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
So do I. They killed Bond off for the purpose of 'terminating' this incarnation of 007 in a way that they considered artistically satisfying. The fact that they can do whatever they want in B26 is a given. Brosnan's DAD Bond wasn't killed, despite the (unplanned) reboot that followed, and honestly, no one cared. Give it another year or two, the introduction of a new actor, and carefully timed press releases; NTTD and the 'Vesper' Bond will be forgotten in a flash.
I really doubt that was the main driver on doing it though; it would have been mostly because they thought it would make a great ending to the film and this series of films. Any position that it left them in for the next one would just be a bonus. Their main focus is, and has always been, on making the current film the best possible one they can- they won't sacrifice this one for the sake of making the next one even better, they want this one to be great, every single time.
As did Fleming. He treated each book as its own event.
I think NTTD should have ended with the missiles hitting the island as Bond gets obliterated- then cut to Connery in DR NO awakening on the beach to Honey Ryder. The entire Craig era could've been a nightmare Bond was having on Crab key.
I feel it's debatable how deeply audiences will think about all this, especially given the fact that we live in a world of reboots, remakes, and not to mention 60 years of Bond changing actor with loose continuity. Also the gap between NTTD and Bond 26 will probably help wipe the slate a little bit. I presume a big part of the marketing of Bond 26 will centre on the fact that it's a reboot/a new incarnation of the character too, as was the case with something like The Batman... I mean, is there much difference between that film and this scenario for Bond 26? Anyway, short of adapting TMWTGG's opening and doing a 'soft sequel' to the Craig era with a new actor (which seems antithetical to the more strict continuity of those films) there's little way to retcon such a thing.
The "franchise" is the sum total of books, films, merchandising, soundtracks, games, ... This "franchise" looks pretty healthy to me, @The_Reaper. It's not going to die any time soon.
As for the film series, which I suspect is what you're talking about, don't worry. It's got a long road ahead of it. LTK didn't kill it off. DAD didn't kill it off. NTTD will not have killed it off. People thought Bond wouldn't make it through the '70s; people thought Bond wouldn't survive Connery's departure from the role. People thought Bond couldn't survive the fall of the Berlin Wall... Yet time again, Bond proved them wrong.
I'll add to your well-made points, OK ? DAD made a FORTUNE, yet did not keep the series from going with the change for which it was quite ready. And the series survived Connery's second departure, after LALD, and the change to Roger Moore. There were THREE Different Bond actors in just THREE successive films ! OHMSS, DAF, LALD ! The series survived TMWTGG and bounced back in a BIG way with TSWLM.
As for all the over-thinking about "How can they this or that after the ending of NTTD ?!?!?" It will be just like every other time they change actor. New Bond. New story. Sometimes a new M, Tanner, Moneypenny, and MI6 HQ, too. So what. A new film has been just that - a new film.
The point is that the reason why audiences were so willing to accept new actors in the role was because they didn't kill off the character. So, it's not the same. It's not even close. Bond 26 can't just be another Bond movie, because the movie before it also wasn't just another Bond movie.
Personally, I'm not saying that Bond 26 (providing it will be a reboot/a fresh timeline) be generic or rehash overused ideas from previous films. They are going to have to reintroduce this universe to audiences, give us a fresh take on Bond's character (he can't really be a one dimensional character again after the Craig era) and give us something different - stylistically, tonally, narratively - all while making something that is recognisably a James Bond film.
Yes, I think you're right. And even in TLD he 'went rogue' by disobeying M's orders (twice!).
Well, one of those was for a very good reason. Killing a civilian doesn't look good for a hero.
Bond disobeyed M in DN, and no one seems to mind. And with the introduction of the 'sacrificial lamb' to the Bond movie DNA, it could be argued that Bond has made things personal, a lot further back than some might want to admit.
Bond always 'goes rogue' for a good reason (he's never really wrong after all :) ) it's just that people, as you say, like to complain about things he's always done. In TMWTGG he goes 'off the books' on a personal mission (albeit with a nod from M), there's even a slight 'rogue' aspect in that most conventional of Bond films, Moonraker.
I don't think it's as much Bond films 'making things personal' or Bond simply disobeying orders more than it is Bond not being a one dimensional/flat character. LTK stands out because Bond has a goal of his own that drives the story. It's not just him passively being told where to go and what to investigate. Even the whole 'Bond disobeying orders' thing in DAD, CR, QOS and SF gives him a bit more agency in the story because he's choosing to do what he does (in CR it's not for personal reasons, and in QOS while Vesper's death hangs over him, he's just carrying out the mission ultimately, not blindly motivated by revenge). It's certainly something we've seen a lot more of since TLD: in that film Bond ultimately chooses to carry out the assignment himself because of a) the fact that Kara, the woman he chose not to kill out of instinct at the start of the film, is involved and b) Pushkin, a man he knows/doubts is responsible, is also potentially involved, not to mention the death of his colleague 004.
Bond: Yeah, well, when a drug lord maims my friend and kills his wife, I set the bastard on fire - that's my policy.
I see what you did there.
I couldn’t help but hear Leslie Nielsen’s voice.
Totally. Before the Craig era, actors were playing the same character. Now they've decided to kill Bond off, the audience has to approach the next Bond movie with three choices.
1) Accept it's a new character called James Bond.
2) Accept it's the same character, but in a different universe/timeline/reboot blah blah.
3) Not think about it too much and just think 'Bond is like Batman now'.
And that's the situation with James Bond movies now. Great eh?
So how did he survive the explosion and get off the island then?
There's a point to that for the story, and by extension for how it relates to creator Ian Fleming's experiences in World War II.
The Craig era made things really messy, but even then I accepted Dench playing M once again and Blofeld being reintroduced, even though I didn't like the execution. Craig's Bond could have just bowed out gracefully and left the series open for another reinterpretation, but instead it's been left in a heap of rubble due to an egotistical star and a sycophantic producer who clearly didn't know how to say no to him.
I would be more willing to accept NTTD if it actually was the last James Bond movie, but since it isn't, I see no point to it whatsoever. It has no meaning. Craig's version of Bond died but Bond is still alive? It makes no sense. The level of cynicism on display here on the part of EON rivals that of Disney.