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
Living Royale you make some good logic for it but like I said Mendes has nowhere the box office power CN to be able to do this. finishing Bond definitively something that has never been done before to reboot again so soon would be incredibly risky, Craig either will be back or they'll just continue with a new actor in the same timeline.
The Brosnan films also had the ties to the cold war, the fact Bond was a seasoned veteran that alluded to the previous films, the easter eggs in Die Another Day (with the nods and winks of the Moonraker novel) as well as the allusion of Tracy in The World Is Not Enough in passing dialogue with Elektra King. Far from a reboot, just a recasting. Now they hardly have zilch, even less so than they had then. The series didn't halt with Dalton, all loose ends tied up and begin anew with Brosnan. It simply continued on in the same continuity after a lengthy wait. This however, if your theory is correct, leads credence to yet another reboot within' ten years of the previous reboot and that's just a tad bit ridiculous and stretching of peoples patience. How else could they come back from having Bond actually retire without a means of coming back if that is the intention. As shown by box office numbers, it just is not the trend anymore and people are getting tired of seeing stuff re-hashed. It's old news. Bond is a continuing franchise, never-ending. A nice, little side universe is not required. It's been 50 years and they just had one of the most successful films to date. I think its safe to say people are okay with the one-off films.
Only Robin in name. Only because he helps out Batman is like saying Catwoman, Gordon or to some extent Rachel, is Robin. Batman has many allies in film and on the page, a name doesn't mean anything. He's never meant to be Robin, he's meant to be Batman's replacement and thus the embodiment of Nolan's argument that literally anybody with the gadgets can be Batman, which no matter how you spin it, is wrong. That's not what Batman is about. Batman isn't about the suit or the toys, it's the emotional broken man protecting others from the pain he felt as a child. That JGL character had no drive, he had no focus. The only thing close to it is that his father is killed over a debt and as an adult simply inherits the suit because Batman decides to quit and it shits all over the character. There was nothing driving him to go out of his way to be a hero until he met Bruce. A major theme in the story is “Who was Batman? He was just Batman, the person under the mask doesn’t matter, because ANYBODY can be Batman!” We hear this several times, and it speaks back to the longstanding concept in the Nolan trilogy that a symbol is eternal and cannot be killed or destroyed, and that is what Batman became — an eternal symbol for Gotham, a symbol that would be anybody. The only reason the Blake character is in the script at all is to make that argument, not to fulfill the Robin role of sidekick. They literally could have cherry picked anyone, but because WB wanted a shared, giant universe like Marvel, they decided to shoehorn in the name Robin at the very end of the film as an easter egg in the hopes Nolan would eventually change his mind and they could develop that more in the future. Obviously that did not pan out.
So then do you also feel the novels in general when that happens and the film of OHMSS is too similar to CR with Tracy's death and in your words, cheap? Just because Madeline could die doesn't necessarily make it too similar to Vesper. They've apparently tied all these films together so just because it doesn't have a definitive ending doesn't cheapen its effect. Just because the Blofeld films in the original era ended and the series continued on didn't lessen their over-arcing story, either. Vesper was a traitor and decided her own fate by allowing herself to die. It would be an entirely different scenario if Madeline's life is literally taken from him by someone who (apparently in this universe) shares a unique tie to his past as part of revenge. After all, you said it yourself; in the shooting script, Bond dashes Blofeld's illusion of who his father was by revealing the truth that Oberhauser wasn't really his father at all. Bond takes that last grain of hope from him, why shouldn't Blofeld retaliate? No great villain, left alive at that, would make that missed opportunity go. It makes perfect sense and is the perfect motivator for a revenge plot. They originally had Bond kill Blofeld, which could've worked into the retirement idea as well; Bond wants out, kills Blofeld to tie off all loose ends and leaves that life behind knowing Blofeld could never rear his head again to attempt to punish Bond and drives off into the sunset.
They purposefully changed it so that Blofeld stays alive. Honestly, what villain in Bond movies ever stay alive? None. Because those villains always find their way back if left alive. It's a timeless, classic sequel bait. They know on the heels of Skyfall this film is going to be a success. How big of a success is the real question and if it booms at the box office, why risk ending that run and doing something more risky? We all know damn well Bond doesn't get a happy ending, he doesn't get to ride off into the sunset. That's not what the character is about. Mendes may not have wanted a two parter but that doesn't mean it's still not on the cards with Mike and Babs. Bond will still be around long after Mendes leaves the series behind, no reason for them not to plan the future and thats exactly what it sounds like they are doing leaving Blofeld alive instead of killing him as originally planned. In one of the earlier drafts, long after the two parter was apparently squashed, they still had Bond retiring AND killing Blofeld at the same time. The REAL question isn't whether or not Bond retires, it's what cheeky motivation for Bond 25 are they planning on setting up by decided to change that and leave Blofeld alive.
I think the comparison @thelivingroyale was trying to make is the Nolan trilogy (Bale) -> DC cinematic universe (Affleck) for Batman, still the same character and essentially same studio, but different director, actor and possible backstory. Not a conclusion to the series, but a conclusion to the Craig/Sony timeline.
I don't know why are people calling blasphemy on this, clearly CF/QoS/SF/SP are a separate self-contained timeline with homages to the past that they can just move on from when recasting, and the Craig/Sony era can be considered as one closed story arc a-la Nolan's Batman. They won't reboot with another Begins-type origin story, they'll jump in as it was before, maybe continuing on from DAD with a new actor as if Craig's films/the big Quamtu/SPECTRE arc never happened.
All they need to do is make it clear this is the last Craig film and they're back to the "old ways" after that and we're good!
I'm sorry don't see them carrying on from DAD, now that is ludicrous. I know the comparison he was trying to make and as I said Nolan was allowed to do something that EON would never agree to let Mendes do.
Concluding the timeline so quick to me is not a good idea and rebooting again so soon, why do we even think this is possible? Reboots are nowhere near as successful as they used to be and Bond being one of the best examples of that very thing, why kill a good thing. Yes some here would love it who want just Bond on a mission with no emotional attachment but they are in a very small minority.
As @Shardlake has said, they have just rebooted at some length with a new cast. They are not going to do it again.
Howevever, as @livingroyale has surmised, this could be Craig's last....or then again, it might not be. Regardless of the cryptic finality of the shooting outline, there are many ways they can either bring Craig back for B25 or bring a new actor to step into his shoes for B25. He doesn't marry Madeline does he? So what's the big deal. The only issue is throwing the gun away, which suggests some kind of finality.....but even that means nothing. Didn't Dalton give up his gun in LTK? All was forgiven by the end.
Now, about following from DAD. I don't think that was what @antovolk was literally suggesting.....at least I hope not heaven forbid. However, they could just go back to making 'regular' Bond movies without any drama. Movies where the plot stands on its own. Stand-alone missions. They could do that with Craig or they could do with a new actor. It's really not that big of a deal.
I agree that Mendes likely screwed this whole thing up with his insistence on doing only one movie though, because it appears that the SPECTRE plotline will be compressed and 'forced' into one movie, when it would have been better in two.
I am sure, at some point, that Craig will want to move on from this role. I'm just not sure he will necessarily pack it in after SP.
Perhaps the whole idea of that somewhat cryptic ending is to keep us on edge, and whet our appetites for B25......will it be Craig?.....will it be rebooted?.....will there be a new actor?.......
We're already speculating like crazy, off a shooting outline no less. What makes you think EON does not want us to speculate after seeing SP in the theatres?..... that could very well be their intention.
There was a running saga during the 70's/80's whether each Bond movie would be Moore's last. He played it to the hilt as well. This could be our generation's version of that.
i know for all you haters out there, you want Spectre to be Craig's last, just as much as you thought and hoped that SF would be his last.....
but as it stands right now, he is still contracted for 1 more Bond film.. so until we hear otherwise, lets just all assume that he's coming back... churning the ol' rumor mill does nothing but create confusion..
Hm, but who is claiming to know what will be in the final movie ?
In two scripts change, we went from
to
So they were still wondering how to end this movie IMO, when the leaks occured.
It won't be the first time the ending of a movie will be decided very late in the shooting. And when it has influence on where they will go next, you can guess there are a lot of ongoing discussion amongst many persons.
Mathieu Almaric once said he felt there was as much improvisation on the set of the Bond movie he did than in the auteur movies he usually does.
And it's not the ending that makes me feel SP will be the final Craig film. Apart from this being the last Sony Bond (remember they came on board when Craig did with CR), but it's how it clearly is supposed to be bringing back and connecting to some extent CR, QoS and Skyfall...the way they describe the title sequence in the outline and screenplay screams that this is the conclusion to that arc, and like @thelivingroyale said, either bringing this arc back forcibly in B25, or Craig doing a ''normal' Bond, would feel tacked on. There is, to me at least, a clear character journey for Bond in the Craig era, which is more inspired by Nolan's Batman arc that just CR being the origin story and setting up the future threat (Quantum/SPECTRE), going from that first mission when he becomes a 00, then with the "middle" part being Skyfall which does start more "Bond on a mission" than you think and the end being SPECTRE. Emotionally his journey is complete, he has defeated the organisation behind what happened in the last 3 films, that arc is done, and I'd prefer a closed multi film story like that.
As for the timeline ending too quickly...God damn people, this has been going on longer than the Batman trilogy for crissakes! xP
As I said before, both @livingroyale and you make a lot of sense. In particular, the fact that all Craig Bonds have taken and could take place within the Sony framework is important. A new studio could have different points of view on the whole thing. this supports your arguments.
I just find it hard to believe that they would go through all this trouble and then sort of start all over again from scratch, like how they are starting again with Batman (including new car, new supporting cast etc.).
I think if B25 is in fact Craig's last, they will most likely just pick a new actor and move forward with the same supporting cast and timeline (like they did with Lazenby, Moore & to some extent Brosnan, with only Q staying on in his case).
^^this...
EON likes to keep it's actors/actresses around - as long as they themselves want to stick around.. they could've easily replaced Dench for CR, but they kept her around, regardless of timeline and rebooting.. so i find it very likely, that as long as people likes Harris, Wishaw, and Fiennes want to stick around, they'll be around after Craig hangs it up...
constantly replacing the supporting cast each time a new Bond actor has taken over was never EON's style, they just simply carry on..
plus i hate this notion that these series of Craig films are being looked at as it's own thing, removed from the framework of the rest of the series, and that once Craig is done, they'll simply pick up the continuity after DAD.... this sort of jumping around is dangerous and confusing.... they already rebooted with CR, i dont see them doing it again - and the only reason they rebooted with CR, was because it was Bond's 1st mission, and they felt from a creative standpoint, that that was the best course of action... i don't support the notion that whenever a new actor takes over, it's like a reboot - because for 5 actors, and 40 years, all the films maintained 1 line of continuity... think of it however you do, but thats the reality, and thats the way it is... yes styles change and differ between eras - but that has little to do with "rebooting" and more to do with, evolving film techniques/styles, changing sensibilities, and quite simply - different actors...
whoever takes over after Craig, will no doubt carry on where Craig left off - there is nothing to support anything otherwise at this point in time.
Mate I was saying all if this at length repeatedly about 2 weeks ago. Don't waste your breath. Just take satisfaction when Craig and tge producers start talking about Bond 25.
Also, CR was the first novel, OHMSS was the ninth. There had been 8 books full of different adventures for Bond. So he fell in love twice, and both times the girls died, but there was enough time between them for it to not feel like a rehash imo.
SP will be Craig's fourth film. He met Vesper (and then she died) in his first film and then he was grieving in the second. And then in SP he falls in love with Madeline. There's only one adventure seperating these two (Skyfall) which is why I think if you kill the woman Bond loves off, again, it could feel like it was too soon.
Also, as I've said before, I don't think Blofeld staying alive is necessarily sequel bait. I think it has more to do with Bond leaving his old life behind, and I think that having him spend the rest of his life in prison with the knowledge that he was actually an orphan (after all that resentment towards Bond for "stealing" his dad from him) is a more fitting end to this new Blofeld than Bond just killing him. I could be wrong and it could lead into a sequel but I wouldn't feel cheated or unsatisfied if we didn't see Blofeld again after this.
I don't think a bad guy being spared is always sequel bait. Could be a "he's not worth it" type thing for example, like in Lethal Weapon (although they shoot him like straight afterwards anyway). Or like the end of Assassin's Creed 2, where Ezio spares Rodrigo because he's decided killing him won't bring his family back (although in this case it did actually lead into a sequel). Or a Batman sort of thing where he believes killing the bad guy would make him just as bad, etc.
My point is, the hero sparing the main bad guy isn't always sequel bait, some times it's for story reasons (like in this case, Bond walking away from killing). Although you're right, it would set up a sequel quite well.
This is what I've been trying to say. Completely agree.
I'm not a "hater". I likee Craig's Bond. And I'm not basing this entirely off Bond throwing his gun away (there's a lot more to the ending than that). I'm not going to repeat myself because I went into detail about this on the previous page, listing what I think are good reasons for why it I think it's Craig's last. Maybe actually read my posts properly before calling what I've wrote a load of crap.
The writers cannot seem to decide on what they want Oberhauser to do or say during the meal with Bond and Swann - it has been rewritten a few times with completely different scenarios. This scene seems ideal for improv and hopefully they will find something that feels right. The scenes have not been filmed yet so changes can happen. I don't want Madeleine to die in Bond 25, I'd rather she walk away when Bond cannot stay away from his duty. The scenario has been done to death (pun intended). I do not think that this will be DC's last Bond although (on the surface) the loose ends seem to be tied up, hence the ending. However things are never as they seem....
why don't you read my post more carefully first....... did i single you out?.. no i did not - i said the notion to think that this is Craig's last Bond film BASED ON THAT SINGLE PART FROM THE LEAKED SCRIPT is a load of crap - especially considering that it's been common knowledge for a few years, that Craig is contracted through Bond 25.... I didn't pay attention to who wrote what from previous posts, so all i saw was "Bond throws his gun in the river, that means he's retiring and Craig is leaving the role."...... if i hurt you feelings, my bad - didn't intend to... but i stand by what i said..
christ, i am back after a couple weeks and i already have someone jumping down my throat... god, maybe i just should've stayed away..
In fairness to @livingroyale, he has written at length in earlier posts regarding several elements of the script & shooting outline, which, when taken together and seen as a whole, in combination with the potential Sony break, strongly indicate that this could be Craig's last. The gun is just one element.
I think it was mentioned somewhere that Craig's deal also is actually with Sony. So if Sony goes, the deal goes. Correct me if I'm wrong anyone.
I still think, from purely a plot perspective, the gun in the river is the only definitive piece from the shooting outline that suggests he is leaving the service.
The rest is no doubt credible conjecture based on piecing together several elements present in the shooting outline that seem to admittedly very strongly indicate, but do not necessarily confirm, closure and finality...
its MGM and EON that really hold all the cards and contracts for Bond, not Sony.
it's possible that Craig has a separate actors contract with Sony to appear in X amount of films - one that is separate from his contract with EON to play Bond.... EON and MGM each hold a 50/50 stake in Bond franchise, so any contract decision in terms of Bond films goes through them..
I'm honestly not too sure on the contract bit but I'm curious to know myself. I always thought he was contracted to do B25, but I thought I read somewhere that his B25 deal included Sony, so if there is no Sony, there would need to be a renegotiation. I know he is also contracted for the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo sequels as well and that is a Sony production too.
You could be right. Hopefully someone who knows can chime in.
On a related note, I surprised to learn a few pages back that Sony actually doesn't make that much money from the Bond films...which is why they are very focused on the budget.
i am not shocked... as they are only responsible for half the production and distribution - and that no longer counts home video sales, as that belongs to FOX.
At this point in the game, I think Sony will gladly take whatever amount they can get for anything. lol
It could always end up that the ending is a reference to the Spectre arc of the films ending rather than Craig's tenure as Bond. Perhaps he's letting go of his demons and his past and realizing he needs a break instead of fully letting go of the the job at hand?
At this point, based on what we know from whats been put out there, this can really only realistically go one of several ways;
- A complete reboot again with a new actor and either a re-telling of an origin story or they just pick up somewhere in the middle of a new Bond's career with no ties to Flemings works or the previous 2 film universes.
- They find some sort of dastardly plan to bring Craig's Bond out of hiatus/retirement/whatever you want to call it for one last mission, probably because of the death of some higher up at MI6, the death of a Double O or maybe even a giant act of terrorism. Madeline either stays with Bond, leaves Bond or isn't mentioned at all again like 95% of the other Bond girls.
- Blofeld escapes and wants revenge on Bond for foiling his plans and revealing to him the ugly truth that his foster father wasn't his real dad and he's more so psychologically worse off than he was to begin with. Blofeld goes after Bond with some grand, classic Spectre-ish scheme while also targeting Bond's MI6 coworkers and Madeline. Madeline in this scenario probably bites the dust.
- They take a break from Spectre, Craig retires, the Craig-universe continues on with a new actor and a new mission, leaving Blofeld to return sometime in the near future.
Look I guess we'll see, it's going to be exciting 2015 waiting for this to drop, I can't personally wait whatever the outcome. No hard feeling if I offended anyone we are all Bond fans.
But I do think that they wouldn't get Craig to finish if they didn't know what they were doing, even though I don't think he's gonna be leaving in Spectre.
I think people make too much of the age factor tbh. The references deal a lot more with the fact of the world changing from the Cold War style espionage to modern issues, and the various intelligence services (MI6 in this case) inabilities to adapt, than how old Bond is really.
That's part of it, but chronological age is part of the equation. Mendes has quoted himself as telling Craig, when Skyfall was being prepared, that, "You'll have to play this closer to your own age." I forget where I heard that. It might have been the commentary track on the blu ray. It might have been a video interview.
Well, there is also one dialog which goes something like (yes I'm not writing it exactly to avoid legal issues !)
Q : Bond ? I thought you had gone ?
Bond : Q, I have gone.
But surely all this will be set in stone only after Mendes leaves the editing room actually...
The movie deal is between Eon/Danjaq and Craig AFAIK (but I don't know much about the contracts, and I'm unsure someone here really knows the subtleties of these). The advertising deal is between Craig and Sony, though, and well, the leaked info also hints that :
No more spoilers after yesterday?