Bond has has had billionaire villains before, but not anyone as rich as Stromberg or Drax in a long time. That's my impression at least. it can also be argued the the multi-billionaires have never been as rich or powerful as they are now. We now have billionaires having their own NASA, billionaires sitting on the first row when the president got sworn in, Bezos spending about 50 million dollars getting married in Venezia , The founder of PayPal want to build a city floating on the ocean as well as achieving immortality:
I've suggested before to have a multi-billionaire look like the villain in the first part of the movie, just to discover he isn't in on it. Instead it's the smart head of the science and development department who we thought was 007's ally (Emma Watson?) who's the real villain. She could even use AI to reach her goals.
I would actually quite like that, yeah! I guess you could say Willard Whyte is almost that, but it is quite funny how Bond investigates a big company and pretty much always assumes that it must be the CEO doing all the bad stuff when it could be someone else! 😄
The CEO could be guilty of insider trading or tax evasion, but the science and development director is behind the stuff that's a threat to national security.
I like that image of the floating city - would make for a memorable and surreal scene. The atmosphere reminds me of the 'Citadel', the once mythical and enigmatic unused level buried deep in the classic GoldenEye 007 game coding. Would love for that set to come to life on screen one day.
A floating city would bee cool, but even at an Amazon budget it can't be built as complete set. A good solution would be a CGI model of it in the boardroom and then a fight on the unfinished first building stage of the actual city.
But I'm really interested in hearing what other members think are topical fears or problems that would fit Bond26. 😃
My favorite Bond villains tend to be the ones who are on the cutting edge. Drax and Elliot Carver were both decades ahead of their time! Blofeld’s plan in OHMSS was totally unique at the time. The billionaire angle and the AI stuff isn’t really that interesting to me for a Bond film. We’re being forced to live it every day, and plenty of other films in the genre are doing it. Total laziness if they go that route—especially for a film that’s 3-4 years away. It’s hard to anticipate what might be next, but that’s why the writers get paid lots of money and why we’re writing on a message board!
The suggestion from the the Baz Bamigboye article was that the Russian counter-intelligence outfit SMERSH could make a return. I'm guessing that Putin and his mob will still be in power come 2028.
Although I guess it wouldn't really be a return for SMERSH, as they only got mentioned in the films twice, and both times it was a fake-out and they didn't play a part. I don't know if it would be a great idea to use them really: for much the same reason they weren't used in the 60s.
SMERSH has made a return in real life too. The original SMERSH was active from 1942-46. Putin re-instated the organisation just a couple of years ago, and it will function much like it did during The Great Fatherland War.
A very good reason to have SMERSH as the new bad guy. As for a return I was referring more to the books, Fleming's and the continuation novels that used SMERSH.
Sounds like a good plan to me. SMERSH, Russian Oligarchs, the Russian Mafia and Russian Mercenaries could all provide a treasure trove /rogues gallery of evil megalomaniacs, henchmen, assassins, and even some gray area folks who might ally themselves with Bond for a little balance. I would stay away from Russian Mountaintop Prisons though......been done to death in too many films lately. One would think that Steven Knight should be able to come up with something more original.
It couldn't be anyone else. As HowardB says, from the Russian Mafia to oligarchs, Russia is a treasure trove of rogues and you could have Western traitors betraying Bond and MI6.
That was how EON generally approached things. It will be interesting to see what the current creative team and Amazon do. If there are any Russian villains, etc they will probably avoid anything to do with the war in Ukraine.
This somewhat flies in the face of other movie trade paper stories about 2028 and what we know of Dune 3's timetable. I think it probably suggests that Villeneuve is not going to start work on Bond26 until he is completely done with Dune 3 including the publicity running up to its release.
I can imagine that Villeneuve doesn't want Bond overshadowing Dune 3 so he'll just tell journalists he hasn't started yet and won't start until December 2026 when Dune 3 comes out. This would also explain why Stephen Knight has said he hasn't started yet. He has until December 2026 or even January 2027 to sit down with Villeneuve who has said he sits down with the screenwriter and storyboards the first draft to then make changes.
A very interesting article. However the journalist got Izabella Scuripico's nationality wrong - she's Polish-Swedish. More importantly Campbell got one thing wrong. Bond26 has to be a re-boot because Bond died in NTTD.
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 30,889Chief of Staff
I would really prefer that there's no breaking the 4th wall in Bond 26. That's fine for Deadpool but not Bond. Given the events of NTTD, I don't think there's any getting around a soft reboot; but it needs to be kept to a minimum, no origin story (stuff like that can be referenced over several films) and Bond needs to stay Bond.
Mr MartiniThat nice house in the sky.Posts: 2,738MI6 Agent
Can they tell an orgin story throughout the movie without actually showing it? Similar to M (Judi Dench) looking at Bonds (Daniel Craigs) file. We the audience can get a brief history of Bond and maybe a reference or to about past missions in conversations with other characters.
Some people would complain even if you hang them with a new rope
I would argue OHMSS doesn't break the fourth wall--Lazenby says his his line as he's looking in the distance, indicating he's talking to himself. This is the kind of thing I'd like to see--maybe someone saying to Bond, "I thought you were dead," and 007 delivering a knowing reply, etc. At any rate, reboots have had their day... I think Marvel even acknowledged this in their new takes on Spider-Man and the Fantastic Four.
I would be extremely disappointed if anyone mentions or alludes to Bond's death in NTTD in Bond26. An example I've used before is "Robin and Marian" (1976) and "Robin hood - prince of thieves" (1991). Spoiler: Robin Hood dies in Robin and Marian. Would Prince of thieves be a better movie if someone in the movie mentioned his death in the 1976 movie? "I thought you died years ago, Robin" says Little John. "No, She only gave me sleeping potion, not poison. We tricked everyone!". Think about it. Would a dialogue like that make Robin and Marian better? In my opinion it would make both movies lesser. Mentioning James Bond's death in the upcoming movie would certainly take away much of the impact of NTTD.
The way to go is a hard re-boot,, like they did in CR, is the way to go. Amazon and the public should think of Craig's tenure as his version of Bond's life as a 00. It starts with him becoming a 00-agent and end with his death. It makes no sense to try to place his movies in the same timeline as the other movies. I'm not saying Bond26 has to be an origin story even though rumours say it will start with Bond in the navy. I'm just saying the Amazon Bond movies absolutely can't reference Craig's movies.
Comments
Bond has has had billionaire villains before, but not anyone as rich as Stromberg or Drax in a long time. That's my impression at least. it can also be argued the the multi-billionaires have never been as rich or powerful as they are now. We now have billionaires having their own NASA, billionaires sitting on the first row when the president got sworn in, Bezos spending about 50 million dollars getting married in Venezia , The founder of PayPal want to build a city floating on the ocean as well as achieving immortality:
I've suggested before to have a multi-billionaire look like the villain in the first part of the movie, just to discover he isn't in on it. Instead it's the smart head of the science and development department who we thought was 007's ally (Emma Watson?) who's the real villain. She could even use AI to reach her goals.
I would actually quite like that, yeah! I guess you could say Willard Whyte is almost that, but it is quite funny how Bond investigates a big company and pretty much always assumes that it must be the CEO doing all the bad stuff when it could be someone else! 😄
The CEO could be guilty of insider trading or tax evasion, but the science and development director is behind the stuff that's a threat to national security.
I like that image of the floating city - would make for a memorable and surreal scene. The atmosphere reminds me of the 'Citadel', the once mythical and enigmatic unused level buried deep in the classic GoldenEye 007 game coding. Would love for that set to come to life on screen one day.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54357427234_05763b0a9d_o.png
A floating city would bee cool, but even at an Amazon budget it can't be built as complete set. A good solution would be a CGI model of it in the boardroom and then a fight on the unfinished first building stage of the actual city.
But I'm really interested in hearing what other members think are topical fears or problems that would fit Bond26. 😃
My favorite Bond villains tend to be the ones who are on the cutting edge. Drax and Elliot Carver were both decades ahead of their time! Blofeld’s plan in OHMSS was totally unique at the time. The billionaire angle and the AI stuff isn’t really that interesting to me for a Bond film. We’re being forced to live it every day, and plenty of other films in the genre are doing it. Total laziness if they go that route—especially for a film that’s 3-4 years away. It’s hard to anticipate what might be next, but that’s why the writers get paid lots of money and why we’re writing on a message board!
The suggestion from the the Baz Bamigboye article was that the Russian counter-intelligence outfit SMERSH could make a return. I'm guessing that Putin and his mob will still be in power come 2028.
Although I guess it wouldn't really be a return for SMERSH, as they only got mentioned in the films twice, and both times it was a fake-out and they didn't play a part. I don't know if it would be a great idea to use them really: for much the same reason they weren't used in the 60s.
SMERSH has made a return in real life too. The original SMERSH was active from 1942-46. Putin re-instated the organisation just a couple of years ago, and it will function much like it did during The Great Fatherland War.
Wow yeah, it really does exist according to the UK MoD.
A very good reason to have SMERSH as the new bad guy. As for a return I was referring more to the books, Fleming's and the continuation novels that used SMERSH.
But using SMERSH could easily tie the films to using Russian villains.
Sounds like a good plan to me. SMERSH, Russian Oligarchs, the Russian Mafia and Russian Mercenaries could all provide a treasure trove /rogues gallery of evil megalomaniacs, henchmen, assassins, and even some gray area folks who might ally themselves with Bond for a little balance. I would stay away from Russian Mountaintop Prisons though......been done to death in too many films lately. One would think that Steven Knight should be able to come up with something more original.
It couldn't be anyone else. As HowardB says, from the Russian Mafia to oligarchs, Russia is a treasure trove of rogues and you could have Western traitors betraying Bond and MI6.
But a fictional organisation with no ties to any one country or ideology would be better.
I like that too.😁
That was how EON generally approached things. It will be interesting to see what the current creative team and Amazon do. If there are any Russian villains, etc they will probably avoid anything to do with the war in Ukraine.
Bond26 producer David Heyman tells ScreenDaily that they have no timeline on when the film will be made or released.
This somewhat flies in the face of other movie trade paper stories about 2028 and what we know of Dune 3's timetable. I think it probably suggests that Villeneuve is not going to start work on Bond26 until he is completely done with Dune 3 including the publicity running up to its release.
I can imagine that Villeneuve doesn't want Bond overshadowing Dune 3 so he'll just tell journalists he hasn't started yet and won't start until December 2026 when Dune 3 comes out. This would also explain why Stephen Knight has said he hasn't started yet. He has until December 2026 or even January 2027 to sit down with Villeneuve who has said he sits down with the screenwriter and storyboards the first draft to then make changes.
Disappointing news, but I do belive them when the producers say they're taking the time to get the bes film possible.
Martin Campbell gives advice on what to do with Bond26, and it's not surprising.
https://www.goldderby.com/film/2025/goldeneye-martin-campbell-pierce-brosnan-james-bond/
That's a good read, thanks for the link.
It looks like someone at 007.com has been reading this forum. For King and Country, a good title for Bond26 IMHO.
https://x.com/007/status/1990042201674444877?s=20
For King and Country is not a bad title at all. It is, however, already a Bond comic from last year.
A very interesting article. However the journalist got Izabella Scuripico's nationality wrong - she's Polish-Swedish. More importantly Campbell got one thing wrong. Bond26 has to be a re-boot because Bond died in NTTD.
No - they got it right.
You're right. In terms of citizenship she's Swedish-American.
Sigh... please... no more reboots. I's just like to see a PTS on the order of OHMSS, that winks at the audience as it gives us a new Bond.
I would really prefer that there's no breaking the 4th wall in Bond 26. That's fine for Deadpool but not Bond. Given the events of NTTD, I don't think there's any getting around a soft reboot; but it needs to be kept to a minimum, no origin story (stuff like that can be referenced over several films) and Bond needs to stay Bond.
Can they tell an orgin story throughout the movie without actually showing it? Similar to M (Judi Dench) looking at Bonds (Daniel Craigs) file. We the audience can get a brief history of Bond and maybe a reference or to about past missions in conversations with other characters.
I would argue OHMSS doesn't break the fourth wall--Lazenby says his his line as he's looking in the distance, indicating he's talking to himself. This is the kind of thing I'd like to see--maybe someone saying to Bond, "I thought you were dead," and 007 delivering a knowing reply, etc. At any rate, reboots have had their day... I think Marvel even acknowledged this in their new takes on Spider-Man and the Fantastic Four.
I would be extremely disappointed if anyone mentions or alludes to Bond's death in NTTD in Bond26. An example I've used before is "Robin and Marian" (1976) and "Robin hood - prince of thieves" (1991). Spoiler: Robin Hood dies in Robin and Marian. Would Prince of thieves be a better movie if someone in the movie mentioned his death in the 1976 movie? "I thought you died years ago, Robin" says Little John. "No, She only gave me sleeping potion, not poison. We tricked everyone!". Think about it. Would a dialogue like that make Robin and Marian better? In my opinion it would make both movies lesser. Mentioning James Bond's death in the upcoming movie would certainly take away much of the impact of NTTD.
The way to go is a hard re-boot,, like they did in CR, is the way to go. Amazon and the public should think of Craig's tenure as his version of Bond's life as a 00. It starts with him becoming a 00-agent and end with his death. It makes no sense to try to place his movies in the same timeline as the other movies. I'm not saying Bond26 has to be an origin story even though rumours say it will start with Bond in the navy. I'm just saying the Amazon Bond movies absolutely can't reference Craig's movies.