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 just knew it Quod erat demonstrandum
That's it, well stated!
And while the Paloma episode is a lot of fun, it's almost from another movie ... a movie that many fans might wish they'd had instead of what we got. Fair play to them, but not for me ....
It was a fake ending they used as a placeholder in the script in order to avoid the real ending to leak. This script features Bond surviving the missiles and reunite with Swann as they found out he’s been knighted Sir James Bond.
I'm glad you didn't get your wish.
Fleming occasionally threatened to bump off Bond but never did--he perpetually brought Bond back from any cliffhangers. And in his final Bond novel, which Fleming repeatedly said would be his absolute last, he left Bond alive and even added a final paragraph with a "life goes on" message.
Yeah, but before DN, he might as well have bitten the bullet at the end of FRWL. It was a way out for Fleming. It definitely reminds me of the Sherlock Holmes situation with him being killed but brought back after outcry. The characters "can" die, but obviously not forever as they are too popular.
The book doesn't say more about Boyle and Hodge's script ?
I’m sure not.
There are definitely similarities between the two authors. The difference is that Conan Doyle outright intended to kill off Holmes and he left him dead for several years; Fleming left Bond in a cliff-hanger state, without a confirmation of death, and returned to the character in his next book. During the interim he responded to letters from concerned fans by letting them know Bond had survived. Unlike Holmes, Bond never enjoyed a period of being dead, and as far as we know there wasn't a period when Fleming considered Bond dead.
Thanks for bringing this up @Revelator. This is exactly how the end should have gone. Why do so many (especially now) series and films have to make the main protagonist die? Fleming was a genius, and he understood that he had created something very unique and special...and that destroying it would forgever tarnish it. Bravo to the great Ian Fleming.
It does seem odd how similar it is if true. I really expected a lot of difference, especially based on casting and location differences we knew about.
So it seems like they used quite a bit of Boyle’s stuff. Which seemed to already be similar to what Purvis and Wade were working on (having a child, killing Bond). I wonder what Boyle had in mind that made them cut ties with him.
Yes to this ... though the Dalton years had definitely started down that path. But, one of my regrets is that we hadn't had more of the Severine character in SF. The scenes with Bond in the casino are among my favorites in the entire series. And I really hated the way the filmmakers dispatched her with that, "a waste of good scotch" moment.
You can't reflect current times with a light mission full of quips and gadgets that says next to nothing about the current world. All this in fact started to go out post Dalton, when Barbara took over the production of the films.
Another thing, no writer can write a "totally original script" for Bond. The elements are always discussed beforehand with the producers, before a single scene is put on paper.
Given the investment in story would the new Bond be written with all the investment of the last five movies or simply ignore the experiences of Craig Bond.
If the latter which seems the only way forward otherwise you have Craig Bond II, then whether Craig Bond died or not makes little difference.
The floating continuity worked in the past because with the exception of Majesties the life experiences were shallow, Craig Bonds experiences were not marks in the sand at low tide they have been chiselled into the rocks for all time.
During the Cold War we had civil rights upheaval, the Vietnam War, economic recession, CIA-instigated chaos in Latin America, several drug epidemics, and the lingering threat of nuclear apocalypse with the USSR. In the 90s we had more abstract threats in the form of non-state terrorism and mass surveillance. Yet, the Bond movies managed to stay upbeat in spite of all of that, sometimes having plots that referenced those real-world issues without fully engaging with them. Bond movies weren't meant to be topical. Even the books weren't.
They hired him for Casino Royale and had discussions then. This clearly says Barbara and Michael discussed killing Bond off in Spectre. They knew from the beginning of associating with Daniel that they had an actor with the talent to pull that off, with the right script. All 3 of them were in favor of this idea, if they could get the story and the timing right. So no, you can't "blame Daniel" for this alone. If indeed hating NTTD's ending and/or cannot stand Daniel Craig's Bond anyway is what you are inclined to feel, it only happened due to all three of them agreeing on this idea.
And personally, I'd like to thank all three for waiting for the right moment and the right script to do so. I am glad to have this story in the Bond film set of stories. It is fitting and so very, very well done. I understand some fans will never accept Bond dying, but for others we can accept it. This particular story did give Bond a noble, heroic ending that particular fits Daniel's Jame Bond. I really respect them for waiting for the right script and timing and then following through with this without flinching. The ending has integrity. The whole film is a beautiful, interesting, meaningful Bond film that also has plenty of fun earlier on. A really good balance overall.
As you all know, James Bond will return. Different actor, different tone, and I hope those who are so unhappy now will enjoy the next run. I think I will, too. So nice to have a fresh start. Daniel left the Bond films in superb shape.
Yes, I agree with all the comments mentioned in these replies.
And those who feel "Get over it, dude!" to Bond regarding Vesper simply have a totally different take, slant, and appreciation for Bond movies than I ever have or will have in the future. So they can find their fun when they can, but I enjoy a lot more out of the Bond films than that flippant, crass attitude towards women or relationships in general.
Yes, that's really interesting ...
Cinematic Bond was born to the world (as was I) in the very month of the Cuban Missile Crisis, during which the world was likely as close to nuclear war as it would ever be (... so far, anyway).
But, of course, Fleming and, to a lesser extent, cinematic Bond reflected the tensions & anxieties of the Cold War in the '50s & '60s, as the movies would again in the '80s; but you're right, of course, about it being done with a (mostly) light touch.
Likely it would take a sociologist of a kind to dig into the reasons - but something has changed in popular culture over the last twenty years that made what was likely a fanciful notion immediately post-Brosnan (Bond dying) into a plausible narrative conclusion by the end of the Craig era.
@Revelator Please post more. I thoroughly enjoyed your review, the best I’ve read anywhere. And you’re insight plus perspective on how Fleming treated Bond’s potential demise. You articulate points extremely well.
I have no problem with Bond being killed off along with Leiter and Blofeld. At least Blofeld got a more fitting end than he had in DAF (and FYEO if you count that one) .
IMO the 1961 Berlin incident, 1962 Cuban missile crisis and 1963 Kennedy assassination freaked people out at the time, just as much as 9/11 did those who were around then...
...so yes, of course you can (just leave out the "Rog-isms" please)
LOL, you mean with DAD?
True dat.
Those three anchor points were all part of the P&W’s script and they say Boyle produced a whole new treatment once he came in. P&W’s script featured Madeleine as well. Here Gregg is talking after Boyle’s left so at that moment they went back to what was developed before Boyle’s involvement…
Gregg Wilson: There were three core elements from the original Purvis and Wade script that we wanted to keep. Since Bond retires at the end of Spectre we liked the idea of introducing a new 007; she’s competitive with Bond and represents the new guard at MI6. Secondly, the DNA-targeted poison was the core idea fr the threat. And lastly, we wanted a satisfying way for Bond to sacrifice himself at the end.
Paul Duncan The placeholder ending included Bond swimming through a radioactive underwater Russian city and drilling through concrete to gather pathogens for the villain Valentin Segura. At the end Bond infiltrates Segura’s lair, Solovetsky Monastery in northern Russia, to rescue Madeleine and their daughter.
Did you really mate? I only ask because I find it interesting, I never thought that Bond would die.
I was only slightly nervous when Daniel declared it his last film in interviews and then the trailers for NTTD, saying "the 25th film changes everything"
Here’s my story. I vaguely remember something around 2019 about Boyle (think that’s his name) the director quitting. Last movie, so that started to make me nervous. I would even start doing Google searches about it pretty regularly. I just thought, “no way will they do it...or will they?” I git on the mi6 forum after the world premiere, knowing if it happened it would leak—and I had decided I wound the watch it if he died. When I read that, wow, what a gut punch. I was gutted. Debated heavily on going to watch it. Finally I did, and it was absolute brutal. BRUTAL. The ending ruined the entire movie for me. I enjoyed it up until the end, but there’s no getting around Bond dying. Don’t plan on ever watching it again, and for me it is the worst Bond film ever made. Such a shame they had to go that unnecessary route. If it had been any other Bond actor, I wouldn’t have cared, but Craig is my all time favorite actor and Bond.