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
Especially since NTTD ended with "James Bond will return", so I pretty certain that it is an option. Regarding the suggestions made by @DaltonsMaggotHands, I said it before, but I think the first one could work with an adaptation of the first chapters of TMWTGG. It is the only way to bring back Craig's supporting cast, in my opinion, even though I would prefer to not use any of them.
I also think there is a #4: The mostly unacknowledged return to the original non-continuity. Craig-Bond remains it's own thing and we don't take anything from that, but we also don't start from 0. Bond is already an established 00. Tracy is in his past. He has had a couple of tussles with Blofeld and SPECTRE. (Those last two are negotiable I say. But Tracy is one of the main parts of continuity pre-Craig, right?) Due to the decades long gap, I don't think we can really get any of the main actors from the Brosnan era back apart from maybe Colin Salmon and possibly Samantha Bond in a different role.
Hello! Great first post.
I feel like 2) is maybe the likeliest, and I wouldn't mind some of the MI6ers hanging around (maybe this Tanner and Moneypenny are done, but maybe keep M & Q if they want to). Perhaps a new reboot won't lean on 'James Bond's first mission!' as much as CR and will just be him meeting everyone for the first time and getting on with it rather than learning lots of life lessons, I don't know.
Mind you, I can almost imagine a sort of Jack Ryan Shadow Recruit thing where M recruits a (this time) genuinely young Bond from the Navy etc. and perhaps it takes place over the course of several years. I don't know if I'd hate that.
I think the audience is smarter than that though. Especially if you mix in a new Moneypenny or Q or whatever as well.
Thanks. I agree, I wouldn't be surprised if they would ideally like to effectively go forward with Craig as the new template. A new Bond comes in, has 3-6 films, and it's all sort-of self contained. My worry about that is if the first film doesn't work, or the actor has had enough etc... it can quickly become a mess if you have to then reboot/start again after one or two films.
Also, as mentioned, I'm quite liking a lot of the existing cast and it would be a shame to lose them.
I don't know much about it really, does this version of Batman have a particular hook?
And we all know how that panned out. . . . .
And I think that would be a good approach for Bond 26, as it would freshen things up for audiences who've maybe disconnected slightly during the run of Craig's era, while also avoiding an origin story for the fans who want to hit the ground running.
So if Pattinson is 35 by and in his 2nd year as Batman, then Wayne would have decided to become Batman around the age of 34.
In the Craig universe Bond became a double O at 38. Therefore if Eon were to follow this trend (which I could see very likely) they'd be looking for a Bond actor around the age of 39. Makes sense and I could live with that.
It looks to be a lot darker and violent in tone, in line with the recent Joker movie. Not sure how much of this will influence Bond 26.
Okay thanks, yeah I can deal with that.
Yes I'd probably be less keen on that.
I remember leaving the cinema elated after that scene. I wish I had that same feeling after NTTD
Looking back I wish they would have left the rights to Spectre in a drawer for the next actor (like they did the rights to Casino for Daniel) and followed the potential set up from that fantastic final scene from Skyfall
Wasn't it John Logan who was obsessed with Blofeld being Bond's Moriarty and jumped at the opportunity?
I think they'll bring back at least some of the supporting cast, if only to keep a continuity of sorts. Different timeliness, but same characters. Beside, it's easier to keep them than recast. They'll have to recast James Bond already, not to mention the villain, the Bond girls. Practically it makes sense to keep some of the cast.
In 1985, a jokey, ageing man takes a shower with a lovely blonde. The next time we see that same man, he's a spry, energetic youth with a cynical touch, telling another man that M can fire him if he likes and that he'll thank him for it. Same boss, gadget supplier and minister of defence, yet the secretary has somehow changed from a loveable aunt into a just-out-of-college lass with the exact same name. Not sure how that works. Another funny thing is that this man continues to be young, and at some point will steer a car by remote control through a NOKIA cell phone, invented in the '90s, yet that very same man, still young, was driving the latest Aston Martin years before we landed on the moon. I regret to also point out that our man has a friend who can fix everything, including his looks, from a funny grandpa type into a rather young blonde Robert Redford wannabe, and more incarnations along the way. A master of disguise? And please, tell me where the invisible-car tech went. Could've been quite useful in missions since...
So, why did Kirk and co go back in time to fix everything, only to forget about time travel technology in subsequent missions, when it also could have fixed everything?
Tell me, why is Harvey Dent a black man first, and then a white man next?
Wasn't Indiana Jones technically blessed with immortality at some point? Why worry about anything when pursuing the crystal skull then?
And so on...
Answer: continuity doesn't matter all that much in the end. Some people get hung up on it, most do not. Most people live from film to film, and even when they don't, muddled continuity rarely offends anyone. Film series like Saw, The Avengers, X-Men, ... rely heavily on continuity, and even they lose track of their own continuity at some point. Narrative conveniences and cool in-film moments matter more than how element x in film A relates to element y in film F. Most people care not for that, or little at best.
And when it comes to continuity, the Bonds are not exactly the best students in the classroom. Quite the opposite. With the exception of the Craigs, continuity was never a thing. Sure, we loved to see Michael Kitchen again in TWINE, but who else noticed? Who else cares? Judy Dench as M in both the Brosnan years and the Craig years? Whoever complained? The DB5 in SF, all equipped with tricks last seen in GF and TB? That doesn't even tie in with CR, not even remotely.
We may get off on continuity thingies and easter eggs and such, but who are we? Less than one per cent of all those who watch the new Bond film when it's released? And do we honestly care about lapses in continuity? Are those lapses reason enough for us to give the next Bond film the finger? I certainly hope not, because at least 20 films in our beloved series will give you serious nightmares then.
Yet, at other moments, the films still indulged in the Bond mythology by bringing back the DB5, first as a regular model, then as the version seen in Goldfinger.
And it's interesting to see that over the course of NTTD, Bond loses his DB5, his code number, his best friend, his nemesis, and ultimately his life. The nemesis doesn't hurt too much, especially because of Blofeld's botched introduction in Spectre and the uncertainty about who was responsible for the attack in Matera, but the other things matter because of the weight they had acquired during the previous films.
Continuity has never bothered me. I look forward to a cracking good story with a character I enjoy. Every time. Sometimes I am disappointed, sometimes I am thrilled and completely satisfied. I do not mind if there is continuity or not.
But having said that, I also agree with @HildebrandRarity in that continuity can sometimes enhance the enjoyment of a Bond film - if well done. One thing I greatly appreciate about the Daniel Craig era is it gave me more of a connected story arc than we have ever had, and took us from rookie 00 to his final moments. I don't need that particular story arc given to me again. I now have it, and the way it was handled was very rewarding for me.
So I like some continuity if it makes me smile - and most in Bond films are not realistic continuity - but I also look forward to fresh takes on Bond, the man and his adventures. Of course Barbara and Michael have been thinking of this since Spectre. They just won't discuss it in public till 2022, which is simply good business sense.
I don't know what Bond 26 will be. It seems a wide open field, and I like that. Make it fresh. I just know I don't want a true beginning of rookie 00 agent again. Let's meet him after he's been on a few missions but still in his 30s. I don't want a true beginner origin story. We have the perfect Casino Royale for that.
I want a Bond with a different personality, yet still with some realism and depth. Saying "depth" can alarm those who do want a more emotionless, copy back to the 60s through 80s Bond. Those who think "emotions" or "depth" is too much and don't want to have glimpses of Bond's psyche any more. Well, I do want all of that- just within the bounds of a good story, with a new Bond who has a different take. But I want some realism, and real feelings shown also. It will be interesting. I personally hope for a full new MI6 crew, but if there is any holdover, just give me the right story for the film and it won't bother me one bit. B-)
Yes, that one is indeed a head-scratcher! Perhaps it's just because
No, but killing a pop culture icon in any incarnation does matter, regardless of continuities and timelines. And I hate that even have to deal with comic book-style "timelines" now.
This was already a thing in the novels. Even if you hadn't read Casino Royale, you could understand that he had some flaws and, despite what he sometimes wanted, he wasn't fit for a proper relationship, until he found somebody as damaged as him in Tracy.
The early films with Connery were much more relaxed in that regard. Bond was basically an hedonist whom every woman was supposed to find irresistible, and he gladly indulged in that. But in the novels, there was a little more bitterness. That's the balance I hope they find in the next films.
I agree that those of us getting into the weeds on this forum are probably going a little too deep, but come on, actually on-screen definitively killing Bond and characters mourning his death is very different from anything previously done.
Pre-Craig, the whole "yeah, it's the same guy, but it's a new guy, don't ask too many questions" worked and was well established. They did like to put in continuity points to establish it was always the same James Bond (without wanting to get into official continuity etc...). It worked because they kept it vague. The ending of NTTD was anything but vague.
I just don't think you can have Naomi Harris as Moneypenny saying "Hello James Bond, how have you been?" after the final scenes of NTTD. That's not being picky and obsessed, it's basic film continuity.