Well, then let’s change “writers” to “storytellers,” to include producers. I still say it’s a generational thing. Micheal is no spring chicken, and I guess Babs isn’t that far behind, but the “start the story over” approach never gained any traction when Cubby was around.
I do recall reading somewhere that MGW pitched it for TLD, but Cubby said no.
2 Likes
So as to the original thread question…let me see.
I don’t think we’ll see a SC, Laz, or TD style intro, with snippet camera shots before we see the actor’s face. And the Sir Rog day of leaving Bond out of the PTS will forever be a one-off. I think we’ll see something more in-line with the CR intro rather than GE - a shortish PTS, lighter on action and heavier on dialogue. For better or worse, this era has redefined somewhat the “resume requirements” for the next actor, and so I think the intro will establish the next Bond’s “character” more so than whether or not they can throw a punch.
As an aside, I enjoyed the CR PTS as it was distinctly 60s in its vibe. I do miss the days of the shorter, punchier PTS. I’m a GF, TB type of PTS rather than the mini-movie OP or TWINE. Just a personal taste thing.
2 Likes
I was actually thinking the opposite. Since a lot of cinema right now is fuelled by nostalgia I think the time is right for for a more old school introduction with a clear throwback to earlier films. In fact I’m going completely against what you aid as the PTS I’m envisioning is very much a mini-movie (or possibly walking in at the climax). We get a quick shot of the back of our new Bond’s head as he infiltrates the lair, quick shot of his hands as he incapacitates a henchman, all leading up to the big reveal (maybe accompanied by a “Bond, James Bond”).
I have never been a fan of origin stories.
Even back in '89, the Batman series had to spend half the film telling everyone where the Penguin came from, where the Joker came from. It felt like padding.
30 years later and my opinion hasn’t changed. I felt like Casino Royale would have worked just as well with Brosnan in situ. And if an origin for this story was needed, a younger actor could have done the b/w bits.
And so to the next Bond where, I can only hope, the Producers might be making some use of the downtime (fatigue from the last Bond notwithstanding) to commission scripts for the next film and the next actor.
I have also not been entirely convinced with all the familial aspects to the Craig era especially, as above, it really plays with the timeline and whether or not, Craig’s stint really is in its own universe. The oft mentioned inclusion of the DB5 and how that transitioned from a poker win and it then later having MI6 gadgets.
I would like to see stories standing or falling on their own merits. No back stories.
My two heroes were written by authors who felt no need to provide origins. Bond and the Saint. These heroes came into the world fully formed and bloody terrific. Producers and directors who come into the fray feeling the need to provide something as a back story serve to provide only their undoing. In my not so very humble opinion.
A long winded preface but to answer the question, leave him out of camera shot for as long as humanly possible. And let the story provide clues to character. Not, ‘his mother’s a bitch so that’s why he’s a bastard.’ …sort of thing.
1 Like
Since any actor taking over will be in the spotlight before the film is shot, I would consider it pointless to hide him for long or at all in the PTS.
Just start with him, give him a great entry - we all know the new guy is now James Bond. And then, let him do his thing.
This was my issue with TLD. It seems like it was made for a person who had somehow come across the film without seeing any of TLD’s marketing which seems…implausible.
2 Likes
Highly
Who knows what they do for Bond #7, but I like the delayed introductions of new Bond actors. The big filmic reveal is what we’re all waiting to see, and it only happens once. So I have no problem in them playing up to that sense of theatre and making the new man’s first shot something to remember.
3 Likes
I totally agree. It just confirms that this mysterious guy is special–and he is because he’s the new James Bond. I wish they would have given Roger Moore a similar introduction. His intro, though fine, pales in comparison to all the other Bonds.
2 Likes
I would also prefer the approach of keeping Bond’s face hidden for as long as possible. Perhaps, to distance the new incarnation from Craig’s more personal style of films, they could show Bond doing something really cool or really brutal, before showing his face, and have that called out by another person on screen before cutting to Bond with a line like “just doing my job” or something to show that this is (hopefully) going to be a Bond that is less focused on the personal elements and more focused on just the job.
2 Likes
I like the job approach. With Craig so much of it was personal that the job sometimes seemed to feature only accidentally. Coming at it from a less personal angle could seem fresh again - and would give the rare occasion when it’s more than a job import again (since we don’t expect it).
4 Likes
It’s about where the franchise is trending at the time. CR was a reaction to DAD but it retained aspects, such as black and white imagery and an effort to humanise the character through experiences of greater peril. Therefore it’s safe to assume tonal aspects of NTTD will factor into Bond 26. I’m guessing the tone will be lighter, eg. the aircraft that exits the cargo plane as per the TV spots.
After the current crisis BOND 26 will be very carefully honed to reflect what audiences will expect from the franchise and entertainment in general. It never is a clean break, not between films and not between actors, and there will surely be an effort to keep the best of the past.
My prediction for any kind of entertainment after this crisis is over: pure escapism and fun. No dreary angst anymore. Cinemas will be a chance to recharge optimism.
4 Likes
I don’t see them going for the darker tone with Bond 7. They’ll be doing everything they can to separate the actor from Daniel Craig - matching the style and tone just invites those comparisons
2 Likes
Guessing you weren’t too keen on the Kilmer film, then. 
I remember the first time I saw TLD in the cinema, a dad and his young son were seated behind me, and as the PTS unfolded, the kid asked about every character on screen, “Is that James Bond”? OKay, Robert Brown got a pass, but he asked about the double-0 with his chute in the tree, the one on the cliff, even the guy with the binoculars who turned out to be a villain. When Dalton appears, he’s the only one the kid doesn’t ask about. I don’t know whether that’s because the staging made it obvious, or he figured, “surely not THAT guy,” but either way, I thought, " So much for marketing… "
I’m of two minds about Roger’s intro. On the one hand, it’s not exciting or dramatic and has a “TV” cheapness to it. On the other hand, there’s a certain chutzpah to treating the transition from Connery as a fait accompli and something they weren’t worried about at all (when of course they must have been). The mere act of not trying too hard projects a certain air of confidence. Which indeed is a theme that largely defines Rogers approach.
I’m all for starting with Bond already in the thick of an exciting escapade, with no silly pretense at a partial or slow reveal. That worked fine with Connery (swiped as it was from Juarez) but it was clunkier with OHMSS and in this day and age would just come off as corny.
And add me to camp hoping for a more light-hearted (if not necessarily comedic) adventure next time. 15 years of depression is enough.
2 Likes
Not me.
While I understand the case that could be made that Sir Rog’s introduction is “not Bondian enough” - no reveal, a la Laz, no smash-bang-wallop a la TD or Broz, I have a real fondness for the very matter-of-fact nature of Sir Rog’s first scene. There’s an understated confidence to it all - he’s James Bond, there’s no need for anything, he’s 007!
And I know Mankiewicz has been (not without cause at times) been knocked from pillar to post for some of his (and/or producer/director approved) decisions as a screenwriter, I think this intro is wonderfully written, with a number of knock-out lines delivered by all present. From “we shared the same bootmaker” to “I’m tempted to test that theory right now” I appreciate Sir Rog’s intro for its uniqueness, and that I doubt it will ever be repeated.
For me, a perfect intro.
5 Likes
I’d say they could take more inspiration from Sir Roger´s portrayal anyway: less obvious trying so hard.
If they find the right guy he will be enough.
Of course, who today would be as apparently effortlessly charming as Roger Moore?
3 Likes
Rog will never be repeated sadly. I do however still think that Henry Cavill could take us convincingly in that direction. I know he’s an obvious choice, but sometimes obvious can be great.
1 Like