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
Yep.Purvis and Wade need to go as they have been there far too long.I know money talks but surely Babs and MGW realise how poor their writing is ( anyone reading the DAD screenplay would know that ).
It would probably be better if he didn’t. Especially since most of us want to move forward from certain people and things from his time.
There is a general feel that Babs pulled out all the stops for Craig though, desperate to bring him back for the next one at any cost, gave him a lot of creative control, had his say in who was hired, etc.
Nothing wrong with this per se, as it seems standard practice in Hollywood franchises these days. Cruise has a lot of say in the MI films, for example.
I just feel had Craig been more like Dalton, in terms of making the right noises in wanting to go back to the novels as much as possible, I would have been on board more with the creative decisions that were made during the Craig era. It felt to me that Craig was wanting to push for a more human Bond (which is good in my book), but not necessarily because it tied in with Fleming - really just because as an actor he wanted to portray a more human being.
This led to seeing the demise of the character of Bond in every way possible - retiring him as a sad lonely man, stripping him of the woman he loved, killing M before his eyes, giving him a child that he will never be able to grow old with, and ultimately killing him off.
I've recently thought they should go the other way with it and do a one-man play (or maybe one other character to bounce off of) about the 5 years Craig-Bond spends in Jamaica during NTTD. Reconning with all that's happened in the last 10 years.
Or have Jez Butterworth or Peter Morgan or John Hodge or John Logan or whomever to write an original play about Old Bond and try to get Brosnan, Dalton, Lazenby and Craig to alternate in the role. Could become a fun little thing where after your film run as Bond you get to do the Final Play, or something. never going to happen, of course.
I think this is pretty obvious to everyone. Because of Craig's 'creative control', NTTD was what it was.
I’m wondering when and if we’re going to see a more general return to fun escapism in popcorn entertainment rather than nihilism and dystopia. The 80s were a high watermark of entertainment that made you feel good. Maybe I’m being nostalgic but those classic films from that era were so “punch the air”. Heroes were heroic. Plots were intelligent but lean and focussed. Concepts were clear. Stories were unambiguous.
How many of us pretended to be luke Skywalker, or Indiana Jones, or bond at playtime. Which kids (or adults) wants to be Craig bond?
I think a long term plan is required to secure the long term future of the franchise
Do you think The Batman was nihilistic and dystopian though? It's a dark film, but pretty self-consciously optimistic (especially compared to some of the ideas of the Nolan films).
I get what you mean though. The issue is we don't live in a world where characters like Bond are seen as unambiguously good as they used to be, as is the case with Batman. To be entirely fair, both do have shades of moral ambiguity and Bond is and always has been an anti-hero. There's also just not that same sense of optimism within the world/politics which permeated a lot of 80s action/escapist films.
I'd say kids still want to be like Bond and Batman though. They can also still do 'fun' in Bond, and I suspect they'll strive for that and something slightly more fantastical in the next one, however low key. But I think that sense of darkness and a sense of moral ambiguity, however emphasised, is here to stay for now as it is in a lot of other films.
The one key thing about all the Cubby Bond's (except OHMSS) is that they end on a very positive note, in the 70's and 80's particularly. The likes of TSWLM, FYEO and OP really have a feelgood effect when the end credits roll. You leave the cinema `on an all time high'. The same could be said with the Brosnan era too.
The Craig era sees Bond more as a flawed character, less of a hero, and less of the guy you want to mimic in the street, which is more in line with keeping to the books.
CR ends on a positive note (despite Vesper's death), QoS not so much. SF also ends on a positive note (despite M's death), as does SP. The less said about the ending to NTTD the better.... ;)
But yes, current trends focus more on making heroes tragic flawed figures that you wouldn't necessarily want to be, and Bond is no exception.
It seems to me the two things film execs and fans get wet about us “dark and emotional” rather than “escapist and entertaining”.
I get that that’s just a trend, but part of me yearns for a return to a time when the movies were a two hour escape from the mundanity of life, rather than an allegory for everything that’s bad in the world.
I mean Picard for example. I didn’t even finish the first series. The star trek I like represents the potential best future for humans. We’ve moved beyond trivial things. Every single character on Picard has some emotional flaw or dark secret. It’s wearing as it’s nothing new anymore.
I don’t know if kids think that deeply into it to be honest, I think they just want to watch a cool action film. I used to love pretending to be Rambo after I’d seen First Blood for the first time, and he was a depressed PTSD riddled wreck in that film. I also didn’t think it was the end of the world when Robin Hood died in the old ITV series, so I can’t imagine kids are that cut up about Bond’s death either. Especially kids today, who will have grown up with reboots and all that.
I reckon the franchise will be fine, and I think there’s plenty of variety in the tone of blockbusters at the minute. Some darker ones, some funnier ones. Bond has been doing well with a nice mix of both, getting more gadget and gag heavy again without ditching the character drama. I was sick of the gritty reboot trend too after a while, but I think we’re way past that now.
Will the people criticize it? I bet no one would criticize it because the people will keep on reasoning that the ending came from Fleming right? Think of OHMSS.
So if the ending of NTTD came from Fleming, would they criticize it?
I'm sure the Bond series can learn to balance tone in a way which works. I harp on about it a lot but the Cuba scenes from NTTD are generally seen as 'fun and escapist' but it also has some quite dark, even horrific moments. Can we not have something similarly outlandish but with dark moments - something generally escapist but ultimately low key with high stakes and interesting characters/premises? Not saying I want the film to be a romp going from set piece to set piece (that's not James Bond) but just something true to the spirit of that with a solid story at the centre. As vague as it sounds I think there's something they can take out of that going forward.
You're talking about a multi-billion dollar series that is coming off the most successful era since the 60s, and; Amazon gave up an arm and a leg to have a piece of the Bond films.
You may not have enjoyed Craig and/or the majority of his output as Bond, but I think EoN is doing A-OK as filmmakers, they're highly respected in the business and the worldwide audience continue to enjoy the films, especially the era which recently came to a close.
If Fleming wrote Bond's death, (which he never did, despite the FRWL ending), then it would surely have been the last Bond book. And even if he wrote further adventures after Bond's literary death, they'd have been placed in a time before Bond's death. This is because Fleming took care in the chronology of his character. Like all good writers.
So, if Fleming wrote Bond's death, it would have made sense in the narrative.
CraigBond's death doesn't make sense, because we're being asked to accept that although Bond is dead, he's not dead. He'll be back in an alternate universe, as a different character, but still the same character.
That fudging and back-peddling of the whole fictional cinematic incarnation of James Bond is something I'm pretty damn sure Ian Fleming wouldn't never in a million years tried to do in his books.
Like all good writers, he had an obligation to the reader. His books, however outlandish, had to make sense in that way, otherwise the reader would feel cheated.
I doubt Fleming would ever have officially killed off Bond (if he had he would have done it in TMWTGG), because it would have been bad for business, in his eyes.
I don't think he was against killing Bond as an idea, and had Fleming lived, we may well have had a great final Bond adventure. And Bond's demise would have been quite appropriate, at the hands of his creator.
Much better that, than at the whim of an actor.
Craig’s Bond is dead, but they’re not going to stop making Bond films, so the character will return in a new reinterpretation of the old legend. Because that’s what Bond is now. A modern day myth. I don’t think it’s been a chronological series for a long, long time now.
Like King Arthur then. That all sounds lovely.
And guess what? Generally the world wide box office responded positively, so they made the right decision and the film was a success.
Thank god EoN et al stretched their creative legs and didn't give us the "same old, same old"...
The modern day equivalent yeah. A long lasting pop culture icon who thrives off reinvention and reinterpretation.
In a word - no. Strange as it may sound, having Bond die, but penned by Fleming would be the only way I could ever accept it.
Craig said he asked "can I kill him off?". Which made me think it came from him. That, coupled with the director saying the death was a 'given' even before the script was written, makes me think there's a distinct possibility the 'blame' for CraigBond's death, lies largely with Craig. If I'm wrong about this, I'm sorry. But from what little I've read, the death was part of the deal with Craig coming back. Sure, the team had to go along with it, otherwise the film wouldn't have been made.
I can't be just me that thinks as long as the series has Ian Fleming's James Bond at the start of the movie, there's a bit of responsibility to keep to the one character, and killing him off is a little, dare I say . . . . disrespectful?
Fleming never killed him off, or Gardner, or Benson, or Sean or Harry or Cubby, or Roger (as if he ever would!), yet this far down the pike, after all those novels and movies, they all suddenly decide what a great idea it would be to kill him off?
Creative decision, my arse. It's a gimmick.
Spot on!
If the death of James Bond was not viable and not something the studio thought would sell to the worldwide audiences, they would have put a stop to it (just like they put a stop to Dalton doing a third).
Instead, Universal (arguably one of the top three studios) came on board knowing exactly what EoN had planned.
It’s not disrespecting Fleming in any way; the man loved to make money. If he were still alive sharing in the profits of these films, I’m guessing he’d have no complaints whatsoever.
I’d love to see him without the beard and in a film…
Well seeing as Dalton is on par with Connery as my favourite Bond, if the studios did put a stop to him doing a third, it shows how they can get things wrong. I wouldn't use that example as a good measure of the studios getting things right.
And judging by the state of films being churned out of Hollywood these days, I don't think they are a great barometer for what makes films great either. Yes, they make money, and if that is the only measure to judge them on, then they are doing spiffingly well.
Bond's death was no doubt seen as a money making gimmick too. Doesn't mean to say it was right, and it doesn't mean to say that Fleming would be doing cartwheels of joy in his grave either at the decision the studios made, even if it did line his hypothetical pockets further.
He doesn't match the Fleming description, so a big no from me.