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've been thinking about this. Perhaps an PTS that features a situation swerving wildly out of control, ends with Bond being sent on a low stakes duty (perhaps guarding a British ambassador in a beautiful country who has had assassination threats against them?) with Bond quickly realising all is not as it seems.
Big action scene to start off a new era and establishing the physicality of our next Bond (whatever kind of physicality he'll have); our traditional meeting between Bond and the new M; a bit of detective stuff which features a lot of that excellent British-stuffiness that Fleming always contrasted with a beautiful location (very DN-like in this regard); and finally a villainous plot surrounding this ambassador that Bond is protecting who may or may not be as honest as they initially appear, which would lead to an explosive finale.
They could go any number of ways with it. Your Bond girl could be an aide at the embassy. All that kind of stuff.
The carefree Bond that Craig played in his Jamaica scenes - where he was extremely comfortable even though he didn't fit in - made me long for more of Bond in those kinds of environments.
Even before the multiverse, movies had a loose continuity anyway. Blofeld doesn't recognise Bond in OHMSS even though they had met in the previous film, and TLD features a much younger Bond than AVTAK.
It does seem to niggle a few here though!
I admire the sheer balls it took for Hunt to just ignore that continuity from YOLT because he realized that Bond going undercover at Piz Gloria was just too juicy a plot twist to retrofit to the YOLT film.
Yes, I know there was supposed to be plastic surgery for Lazenby's Bond that got dropped. Glad that was jettisoned because how would they explain Connery's return in the next film? One just assumes that they are all playing the same character and get on with it.
When Mark Kermode did his radio review on NTTD, Simon Mayo pointedly wondered if there were any other real world/drama series that used this 'multiverse' device. I understood his complaint. James Bond movies were always fantastical, but weren't fantasy in the same way superhero movies are. By introducing different 'Bondverses', the film series has aligned itself with comic book movies.
It's damaged the credibility of the series for me. It was always a fun thinking PB was playing the same character as SC. No matter how dotty the timeline and the chronology, there was always just the one James Bond movie character. Even the 'Bond begins; film didn't break that daft illusion for me.
NTTD certainly did though. And then some.
I'm a little fed up with the "Bond Begins" nonsense. Any "Bond Begins" formula implies that we start with a guy who isn't Bond but becomes Bond. Even in CR, the closest you can get to this, Bond starts out with all his talents already firmly in place. Only two essential things happen: early on, Bond is promoted to 007, which is merely an administrative matter, and at the end of the film, he's "learned his lesson" not to trust anyone, which is not that big a deal since Bond has trusted the wrong people in previous films too. We're never fed a rookie who makes one mistake after another and slowly gets a grip on things, learning the craft the hard way. Bond is not Bruce Wayne planning to gun down Joe Chill, taking a special training in the Far East, and returning to Gotham to build the Batman 'organization' from scratch.
Toning down the gadgets, saving the Bond Theme for last, and not featuring Moneypenny or Q yet, are merely cosmetic choices that do not justify a "Bond Begins" label either. After all, OHMSS had toned the gadgets down too, LALD mentioned Q but didn't show him, and several of Barry's scores barely featured the Bond Theme.
The word "multiverse", often used accusingly, is nonsense too when applied to Bond. Multiverse films acknowledge parallel universes in a single story. Garfield's Amazing Spider-Man films weren't multiverse films, but they more or less became part of a multiverse concept because of Spider-Man: No Way Home, a film actively and explicitly built on the idea of parallel universes. Where or when do any Bond films go there? Yes, this 60+ year-old film series has hit the refresh button a few times and is most likely about to do it again in the near future. How is that a "multiverse" thing? We are given different incarnations of Fleming's creation over the span of 25 films. Is that so strange? And yes, one of them has died. Stubborn references to superhero films going above and beyond the fantastical do not, however, change the fact that when another Bond steps in, few people will wonder in dry confusion how a dead corpse has managed to come back alive. Bond is dead, long live Bond. Take OHMSS, for example. We can scratch our heads in confusion over Bond thinking that Blofeld wouldn't recognize him. We can scratch our heads even more in confusion over Bond not taking his revenge on Blofeld more seriously in DAF. Or we can understand that OHMSS and DAF were made the way they were because of creative versus commercial considerations.
So if and when Bond number 7 and film 26 are announced, I'm sure some folks will be tempted to play dumb and ask, huh? how is that possible? The rest of us will do what we always have been doing: get excited for another Bond film.
I'll be one of those recalling Bond died in film 25. Not because I'll be confused, but because I still think it was a poor choice.
I don't disagree. I think death was an unrefined choice for this Bond. I guess Craig wanted it and he got it. I accept it; I have no difficulty swallowing this particular ending. I'm not very fond of the idea, though. I simply don't think this is now "the way to do it". It was gutsy. And they know it.
Those are well worn cliches too; amnesia is way too cheesy. He also left at the end of the previous film to be happy with his new love. For me it was fitting and it worked.
And I don't like that cowboy shirt :-O
It's not an idea I love either. I personally think while one of Bond's tragedies as a character is he'll never get an 'ordinary life' and is effectively doomed to stay in the spy game, he's always come back to fight another day. That said I wouldn't want them to have shoehorned in the amnesia plot either, and much less have Bond settle down. The most interesting thing about that YOLT ending isn't the amnesia itself (as has been said amnesia's pretty cliched, and was when Fleming wrote it - it's a bit of a means to an end and that's fine), but rather it's that sense of pathos at the end of the novel with Bond sleepwalking away from a potentially happy life and towards what the reader knows is danger.
The NTTD ending gives Bond more heroism/agency in this choice, so it's a bit more movie appropriate and even dramatic. But it's got a similar tragic element to it with Bond not getting the life he needs. I can appreciate it to some extent. And to be fair to it I know many people who watched that film and got a lot out of it. Prior to NTTD I personally would never have thought a film with Bond dying would be able to get that kind of reaction, but clearly something about this film/end worked for a lot of audiences.
I'll start: The Killer on Netflix. A fun spy-ish film that takes everything deadly seriously and still has a ton of humor to it. Let Bond kill and be funny, that dichotomy of charisma versus threat from Bond needs to be real and constant.
Yes, I guess the calculation for Eon was: do we want one more Craig film? The price for Eon to pay was that Craig insisted on being killed off. (I don't believe for a second that Eon didn't want to leave it open for Craig to return for a sixth). And they had to work backward from Craig's demand with the script.
It's not unlike Connery wanting $1M and overage fees and donations to the Scottish trust for DAF. At that point, both Connery and Craig earned the capital to demand whatever they wanted to return for their final films. The franchise needed them more than they needed it.
Back on topic, I expect Bond 26 to be a reboot, i.e. not returning to the pre-Craig continuity. What was so refreshing about CR is that it shed *all* the baggage from the previous 20 films. I expect Eon to do that again.
I suspect if anything the producers saw the benefit in doing it. You can wipe the slate clean for a new era without being tied creatively to the previous one. But ultimately I think it's something they felt invested in creatively, regardless of whether Craig wanted or liked that decision, or if it was more unanimous.
Plus it would have been a corny plotline.
Thinking that the same person was a secret agent in 1962 AND 2002 is credible?
My exact words were 'dotty' and 'daft illusion'.
You also mention the "damaged credibility of the series", so @NoTimeToLive's question is perfectly reasonable.
I don't even think two films with the same actor necessitate a shared world, so to speak. Roger's semi-fantastical encounters with Voodoo cults are governed by different rules than his journey into space, and his down-to-Earth Cold War game against Kristatos and the Russians. Same bloke, three entirely different stories, each with their own internal logic. Until Craig, the Bonds mostly just did what felt right at the time, regardless of past or future. The meal is always rich in calories, salty and meaty, but today's dish doesn't have to continue yesterday's culinary philosophy, regardless of how many ingredients are or aren't being recycled.
It's not just that thinking of SC and PB as the same guy feels a bit iffy due to the massive generational gap, it's also that the only constant in these films is an abstraction of Bond and his so-called formula. An almost Platonic reflection of that is what gets re-inserted in every next film, and sometimes, rather whimsically, connections are drawn between films. In FRWL, S.P.E.C.T.R.E. clearly wants Bond to have an "amusing death" for Dr. No's defeat, but the same organization fails to recognize him in OHMSS, a film that, in turn, winks and nods at the case with the gold in '64. My point is that the films have always been extremely sloppy with their continuity, leaving us in my mind with more arguments against a case of one and the same Bond. And no, this is not the "code-name" theory. All Bonds are Fleming's Bond, born to Andrew and Monique, but they come in different iterations.
Even if the presence of continuity is defended on the basis of sloppily scattered references among films, returning cast members and the iconic elements of the Bond series, what about tone, scope, themes, Bond's morals and ethics, and so on? With films so incredibly heterogeneous as the Bonds, it's nearly impossible to suggest that a guy who asks a girl to maw down thugs in one film, prevents another one from acting out a vendetta a decade later, only to resign for a sudden case of personal vendetta a few years after that, is the same guy existing in the same world.
I'm merely trying to make a point that, ultimately, this matters little. OP and AVTAK are not Bond 13 and Bond 14; they are OP and AVTAK, two films in a series with a strong brand: James Bond. These are James Bond adventures, experienced in the moment, disconnected from the other James Bond adventures, which is why it has never mattered which film turned you into a Bond fan in the first place. Unlike with many other films series, it's not important whether your first film was YOLT or GE or DAF. You didn't "miss" anything.
The Craigs changed that. They are criticized for that by some, and praised by others. But they are over now. As far as I am concerned, the next film can return to the days of "just another Bond film" rather than "the follow-up to Skyfall". I think "reboot" would be too strong a word for that because it suggests another subseries with its own continuity. Perhaps that's exactly where they'll go, perhaps it isn't. We'll see, I guess.
It's like being in court of law on here sometimes!
I said it "damaged the credibility of the series for me". Because I think that killing the main character off, and then saying 'don't worry, he'll be back in a different universe' in the credits is far, far FAR more silly than Brozza sniffing Kleb's shoe, Tim sulking about Tracy or Roger with in space with lasers being the same guy that swatted the spider in Jamacia.
It's a fictional movie series, and we all decide which bits are palatable, and which bit aren't. To me, the daftest Bond moments are the Moonraker pigeon, the Tarzan yell, the brakes on the cop car in TLD and the death of bond in NTTD. All daftness.
In my opinion!!!!!!!!!!!!! (aaarrggg!)
You are right, I am probably picking too many nits, I apologize.
They have really done everything at this point it be stupid to do it again at least not in while but I doubt it would have the same affect as the first time. I hope they develop blofeld and spectre better the next go around that was really disappointing.
The Bond film series are a collection of films that are an adaptation of a literary character; trying to link all of them is problematic and everyone can choose to interpret continuity as they see fit.
For me , I base my view on two primary factors, one, the fact that each film exists in the present and two, the age of each actor.
Now, the fact that several supporting actors appear in various in incarnations does create some confusion; the reality is, Judi Dench’s M in the Brosnan era is not the same M seen in the Craig era, same actor but different character.
I see three separate adaptations of Bond, which means two “ re-boots “, for lack of a better term. The first being the introduction of Dalton and the second, more obvious, with Craig.
As I see it, Connery, Lazenby and Moore are the same Bond; the Bond in Dr. No is the same Bond as in AVTAK.
The introduction of the much younger Dalton is the first reboot; he is introduced in a training exercise which suits a newer double 0. This incarnation of Bond continues with Brosnan; the Bond in LD is the same Bond as in DAD.
Finally there is Craig’s version, which is unique in that there is only one actor to portray Bond .
Bond 1 Connery, Lazenby, Moore 62 to 85
Bond 2 Dalton and Brosnan 87 to 02
Bond 3 Craig 06 to
Just how I see it.
There’s nothing to suggest it was his demand or price for coming back: it was just an idea he had when he started years before.