[ SECRET POST #6266 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #6266 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.



__________________________________________________



07.

































Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 40 secrets from Secret Submission Post #896.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[fscom]

02. https://i.imgur.com/2fuj8Td.png

[(Anonymous)]

At this point I just want more Bond, I don't even mind if it goes a bit silly again (even though Craig and Dalton are my favourites).

It's going to be 2026 at this rate before we get a new one.

[(Anonymous)]

They've gotta work out how to fix the mess made in the last one first.

[(Anonymous)]

They really don’t, though. Just make another movie and pretend the last one didn’t happen. It’s not as if the franchise has ever been particularly hung up on continuity.

[(Anonymous)]

+1

They literally shouldn't even address it. Just make a James Bond movie.

[(Anonymous)]

That isn't true, they've always observed continuity and maintained the conceit that all Bonds have been the same Bond. All Moneypennys the same one, but each M was explicitly a new M with different habits. The Craig Bond movies abandons that conceit in favor of a stupid Internet fanfad to franchises detriment.

[(Anonymous)]

To the extent that they've used that conceit, it's been incredibly marginal to the series and what's going on in any given movie. It is just not an important part of the series. Each movie is basically standalone. Canon and continuity is not an important part of it. Ignoring something from an earlier movie is not going to make a James Bond movie worse. Finding some elaborate way to fit a new James Bond movie into 'canon' absolutely *will* make it worse.

In short:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bn-ZwI_jUfo

[(Anonymous)]

I’m dreaming of a period (preferably 1960s-ish) Bond.

I don’t think it’s very likely, but I do think it would allow them to get a bit camp without feeling unacceptably silly.

[sparklywalls]

I actually really like Bonds in the style of Craig* (and Dalton before him) but...I kinda get this view as well because I really feel like the fear of being mocked, and Austin Powers is very much to "blame" for this, has done a number on the psyche of anyone who gets involved in creating a Bond flick in recent times.

The thing is, any parody was (mostly) done from a loving perspective and I think enough time has passed now that any of the original and parody references are going to be lost on most people unless you're a chronic movie-watcher.

*(I say this but I was meh about Spectre and No Tie To Die made me want to...die.)

[(Anonymous)]

Over the pandemic my partner and I watched a bunch of action franchises, including a lot (but not all Bonds). I think that more than Austin Powers, it was the first Bourne film and the overall post-9/11 landscape that meant they moved to a more grounded Bond.