Some weirdly bloodthirsty language in there. Didn’t realize Baz was now part of the deadline team. What can you do.
1 Like
Yes, we have to believe in the character, but I think likability is central to casting Bond. The cinematic incarnations, especially Moore and Brosnan, aren’t intimidating bouncers. He blends in to social functions, is witty and capable of getting his hands dirty. The latter aspect seems to be more emphasised these days. The juxtaposition is part of the charm and I hope that doesn’t get lost.
9 Likes
This is the first bit of news I’ve heard about Bond 26 that I don’t really like. I don’t want to see another James Bond origin story. We got that with Casino Royale. Bond should be at least in his 30s (i.e. not 20s) and already be in place at MI6. And as sharpshooter mentioned, 007 is able to blend in with his surroundings whether it be at black tie events or mixing with the locals. He is not an intimidating bouncer type or someone where it’s readily apparent that one shouldn’t mess with him–at least not until he gets that hard look in his eye when you suddenly realize there’s more to him than you first thought.
There’s still plenty of time for things to change–and who knows how accurate this report is–but for the first time I’m starting to have some doubts about Bond 26.
4 Likes
I’m uneasy about that as well and think it could be a real possibility. 007 First Light is already doing an early days, origin tale. With both mediums I think it could be a case of the creators wanting to take complete ownership of the property and build their way up from there.
Names like Scott Rose-Marsh are going to be very likely once the official announcement hits. I’ll keep an open mind for now. Fleming did describe Bond as a blunt instrument and being good looking in a cruel, dark way. That’s fine and I don’t dispute it. But I wouldn’t want them going overboard because the character is more than just a hitman.
4 Likes
I’m also hoping it’s not an origin. In addition to it being covered in CR the origin story has become a bit of a tired trope over the last 20 years. I can see the appeal for modern Hollywood as it enables them to give the main character an arc where the endpoint is the character as we know them. For some reason the flat character arc has fallen out of fashion.
Best case scenario is that they’re aiming young purely for longevity and that the film will be in Bond’s early years as a 007 without worrying about the origin stuff. Worst case scenario is that it will be a film length origin with Bond earning double-oh status in the closing scenes, or even saving that for a sequel!
It’s encouraging that they’re going for a British actor. However, I am wary about them wanting an unknown. Of course, I’ve seen a wide definition of ‘unknown’ over the years. It could easily mean an actor who’s a familiar face in the UK but hasn’t broken out internationally yet.
I understand wanting an actor without any baggage, but at the same time, there is a lot more to playing Bond. As well as the pressure of performing such an iconic character there are the physical demands of training and stunt-work and having to navigate increased media scrutiny. I’d rather an actor who has a good grounding in the industry and not setting foot on a film set for the first time.
Even if this is Bond’s first assignment as a double-oh, he’s still a veteran of the service with a naval career behind him. I’d like an actor with a bit of experience too.
6 Likes
I am so curious to see how this James Bond we all know from all these films became that guy, seeing that in a new movie which hopefully takes at least two hours in which he has to earn his licence and his theme music.
And what does the double O really stand for - does anybody know?
Seriously, folks, if Amazon wants to restart by doing another CR it would be a major misstep. The same goes for characterizing Bond as a killing machine.
4 Likes
I think maybe their idea is to show Bond still in his Naval service, during his SAS days making the transition to the intelligence service.
2 Likes
I think there’s potential in a Navy themed film like Win, Lose or Die. Perhaps they could depict aspects of Bond’s days in uniform and have connections to a current day plot, similar to GE’s flash forward after the title sequence. I’d actually be okay with something like that. I do think his title of Commander Bond should get more emphasis than it does.
11 Likes
I’m sitting here watching Broznan in Survivor (2015). He could absolutely do a serious older Bond. Should never have been a doubt (if there was).
4 Likes
It goes to show just how dead the franchise was before Barbara and Michael stepped aside. Even with new management we’re looking at a 2028 release date. It really was Amazon or Nothing.
4 Likes
What do we think about Joe Cole? I’m giving the Ipcress File a shot, seems like he could do it if he bulked up a bit.
The problem I have with a Bond origin story is that it just makes Bond feel too much part of current times and less of a timeless character. What I mean by this: Before Craig, Bond was very much a timeless character. It didn’t really matter for the films where he came from, how his childhood was, how he started out and what time period he was from. He used to be just this enigmatic cool character, and it’s that mystery around him that made him interesting and brought the fantasy escapism element. And that’s also what kept the movies going without them getting too stuck in trying to tell a complex narrative like the Craig films tried. There are some hints in Goldeneye that Bond has been been active for a long time with M calling him a relic from the Cold War, and frankly that’s all we really needed to know about the character in my book. And I always love some of these subtle hints Goldeneye gave us about the character while still keeping the character very much a mystery.
With an origin story, I am really just thinking: Why should I care about the latest origin story of the Millennial/Gen Z version of Bond? It’s not like we’re seeing the origin of Connery’s, Lazenby’s, Moore’s, Dalton’s, Brosnan’s or even Craig’s Bond. Because there’s no way this film will be set before sixties (which I think is defenitely for better by the way). We’re seeing the origin of a different guy. And the previous one died. Maybe this guy will too, who knows? The thing is, Bond is not a fantasy, science fiction franchise like Star Wars or Lord of the Rings where you can explore different parts of the timeline in a fun, creative way. Yes CR did the hard reboot thing and it is one of my favorite films in the franchise, but I actually find the part how Bond earns his 00 status the least intersting thing about the film, but I will admit that the character development was done quite well. That being said, in hindsight I feel the reboot was completely useless to the overall narrative of the Craig era. Really nothing interesting was really done with it beyond CR, and I don’t think there is that much intersting that you can do with it anyway.
What they should actually do: Just cast a guy who you can instantly recognize as Bond the moment he walks into the room and make the world around him interesting. Make him fit into polite society and have some fun, instead of making him a blunt killing machine while focusing on his messed-up psychological profile and his former colleague’s second stepcousin turned evil reminding him of that.
But from what I’m hearing we’re probably heading for more Craig era drama, maybe even more, with more of the ‘‘Becoming Bond’’ narrative. Something that was done 4 times in the Craig era if you actually look closely. It’s become the new formula at this point, and with Villeneuve’s two favorite Bond films being CR and SF, two films where Bond has to become the Bond we all know and love throughout the film, it wouldn’t suprise that that is exactly what we’re going to get for Bond 26…or Amazon’s Bond 1 whatever we will call it from now on.
11 Likes
That’s it exactly!
4 Likes
Same here. It’s a visually appealing vignette, staged and acted with great intensity, and fun to watch as a creative play with the rules of the pts and gunbarrel - but it’s not essential to the story, nor is it taken seriously in the following film. Bond is shown professional enough, dresses largely as we’d expect him to, even dines to celebrate his win (I believe the only time Craig’s Bond is allowed to eat). This Bond could just as well be in SIS as 00 agent for 15 years* and the story wouldn’t be different.
*The few lines of dialogue to suggest otherwise could just as well be cut. Most of the time CraigBond acts like most other Bonds (with variations on the level of violence) would in his stead. The only brief glimpse of a different character, a callback on Goldfinger’s Bond throwing himself hopelessly on his adversary maybe, we see when he’s picking up the knife, getting in position to kill Le Chiffre on the spot in front of a hundred witnesses. I see no other Bond acting like this.
Can’t say that I see it. It took me a bit to get used to his Harry Palmer - but Bond would be an even greater stretch for me.
3 Likes
This. If you want to start the new era with a pts like that, then have it at least have more meaning and weight for the overall story. Not only for CR itself, but also from what comes after. I would say the only benefit to the pts rebooting the franchise is that Bond can meet Felix Leiter again for the first time having both his legs. As for after that, well QOS basically undoes Bond’s character development in CR and the symbolism of CR’s final scene, and SF just apparently skips most of Bond’s career and make him an over-the-hill agent who needs to get his groove back. The only time the hard reboot actually added something beyond CR was in bringing back Blofeld, but with the way that was handled they might have just kept the name of the character Franz Oberhauser anyway. The name Blofeld didn’t really add anything to the story either. With an era so obsessed with exploring it’s character’s backstories, it puzzles me why they didn’t use Fleming’s version of Blofeld’s backstory, modernize it and expand a bit on that.
But even on it’s own, I don’t think the pts of CR is that interesting to begin with apart from it being visually interesting. In hindsight, I would actually have preferred it to be cut from the film entirely and have the Madagascar chase be the pts of the film with the gunbarrel just being the very start (which would have prevented that gunbarrel-at-the-end nonsense QOS and SF went for). It would have been great as an ambiguous yet spectacular opening scene and an interesting way to instantly show how this version of Bond will be a little different before going to the main titles. It also would’ve helped to not set the Craig era so much apart from the rest of the series, which in hindsight is what I would’ve preferred, since the future of the franchise will probably be endless reboots and origin stories from now on.
My wish for Bond 26: Just go back to the original loose timeline without clear continuity, don’t pay attention to future main actor changes and come up with new original stories, villains and settings.
More realistic wish for Bond 26: Just have Bond be an established agent. Bring back characters such as Felix and Blofeld? Fine I guess, as long as it’s done well.
8 Likes
Since I always thought CR is overrated, the PTS in black & white (gosh, how courageous!) with the two kills has nice dialogue - but I agree it could have been cut, adding nothing to the story. At least a later scene in which Bond could have been targeted himself by assassins of a foreign agency could have added a dimension of consequence.
As for another film concentrating on how Bond became Bond, I said it before and say it again: why?
We do not pay to see Bond become Bond, we pay to see Bond being Bond.
It’s as if filmmakers want to stake their claim: I start it now and everybody has to follow.
The secret to Bond is, however, that he is a cipher. He is 007. Everything else is mysterious, with the barest of additional information. He is a spy, damnit, not a psychological case study. I don’t want to pity him, I want him to be strong and clever and resilient.
5 Likes
I absolutely 100% agree with this.
And I would add that I want him being a womanizer. Bond is not, and has never been, politically correct. He’s his own man and he makes no apologies for it. He knows the game and that he could die at any moment so he is going to enjoy life to its fullest (particularly when on a mission) whether that be food, cars, adrenaline rushes, or women.
3 Likes
Seducing women can’t be politically incorrect.
3 Likes
Touché 
2 Likes
The first film of the new Amazon franchise was always going to be a reboot. Even if EON had remained in charge there almost certainly would have been more elements of a full-on reboot than we would have been accustomed to seeing in the old days when going from one actor to another. It’s the inevitable problem with deciding, on a whim, to kill off the character that, at least at one time, was perceived to be the lead character in the franchise.
6 Likes