I don't like the idea. I think the new Gogol should be what he used to be: a pragmatic professional in his country's secret service. In some situations he's a deadly enemy when he sees it as being in his and his country's interest. At other times he's a careful allied to Bond because he believes their interests allign, even if he is secretly acting against the orders of Kremlin.
I also think using actual countries and regimes as the main villain is the wrong way to go in a Bond movie. In the latest Horowitz novel the USSR isn't the main villain. The villain is part of a splinter group in the Soviet Union, not the whole state.
Are you not counting FRWL (the novel), caractacus?
__________________________________
no, because Bond never enters the USSR or meets Gubaboyahoozawutsit. We see the big baddies conspiring (for almost 100 pages) but from Bond's PoV they are offstage as they are in all the other SMERSH novels and he only ever meets their western based agents.
With a Mind to Kill is different because Bond is trapped inside Russia for most of the novel. My feeling reading that was: his career climaxes with him finally confronting the heart of the evil he'd been combatting all along.
__________________________________
TwoFour said:
In the latest Horowitz novel the USSR isn't the main villain. The villain is part of a splinter group in the Soviet Union that wants to kill general secretary Krutchew (English spelling?) and near the end of the book the KGB is arresting members of this group.
__________________________________
Khrushchev. the guy Steve Buscemi played in Death of Stalin!
shhh, you just spoiled the ending. Yes, Horowitz cops out in the final chapters, to make his Manchurian Candidate / Man Who Knew Too Much style plot work. I'd been enjoying the first 150 pages where we were led to believe the conspirators were working with someone more Official in the Kremlin, that mysterious voice from the telephone on the conference table.
anyway I just remembered Goldeneye, Bond is also in Russia for a good chunk of that one, mowing down innocent police officers with a machine gun and destroying architecture and monuments with a stolen tank even! Guess I forgot that because its such a postCold War film, I think the Russian general in that film is presented as a rogue from his first scene (slaughtering innocent Russian citizens in the satellite control centre).
If Bond26 were to make Russia the baddies at this moment in history, I don't think they could be saying the real villain is a rogue and the official Russian government were innocents, as was the case in previous films. That would trivialize the war in Ukraine. And thus I think EON would completely avoid the topic. Theyre too dependent on maxisiming ticket sales to all possible markets.
I dont meant to digress this thread. I filed a report on With a Mind to Kill in the Horowitz thread a couple weeks ago and was surprised thered been so little discussion. Neither of you two filed a report or posted any quick thoughts! if interested, any further discussion on Horowitz's new book should be in that thread so it does not go to waste
Nope, I'm just going to continue genially disagreeing with you right here in that I consider FRWL as "the first time the Soviet state is the direct villain rather than some western based agent in their employ". Klebb, Grant, Kronsteen, General Grubbyboychicks all work directly for the State and are based there rather than in the West like their predecessors.
I belive making Russia and the Putin regime the villain and the main plot is wrong even though (or even because) they are in real life. The war in Ukraine can be the background or even context of the plot, but I don't want Bond to stop a Russian black flag operation in Donbas or blow up the Kerch bridge. Treat the conflict with Russia the same way as the conflict with the USSR was treated in the old Bond movies.
For example we can have Bond up against hostile agents in Georgia (the country, not the US state) in the PTS. It's not stated what country the opposition is from, but anyone who knows the political situation in the region will understand where they're from.
Concerning Tanner, the way they brought him to the screen so far does not appear very faithful to Fleming's material.
In TMWTGG, he's insignificant. In FYEO, he replaces M for obvious reasons but the way he's written seems like he's a simple boss who gives instructions without any warmness. In the Brosnan and Craig eras, Bond simply calls him "Tanner" and doesn't seem to have any proximity with him (at least Kitchen makes him funny, Kinnear makes him weak and not particularly sympathetic).
Finally, the best Tanner is a guy named Charles Robinson and wonderfully played by Colin Salmon. For God's sake, give me a real Bill Tanner !
Although it's not the Fleming version, I do enjoy the relationship between CraigBond and Tanner. The gag about the slippy dock getting off the boat in Spectre was a lovely little funny character moment I thought.
I agree with @Barbel. The fact Bond never enters the USSR or meets General G doesn't mean the Soviet state is not the enemy in FRWL. General G submits the plot to ThePresidium to validate it. The novel deals with Soviet Russia and communism from a western point of view in the 50s. In FRWL, Smersh is no longer the insidious entity Bond had to fight against in the previous novels, it is now a real tool Fleming uses to describe a global morbid system that dominates the other side of the Iron Curtain.
I'd say the USSR is the enemy in many of the novels, but not in the movies (other than FYEO). In FYEO the Soviets are the opposition, but the movie takes care to end with a notion of detente.
I think after killing off DC Bond then they have to make a clean break with all new actors to establish a new universe.
Taking Dench's M from the Brosnan-verse and bringing her into the DC soft reboot worked, but Fiennes, Whishaw and Naomie Harris are all entirely of the Craig-verse so I can't see the logic in bringing them back. That final scene with the whisky was a nice send off for them too.
As to whether we'll see a return to Brosnan's female M, Moneypenny and males Q and Tanner scoobygang, or stick with the Connery/Moore/Dalton/Craig usual two men, M and Q, and one woman, Moneypenny, is anyone's guess. Whishaw's Q was obviously gay, will that be repeated?
I wonder if we'll get an all-female scoobygang? While they are reinventing Bond, BB did say they will keep the central elements of Bond, chauvinist etc. What better foil to Bond's masculinity than three or four women. Should Tanner, or Robinson, now be a woman?
I absolutely agree that the DC Scooby gang shouldn't return because of the ending of NTTD. When it comes to the new cast I think that the one I have real problems with picturing as female is Tanner. That is if they are following Fleming and portray Tanner as Bond's best friend in the service. I guess Bond could be capable of having female friends (Moneypenny?), but I don't really see Bond and Moneypenny spending time together outside of working hours. Yes, I remember SF. But I still don't see it. If they go with a Tanner as shown in DC's tenure where their relationship is purely professional it doesn't matter what gender Tanner is. I think making the whole Scooby gang female is going too far. A female Q would be interesting though.
Don't forget: the next Bond will be more in touch with his feelings , and may prefer the company of women friends who tend to support each other in times of stress, as opposed to manly men bragging about their conquests and one-upping and tormenting each other. Poor Bond leads a very stressful life and needs a more supportive group of friends who will will really listen and empathise with what he is going through.
___________________________________
Someone said:
Whishaw's Q was obviously gay
___________________________________
I don't think that was obvious at all, except for one clue in the dialog of the last film. Did anybody suspect prior to that? or worry about it? Like a lot of lines in the CraigBondFilms ("A close shave" between Bond and Moneypenny, or "what makes you think this is my first time") Q's mysterious male dinner date is actually ambiguous, and can be interpreted either way should the viewer choose. Maybe his father was coming for a visit, that could also explain what we saw and heard. I think EON are deliberately vague on these things for fear of losing a portion of their audience.
I was going to ask was there any clue Llewelyn-Q was straight? but there was of course the "not now girls! later, perhaps" line in Octopussy. I still think he preferred to watch, as evidenced by the final scene in A View to a Kill
There's also the line in DAF where, when Bond compliments him on his voice changer gadget, he says that he "made one of these for the kids last Christmas".
I was going to ask was there any clue Llewelyn-Q was straight? but there was of course the "not now girls! later, perhaps" line in Octopussy. I still think he preferred to watch, as evidenced by the final scene in A View to a Kill
😅 Ha! And don't forget Bond's weird fetish where he liked to make sure M would see.
Mr MartiniThat nice house in the sky.Posts: 2,707MI6 Agent
Yeah, I could see that. Bar Tanner, who I think for reasons given above probably does need to stay a man, as Bond's friend, the other characters can all be a different gender and maybe LGBQT.
It's occurred to me that with a hard reboot they don't need to introduce the entire scoobygang in film one. I think as these characters are also so beloved, they deserve to be given a good backstory and screen time that would explain why the choice has been made to make them, for example, a different gender. Their story could be interwoven into film, which is still primarily about Bond.
Off the top of my head it could go something like:
Film one - A grave attack on the UK kills senior govt officials including M, Bond and Tanner must investigate and this film introduces the new M.
Film two - Some new deadly tech threatens the UK and Bond is sent to investigate along with a Ministry of Defence scientist, who by the end of the film becomes Q.
Film three - MI6 is undermined by a mole and even Bond is a suspect, but he works with Tanner on the mole hunt with the help of a young MI6 officer, Moneypenny, who by the end of the film becomes M's secretary.
Film four - A world threat requires all the scoobygang to be involved, akin to Skyfall, and this more traditional Bond film sees 007 sent to help the CIA and meets Felix Leiter. You could introduce Leiter in an earlier film, but I think the whole MI6, CIA cooperation could be explored in a way it hasn't been since LALD.
Film five - A traditional Connery-era like Bond film that brings this Bond actor's time to a close.
In my opinion Tanner should be male and Moneypenny female. I like the traditional flirting between her and 007. Obviously Bond is male. The other parts could be male or female, it doesn't matter that much.
Gradually introducing the Scooby gang was done in DC's tenure. I'd prefer it if they don't repeat that in the movies of the next Bond actor. Use them all in Bond26 as long as there are story reasons to do so.
Not really, we got a new M and new Q and Moneypenny all in one film, Skyfall. OK we got a new Tanner in QoS, so you could stretch that to two films but I wouldn't describe DC's era as "gradually introducing".
I saw the brilliant "Banshees of Insherin" in the weekend. Highly recommend! The 40 year old Irish actress had an important supporting role in it, and like all the actors who stepped in front of the camera in that movie she was very good. Today I realised Kerry Condon could be a very good Miss Moneypenny!
Jonathan Ferguson is a firearms historian and Keeper of Firearms and Artillery at the Royal Armouries in Leeds. He often posts videos in the Armouries Youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@RoyalArmouries
Ferguson doesn't look the way many expect a gun expert to look and behave. He comes across more like the geeky, but competent college teacher. He would help strengthening the Britishness of the Bond world and would fit like a glove into Q Branch. He's no actor, but I think he would be perfect for a cameo in Q branch scenes. Just standing in the background working on a gun or even handing a gun to an agent, a return of the armourer from DN..
Comments
Yes, I've read it. Are you not counting FRWL (the novel), caractacus?
Love her! I mean it - the idea! 😅
"- That is something to be afraid of."
I don't like the idea. I think the new Gogol should be what he used to be: a pragmatic professional in his country's secret service. In some situations he's a deadly enemy when he sees it as being in his and his country's interest. At other times he's a careful allied to Bond because he believes their interests allign, even if he is secretly acting against the orders of Kremlin.
I also think using actual countries and regimes as the main villain is the wrong way to go in a Bond movie. In the latest Horowitz novel the USSR isn't the main villain. The villain is part of a splinter group in the Soviet Union, not the whole state.
barbel said:
Are you not counting FRWL (the novel), caractacus?
__________________________________
no, because Bond never enters the USSR or meets Gubaboyahoozawutsit. We see the big baddies conspiring (for almost 100 pages) but from Bond's PoV they are offstage as they are in all the other SMERSH novels and he only ever meets their western based agents.
With a Mind to Kill is different because Bond is trapped inside Russia for most of the novel. My feeling reading that was: his career climaxes with him finally confronting the heart of the evil he'd been combatting all along.
__________________________________
TwoFour said:
In the latest Horowitz novel the USSR isn't the main villain. The villain is part of a splinter group in the Soviet Union that wants to kill general secretary Krutchew (English spelling?) and near the end of the book the KGB is arresting members of this group.
__________________________________
Khrushchev. the guy Steve Buscemi played in Death of Stalin!
shhh, you just spoiled the ending. Yes, Horowitz cops out in the final chapters, to make his Manchurian Candidate / Man Who Knew Too Much style plot work. I'd been enjoying the first 150 pages where we were led to believe the conspirators were working with someone more Official in the Kremlin, that mysterious voice from the telephone on the conference table.
anyway I just remembered Goldeneye, Bond is also in Russia for a good chunk of that one, mowing down innocent police officers with a machine gun and destroying architecture and monuments with a stolen tank even! Guess I forgot that because its such a postCold War film, I think the Russian general in that film is presented as a rogue from his first scene (slaughtering innocent Russian citizens in the satellite control centre).
If Bond26 were to make Russia the baddies at this moment in history, I don't think they could be saying the real villain is a rogue and the official Russian government were innocents, as was the case in previous films. That would trivialize the war in Ukraine. And thus I think EON would completely avoid the topic. Theyre too dependent on maxisiming ticket sales to all possible markets.
by the way @Barbel and @Number24 ...
I dont meant to digress this thread. I filed a report on With a Mind to Kill in the Horowitz thread a couple weeks ago and was surprised thered been so little discussion. Neither of you two filed a report or posted any quick thoughts! if interested, any further discussion on Horowitz's new book should be in that thread so it does not go to waste
Nope, I'm just going to continue genially disagreeing with you right here in that I consider FRWL as "the first time the Soviet state is the direct villain rather than some western based agent in their employ". Klebb, Grant, Kronsteen, General Grubbyboychicks all work directly for the State and are based there rather than in the West like their predecessors.
I belive making Russia and the Putin regime the villain and the main plot is wrong even though (or even because) they are in real life. The war in Ukraine can be the background or even context of the plot, but I don't want Bond to stop a Russian black flag operation in Donbas or blow up the Kerch bridge. Treat the conflict with Russia the same way as the conflict with the USSR was treated in the old Bond movies.
For example we can have Bond up against hostile agents in Georgia (the country, not the US state) in the PTS. It's not stated what country the opposition is from, but anyone who knows the political situation in the region will understand where they're from.
Concerning Tanner, the way they brought him to the screen so far does not appear very faithful to Fleming's material.
In TMWTGG, he's insignificant. In FYEO, he replaces M for obvious reasons but the way he's written seems like he's a simple boss who gives instructions without any warmness. In the Brosnan and Craig eras, Bond simply calls him "Tanner" and doesn't seem to have any proximity with him (at least Kitchen makes him funny, Kinnear makes him weak and not particularly sympathetic).
Finally, the best Tanner is a guy named Charles Robinson and wonderfully played by Colin Salmon. For God's sake, give me a real Bill Tanner !
Although it's not the Fleming version, I do enjoy the relationship between CraigBond and Tanner. The gag about the slippy dock getting off the boat in Spectre was a lovely little funny character moment I thought.
I think Kitchen is the best Bill Tanner so far, but I agree Robinson was a good Tanner stand-in.
I agree with @Barbel. The fact Bond never enters the USSR or meets General G doesn't mean the Soviet state is not the enemy in FRWL. General G submits the plot to The Presidium to validate it. The novel deals with Soviet Russia and communism from a western point of view in the 50s. In FRWL, Smersh is no longer the insidious entity Bond had to fight against in the previous novels, it is now a real tool Fleming uses to describe a global morbid system that dominates the other side of the Iron Curtain.
I'd say the USSR is the enemy in many of the novels, but not in the movies (other than FYEO). In FYEO the Soviets are the opposition, but the movie takes care to end with a notion of detente.
Ben Whishaw told ScreenRant he thinks EON is likely to bring in an all new scooby gang.
I think after killing off DC Bond then they have to make a clean break with all new actors to establish a new universe.
Taking Dench's M from the Brosnan-verse and bringing her into the DC soft reboot worked, but Fiennes, Whishaw and Naomie Harris are all entirely of the Craig-verse so I can't see the logic in bringing them back. That final scene with the whisky was a nice send off for them too.
As to whether we'll see a return to Brosnan's female M, Moneypenny and males Q and Tanner scoobygang, or stick with the Connery/Moore/Dalton/Craig usual two men, M and Q, and one woman, Moneypenny, is anyone's guess. Whishaw's Q was obviously gay, will that be repeated?
I wonder if we'll get an all-female scoobygang? While they are reinventing Bond, BB did say they will keep the central elements of Bond, chauvinist etc. What better foil to Bond's masculinity than three or four women. Should Tanner, or Robinson, now be a woman?
Am I right in thinking that it's not until TSWLM where Bond is shown actually battling real, state-sanctioned, non-rogue agents of the Soviet Union..?
Yes, that could be true of the movies.
I absolutely agree that the DC Scooby gang shouldn't return because of the ending of NTTD. When it comes to the new cast I think that the one I have real problems with picturing as female is Tanner. That is if they are following Fleming and portray Tanner as Bond's best friend in the service. I guess Bond could be capable of having female friends (Moneypenny?), but I don't really see Bond and Moneypenny spending time together outside of working hours. Yes, I remember SF. But I still don't see it. If they go with a Tanner as shown in DC's tenure where their relationship is purely professional it doesn't matter what gender Tanner is. I think making the whole Scooby gang female is going too far. A female Q would be interesting though.
As John Gardner would say, it would be Q'ute.
Don't forget: the next Bond will be more in touch with his feelings , and may prefer the company of women friends who tend to support each other in times of stress, as opposed to manly men bragging about their conquests and one-upping and tormenting each other. Poor Bond leads a very stressful life and needs a more supportive group of friends who will will really listen and empathise with what he is going through.
___________________________________
Someone said:
Whishaw's Q was obviously gay
___________________________________
I don't think that was obvious at all, except for one clue in the dialog of the last film. Did anybody suspect prior to that? or worry about it? Like a lot of lines in the CraigBondFilms ("A close shave" between Bond and Moneypenny, or "what makes you think this is my first time") Q's mysterious male dinner date is actually ambiguous, and can be interpreted either way should the viewer choose. Maybe his father was coming for a visit, that could also explain what we saw and heard. I think EON are deliberately vague on these things for fear of losing a portion of their audience.
I was going to ask was there any clue Llewelyn-Q was straight? but there was of course the "not now girls! later, perhaps" line in Octopussy. I still think he preferred to watch, as evidenced by the final scene in A View to a Kill
There's also the line in DAF where, when Bond compliments him on his voice changer gadget, he says that he "made one of these for the kids last Christmas".
I was going to ask was there any clue Llewelyn-Q was straight? but there was of course the "not now girls! later, perhaps" line in Octopussy. I still think he preferred to watch, as evidenced by the final scene in A View to a Kill
😅 Ha! And don't forget Bond's weird fetish where he liked to make sure M would see.
A small part of your post made me think of something. How about a female M, a female Q and a male Moneypenny?
Yeah, I could see that. Bar Tanner, who I think for reasons given above probably does need to stay a man, as Bond's friend, the other characters can all be a different gender and maybe LGBQT.
It's occurred to me that with a hard reboot they don't need to introduce the entire scoobygang in film one. I think as these characters are also so beloved, they deserve to be given a good backstory and screen time that would explain why the choice has been made to make them, for example, a different gender. Their story could be interwoven into film, which is still primarily about Bond.
Off the top of my head it could go something like:
Film one - A grave attack on the UK kills senior govt officials including M, Bond and Tanner must investigate and this film introduces the new M.
Film two - Some new deadly tech threatens the UK and Bond is sent to investigate along with a Ministry of Defence scientist, who by the end of the film becomes Q.
Film three - MI6 is undermined by a mole and even Bond is a suspect, but he works with Tanner on the mole hunt with the help of a young MI6 officer, Moneypenny, who by the end of the film becomes M's secretary.
Film four - A world threat requires all the scoobygang to be involved, akin to Skyfall, and this more traditional Bond film sees 007 sent to help the CIA and meets Felix Leiter. You could introduce Leiter in an earlier film, but I think the whole MI6, CIA cooperation could be explored in a way it hasn't been since LALD.
Film five - A traditional Connery-era like Bond film that brings this Bond actor's time to a close.
In Spectre, Q refers to his two cats. How many people think a man living on his own with two cats is not going to be gay? Serious question.
A man owns cats is gay?!!?
I would never make that assumption, and am always surprised in real life who turns out to be gay straight or other.
In my opinion Tanner should be male and Moneypenny female. I like the traditional flirting between her and 007. Obviously Bond is male. The other parts could be male or female, it doesn't matter that much.
Gradually introducing the Scooby gang was done in DC's tenure. I'd prefer it if they don't repeat that in the movies of the next Bond actor. Use them all in Bond26 as long as there are story reasons to do so.
Not really, we got a new M and new Q and Moneypenny all in one film, Skyfall. OK we got a new Tanner in QoS, so you could stretch that to two films but I wouldn't describe DC's era as "gradually introducing".
You've got a point. How irritating. 😉
I saw the brilliant "Banshees of Insherin" in the weekend. Highly recommend! The 40 year old Irish actress had an important supporting role in it, and like all the actors who stepped in front of the camera in that movie she was very good. Today I realised Kerry Condon could be a very good Miss Moneypenny!
Jonathan Ferguson is a firearms historian and Keeper of Firearms and Artillery at the Royal Armouries in Leeds. He often posts videos in the Armouries Youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@RoyalArmouries
Ferguson doesn't look the way many expect a gun expert to look and behave. He comes across more like the geeky, but competent college teacher. He would help strengthening the Britishness of the Bond world and would fit like a glove into Q Branch. He's no actor, but I think he would be perfect for a cameo in Q branch scenes. Just standing in the background working on a gun or even handing a gun to an agent, a return of the armourer from DN..