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
I created a similar thread, but after this one as I wasn t aware of its existence. Nice read, and this post in particular is very poignant.
Well, the new Bond ended differently than expected ;)
This comment aged terrifically, really.
Yes, how wrong could I be? Very wrong as it turned out. Still, I really enjoyed NTTD.
Interesting to see that 'just an idea' thread could end up beeing the 'who's the greatest visionary at MI6' thread ;-)
I'm glad I didn't participate.....
Well, you can't win them all, now can you?
"half decade" sounds like a long time, but thats like 1 bond film apart
Well, if a week is a long time in politics then I suppose five years is an even longer time in Bondology. Who knows what the future still holds? :)
Oh, hang on, the character did die, but they're coming back with a different character, which is actually the same character, but not the same person that just died. It's just that he's got the same name, and it's an alternate universe he lives in.
But it's still James Bond.
What a load of drivel.
Are Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton and Brosnan the same person?
If you can accept that, I don't understand why you can't see how Daniel Craig's era was a separate timeline that followed his five film tenure. Unlike previous films it followed the same storyline, actors and continuity.
I'll put it another way, at the end of AVTAK we read, James Bond will return. Is this the same Bond we see hanging off a Land Rover in Gibraltar?
If so, we have very different views on the Bond universe.
And unlike some, I'm fine with that. ;)
Yes indeed, Brosnan sniffed the shoe.
There was always an accepted loose chronology that gave a wink to the audience that it was the same man. And even with the 'Bond begins' reboot they eventually got back to that same man who was ready to go back to work at the end of Skyfall. I'm well aware it doesn't make sense that Brosnan was fifty in 2002 and 35 in 1962 (or whatever), but that was the deal and it was fun to run with it. It was one thing that made the franchise special, the fact that they'd been making films about the same character all those years.
Where they've cocked it up is killing Bond off and asking the audience to accept there are now two James Bonds, living in some Star trek type sci-fi alternate universe.
It's bobbins.
If some people are okay with it, good for them, and they're the winners because they'll be able to enjoy the movies better because of their acceptance. I wish I could watch NTTD and think 'oh, that's excellent - the James Bond of Daniel Craig's timeline has died, a hero, I wonder what the next James Bond will get up to?'.
After all these years thinking I'm watching the same character, to be suddenly told there are multiple James Bonds, with different endings, and some might die and some might not, is just daft.
Yes, because Felix said "he was married once, a long time ago". And Moore went and visited her grave. Ask agent XXX, she knew!
. . . and before anyone says "I don't see what you don't understand about the timeline".... I DO understand it, but I still think it's daft. I'm allowed to understand something and still think it's silly.
Like I thought Bobby Ewing in the shower was daft. It's the same thing.
The thing with Bond is that he's ever evolving, we can accept him as the same character from DN to DAD. That the same man hasn't aged in 40 years. And with Bond 26 and the seventh actor playing James Bond that will continue.
I can be onboard with that, just like you. Don't let your feeling's on one film ruin the enjoyment you've had for many years. It's just not worth it.
As always James Bond will return. ;)
It hasn't spoiled the series for me, and I'd be daft myself to let it. It has spoiled my enjoyment and enthusiasm for the latest film though, I have to admit. But I'll get over it, and it's only a movie. You could make a list of all the daft things that don't make sense in the Bond movies. . . (why didn't Telly's Blofeld recognise Bond is always a good one), so I can understand why people say "why are you letting one plot aspect spoil things?", but it's such a bit plot aspect that it's too jarring to ignore.
Did Dalton's Bond ever go into space and have a laser battle? It seems ludicrous to think he did. But for me, it's an acceptable ludicrousness. Having the the James Bond character die, and come back in an alternate universe, is a ludicrousness that isn't acceptable for me. It's narratively dishonest, and I'm afraid I can't get past it.
I don't know, you say you understand the timeline stuff, but this example that you give makes me think you're conflating different things. Bond going into space is a thing within a film. The filmmakers deciding to ignore that Bond died in No Time to Die is something outside the films. Bond 26 is not going to be a film set in a science fiction world in which there are "alternate universes".
Sean Connery left and got replaced by George Lazenby as Bond. But I don't watch On Her Majesty's Secret Service and think it's ridiculous that Bond's face, height and voice suddenly changed completely. There was an external factor --an change in actors-- that had an effect on the film, but I know that within the world of the film, this effect is completely irrelevant from a narrative point of view.
And when I say 'real world' character, I mean one based in the world of drama, where the boundaries of known science are adhered to.
I ask this because all the arguments I've seen saying it's okay to kill Bond off, have cited single stories (Hamlet etc) or sci-fi.
Did you need an explanation for the fact Bond suddenly stopped looking like Sean Connery and started looking like George Lazenby?
If the answer is no, why do you think Bond coming back in the next film needs an explanation?
The point is that both decisions/changes exist outside the world of the film. They don't get, or need, any explanation inside the world of the film. "It's a timeline" is not an explanation within the world of the film. "It's a timeline" is akin to the producers saying "we couldn't get Connery back so Lazenby is going to play Bond now, sorry for any inconvenience."
I don't need an explanation for a change of actor, no. that's allowed. What isn't allowed, is killing off a character in a series of novels or films, and bringing them back to life with no explanation. An explanation is most definitely required in that instance, especially if the reader/viewer is expected to have any trust or emotional investment in the character at all.
It's simply good storytelling manners. You can't kill a 'real world' fictional character off and resurrect them on a whim, without explanation. I'm actually surprised most people think it's acceptable.
If we accept they can do this, then they might as well do anything. They could have him sprout wings and fly to the moon, then in the next movie just pretend he never did it?
No writer would kill off a character, then bring out another book with them back to life and say "this book is a different timeline". They'd feel duty bound to place the events of the new book before the death of the character, or do a Holmes style explanation of how they didn't really die after all. Anything other, would be seen as dishonest storytelling.
Obviously, a lot of movies are different in that respect. Bond movies hadn't used to be different in that respect, but now they are.
Brave new world.
I think you're a bit ahead of the game. You don't know how eon are going to treat his death. For me the Bond-films have always had a saga aspect. It explains why Bond isn't always acting the same way (Moore's and Brosnan's lighter touch VS connery, lazenby, Dalton) and why there's incoherence in the stories. It's campfire stories about the same guy, that may or may not fit in the whole series. For me Craig's era tells the story of the start, some episodes in the middle and the end. New films should be set inside this frame, no matter the time period. After all, it also encompasses dr no, filmed in 1962... So judgment on the meaning of nttd can only be made after seeing the next film. They might even go for Fleming's own story (yolt-tmwtgg) in which he Bond survives the blast but loses his memory...