If Babs & co gave you carte blanche...

If you got carte blanche from EON to make whatever kind of Bond film you wanted for Bond 26, what would it be like?

I'm talking casting, plot, setting, tone, ...

Exotic, the way you were describing Thunderball. Focus on the directing and cinematography so if the plot is rather average, which many are, it's still enjoyable to rewatch the movie. It's a nice world to revisit. With Craig all I really remember is too much grey.
I didn't like the period piece idea at first but could go with that now. Connery tone.

Casting:
Bond is played by someone who is conceivably similar to the man as written by Fleming, though I will yield on eye colour because I'm reasonable.

Plot:
Bad things happen, Bond given mission to investigate, Bond meets girl(s), Bond uncovers villain's plot, Bond wins without getting blown up in the end.

Setting:
Places you might actually like to be. Colour, exoticism, romance.

Tone:
A movie aimed at making its red-blooded audience have fun and enjoy themselves, rather than bonking them on the head with melodrama and preachiness.

Simples.

*Points at the films between '62 and '02*

That. Do that again. I'm not down on all of Craig at all, but ...

Give us fun (there's surely a middle ground between the goofiest bits of Moore and the gloomiest bits of Craig ... aim for that) escapist action-adventures that let us forget our troubles for a couple of hours like those first 40 years, which managed to entertain audiences all over the world of differing nationalities, ethnicities, political and religious persuasions and I daresay even differing sexualities without particularly going out of their way to overly pander to any of them (in fact, quite the opposite).

No more 'this time it's personal' (it's now been a part of every film since LTK. Enough already).

M/Q/Moneypenny's (and indeed Bond's) lives outside of 'the office' ... we saw very little of same back in the day, and we were fine with this. Bond and Penny's exchange about her theatre date in GE is as far as that type of thing need go.

No more of Bond's/the 00 section's supposed irrelevance in the modern day. What more evidence do you need that the world still has powerful megalomaniacs in it who need to be kept in check than Putin's actions this year?

Pick theme song artists more carefully. Smith and Eilish were disastrous.

A big question.

For now I will say I think the most useful thing they could do in conceiving of the plot is to go back and re-read Live and Let Die and Doctor No. Then read some Conan Doyle and Haggard and Verne.

I'd like to see something in that pure adventure style. Pirates, voodoo, zombies, giant squid. That stuff.

Of course, the most obvious response to the thread title is 'I don't want to see a movie of what was just an OK novel'.

Thang yew, thang yew. Here all week.

Another idea: pick one location and have Bond go there for much of the film. Like Jamaica in DN or Istanbul in FRWL. The travelogue aspect of the films has naturally faded since the golden age of travel. Globetrotting doesn't feel as it once did. So let's spend more time soaking up a single locale and building a world.

Somerset wrote:

Another idea: pick one location and have Bond go there for much of the film. Like Jamaica in DN or Istanbul in FRWL. The travelogue aspect of the films has naturally faded since the golden age of travel. Globetrotting doesn't feel as it once did. So let's spend more time soaking up a single locale and building a world.

FWIW, the Moonraker novel did that (set entirely in England) and it may be Fleming's best. But literature and film are very different things. Still, it might make for an interesting cinematic experience.

Somerset wrote:

Another idea: pick one location and have Bond go there for much of the film. Like Jamaica in DN or Istanbul in FRWL. The travelogue aspect of the films has naturally faded since the golden age of travel. Globetrotting doesn't feel as it once did. So let's spend more time soaking up a single locale and building a world.

I'm onboard with this.

Perhaps NTTD's relative sexlessness was a tribute to Bond failing to get his leg over in the MR novel.

Blunt Instrument wrote:

Perhaps NTTD's relative sexlessness was a tribute to Bond failing to get his leg over in the MR novel.  

The book at least mentions the three married women Bond is seeing, at least as I recall (most Bond background for me seems to come from this book and the Pearson 'Bio of 007' so I sometimes confuse them), so there's at least the impression of an active sex life, even if not with Gala. Given Paloma's response to him, I'm thinking any spinoff film with her might be called (AT LAST) SOME TIME TO BALL.

Blunt Instrument wrote:

Perhaps NTTD's relative sexlessness was a tribute to Bond failing to get his leg over in the MR novel.  

Alas, what it was actually about, is what Babs terms Bond's "evolution" into the lifeless, corporatised automaton he must be to be permitted to exist in our current social climate.

Indeed. Taking his pleasures where he can because the next day might well be his last is no longer acceptable, it seems.

Extraordinary to think that Skyfall was a mere decade ago and the writers had no qualms about featuring a character who was an ex-sex worker who (after she'd moved the plot along and got banged by Bond) was bodybag-ready soon afterwards.

2012 may as well be 1962 for those who would have you believe that history began last week.

Blunt Instrument wrote:

Indeed. Taking his pleasures where he can because the next day might well be his last is no longer acceptable, it seems.

Extraordinary to think that Skyfall was a mere decade ago and the writers had no qualms about featuring a character who was an ex-sex worker who (after she'd moved the plot along and got banged by Bond) was bodybag-ready soon afterwards.  

Perhaps the only actress of the Craig era who truly enjoyed being a Bond girl (until Ana de Armas at least).

Day one: The clapperboard says "BOND 21". The message is clear because Bond's cinematic throne has to be reclaimed from the imitators and chiefly from Mission Impossible who stole the public's focus Ghost Protocol onwards. Audiences need to marvel or be swept up into a tightly woven Bond adventure once more.
No CG. None. At all. Period. Every dime goes on the screen, everything is for real. It can be done. It should be done. Bond is the quality standard or at least was. Let's prove the naysayers wrong and do it right. Quality takes time and money but most of all care.  
Shot on film. Finished on film. First to be cut on film since Goldeneye.

The greatest focus is on the script. Enormous time to be spent on it. It's time to call on Bond voices who know something about plotting for Bond and what makes the stories work. Get everyone in a room like the old days to hash out the general idea. Raymond Benson absolutely needs to be in the writer's room alongside probably Charlie Higson as well. It's time to stop being so afraid to be inspired by the continuation novels. And to finally, finally, finally ask why are Purvis and Wade still here?
The story is the thing. If it turns out to be a smaller scale story so be it. Things need to work and be devoted to the sprit of the material again instead of being big or lavish or globetrotting or look at our billion dollar box office. If the story isn't there it's all crap. There's a reason why Dr. No will still be magical in 500 years when NTTD is forgotten and buried and seen as a strange artifact.

The next thing after the writing is the editing. Two hour runtime or less. You're not making an epic. It must follow the Peter Hunt doctrine. It must have and maintain the Bond energy otherwise the film is pointless. This doesn't mean quick cut nonsense of today. This means real, honest to goodness editing that is like a bolt of energy.

The music is allowed to serve it's proper purpose as Bond's internal monologue again. A real honest to goodness Bond score developed over time, properly spotted with themes and the composer is allowed to write the theme song as it always should be. And because I'm getting to write this: it's recorded to tape in a proper sounding fantastic studio just like it used to be.

The director cannot be a hired gun. Cannot. It has to not just be a fan, but someone who lives and breathes the character, who knows the magic of Bond and gets ALL sides of the world. The light and the dark, the spycraft and the fantasy. For lack of a better term someone who understands pulp storytelling. Someone who knows the flavors brought to the mix by all the legendary crew members who made the series what it is. Besides me (yes, I'm tooting my own horn. This is my soapbox anyway.) I don't know who there is to fill this gaping hole.
If all else fails it has to be someone who can ask the big question when unsure of what do to: "How would Terence Young do it?"

I can keep going with this as I do in my head on almost a daily basis. Ultimately it must believe in the character and what Fleming created which hasn't happened in many years. These are still stories of the fantastic, thrillers to make the dullness of life seem for an instant slightly more palatable. They are to be aimed at somewhere between the solar plexus and the upper thigh. Or between a one liner and a raised eyebrow. They are to be filled with suspense, action, drama and a good dose of sensuality. The cocktail mixture can be dissected but it is a Herculean task to get right. One has to hope it can be done again. To quote good old Algernon:
"Things have been awfully dull round here....."

If I could cut the trailer as I've done so many times in my head it would focus on the key phrase and then some. The tagline for the film and the tagline for every film should be the same thing. The words to quicken the pulse of every audience member:
James Bond is BACK

To which for old times sake I would most certainly add: IN ACTION
Accompanied by Barry's 007 theme for the first time since 1979.

Yes, agree with all of that.

hegottheboot wrote:

Day one: The clapperboard says "BOND 21". The message is clear because Bond's cinematic throne has to be reclaimed from the imitators and chiefly from Mission Impossible who stole the public's focus Ghost Protocol onwards. Audiences need to marvel or be swept up into a tightly woven Bond adventure once more.
No CG. None. At all. Period. Every dime goes on the screen, everything is for real. It can be done. It should be done. Bond is the quality standard or at least was. Let's prove the naysayers wrong and do it right. Quality takes time and money but most of all care.  
Shot on film. Finished on film. First to be cut on film since Goldeneye.

The greatest focus is on the script. Enormous time to be spent on it. It's time to call on Bond voices who know something about plotting for Bond and what makes the stories work. Get everyone in a room like the old days to hash out the general idea. Raymond Benson absolutely needs to be in the writer's room alongside probably Charlie Higson as well. It's time to stop being so afraid to be inspired by the continuation novels. And to finally, finally, finally ask why are Purvis and Wade still here?
The story is the thing. If it turns out to be a smaller scale story so be it. Things need to work and be devoted to the sprit of the material again instead of being big or lavish or globetrotting or look at our billion dollar box office. If the story isn't there it's all crap. There's a reason why Dr. No will still be magical in 500 years when NTTD is forgotten and buried and seen as a strange artifact.

The next thing after the writing is the editing. Two hour runtime or less. You're not making an epic. It must follow the Peter Hunt doctrine. It must have and maintain the Bond energy otherwise the film is pointless. This doesn't mean quick cut nonsense of today. This means real, honest to goodness editing that is like a bolt of energy.

The music is allowed to serve it's proper purpose as Bond's internal monologue again. A real honest to goodness Bond score developed over time, properly spotted with themes and the composer is allowed to write the theme song as it always should be. And because I'm getting to write this: it's recorded to tape in a proper sounding fantastic studio just like it used to be.

The director cannot be a hired gun. Cannot. It has to not just be a fan, but someone who lives and breathes the character, who knows the magic of Bond and gets ALL sides of the world. The light and the dark, the spycraft and the fantasy. For lack of a better term someone who understands pulp storytelling. Someone who knows the flavors brought to the mix by all the legendary crew members who made the series what it is. Besides me (yes, I'm tooting my own horn. This is my soapbox anyway.) I don't know who there is to fill this gaping hole.
If all else fails it has to be someone who can ask the big question when unsure of what do to: "How would Terence Young do it?"

I can keep going with this as I do in my head on almost a daily basis. Ultimately it must believe in the character and what Fleming created which hasn't happened in many years. These are still stories of the fantastic, thrillers to make the dullness of life seem for an instant slightly more palatable. They are to be aimed at somewhere between the solar plexus and the upper thigh. Or between a one liner and a raised eyebrow. They are to be filled with suspense, action, drama and a good dose of sensuality. The cocktail mixture can be dissected but it is a Herculean task to get right. One has to hope it can be done again. To quote good old Algernon:
"Things have been awfully dull round here....."

If I could cut the trailer as I've done so many times in my head it would focus on the key phrase and then some. The tagline for the film and the tagline for every film should be the same thing. The words to quicken the pulse of every audience member:
James Bond is BACK

To which for old times sake I would most certainly add: IN ACTION
Accompanied by Barry's 007 theme for the first time since 1979.

It was so great to wake up and read that, knowing somebody else absolutely 'gets it.' Where else but on this board?

hegottheboot wrote:

Day one: The clapperboard says "BOND 21". The message is clear because Bond's cinematic throne has to be reclaimed from the imitators and chiefly from Mission Impossible who stole the public's focus Ghost Protocol onwards. Audiences need to marvel or be swept up into a tightly woven Bond adventure once more.
No CG. None. At all. Period. Every dime goes on the screen, everything is for real. It can be done. It should be done. Bond is the quality standard or at least was. Let's prove the naysayers wrong and do it right. Quality takes time and money but most of all care.  
Shot on film. Finished on film. First to be cut on film since Goldeneye.

The greatest focus is on the script. Enormous time to be spent on it. It's time to call on Bond voices who know something about plotting for Bond and what makes the stories work. Get everyone in a room like the old days to hash out the general idea. Raymond Benson absolutely needs to be in the writer's room alongside probably Charlie Higson as well. It's time to stop being so afraid to be inspired by the continuation novels. And to finally, finally, finally ask why are Purvis and Wade still here?
The story is the thing. If it turns out to be a smaller scale story so be it. Things need to work and be devoted to the sprit of the material again instead of being big or lavish or globetrotting or look at our billion dollar box office. If the story isn't there it's all crap. There's a reason why Dr. No will still be magical in 500 years when NTTD is forgotten and buried and seen as a strange artifact.

The next thing after the writing is the editing. Two hour runtime or less. You're not making an epic. It must follow the Peter Hunt doctrine. It must have and maintain the Bond energy otherwise the film is pointless. This doesn't mean quick cut nonsense of today. This means real, honest to goodness editing that is like a bolt of energy.

The music is allowed to serve it's proper purpose as Bond's internal monologue again. A real honest to goodness Bond score developed over time, properly spotted with themes and the composer is allowed to write the theme song as it always should be. And because I'm getting to write this: it's recorded to tape in a proper sounding fantastic studio just like it used to be.

The director cannot be a hired gun. Cannot. It has to not just be a fan, but someone who lives and breathes the character, who knows the magic of Bond and gets ALL sides of the world. The light and the dark, the spycraft and the fantasy. For lack of a better term someone who understands pulp storytelling. Someone who knows the flavors brought to the mix by all the legendary crew members who made the series what it is. Besides me (yes, I'm tooting my own horn. This is my soapbox anyway.) I don't know who there is to fill this gaping hole.
If all else fails it has to be someone who can ask the big question when unsure of what do to: "How would Terence Young do it?"

I can keep going with this as I do in my head on almost a daily basis. Ultimately it must believe in the character and what Fleming created which hasn't happened in many years. These are still stories of the fantastic, thrillers to make the dullness of life seem for an instant slightly more palatable. They are to be aimed at somewhere between the solar plexus and the upper thigh. Or between a one liner and a raised eyebrow. They are to be filled with suspense, action, drama and a good dose of sensuality. The cocktail mixture can be dissected but it is a Herculean task to get right. One has to hope it can be done again. To quote good old Algernon:
"Things have been awfully dull round here....."

If I could cut the trailer as I've done so many times in my head it would focus on the key phrase and then some. The tagline for the film and the tagline for every film should be the same thing. The words to quicken the pulse of every audience member:
James Bond is BACK

To which for old times sake I would most certainly add: IN ACTION
Accompanied by Barry's 007 theme for the first time since 1979.

Great stuff.

The bit about having Benson and Higson in the room particularly.

Regarding the director, as you yourself recognized...who the hell fits that description nowadays? If they exist I have a feeling they are in television rather than features.

Going through your post made me realize just how unlikely it is that the next film is anything like the first twenty.

put hegottheboot in charge

I've been spending an inordinate amount of downtime thinking about this, trying to figure out what the middle ground could be branching Babs' view of things and what most of us want to see.

With no small trepidation on my part, I'm now considering the notion of some modest character development in a new Bond -- stuff that doesn't have its origin in Fleming. That might be enough of a sop to her -- without treading too heavily on the essential Bond character.

That spec PTS I've written and rewritten a few times in the last couple of months keeps getting longer and longer -- originally barely three minutes, now playing more like eight -- as I put more of a lead-in with the agent-long-in-place trying to get across the border before Bond's intervention. As I worked on it again, I realized I was essentially trying to create with broad brushstrokes a woman who was very much Bond's equal -- not in a cliche PR way, but in showing resourcefulness and focus, so when she reaches an OHMSS-skating-rink-level exhaustion when confronted by tanks, it's an earned moment, one that then has tremendous emotional satisfaction as she 'revives' upon catching sight of this apparent salvation from above.

I haven't time to fully get into this right now so I'll come back to it in a day or so, but the gist is that in the next couple of minutes, Bond, who we have to assume knows something of this woman's history even if they've never met, realizes he has met his total equal -- and knows in his bones that isn't going to happen again. How much of the main story will touch on this is a big question. More later.

Thanks for the positive response guys. This is the only place where I can cut loose and openly speak my endless Bond theorizing. Anywhere else they get out the pitchforks and most have no idea about the people who made the films or the novels themselves.

I think before going into convoluted story territory again that the foundation MUST be reestablished. It’s time to show the world how it’s done once again. Whether you want to label it a LALD or FYEO in terms of being more straightforward with action emphasis it has now been 25 years since there has been an even somewhat traditional Bond film in theaters. 25 years of experimentation has yielded…not much and enormous wasted potential. And the series has to reclaim its place in public awareness.
The goal should be to top the M:I sequels at every turn. Throw down the gauntlet because no one else will.

I say this and have so many sequence ideas and bits and bobs in my head I continue to tweak. The absolute hardest thing is finding a plot. Once you get the plot and villain the story begins to grow.
I’ve had the ending for a Bond film for years but finding how to build up to it is tough. The easy solution is to pull from the continuation novels.

The absolute first thing I’d do is an extremely taut PTS. It’s a lost art and it is absolutely critical to grab the audience at the outset and never let go.

You didn't think NTTD's PTS was taut?!