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
Exactly this. I am sick of this forced family dynamic. When executed well, it is a really interesting dynamic but it does NOT need to e in everything, especially since family dynamic done bad is just annoying and detracts from the story.
I couldn't agree more....it doesn't look good on paper, I hope they get it Super-Right on screen. But one would have thought that after what happened with SP, they would have learnt to be careful about Bond & Family....so I would like to think they know what they're doing, but at the moment, it isn't looking like it, Maybe November would give us reason to embrace the concept.
It doesn't matter how it's executed. It's a dreadful idea that will permanently damage the entire cinematic incarnation of the character.
Does anyone get the feeling that an independent spy, living a hedonistic lifestyle, is somehow unpalatable for modern audiences? And they've tailored the Craig era to cater for current values.
I know I've thought the Vesper story was their way of explaining his coldness. Giving him a reason to be 'broken', and touched on the orphan element in at least two of the films. It's a far cry from the more one-dimensional playboy Bond of the Moore era. Was the word 'orphan' ever uttered in the previous 20 Bond movies?
I think you are right. It seems that everything has to be pathologised and explained. The thing is, Bond's psychological trouble has ALWAYS been there in the films, but it's a background, beneath the surface thing.
And for clarity, I like Casino Royale a lot, and have no problem making some of his issues more explicit (I love the psyche assessment of him in SF, and how Silva uses it against him). I just don't want him to be domesticated.
I don't want to watch Bond putting up shelves and taking out the bins.
Yeah, am not liking it so far....I find it too extreme even for Craig's Bond, who's known for doing the unorthodox, that has worked in majority of his Bond films....but at the moment, I don't know how to wrap my head around this particular idea.
The child is i hope local one that choose that Bond be moost save option for that moment or Bond take with him for same reasen. I see that matching with Bond his qoute about playing God and Malek chacter turn out to be a hero for the locals. Wil be finaly a signal Eon finaly contuned/playout the story Lechievere start in Casino Royale. Over the years we see QOS/Spectre have meetings, we have seen Mr White, set ups of Greene talks/idea's and how Mi6 and Bond deals with things, but litle about the big step.
I think using the Fleming back-story started subtly in Goldeneye. That was where his parents were first mentioned in the movies, (correct me if I'm wrong, guys), and then the movies went back to the Moore-era vibe for rest of PB's tenure.
Then we had the Craig era and he's a 'maladjusted young man' from the off (I think Vesper calls him this). And this goes back to when his parents died and he "wasn't a boy anymore", and I'm fine with all that, because it's in keeping with Fleming, and he could still be the same guy played by Connery, at a stretch.
However, What if they have a 'happy ever after' family ending with Bond married with a kid? It's not necessarily anti-Fleming -Bond is a bout to propose to Vesper in CR, and actually gets married in OHMSS, but whereas the four Craig Bonds so far have used his Fleming back story as embellishments to the plot, to have a 'happy ever after' ending seems somehow at odds with what Bond is. He's supposed to be happier having dangerous assignments. A happy ending Bond for me, is him ready to get back to work "with pleasure".
Very interesting analysis.
I'm not wrong. Emtiem.
Well you can't admit it, no, so we'll draw our own conclusions ;)
Precisely. I echo this sentiment entirely.
If (and it's a big 'IF') Mathilde is Bond's daughter, then they most likely won't end the film with Bond in domestic bliss with Madeleine. you just need to look at Mission Impossible to see how that ending doesn't work. The writers of Ghost Protocol realised how that notion didn't work. In fact, it was McQuarrie who was parachuted into that film to rewrite and reshoot the ending to incorporate Julia.
Though the big question then becomes, what Bond would do next? We know that Barbara balked at the notion that Bond would abandon Vesper's child in Paul Haggis's script for QOS. If I had to guess, I'd say the likelihood is that one of the two things happen:
Personally, I really really want them to kill James Bond. I just think the gesture would speak volumes. He is the ultimate hero and the one thing the ultimate hero can do is make the ultimate sacrifice. Dying for the mission and his family is the only sacrifice that Bond can do to establish his life’s great worth. Plus, there's always been a tragic notion to Craig's Bond. He's been on borrowed time since becoming a 00. He said as much to M in CR. Also, he has been broken by the loss of those close to him for years.
There's a great passage at the end of Fleming's Moonraker, where Bond gets excited about the prospect of a 'normal life;, however that hope is short-lived. He realised that he's destined to be a 00 his whole life and knows his life will be cut short as a result. There is a similar passage in YOLT where he thinks of a happy existence in Japan with Kissy. Bond always knew how his story would end, and that is 'violently.' He has to die.
It's similar to the beautiful character arc explored in The Last Jedi for Luke. That character was the picture of virtue in his youth but had been hit by harder times since. Now he's broken man, who finds redemption in his death and the chance to inspire hope in his sacrifice to the cause.
I get it's hard to see out icons die. But it's a point Marty Scorcese made so well in The Irishman. These men were once titans, but guess where they end up? Old and forgotten. Let's let Bond go out in glory.
Oh boy, we're getting a Monty Norman cameo? :D
What's wrong with silliness?
I'm interresting to that too, I can't find it in my dossiers too (even if it not well organized).
On one hand I'm grateful to Mendes for doing Brofeld because you can hardly damage the character more than that.
The reasons that you state for killing him off might be valid in terms of dramatic arc. But only on the proviso that that's the end of it all, and they finish the franchise completely. If they resurrect him after this, what would be the point?
All this talk of 'emotional journeys' and 'character arcs' is ridiculous when it comes to Bond. Sure, you can have him emotionally invested here and there. And it is probably necessary to play around with the formula and have the odd film that forces him to confront himself or his past. But Bond wasn't built on the back of that story trajectory (certainly, the films weren't). Nobody watches Goldfinger to see a dramatic emotional journey.
Anyway, it's all speculation at this point I guess. I haven't read the posts detailing the notes from production in detail, and haven't been looking at the on location images, so I don't know how likely any of this is to actually happen. I am just responding to the various versions of the plot synopsis that have been posted.
How would you approach the next movie then though. Just think of him as a different person?
Or would he be the same character, but in a time before his death?
Or would it be like an alternate universe, like they'd have in sci-fi?
Or perhaps it wouldn't matter at all, and they can presumably kill him off again, and again.
Can you imagine him baking a quiche! It'd never happen!
It just means there's no continuity with these films, which the next film should be, because you can't cast a younger actor with that continuity.
So they could re-boot with every new actor, and he could die at the end of some of the runs, but that's okay, because when they re-boot, they start with a new... erm, James Bond.
We're not expected to believe it was the previous Bond, just a different one. But it's the same person. But it isn't.
But do you think having a new actor play Craig's Bond until he's 70, or having a younger actor cast to portray a guy whose just retired and had his position and age questioned, makes more sense than just having each era (from the Craig-era onwards) be its own separate continuity?
Casino Royale and the whole Craig era is already an alternate universe though.
Are people still genuinely believing that it's some sort of prequel to all the other films or...?
"We're not expected to believe it was the previous Bond, just a different one. But it's the same person. But it isn't." - fans of Batman, Superman, Spider-Man etc have become used to that very principle, in comics and in films. Different interpretations of the same iconic character. Why couldn't this same principle apply to Bond?
Well, Yeah....Maybe, Maybe not....but at the moment, Boyle's looking like an innocent man.