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
'Conceptually in a separate bubble'. thanks for that - I'll add it to 'reboot', 'character timeline' and 'story arc' and all the other words that explain this dead/alive Bond nonsense.
I'd be interested to hear about any other fictional characters who die and come back in the next installment, who aren't zombies, ghosts or religious figures.
Clearly this more of an issue of yours than the series. I guess we’ll just have to leave it at that.
Come on, it can't be just Bond.
It wouldn’t matter. You’re a brick wall of a person I have no interest in discussing with.
Fine. You can file me small-minded and go away happy. Good for you!
With the next actor, EON could do a new timeline, or they could carry on the timeline of Connery et al. The audience knows Bond saves the world, get the world and wins. He always survives. But with NTTD, he doesn't. He dies a hero, saving the world. I think it's a bold and refreshing change that could only work within this timeline. It's hard to grasp that someone cannot accept Bond dies at the end of their tenure, but can accept from 1962 - 2002 a period of forty years, that Bond is the same character.
So in this version, Connery's Bond and Brosnan's Bond, both battled Dr.No, fought Goldfinger, married Tracey, took on Blofeld, battled Scaramanga, Jaws and Zorin. Took on Sanchez, thwarted OO6 plans, and defeated Gustav Graves.
Yet in that time, he didn't age at all. In fact at times he reversed age!
Yet within five films that for once actually have some continuity with Bond, Felix, Vesper and all the main characters being the same, in this fictional take on the character, to kill off James Bond is preposterous.
Sorry, that's hard to swallow.
It's like the Bobby Ewing 'dream' season. If this were a Dallas TV show board, and I was here saying "awww that's just daft, having the whole season as Pam's dream, that's a silly idea". And then people keep saying back to me - "yes but that season was Pam's dream, I can't see why you don't understand that!!"
I UNDERSTAND it completely - but that doesn't mean to say I don't have the right to think it's bloody daft!
I've seen the new Star Trek films and I don't understand how those work either. Someone's tried to explain that it's a different 'timeline' and I'm not supposed to think of them as the same characters as the Shatner/Nimoy ones. Okay, I tried that, then the old Spock pops up. So I asked people "what's going on there then?", and the only answer I got was "it's sci-fi, don't think so hard". Which doesn't work for me, but it works for others, obviously.
I like things to make sense, even in fiction.
You may not like this story, but it's true...and perhaps it helps to explain why I can accept the idea of a separate timeline for Craig's Bond in which the lead character dies...and yet comes back with another actor playing another version of our lead character, a few years down the road.
Way back in the 1960s, when I was just beginning to enjoy the adventure of James Bond (as portrayed then and seemingly forever by Sean Connery) I was also enjoying the adventures of Superman as portrayed in 12 cent comic books. Week after week, month after month, they came out regular as clockwork...and the Man of Steel won every single time. My friends & I would get together on a regular basis, read each others' books, and discuss the finer points of that particular brand of literature -- as well as the goings on in the pop music field, and so forth.
Now, with Superman winning every adventure without fail, several times per month, it seems like a recipe for boredom, doesn't it? So the character's editor, a fellow named Mort Weisinger, came up with an idea designed to break up the monotony: out-of-continuity stand-alone tales in which anything could, and did, happen. What if Bruce Wayne and Clark Kent were brothers? Here's an issue that explores that concept. How about if Clark Kent and Lex Luthor were brothers? Okay, here's an issue on that theme. How could we arrange for Superman to marry both Lois Lane and Lana Lang? Well, it's comics, so we can do it! First we have Superman permanently split into duplicate beings that get along just fine rather than constantly battling over who's in charge... and one permanently wears an all-red costume while the other takes on an all-blue costume so we can tell them apart......
And so forth. With comics being churned out several times a month in the regular, standard continuity that everyone is familiar with thanks to the George Reeves TV series... every now and then one of these out-of continuity curve balls comes along to keep things interesting. Weisinger called these non-continuity experiments "Imaginary stories." And one of the most effective of these experimental tales -- written by Jerry Siegel (the guy who first co-created Superman back in the '30s) and drawn by Curt Swan (who at that time was pretty much the definitive artist on the character) was a little effort called "The Death of Superman."
Yeah, you got it. For one issue only, in a story clearly marked as "An Imaginary Story," Lex Luthor won. He got a sufficient quantity of kryptonite, and used it. Killed Superman dead. D-E-A-D, not coming back, funeral with Lois and Jimmy and the world mourning the loss of Our Hero. Luthor was captured (of course) and the citizens of Kandor punished him by exiling him to the Phantom Zone (if you don't know, don't ask.) Supergirl grows up to be Superwoman and assumes the role of Our Hero...and life goes on as per normal. Next issue, everything's back to square one. Clark Kent is a mild mannered reporter who works at the Daily Planet and wears a red and blue circus costume under his civvies. Same as it ever was. It was a pretty effective use of the device, and a very memorable issue of Superman.
Except one day, the parents of one of my friends happened to take note of that comic, with its' cover proclaiming "The Death of Superman" --and a minor meltdown occurred. "How can they DO that??? And they just print more stories next month as if nothing happened to him?" "Well, see, it's an Imaginary Story..." "Imaginary Story??? They're ALL imaginary!!! You can't actually be taking any of this seriously can you??" And so forth. We didn't have the phrase "out of continuity" to use...and my friend's parents were seriously poleaxed by the concept of "imaginary stories."
And sometimes it seems to me that the conversations we Bond fans are having in respect to NTTD are not dissimilar to the conversations my friend had with his parents back in 1965 or so. They're all imaginary stories. Except some are "in continuity" and some aren't. I learned how to accept that and roll with it decades ago. I urge the rest of you to do the same.
The beauty of it is that it is really up to each and every one what they view as "imaginary stories" and "canon".
And that's the stumbling block with the whole Bond dies/Bond will be back thing.
If anything's possible, then nothing matters.
:-??
Bond wishes he brought in as much $$$ as silly comic book movies. The notion that 007 should somehow be "above" oh, say, Mickey Mouse completely ignores the fact that Mickey is far more well known, well beloved, and (not to be too mercenary about it) profitable than James Bond. I'm a Bond fan, but I'm also a comics fan, and a music fan, and a science fiction/fantasy fan. My fandom is vast, it contains multitudes. I hope yours is too.
I'm glad I could help your understanding of a differing viewpoint. Let me assure you, "The Death of Superman" was far from silly -- they handled it in a fashion that was really quite touching. I can see the rationale behind your "if anything's possible" quote -- I just don't subscribe to it. My own belief system is more along the lines of, "If anything's possible then we'll all better get to work moving towards a positive (rather than negative) outcome."
Exactly. If you don't like this bus, don't get on. Another will be along shortly...
Great comparison, @BeatlesSansEarmuffs.
Yes, there's no reason why the next Bond can't be a completely separate entity from the Craig era with out explaining NTTD's ending or whatever.
"The sky's the limit! Take it from Superman" -George Reeves.
One of the more interesting facets of DC's blithe attitude towards continuity from the late '30s to the mid '60s -- faced with the now-standard insistence that it ALL happened, somehow, somewhere -- is the ability for current heroes to interact with their counterparts from 50 or more years ago. I want the "grim & gritty" Frank Miller/Dark Knight incarnation of Batman to meet up with Bat-Mite. Or maybe Bat-Baby. Yes, fans, there really was a Bat-Baby! (Here you go, @Colonel Adamski -- THIS is some seriously silly stuff! --and it happened several years before "The Death of Superman."
I never understood why there had to be one more Craig film other than the excuse of "HE NEEDS TO GO OUT ON A HIGH!!" And from what I've read, Craig was done, too, until he was offered a truckload of money.
I’d have been happy with them just continuing on from Craig if he’d quit after one of his first three. But then Spectre happened, so I wanted a definitive ending to spare the next guy all that baggage.
But after seeing NTTD, I think I actually prefer it this way. I like the idea of every actor from now on getting their own continuity. It makes every Bond more distinct, people would be able to put different spins on it without having to worry about being consistent, and it opens up the storytelling possibilities a bit, as we saw from the end of NTTD.
I didn’t see the need for another one after that either. But I liked NTTD’s ending better personally. I thought it was more in keeping with the themes of the Craig era, and it benefitted from a more believeable Bond/Madeline relationship.
Glad you liked it. It was from "STAMP DAY FOR SUPERMAN", the final black and white episode and actually made for the U.S. Department of the Treasury.
Again, this is just my opinion, but where SP suffered some bouts of 'bland-ness' & soap opera, NTTD suffered less believable science & soap opera to the max.
Mileage certainly varies here. :P
For me, I sort of see Bond "kidnapping" M and taking her to Skyfall as going rogue. Q and Tanner certainly seemed worried they'd get in trouble from Mallory for the decision.
I thought about that. However, she was still in charge at the time and agreed to it. I see it as going off the grid rather than rogue.