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
I know! Why do you think I'm posting about it?! It's crazy whichever way you look at it. But it's what I've been told TWICE now from VERY reliable sources. I was doubting myself - I thought maybe Craig had changed his mind or been talked out of it - but according to this latest source, that's not the case.
But thank you for being (mostly) polite. I don't blame people for finding the info hard to swallow - so do I - but there's a difference between that and calling me a troll or any of the other various insults.
For the record, DC is my 2nd favourite Bond and CASINO ROYALE my third favourite film after FRWL and GF so I've no desire to see him go, whatever some slightly disturbing Teutonic ladies seem to think.
This touches on the code name theory. Hmmm, Craig's Bond dies; Pierce's Bond is called out of retirement until a new, orphaned, recruit can be groomed. Gold!
Please understand that I'm NOT saying the code name thing is what happens. That's total spec(tre)ulation on my part.
But just put aside your cynicism for a moment and imagine that what I'm saying is true - nobody will laugh at you if it's not; see it as an imaginative exercise - what could possibly happen as part of the PLOT of the film that would make it IMPOSSIBLE for Craig to return?
I'm not "hinting" at anything. I don't know any more than what I've told you. These sources are colleagues more than friends and I can only get so much out of them. Nobody's disguising the news that Craig's going but nobody wants to say how. Beyond the code-name theory, I've got nothin'. And yet I really can't imagine them having the balls to tell the public that they've been watching a counterfeit Bond for the last four movies.
Personally, I'd find it quite exciting but I'm thinking a lot more people would feel angry and cheated. But what else could it be? Grateful to hear any theories.
But you're presuming that the various Bonds know it's a code-name. What if they're going all BOURNE IDENTITY on it?
Yes, it would be terrible. But whilst it sounds like there's a twist in SPECTRE, there's no saying it'll be a good twist.
Connery/Lazenby and Moore are the same person Then the series soft reboots with Timothy Dalton and Pierce Brosnan being the same person. Then the series Hard Reboots and Daniel Craig is the only bond of his era so far.
Having seen some spoilers, Bond being a codename is simply not likely to happen.
What spoilers do you refer to? I think people may be putting too much stock in the leaked screenplays. Substantial rewrites were taking place during filming. Action sequences will likely remain similar due to logistics so spycam stuff will give the impression that the screenplay was accurate; but all the character stuff will be happening on sets.
Again, I don't think the code-name thing is likely either, and I don't necessarily like it.
But if you don't ignore the anomaly of keeping Dench on as M after Brosnan and tackle it head-on, you could make a halfway believable narrative out of it, were you so inclined.
I've a feeling it's the kind of hokey stuff some of the creatives might go for. It'd be a talking point for sure; and where do you go after killing M? Mendes and Logan don't want to do just another Bond-on-a-mission flick, that's not how they're wired. Themes of identity were seeded in SKYFALL and sound like they're central to SPECTRE. And don't some of the lines in the trailer point that way? It can't all be about Blofeld being a relative.
What I was told was that Craig and Mendes had a pact that this would be the last one for both of them and they came up with some sort of plan for that. No idea if that is true or remains true beyond what I've heard.
I don't subscribe to it, but in the history of the series, to explain the multiple actors, no one has ever suggested that James Bond is a code name? Actually
Actually I agree with this 100%
" Not at all. All the previous Bonds have all been the same person to a degree.
Connery/Lazenby and Moore are the same person Then the series soft reboots with Timothy Dalton and Pierce Brosnan being the same person. Then the series Hard Reboots and Daniel Craig is the only bond of his era so far."
Code name theory? Really? I have a couple of bridges to sell, both in London and in New York if anyone's interested.
All 6 actors are playing variations of the same man. Fact. SF went out if it's way to take us to Bond's childhood home which has the tombstones of his parents and Kincade there talking about Bond Sr's gun collection.
The SP trailer shows us a guardianship document with Aunt Charmian Bond's name on it.
The Bond series is notorious for hiring the same actor for different roles and liberal with their characters anyway. How many Felixstowe do we have? He dijon was Felixstowe in 1973 and then reprised the role again in 19 bloody 89. Maude Adams played a Bond girl in TMWTGG and was cast again as OP! Joe Don Baker played a villain in TLD and 8 years and 10 years later he respectively played an ally to Bond.
As for Dench, the producers regarded her so much that they just kept her but she's not playing the same M as she was during the Brosnan era. It's a different character completely and to support this further SF introduced the character of Moneypenny.
Application of thought isn't supposed to be this difficult.
Because if that happens I'll most likely be gone, I'm a big Craig fan but I have to say all this talk of it being his last one for him and actually end with a full stop and then start again I find very worrying.
The tendency to reboot is getting ludicrous Kristian Stewart was saying in an interview that she would be intrigued with Twilight reboot, WTF!
Seriously that franchise is barely a few years since it completed and to think that a reboot of such a recent series is even being considered just shows how bereft of ideas Hollywood is, I'm hoping it was just a comment taken out of context but with the amount of times Texas Chainsaw, Friday 13th and The Nightmare series have been rebooted I wouldn't be surprised.
The success of comic book movies to me might big dollars but blockbuster series are just getting lazy and the amount of reboot reboot is getting ridiculous.
Yes EON since LALD has not been the leader and has taken pages from other films and series but if Babs & MGM have signed off on this it will a step too far.
I'm not saying @dmwalker is spreading spam quite the contrary in fact I've a sneaking suspicion Spectre is going somewhere the series has never gone before and not in a good way. I hope not but to quote another franchise making a return a month or so after ,"I have a bad feeling about this"
That all sounds very promising to me. Not worrying. And nearly everything I have seen in trailers, production pics shows they have been sticking pretty close to the December script - I have only read the October outline. And as far as I know, there were no shocking revelations about Bond in any of them. We even saw a pic of them filming the last shot in the film that showcases the "happy ending" which is a pretty new element with the Craig Bonds.
I do trust Mendes is saying what he has because he feels confident in his film and that it is meant to be a more return to the classical model rather than an abrupt left turn that could ruin one of the most lucrative fanchises in history.
Craig may choose not to return but I can't fathom the filmmakers painting themselves into a corner like this, especially when commercially the franchise is only getting stronger.
I don't believe they'd kill Bond, even if they briefly contemplated it. The code-name idea is implausible but it's the only other possibility I can think of that fits what my sources are saying: They weren't just saying DC's not going to do anymore; they said it will be IMPOSSIBLE for Craig to return.
And I agree, it sounds like madness to do another "reboot" - though I suppose they could go for a much younger Bond. Or launch a series of "retro" Bonds, set in the 60s. They could get REALLY adventurous if they wanted to and make every Bond different - allow some big-name directors to sandbox the character, have a new actor every time, different ages, different periods - a "what if..?" series, if you like. 24 films in, the series is big enough to handle any amount of experimentation.
They may have to think outside the box if they want to survive. As far as straight up "action" spectacle goes, I can't see SPECTRE outdoing MI: ROGUE NATION, to name but one other franchise. All they have are the unique trappings of Bond and his rather limited world of supporting characters. And as much as I'd like to see a return to the "classic" formula, I remember how bored I was getting with the Brosnan films, trudging along to each one with the same enthusiasm you'd have for your local theatre's annual pantomime: Quite exciting when the curtain raises but soporific by the time you reach the finale. Especially now, in this Golden Age of TV, people want character development and narrative twists, and Bond doesn't lend itself to that very easily. Constancy is part of his character.
They've tried for that development in the Craig series and, imo, they've not done it terribly well. CASINO ROYALE was brilliant but - if I'm honest - a little confused. Bond seemed a bit too old to be just getting his 007 status, Judi Dench was still playing M and, frankly, he seemed very much like he'd become the Bond we all know from the moment he met Eva Green. But then, in QOS, they were telling us, "no, hold on, he's not Bond yet" and he did, indeed, seem less like our sophisticated killer than he'd been in the previous film. Then, suddenly, in SKYFALL, he's "over the hill" with all kinds of doubts about his capabilities, 007 by way of THE EXPENDABLES, except no - hold on: Now we've got a male M, in his office, a new Q and Moneypenny and finally, THIS is James Bond, this is him, now.... except who's he been in what seems like it must have been a missing decade of adventures, before he got all clapped-out and retirey (and still no gun-barrel at the top!)
So now they're going into SPECTRE and there's MORE character revelation, presumably on the way to him becoming even MORE Bond, despite the fact that this is the guy who looked ready for the knacker's yard in the last film. EON seems to have rather needlessly painted themselves into a corner, age-wise. Even if DC wasn't aging faster than Harold Steptoe's coal-sack, this is a character who's living on borrowed narrative time.
I say all that simply to illustrate that I can see a certain attraction, for EON, in closing down this cycle somehow and that it would be quite a nice little entity in itself. And one thing the code-name idea would set up very nicely is a radical recasting like Idris Elba. The purists (and other -ists) could disclaim a black Bond and EON could back out if the box-office collapsed (and sadly, it would likely take a hit, though not enough to negate an important cultural moment and - imo - an actor with all the rare qualities needed).
That's the only way I can see EON sticking with the older-actor scenario. I've never believed the Damien Lewis or even the Michael Fassbender speculation for a second. I think the last thing they'll want after Craig is another crotchety actor with a four-movie lifespan.
Anyway, all just ruminations on my part. Nice to be having the conversation about Bond, rather than me, this time!
However, your last post makes a lot of sense and has some interesting reasoning, particularly with respect to EON painting themselves into a corner, the limitations of the Bond formula in an age when 'character development and narrative twists' are par for the course, and your opinion of the Brosnan era.
I guess my point is, I don't necessarily agree with all your conclusions, but your arguments and rationale are, for the most part, sound. Well written.
PS: the codename theory is not on though.
Actually it doesn't sound as crazy once you type it out. I don't like it and never have, but what I like and what Eon does form nearly discreet circles that only overlap occasionally (Connery, Young, Barry, Adam and Dalton are pretty much the only points of tangency.)
I'm in favor of everything that gets Craig through an exit door, including throwing Bond into a vat of something requiring him to undergo plastic surgery and vocal cord reconstruction. Would be in keeping with the code name thing, as that is another ancient rejected idea, one from Maibaum (surprisingly lame coming from him) for covering Lazenby's look in OHMSS.
What is it Harrison Ford says about Rachel's recollections of her family in BLADE RUNNER? Those aren't your memories, they're implants from Tyrell's niece.
I can picture Fiennes' M interacting with a new actor as Bond (but same actual character of James Bond) sending him on a new mission. Or Craig can do a 5th. Either way, nothing radical is required for the franchise to continue for years to come, regardless of the actor. So if Craig wants to stop after SP, he can just step down and allow a new guy to step in.
However killing Bond wouldn't be as implausable as it first seems. For a start it would make for an amazing movie, died saving the world etc. It could work because why is it a given that every new movie has to push the timeline FORWARD, there are loads of gaps in between the older movies to do a story. A proper revenge plot directly after OHMSS for example.
It also wouldn't mean every movie would have to be period piece either because CR is based before Dr No. Reboots could still happen, new actors could still come and go, more emotional resonance could be built up because the audience would have the knowledge of what will happpen to Bond in the future.
I never thought I'd find myself in such a situation but for argument's sake; if SP comes with the bs about a James Bond code name or Bond being adopted by Andrew and Monique, then I'm done. Seriously. Mendes and EON will be dead to me and I'd have to begrudgingly discount and rid myself of everything cinematic Bond related since 2006.
It maybe an extreme overreaction but I don't care. I just can't believe such rubbish could even be considered let alone implemented and executed. Killing a franchise is one thing but this is tantamount to a blood bath massacre.
Now, the more level headed part of me doesn't buy EoN and Mendes taking us down a route of ill repute and ruin. I can accept a little craziness but not full on stupidity.
Exactly! If we feel this way before the film opens imagine how the general public would react. And EON knows this. Which is why I can't fathom it either.
I just can't think of what IMPOSSIBLE thing it could be. If they can bring back Ripley in Alien Resurrection after she was incinerated in 3, then anyone can come back, theoretically.