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
And amen to your comment @antovolk haha :D
But killing James Bond off, and then having the next James Bond film with him alive with no explanation, that's just daft. Surely? That's stretching it too far.
What are they going to put after the end titles... "James Bond will return in an alternate universe"
It's a lot dafter than thinking Craig's Bond may somewhere have sung 'Underneath The Mango Tree". I know the Bond continuity is a laugh, but that doesn't mean they have to have make Bond 26 Bond - The Resurrection!
Yeah, true....fair point...It's just that i don't fancy the whole thing of him dying or having a kid and all that. It doesn't look good on paper or at the moment.....am just hoping November is good to the whole concept when we get to see it, because at this point, the Bond franchise after SP needs a stellar reception, not necessarily a 1billion hit, a positive reception to give people reason to hunger for Bond 7 & Bond 26.
And don't underestimate an audience, they're a lot smarter than you think. If Craig's James Bond dies, and then it says James Bond will return, with people already aware of it being his last film, I think people can easily put 2 and 2 together to think "oh the next era will be probably be another reboot" Done, or they can just wait and find that information out when they watch Bond 26.
Again, The Batman with Robert Pattinson, is a complete reboot with no connection to Ben Affleck or Nolan or Snyder or whoever, and it's not an origin story. People get it, and people are on board. Simples.
Yes, good catch, thanks for the reminder @matt_u . I had forgotten that there was indeed a 253 on that second page.
As for Ash...
I can suspend disbelief long enough to think that the Bond at the end of Skyfall, in M's panelled office, with Moneypenny outside, is the same Bond as in Dr No. But my disbelief wouldn't be able to ignore a Bond actually dies, then returns plot.
And it's not something that doesn't matter, like he doesn't smoke the right cigarettes as the previous Bond, or his hair's the wrong colour... He'S DIED!!!!
You can't just go "ah, good another Bond film, so I'll ignore the last one".
If Brosnan's Bond had died in Die Another Day, it would have made no difference to Casino Royale. If people can't comprehend it, that's on them, not the producers and writers - or the actor.
So was Roger Moore's Bond the same person as Sean Connery's Bond, in your mind, when you watch them.
True.
There have been a lot of action heroes. In recent decades, Bourne and Ethan Hunt have entered this arena.
I think EON has attempted to create a Bond that straddles that world and the one that has made the MCU so successful: characters with whom audiences have an emotional attachment.
Bond has always had a back story. I think it was worth exploring.
They got away with it originally because no-one cared enough and it was easy to just gloss over, it isn't that easy anymore, with the way people interact with films and cinema now.
Which is what Dalton did, and it wasn't a problem.
I'll tell you what I think. I think people who watch super-hero movies and sci-fi (perhaps younger people), would be much more open to Bond dying and coming back, than older, seasoned Bond fans who have lived through the actor changes, and aren't used to the idea of a 're-boot'. Till Casino Royale I thought a re-boot was just changing your shoes.
Also it's easier for superhero movies because their success was fully reinvigorated in the modern-era where more people are inclined to accept rebooted timelines, whether you're young or not.
Yea, I know, different person, different timeline, all that. I'll shut up now.
And I said "well how does that work? It's a different Spock?"
Anyway, after ages he just said "look, it's sci-fi, it doesn't have to make sense". And I kind of envied him that he was able to just enjoy it on that level. I was taking it far too serious.
When it came to the 2006 Bond 're-boot', the one thing that saved it for me, was actually the thing that screwed up the re-boot the most. Judi Dench as M. That made no sense at all, because she was the new M in Goldeneye. But at least I was able to think 'yes, he's playing the same character Pierce Brosnan played'.
But he wasn't. It was a different character in a different timeline.
No, hang on, if Judi Dench was the same M as in the Brosnan films, then that makes him a different character in the same time-line!
Bond was re-booted, M wasn't.
I think I'm getting it now!
"If Brosnan's Bond had died in Die Another Day, it would have made no difference to Casino Royale. If people can't comprehend it, that's on them, not the producers and writers - or the actor."
We can comprehend it. We just don't like it.
And fair play if you don’t like it @FatherValentine, of course, I do think it depends on how’s it’s done, but there does seem to be people who seem to think it’s not even possible in the context of the Bond series a whole, which I don’t think is true, whether it’s an idea people get behind or not.
But Bond is a cultural hero, in films for nearly fifty years and longer than that in literature, killing him off this far down the pike is going to piss off a lot of fans. Alternative time-line or not.
I understand completely that super hero fans are used to this sort of thing. Again, that's their business. I hate it.
A definite end to Craig's timeline, that sees him either dead, or domesticated, is a poor end imo. And I would rather he be dead than married with a kid.
I might be an extremist on this matter, I didn't want him crying over M either.
Because they're sci-fi and Bond isn't. The rules are different. Or, perhaps they're not, and they're only different in my head!
It is a fun theory but one that definitely doesn't work when you get in there. You guys should check out Calvin Dyson's video reacting to someone who tried to combine the whole series.
But the recasting isn't a product of science fiction so that argument doesn't make any sense. Again, Spider Man, and Batman aren't resurrected, they're rebooted with different actors just as Bond did with Craig - so they work the same way. It's just a difference of genre.
And again fair play to you @FatherValentine, but I do believe that whether Craig's Bond lives or dies, Bond 26 would be the same regardless so it wouldn't really change anything about the series. Just that this version of Bond didn't make it in the end, but that as a concept on its own, I can understand the antagonism towards