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
Casino Royale 1967 beat them to it.
But why, WHY, should he die?
I both hope so and hope not.
Because having him die and then come back to life in the next film reduces the character to a gimmick. Stakes are gone, any possible tension goes. From there on out, it doesn't matter whether he lives or dies as it can just be fixed with no fuss.
One could certainly argue that there are other things that make Bond a bit gimmicky but I don't think it's ridiculous to not want him to become a video game character.
On the flip-side, it does definitively tie off the Craig era as its own thing. So there's that.
Because it'd be a fitting end to Craig's self-contained arc before casting a new Bond?
Like, we know there'll be more Wolverine movies with a new actor under Disney/Marvel Studios and they still killed off Hugh Jackman's...
Yeah, but in that case that's because (please correct me if I'm wrong) Logan was distributed by 21st Century Fox, not Disney.
If EON were to sell Bond rights then they'd have a point in killing him, but that's not the case as far as we know (there have been rumors since SPECTRE's release, but nothing more).
It's a bad idea and isn't going to work.
Seriously PP !!
He wants total control of Bond....this guy has to go ,Babs wont fight him.
I really don't like the kill-off and reboot idea for Bond, really. the Craig films are bleak enough already, and killing the man would only be off-putting to many - myself included; won't go to the theatre to watch that. To quote @barryt007:
I think creatively the point still applies though - the Craig era is a closed off arc. We've already traced the character from the start of his 00 career in CR, why not actually show an 'end' to it? If anything, IMO it'd make the whole thing with Casino Royale 'rebooting the continuity' a lot cleaner if the Craig films are their own standalone thing. Again, just look at all the Batmen...
I'm rather disappointed that this ridiculous death rumour is being defended here. It's really the dumbest idea I've read all year.
Whats the point then..protect up to DAD inclusive and STOP.
Thats Bond.
Not sure I'm up for a period Bond though. That could get old quickly, unless it's a one shot/film experimental deal.
Got a point there, hear hear.
Exactly.....well said.
That's kind of the point. Why bother killing him? Bond is not a comic-book character. He shouldn't just be killed and brought back to life willy-nilly to serve an interpretation. The floating continuity worked for 40 years without the thoughts of Bond being properly killed ever coming up. It's lazy and uninspired to consider it now. And yes, it would be a gimmick. Not only because it would mean exactly sh*t, but because if the series can go to such extremes as to have the character die, then what else could it fundamentally change? That's a rabbit hole I'd rather not delve down.
The Craig backlash has got ridiculous now, people are just lashing out and saying very silly things.
Are we forgetting Brosnan 1 dimensional reading, even if you liked him you are going to try and tell me he was playing the role with depth?
Although some of you would probably be happy with a clothes horse in the role as soon as you got a traditional entry out of it.