It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
As I said, having a thought of finding a way to kill him at the end is not the same as a grand plan for the whole run. I think you’re thinking they’re claiming something that they’re not. They clearly didn’t have it figured out, Craig talks in the podcast about how they had to find a satisfying way of killing him for this film.
Yeah I’ve never heard EON ever admit to production problems on any of their films before: I love the Pat Macnee docs on the DVDs but they never really felt like the truest of accounts (the story behind Dalton’s casting and him supposedly being the real first choice before Brosnan always felt like a bit of a party line). Again on this podcast Craig talks about the issues with Quantum and it’s quite refreshing.
Sorry, I thought I had mentioned it in my opening comment on this but my only reference was to the documentary. Not the podcast. And in the documentary it's said that they had the idea of killing Bond from the very beginning, during prep for CR - and it's that which I find hard to believe. I find it much easier to believe that it came up post-SP because of where the path had led them. I agree, they clearly didn't have it all figured out. If they talk about it in a more detailed and clearer way in the podcast then fair enough, but them having to work out a satisfying way to execute the idea isn't really relevant to my point (as interesting as I'm sure it is) - only when the idea was actually pitched is.
For sure! The films that are plagued by issues always make the best stories. I actually think the behind the scenes turmoils of QoS are more interesting than the film itself.
Yep, but as I keep saying: having the thought of ending it by killing him isn’t a fully-formed masterplan, it’s not exactly implausible to have the idea ‘it’d be good to kill him at the end’- I bet if you look back at 2006 on here you’d probably have fans on here suggesting the same, but they didn’t claim to have 5 films’ worth of story mapped out either. That it happened to align with where they’d ended up with the character 15 years later and they decided to stick to the idea isn’t exactly beyond the bounds of plausibility.
I don’t get why it would seemingly be impossible for Craig to suggest ‘let’s kill him at the end’ back then. And bear in mind this was after CR was made.
I strongly feel that had SPECTRE been a stronger film that it would have been his last ; his tenure would have had him leaving MI-6 and riding into the sunset with Madeline.
With that said, I think that Daniel wanted an ending that would eliminate any chance of returning.
Yup, I think you’re right, and I think it sounds like Craig possibly did consider it to be his last after he’d done it.
No need to reintroduce elements a la CR (and definitely not the Aston Martin). Bring in elements of LALD and MR, including a younger Leiter.
I think that's as near to it as anything. SP was DC's last contracted Bond film and it was pitched early on as 'Bond's last mission' yet there's no mention of his death in any of the leaked Sony/MGM emails - they refer to him walking away from MI6 at the end. That indicates that Bond dying didn't form any part of what was then known to be Craig's last. It also ties in with Dan's comment that EON's response to the idea of killing Bond 'was no, for years'. Still think that Bond dying was Craig's condition for making NTTD and that Barbara Broccoli and MGW conceded as the price of getting the film made.
Obviously that wasn’t in stone or anything, and I doubt it was ever a hard and fast condition he had, it’s just something he thought would be a good ending. It’s right there in Fleming and the CR movie itself: “I understand double Os don’t have a very long life expectancy”. When you watch CR it’s kind of obvious it’s only going to go one of two ways for this character. And they did the happy-ever-after, sunset ending in the previous film.
I quite like this idea of a younger Bond and father figure M. And the villain as a distorted, perverted father figure.
I don't think so. I think they initially hinted at a "Bond begins" in the early drafts of GE, making the Trevelyan character older and a sort of father figure for Bond.
This is how I see it, too.
I wouldn’t have a problem with it. I’m open to anything if it’s good.
The new Bond doesn't have to have a Tracy, or a Madeleine. He could have a Gala or a reimagined Tiffany or Mary Goodnight...really anything.
But I think Bond #7 needs to be on the younger side (closer to 30 than 35) because if he does 4-5 films, that's maybe 12-20 years.
Well, it was not exactly "Bond begins" as he was established as a 00, but from what I understand there were flashbacks from earlier on in his career.
Sorry to bring up Nolan again, but it's easy to imagine him doing something like this. A combination of sorts of Inception and Dunkirk , maybe show Bond at the blitz, as in the origin story graphic novels they're doing now.* If they wanted to go in that direction.
*Obviously that wouldn't work if they keep Bond modern, which they should.
Not in the version I've seen reported on: the whole premise was he's a lieutenant basically kicked out of the Navy and is recruited by M, teaming up with the old 007, who goes on to die on Bond's first mission, with Bond taking the 007 number in honour of him.
In what I've read the previous M was the one who apparently died and turned out to be the villain/Trevelyan character. But I don't know if it was just a rumour about the early drafts or genuine content in the early drafts.
He’s very good in The Tourist, I expect that’s why.
For Bond 15? Sounds more like a Bond 17 draft you’re talking about there.
Yes I was talking about Bond 17, or what would become Goldeney from the beginning.
Same for me. I think I said it before: the B15 premise (Bond teams up with the then crurent 007 who dies in the field, leaving his protégé to finish the mission alone), mixed with elements from Horowitz's Forever and a Day, could make a great movie; however, because IOI's game will more or less at the same time touch on Bond's origin story, such story would not necessarily be relevant for B26.
Right, I was talking about Bond 15: that's what I meant by 'that B15 draft'. That was the one after Roger where Wilson & Maibaum planned a young Bond begins story- that's what we're all talking about.
We need more of Bond physically and emotionally in his prime
A big yes to this.