I mentioned Renate Reinsve above. Her movie Sentimental Value was nominated for nine Oscars, including best actress, and it won Best International Movie. This is a world-class actress and a budding star. Perfect for a role as the villain!
I actually think that AI should be considered as a topic for a bond film now. AI is getting scarily convincing and I think it could potentially become a threat to humanity. I'm not talking Terminator levels of course. That's obviously too sci-fi. They could do it in a more grounded way though, just like nanobots were done in a more grounded way in NTTD than they were in Everything Or Nothing (Pierce Brosnan game).
I just saw an interview with a man named Diamant (diamond). It can be used as both a first name or more often a family name. The family name has been pretty common among Ashkenazi jews. Anyway it sounds very Bondian and can be used for a Bond girl, villain or other characters.
I'll repost what I wrote in another thread as it seems more suited to this one!
Have Bond get drafted by a kindly M to a new division he's setting up called the Double 0 section; it seems exactly what we have come to know the 00s as, nice wooden office and all; Bond is sent to dispatch a senior intelligence head who he has been told is a traitor (let's call him Smythe and put him in Jamaica), but Smythe overpowers Bond and it becomes gradually clear that he is innocent and M is secretly in league with an industrialist baddie (let's just give him a baddie name like Zorn) and the Double 0 section has been set up to be his private kill squad to protect Zorn's interests. The 00s are the bad guys!
Bond and Smythe basically team up, fighting off lots of 00 agents along the way; and Bond confronts M in his office, tries to kill him, but M activates the defence screen in his desk and Bond is captured: maybe M calls in Sir James Molony and he tries to brainwash Bond: mind torture scene in Q Branch!
But by the end Bond defeats Zorn's evil plans to take over the world and M is exposed as his co-conspirator, but Bond and Smythe persuade the government to allow the Double 0 section to remain and be reshaped as a force for good, and Smythe becomes the new M, his relationship with Bond having developed from animosity to mutual respect.
Along the way Bond is made to question his own loyalties and what he believes in, and goes from being just a killer who follows orders to someone who fights for what's right and does it his own way. So a bit of character development for Bond and showing his beginnings as 007 but without being a straight-up origin story.
I think Ralph Fiennes did everyone a big favour whenhe refused go along with it when the filmakers wanted to to make M traitor in SPECTRE. In my opinion they should be extremely careful with making M a villain.
I do think the start of TMWTGG in a Bond film. I'd like to see the PTS of Bond27 or 28 with a mission where at least two 00-agents are involved, including 007. One of the agents, let's say 002, is caprured and presumed killed. Many months later 002 gets saved by 007. 002 gets debriefed by M, but 002 has been brainwashed and he tries to kill M. The rest of the film is about James Bond bringing down the villains behind it all. I'm a bit tired of the tendency in several CraigBond to write plots with earthshattering twists. M dies, Bond resigns, Bond has a child! And so on. I think BrosnanBond was better at keeping the twists at a more reasonsble level. Another 00 is the villain, an ex-girlfriend of Bond is the villain, Bond is held prisoner for months.
I think Ralph Fiennes did everyone a big favour whenhe refused go along with it when the filmakers wanted to to make M traitor in SPECTRE. In my opinion they should be extremely careful with making M a villain.
That would have been a very bad idea as he'd been established as a good guy; I'm not talking about the same thing though- this is a new M who is bad from the start. You couldn't do in the next film, but you can do it in the first. Much like C, really.
I do think the start of TMWTGG in a Bond film. I'd like to see the PTS of Bond27 or 28 with a mission where at least two 00-agents are involved, including 007. One of the agents, let's say 002, is caprured and presumed killed. Many months later 002 gets saved by 007. 002 gets debriefed by M, but 002 has been brainwashed and he tries to kill M.
Yeah that's okay, it's probably better than doing it with Bond anyway as I'm not sure the audience want to see a Bond film where Bond isn't himself. I tend to think successful brainwashing is a bit hard to swallow though, even in a Bond film.
I'm a bit tired of the tendency in several CraigBond to write plots with earthshattering twists. M dies, Bond resigns, Bond has a child! And so on. I think BrosnanBond was better at keeping the twists at a more reasonsble level. Another 00 is the villain, an ex-girlfriend of Bond is the villain, Bond is held prisoner for months.
M is kidnapped, Bond is badly injured, Bond is captured and tortured for months and possibly a traitor. These all seem about the same level to me (probably more extreme than 'Bond resigns', which he'd done before), and they were all a way of shaking it up and keeping it fresh at the time, and I think they were good.
I agree "Bond resigns" wasn't a good example. M as a traitor (suggested) and Leiter dies are better as examples.
Your idea is interesting, but I found it too radical for my taste. We're talking about M as a villain. The M in Bond26 will be a new character, but in the minds of much of the audience he won’t be. While people want to see something new and exciting in the cinema, Bond is also comfort food. We want to know Bond and his closest allies who we know and love (in some form or other. Generally I want Bond's world to be presented again to me in Bond26, not dismantled.
I've no doubt Villeneuve will make a genuine Bond film with his own vision, and that's precisely what one can expect from such a director. For the moment, the choices (producers, director, writer) appear to be incredibly relevant.
About the film itself, it's not very difficult to imagine what kind of vibe it will have considering Villeneuve said CR and SF remain his ultimate references and Barbara insisted on the fact what Craig brought to the character would be continued in the next film (no doubt it's a point she and the executives from Amazon MGM discussed about before the deal and Villeneuve clearly seems to be the best choice in that way).
Comments
I mentioned Renate Reinsve above. Her movie Sentimental Value was nominated for nine Oscars, including best actress, and it won Best International Movie. This is a world-class actress and a budding star. Perfect for a role as the villain!
I actually think that AI should be considered as a topic for a bond film now. AI is getting scarily convincing and I think it could potentially become a threat to humanity. I'm not talking Terminator levels of course. That's obviously too sci-fi. They could do it in a more grounded way though, just like nanobots were done in a more grounded way in NTTD than they were in Everything Or Nothing (Pierce Brosnan game).
1 - Moore, 2 - Dalton, 3 - Craig, 4 - Connery, 5 - Brosnan, 6 - Lazenby
I just saw an interview with a man named Diamant (diamond). It can be used as both a first name or more often a family name. The family name has been pretty common among Ashkenazi jews. Anyway it sounds very Bondian and can be used for a Bond girl, villain or other characters.
The current SACEUR (Supreme Allied Commander Europe - NATO) is general named Alexus G. Grynkewich. A great Bond villain name if you ask me!
I'll repost what I wrote in another thread as it seems more suited to this one!
Have Bond get drafted by a kindly M to a new division he's setting up called the Double 0 section; it seems exactly what we have come to know the 00s as, nice wooden office and all; Bond is sent to dispatch a senior intelligence head who he has been told is a traitor (let's call him Smythe and put him in Jamaica), but Smythe overpowers Bond and it becomes gradually clear that he is innocent and M is secretly in league with an industrialist baddie (let's just give him a baddie name like Zorn) and the Double 0 section has been set up to be his private kill squad to protect Zorn's interests. The 00s are the bad guys!
Bond and Smythe basically team up, fighting off lots of 00 agents along the way; and Bond confronts M in his office, tries to kill him, but M activates the defence screen in his desk and Bond is captured: maybe M calls in Sir James Molony and he tries to brainwash Bond: mind torture scene in Q Branch!
But by the end Bond defeats Zorn's evil plans to take over the world and M is exposed as his co-conspirator, but Bond and Smythe persuade the government to allow the Double 0 section to remain and be reshaped as a force for good, and Smythe becomes the new M, his relationship with Bond having developed from animosity to mutual respect.
Along the way Bond is made to question his own loyalties and what he believes in, and goes from being just a killer who follows orders to someone who fights for what's right and does it his own way. So a bit of character development for Bond and showing his beginnings as 007 but without being a straight-up origin story.
I think Ralph Fiennes did everyone a big favour whenhe refused go along with it when the filmakers wanted to to make M traitor in SPECTRE. In my opinion they should be extremely careful with making M a villain.
I do think the start of TMWTGG in a Bond film. I'd like to see the PTS of Bond27 or 28 with a mission where at least two 00-agents are involved, including 007. One of the agents, let's say 002, is caprured and presumed killed. Many months later 002 gets saved by 007. 002 gets debriefed by M, but 002 has been brainwashed and he tries to kill M. The rest of the film is about James Bond bringing down the villains behind it all. I'm a bit tired of the tendency in several CraigBond to write plots with earthshattering twists. M dies, Bond resigns, Bond has a child! And so on. I think BrosnanBond was better at keeping the twists at a more reasonsble level. Another 00 is the villain, an ex-girlfriend of Bond is the villain, Bond is held prisoner for months.
I think Ralph Fiennes did everyone a big favour whenhe refused go along with it when the filmakers wanted to to make M traitor in SPECTRE. In my opinion they should be extremely careful with making M a villain.
That would have been a very bad idea as he'd been established as a good guy; I'm not talking about the same thing though- this is a new M who is bad from the start. You couldn't do in the next film, but you can do it in the first. Much like C, really.
I do think the start of TMWTGG in a Bond film. I'd like to see the PTS of Bond27 or 28 with a mission where at least two 00-agents are involved, including 007. One of the agents, let's say 002, is caprured and presumed killed. Many months later 002 gets saved by 007. 002 gets debriefed by M, but 002 has been brainwashed and he tries to kill M.
Yeah that's okay, it's probably better than doing it with Bond anyway as I'm not sure the audience want to see a Bond film where Bond isn't himself. I tend to think successful brainwashing is a bit hard to swallow though, even in a Bond film.
I'm a bit tired of the tendency in several CraigBond to write plots with earthshattering twists. M dies, Bond resigns, Bond has a child! And so on. I think BrosnanBond was better at keeping the twists at a more reasonsble level. Another 00 is the villain, an ex-girlfriend of Bond is the villain, Bond is held prisoner for months.
M is kidnapped, Bond is badly injured, Bond is captured and tortured for months and possibly a traitor. These all seem about the same level to me (probably more extreme than 'Bond resigns', which he'd done before), and they were all a way of shaking it up and keeping it fresh at the time, and I think they were good.
I agree "Bond resigns" wasn't a good example. M as a traitor (suggested) and Leiter dies are better as examples.
Your idea is interesting, but I found it too radical for my taste. We're talking about M as a villain. The M in Bond26 will be a new character, but in the minds of much of the audience he won’t be. While people want to see something new and exciting in the cinema, Bond is also comfort food. We want to know Bond and his closest allies who we know and love (in some form or other. Generally I want Bond's world to be presented again to me in Bond26, not dismantled.
The idea is assemble his world, and him to some extent. It's a beginning.
And honestly, you won't be getting Octopussy from Villenueve. I think you need to be prepared to be given Bond in a way you haven't seen him before.
People want something new that at the same time feels like a Bond film.
So what level of 'new' would you accept?
I've no doubt Villeneuve will make a genuine Bond film with his own vision, and that's precisely what one can expect from such a director. For the moment, the choices (producers, director, writer) appear to be incredibly relevant.
About the film itself, it's not very difficult to imagine what kind of vibe it will have considering Villeneuve said CR and SF remain his ultimate references and Barbara insisted on the fact what Craig brought to the character would be continued in the next film (no doubt it's a point she and the executives from Amazon MGM discussed about before the deal and Villeneuve clearly seems to be the best choice in that way).
Are you saying the contract between EON and Amazon specified the tone of the future Bond films?