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
Is 'fractional character' a typo, or is it a new expression for a character that dies and comes back as the same character, in a different timeline?
Will the next cinematic James Bond be a different character to Craig's Bond?
Well seeing that Craig’s Bond was vaporized, yes.
I saw your namesake in an exhibition in Edinburgh a few months ago, it was quite a treat!
I went in October. Ray was a hero of my; it was an incredible exhibit.
Agreed, but I think the "as goes Batman, so might go Bond" concept is more about stylistic aspects. For example: light-hearted or moody and dark
Yea, fair enough.
The Bond films have followed trends for many years, and I'm fine with that. But this killing off the hero trend, is a bit much for me. I'm against (what I see as) the narrative dishonesty of killing of a character, then asking the audience to accept another 'incarnation' of the same character. Or as Talos points out, asking people to accept a different character, with the same name.
Even worse, in NTTD we had the death scene, the whole M's office and Maddy's requiem, only to be told 'he'll be back', for the people who stayed to the end of the credits.
Yea, I know I'm daft for thinking that's all daft.
I know it's garbled, but if you read it slowly you can get the general gist of it.
Yes, a modified version. Craig's Bond is an adaptation.
How many different versions of Sherlock Holmes have been presented without audience confusion: each was a new interpretation of Conan Doyle's creation.
Aw Talos, you've spoilt it now. First you said it would be a different character, now you seem to be saying neither one thing or the other.
Perhaps others could try to answer the question 'will the next James Bond actor play the same character as Daniel Craig' with a simple yes or no answer?
Bond drives cars with machine guns behind the headlights and ejector seats, after all.
Yes. But it will be their James Bond. Just as it was Craig's, Brosnan's, Dalton's, Moore's, Lazenby's and Connery's. Don't people usually refer to the actor when referencing a specific period of the character? The actor takes on the mantle. It's still James Bond.
I find the wording of your question to be somewhat convoluted ; its like the old trick question, "answer yes or no, have you stopped beating your wife?
Of course the next actor will play the character of James Bond but it will not the same Bond as Daniel Craig's . So in a sense the my answer to you question is yes and no. Lol
I'm no expert on Batman or any of the super-heroes, but you do surprise me saying that.
That's very diplomatic. You'd have made a great politician, @talos7! ;)
Crystal! Thanks!
Those approach less than zero if I can say that.
I elaborated on it afterwards, though.
Yes, I read that. I suppose the batcave isn't too far removed from YOLT's volcano base. I can't help but think Batman belongs with comic superheros like Spiderman and Superman, and Bond belongs with more grounded spy thriller novels and spy films. But I can see the argument for 'superhero Bond' with the DB5 as the Bondmobile.
Yeah, that's fair. I guess it helps, from my perspective, that I don't think of Batman as a superhero really - unless you consider being rich a superpower (I'm sure some do!).
@slide_99 how do you know that? Are you in film distribution? Publicity? Producing? You say this statement as if you're an authority. What data have you compiled? And will you share, lol
Personally, I don't (didn't) want to see any Bond die on screen (forgiving CR '67). Too late now, can't go back.
It's the same character but different adaptation. Craig's version of Bond is dead. That adaptation chapter is now closed. Connery through to Brosnan's Bond is alive and is also an adaptation of a chapter that is closed. Bond number 7 will be playing the same character in a newly adapted chapter.
One more aspect I would like to bring up: When I (we?) talk about the next Bond being a different "timeline" or "universe" I want to make it very clear that I don't mean that in a comic book/Marvel sense. They can never-ever-ever do any crossover or multiverse or anything like that (I'll ignore "the other fella" for now ^^). This whole timeline-business shall never be part of the story. It is totally external.
I mean it more in a meta-sense that the previous films and the stories from the books haven't necessarily happened to any of the versions of the characters played by other actors (but some have!).
In a way, I look at the various different Bonds as theatre plays based on folk tales or old plays. They all come from a similar place, they all look different because of the time they were made in and one "staging" doesn't necessarily have to have influence on and connect to all previous and latter stagings of similar or the same material. Like one production of f.e. Shakespeare's Henry V usually doesn't connect to previous productions of Richard II eventhough the one story connects to the other.
So, I know that I am probably in the minority here, but I wouldn't mind them re-making some of the old films in a modern setting. I think it would be interesting to see, what a modern director would do with Goldfinger. Or how a new actor would approach the script of DAF or TMWTGG.
To answer the question (and others have basically given the answer I subscribe to already): Yes, the next actor is playing the character of James Bond in the same way that Ralph Fiennes, Albert Finney, Ben Whishaw and Rory Kinnear (and a few others) have all played the character Hamlet.
The 'multiverse Bond' idea could be seen as started in 2006 with CR, but it was neatly and very cooly bought back round to the 'real' cinematic Bond at the end of Skyfall. The guy standing in M's office could have been Connery in Dr No or Moore in Moonraker. It was all part of the same fun idea that James Bond is a singular character that despite his 'time travelling', is always the same person played by different actors.
It's what they did at the end of NTTD that forces us to accept the whole idea of there being more than one James Bond. And that sits well with most here and good for you if you can accept it. I see it as rotten storytelling myself.
My question about answering 'is it the same character' with a simple yes or no, was asked to highlight the absurdity of what they've done. No-one can answer the question with a yes or no. They have to add a caveat along the lines of 'it's a different incarnation' or whatever.
So my point is, if there's no way to say definitely that it's the same character or not, then the people telling the story have done the traditional viewer a narrative diss-service by using an idea that is only acceptable in modern block-buster cinema. Killing someone off and bringing them back in the next installment wouldn't happen in any other real world serious series of films or books. But we have to accept of Bond because of, well . . . Batman!