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
Most of comic book series LOVE, sometimes a little too much, their huge serialized events, the ones that get one or a few characters under the spotlight for months due to some shocker, a decision that affects the characters and creates the seeds for a lot of events in the next few years of publication. It's just that they hadn't tried something similar for Bond after OHMSS (and it didn't really affect that much the next films) until Casino Royale.
It's not the issue of this thread, but Indiana Jones only had immortality within the cave holding the holy grail. When he leaves, he isn't immortal anymore. Had he stayed to guard the grail, he could have lived forever.
:)) I almost posted this exact response as well. Otherwise I fully agree with the Sith Lord.
Yeah I was trying to restrain myself from pointing that out too :D
But I'm doing very well on not correcting Dimi on the phone actually being an Ericsson and not a Nokia. I'm a terrible Bond pedant but I'm managing to deal with it :))
No... I think the fourth state is plasma. But maybe they'll release a fifth in next year or so. ;)
I stand corrected. ;-) And yeah, I have the same rationale for KOTKS. I was merely trying to make a point about continuity not being of such tremendous importance to most people out there. And when next we see Bond, most people aren't going to cross their arms and cry 'BS' on the basis of how NTTD ended. They'll open up their bag of crisps, take of sip from their soft drinks and enjoy Bond 26 without looking back. We watch movies to be fooled, to be have some escapist fun, to think but not too hard. Even if the MI6 crew returned but Craig didn't, most wouldn't worry about that if the setting is different and fresh. And as soon as that new, handsome Bond walks in, and it's "007 this" and "007 that" and here's a gadget or two from Q and now go save the world, Bond, people will relax and enjoy what's given to them.
Of course, the strong continuity could've happened with DAF had Lazenby not quit his role in '69. But when Lazenby decided to call it a day against his better judgement, the producers quickly abandoned any attempt at a direct sequel and went straight back to the standalone movie approach. That's the genuis of DAF. It can work as a soft continuation of OHMSS, but it can also work as a soft continuation of YOLT—it really doesn't matter which one you choose. Most importantly, you could've skipped OHMSS entirely, like the majority of US cinemagoers did back in '69, and still watch DAF without having missed a beat. Also, by dropping the continuation of OHMSS, it allowed the producers to give Roger Moore, Dalton and Brosnan an easy passage into their first big introductions as 007. The message was clear back then: don't worry too much about continuity. However, since Craig's Bond, that's no longer the case.
Yep, totally agree with this. Sorry, I hate it when folks get pedantic about minor facts instead of the overall point you're making- I was only kidding! :)
Well, the first five films or so were very clearly all tied together and that only really slipped away after that.
But when the new Bond appears and it's a different story, what will people do? Walk out of the cinemas? There's a new Batman film coming which doesn't appear to follow on from the last, folks are used to dealing with this.
Even if someone like Ralph Fiennes is in it, the clue that it's a new cycle will be that James Bond is younger and looks different.
Of course, you're assuming that the same audience will want to go back and see Bond 26 in the theatres. If CR is anything to go by, they'll be a big drop-off in tickets sales with a new actor in the role, unless it's an heir apparent like Brosnan.
Your Batman comparision only works if Matt Reeve's The Batman has the same actors reprising their key roles from the previous incarnations of Batman. They don't. Also, The Batman is quite clearly a cinematic reinvention made by totally different people, severing all ties to the episodic theme music, batmobile, cast, and overall production of its predecessors.
I'd say Blofeld was the person responsible for the Matera attack (how he pulled it off remains a mystery). Actually he felt more threatening there, as a ghostly presence, than he ever was in SP. But I digress: I agree about what you said about continuity.
I would not be surprised they keep Vesper in the reboot. And I think they'll keep the supporting cast for practical reasons.
Oh I'd say it is. Even just the mentions of his Bentley or the briefcase from FRWL tie it in. And then his car reappears in TB, which is part of the Spectre story again.
CR was a bigger hit than DAD..? Inflation adjusted too.
Even if they did, would it change? Michael Gough was Alfred to three different Batmen.
If it had Gary Oldman in it I don't think people would stand up and walk out when he eventually popped up on screen. Anyone who cares enough about that sort of thing will have read a bit of publicity gumph about it and have been educated, anyone who doesn't will barely remember him. The Elfman Batman theme popped up in Justice League: I doubt anyone got confused from that.
And here’s something controversial: Judi Dench didn’t do much with the part, aside from GE and TND. Yell at Bond, say that he’s the best person they have, and take all the credit for herself. I know that’s a trademark of a Purvis and Wade script, but they can improve with Ralph Fiennes coming back without them. That’s why I like Bond and M’s relationship in TND: she trusts him, gives him the assignment, and is happy to help him, while giving him credit.
My point was that, apart from the brief deviation with YOLT>OHMSS>DAF, where the series kind of branches off with OHMSS and then comes back together with DAF, there wasn't any issue with timelines either way. Bond was just always there, like an absolute. Quibbling over continuities wasn't an issue. Now it is. I just find it really annoying.
I think the main thing was all the Bond films before Craig were stand alone films. The storyline didn't continue into the next film (despite the brief nods to OHMSS in FYEO and LTK).
Not that I have anything against continuing a story onto the next film, as long as its been mapped out that way beforehand. It's clear that watching the arc over the 5 Craig films, this was not defined from the outset in CR.
I'm guessing the producers may go back to standalone missions again for the next actor, but who knows.
Fair point and I stand corrected on the BO. CR managed to slightly nudge ahead of DAD by roughly $7 million in the domestic box office and $3 million in the worldwide haul. Goes to show the importance of good word-of-mouth, especially in the second week.
I'm only pointing out Matt Reeve's The Batman doesn't cast any of the same actors from the previous incarnations so cannot be used as a like-for-like comparison for Bond 26. I knew Michael Gough would be mentioned, but I'd argue Kilmer's Batman was the same Batman as the one before it, especially as they hadn't killed off Keaton's Batman in the previous movie nor did he face any of the same adversaries again. In other words, it was following the old Bond template of recasting their leading character. Same thing applies to Clooney. But let's be truthful with each other, those two Joel Schumacher examples are hardly considered the crown jewels of the Batman series and prime examples of how to do Batman right, are they?
And I'll be perfectly honest with you, I don't even remember Elfman's Batman theme get reused in the Justice League. Was it a 5 second burst or the main reoccurring theme? Besides, I think there were many other issues and problems going on with Snyder's hot mess DC movies than recycling a musical cue that didn't make a lick of sense and which I can't even recall to begin with.
I also don't understand your inclusion of Gary Oldman as Alfred. Surely, you're endorsing my point rather than trying to diminish it? Agreed—changing the role of M to Gary Oldman wouldn't necessarily make people stand up and walk out of the theatre for Bond 26. Of course, the real trick is to get bums on seats in the first place.
PS. I think @jetsetwilly sums it up perfectly in the post above mine.
if we are titling Bond films after Prog rock albums I would prefer Close to the Edge or Fly From here.
As for what I want
I want Fleming titles and honestly plots
Many of the novels and short stories can either be done or redone in a way that it doesn't feel like a remake
for Bond 26 the idea of using live and let dies novel plot of black market antique deals financing smersh
could easily be updated replace Smersh with Terrorism and add the property of a lady short story and we get a really good strong plot.
Where are you getting those figures? Everywhere I look CR made nearly $200million more than DAD; about £130million more inflation adjusted.
It's more a question of whether anyone was confused by those things. I don't think they were.
Gary Oldman was in the Bale films: my point was that if he appeared in this new one I don't think anyone would get too puzzled- those who remember him in Bale films will have already read up on this film and know it's a reboot, pretty much everyone else will have forgotten he was in the old ones (like yourself, apparently! :) ).
http://www.thejamesbonddossier.com/james-bond-films/box-office-figures-for-the-james-bond-series.htm
Box office figures
The figures from the table below are taken from The Numbers. Throughout this article the big assumption is that figures reported on third party websites are correct; if they’re not exact, they are likely to be pretty close. This doesn’t really tell us much other than the general trend is up and that Skyfall grossed more than any other Bond film (and SPECTRE fared less well). What it fails to account for are the effects of inflation on those figures, underlined when you simply look at how the budgets have climbed over the years.
Inflation-adjusted figures
To give a clearer idea of the amounts each film grossed at the box office, domestic and worldwide takings were adjusted for inflation using the US Inflation Calculator and ranked in order. This gives a very different picture of how each film performed at the box office.
US take (inflation adjusted in brackets)
DAD 161m (212m)
CR 167m (197m)
World wide (inflation adjusted in brackets)
DAD 432m (570m)
CR 594m (699m)
A bit more than $3m.