BOND POLLS 2017: Craig stays or leaves? Choose one of the four options [RESULTS, page 12]

145791013

Comments

  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    When Craig is done, I am quite positive that a new continuity will be created again with the new actor, who will star in likely more "old school" films that show Bond already at his peak. Can't say I'm overly excited for the idea of a return to those kinds of old school, formulaic Bond films, but I don't see it going any other way.

    I think the best solution for the longevity of the franchise, is to do the same as what has been done with Connery: Casting a new actor (Moore/Lazenby) that is part of the same timeline as was kicked off by Daniel Craig..

    Doesn't make any sense. This Bond is out, and after Blofeld is dead at the end of Bond 25, which would have to happen to retain narrative credibility, I don't see him crawling back to MI6 again when he's just have to retire soon after anyway.

    These Craig films are so special that I don't want further movies after them to corrupt the legacy they created by being a part of the same timeline and screwing it all up. The best case scenario for me would be to have them exist on their own from everything else, EON's ten plus year experiment with narrative and character focused Bond adventures that maintained a heavy continuity and dared to actually make the character interesting and not an infallible superman.
  • Posts: 19,339
    As far as I know,Waltz has signed up for 2 more films as Blofeld,but only if Craig stays on...
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited August 2016 Posts: 15,713
    Again - only hardcore fans like us will love/like/hate, or even talk about continuity in the Bond franchise. Whether they create another timeline for Bond #7, go back to the 1962-2002 timeline or 2006-2015 timeline is irrelevant - the general audience will buy anything as long as the films are good. We represent almost nothing in % of the total audience. We can talk about the continuity aspect as much as we want, the cold truth is that close to no-one cares about this stuff outside of Bond circles like MI6Community.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Again - only hardcore fans like us will love/like/hate, or even talk about continuity in the Bond franchise. Whether they create another timeline for Bond #7, go back to the 1962-2002 timeline or 2006-2015 timeline is irrelevant - the general audience will buy anything as long as the films are good. We represent almost nothing in % of the total audience. We can talk about the continuity aspect as much as we want, the cold truth is that close to no-one cares about this stuff outside of Bond circles like MI6Community.

    If they films are going to make money anyway, why not try to innovate and dare to make Bond as interesting as he deserves to be? The percentage of fans to casual moviegoers doesn't have much effect with Bond in this era. These films have been bigger financial hits than ever before, so clearly the approach makes an impact. We're coming off of two past films that have garnered nearly 2 billion in revenue alone, and that success shows no signs of stopping. Bond will always be event cinema, the icon of icons.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,957
    Who is to say that the continuity and the soaring box office of the Craig era go hand in hand, though, and the wild success isn't attributed to other factors? SF was pretty 'detached' from the continuity in the series that was found in CR/QoS and reintroduced in SP - no mentions of Quantum, SPECTRE, Vesper, none of that, and yet it's the highest grossing in the series. SP brought most of this back, and made considerably less - perhaps it's not what the casual moviegoers want?
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited August 2016 Posts: 15,713
    If continuity is so damn important, explain how DAF, very poorly made film compared to OHMSS, which brought back a dead ally from 2 films ago as the new main villain, and totally disregarded everything involved with OHMSS - including Bond's dead wife - made more money than OHMSS?

    The simple fact here is continuity simply does not work in Bond films. The general audience just does not care for this at all, and they do not want to have to remember previous outings while discovering the latest film. Why is it that the two astounding successes for Craig's era, both box office wise, reactions wise from critics and audience, are CR and SF, the only 2 films in this timeline not linked to any other films? (CR being the first outing, and SF not mentioning any elements of CR/QOS).

    I am not saying Bond can't be interesting. Do you honestly think all 007 films from 1962 to 2002 are boring as hell because they are standalone missions? You, @0Brady and others have been going on for the last 4 years how SF is one of the most important outings in the cannon. Correct me if I'm wrong, but before SP came alone, SF was one of those standalone missions that you seem to fear could come back in the future.

    Standalone missions, but with an evolution Bond character that can be fleshed out on a course of multiple films, without the need of endless personal stuff/going on revenge and with no mentioning of previous films as Bond #7's era progresses, is the way to go. Whether they continue with in Craig's timeline, the 1962-2002 timeline or another new timeline? No one cares apart from us.
  • edited August 2016 Posts: 19,339
    We need to go back to the stand-alone element...the gap between Bond films being made unfortunately isn't the great 'every 2 years' anymore,which is making a continuous storyline hard to maintain,and hard to keep the general moviegoer interested.
    CR and QOS worked because they only had a 2 year gap between them ,so it was still relatively fresh in people's minds still....
  • barryt007 wrote: »
    We need to go back to the stand-alone element...the gap between Bond films being made unfortunately isn't the great 'every 2 years' anymore,which is making a continuous storyline hard to maintain,and hard to keep the general moviegoer interested.
    CR and QOS worked because they only had a 2 year gap between them ,so it was still relatively fresh in people's minds still....

    Agreed, I think stand alone would work best, perhaps with some ongoing element.

    I would quite like B. Character-wise, it feels like Craig's Bond has nowhere else to go, unless he's going to get some Freudian angst over Blofeld. His character now is pretty far from the character he created and because his interpretation was very timely (he was more like a soldier than a spy), it would be a shame to watch it weaken. I think that it's time to get another actor in, even if it's only to bring back Craig afterwards.

  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    If continuity is so damn important, explain how DAF, very poorly made film compared to OHMSS, which brought back a dead ally from 2 films ago as the new main villain, and totally disregarded everything involved with OHMSS - including Bond's dead wife - made more money than OHMSS?

    The simple fact here is continuity simply does not work in Bond films. The general audience just does not care for this at all, and they do not want to have to remember previous outings while discovering the latest film. Why is it that the two astounding successes for Craig's era, both box office wise, reactions wise from critics and audience, are CR and SF, the only 2 films in this timeline not linked to any other films? (CR being the first outing, and SF not mentioning any elements of CR/QOS).

    I am not saying Bond can't be interesting. Do you honestly think all 007 films from 1962 to 2002 are boring as hell because they are standalone missions? You, @0Brady and others have been going on for the last 4 years how SF is one of the most important outings in the cannon. Correct me if I'm wrong, but before SP came alone, SF was one of those standalone missions that you seem to fear could come back in the future.

    Standalone missions, but with an evolution Bond character that can be fleshed out on a course of multiple films, without the need of endless personal stuff/going on revenge and with no mentioning of previous films as Bond #7's era progresses, is the way to go. Whether they continue with in Craig's timeline, the 1962-2002 timeline or another new timeline? No one cares apart from us.

    There's plenty of factors in play for why SF may have attracted more viewership or applause than QoS or SP; it doesn't have to just be down to the continuity the films carry. I'm also not saying that continuity equals success all the time, I'm saying that having a Bond develop over a set of films is fascinating for me to watch and I think that was a factor in why Craig has been so well accepted from people who study film as an art form, a lot of critics who've reviewed the movies as well as loads of general moviegoers, though I won't take it upon myself to speak for the latter party.

    SF most certainly has a connection to what came before, because it a continuos development of Bond as a character. We are able to see Bond develop more and more in each film, and chart how other characters develop in relation to him from what they were, which does connect them in a big way. Continuity doesn't have to mean that Bond constantly barks at M, "Hey, remember that guy with the bleeding eye that died all those years back," or "How do you think Camille is doing these days?" The Craig era has a very sophisticated and nuanced continuity that goes beyond shoving easter eggs down our mouth and really endeavors to create a clear and cohesive character arc, a continuous development of a set of characters over numerous films. We can pinpoint each time around why Bond is who he is and how he's come to be who he is in each film in relation to what he's faced before. CR tells of how Bond became cold and reserved over Vesper, leading into QoS which charts his grieving process until he lets his demons rest, which follows into SF and SP where he continually grows more sophisticated and professional from the rookie he was at the very start. And these also aren't movies where you necessarily need to see the others to "get it" all, it's just that the information garnered from having watched the previous films just helps to inform the story more if you want to get that out of the experience. All the Craig films work perfectly as standalone films, movies you can show to friends or family without confusion. Having seen the previous films only aids in enriching the overall experience more if you're into that.

    However, the argument could also be easily made that the entire Craig era is just one full connected mission, as Bond is facing the same organization or a tentacle of it each time around. Each film's mission isn't as important as the sum total of his fight over the course of the films with a force he couldn't see or give a name to. These arguments about what mission is standalone or what's connected or "fed through" from other films isn't as easy as some seem to think it is.

    The 60s films, for example, are doing exactly what the Craig films are, and the argument could be made that they're just as standalone as the Craig era as we know it. In each era Bond is taken through a series of adventures, largely with the same enemies from the same organization, culminating in a face-off with head honcho of Blofeld at the end. In subsequent films winks are given to the past movies and how they've impacted Bond in varying degrees, displaying SPECTRE's power and its legacy that shadows Bond's work over time as the organization roots its way into his life again and again, even when he least expects it. DN, FRWL, TB and all the rest follow a similar trajectory to CR, QoS, SF and SP in some ways. There's an introduction to the organization via Bond's mission (that at the time he doesn't know is connected to SPECTRE), as in DN and CR/QoS. Then, in another film Bond faces a plot that he is unaware of being connected to the powerful organization, like FRWL and SF, then in all later films afterwards the enemy is known and Bond faces them fully aware of what he's up against and who the enemy is, attaching a face to the evil, as he does in the Craig era's SP and the 60s films TB, YOLT and OHMSS.

    And I think the 60s remains the peak of the franchise that'll be hard to ever match again, and I personally enjoy it even more because of the continuity that carries throughout the movies, such that it seems erroneous to call any of them standalone aside from GF when they do connect to one another. The whole of the Connery era and the sequence in OHMSS when Bond reminisces on his past missions in his office all did continuity in Bond way before the Craig era added it in again, in much more nuanced and deep ways, which I've enjoyed. That momentum of continuity got lost in the Moore and Brosnan eras big time, and that may be subconsciously why I find some faults with them apart from their failures in other areas in addition to that criticism. It's just nice to see Bond develop in ways that are informed by what he's faced previously, with winks to that history big or small in each film, that's all.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    I also think audiences are more sophisticated today than they were fifty years ago, twenty, even ten years ago. There's an expectation now that franchise films have some kind of continuity, this concept now includes Bond.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited August 2016 Posts: 23,883
    The continuity can still be loose, like it is in the MI films. I don't think that it has to be overt and direct, as it was in the Nolan trilogy, or as it is in the Marvel entries. We are talking about films that come out every three years or more these days anyway, so direct continuity isn't so much of a big deal, at least to me.

    I can understand why they may have wanted to do that for the Craig era, given that it is essentially a reboot period with its own timeline, but going forward and post-Craig, I would prefer a return to a looser but still casual continuity, which I think characterized the earlier films (including the Moore ones via returning characters like JW, Jaws, & Gogol).
  • edited August 2016 Posts: 572
    A >>>>> D >>> C >>>>>>>>>>>>>> B

    Edit: Note on A being my first pick: I wouldn't want a next Craig film to be completely devoid of all things past in his timeline, however don't want it to come across as a "Spectre 2." Keep the feel of CR/QOS, with a light reference now and then, provided that it ****fits*** with the storyline, but otherwise reside as a standalone film.
  • Posts: 11,119
    bondjames wrote: »
    The continuity can still be loose, like it is in the MI films. I don't think that it has to be overt and direct, as it was in the Nolan trilogy, or as it is in the Marvel entries. We are talking about films that come out every three years or more these days anyway, so direct continuity isn't so much of a big deal, at least to me

    But I fully agree with you. That's what I have been saying all along. I think....

    I want Bond #25 to be the first film that tackles the last loose ends of the continuity set in CR. But in such a way that people leave the cinema without too many open endings. Just a good "Bond shags the girl" scene and that'll be the end of Craig's run.

    I do however, want at least a -quick- resolution to Madeleine. And having a short, dramatic, but quick break-up scene during the first 20 mins of the film would be good I think.

    No DAF-like situation please where Madeleine is being fully ignored.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    @Birdleson, cool the jets; films were different in the 70s, rich character dramas for sure. Today's pop culture moves at a different pace. We witness resurrected dinosaurs, flying men crashing through buildings and astronauts stranded on Mars. I'll be more specific, the eye candy, what moviegoers want to see on the screen, has become more sophisticated.

    What was done in the Bondverse in the 60s will never, ever be re-created. The great films of the 70s, of which I am a big fan, will never be made that way again-- Godfather three proved point!

    There's no point in pining for the good old days. Pop culture has changed and there are expectations.

    And I didn't say continuity equals sophistication, my friend. I'm stating the obvious: franchise films are now expected to link from one film to the next. Bond is now a part of that expectation (although I have no idea how they will resolve this issue once Craig departs from the role).
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,713
    peter wrote: »
    I'm stating the obvious: franchise films are now expected to link from one film to the next. Bond is now a part of that expectation (although I have no idea how they will resolve this issue once Craig departs from the role).

    Obviously not, since the only 2 'real' sequels in the franchise (QOS and SP) got considerably fewer positive reactions from audience and critics than CR and SF.

  • Posts: 572

    bondjames wrote: »
    The continuity can still be loose, like it is in the MI films. I don't think that it has to be overt and direct, as it was in the Nolan trilogy, or as it is in the Marvel entries. We are talking about films that come out every three years or more these days anyway, so direct continuity isn't so much of a big deal, at least to me

    But I fully agree with you. That's what I have been saying all along. I think....

    I want Bond #25 to be the first film that tackles the last loose ends of the continuity set in CR. But in such a way that people leave the cinema without too many open endings. Just a good "Bond shags the girl" scene and that'll be the end of Craig's run.

    I do however, want at least a -quick- resolution to Madeleine. And having a short, dramatic, but quick break-up scene during the first 20 mins of the film would be good I think.

    No DAF-like situation please where Madeleine is being fully ignored.

    At least you can agree on something together. ;)
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    @daltoncraig007, the success, or lack thereof, of the films you mentioned, has more to do with other elements, rather than continuity.

    Why did a standalone film like LTK die at the box office? Was it because it wasn't continuity? Of course not. Films deliver or fail on many levels.

    For you to say that two, very successful films, were a failure because they were "continuity" is insulting, daltoncraig...
  • edited August 2016 Posts: 11,119
    Guys? Let's continue the voting as well ok ;-)? A, B, C or D.

    --> There's currently a majority of 66,0% who wants to continue the current Bond timeline that was initiated with "Casino Royale", with or without Daniel Craig (options A] & B]).

    --> Looking only at the return of Daniel Craig, regardless of continuity (options A] & D]), there's a majority 64,2%.

    --> Option C] -a brand new reboot with a completely new actor to play James Bond- is fairly impopular. On the whole, forummembers aren't at all enthusiastic of about the prospect of a new Bond actor.

    CONCLUSION: Basically people really want Daniel Craig to return. And there's also the feeling that the current Bond timeline shouldn't be swept away with another reboot.

    CURRENT RESULTS (So far these are the results after 53 people have casted their choices):
    A]...56,6%..(30 voters)
    B]...09,4%..(05 voters)
    C]...26,4%..(14 voters)
    D]...07,6%..(04 voters)

    Please make sure you only vote once. If you want to change your choice, then please amend it properly with a clear post stating your wish to change.


    To make things a bit easier, here are one more time the four poll options:

    A)...CONTINUE the current 'Bond Universe/Timeline' that was initiated with the 2006 reboot "CASINO ROYALE". Daniel Craig RETURNS as agent James Bond 007 for a 5th time.
    Further consequences of option A):
    - The 25th film and other future films will be LESS HEAVY on character background, chronology and continuity
    - (Some of) The other actors from the MI6-family RETURN: Ralph Fiennes, Ben Whishaw, Naomie Harris, Rory Kinnear (Jeffrey Wright)


    B)...CONTINUE the current 'Bond Universe/Timeline' that was initiated with the 2006 reboot "CASINO ROYALE". Daniel Craig RESIGNS, and a NEW, 7th actor takes over the Bond mantle.
    Further consequences of option B):
    - The 25th film and other future films will be LESS HEAVY on character background, chronology and continuity
    - (Some of) The other actors from the MI6-family RETURN: Ralph Fiennes, Ben Whishaw, Naomie Harris, Rory Kinnear (Jeffrey Wright)


    C)...DISPOSE of the current 'Bond Universe/Timeline' that was initiated with the 2006 reboot "CASINO ROYALE". A brand-new reboot will be initiated in which a NEW, 7th actor takes over the Bond mantle.
    Further consequences of option C):
    - The 25th film and other future films will be DEVOID of character background, chronology and continuity
    - (Some) Actors from the MI6-family RETIRE: Ralph Fiennes, Ben Whishaw, Naomie Harris, Rory Kinnear (Jeffrey Wright)


    D)...DISPOSE of the current 'Bond Universe/Timeline' that was initiated with the 2006 reboot "CASINO ROYALE". Daniel Craig RETURNS as agent James Bond 007 for a 5th and final time.
    Further consequences of option D):
    - The 25th film and other future films will be DEVOID of character background, chronology and continuity
    - (Some) Actors from the MI6-family RETIRE: Ralph Fiennes, Ben Whishaw, Naomie Harris, Rory Kinnear (Jeffrey Wright)

  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    @gustav_graves, agreed. All negative comments can be sent to me personally: peter.sheldrick@bcdfilms

    we can continue our discussion on our own time.

    Best,

    P
  • Posts: 11,119
    I was editing my previous post with an update of the results ;-).
  • edited August 2016 Posts: 11,119
    Birdleson wrote: »
    What is going on with this place lately? I'm going to stick to the Originals Thread and the Game/Stats threads for awhile.

    Why are you saying that :-)? This is merely a poll topic. Trying to figure out what the forummembers really want, with some clearly defined poll options. It's interesting to look at the statistics so far and if forummembers are really tired of Daniel Craig or not. So far:

    --> There's currently a majority of 66,0% who wants to continue the current Bond timeline that was initiated with "Casino Royale", with or without Daniel Craig (options A] & B]).

    --> Looking only at the return of Daniel Craig, regardless of continuity (options A] & D]), there's a majority 64,2%.

    --> Option C] -a brand new reboot with a completely new actor to play James Bond- is fairly impopular. On the whole, forummembers aren't at all enthusiastic about the prospect of a new Bond actor.

    CONCLUSION: Basically people really want Daniel Craig to return. And there's also the feeling that the current Bond timeline shouldn't be swept away with another reboot.

    CURRENT RESULTS (So far these are the results after 53 people have casted their choices):
    A]...56,6%..(30 voters)
    B]...09,4%..(05 voters)
    C]...26,4%..(14 voters)
    D]...07,6%..(04 voters)

    Please make sure you only vote once. If you want to change your choice, then please amend it properly with a clear post stating your wish to change.


    To make things a bit easier, here are one more time the four poll options:
    A)...CONTINUE the current 'Bond Universe/Timeline' that was initiated with the 2006 reboot "CASINO ROYALE". Daniel Craig RETURNS as agent James Bond 007 for a 5th time.
    Further consequences of option A):
    - The 25th film and other future films will be LESS HEAVY on character background, chronology and continuity
    - (Some of) The other actors from the MI6-family RETURN: Ralph Fiennes, Ben Whishaw, Naomie Harris, Rory Kinnear (Jeffrey Wright)


    B)...CONTINUE the current 'Bond Universe/Timeline' that was initiated with the 2006 reboot "CASINO ROYALE". Daniel Craig RESIGNS, and a NEW, 7th actor takes over the Bond mantle.
    Further consequences of option B):
    - The 25th film and other future films will be LESS HEAVY on character background, chronology and continuity
    - (Some of) The other actors from the MI6-family RETURN: Ralph Fiennes, Ben Whishaw, Naomie Harris, Rory Kinnear (Jeffrey Wright)


    C)...DISPOSE of the current 'Bond Universe/Timeline' that was initiated with the 2006 reboot "CASINO ROYALE". A brand-new reboot will be initiated in which a NEW, 7th actor takes over the Bond mantle.
    Further consequences of option C):
    - The 25th film and other future films will be DEVOID of character background, chronology and continuity
    - (Some) Actors from the MI6-family RETIRE: Ralph Fiennes, Ben Whishaw, Naomie Harris, Rory Kinnear (Jeffrey Wright)


    D)...DISPOSE of the current 'Bond Universe/Timeline' that was initiated with the 2006 reboot "CASINO ROYALE". Daniel Craig RETURNS as agent James Bond 007 for a 5th and final time.
    Further consequences of option D):
    - The 25th film and other future films will be DEVOID of character background, chronology and continuity
    - (Some) Actors from the MI6-family RETIRE: Ralph Fiennes, Ben Whishaw, Naomie Harris, Rory Kinnear (Jeffrey Wright)
  • edited August 2016 Posts: 11,119
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Not this thread, it's a good one, but around the site thread after thread are starting to become filled with animosity, insults and snide remarks. Now this guy wants complaints sent to his personal e-mail. Just reaching my fill of such things.

    I think I'm partially to blame as well @Birdleson :-(. I had quite a fight with @BondJames in the 'The Next American President'-topic. My apoligies for that. So, since there are more political discussions in here, the atmosphere has become a bit....ehh....'Trump-ian' in style :-(.

    On the other hand, I do think therefore we need a bit more firmer action from moderators. Less 'laissez-faire' and a bit more ethical and moral corrections and warnings.

    What do you think @Birdleson?
  • edited August 2016 Posts: 11,119
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I will not go on there. Because if I found out that anyone on here supported Trump I could not deal with them the same way in the future. I'd rather not know.

    There are a lot of Trump-supporters in here.... You have to live with it. I'm not a Trump-supporter, by jolly no.

    On the other hand, we do need to maintain the unity...that one thing that binds us together: Ian Fleming's James Bond 007 :-)!

    By the way, I think you will like this bit of research I have done. I made a topic out of it:
    http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/16671/the-kennedy-s-james-bond#latest
  • Posts: 11,119
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I'll give it a look. I honestly had no idea that we had a lot of Trump people on here.

    Society is changing @Birdleson. 25% to 30% of all people you're talking with (in a western country) might be supporting a right-wing populist. In the case of Trump still around 42%.

  • Posts: 11,119
    Birdleson wrote: »
    At least not out loud.

    You're hitting the nail on the head. Sadly.
  • Posts: 11,119
    Birdleson wrote: »
    But every poll in my state has him down by almost 20 points. Same with NY, and those are the states I tend to stay in the most.

    I think it's better to continue this conversation in the "Next American President"-topic hehe.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    @Birdelson, I'm not a Trump supporter (far from it), and I was not being rude to you in any way. I won't say your reply to me was projection, but, I did feel you were insulting in your response. And to respect the thread, I suggested, instead of exchanging a disagreement, you could always reach out to me via email.

    No biggie and not an insult to you; just a venue where we could privately exchange our ideas
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    fair enough, sir, and thank you for clarifying. I am still open, and will never be perturbed by the idea, that, if we ever have a disagreement, and felt that it was not appropriate to the thread, please feel free to contact me at my email.

    My repeat,

    P
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    @birdelson
    *my respect (I hate auto-correct)
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited August 2016 Posts: 15,713
    Where was I negative or insulting? QOS is in my top 5 Bond films. The only point I am making is that outside of Bond circles like MI6Community, absolutely no-one cares about continuity. EON can make another CR-level film with Craig for Bond 25 and totally disregard Madeleine, Blofeld and any event of SP, and the film will beat SP at the box office and get better positive reactions from audience. Why? Because the general audience put a bigger emphasis on Bond films being 'good' than on whether or not the latest installment has respected the current continuity. So if Madeline is ignored in Craig's 5th film, only members on hardcore Bond forums like @Gustav_Graves and @0Brady will lament the messed up continuity. The general audience will pay absolutely no attention to it.

    Whether Bond 25 with Craig continues the SP plot points, or EON decides to disregard continuity, only us on Bond forums will care for it. All the general audience want are good films, with or without continuity. A CR-quality level film that disregards Madeleine completely will be as successful and well received as the same film that would feature Madeleine. It's only us on MI6Community who will complain at the (possible) lack of Madeline.
Sign In or Register to comment.