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
That’s only the case if the films actually acknowledge that conceit in the stories, like having characters mention the concept of alternate universes.
So far, OHMSS is the only film to acknowledge such a thing with Lazenby’s fourth wall break, if such a thing even counts.
Agreed @007ClassicBondFan ... When I walked out of NTTD , I knew there would be fans who would absolutely despise the ending. What I wasn't prepared for was the confusion of how the series would continue, now that Bond was dead.
What the hell happened?
There is *not* a Jack Ryan Multiverse.
There is not even an Anne Of Green Gables multiverse, or a Sherlock Holmes one, or a Poirot one.
Prior to very recently, everyone knew that Keaton, Bale and Affleck were *not* in a multiverse, there were just different adaptations.
Continuity in Bond has ever been loose, good for the odd scene, but basically since Moore at the very least, and certainly since Dalton and Brosnan came in as younger Bonds, it is quite obvious that each is pretty much their own thing.
The Craig Era made that explicit *from the very beginning* and in that sense, killing the character is no different to us seeing Judi M making him a double O.
Most people get that, if they have followed the films even slightly to be honest.
I wasn’t prepared for that either. It kind of took me by surprise given that we’ve already had the series be rebooted once, and I can’t remember to the best of my memory if that decision brought as much confusion amongst some fans. I definitely know that EON was somewhat criticized for rebooting the whole thing, but they literally had no other choice after DAD. It’s the same scenario here somewhat.
I do recall CraigNotBond.com in 2006 have a HUGE gripe over CR rebooting thus “throwing away” continuity, as if that ever actually mattered in the grand scheme of things. It’s not as if OCTOPUSSY informs the TOMORROW NEVER DIES. But there definitely was the contingent of fans that hated that Brosnan wasn’t given CR as his fifth film.
Funnily, Craig’s run would start to integrate elements from the previous films anyway in the form of Easter eggs, like Robert Brown’s M having a portrait up in the halls of MI6. Does that mean OCTOPUSSY is “canon” in Craig’s run? Not necessarily. It’s just a fun little detail fans will pick up when they see it.
Tbf, yeh - I've had that very conversation myself and that's exactly how it went.
While this is a reasonable point to make, it doesn't change another key point: the fact they have rebooted the Bond films in the past (and are going to do it again) does not imply they're fantasy, or sci-fi, or that they don't work in the same way as our own reality.
Man, if I had my way, I'd want Felix with a hook, and played as a sandy-haired Texan. I don't think he's ever been portrayed in the movies as good as Fleming wrote him.
Anyway, I don't think the Bond series is sci-fi, I just think it's borrowing from comic book and sci-fi movies by having this timeline thing. It's fantastical, but not 'fantasy'. Fantasy is Lord of the Rings and stuff like that. Stuff with magic in. Harry Piper, all that.
And I do understand the nature of a reboot, just like I understood what they did with Bobby Ewing in the shower. That doesn't mean I have to like it! If a movie series can kill off its main character, then simply start again with a new story and he's alive again, how can they expect us to care about the plight of the character? It's not good storytelling, not to me anyway.
But everyone has done a great job of explaining it all, and pointing out my ignorance in these matters. I'll try and approach the next Bond film in the spirit you've all suggested.
This is true, you don't have to like it.
How can they expect one to care about the plight of the character? Simple, in Bond 26, when they show Bond in peril, one will naturally want to see him get out of it. Who's going to be thinking about the fact it's a different actor, or that they rebooted the films, or whatever? The immediacy of the situation will take precedence over any of that. The ticking bomb, the approaching assassins, etc.
The sarcasm and fake self-pity doesn't help.
A wishy washy explanation at best.
Not at all.
Number one, they were being humorous about always trying to kill Bond, as in: in every 007 adventure, they create characters who are, indeed, trying to bury our hero. So yes, as writers, they're always thinking of ways of killing James Bond.
And number two, as storytellers, they looked at the Craig Era as a whole, and they saw that the stories, whether up your alley, or retroactively done, are connected, and the natural conclusion to the Hero Cycle led to James Bond's ultimate sacrifice.
Nothing wishy-washy at all about what they said.
You're right @Venutius ... If anything, they oversimplified in explanation what was a more complex process to deliver Bond's death.
And when you get a writing assignment, it's 100% expected to get notes from the producers with a list of plot points they want to see in the script. Writing a Bond film isn't done on spec. It's an assignment with goals producers want, and you now have to creatively, and organically, execute their ideas- hence looking at the entire Craig Era and seeing how they're connected. Following the Hero Cycle, seeing his birth, his journey, his adventure, the natural conclusion for this interpretation of the character is his death.
They were not held hostage by Craig, it was a decision they took on and are responsible for. Good on them, it paid off at a difficult time for the franchise and the world in general.
I agree 💯 @RichardTheBruce
Be funny if they had been, though. "Either you kill me off in the next film, or I kill you off right now."
Haha =)) I guess he's more Alex West than Bond in real life. And looked fifteen years younger for some reason?