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
Good point.
I think the simple thing with Bond is, you either accept it. Or you don't.
Some fans like the more serious Bond films, so like the more outlandish efforts. Some like them all. So after 25 films it would be unusual for a fan to love every single film.
As a fan no one is saying you have to like the course the Daniel Craig films took. Hopefully, you'll enjoy the next direction the series takes.
This. It's only us real fans who worry about timelines and go in depth about the series.
With that being said, I do think EON will want to get to the casting of Bond #7 and production of Bond 26 sooner than many believe they will. They'll want to show that the series hasn't changed with the dramatic end of NTTD, and James Bond will return
He's dead. Dead as dead.
Then, at the end of the credits, we're told 'James Bond will return'. So he either didn't die, (which he did), or the next installment would have to take place before his death. Because that's how honest storytelling works.
But the likelihood is that he'll re-emerge without any mention of his death. So how are we supposed to have any emotional attachment to the death, when he can just appear again? It quite simply doesn't work (for me). I sat there watching it shaking my head with incredulity.
I'm well aware of the nature of a 'timeline/character arc/alternate universe/re-imagining/reboot - call it what you like. I UNDERSTAND IT!!! I completely get it and I'm not confused about it in any way. Just the same as I understand how Bobby in the shower worked in Dallas.
I just find it bloody stupid, okay? Just like Pam's dream. At least when Doyle bought back Holmes he gave us a plausible explanation. Can you imagine Doyle definitely killing Holmes off, then bringing him back from the dead and passing it off as an 'alternative timeline'? he'd lose all credibility instantly.
And looking back what I've just written, I can see I've written it all before, and life's too short, so I'll stop banging on and see you in the literary section when the Horowitz book comes out. I saw a bus this morning with a big advert for NTTD saying how it had been nominated for shitloads of awards, so it's obviously a very highly regarded movie. It's time for celebration for most fans of the film franchise, so have at it you guys.
... and CraigMooreOHMSS, Brosnan sniffed the shoe. It was always the same person, right through. That was the fun of it.
In that case, he looks fantastic for 80 years old. That's hardly honest storytelling then, either - fun or not.
It was just fan service in a film filled with homages to the other films.
Or it is the same man throughout the entire series. Whatever works for you...Colonel.
I'm sorry if I insinuated you didn't understand the concept. That wasn't my intention.
To be honest, the film is still so relatively new and the next one hasn't come out, so we don't know the full fallout. I reserve the right to join your side of the argument if they do something really stupid with it, or the end of NTTD just starts to fall flat in the future. That is totally a possibility for me and I understand that it broke the film for you on first watch.
Like I already said (and you are right, we are just turning in circles here. But what pretty circles they are...), I don't really care about what you call "honest storytelling". To me that went out the window the first time I realised there are loads of problems Bond faces that could be solved by tech or infrastructure that appeared in a previous film. Meaning: They've never been "honest". Why would I expect them to start now? And yes, there is a difference between "Why doesn't he have an exploding pen anymore?" and "He dead." I just don't care that much.
It nearly did even in this character's books. See ending of FR,WL
Also happened with S Holmes and over the falls we go...both authors, as I understand it, were ready to be done with it.
Besides - if it's a different portrayal, with a different actor, then, sure, the previous film - especially as part of few films with a connecting arc - it could end terminally and just start over. Just as when actors changed before DC - and especially with Connery-Lazenby-Connery-Moore - they said nothing and just carried on.
Or regardless of the rest of the world, time is different for him. Hmmm...does he have a phone booth ?
Linear storytelling has a beginning and a defined end as its path. If that's applied to the franchise across the films, it becomes non-linear as pretty much standalone missions.
Betting the next Bond film won't be an origin story: coming in as an experienced agent, I'll see the character as having the Vesper backstory. I don't need to see it presented on screen with the new actor or have it referenced in the story. It's what establishes the character. That's how I see Connery Bond, Moore Bond, and the rest. It's cooked in.
And I won't be thinking about Bond's death when I watch the next film, other than how he beats it. Won't skip a beat.
Miami Airport in CR. Though the last to actually be filmed there was LTK I believe.
This. The only difference being that it's the same franchise. Japanese are keen on this even in original adaptations: they can put the same character in very different universes, with different continuities.
I'd also add that, like for the Craig era, they will probably add whatever they want from the previous ones: the DB5, Spectre and Blofeld in some capacity (albeit without the stepbrother angle) maybe even Vesper and/or Tracy.
Would you rather never see any of the "classic" villains in a new film (and I guess it's really Blofeld/SPECTRE that has been repeated, right? Maybe we can count Safin as a semi-Dr. No) or see a "non-traditional" version of them?
Meaning, as we see from The Batman and that franchise (The Joker, Riddler, Catwoman etc.), at some point filmmakers will want to do (and audiences probably will want to see) something different with the classics instead of the same interpretation of the character again.
One thing I hope they take from The batman (and I am sure it's just me) is the mob element..
I know my idea of an adaption of The Man With the golden gun fell down faster then a balloon made of lead ... or a Zeppelin ;)
But what about an adaptation and modernization of Diamonds Are Forever...
Bond Second year as 00 Investigating the Spangled Mob.. sure its a cut and past of The Batman but hey the last time they cut and pasted from Batman (Casino Royale and Skyfall) it made them a ton of money and I always felt Diamonds was so underrated.
The Craig era was incredibly strong, but overall it seemed rudderless; I hope the the next incarnation will be guided by a clearer vision of where it’s going.
I'd rather keep Vesper to be honest, but used sparingly. One of the things they missed with the films post OHMSS was to mostly ignore Tracy's death. The few times when they acknowledged her was not o ly a nice nod to continuity, but gave some depth to Bond.
I think it's hard to remake the classics. Regardless of the franchise or source material. The first Manchurian Candidate was amazing, the second one a dull, often ludicrous techno thriller. I don't think Goldfinger or Dr No should be updated. They are perfect as it is. Blofeld on the other hand changed so much over the films that he could and should be reused. Not to mention that he's Bond's nemesis, Moriarty to his Holmes. Hugo Drax and Scaramanga came off very different from their novel counterparts, but they were the basis for other movie villains. Drax has basically been cloned and mutated so often that I lost count: there's a bit of him in Zorin, Graves, Trevelyan, Silva... I guess that's the way to go forward: use the villains of the novels as prototypes.
Obv you like DAF the book, but you asked, so...I thought, from the book even before the film, that having James Bond go up against gangsters was lame. Same with having him go up against a single assassin, but, at least, that assassin was becoming a problem to MI6, and, furthermore, it was meant as a "what the heck, he got himself brainwashed and tried to kill M, he's ready to die in the field so let's give him this" job. Gangsters ? They're for police to go after, maybe the FBI (US) or Scotland Yard (UK) other national law enforcement agencies. I think one of the smart aspects of the filming of DAF was that a major, international villain was brought in as the massive consumer of diamonds. What was one of the DUMBEST parts of TMWTGG film ? The carnival attraction wherein Scaramanga would sharpen his killer's skills. The must have been inspired by the Spangled Mob's western-town-private-amusement-park. Ridiculous. Truly, a low point in the books. It was a shame, since the international aspects of the diamond smuggling was worthy, Tiffany Case was worthy, and note those parts - but for Tiffany turning "bimbo" at the end of the film and forcing her into a bikini for non-sensical reasons - were kept when filming. Therefore, when you say "adaptation and modernization" of DAF, I figure you likely include "dump the dumb stuff, use the good stuff" within your concept of adapt and modernize...yes ?
What was your idea?
Still such a shame that they chose that route for Craig's Bond though. They could very easily have had NTTD play out in a similar fashion, without the child and Madeline baggage, had Bond survive at the end, on a boat with some other female, and then end credits roll.
When Bond 26 then comes in, with a new, younger actor, there would be no questions asked by pretty much anybody, as this is no different to an ageing Moore in 1985, and then a younger Dalton in 1987, who we assume shares the same timeline.
The one saving grace for me of Craig Bond dying is that we won't have to endure anymore Vesper flashbacks or reminders of that past. At least Bond 26 gives us a clean slate.
I think audience tastes have changed so much, even since Daniel was cast, that questions would probably still be asked as they are of every major part that has been recast in the last 15 years. I don't think EON are doing anything but reacting to those changing winds, which is understandable. We won't get the luxury of that floating timeline anymore I feel - every Bond will be explicitly different in interpretation and have their own arc. Some you/I/we will like, some less so.
I think this is just how it will be.
What's the betting that at the end of Bond 7's tenure in 2035, the last scene mirrors that in SF but M gives him a mission to infiltrate a card game and take the money from a terrorist at Royale les Eaux and 'You'll be met there by a contact from the Treasury. A Miss Lynd...'