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
It's just annoying, because the books obviously were one timeline, and then they shoehorned a pseudo-timeline into the release order of the films, which was only rearranged from the novels for the financial benefit of the film studio. There saying, at the same time, that there is a loose timeline (as @Agent_One is saying), but also, there isn't. Until sometimes, there is.
Maybe it's just my preference, but I'd like it a lot better if they didn't try for a long floating timeline and just told independent stories. Throw in a two-parter here and there if they want to (CR, QOS), but not as a rule.
Has our attention span really gotten that short?
I think I must look at the Bond films differently than most here.
I'd rather think Bond is the same character, played by different actors, all triumphing at the end of the film and never dying.
I suppose it's a childish thing, reading those Fleming paperbacks when I was young.
There is no reason why not. There is also no reason why he shouldn't get married again. There is also no reason why he shouldn't retire and bring up a clone child. There is no reason why he doesn't join a monastery. There is no reason why he shouldn't become become M, and Nomi take over as 007 and for Bond just to turn up at the start of every one of her future adventures. It's fiction. Anything can happen. But does that mean that it would be good?
Forget the film series for one minute. Have you all read John Gardner's novels? You happy with Bond shagging Felix Leiter's daughter? You happy with him not being a Commander any more? Him going to Disney Land? You happy with him going through all the stupid stuff he does in those novels?
For me, it's the same. Just because fiction allows him to do those things, doesn't mean it can't harm the character. The Gardner novels have the reputation they have for good reason (and I'm a bigger fan of Gardner than most).
Anyway - we won't know till NTTD comes out. I'm just making a point.
I am enjoying the points being raised by everyone.
8-| I mean, Bond is the same character, played by different actors, all triumphing at the end of the film and never dying, so literally 100% of us are on the same page there.
Your last comment is just sarcasm, or something, and isn't worth responding to. We've all read and loved Fleming's novels, and it doesn't have much to do with the current discussion.
I'm arguing that the timeline issues presented in the films are a result from a deviation from the novels.
You can call it daft till the cows come home and go back to work in the morning. Most people won't care. Just like most people didn't care that Batman was not retired in BvS after Dark Knight Rises. People understand what reboot is.
The four Craig films, are a lot nearer to Fleming than the previous four films, (I started a thread on this), but killing him off in the fifth is a little too naff and broad and rubbish for it even to happen. It won't happen, but it's been fun discussing it.
You're not wrong at all, and I'm not saying the death of Bond would be a good thing necessarily.
I guess all I'm saying is that, in the quest to tell the best stories possible, saying "Bond can't do this, can't do that, and must do this other thing" or "you must connect your story to twenty five other stories" only serve to contain and limit.
I'm not sure comparing the Bond franchise to the way the DC universe has panned out is the soothing balm you think it is.
Lighthearted with no real stakes, just a fluff piece to while the hours away. There are plenty of these already previously out there.
If anyone thinks they are going back to these frivolous sticking to a formula type ways are going to be disappointed.
I'm throwing my toys out of the pram because this isn't my James Bond, BB & MGW aren't delivering the film I have in my head, therefore they must sell up and give it to someone who will make my wildest wet dream a reality.
Cheers. And I agree with you, that I think, the way the Bond films are, it would be the wrong choice to kill off Bond in NTTD to end Craig's tenure. I think I'm just an idealist who wishes, generally speaking, the Bond films were more "standalone" than "floating timeline", for the sake of creativity and storytelling. Not to say I don't love the Bond films we got.
Who is this a response to? Who wants this?
You have deliberately misread every single post in this thread. We could easily call you a simple minded happy clapper who'll lap up whatever rubbish BB or MGW throw out into the world. We don't though. Because it wouldn't be fair.
Some of us here don't want James Bond 007 to be either a) Killed off, b) get married and bring up a family, or c) bring up a clone child.
Personally, I am baffled that this seems to be a controversial stance to take.
Full respect to those on here who are engaging in the debate in good faith.
For the record, I wouldn't want Bond to do any of these things either. ;) But for me it's just because I have a hard time imagining a James Bond story in which they do happen, but if someone smarter than me comes along and makes a brilliant story that somehow incorporates clone children, power to them.
Also, I wouldn't be totally opposed to Bond remarrying, to be honest.
Agreed! Love jumping in and making a lot of noise here and there. :) And I've always enjoyed our engagements.
Lol I'd never thought of this, and it is depressing. :P The solution? Cast away your thoughts of "two film Bonds". ;)
I don't because I despise SPECTRE, although some people just want the character a particular way and if that isn't the case they should sell up and move on.
Because lets face it the films have done terrible money and Craig isn't very popular in the role.
They aren't making the kind of film you want or others, so its rubbish right?
I can't stand the PB era but they kept the series more than a float, look you can't expect to like all of them and all of the eras.
Maybe the next era will more your wildest dreams.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I/we get that. It's just that even with this in mind, some of the stuff being proposed would be too much. I responded further up the thread about this, that other hero lit/film series don't kill off the character. I know that you are correct, technically. The question is would it be good. If you think it will be, or are open minded about it, then fine. Personally, I think it will kill the franchise, it if isn't already dead.
I had my theory/suspicions/fears that the direction taken in the Craig years will kill the series, and all I hear about NTTD is confirming that. I need more time to outline exactly why, so maybe that's for another time.
But yes, you can reboot him on another timeline with the same character. Whether you should is another matter.
See my reply to your first post. You have just repeated the same points in the same tone. Just a series of straw man arguments.
Who are you anyway?
But at the same time it would offer something different and if they can pull it off, with it already making sense to me somewhat in terms of the tone of the Craig-era, it could work.
It just really depends on how they do it, but...
...if he lives or dies, a reboot is the best option in my eyes - for business reasons and otherwise. Mainly I don't see how you could continue the continuity without casting someone of a similar age, and the problem with that is that you shouldn't do it without Craig, and either way, the series (while still successful) is in real need of a shake-up and a refresh.
Following this continuity with an actor in his 50s isn't the best way to do that, so the best alternative is a reboot - but I should stress, that doesn't have to mean Origin Story 2.0, it's just a new and fresh 007 for the producers to have fun with.
Ha. I prefer scotch. Each to their own.
Comedian?
Well, on that I we agree. We got there in the end!