Forum menu
Octopussy. Bum tish.
I'm quite liking Richard Osman's proposals for Bond spin offs (from about 12min if the link doesnt start there)
In particular his proposal of running 'Octopussy' in the month before 'Movember'
I like the bond films. I also like the way they have evolved over time.
It is cheesy, it is self indulgent and thats part of the charm for me.
+1
If anything, I think they need to get a bit more camp and light-hearted again.
Is there a case that Austin Powers is the best Bond film anyway?
Matthew Vaughn could be a safe pair of hands, or even Guy Ritchie? Maybe Tarantino as an outside bet?
Matthew Vaughn could be a safe pair of hands, or even Guy Ritchie? Maybe Tarantino as an outside bet?
I don't think it will happen, as he's not high profile enough for the Amazonion overloads, but I'd go for Charlie Higson as a showrunner. He's a proper Bond nerd who's shown, via his Young Bond books, that he understands the source material and can extrapolate from it.
They're going to monetise the hell out of it
You'll be in Sainsbury's later this year and it'll be full of licenced James Bond socks, dildos and mugs. Give it 5 years and the aisle of dreams in Aldi will have the ceremonial 007 mig welder
I came up with the idea of an 8 sided bond themed fleshlight but I can't think of a name for it 😔
*solemn applause*
I like the bond films. I also like the way they have evolved over time.
It is cheesy, it is self indulgent and thats part of the charm for me.
+1
If anything, I think they need to get a bit more camp and light-hearted again.
Is there a case that Austin Powers is the best Bond film anyway?
Matthew Vaughn could be a safe pair of hands, or even Guy Ritchie? Maybe Tarantino as an outside bet?
Charlie Higson as producer and Mike Myers as director - it's a dream team! Myers is a brilliant director with a real sense of place and time. Bring back the camp!
A Tarantino bond could work really well, Pulp Bond would be fun!
A Tarantino bond could work really well, Pulp Bond would be fun!
It could work really well both ways. The limitations of a franchise might give QT a bit of focus that he sometimes lacks.
A Tarantino bond could work really well,
I think it would compound the issue for Amazon 🙂 pairing a franchise that has been in no rush to make another movie with a director who is in no rush to make another movie. Seal the deal with an actor who (like Daniel Craig for instance) doesn't really want to be in Bond movies too maybe.
I don't really want to write a bond script. So maybe I could come on board as writer.
That said I'm not hopeful that Amazon are going to do a great job with it.
Amazon already made a version of a "Bond" series, the rather forgettable Citadel, it somehow cost $300m and received very mixed reviews. And in spite of the massive budget, much of the CGI was really quite chintzy, like the special effects apprentice had found the HDR +++ button and used it on everything.
I like the bond films. I also like the way they have evolved over time.
It is cheesy, it is self indulgent and thats part of the charm for me.
+1
If anything, I think they need to get a bit more camp and light-hearted again.
Is there a case that Austin Powers is the best Bond film anyway?
So, we're saying that the originals were cheesy, camp, light-hearted and a bit rapey! 😀
We miss the point that the Connery and Moore films were made in an era when viewers weren't travelling to exotic places, which is why the action jumps from Istanbul to Florida to the casino to a health spa to a ski resort, outer space. The locations were as important as the ridiculous plots but these days we can all very familiar with those places - except space obvs - so nobody cares.
Austin Powers? The Man From UNCLE, Our Man Flint.... every man and his dog had done spies in the 60s/70s, even Morecambe and Wise iirc?
I know I posted before about the madness that is the official James Bond store, but this one is pretty special...
They are Tweeting today to alert us all that for just £1,995 they will sell you this...
Given that a good Bond movie involves suspension of disbelief I think I've got a plot for the next film.
A supervillain cons and buys their way into a superpower nation and sets that superpower to align with Russia and turn against it's previous Western allies.
Bind is then tasked with saving the world.
I think the set up is just about grounded enough in reality. Where this might fall down is whether saving the world is a bit too far fetched.
What do you think?
Latest rumours are they they are looking for an actor under 30 to play bond, so cavill and Taylor -jihnson are out.
Do wonder how someone under 30 could rise to the rank of commander in the royal navy though
Given everything else Bond-related, that should be easy to not worry about as it'll be part of the story...
Latest rumours are they they are looking for an actor under 30 to play bond, so cavill and Taylor -jihnson are out.
Do wonder how someone under 30 could rise to the rank of commander in the royal navy though
Connery was 32 when he played Bond in Dr No so it's not a great leap.
Now Amazon have the Bond franchise, will the the next one go straight to streaming (for $$$)? Bond in the Craig era was about the only thing that got us to the cinema - couldn't tell you why, just became a tradition.
Given everything else Bond-related, that should be easy to not worry about as it'll be part of the story...
Well they literally blew him up in the last one so I suppose it depends how they reboot it .
(TBH I thought it was a bit of an unnecessary arrogant way to end the tenure of a Bond as opposed to just rolling along into a new bond actor.)
Do wonder how someone under 30 could rise to the rank of commander in the royal navy though
Wanting the actor to be under 30 has nothing to do with the age of the character they'll be protraying. Connary played Bond when he was practically the same ages as Micheal J Fox when he played a teenage Marty Mcfly. Clive Dunn started his acting career playing his signature 'doddery old men' when he was 30 too. They're actors - its there job to pretend to be someone else. 🙂
What they'll be wanting from an under 30 year old actor is someone who they can sign up for a long contract relatively cheaply.
With a lot of movies you need a 'name' to carry your film but in Bond movies the Bond character is that name - so long as they do a competent job it doesnt actually matter too much who the actor is, so theres no point paying for someone who is already able to trade on their reputation
Now Amazon have the Bond franchise, will the the next one go straight to streaming (for $$$)? Bond in the Craig era was about the only thing that got us to the cinema - couldn't tell you why, just became a tradition.
In the current climate it tends to be a decision that rests with the actor. If its an actor that wants to tread a few red carpets than the only way films can be considered for most of the awards events is if they've had a theatrical release. So part of their negotiation, aside from their fees, will be whether theres a theatrical release and if so what work the studio is going to do to support an awards campaign. So you'll see quite a few films released by the streamers and seemingly bomb at the box office but the cinema release was never the point, financially.
Since my forties (which recently ended) I've pretty much lost interest in any movie 'franchise/universe'. There's a few exceptions, but in general, both those terms signify $$$$$$ (and quite often a test of my capacity to endure) rather than something I might actually enjoy. I've enjoyed most of the Bond films but there's no pull to watch them.
Wanting the actor to be under 30 has nothing to do with the age of the character they'll be protraying... They're actors - its there job to pretend to be someone else.
Yeah, but it usually works in the other direction, older actors playing younger characters.
In any case, should it matter? I'm sure I heard somewhere once that "James Bond" and "007" are just code names, it's not just different actors who are the next 007 but actually different characters. One gets 'retired' either by a bullet or the more traditional method, they promote a new one.
As far as canon goes there's plenty in the source books which would be problematic for a modern audience. There's no reason why we couldn't have a Jane Bond even, if only to troll the bottom half of the Internet.
there's plenty in the source books which would be problematic for a modern audience
Not half! I found a box set of CD audiobooks of all the Bond books by Fleming and ripped them to mp3 to listen to. **** me, they are cinge now - and not in a good way!
I read a few of the originals when I was 13/14, they aren’t exactly what you got on the screen 🙂
I preferred the cinematic presentations and the written adaptations of the screenplay.
In any case, should it matter? I'm sure I heard somewhere once that "James Bond" and "007" are just code names, it's not just different actors who are the next 007 but actually different characters. One gets 'retired' either by a bullet or the more traditional method, they promote a new one.
TBH they didn’t have to do that for what is it 25 films previously thou.
I think James Bonds almost a traditional thing, sort of hard to describe like a Father Christmas type character.
I think James Bonds almost a traditional thing, sort of hard to describe like a Father Christmas type character.
They've both got a list of who's naughty or nice?
They both come down your chimney?
TBH they didn’t have to do that for what is it 25 films previously thou.
I don't think we've seen an on-screen, ahem, "regeneration." But it would conveniently hand-wave why he suddenly stopped being Scottish and then later turned blonde.
https://jamesbond.fandom.com/wiki/00_Agents
"Standard mandatory retirement age is 45, though various writers including Ian Fleming, Sebastian Faulks and John Gardner have contradicted this as a matter of poetic license and several actors who have portrayed Bond on film have been older than 45 at the time of playing the character (indeed, Roger Moore was 45 when he filmed his first Bond film, and continued to play the role until he was nearly 60, whereas Sean Connery's Bond was implied to have had retired - or, more precisely, moved into training - by the time of Never Say Never Again with the actor in his mid-50s)."
Can't see any mention of Denis being announced to direct here:
James Bond: Denis Villeneuve to direct next 007 film - BBC News
It'll be really interesting to see what he comes up with, certainly an impressive signing - but I might have preferred someone who would bring back a bit of camp and fun.
Now Amazon have the Bond franchise, will the the next one go straight to streaming (for $$$)?
I don't think so. I reckon they will appreciate the glamour and prestige of a proper big movie release (and having it on streaming a couple of months later).
I might have preferred someone who would bring back a bit of camp and fun.
A cross over into the Carry On Cinematic Universe maybe
"Do be careful with that bond. Thats no ordinary swanny whistle"