we survive this, that is".  

It doesn't specify a double-O agent, merely a MI6 agent.

My point is that you wouldn't chose one of three elite agents for the top secret highly dangerous missions for mentoring.

And yet you back Daniel Craig's version of Bond in CR?

Hilly KCMG wrote:

Want to lay odds on it's Tracy that's the villain that's personal or some such along those lines?

I can be a great deal more persuasive, Countess.
-So can I, *gunshot*

etc

Actually, I wonder if they're reusing the 'Bond thought he found a Tracy, but he actually found Blofeld' idea for Madeleine. Not sure I want a retcon job, but it would easily explain the schizophrenic nature of that "relationship".

Kath wrote:

There are various interpretations what you need to have accomplished to be granted double-0 status, as Fleming leaves it open at two successful assignments, BUT there was NEVER, NEVER a mentoring programme

James Bond 007 returns in THE MIDDLE MANAGERS ARE NOT ENOUGH.

Kath wrote:

FieldsMan wrote:

Hilly KCMG wrote:

Want to lay odds on it's Tracy that's the villain that's personal or some such along those lines?

I can be a great deal more persuasive, Countess.
-So can I, *gunshot*

etc

Actually, I wonder if they're reusing the 'Bond thought he found a Tracy, but he actually found Blofeld' idea for Madeleine. Not sure I want a retcon job, but it would easily explain the schizophrenic nature of that "relationship".

I was shortly wondering if Madelaine goes dark (THAT would be nice), but if they're casting someone new; it can't be Madelaine.

A Tracy after Madelaine? He has already quit service out of love for her.

G Section wrote:

I don't see the issue. Bond has often been accompanied by quite cumbersome and clumsy allies throughout the series.

Bumping into an inept ally is one thing, but starting out with an apprentice ridicules his position as top-notch agent of the MI 6.

FieldsMan wrote:

And yet you back Daniel Craig's version of Bond in CR?

That is entirely different. Craig-Bond IS the rookie instead of training one. And who has mentored Bond in the first place? If Bond didn't have a mentor, why is he supposed to be one? Where does this suddenly come from? This mentoring idea is simply a break with the fictional MI 6 universe, IMO. And it breaks quite nicely with CR, now that you mention it...
I simply dislike being sold an incoherent fictional universe.
Otherwise, to be honest, I do like the idea. It just doesn't fit into their framework. And it's a too plump repetition of the Moneypenny scenario...

FieldsMan wrote:

Hilly KCMG wrote:

Want to lay odds on it's Tracy that's the villain that's personal or some such along those lines?

I can be a great deal more persuasive, Countess.
-So can I, *gunshot*

etc

Actually, I wonder if they're reusing the 'Bond thought he found a Tracy, but he actually found Blofeld' idea for Madeleine. Not sure I want a retcon job, but it would easily explain the schizophrenic nature of that "relationship".

As I have already said, they have ruined that by casting someone new...

I mustn't have been clear, Kath. I meant that for Elektra, Eon's idea was that Bond thinks he might have found someone who he could love in Elektra, but it turns out that she's actually the villain of the piece. Since Eon seem to be recycling plot ideas from TWINE, they might reuse that idea for Madeleine, in that they heavily suggest Bond is in love with her (not sure why, I might add), and now in Bond 25 they might try paint her as the villain which would explain Bond coming out of retirement (as suggested by the ending of SP). 

Not saying any of this is good or attractive, but I wouldn't put it passed Eon given the recent era of Bond. 

Of course this is all speculation, considering it's based on the word of a "source", but it makes sense, considering they're trying to tie Craig's run as Bond into one long arc, make everything personal (what's more personal than his "love" being the villain?) and that the villain would be female in the next piece. 

The article says that they already have cast one of the girls - of course they have, if it's Lea Seydoux from SP. 

Kath wrote:

That is entirely different. Craig-Bond IS the rookie instead of training one. And who has mentored Bond in the first place? If Bond didn't have a mentor, why is he supposed to be one? Where does this suddenly come from? This mentoring idea is simply a break with the fictional MI 6 universe, IMO. And it breaks quite nicely with CR, now that you mention it...
I simply dislike being sold an incoherent fictional universe. 
Otherwise, to be honest, I do like the idea. It just doesn't fit into their framework. And it's a too plump repetition of the Moneypenny scenario...

Bond should not have ever been a rookie in the 00 section! Since you're hellbent on keeping everything "Flemingesque", that angle was never in the original novel, so the film automatically breaks Fleming's vision in the film. You don't like being sold on an incoherent fictional universe, and yet you happily clap along for CR06? Can you see how confusing this is? 

And as G Section says, she might not be a 00 Agent, but a regular agent; a field agent.

I'm not terribly keen on Bond being a baby sitter either (and you're right, it did evoke memories of Moneypenny in SF), but it's something different that might work. Might also help petulant Craig Bond grow up himself, actually.

FieldsMan wrote:

I mustn't have been clear, Kath. I meant that for Elektra, Eon's idea was that Bond thinks he might have found someone who he could love in Elektra, but it turns out that she's actually the villain of the piece. Since Eon seem to be recycling plot ideas from TWINE, they might reuse that idea for Madeleine, in that they heavily suggest Bond is in love with her (not sure why, I might add), and now in Bond 25 they might try paint her as the villain which would explain Bond coming out of retirement (as suggested by the ending of SP). 

Not saying any of this is good or attractive, but I wouldn't put it passed Eon given the recent era of Bond. 

Of course this is all speculation, considering it's based on the word of a "source", but it makes sense, considering they're trying to tie Craig's run as Bond into one long arc, make everything personal (what's more personal than his "love" being the villain?) and that the villain would be female in the next piece. 

The article says that they already have cast one of the girls - of course they have, if it's Lea Seydoux from SP. 

Kath wrote:

That is entirely different. Craig-Bond IS the rookie instead of training one. And who has mentored Bond in the first place? If Bond didn't have a mentor, why is he supposed to be one? Where does this suddenly come from? This mentoring idea is simply a break with the fictional MI 6 universe, IMO. And it breaks quite nicely with CR, now that you mention it...
I simply dislike being sold an incoherent fictional universe. 
Otherwise, to be honest, I do like the idea. It just doesn't fit into their framework. And it's a too plump repetition of the Moneypenny scenario...

Bond should not have ever been a rookie in the 00 section! Since you're hellbent on keeping everything "Flemingesque", that angle was never in the original novel, so the film automatically breaks Fleming's vision in the film. You don't like being sold on an incoherent fictional universe, and yet you happily clap along for CR06? Can you see how confusing this is? 

And as G Section says, she might not be a 00 Agent, but a regular agent; a field agent.

I'm not terribly keen on Bond being a baby sitter either (and you're right, it did evoke memories of Moneypenny in SF), but it's something different that might work. Might also help petulant Craig Bond grow up himself, actually.

No, I did know that you were referring to Elektra. I had just understood the article otherwise. I thought the article says that the actress playing Bond's "student" may have already been casted which means that they are looking for a new actress to play the female villain. That means in turn that it can't be Madelaine. I have suggested something very similar (Madelaine going dark); but my understanding of the article forbids this constellation.
I agree with you, it would make much more sense to re-cast someone who has already been introduced in the series before. But, since the women around Craig-Bond are prone to dying, the only remaining candidates are Madelaine, Camile and Moneypenny...
And, I agree, Madelaine is the best candidate for a personal connection.

But I am sure there is a misunderstanding, or, better, a different use of definitions here.
What do you mean by "fictional universe"? "Bond" as a whole?
No, that's not what I mean. Let's go to Star Trek. We have Star Trek original, TNG, Voyager etc. etc. etc.
But we also have the new film series starting with Star Trek:Beyond which depicts an alternative timeline for young Kirk, Spock & Co in wich Spock's parents and pretty much all of Vulcan have died. So, you can't have Spock mourning his father in the original series and you cannot have Spock visiting his parents in the new film series.
In the newest Pirates of the Caribbean-film we see that a very young Sparrow receives his magical compass from a dying captain. Problem being, in PotC 2 we are told that the magical compass was a gift of Tia Dalma.

That's the kind of mistake you must avoid at all costs. Conflicting narrative elements within the same narrative.

So, I'll have to go now, but I'll answer the rest later.

FieldsMan wrote:

Kath wrote:

That is entirely different. Craig-Bond IS the rookie instead of training one. And who has mentored Bond in the first place? If Bond didn't have a mentor, why is he supposed to be one? Where does this suddenly come from? This mentoring idea is simply a break with the fictional MI 6 universe, IMO. And it breaks quite nicely with CR, now that you mention it...
I simply dislike being sold an incoherent fictional universe. 
Otherwise, to be honest, I do like the idea. It just doesn't fit into their framework. And it's a too plump repetition of the Moneypenny scenario...

Bond should not have ever been a rookie in the 00 section! Since you're hellbent on keeping everything "Flemingesque", that angle was never in the original novel, so the film automatically breaks Fleming's vision in the film. You don't like being sold on an incoherent fictional universe, and yet you happily clap along for CR06? Can you see how confusing this is? 

And as G Section says, she might not be a 00 Agent, but a regular agent; a field agent.

I'm not terribly keen on Bond being a baby sitter either (and you're right, it did evoke memories of Moneypenny in SF), but it's something different that might work. Might also help petulant Craig Bond grow up himself, actually.

Now I am confused. As far as I remember Cr 06, Bond finishes his mission and is granted his double 0-status afterwards.
He is a "rookie" in the meaning that he has freshly acquired his double-0 status. Then we start with the plot of CR. I mean, we are told in CR, the novel, that Bond has required his status prior to the narrated events. I do not see that much of a conflict between novel and book here. In fact, I see none. Where is the conflict between film and novel?
I let CR 06 count as a faithful adaption with the odd change here and there. Show me the filmic adaption that has not changed one or more details in the narrative or setting or whatever. Some changes are even necessary to make an adaption work and some adaptions are only good adaptions because they do change things. Filming page after page of a novel may lead to a horrible film after all; so you need some changes to translate the essence, the air, the life of a novel to the screen. And, there is the case of Atomic Blonde which has a better story-line than its original, the graphic novel The Coldest City , IMO.
And, when you have weird cross-overs between adaption and something entirely different in the same series, like YOLT /YOLT, I'd say CR 06 counts a very faithful adaption.

So, my point was that CR shows us how to become a double-0 agent. And, leave all that rookie and field agent and whatever stuff aside, Bond was working on his own. He was entering on his own the embassy and he has acquired his double-0 status while working on his own. Why is this new agent given a different treatment? Why is her apprenticeship different from Bond's? That's smells to me like that break of narrative I have described above. If they have already established what the "apprenticeship" of a double-0 agent looks like,d they have to stick to it now. Whether we like that or not. There is no mentoring for a double-0.
And, if our student-lady was a normal operative, it makes even less sense to assign her to a double-0.

As I said, I do like the idea, yet I cannot reconcile it with the already established narrative. I see the Craig cycle as the fictional universe in question and they better stick to it. Don't give us the magical compass debacle of PotC. And, to erase every possibility to ever patch this up they have introduced the new rule that Sparrow is bound to the compass and as soon as he parts with it a certain horrible character played by Javier Bardem with a disfigured face is released from his prison ( ). I only mention this because this script was reworked, as far as I know, and that's what came out of it. Because you believe that reworking the script of SP might have helped. If you actually have to do a new script because the first one was turned down by Disney, why do you include such avoidable mistakes?

And, I am surprised you're not going up in flames yet that the P&W script has been turned down? Has someone hacked your account?

Kath wrote:

That is entirely different. Craig-Bond IS the rookie instead of training one. And who has mentored Bond in the first place? If Bond didn't have a mentor, why is he supposed to be one? Where does this suddenly come from? This mentoring idea is simply a break with the fictional MI 6 universe, IMO. And it breaks quite nicely with CR, now that you mention it...
I simply dislike being sold an incoherent fictional universe.
Otherwise, to be honest, I do like the idea. It just doesn't fit into their framework. And it's a too plump repetition of the Moneypenny scenario...

Bond mentoring a female MI6 agent may simply be an attempt to create a James Bond "universe" that had been mentioned a few months ago in the news, where other characters in Bond's life would get expanded backstory and more screen time in a possible attempt to spin-off their characters into their own movies (as was quietly attempted with both Wai Lin and Jinx, but never got too far into preproduction).
Couldn't the woman with the "personal connection" simply be Lucia?

Considering that "Wonder Woman" did well and that "Black Panther" became one of the most successful Marvel films ever (Only "Marvel's The Avengers" is still ahead of it at this point), EON might become more open to both the idea of a spin-off about a female field agent and a black James Bond. They have a history of just copying what appears to be popular at the time, after all.

The James Bond series will never truly be progressive until the protagonist believes they are the opposite gender to the one their sex organ is most commonly associated with.

Because it's 2018.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Bond mentoring a female MI6 agent may simply be an attempt to create a James Bond "universe" that had been mentioned a few months ago in the news, where other characters in Bond's life would get expanded backstory and more screen time in a possible attempt to spin-off their characters into their own movies

Yes, good point.

FieldsMan wrote:

It's all speculation Kath..... But what I want to make clear is that I never did I say it would make sense to recast Madeleine. How did you get that?

I'm sorry if I mistook you. I thought you were not opposed to it, just unsure about it.

But, you want me to get your points straight and downright ignore mine? Is that your idea of a "discussion"?
You demand a correct understanding of your points of me and say in the same breath that you don't care about mine?

FieldsMan wrote:

What do I mean by fictional universe? Check your previous post for context - I'm only responding to you. I've never seen any Star Trek and don't care for POTC, so I'm not going to go down that rabbit hole with you.

You are not responding to me if you mistake my definition.
Easy version:
A fictional universe can consist of two sentences.
"Paul is 8 years old. Paul likes soccer."
"Paul has watched soccer for 19 years" breaks the universe. An 8-year old cannot have been watching soccer for 19 years.
The fictional universe, here, is the set of rules, the logical construction behind a narrative. The glue that keeps it together.
As far as I see it you're talking about a Marvel-scenario. No, wrong kind of "universe".
If you don't go down that rabbit hole we cannot continue this discussion.

FieldsMan wrote:

Reread CR and come back to me.

What am I to you that you think you can order me around?
I am not your student.
First I do not need to re-read the novel and second I will certainly not come back at your bidding.
What the hell?

FieldsMan wrote:

There is never any inference that Bond is a rookie in Fleming's CR. Changing details is fine - DN, FRWL, GF, TB, etc. all did it very well. Padding a film out with dreary, contrived drama for Bond to go on a personal journey, ridding the narrative of it's palpable atmosphere, completely revising the tone of the piece - tone being arguably the most important factor here - does not equate to a faithful adaptation. As far as I'm concerned, CR06 takes a the very basic premise of bankrupting Le Chiffre at the tables and falling for Vesper, and a couple of character names and that's it. And even then, Bond's love for Vesper is so inadequately handled that it shouldn't even count.

You forget the torturing scene, the beginning friendship with Felix Leiter (which is very well adapted, come on!), the faked abduction of Vesper, the short yet happy holidays and her subsequent betrayal, her suicide, and the powerful ending "The b*tch is dead".
No, the novel does not imply that Bond is a "rookie", but it is a start for many things, like the friendship with Leiter, the failed planned marriage (Bond does want to marry Vesper, as you know very well as you claim to know the novel better than I do), and it is the start of "Bond". CR is the first novel of the series. How would you make clear to an audience mostly ignorant of Fleming that this film was based on the first novel?


[quote=FieldsMan"]A normal operative working alongside a 00 is much easier to stomach [/quote]

Exactly. A normal operative. Not a student.

FieldsMan wrote:

than Bond being totally inept at his job that he has to learn his way through it in CR, when the very story was told in a novel and the same plot points reached without M telling Bond that "any thug can kill" after he breaks into her apartment, or storms an embassy and doesn't consider checking for cameras (and worse, attacking a civilian), or becoming himself by being dressed by a woman who loathes him.

We have had that discussion before, remember?
I told you that Fleming's Bond is reckless. And he's not exactly Sherlock Holmes. In LALD he's warned not to enter Soho because it was Gallia's home turf which ends in the abduction of Bond and Felix. Bond has knowingly ignored a warning as well as his orders (something like let Mr. Big alone, we have a Live and Let Live policy with him...) and it results in disaster. Do you know what the disaster looks like? Bond gets his little finger of the left hand broken and THEN he's completely unable to sleep with Solitaire because of the severe injury. Re-read LALD if you don't believe me. Don't challenge me with the novels. Fleming purist and all that. In YOLT he has amnesia and forgets what sex is, still one of my highlights. I sometimes wonder if Fleming lived in love-hate relationship with Bond...
Take FRWL. Bond's vanity messes up a whole operation and his hubris and recklessness get him KILLED.
I don't give too much on that suit. Vesper has her revenge because he has brought her a dress in the first place. That's a gender-based joke. Bond wants his Bond girl to look beautiful and stunning, Bond-girl gives Bond different clothing in return. They both dress each other. It's humorous and I wouldn't give too much to it.

[quote=FieldsMan"]If you're having a hard time stomaching any of this, perhaps you should look at the dud in the series that already has been - CR06.[/quote]

I have told you, again, and again, that first I do not spent my nights weeping if you don't share in my preferences and second that I have no beef with you if you prefer the Brosnan era. Fine.
I start to think that we see different things in the Fleming novels and that's why we have a different feeling of what a good adaption is. Fleming was a genius author, with many layers, many aspects, many "everythings". There cannot be only ONE reading and ONE faithful adaption. It breaks my heart that so few research articles are devoted to Fleming's novels.

FieldsMan wrote:

RE: Purvis and Wade's script, you know, I'd much rather Babs get her experimental phase out of her system and save Purvis and Wade's script for a Bond actor who wants to be there. Their ideas shouldn't be wasted on Craig.

I'm really getting tired of "conversation" if that's what it looks like.

Lemme guess.
A ripoff of Nena Blofeld from Gardner's For Special Services since Col. Sun was ripped off in SP.
The young agent trainee happens to be Mary Goodnight.

EoN in the modern era: trying every dumb basic idea you can think of and then some. If it's completely obvious or has been done better they will do it slipshod.
And I used to think Benson novels were at times like overdone film scripts. Good grief! If they just did a word for word Benson novel adaptation it would be hailed as the best Bond film in 30 years.

Maybe Bond's student will become the villain?



Personal connection: check

Only one actress casted yet: check

Motivation to hate Bond: check (well, that's easy enough to imagine depending on how it goes)

Ultra dangerous: check (Bond's student will have learned the one thing or other and has insider MI 6 knowledge plus knowledge about Bond's Achilles heel...she might even know Bond's equipment, similar to Triple X, only that she can easily steal the equipment in imitation of her teacher who has stolen the car of 009)

New twist: check

Bond's nemesis; more dangerous than Blofeld: check (how about an evil Bond equal?)