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
Craig Bond Will Return In
BOND 27
I totally agree @jobo...nobody else got a special send off.
No way.
Even the best James Bond films have awful ‘screensaver’ endings that feel so tacked on. The ‘default setting’ is having Bond with the girl. It’s so uninspired.
One of the things I love about the Craig era is how Eon got more inventive with the final scenes.
If we got an ambiguous ‘death’ scene it be terrific. Plus, Fleming purists can hardly argue as it be a direct call back to the FRWL novel and to some extents the ending of YOLT.
Plus, Craig's arc is pretty compressed and compact – it make sense to have a definitive ‘ending’. There is little else for the character to do considering:
If Madeline does get killed in the opening of the film. There is NO WAY they don’t kill off Bond. You can’t kill the hero’s girlfriend in the first 10 minutes only for the rest of the film to be a fun romp.
He’s gonna die.
I may not like that idea but you summoned it up really well.
- "Is this the end of the Bond franchise? No? Ok, so...
- "Does this mean we will have another reeboot?"
- "Is this proof that the code name theory is correct?"
Eon would be left with a bit of a mess to clean and many threads to tie up. I understand the motivation to create a satisfying end to Craig's story arch, but is it really worth all that?
But I'll admit that's incredibly unlikely :)
Interesting point, never thought about it like that
Sorry to step in but I am really invested in 25.
Instead:
Bond wakes up to a bell clanging. Next to him is a woman. They're in bed in Venice.
Bond: I had the most curious dream. I was globetrotting with Mathis and left him in a dumpster, then M died, and *then* I discovered that the man behind it all was some sockless foster brother I've never met before. It was a total mess. And you were...
Vesper (sighing): Darling, I have a confession. Le Chiffre and I, we worked for the same organization. They blackmailed me. But I'm swearing them off...for you. If you'll have me.
Bond (grinning): I'll get us out of here. I've always wanted to spend some time in Jamaica, off the grid, for as long as we like. We have all the time in the world.
Lesson learned. You can't forget the past.
He was part of a sequence emphasising pointless deaths. Right up until that turning point where Bond finally lets go of his anger and finally stops killing. Camille got to kill the General and Bond took revenge for Mathis (they echoed each other throughout out having started ironically with her being prevented from killing the General by Bond) and then it stops for both of them and Greene and Vespers boyfriend were spared.
All of the deaths, including Field and Mathis, were pointless and all the responsibility of Bond, whether directly or indirectly. QOS has been noted for its level of violence much of which achieved nothing and that is the point it was meant to be pointless, that was the theme of the story outside of the Water issue, but there was no getting away from Bonds grief over Mathis which echoed his care for Vesper in the shower scene. The dumping for me was simply continuing the lack of grace and self loathing that Bond felt for the majority of the movie. It was a dreadful thing to do and emblematic of Bonds behaviour through out. Did Camille and Bond find solace again no so a very atypical angry Bond movie but as a twofer with CR now offers a really interesting and different companion piece rather than yet another formulaic Bond film.
As an aside I thought throwing Vespers neckless in the snow like his dismissal of the interview tape at L"Americain could be viewed as disrespectful or a sign to the viewer he has moved on, whatever its ambiguous and shows Craig's Bond has been nuanced and shown vulnerability (Vesper.Mathis M) but lacks any sentimentality which brings us to Madeleine and the end game, will it be any different?
Where the incredibly underrated QOS adds to the narrative is as he is preparing for a double sacrifice of himself and Camille, who begged him to (which would have closed this Bond cycle), until he eyed the fire extinguisher. Most interestingly that save comes after he has 'spared' Green. We are seeing the inconsolable grief played out and as that plays there is a nice inversion, there is no horizontal bed scene and both survive.
We know all about M and at the top of Spectre he repeats the Green save but in a more important way, life with Madeleine rather death of Blofeld.
If we going to play these themes out to honour the five film cycle then Leiter and Swann remain where the narrative left them with Bond. We have a female agent, some extra CIA, a Camille like character and like the early Spectre script I expect one of these characters, maybe more, to be treacherous. But we the audience will be behind the curve until it all has to come out in the third act. To have Madeleine killed in the PTS and then ignore the consequences (we know the pull its in the synopsis) makes no sense to me at this stage. After the PTS he is fishing in Jamaica that doesn't fit with a post death of Madeleine.
I am not sure if your talking to me or your remarks are related to mine but I am well aware of the sacrificial lamb bond formula and its always been used but with more power with Dalton and Craig. I do not think the filmmakers misuse it at all with Mathis it was a perfect example of repeated deaths whilst Bond was on his way to some kind of Solace. The dump was a visual example of his feelings about this death ( an attempt to frame him which would never work so pointless)and what he was in (rage unable to sleep etc) and as Bond said to Camille, Mathis would not have minded. Put simply I am arguing all the deaths in QOS played perfectly into the underlying narrative of Bonds inconsolable grief and the "Pointless deaths" supported the arc everything he touches dies (a point made by M ++++ and Greene). They were perfectly well judged as examples of pointless death which has wrecked havoc with Bond in the summit pointless death Vesper (from Bonds POV).
So to return to my original point how to square that circle with a sacrificial death .... of himself.
Yes exactly.
But the important part of YOLT's ending is that Bond clearly starts out on a journey to find out who he is (against Kissy's wishes). Much more active.
Then he might as well die in every other film then, if it's not a permanent thing.
This whole 'an alternative reality' stuff is for the sci-fi films. Have we really become so saturated with super-heros that James Bond now gets his plot-lines compared to Batman movies and the like?
For me Daniels arc is entirely self contained and whilst a FRWL or YOLT ending has textual authority it opens up the notion of another actor moving the narrative on.
Personally I do not want another actor picking up Daniels reins. What happened with Vesper the consequences, the loss of M and the decision to leave the service and take the B25 journey, which I believe will be very personal, should belong to Daniel alone. There just wasn't the introspection and sense of ownership of the narrative by the characters in the previous eras that this issue mattered.
Each of Daniel's films have left an emotional mark which moved the character forward there is investment in Daniels Bond and the only time that has happened before was with OHMSS and to me there is no emotional connection between DAF and OHMSS. Tidying up OHMSS in the PTS of DAF was a by the numbers narrative, to change the subject thats why given the plot ignition of B25 the idea they will invest in Lea and just kill off her character so we know what happens after Spectre but has no impact on B25 makes no sense to me, in the Bond lite years it would but not this era. Indeed all the signs are the reverse they are setting up events to make Madeleine's involvement more significant.
Personally I do not mind what they do (with either James or Madeleine) so long as its not mere tokenism or pandering to plot point conveyance.
Just have a scene where Bond is completely adamant that he's out, never coming back, and then suddenly he's pulled back in because some hitman is hired to take him out. The barrel pops up, Bond spins around and BANG, blood flows down the screen.
But to me Vesper's death is something shared across all Bonds for all time, whether or not it was shown on screen for a specific actor. It's what establishes the James Bond character, I associate it with Connery and Moore and the rest. Something simmering under the surface, Casino Royale let that out of the bag for all of them.
I'd be down with that too. Highly unlikely, though.
Thanks for your reply which makes sense. Without rehearsing the comparative narrative my connection with this Bond is unique and stands outside of all the other films. I think Daniel has mined the atmosphere of the books through Thunderball to Golden Gun not at a narrative level but as a three dimensional character in his case starting, loss, correcting, get old and seeing his roots come back to bite him on the bum. This Bond cycle is a a morality tale you can be channeled as a sociopath in the name of Queen and Country but that has consequences which you will never escape. Oddly like Daniel who has gained so much from being Bond and suffered physically as well. To finish its a really interesting time to be a Bond fan.