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
-Bond is still alive and doing fine
-Bond returns and remains in MI6
-Bond does not settle down with anyone
In sci-fi, you have some slack and people understand that. Kill Spock, he comes back! OK,
Dr Who changes every few years! OK. Alec Guiness comes back as a vision? OK
James Bond gets killed! no , sorry, I understand the seperate timeline/reboot stuff but we have to have some kind of empathy with the mainstream audience and its "a bridge too far" for them.
Overall, the audeince have great affection for DC (despite SP) and I think audeinces will be sad to see him go so it makes sense to tap into that emotion and have a thoughtful/sensitive/poignant ending rather some horrible Rambo style blaze of glory.
Bond is meant to be undercover and (like Bourne) I would prefer he just merges in with the crowd into the distance, knowing, when the time is right, he will come out from the shadows again.
also, it undermines the grief/emotion invested in the character if you know they are going to come back. Death must mean death to have emotional impact. When we saw Spock die, we did not know he was coming back. It genuinely was the end (or we thought it was), when the character is too big to die (we all know Bond will return) killing him seems a little pointless. ("The Black Knight Rises...again)
Ehhh, I don't know if you have seen "Batman vs. Superman", but it certainly wasn't the big money cash cow WB was hoping for. On aspects it actually lost money. Also the reviews were pretty damn negative...to average at best. The movie didn't even make more money than "SPECTRE". And then it doesn't really matter if you ignore the storyline as set in Nolan's trilogy.
However, you're right in stating that the general audience would likely get confused. I mentioned on another thread that I did a quick unscientific survey of fair weather fans and they really had lost the plot on all of the goings on in this new universe (obviously they don't rewatch the new films with the same regularity that we do). Many had forgotten that it was a reboot to begin with.
I didn't see it and don't plan to but my point was I didn't see anyone complaining about it being confusing. People just accepted that this was a new one who had nothing to do with the Christian Bale movies.
I think dead or alive it was still a definitive closed ending, and I don't remember there being anyone saying it was confusing when he came back a couple of years later being played by Ben Affleck in a movie that clearly had nothing to do with the last one. People just accepted it was a new version.
I'm not sure that Bond being more "real world" (besides, a lot of Bond films are more fantastical than Nolan's Batman movies) makes a difference. And I can think of one real world character who off the top of my head who died and got rebooted: Robin Hood. I remember him dying in the ITV show back in the 80s and they've done loads of versions of that. Not a very recent example but like I said I think the Batman example still holds weight even though he didn't actually die. I also think that it'd still have an emotional impact, and I think Doctor Who is proof of that: the character lives but the death of each incarnation is still always a big emotional moment. So if done right you could still get the audience welling up even though they know they're obviously going to make more Bond movies.
I'm not saying I necessarily want Craig's Bond to die (I do think he has to have a defintive closed ending though, at this point not sure carrying on from him with a new actor would work) but I'm open to it and I don't think the audience would be confused at all.
The thing is @BondJames, the 'death button' has been used in overkill mode during the Craig era. Whereas back in 1969 Tracy's death was an atypical, traumatic experience, during the Craig era we saw subsequently emotional deaths of Vesper Lynd, René Mathis, 'M' and some other. They worked yes, but it would be nice if the writers of Bond #25 can touch a different, more unique emotion, so that the film won't get blamed being too much of, again, a rip-off of a previous movie ("Logan"?).
I think the Bond screenplay writers seriously need to give this a thought. I did exactly that in my story treatment (I'm curious if you like it @BondJames). Or what about a reimagined, more positive spirited resignation from the Service (Bond sitting in 'M's chair when 'M' enters his own office. Bond: "I always liked to understand how it feels to be a bureaucrat, but this time I give the calls. I'm leaving the service!).
That to me is a sign of true creativity. Of writing/doing things that no action film of spy franchise has done before. The 'death button' to me is not very much so.
I'm afraid I haven't read your treatment yet, and for that I apologize. I will try to get to it soon.
Option A --> 57,14% = 8 votes
Option B --> 07,14% = 1 vote
Option C --> 14,29% = 2 votes
Option D --> 21,43% = 3 votes
Or....really turn it into a double ending, in which both parts are in its entirety not related to each other. The part where Bond is featured in is the more happy send-off, whereas the part where the villain is in, is a bit more sinister. A bit like Marvel, but then not intercut with end itltes. A bit like this @bondsum ?
Thats why the end of SF worked so well. The audience were compleley commited to both characters. If JD was still around, I can imagine an amazing death scene for Bond.
It is intriguing to imagine/consider.
PS Star Wars failed on this IMHO re Solo. He should have died in Chewie's arms.
What they could do with a future Bond who holds some continuity from film to film is a FRWL ending where Bond "dies" at the end of one—have it be a shocking, gloomy, even artistic ending if you want with the would be Bond girl walking in the rain in tears and whatever—then "resurrect" him through medicine and physical therapy in the next one with eval by Sir James Maloney, maybe after a unique modern Bondless PTS getting a jumpstart on the villain's scheme. No reason the Bond team couldn't have the foresight to work that out across two films. That framework wouldn't even necessarily have to have anything to do with the actual plots of either movie—just perhaps the tones.
I know, it's complicated.
No, what I really mean is that as interesting as seeing his death might be, the fact is I watch Bond films to see Bond get out of the hairiest situations by the skin of his teeth. I want to see him win! Bond is a survivor, dammit; that's one of the things that makes him cool! So I wouldn't want them to kill him off, ever.
Ever.
Ever.
The only concern I have with him being bumped off is that we probably won't see a film in 2022 then, as they'd probably have to let the series lie dormant for a bit longer before reactivating it. Sadly I'm not getting any younger, so anything that moves this along from the overly leisurely pace they've been operating at over the past decade would really be appreciated and encouraged by me.
If he comes back in another re-boot he will be a laughing stock.
Not all normal cinema-goers or very casual Bond fans see this as a story arc period,they are just Bond films,so to do something stupid like killing him off would be very detrimental....very.
The most important thing will be a new corporate structure which facilitates this though, and that is why unlike most, I'm open to a sale (of either EON's interest or MGM's) or a full sale of MGM to a larger and more stable concern with full distribution capabilities.
If they kill Bond, that would finally fully convince me that they know longer have a clue how to make a Bond films. In 4 films, they still haven't got the gun barrel right, so I wouldn't be that surprised if they did kill Bond.
I wouldn't mind if they did. To me it seems like they've decided that the Craig era is its own self contained thing ala Nolan's Batman. I think the idea of it being the start of a whole new series went out the window with SP. It's all too tied together now to just carry on with a new guy and I mean, they made Blofeld his brother. After SP it's anything goes at this point imo. Sort of a parallel universe take on the old Bond legend.
I think killing Bond off could be a really cool ending to that if done right. But really I don't mind how they end it at all as long as it has a proper ending. Keep the Craig films seperate from the other movies.