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
This is going to be the issue that separates the double-taking pigeon lovers and the devotees of watch-wearing gorilla suit spies from the full-blown conspiracy theorists, I guess?
Honestly it is all a matter of degree. I understand the folks who feel the jump the shark happened when Connery came out of the water with the rubber duck on his head too.
I didn't feel that way, but you'd better believe everybody could HEAR my eyebrows raising with the MR pigeon (or they could have if they weren't laughing so hard - must have been the same audience that laughed for a minute-plus in SUDDEN IMPACT when the dog Harry Callaghan has to take care of farts.)
The producers and director may have been dumb enough to hire Logan but they aren't dumb enough to kill the franchise. Sony wouldn't fight to keep that crap.
Bond is horribly injured and as in "Face/Off" he is given a new face, thus allowing the introduction of a new actor and continuation of this timeline. ;)
Which means Craig will return for three reasons
1. Eon will offer him a ton of money
2. There will be a ton of dramatic possibilities for Craig to sink his teeth into
3. Warner brothers (my hope as to who get the distribution rights because then an Montreal or rocksteady can do 007) will also offer him a shit ton of money
Thematically I would like Craig to do 6 films
Casino Royale introduced us to both Bond and the orgzation
Quantum of solace introduced us more to the organization
Skyfall the organization attacked bond
spectre we meet the head of the organization and bond falls in love
the property of a lady (bond 25) shows bond vulnerable and lost his love and seeks revenge
The death collector bond returns after seeking revenge to deal with an unreleased problem showing us and the world he is ready to tackle anything
Yes you should have made two posts to separate your alleged scoop (I think I rather believe you, but I also believe misunderstandings happen a lot about the plot of movies while they're being made :) ) and your hypothesis (well, code name theory is quite nonsensical indeed, I'm afraid).
I believe Mendes could kill Bond. The hero or someone close to him usually dies in a Sam Mendes movie :) And at some point in the early scripts, Tanner died.
But I have another hypothesis.
Well, already in the latest script available, it is strongly hinted that Bond leaves MI6 and in the last scene that he comes back some time after his resignation to say farewell to Q, take the DB5, and leave with Madeleine with the We Have All The Time In The World theme.
Maybe a creative person could say it would be a shame to have him back as MI6 James Bond, and that therefore it's impossible to have him back ? Because the important point is :
Guess what, if I'm right, to make it brief, this latest script was NOT part of the leak. It was a script who was in a online folder of some sharing system that they kept using even after the leaks without changing the access codes, so someone could obtain it after the huge files leaks itself, because it seems no one cares about security at Sony.
So the last script could be described as "NOT the leaked scripts", because, if I'm right, in the Wikileaks Sony files for instance, you cannot find it, you can only find older ones. Antovolk, correct me if I'm wrong :) So we may have the real deal, and not some major changes ahead. Because this last script outside the leaks already has a lot of changes in the ending compared to those in the Wikileaks Sony files...
I believe I did make separate posts. I fully disclosed what I know in my first comment. Anything beyond that has no more or less validity than anyone else's comments. I wouldn't even describe what I'm saying as a "hypothesis". I'm just stabbing in the dark and I'm not very convinced by any of it.
I haven't read the leaked scripts, I'm afraid. I didn't want to spoil the film for myself (ironic). But killing Tanner is one thing - frankly, who cares? Killing Bond would be killing a cash-cow for the studios and pretty much robbing Michael Wilson's children of a legacy. Yes, every subsequent film could be a prequel but it'd cast a rather gloomy air over them, knowing how Bond ultimately kicks it. One of the biggest problems for Bond has always been generating tension when one knows the hero can't die; but killing him wouldn't really solve that. Ideally, you want to do something so outrageous that an audience knows you MIGHT do it, without going the full way.
Yes, believe me, I've gone back over what I've been told in my head, countless times. I really don't want to mislead people, believe it or not. But Bond leaving the service doesn't chime with what they were saying. In that scenario, Craig COULD come back. It's frustrating because both my sources are colleagues, not close friends, so I could only gently nudge them towards the answers. I had no feeling they were overselling - quite the opposite. What was striking was how definite they were that Craig could NOT come back. But is it possible I've misinterpreted them somehow? Yes, of course. But in good faith, I don't think I have.
Again, I haven't read this draft but only my second source was basing what they were saying on access to the screenplay. My first source was talking to me based on day-to-day shooting and was in the last stretch of production. This source is, as I said, someone at the HIGHEST level of production. I don't really want to identify them by name as a) it might be compromising for me and b) it might refocus this conversation on me and my credibility, which I don't want to do.
But anyone who works in film production will tell you that huge changes in screenplays regularly occur at the last minute and post-production is, basically, the final rewrite of the material. So I don't think anything definitive can be said about any draft of the screenplay that's out there now, and certainly not with SPECTRE, as I get the feeling there's been quite a lot of chaos behind the scenes; some of that partly ascribable (and in reaction) to the leaks.
The problem, for me, in assessing what SPECTRE holds in store for us is that I have some faith in the production team but not absolute faith. Casting Craig as Bond was near-visionary as a decision; but the same people who made that decision okayed ANOTHER WAY TO DIE as a theme song. There were wonderful moments in SKYFALL but some terrible moments too and, most worryingly, the "big picture" stuff often seems flawed at a basic conceptual level. The plot of that movie was ridiculous and didn't stand up to any degree of analysis; and I've said before that I thought the whole "clapped-out" Bond angle was unnecessary and inappropriate. I'm reminded somewhat of the revamped DOCTOR WHO which seems very much to be built around tricksy "marquee" moments, which sound great in trailers and log-lines but can't be woven into coherent narratives. "M dies!" is a great hook - but it took a tortuously contrived narrative to get to that moment and - imo - the moment, when it came, was poorly executed and, for me, without impact; partly because M is not a great character and was never really meant to be. M is simply a personification of authority; someone to be obeyed or defied in narrative terms. In SKYFALL, we were expected to mourn M's loss purely on the basis of history and the loss of Judi Dench to the cast. Ultimately, I think it was probably a much sadder moment for the crew than for the audience; and to prove the point, M was quickly replaced by Fiennes, to some relief in certain quarters. That's "big picture" stuff - what I call "a conceptual error". And if you get that wrong, no amount of good "bits" will save you. (I am, of course, aware that many will disagree with this assessment of SKYFALL).
But similarly, with SPECTRE, I see a lot I like and a lot I don't. And the "big picture" stuff worries me. "Blofeld returns!" is a great hook. But I worry about how they're getting there. And the action scenes look uninspired; and the photography looks beautiful, for sure, but I don't know if Bond is suited to "beautiful" photography that draws attention to itself, or moody auburn tones that don't really gel with car-chases.
So in speculating on what the future holds, I don't feel I can restrict myself to what I think would be "good". If there is, indeed, some devastating twist that we don't yet know, it may well not be a delight in the final reckoning. As a fan of DC, I'll hate to lose him; I just hope the reason for him leaving is not another conceptual flaw that damages both the film and the series going forward. So yes - the code name theory is nonsensical as pointed out in previous posts. Does that mean they won't go there? Recent history would suggest not.
If SP is indeed Craig's last, no problem, just have B25 onwards be a rebooted continuity with a new actor, new MI6 team cast, new villains, new Blofeld. No need to redo origin story - just go right into the Bond-on-a-mission stuff. Pretty much exactly like what happened with Batman: Nolan's trilogy and the Ben Affleck reboot are even shorter time frame wise than the Craig run, so I see no problem with getting a new Bond and soft-rebooting in the exact same way with a new cast.
@Suivez_ce_parachute - in the leaked Sony files you can only find a couple October drafts, the December/start of shooting draft was on a Dropbox folder accessible thru the email leaks.
Frankly I'm really surprised you may think this. Kill Craig's Bond and that only means Craig's Bond cannot return indeed. But another actor ? No problem. And this is no code name theory. SPECTRE would be then "the one in which Bond dies". I think continuity or even a whole timeline should not be considered for Bond. It's like trying to put all the Sherlock Holmes movie in one timeline. Philip Jose Farmer or Alan Moore could have fun and interest doing that, but the audience ? No problem to have Bond back in a movie after that. Bond can even kill Blofeld several times, as long as it's not the same actor who kills different Blofeld...
But for the moment I stay with my hypothesis : unless they really made a research on the topic, if they go on SonyLeaks (where everyone think there's "everything") and look for the scripts, they indeed won't find the December script. They will only find the older scripts, one which had, well, a more extreme ending ("Bond kills his nemesis brother and resigns").
Even more straightforward : since the leaks happened at the end of November, they may think there's no way the December script is on the Internet... But Sony really does not care about security :)
So from my point of view, all you say looks quite coherent with what we know. Although yet another important change could happen indeed, let's say we don't need IMO to imagine yet another ending to have all the comments you had.
And about your concerns with the story, well, IMO, indeed I think SPECTRE's December script is even more flawed than Skyfall in the "let's be clever" department. And that's even after they removed the "Brother" angle at the climax of the movie (the "extreme" version they told you about ?). Earlier scripts even had yet another huge plothole problem in the villain's behaviour.
The leaked script had Bond with Bondgirl drive off in the DB5 as the last scene.
And we all know, that this scene was filmed in London in the spring.
So there have been no changes to that ending. And that's a typical 007 ending. Ready to return after a well earned holiday.
So whoever told you, dmwalker, that it is impossible for Craig to return, is lying.
Of course SPECTRE could be Craig's last Bond film. But not for reasons in the script.
Well, I think that's a very "meta" approach to the material and perhaps I'm wrong but I'm not sure the general public are ready for that yet. You'd need quite a long hiatus between the "death of Bond" film and the next one, and it'd have to be sold as a reboot or the marketing departments would spontaneously combust.
Not sure the Sherlock Holmes analogy works either. Aside from the 60s CR and NSNA, all the Bonds have been made by EON and though the actors have changed, the tropes of the series have remained fairly firmly in place around them. Even the Craig films have existed in a dialogue with those missing tropes. Sherlock Holmes never had that consistent an identity, there having been several iterations on all mediums until the first semi-cohesive series with Basil Rathbone (which did, of course, suddenly jump from a period to a then-contemporary Wartime setting after the first two movies).
It's all about "narrative" - in marketing terms as well as plot terms. Marvel's current success, for example, has been as much about selling the narrative of their company strategy to the public as the films themselves. So what you suggest is possibly do-able but I think EON would have to have done the legwork first.
I think the B25 pts is all about Oberhauser escaping from MI6.
They don't get married.
It's not even implied in the script, that they are in love.
It's just a Bond - Bondgirl relationship. They enjoy their time together.
And at the beginning of Bond 25 Bond will come back without her.
I could not agree more!!!
This post perfectly illustrates the most sensible approach to this entire dilemma. We have pics of the last scene with Bond and Swann driving off into the sunrise - exactly as written in various outlines and drafts, leaving a perfect cliffhanger of will he/won't he return to MI6 in Bond25.
Why can't this be enough of a reason for believing Craig will return? He is contracted for 5. Which I know he can break if he chooses, but why even bother to renew for a 5th if he's is not going to return? Or make this huge drastic change so far into production of a $300 million film. The production stayed on schedule - even with the knee surgery and tons of scenes jive closely with many clapperboards. If such a drastic change had taken place it would absolutely have altered the production to some degree.
Seems like a few may not want his return (which is fine obviously) or want a change in the tone and continuity of the series itself and this shift would allow that.
I bet he returns. If not, it won't be because it's IMPOSSIBLE for Craig to do so, just that he decided against it. And like the 6 other times in 53 years, all we need is a new actor on screen in the next adventure. They've never made it impossible in the past when Connery/Lazenby/Moore/Dalton/Brosnan left. Craig needn't be any different.
But with all scenarios considered (and facts we absolutely know), I believe this one is the most likely.
Sorry, I don't expect much agreement on this more "safe" (but boring) explanation, but I just wanted to leave my two cents.
I think people are so used to Craig Bond not getting a traditional, "Bond gets girl at the end" ending that such a scenario playing out just has to mean something else and couldn't possibly be like every other ending prior to CR.
That may very well be it. People are not used to traditional elements in the Craig Bonds and have come to almost expect something drastic to happen in the films - which is easy to see why. But I see Spectre as being more "traditional Bond" than the last three. Not even more different.
Hi Aaron,
If I had to guess looks like:
Something to do with the tanks that Bond blows up at Oberhauser's lair.
Or something not even on our radar.
Interesting pic though.
P.S. Sorry I don't know how to use spoilers on my iPad.
I'm sorry that you don't (or don't want) to believe me but if you knew who my sources were you would feel foolish stating so definitively that they were "lying".
Members here can judge whether the tenor of my posts indicate some crazed fantasist so hungry for attention he's just made all this up. Nor is it right to suggest this is some kind of wish-fulfillment from someone who wants to see Craig depart. For me he's been the best Bond since Connery by a wide margin. Even if I've WILDLY misinterpreted what was said to me, one thing has been stated very definitely to me, twice now: Craig is not coming back. Of course that could change - for me to state definitively otherwise would be to display the same naivety about this business that you're displaying - but that is currently the plan.
And I don't, for the life of me, know why anyone is putting so much stock in the leaked scripts or what's been snapped by spycams. EON are not completely unsavvy about this stuff and would know how to protect a major plot twist, leaks or not. And on a film of this size, as I've said, the ONLY final, definitive draft will be the one some minion types up after everything is locked; probably a few days before the premiere. I don't get why some here can't seem to grasp that fact.