Admittedly, that is true and I hadn't considered it along those lines.
Of course, it wouldn't be a one-off situation of running and gunning (kind of like the Dredd film), but more along the lines of Murder On The Orient Express in terms of the pacing and style. No, not a mystery or noir. It would still be a spy film, but there would be a greater sense of confinement.
I think your idea could work very well as a movie, I just don't think it would work as a Bond movie. Travel and many locations has become to much a part of a Bond movie to confine it to one location, however good the location is.
I don't think the situation in Ukraine (Russia's attack on Ukraine's integrity and independence) will influence any future Bond movies directly. But themes like the new cold war, hybrid warfare, threaths against the independence of countries etc. can be used.
That was precisely the meaning of my question. Of course they won't use the actual conflict directly, but we are currently dealing with some Octopussy plot. It could be quite interesting to have a modern version of a typical spy movie, something I've been expecting for so many years !
Yes, I think it could. Bond movies rarely use current conflicts as the basic (core) plot, but it's often a backdrop and influenced by current events. That's how it should be I think.
While a new cold war scares me and I really hope it won't be our future , I too want to see Bond movies that at their core are spy thrilers like FRWL.
I think Soros is less powerful and China more powerful than you think, especially in the movie world. I wonder when we'll see a major Hollywood movie where China is portrayed negatively again. Will it be in our lifetime?
Well, they actively CUT him out of the Belt & Road initiative, which makes me believe that he is more than a mere Dominic Greene.
But, i'll stop there as I don't want to side-track the thread.
I don't think we'll ever see a villainous China film. Ever.
Dalton's third film was to involve a British-Chinese industrialist, along with a plot to embroil the UK and China into war. Even then, China were being portrayed as the victims.
In fact, the same reluctance even seems to extend to North Korea as the hostile forces in Die Another Day were a rogue contingent of North Korea, not North Korea itself.
You have a much better chance of the franchise revisiting UK vs. Russia.
Speaking about DAD, I always disliked the fact Bond is sent to North Korea without explaining why. In the novelisation by Benson, it is said South Korea and MI6 agreed to get rid of Colonel Moon who is considered as a very dangerous radical, but I just can't believe England is the only western country involved in such an operation.
But in that case, the reason is not mentioned in the movie, which makes it unclear. It's not serious from Ernst Stavro Purvis and Julius Wade not to have given any explanation through a briefing with M for instance.
It's like LALD with the three MI6 agents who get killed during the PTS. They are dealing with a "local" issue. Nothing justifies their involvement.
In LTK, the other movie of the series dealing with drug trade, everything is brillantly written and explained. M points out the fact Bond is not supposed to put his nose in Sanchez’s business because it doesn’t concern the British government. Sanchez doesn’t represent a threat from a geopolitical point of view and what happened to Felix and his wife is a private issue, nothing more. Bond is aware of that and he knows resigning from MI6 is the only way to infiltrate Sanchez’s cartel and then avenge Felix. That's the difference between a good script and a poor one. This kind of detail counts...
I don't think the audience needed a briefing from M. It was clear from what people saw that MI6 and Bond were trying to stop an illegal weapons and diamonds deal in North Korea. It was show don't tell.
As you can see from my posts, I belong to those people who just have a real passion for geopolitics. Given there are other movies in the series where the global context is very well used to justify Bond's assignment, it's difficult for me to give credit to Purvis & Wade for such a lazy writing.
For example, I love the briefing with Tanner and Fredrick Gray in M's office in FYEO. It's very brilliant writing from Maibaum and Wilson and people get why Bond and MI6 have to recover the ATAC quickly. Fleming himself always tried to make the stakes clear
That's why I'm very frustrated when this part is rushed in the movies.
We share the interest in geopolitics, but i disagree on the need of a briefing in the DAD PTS. What more do people need to know? North Korea is a dangerous place run by villans?
Yes, I personally think it would have been great to explain it. The movies taking place during the Cold War did it well, so why dropping it here ?
To be honest, when I first saw the film in 2002, I didn't even understand that the two guys with Bond in the PTS were Korean agents. I thought they were Bond's colleagues from MI6 involved in this risky mission. Despite their physical appearance, there's no reason to think they couldn't have been British (in 2002, the english melting pot was clearly established). Nothing is explained and the role of South Korea and their supposed partnership with MI6 in this operation is only mentioned in Benson's novelization, which is something I don't appreciate. A movie should have its own degree of precision and having missing elements detailed in additional supports is an easy excuse to justify plot holes. Once again, Purvis and Wade...
But as a fan, my degree of analysis is much higher. When I watch a Bond film, every little detail counts in my mind. If my neighbour is satisfied with what he gets, good for him. It doesn't necessarily mean it's my case...
A member called mtm in the other place has an interesting idea: In many Bond movies we get a billionaire who is a pillar of society and couldn't possibly be a villan, but of course he is. What is Bond starts investigating a billionaire CEO and it turn out he ISN'T the villan? Maybe the head of the science department is the real villan or the CEO is getting blackmailed into cooperating with the villan who isn't a part of the company? I'd like that.
yes happier days before she took off for her fancy job in some big city newsroom and I was stuck with the kids trying to get by on patents for overcomplicated silly looking inventions
I would like to see a scene where a stealth drone in the style of the British Taranis flies over enemy territory, the bomb bay opens and out comes ...... James Bond in full HALO parachute gear!
I think the two ideas above can be combined in a PTS:
The gunbarrel opens on a stealth drone flies high above a mountain landscape.
Maybe we get a short scene back in MI6 HQ.
The bomb bay opens and a figure in HALO gear jumps.
The jumper lands and takes off his helmet and mask. It's James Bond. He breaks into a undeground compound filled with suicide drones and large missiles.
Now we only need Bond to discover a beautiful woman, Bond to be discovered himself and Bond escaping as the base is blown up, and we have a full PTS!
I don't think Iran should be the villan, just like the Soviet Union never was the villan of any Bond movies of the past. But the conflict with Iran could be the background for what the villan is doing.
Comments
Admittedly, that is true and I hadn't considered it along those lines.
Of course, it wouldn't be a one-off situation of running and gunning (kind of like the Dredd film), but more along the lines of Murder On The Orient Express in terms of the pacing and style. No, not a mystery or noir. It would still be a spy film, but there would be a greater sense of confinement.
I think your idea could work very well as a movie, I just don't think it would work as a Bond movie. Travel and many locations has become to much a part of a Bond movie to confine it to one location, however good the location is.
Anyone here who thinks the current crisis in Ukraine could inspire the plot of Bond 26 ?
I don't think the situation in Ukraine (Russia's attack on Ukraine's integrity and independence) will influence any future Bond movies directly. But themes like the new cold war, hybrid warfare, threaths against the independence of countries etc. can be used.
That was precisely the meaning of my question. Of course they won't use the actual conflict directly, but we are currently dealing with some Octopussy plot. It could be quite interesting to have a modern version of a typical spy movie, something I've been expecting for so many years !
Yes, I think it could. Bond movies rarely use current conflicts as the basic (core) plot, but it's often a backdrop and influenced by current events. That's how it should be I think.
While a new cold war scares me and I really hope it won't be our future , I too want to see Bond movies that at their core are spy thrilers like FRWL.
Given Soros' recent spat against China, I wouldn't be surprised if there's a Britian vs. Chinese Intelligence film on the cards.
I mean, the China-wood endeavour has fallen flat, it's not like the west needs to focus on offending the Eastern entertainment market, surely?
I think Soros is less powerful and China more powerful than you think, especially in the movie world. I wonder when we'll see a major Hollywood movie where China is portrayed negatively again. Will it be in our lifetime?
Well, they actively CUT him out of the Belt & Road initiative, which makes me believe that he is more than a mere Dominic Greene.
But, i'll stop there as I don't want to side-track the thread.
I don't think we'll ever see a villainous China film. Ever.
Dalton's third film was to involve a British-Chinese industrialist, along with a plot to embroil the UK and China into war. Even then, China were being portrayed as the victims.
In fact, the same reluctance even seems to extend to North Korea as the hostile forces in Die Another Day were a rogue contingent of North Korea, not North Korea itself.
You have a much better chance of the franchise revisiting UK vs. Russia.
Speaking about DAD, I always disliked the fact Bond is sent to North Korea without explaining why. In the novelisation by Benson, it is said South Korea and MI6 agreed to get rid of Colonel Moon who is considered as a very dangerous radical, but I just can't believe England is the only western country involved in such an operation.
In the James Bond movies Britain has to be the only country involved in many such operations for the movies to work.
But in that case, the reason is not mentioned in the movie, which makes it unclear. It's not serious from Ernst Stavro Purvis and Julius Wade not to have given any explanation through a briefing with M for instance.
It's like LALD with the three MI6 agents who get killed during the PTS. They are dealing with a "local" issue. Nothing justifies their involvement.
In LTK, the other movie of the series dealing with drug trade, everything is brillantly written and explained. M points out the fact Bond is not supposed to put his nose in Sanchez’s business because it doesn’t concern the British government. Sanchez doesn’t represent a threat from a geopolitical point of view and what happened to Felix and his wife is a private issue, nothing more. Bond is aware of that and he knows resigning from MI6 is the only way to infiltrate Sanchez’s cartel and then avenge Felix. That's the difference between a good script and a poor one. This kind of detail counts...
You see my point ?
I don't think the audience needed a briefing from M. It was clear from what people saw that MI6 and Bond were trying to stop an illegal weapons and diamonds deal in North Korea. It was show don't tell.
As you can see from my posts, I belong to those people who just have a real passion for geopolitics. Given there are other movies in the series where the global context is very well used to justify Bond's assignment, it's difficult for me to give credit to Purvis & Wade for such a lazy writing.
For example, I love the briefing with Tanner and Fredrick Gray in M's office in FYEO. It's very brilliant writing from Maibaum and Wilson and people get why Bond and MI6 have to recover the ATAC quickly. Fleming himself always tried to make the stakes clear
That's why I'm very frustrated when this part is rushed in the movies.
We share the interest in geopolitics, but i disagree on the need of a briefing in the DAD PTS. What more do people need to know? North Korea is a dangerous place run by villans?
Yes, I personally think it would have been great to explain it. The movies taking place during the Cold War did it well, so why dropping it here ?
To be honest, when I first saw the film in 2002, I didn't even understand that the two guys with Bond in the PTS were Korean agents. I thought they were Bond's colleagues from MI6 involved in this risky mission. Despite their physical appearance, there's no reason to think they couldn't have been British (in 2002, the english melting pot was clearly established). Nothing is explained and the role of South Korea and their supposed partnership with MI6 in this operation is only mentioned in Benson's novelization, which is something I don't appreciate. A movie should have its own degree of precision and having missing elements detailed in additional supports is an easy excuse to justify plot holes. Once again, Purvis and Wade...
I know TLD had a short briefing, but right now I can't recall any other PTS' with briefings.
Did the audience need to know the two agents were Korean and not British? I don't think so.
But as a fan, my degree of analysis is much higher. When I watch a Bond film, every little detail counts in my mind. If my neighbour is satisfied with what he gets, good for him. It doesn't necessarily mean it's my case...
I just saw a woman on TV named Julia Favorita. In fact she's an Ukrainian refugee who has found safety in this country. 🙂
Her name hows us that names don't have to be boring to be realistic.
A member called mtm in the other place has an interesting idea: In many Bond movies we get a billionaire who is a pillar of society and couldn't possibly be a villan, but of course he is. What is Bond starts investigating a billionaire CEO and it turn out he ISN'T the villan? Maybe the head of the science department is the real villan or the CEO is getting blackmailed into cooperating with the villan who isn't a part of the company? I'd like that.
Smart chap, this mtm.
obviously a codename, I wonder if this mtm character could secretly be... Mary Tyler Moore?
Here she is with Caractacus Potts-
Things are becoming more complicated!
yes happier days before she took off for her fancy job in some big city newsroom and I was stuck with the kids trying to get by on patents for overcomplicated silly looking inventions
I would like to see a scene where a stealth drone in the style of the British Taranis flies over enemy territory, the bomb bay opens and out comes ...... James Bond in full HALO parachute gear!
Love it 😀
Iran has secret underground bases filled with attack drones and missiles, just like the villan in those James Bond movies ....
I think the two ideas above can be combined in a PTS:
The gunbarrel opens on a stealth drone flies high above a mountain landscape.
Maybe we get a short scene back in MI6 HQ.
The bomb bay opens and a figure in HALO gear jumps.
The jumper lands and takes off his helmet and mask. It's James Bond. He breaks into a undeground compound filled with suicide drones and large missiles.
Now we only need Bond to discover a beautiful woman, Bond to be discovered himself and Bond escaping as the base is blown up, and we have a full PTS!
Iran would make an interesting villain for Bond 26. My gut tells me its going to be a leader of a high-tech company or another rogue Russian general.
I don't think Iran should be the villan, just like the Soviet Union never was the villan of any Bond movies of the past. But the conflict with Iran could be the background for what the villan is doing.