Where does Bond go after Craig?

1131132134136137682

Comments

  • edited April 2022 Posts: 12,837
    mtm wrote: »
    Matt007 wrote: »
    I think they’ve rather foolishly painted themselves into a corner. Like is bonds death the fate of any future incarnation? That taints my viewing pleasure knowing that my on screen hero has died on a mission. I have no idea how they spin it. But if the decision next time out is that it’s a different timeline or whatever - a concept that is a lifejacket for lazy storytelling - I have to ask why bother in the first place. Seems like an indulgence on Craigs part tbh

    It was exactly that - indulgence on Craig's part. For the fans of NTTD, apparently seeing Bond die was the most perfect, fitting way ever to end his tenure, and that an ending where Bond sails off into the sunset alive instead would have been an absolute tragedy of epic proportions. How they coped with the endings of the previous Bond films beats me.

    You can say you don’t like something without having a go at those who do.

    Where am I having a go? I'm saying I don't like the ending but I know others absolutely love it, which still baffles me even now.

    Different people like different things. Who knew.

    Considering every Bond film bar OHMSS has a fairly upbeat ending, and we love Bond surviving no matter what the odds (an essential part of the cinematic character), then yes I am surprised Bond fans are loving seeing Bond get killed off.

    People like different things, of course they do. General cinema goers with no invested interest in the Bond franchise - no, that doesn't surprise me if they are rejoicing at Bond being killed off. Critics - no, that doesn't surprise me either. Different people like different things, like you said.

    But die hard Bond fans loving, gushing, celebrating to the rafters at seeing their hero die on screen? This does surprise me. It doesn't make any sense.

    If EON only knew how happy it would make Bond fans seeing their hero get killed off, they should have done it a long time ago, and then repeat it with every new actor in the role. Because this is what really makes Bond fans tick, right? We no longer want to see Bond survive anymore.

    Die hard Bond fans are also different people who see the films differently. Mental I know.

    Like I said, if EON only knew how many Bond fans would be ecstatic at seeing Bond die, they should have done it years ago, and many times over.

    Well first of all, I wasn’t ecstatic to see Bond die. I was sad. Emotional ending. I then left the cinema, got over it because he’s only a fictional character, and thought “that ending felt right”.

    Now, in my opinion, what feels right for Daniel Craig’s Bond wouldn’t necessarily be what feels right for Connery and Moore. And I could explain to you why that is. But why bother? It won’t stop you saying the same thing over and over and over and over again. There’s post after post after post on here from fans of the film about why they liked it. I know I personally have written a good few paragraphs about why I liked the ending over the last few months. If you’re still struggling to grasp why anyone would disagree with you, even after all this time, then frankly that’s a you problem.
  • Posts: 1,860
    Eon has stated that the Craig films are a separate series of films from the ones that preceded them. Why keep overlapping the previous films into the equation? With Bond's death in this stand alone "mini series" it cleans the slate, which is good thing moving forward with a new incarnation of Bond.
  • Posts: 1,394
    delfloria wrote: »
    Eon has stated that the Craig films are a separate series of films from the ones that preceded them. Why keep overlapping the previous films into the equation? With Bond's death in this stand alone "mini series" it cleans the slate, which is good thing moving forward with a new incarnation of Bond.

    I don’t buy that they had to kill off Craig’s Bond in order to “ clean the slate “.

    Christian Bales Batman dies officially at the end of The Dark Knight Rises but Bruce Wayne lives on.It didn’t change the fact that Ben Afflecks and Robert Pattinsons versions of Batman are any less valid.They just take place in different timelines.

    If Craig driving off to a happy ending with Madeline at the end of Spectre had been it for him,it wouldn’t change the fact that the next iteration of Bond will be a clean slate.Audiences will know it’s an entirely new continuity.

  • edited April 2022 Posts: 4,166
    "mtm wrote: »
    Yes, there seem to be a lot of reasons why this is 'different' and they must have copied Logan

    I get what you're saying, the films you mention kill off a hero in existing IP, just like the Terminator films always do etc. But part of the situation is that we get very few blockbusters these days which aren't based on existing IP, so killing off any hero character is just by sheer weight of numbers likely to see an existing character die. It's not a modern trend to kill off existing characters, it's a modern trend to have existing characters in every film. That some of them die is almost incidental.

    Like I said, these films involve very particular characters dying. Viewers normally wouldn't expect them to.

    Again, there's your thing about 'copying', as if it would be a bad thing if this film did take influence from another one or even has these similarities at all. It's odd.
    "mtm wrote: »
    I'm not saying anything is inconceivable, you misunderstand me. What I'm saying is we can't possibly know what they definitely were or weren't influenced by, and killing off a main character is such a common story that they wouldn't have needed to have been influenced by any particular film. Maybe they did see Saving Private Ryan or whatever and decide to do it, but they really wouldn't need to have. As I say, they had just killed off M.

    In a sense it doesn't really matter what you or I think the filmmakers were influenced by. The fact it's been noted by many people on this forum, and indeed people I watched the film with, that Bond's death was not unlike those of other 'unkillable' main characters recently is interesting though. Like I said, everyone I left the cinema with basically said NTTD's ending was not unlike Logan's. Even Dench's M, shocking as her death was, isn't the same as Bond. The title of M can always be replaced. James Bond is one man. The formula always dictates he comes out alive, until this one.

    In a way, killing off characters has become pretty commonplace in modern film/tv anyway (Game of Thrones is a notable example of this), so this is just a specific extension of that.
    "mtm wrote: »
    And yet these are all themes which are so common in anything: there aren't just two ways to kill off a character and nothing else

    True, and these two deaths I felt were handled very similarly. I don't think I'm going to convince you about this for whatever reason, and like I said at the end of the day it doesn't matter what I believe the filmmakers were influenced by or even intended. I can only point out my own individual views.

    Personally, I found NTTD resembled Logan very broadly - the fact that both films are about these protagonists at a later point in their lives, both films involve said characters having daughters which we wouldn't normally expect, both of their closest allies die during the film (again, a subversion of what audiences would think typical for these movies), both characters die at the end, their deaths involve both of them sacrificing themselves and having a heartfelt goodbye to the ones they love, and both characters 'live on' through their children after this sacrifice in the form of stories, thus cementing their heroism (in Logan it's comic books, in NTTD it's Madeline telling Mathilde a story). Both are very different films, as is Avengers in which another central protagonist comes to terms with having a daughter and dies at the end. For whatever reason, be it the fact that NTTD was written long after these films, or indeed the general zeitgeist, it seems like writers have chosen to explore these specific ideas when it comes to these popular characters- their mortality, the impact of their heroism, how fallible they are. It's not different to most other genre or plot tropes in my view.

    "mtm wrote: »
    Not sure what you mean here. Are you trying to say there's a logical fallacy there? A character dying is so common that's kind of beyond the point of copying it from something else, it's up there with writing 'The End' at the close of a movie- you don't copy it from something, it's basically a choice you make: Is the character alive or dead at the end of the story?[...]

    I quite literally said the opposite when you asked exactly that question earlier: please at least read what I'm saying.
    To repeat, what I'm saying is that the themes that NTTD ends on are so universal and have been mixed in so many ways through so many stories since stories were first told that it's very hard to point at a film we've seen and say that they definitely took something -very general- from that movie. And a superhero movie at that.

    I'll point you to what I wrote above about how these universal themes seem to be implemented and interpreted in modern franchise films. Yes, many of these ideas are not in themselves new - characters dying, having kids, getting old etc. - but it's worth noting how they're adapted in these films, with these specific characters, and why these similarities seem to be within these different movies of similar notoriety. Regardless of whether you or I personally think NTTD was in any way influenced by Logan, or indeed Avengers, it's something worth thinking about when it comes to modern blockbusters. Why did they decide to kill off Bond now, in a fashion notably different to how similar ideas are handled in Fleming? Why did they decide to give Bond a daughter in this one, again in a remarkably different fashion to YOLT? These are pretty striking things to do, and were things until recently that would have been unthinkable to many fans and indeed the people making these films.

    My point is these things seem to be more commonplace in movies in a relatively short space of time. It's interesting. Simply brushing it off and ignoring it seems a bit strange to me. It's how stories are told - old ideas and themes are reinterpreted to make something new. Stories take influence from each other. If Logan had plot points that resembled those of other films before it (it seems to take a lot from American Westerns, even directly referencing Shane) then Logan's strength was to incorporate these ideas into a superhero film and apply this fallibility to a character we thought of before as indestructible. Why's it copying if NTTD decided it wanted to explore these ideas with James Bond and was influenced by this other film perhaps? They're very different and unique films which use these modern plot tropes to explore their central protagonists.
  • Posts: 3,327
    mtm wrote: »
    Matt007 wrote: »
    I think they’ve rather foolishly painted themselves into a corner. Like is bonds death the fate of any future incarnation? That taints my viewing pleasure knowing that my on screen hero has died on a mission. I have no idea how they spin it. But if the decision next time out is that it’s a different timeline or whatever - a concept that is a lifejacket for lazy storytelling - I have to ask why bother in the first place. Seems like an indulgence on Craigs part tbh

    It was exactly that - indulgence on Craig's part. For the fans of NTTD, apparently seeing Bond die was the most perfect, fitting way ever to end his tenure, and that an ending where Bond sails off into the sunset alive instead would have been an absolute tragedy of epic proportions. How they coped with the endings of the previous Bond films beats me.

    You can say you don’t like something without having a go at those who do.

    Where am I having a go? I'm saying I don't like the ending but I know others absolutely love it, which still baffles me even now.

    Different people like different things. Who knew.

    Considering every Bond film bar OHMSS has a fairly upbeat ending, and we love Bond surviving no matter what the odds (an essential part of the cinematic character), then yes I am surprised Bond fans are loving seeing Bond get killed off.

    People like different things, of course they do. General cinema goers with no invested interest in the Bond franchise - no, that doesn't surprise me if they are rejoicing at Bond being killed off. Critics - no, that doesn't surprise me either. Different people like different things, like you said.

    But die hard Bond fans loving, gushing, celebrating to the rafters at seeing their hero die on screen? This does surprise me. It doesn't make any sense.

    If EON only knew how happy it would make Bond fans seeing their hero get killed off, they should have done it a long time ago, and then repeat it with every new actor in the role. Because this is what really makes Bond fans tick, right? We no longer want to see Bond survive anymore.

    Die hard Bond fans are also different people who see the films differently. Mental I know.

    Like I said, if EON only knew how many Bond fans would be ecstatic at seeing Bond die, they should have done it years ago, and many times over.

    Well first of all, I wasn’t ecstatic to see Bond die. I was sad. Emotional ending. I then left the cinema, got over it because he’s only a fictional character, and thought “that ending felt right”.

    Now, in my opinion, what feels right for Daniel Craig’s Bond wouldn’t necessarily be what feels right for Connery and Moore. And I could explain to you why that is. But why bother? It won’t stop you saying the same thing over and over and over and over again. There’s post after post after post on here from fans of the film about why they liked it. I know I personally have written a good few paragraphs about why I liked the ending over the last few months. If you’re still struggling to grasp why anyone would disagree with you, even after all this time, then frankly that’s a you problem.

    The only thing I will agree with you on, what feels right about the closure to the Craig era, is that there couldn't be another film to continue on in the same timeline. Felix is dead, Bond is old, retired, and has a child. The script pretty much dictated that there would be no way back from the outset, so Bond dying was the only logical conclusion.

    Could the film have worked without Madeline, daughter and Safin? Could it have worked with a more closer adaptation of YOLT, with Blofeld as the main villain, and Bond getting amnesia at the end? I would argue yes, and would have been a better film for it - but that's just me.
  • Posts: 2,161
    Hardly just you.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited April 2022 Posts: 16,420
    007HallY wrote: »
    "mtm wrote: »
    Yes, there seem to be a lot of reasons why this is 'different' and they must have copied Logan

    I get what you're saying, the films you mention kill off a hero in existing IP, just like the Terminator films always do etc. But part of the situation is that we get very few blockbusters these days which aren't based on existing IP, so killing off any hero character is just by sheer weight of numbers likely to see an existing character die. It's not a modern trend to kill off existing characters, it's a modern trend to have existing characters in every film. That some of them die is almost incidental.

    Like I said, these films involve very particular characters dying. Viewers normally wouldn't expect them to.

    Again, there's your thing about 'copying', as if it would be a bad thing if this film did take influence from another one or even has these similarities at all. It's odd.

    Please, at this point you're actively ignoring what I'm writing. I've very clearly stated several times that there's nothing wrong with being inspired by other things. All I'm saying is there's very little to say they were influenced by Logan specifically, because it's really not as unique as you seem to think it is.

    As for viewers not expecting characters to die, yes, that would be the case if it were a character type or a known character who fufils the same role. It's not really all that different.
    007HallY wrote: »

    In a sense it doesn't really matter what you or I think the filmmakers were influenced by. The fact it's been noted by many people on this forum, and indeed people I watched the film with, that Bond's death was not unlike those of other 'unkillable' main characters recently is interesting though. Like I said, everyone I left the cinema with basically said NTTD's ending was not unlike Logan's.

    And Logan's wasn't unlike Bond's, because it wasn't that unusual a heroic death. It was nicely done, but there are thousands of examples of this kind of thing.
    007HallY wrote: »

    In a way, killing off characters has become pretty commonplace in modern film/tv anyway (Game of Thrones is a notable example of this), so this is just a specific extension of that.

    It hasn't really become commonplace, it's maybe more that you've started to watch more of that sort of stuff. As I say, characters have been dying in things since the start of storytelling.
    007HallY wrote: »
    "mtm wrote: »
    And yet these are all themes which are so common in anything: there aren't just two ways to kill off a character and nothing else

    True, and these two deaths I felt were handled very similarly. I don't think I'm going to convince you about this for whatever reason, and like I said at the end of the day it doesn't matter what I believe the filmmakers were influenced by or even intended. I can only point out my own individual views.

    I'm sure they were similar in some ways, but no, a few very general similarities like 'they were both sad' doesn't convince me they were specifically influenced by that one movie.
    James Mangold didn't invent that sort of character death, just as you're saying, he had a dozen influences too, because it's not that unusual a situation.
    007HallY wrote: »
    Personally, I found NTTD resembled Logan very broadly - the fact that both films are about these protagonists at a later point in their lives, both films involve said characters having daughters which we wouldn't normally expect, both of their closest allies die during the film (again, a subversion of what audiences would think typical for these movies), both characters die at the end, their deaths involve both of them sacrificing themselves and having a heartfelt goodbye to the ones they love, and both characters 'live on' through their children after this sacrifice in the form of stories, thus cementing their heroism (in Logan it's comic books, in NTTD it's Madeline telling Mathilde a story). Both are very different films, as is Avengers in which another central protagonist comes to terms with having a daughter and dies at the end. For whatever reason, be it the fact that NTTD was written long after these films, or indeed the general zeitgeist, it seems like writers have chosen to explore these specific ideas when it comes to these popular characters- their mortality, the impact of their heroism, how fallible they are. It's not different to most other genre or plot tropes in my view.

    Yes, all very common themes: especially for a hero to die a heroic death sacrificing himself for others, especially loved ones. Off the top of my head what's another recent movie where that happens.. A Quiet Place? I don't fancy trawling my memory for more but there are so many examples. I don't think Endgame was influenced by Logan especially either because it's just such a common and natural way to kill a hero - he sacrifices his life.
    In fact NTTD is one of the more original twists on it I've seen: the idea that his touch would kill the ones he love, so he must die, is rather neat.

    007HallY wrote: »

    I'll point you to what I wrote above about how these universal themes seem to be implemented and interpreted in modern franchise films. Yes, many of these ideas are not in themselves new - characters dying, having kids, getting old etc. - but it's worth noting how they're adapted in these films, with these specific characters, and why these similarities seem to be within these different movies of similar notoriety. Regardless of whether you or I personally think NTTD was in any way influenced by Logan, or indeed Avengers, it's something worth thinking about when it comes to modern blockbusters. Why did they decide to kill off Bond now, in a fashion notably different to how similar ideas are handled in Fleming? Why did they decide to give Bond a daughter in this one, again in a remarkably different fashion to YOLT? These are pretty striking things to do, and were things until recently that would have been unthinkable to many fans and indeed the people making these films.

    I would say it's likely they decided to kill Bond off because, exactly as they said, they thought about it for a long while right from the start and, after Spectre, he was all out of endings. Without repeating the end of Spectre there weren't many more satisfying endings for his story left. Why they decided to give him a daughter was most probably them working back from his death and thinking what would be a good, dramatic thing for him to die for. What would change James Bond's outlook on the world enough for that, and a child is a massively universal world-changer for so many people- you really don't have to have seen Iron Man of all things to discover that.
    007HallY wrote: »
    My point is these things seem to be more commonplace in movies in a relatively short space of time.

    I don't think it is; these are well-worn stories which have been around forever; so much so that's it's impossible to point at one particular version and say that they must have taken inspiration from that. Maybe they've popped up more (twice) in amongst the dozens and dozens of superhero movies that have been around recently, but there are more movies besides those.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,420
    mtm wrote: »
    Matt007 wrote: »
    I think they’ve rather foolishly painted themselves into a corner. Like is bonds death the fate of any future incarnation? That taints my viewing pleasure knowing that my on screen hero has died on a mission. I have no idea how they spin it. But if the decision next time out is that it’s a different timeline or whatever - a concept that is a lifejacket for lazy storytelling - I have to ask why bother in the first place. Seems like an indulgence on Craigs part tbh

    It was exactly that - indulgence on Craig's part. For the fans of NTTD, apparently seeing Bond die was the most perfect, fitting way ever to end his tenure, and that an ending where Bond sails off into the sunset alive instead would have been an absolute tragedy of epic proportions. How they coped with the endings of the previous Bond films beats me.

    You can say you don’t like something without having a go at those who do.

    Where am I having a go? I'm saying I don't like the ending but I know others absolutely love it, which still baffles me even now.

    Different people like different things. Who knew.

    Considering every Bond film bar OHMSS has a fairly upbeat ending, and we love Bond surviving no matter what the odds (an essential part of the cinematic character), then yes I am surprised Bond fans are loving seeing Bond get killed off.

    People like different things, of course they do. General cinema goers with no invested interest in the Bond franchise - no, that doesn't surprise me if they are rejoicing at Bond being killed off. Critics - no, that doesn't surprise me either. Different people like different things, like you said.

    But die hard Bond fans loving, gushing, celebrating to the rafters at seeing their hero die on screen? This does surprise me. It doesn't make any sense.

    If EON only knew how happy it would make Bond fans seeing their hero get killed off, they should have done it a long time ago, and then repeat it with every new actor in the role. Because this is what really makes Bond fans tick, right? We no longer want to see Bond survive anymore.

    Die hard Bond fans are also different people who see the films differently. Mental I know.

    Like I said, if EON only knew how many Bond fans would be ecstatic at seeing Bond die, they should have done it years ago, and many times over.

    Well first of all, I wasn’t ecstatic to see Bond die. I was sad. Emotional ending. I then left the cinema, got over it because he’s only a fictional character, and thought “that ending felt right”.

    Now, in my opinion, what feels right for Daniel Craig’s Bond wouldn’t necessarily be what feels right for Connery and Moore. And I could explain to you why that is. But why bother? It won’t stop you saying the same thing over and over and over and over again. There’s post after post after post on here from fans of the film about why they liked it. I know I personally have written a good few paragraphs about why I liked the ending over the last few months. If you’re still struggling to grasp why anyone would disagree with you, even after all this time, then frankly that’s a you problem.

    The only thing I will agree with you on, what feels right about the closure to the Craig era, is that there couldn't be another film to continue on in the same timeline. Felix is dead, Bond is old, retired, and has a child. The script pretty much dictated that there would be no way back from the outset, so Bond dying was the only logical conclusion.

    Could the film have worked without Madeline, daughter and Safin? Could it have worked with a more closer adaptation of YOLT, with Blofeld as the main villain, and Bond getting amnesia at the end? I would argue yes, and would have been a better film for it - but that's just me.

    Personally I think amnesia is a dreadful hoary old cliche and I really hope it doesn't go down that path. I'm not sure you could take Madeline, Mathilde and Safin out of NTTD, because they are the story of NTTD. You wouldn't really have anything left.
  • edited April 2022 Posts: 4,166
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    "mtm wrote: »
    Yes, there seem to be a lot of reasons why this is 'different' and they must have copied Logan

    I get what you're saying, the films you mention kill off a hero in existing IP, just like the Terminator films always do etc. But part of the situation is that we get very few blockbusters these days which aren't based on existing IP, so killing off any hero character is just by sheer weight of numbers likely to see an existing character die. It's not a modern trend to kill off existing characters, it's a modern trend to have existing characters in every film. That some of them die is almost incidental.

    Like I said, these films involve very particular characters dying. Viewers normally wouldn't expect them to.

    Again, there's your thing about 'copying', as if it would be a bad thing if this film did take influence from another one or even has these similarities at all. It's odd.

    Please, at this point you're actively ignoring what I'm writing. I've very clearly stated several times that there's nothing wrong with being inspired by other things. All I'm saying is there's very little to say they were influenced by Logan specifically, because it's really not as unique as you seem to think it is.

    As for viewers not expecting characters to die, yes, that would be the case if it were a character type or a known character who fufils the same role. It's not really all that different.
    007HallY wrote: »

    In a sense it doesn't really matter what you or I think the filmmakers were influenced by. The fact it's been noted by many people on this forum, and indeed people I watched the film with, that Bond's death was not unlike those of other 'unkillable' main characters recently is interesting though. Like I said, everyone I left the cinema with basically said NTTD's ending was not unlike Logan's.

    And Logan's wasn't unlike Bond's, because it wasn't that unusual a heroic death. It was nicely done, but there are thousands of examples of this kind of thing.
    007HallY wrote: »

    In a way, killing off characters has become pretty commonplace in modern film/tv anyway (Game of Thrones is a notable example of this), so this is just a specific extension of that.

    It hasn't really become commonplace, it's maybe more that you've started to watch more of that sort of stuff. As I say, characters have been dying in things since the start of storytelling.
    007HallY wrote: »
    "mtm wrote: »
    And yet these are all themes which are so common in anything: there aren't just two ways to kill off a character and nothing else

    True, and these two deaths I felt were handled very similarly. I don't think I'm going to convince you about this for whatever reason, and like I said at the end of the day it doesn't matter what I believe the filmmakers were influenced by or even intended. I can only point out my own individual views.

    I'm sure they were similar in some ways, but no, a few very general similarities like 'they were both sad' doesn't convince me they were specifically influenced by that one movie.
    James Mangold didn't invent that sort of character death, just as you're saying, he had a dozen influences too, because it's not that unusual a situation.
    007HallY wrote: »
    Personally, I found NTTD resembled Logan very broadly - the fact that both films are about these protagonists at a later point in their lives, both films involve said characters having daughters which we wouldn't normally expect, both of their closest allies die during the film (again, a subversion of what audiences would think typical for these movies), both characters die at the end, their deaths involve both of them sacrificing themselves and having a heartfelt goodbye to the ones they love, and both characters 'live on' through their children after this sacrifice in the form of stories, thus cementing their heroism (in Logan it's comic books, in NTTD it's Madeline telling Mathilde a story). Both are very different films, as is Avengers in which another central protagonist comes to terms with having a daughter and dies at the end. For whatever reason, be it the fact that NTTD was written long after these films, or indeed the general zeitgeist, it seems like writers have chosen to explore these specific ideas when it comes to these popular characters- their mortality, the impact of their heroism, how fallible they are. It's not different to most other genre or plot tropes in my view.

    Yes, all very common themes: especially for a hero to die a heroic death sacrificing himself for others, especially loved ones. Off the top of my head what's another recent movie where that happens.. A Quiet Place? I don't fancy trawling my memory for more but there are so many examples. I don't think Endgame was influenced by Logan especially either because it's just such a common and natural way to kill a hero - he sacrifices his life.
    In fact NTTD is one of the more original twists on it I've seen: the idea that his touch would kill the ones he love, so he must die, is rather neat.

    007HallY wrote: »

    I'll point you to what I wrote above about how these universal themes seem to be implemented and interpreted in modern franchise films. Yes, many of these ideas are not in themselves new - characters dying, having kids, getting old etc. - but it's worth noting how they're adapted in these films, with these specific characters, and why these similarities seem to be within these different movies of similar notoriety. Regardless of whether you or I personally think NTTD was in any way influenced by Logan, or indeed Avengers, it's something worth thinking about when it comes to modern blockbusters. Why did they decide to kill off Bond now, in a fashion notably different to how similar ideas are handled in Fleming? Why did they decide to give Bond a daughter in this one, again in a remarkably different fashion to YOLT? These are pretty striking things to do, and were things until recently that would have been unthinkable to many fans and indeed the people making these films.

    I would say it's likely they decided to kill Bond off because, exactly as they said, they thought about it for a long while right from the start and, after Spectre, he was all out of endings. Without repeating the end of Spectre there weren't many more satisfying endings for his story left. Why they decided to give him a daughter was most probably them working back from his death and thinking what would be a good, dramatic thing for him to die for. What would change James Bond's outlook on the world enough for that, and a child is a massively universal world-changer for so many people- you really don't have to have seen Iron Man of all things to discover that.
    007HallY wrote: »
    My point is these things seem to be more commonplace in movies in a relatively short space of time.

    I don't think it is; these are well-worn stories which have been around forever; so much so that's it's impossible to point at one particular version and say that they must have taken inspiration from that. Maybe they've popped up more (twice) in amongst the dozens and dozens of superhero movies that have been around recently, but there are more movies besides those.

    Ok, I don't think we're going to agree on this and at this point I don't think there's much reason to think we'll get anywhere as we seem to be going round in circles/picking out little bits of each other's quotes and arguing. It's not very useful, ie. I never said Mangold invented that sort of character death in Logan and even said later that the film references Westerns in which there are similar death scenes - my point was how this sense of mortality as well as many of the ideas of this genre was applied to a superhero film, and why that's interesting. I think similar ideas are played with in NTTD and it might be the case that the success of Logan at least spurred them to explore them in a way in which they wouldn't have done earlier. Also you seem to just be saying 'no' when I point out a lot of similarities I personally found in both Logan and NTTD, take one specific thing out of these many points and applied it randomly to A Quiet Place (nevermind I've said constantly it's significant how these tropes have been in at least three franchise films, some of the biggest ones no less, with iconic heroes - AQP just doesn't apply in the same way so it's not a particularly good example unfortunately). Anyway, good talk, I'll agree to disagree :)

  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited April 2022 Posts: 3,152
    mtm wrote: »
    I've not heard about Wilson vetoing the idea, where did you hear that? Otherwise I'd say you make a good point about Spectre's ending, but there are quite a few leaps in there which would need some backing up first.

    I had to go back and check! Turns out it was all in the Variety piece that Craig, BB, MGW and Fukunaga did. After Craig told the story about him putting the idea of Bond's death to Barbara Broccoli after the Berlin premier of CR in 2006 and BB apparently agreeing to it ('without a pause'), Barbara said that she then 'had to go and tell Michael' what she'd agreed to.
    When MGW was asked how that conversation went, Craig leapt in and said 'Well, listen, listen, it was “no” for a long time. Don’t worry. I thought it was forgotten about, put it that way. I didn’t bring it back up again until this one.'

    A couple of things from that:
    1. If BB had agreed to it but the answer was no after she told MGW, I figured that, realistically, MGW was the only one who could've vetoed it.
    2. Craig 'thought it was forgotten about' in 2006 and 'didn't bring it up again until this one' - which indicates that it wasn't planned all along and hadn't been discussed for SP.

    In the same piece, MGW said that 'we wanted Daniel back and he was very reluctant' - given that Craig then brought up Bond's death for the first time since 2006 and that this time EON did agree and DC signed up for NTTD, I thought it was likely that Bond dying was Craig's condition for making the film. That's not as clear cut as 1. and 2., though - it's plausible, but it's me inferring, not them stating something explicitly.

    So that's where I got it all from. Not ideal to base everything on one source, but with the Variety piece using direct quotations, rather than a journalist paraphrasing, I think 1. and 2. are probably safe, even if the third one's a bit speculative!
  • edited April 2022 Posts: 2,270
    I wonder how many more times this debate over NTTD’s ending will keep reappearing in this thread.
  • Posts: 2,161
    As long as the forum exists.
  • edited April 2022 Posts: 6,844
    mtm wrote: »
    Matt007 wrote: »
    I think they’ve rather foolishly painted themselves into a corner. Like is bonds death the fate of any future incarnation? That taints my viewing pleasure knowing that my on screen hero has died on a mission. I have no idea how they spin it. But if the decision next time out is that it’s a different timeline or whatever - a concept that is a lifejacket for lazy storytelling - I have to ask why bother in the first place. Seems like an indulgence on Craigs part tbh

    It was exactly that - indulgence on Craig's part. For the fans of NTTD, apparently seeing Bond die was the most perfect, fitting way ever to end his tenure, and that an ending where Bond sails off into the sunset alive instead would have been an absolute tragedy of epic proportions. How they coped with the endings of the previous Bond films beats me.

    You can say you don’t like something without having a go at those who do.

    Where am I having a go? I'm saying I don't like the ending but I know others absolutely love it, which still baffles me even now.

    Different people like different things. Who knew.

    Considering every Bond film bar OHMSS has a fairly upbeat ending, and we love Bond surviving no matter what the odds (an essential part of the cinematic character), then yes I am surprised Bond fans are loving seeing Bond get killed off.

    People like different things, of course they do. General cinema goers with no invested interest in the Bond franchise - no, that doesn't surprise me if they are rejoicing at Bond being killed off. Critics - no, that doesn't surprise me either. Different people like different things, like you said.

    But die hard Bond fans loving, gushing, celebrating to the rafters at seeing their hero die on screen? This does surprise me. It doesn't make any sense.

    If EON only knew how happy it would make Bond fans seeing their hero get killed off, they should have done it a long time ago, and then repeat it with every new actor in the role. Because this is what really makes Bond fans tick, right? We no longer want to see Bond survive anymore.

    Die hard Bond fans are also different people who see the films differently. Mental I know.

    Like I said, if EON only knew how many Bond fans would be ecstatic at seeing Bond die, they should have done it years ago, and many times over.

    Well first of all, I wasn’t ecstatic to see Bond die. I was sad. Emotional ending. I then left the cinema, got over it because he’s only a fictional character, and thought “that ending felt right”.

    Now, in my opinion, what feels right for Daniel Craig’s Bond wouldn’t necessarily be what feels right for Connery and Moore. And I could explain to you why that is. But why bother? It won’t stop you saying the same thing over and over and over and over again. There’s post after post after post on here from fans of the film about why they liked it. I know I personally have written a good few paragraphs about why I liked the ending over the last few months. If you’re still struggling to grasp why anyone would disagree with you, even after all this time, then frankly that’s a you problem.

    The only thing I will agree with you on, what feels right about the closure to the Craig era, is that there couldn't be another film to continue on in the same timeline. Felix is dead, Bond is old, retired, and has a child. The script pretty much dictated that there would be no way back from the outset, so Bond dying was the only logical conclusion.

    Could the film have worked without Madeline, daughter and Safin? Could it have worked with a more closer adaptation of YOLT, with Blofeld as the main villain, and Bond getting amnesia at the end? I would argue yes, and would have been a better film for it - but that's just me.

    They very easily could have gone into an authentic adaptation of YOLT. Of course, Blofeld's escape would have had to have been engineered between films. But that could be done off screen and hopefully in a way that doesn't read as cliched. You could still have the incredible Matera opening (without Madeleine's childhood flashback). Blofeld still drives Bond and Madeleine apart. Then the rest of the film unfolds per Fleming's novel, perhaps changing the names of Tiger and Kissy and giving Blofeld a bigger scheme than luring locals into his poisonous garden. Craig's tenure ends with him killing Blofeld during the climax then getting amnesia and setting out for Russia. If they want to make it more uplifting, they could add a suggestion in there that some part of him remembers Madeleine and leave open the bittersweet possibility they might meet again, which would feel like a rather Fleming way to end things.
  • Posts: 3,327
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Matt007 wrote: »
    I think they’ve rather foolishly painted themselves into a corner. Like is bonds death the fate of any future incarnation? That taints my viewing pleasure knowing that my on screen hero has died on a mission. I have no idea how they spin it. But if the decision next time out is that it’s a different timeline or whatever - a concept that is a lifejacket for lazy storytelling - I have to ask why bother in the first place. Seems like an indulgence on Craigs part tbh

    It was exactly that - indulgence on Craig's part. For the fans of NTTD, apparently seeing Bond die was the most perfect, fitting way ever to end his tenure, and that an ending where Bond sails off into the sunset alive instead would have been an absolute tragedy of epic proportions. How they coped with the endings of the previous Bond films beats me.

    You can say you don’t like something without having a go at those who do.

    Where am I having a go? I'm saying I don't like the ending but I know others absolutely love it, which still baffles me even now.

    Different people like different things. Who knew.

    Considering every Bond film bar OHMSS has a fairly upbeat ending, and we love Bond surviving no matter what the odds (an essential part of the cinematic character), then yes I am surprised Bond fans are loving seeing Bond get killed off.

    People like different things, of course they do. General cinema goers with no invested interest in the Bond franchise - no, that doesn't surprise me if they are rejoicing at Bond being killed off. Critics - no, that doesn't surprise me either. Different people like different things, like you said.

    But die hard Bond fans loving, gushing, celebrating to the rafters at seeing their hero die on screen? This does surprise me. It doesn't make any sense.

    If EON only knew how happy it would make Bond fans seeing their hero get killed off, they should have done it a long time ago, and then repeat it with every new actor in the role. Because this is what really makes Bond fans tick, right? We no longer want to see Bond survive anymore.

    Die hard Bond fans are also different people who see the films differently. Mental I know.

    Like I said, if EON only knew how many Bond fans would be ecstatic at seeing Bond die, they should have done it years ago, and many times over.

    Well first of all, I wasn’t ecstatic to see Bond die. I was sad. Emotional ending. I then left the cinema, got over it because he’s only a fictional character, and thought “that ending felt right”.

    Now, in my opinion, what feels right for Daniel Craig’s Bond wouldn’t necessarily be what feels right for Connery and Moore. And I could explain to you why that is. But why bother? It won’t stop you saying the same thing over and over and over and over again. There’s post after post after post on here from fans of the film about why they liked it. I know I personally have written a good few paragraphs about why I liked the ending over the last few months. If you’re still struggling to grasp why anyone would disagree with you, even after all this time, then frankly that’s a you problem.

    The only thing I will agree with you on, what feels right about the closure to the Craig era, is that there couldn't be another film to continue on in the same timeline. Felix is dead, Bond is old, retired, and has a child. The script pretty much dictated that there would be no way back from the outset, so Bond dying was the only logical conclusion.

    Could the film have worked without Madeline, daughter and Safin? Could it have worked with a more closer adaptation of YOLT, with Blofeld as the main villain, and Bond getting amnesia at the end? I would argue yes, and would have been a better film for it - but that's just me.

    Personally I think amnesia is a dreadful hoary old cliche and I really hope it doesn't go down that path. I'm not sure you could take Madeline, Mathilde and Safin out of NTTD, because they are the story of NTTD. You wouldn't really have anything left.

    You could easily have had Blofeld as the main protagonist. Him and SPECTRE carry far more weight than Safin and his gang. Bond going to seek out Blofeld to finally kill him in his garden of death alone would have carried far more meaning to end the SPECTRE saga.

    The story would have had to change, with no Madeline flashbacks, etc. but who cares. I think the whole story behind Madeline and Safin was very poor anyway, regardless of Bond also having a kid and dying at the end. It was very muddled, shoehorned, unnecessary, so ditching all this to make another movie instead - yes please!

    As for the amnesia path, with a proper adapted version of YOLT, I would have loved it.
  • Posts: 3,327
    mtm wrote: »
    Matt007 wrote: »
    I think they’ve rather foolishly painted themselves into a corner. Like is bonds death the fate of any future incarnation? That taints my viewing pleasure knowing that my on screen hero has died on a mission. I have no idea how they spin it. But if the decision next time out is that it’s a different timeline or whatever - a concept that is a lifejacket for lazy storytelling - I have to ask why bother in the first place. Seems like an indulgence on Craigs part tbh

    It was exactly that - indulgence on Craig's part. For the fans of NTTD, apparently seeing Bond die was the most perfect, fitting way ever to end his tenure, and that an ending where Bond sails off into the sunset alive instead would have been an absolute tragedy of epic proportions. How they coped with the endings of the previous Bond films beats me.

    You can say you don’t like something without having a go at those who do.

    Where am I having a go? I'm saying I don't like the ending but I know others absolutely love it, which still baffles me even now.

    Different people like different things. Who knew.

    Considering every Bond film bar OHMSS has a fairly upbeat ending, and we love Bond surviving no matter what the odds (an essential part of the cinematic character), then yes I am surprised Bond fans are loving seeing Bond get killed off.

    People like different things, of course they do. General cinema goers with no invested interest in the Bond franchise - no, that doesn't surprise me if they are rejoicing at Bond being killed off. Critics - no, that doesn't surprise me either. Different people like different things, like you said.

    But die hard Bond fans loving, gushing, celebrating to the rafters at seeing their hero die on screen? This does surprise me. It doesn't make any sense.

    If EON only knew how happy it would make Bond fans seeing their hero get killed off, they should have done it a long time ago, and then repeat it with every new actor in the role. Because this is what really makes Bond fans tick, right? We no longer want to see Bond survive anymore.

    Die hard Bond fans are also different people who see the films differently. Mental I know.

    Like I said, if EON only knew how many Bond fans would be ecstatic at seeing Bond die, they should have done it years ago, and many times over.

    Well first of all, I wasn’t ecstatic to see Bond die. I was sad. Emotional ending. I then left the cinema, got over it because he’s only a fictional character, and thought “that ending felt right”.

    Now, in my opinion, what feels right for Daniel Craig’s Bond wouldn’t necessarily be what feels right for Connery and Moore. And I could explain to you why that is. But why bother? It won’t stop you saying the same thing over and over and over and over again. There’s post after post after post on here from fans of the film about why they liked it. I know I personally have written a good few paragraphs about why I liked the ending over the last few months. If you’re still struggling to grasp why anyone would disagree with you, even after all this time, then frankly that’s a you problem.

    The only thing I will agree with you on, what feels right about the closure to the Craig era, is that there couldn't be another film to continue on in the same timeline. Felix is dead, Bond is old, retired, and has a child. The script pretty much dictated that there would be no way back from the outset, so Bond dying was the only logical conclusion.

    Could the film have worked without Madeline, daughter and Safin? Could it have worked with a more closer adaptation of YOLT, with Blofeld as the main villain, and Bond getting amnesia at the end? I would argue yes, and would have been a better film for it - but that's just me.

    They very easily could have gone into an authentic adaptation of YOLT. Of course, Blofeld's escape would have had to have been engineered between films. But that could be done off screen and hopefully in a way that doesn't read as cliched. You could still have the incredible Matera opening (without Madeleine's childhood flashback). Blofeld still drives Bond and Madeleine apart. Then the rest of the film unfolds per Fleming's novel, perhaps changing the names of Tiger and Kissy and giving Blofeld a bigger scheme than luring locals into his poisonous garden. Craig's tenure ends with him killing Blofeld during the climax then getting amnesia and setting out for Russia. If they want to make it more uplifting, they could add a suggestion in there that some part of him remembers Madeleine and leave open the bittersweet possibility they might meet again, which would feel like a rather Fleming way to end things.

    Bravo sir! Now we are talking!! That would have worked far better. =D>
  • Posts: 202
    delfloria wrote: »
    Eon has stated that the Craig films are a separate series of films from the ones that preceded them. Why keep overlapping the previous films into the equation? With Bond's death in this stand alone "mini series" it cleans the slate, which is good thing moving forward with a new incarnation of Bond.

    Exactly. Which is why I'm looking forward to a direct sequel to Die Another Day.
    THAT's the continuity no amount of missiles can destroy!
  • George_KaplanGeorge_Kaplan Being chauffeured by Tibbett
    Posts: 685
    I'm not sure they could get away with the amnesia plot these days without comparisons to Bourne. Even though we all know Fleming thought of it first, the majority of audiences will just see it as a ripoff. If they were to do it, it would have to be done very differently to the novel, which is almost identical to the scene in The Bourne Identity.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,304
    I blame Cubby for not adapting YOLT/TMWTGG properly in the first place, and letting Ludlum and Bourne get ahead of Bond on this plotline.

    I'm half-kidding.
  • Posts: 9,847
    Again Mobsters BRING MOBSTERS INTO BOND... that is the take away they should take away from The Batman
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited April 2022 Posts: 5,970
    But there’s not much point in adapting the end of You Only Live Twice or giving Bond amnesia because whether you like or not and whether he died or not, Bond 26 is a clean slate reboot in its own continuity, so why bother with keeping him alive if his continuity is over anyway? Also Skyfall was basically its own version of YOLT/TMWTGG so why just do that again with No Time To Die, but only this time you don’t see the fallout? The end of Craig’s era as Bond would just be him floating around with amnesia somewhere? To me, that’s weaker than killing him.

    We can keep going in circles and saying how Bond shouldn’t die and maybe that was true before, but in my eyes Craig’s death as 007 was always possible because of the character development and explorations they did throughout, and everyone seemed to know that because this thread has consistently brought it up way before No Time To Die was even a thing. Like it or not.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,978
    If the Craig films were a series of their own, then why the references to the past films?
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,970
    ...then why the references to the past films?
    Like what specifically? Because most of, if not all, the references I can think of are just homages for the fans. I can't think of anything like the scene in Die Another Day, where Bond literally has props from old movies.
  • I just want a young actor who can,you know, actually act. Like Craig someone with gravitas.
  • edited April 2022 Posts: 1,860
    If the Craig films were a series of their own, then why the references to the past films?

    Because Eon wanted to appease their directors when they wanted to add iconic touches from past films. That doesn't change the fact that Eon said that the Craig films ARE their own separate series from the rest. I'm just the messenger.
  • Posts: 2,161
    It's like the tricked out DB5 or the Lee and Brown portraits. At least they somewhat realize that these references are more impactful and enjoyable to the general public than any adherence to a stricter continuity that only a few of the diehard fans even care about,
  • edited April 2022 Posts: 3,327
    Denbigh wrote: »
    ...then why the references to the past films?
    Like what specifically? Because most of, if not all, the references I can think of are just homages for the fans. I can't think of anything like the scene in Die Another Day, where Bond literally has props from old movies.

    Aston Martin DB5 with ejector seat red button on gear stick, Judi Dench as M, Mallory's office, Aston Martin from TLD.

    Which is why it is very difficulty to see the Craig era as standalone, with absolutely nothing to do with the previous 20 odd Bond movies that came before it, and which is why it leaves more questions than answers at Bond's death.

    An amnesia ridden Bond sailing off into the sunset, then reappearing in the next film younger, different actor, and brainwashed, ready to kill M, poses far less questions and scrutiny, than killing Bond off completely, and then having him appear right as rain again in the next movie, Dallas Bobby Ewing shower style, as though it never happened, despite labelling it as yet another trendy `reboot' that DC Comics, Marvel and Disney would be proud of.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited April 2022 Posts: 5,970
    Denbigh wrote: »
    ...then why the references to the past films?
    Like what specifically? Because most of, if not all, the references I can think of are just homages for the fans. I can't think of anything like the scene in Die Another Day, where Bond literally has props from old movies.

    Aston Martin DB5 with ejector seat red button on gear stick, Judi Dench as M, Mallory's office, Aston Martin from TLD.

    Which is why it is very difficulty to see the Craig era as standalone, with absolutely nothing to do with the previous 20 odd Bond movies that came before it, and which is why it leaves more questions than answers at Bond's death.

    An amnesia ridden Bond sailing off into the sunset, then reappearing in the next film younger, different actor, and brainwashed, ready to kill M, poses far less questions and scrutiny, than killing Bond off completely, and then having him appear right as rain again in the next movie, Dallas Bobby Ewing shower style, as though it never happened, despite labelling it as yet another trendy `reboot' that DC Comics, Marvel and Disney would be proud of.
    But I don't think any of that stuff has any effect on anything; its very minor things. Again, most of them are just homages due to the 50th Anniversary, especially the Aston Martins and M's office, which are easily explainable as just new versions with no connective tissue to the past. As for Judi Dench's M, it's been said many times that its a different character and the producers didn't want to say goodbye to her. Again, everything's easily explained and not as confusing as I think some people say it is.

    And I also think its worth looking at how trying to tie it to the old films makes even less sense. If this somehow (strangely) is all tied, how do you explain Blofeld, Moneypenny, and Q? Because everyone thats tried to form a narrative with all the films can't to do it because as soon as you get to Skyfall, Spectre, and now No Time To Die it doesn't work.

    And no an amnesia Bond sailing off and coming back younger does pose more questions, because you can't go from exploring a James Bond whose an old dog with new tricks who had retired to a young fresh faced 007 with his own narrative and emotional arc because those do not fit together. A reboot is neat and simple, and allows for the next era to do whatever it wants because it's not tied down by the past, beyond the odd homage or reference through iconography to make the fans smile, especially since one of the biggest criticisms of the Craig-era as it went on was how much it was tied down by the film before it, so to try and continue that arc even further but this time with a younger actor would just cause more problems. It only worked with the other actors because they weren't tied down by heavy and important narrative arcs.

    Fans and audiences accepted the reboot with Casino Royale, and people will accept it now because that's just how its gonna be, and any alternate just can't work logistically.
  • Posts: 1,860
    Everyone has their personal preferences which support their points of view regarding whether or not the Craig era of the Bond world should have continued on or whether Bond should get a fresh restart. That's obviously not going to change. Personally, I just did not like the world of Bond that was created during Craig's tenure. I loved Craig as Bond but the storylines around him left me cold. Mathis dying, no Tracy, Felix dying, Bond having a child though there is a James Suzuki out there some where, Spectre/Quantum destroyed, Blofeld dead, Bond communicating with MI6 HQ during his assignments, Bond failing to keep M alive, Bond stabbing a main villain IN THE BACK, Bond continually retiring and then coming back and many more missteps including Bond and Blofeld being foster brothers. Each became the world's best at what they do. Give me a break. This is why I like that Bond is dead in this timeline and there is no way to go back and all avenues are open now to reimagining all the things I feel went wrong during the Craig era.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,304
    Denbigh wrote: »
    ...then why the references to the past films?
    Like what specifically? Because most of, if not all, the references I can think of are just homages for the fans. I can't think of anything like the scene in Die Another Day, where Bond literally has props from old movies.

    Aston Martin DB5 with ejector seat red button on gear stick, Judi Dench as M, Mallory's office, Aston Martin from TLD.

    Which is why it is very difficulty to see the Craig era as standalone, with absolutely nothing to do with the previous 20 odd Bond movies that came before it, and which is why it leaves more questions than answers at Bond's death.

    These homages are also explainable as alternate universes.

  • Posts: 1,078
    echo wrote: »
    These homages are also explainable as alternate universes.

    Yea, now we've had the mess of the 'CraigBond' era, we can have as many different cinematic 'Bondverses' as we like. It's sci-fi time!
    He can die, come back to life, sprout wings, have X-ray vision, or removable heads like Worzel Gummidge, and it's all okay because they can 'reboot' and make a new Bond that starts again. What fun!
Sign In or Register to comment.