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
@mattjoes — I like your thinking 😂
That's your opinion. In my opinion, this website is for facts, not for opinions. Of course, I have broken the rules of the site by stating my opinion, rather than a fact. In my defense, I will say it is only my opinion that the website is for facts, so whether I broke the rules is a matter of opinion. Furthermore, it is a fact that my opinion is my opinion, so I have now stated a fact.
Wait, what?
Bond Another Day.
To be clear, this is humor, not snark.
Bond 26?
Stand alone stories.
Rugged looking Bond who projects danger and sensuality.
Doesn't resign from anything.
Doesn't fake his death.
Doesn't have anything to do with diamonds or gold.
Doesn't visit M's flat.
Isn't told he has too many vices.
Passes his physicals.
No longer drives a classic Aston.
Has sex with women who enjoy recreational sex without an underlying message attached.
Features a villain who isn't a dreadful boor.
Features London like the wonderful city it is.
No dumb stuff like rolling gondolas and doubt take pigeons.
Isn't burdened by emotional baggage but actually enjoys his job.
For me I’d like to go back to standalone adventures as well, but I wouldn’t be opposed to another multi-film arc for Bond #7 so long as it’s planned out ahead of time. I’d also like the era to skew a bit more fantastical than Craig’s tenure a bit.
One of the elements I liked about NTTD was that Fakunga mixed that sense of “realism” found in Craig’s tenure with the goofy fantastical elements found in the late Connery/Moore/Brosnan era’s. We finally got to see Craig’s Bond tackle a Megalomaniac, and it seems that if EON finally felt comfortable enough after all this time to tell that type of story within the Craig era, then let’s go all out on the next film and do the same thing. After all, Dr. No is essentially about a Scientist with metal hands trying to disrupt American rockets from his private island in Jamaica, but it’s still thrilling and engaging to watch, and we believe in the reality of the film.
One word - hope! When the main character survives against all odds and lives to fight another day (whatever the circumstances) it gives the audience hope.
Killing off a character sends a message of finality. Game over. Bond is no more. Forget seeing Bond surviving lasers up the jaffas, ski jumps with parachutes, centrifuges gone crazy, jumping out of the back of a Land Rover over Gibraltar, being poisoned and ball whacked by Le Chiffre, being shot and falling off a very high railway into a river, getting a head drill.
None of that matters anymore when watching Bond, because we now ultimately know his fate in the end. He dies.
How anyone who is a fan of the series is not depressed by that fact beats me, regardless of `oh yes, but the end credits say otherwise', `they can just reboot it again for the next one', etc. etc.
Until the next Bond is announced and a new film is in production, Bond as we knew him is still dead.
If he's lost his memory and is blindly going off to face a powerful enemy with no defence, like a chick thinking a crocodile is its mother... not much hope! That's a downer ending.
I must admit I did think one way they could have ended it could have been a little montage of the stories Madeline tells Mathilde. I'm not sure where you are so I don't know if you've ever seen the fantastic sitcom One Foot In the Grave? :D It stars a grumpy character called Victor Meldrew, and in the final episode he's killed in a traffic accident. Which is obviously very sad, but the final moments of that episode are a montage under music of various comedic moments with Victor we'd heard about in that episode but not actually seen onscreen, and it works as a kind of comedic high of funny bits whilst somehow being quite sad at the same time. So I kind of imagine Madeline saying "His name was Bond, James Bond" and then kicking into a little montage of Craig doing lots of big fun Bond stuff to a full version of the Bond theme, like skiing off a mountain etc. - and end it on the gunbarrel pose of course. I think that could have been a big punchy moment to end it on, whilst still having that hint of sadness.
Yeah it's a sad ending, it's supposed to be. Or rather it's bittersweet.
But he's not real.
I have a friend who didn't like NTTD, and explained it to me by saying "but James Bond always escapes, that's what he does, he always gets out just in time". She's not what I'd call a Bond fan, but she did get the DVDs of Skyfall and CR, because she enjoyed them at the pictures. But anyway, she thought Bond would re-appear after being blown up, right to the end credits. When the credits came up, she was all "is that it? He's dead?". The shock for her wasn't when he got blown up, it was the credits rolling.
I thought that was interesting.
As far as the thread title, 'where does (the cinematic) James Bond go', I think the almost overwhelming opinion on here seems to be in favour of a mission-based film with the drama and action coming from the villains rather than the inner turmoil of Bond. Would that be correct? More like a traditional Bond movie. I mean, NTTD was more like an action-romance tragedy I suppose. I personally liked Higson's son's remark about it being a Bond film made by people ashamed of making a Bond film, or something like that. I wouldn't go that far myself, as the thirst half of NTTD was a gas. But I can see his point.
That may have worked slightly better.
He's real to me....
:((
But if there isn't anything next (Bond #7 isn't going to continue the story) then you're disappointing them. And so it becomes a downer: he's going to his certain death. If you're after a positive ending, that ain't it.
Thanks, yeah it might be a bit cheesy but I think could have sent the audience out with a spring in their step slightly. Kind of like those big grand swinging-through-the-city shots Spider Man films used to end on. And it sort of says 'he's dead but not really, because now he's remembered as this big hero doing incredible things'. Hell, why not re-enact a few iconic Bond moments, like him using a jetpack or driving a white Lotus Evora into the sea.
And then when Pierce Brosnan took over from Timothy Dalton, was I worried that Brosnan wouldn't be like Dalton? No!
With each change of lead actor in the role, EON has never made a big deal of it. The haven't made reference to the previous actor, and why would they?
With Bond number 7 in Bond 26, we'll get a clean slate and a new beginning.
The end.
That's a very fair comment indeed. I'd start there too. Let's find the right guy for the job. Then sit down with him and explore his strengths. E.g. The Craig Bond was very physical and muscular, a bit unpolished too. But that's where Craig worked best: a charming brutality. Brosnan was more suave: brutally charming. If you work that into your film, you've got half a decent film already. Not every Bond story would match equally well with every Bond actor, IMO.
The TV series Suits and Miami Vice both had their final episodes containing montages of all that had gone before in their final moments, accompanied by a soundtrack. Cheesy, but I loved it.
Could have worked too for Bond, but in some ways that would really feel like closure to the entire series, rather than just ending the Craig chapter and then moving on with a reboot.
I didn't know that about Miami Vice: sounds fun, I might check it out.
Father Ted.
Although that was also bittersweet for obvious reasons.
But I suppose it all depends on how one view’s death. For example, I don’t really view death as “defeat”. It all depends on the context. When Judi Dench’s M died, did that mean Silva won? Depends on your view. I say he didn’t win, because it wasn’t personally by his hand and he didn’t get to live to see her die. Also, M died on her own terms. “Oh, to hell with dignity. I'll leave when the job's done.” She got the job done and saw Bond kill her enemy, now she can expire.
=D>
Interesting thought. I guess I do see it as Silva having won to some extent as he achieved his one and only goal, which is pretty unusual for a Bond villain. But I do like the idea that her seeing Bond kill Silva is probably the more important victory.
I guess it's slightly muddled by Silva putting his gun to both his and M's temples just before- because by the end of the scene they're both dead anyway. But yeah, the manner of their deaths is more important I guess: Silva doesn't get the satisfaction he's been desiring.
Nonetheless SF is a film where every character fails in the long run. And they fail because of their impulsiveness. Silva’s bloodlust leads to him walking into an obvious trap and getting killed, Bond’s decision to lead Silva to Skyfall results in M’s death, and M’s general decisions as a leader lead to.... well, Silva doing what he does, which in itself mirrors how Bond is nearly killed due to her orders in the PTS. I think even during her death M knew she’d failed Silva and the many other agents who’d served under her. Trusting Bond was probably a redeeming thing for her in that sense.
It’s a great ending, a really cool mixture of being bittersweet, but one which still leaves you with that ‘punch the air’ feeling that we associate with Bond films. I’d like to see something similar with Bond 26 - something a bit different in substance but something that leaves us excited.
I mean, throughout SF Bond goes from being this cynical, downtrodden/physically injured agent, pretty much one step away from being a version of Silva, to the James Bond we know who fully embraces his sense of duty (which is pretty much his redeeming quality throughout the movie.)
Not saying they need to follow this formula, especially with the Bond iconography, but it’d be great if it feels like Bond grows as a character by the end of Bond 26 and we’re rewarded with that high of an ending.
I think in SF he doesn’t so much have character growth as overcomes a hurdle that was placed in his path at the start of the film, with M not having faith in him, leading him to be disillusioned with her; really the film is about their relationship, and ends with them being reconciled (well, and M dying).
I think overcoming hurdles is different to character growth in that the protagonist’s general character doesn’t change significantly.
I suppose in the context of the Craig era it feels like character growth. But fair enough, it may strictly speaking be an obstacle, and in the more introspective Bond stories (usually Fleming) it involves Bond reaffirming his sense of duty after a loss in much the same way. Really the end goal of any character growth with Bond is getting him to a point where he's recognisable as that classic Bond you talked about.
Yeah, a big part of that film is M and Bond's relationship. It's an interesting film in the sense that it really looks at M's flaws in a way which I don't think NTTD did particularly well with Mallory's M. Not only do M's decisions lead to Bond getting shot, but she outright lies for him afterwards despite his obvious physical limitations. Not to mention he's an agent who's worn out, having witnessed the death of his fellow agent on that PTS mission, as well as the obvious hang ups he has about his childhood which even MI6 seem aware of. One can understand M's reasons for doing this, and in a sense I do think she has quite a lot of faith in him throughout the film, but again it's a somewhat weird mirror image of what happens with Silva (ie. M's decisions lead to her best agent nearly dying and going off the grid).
I think in Bond M saw a sort of redemption for her failures. Like I said the only thing that really separates Bond from Silva is the former's sense of duty towards MI6/his country, with the latter being a sort of anarchist. She knew Bond would stay at MI6 and do the most good there.
I didn't think the old office was needed. Wasn't that the whole point of CR, to let go the shackles of the past films? Going back to the tropes of DN-DAD was a misstep that became very clear with SP.
For Craig's next three, I would have preferred the Bond, and the world, of CR and QoS. Recurring characters drop in only when integral to the story.
I blame Mendes.
I think it added something to the scene and cemented what they were trying to do with Craig's films, so I'm fine with the old office returning. For the record I'm someone who thinks that they should have reworked elements of Blofeld and SPECTRE in the next film, and ideally should have stayed away from the Pleasance eye scar and white cat.
I don't think these things are as much shackles though as they are recognisable elements associated with the Bond franchise. It's the same with what they did with the gun barrel - they didn't scrap it during Craig's first three films but reworked it in a way that added something. Seeing the old office, reintroducing a version of Moneypenny to the series at the end of SF reinforces that feeling that Craig's Bond is becoming the James Bond we recognise. Staying in the same world that was set up during CR and QOS (thank God they didn't keep the ghastly Apple store MI6 office from the latter film particularly) would have negated what they were trying to do during Craig's run. I suspect we'll see something similar in the next era - maybe they won't keep the old MI6 office or have the DB5 make an appearance, but recognisable tropes of the Bond series will be recontextualised.
Also why blame Mendes? Not the scriptwriters? Or more likely the producers who set up this direction for Craig's run?
With SF, the final twist was "becoming Moneypenny and M" and to an extent "becoming Bond" again.
By SP, we had "becoming Blofeld."
I think "becoming Blofeld" could have been a much more interesting path in SP had they steered away from at least some of the '60s excess (the scar, the cat). The shapeshifting aspect of Blofeld in the books might have been a good direction, Blofeld as a master of disguise.
And as much as flashbacks are not really used in the films (except for NTTD)--Bond being in the eternal present--Logan's idea of Blofeld and Mr. White and the French foreign legion or whatever would have given Waltz, obviously a very capable actor, his own angle to play on a frankly tired character (How do you dial back Blofeld from "Keel Bond now!" and "Making mud pies, 007?"). Mendes would have been the exactly right director for such a character-driven flashback.
Also imagine if Lucia were Blofeld's wife instead. A lot of dramatic potential there as well.
I mean, the SP script otherwise is terrible but the Blofeld/White backstory had potential. It's probably the most frustrating Bond film.