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
And as @DarthDimi points out, the idea that all the previous actors were playing Ian Fleming's James Bond is very flimsy at best, save for a handful of films. Movie Bond has always largely been its own beast.
The experimentation of the Craig era is moreso that they gave him a beginning, middle and end as I said.
I would say none do, in terms of Bonds characterization. Each portrayal seems to get a piece of it right. I think early Moore comes closest in his mannerisms and demeanor, but obviously the situations he is thrust into, and several of the characters that he encounters, do not conform to Fleming.
Exactly. So in deciding how I feel about a Bond film, its Flemingian character is far from my only criterium. And when the filmmakers takes certain liberties, I will not immediately dismiss those liberties on the basis of not staying true to the pages of the books.
Casino Royale could be up there as well, but the novel was not written as Bond being a rookie agent. Therefore, if they took that aspect out, it would be a close second. Fleming takes time to get into Bond's personal life and style, lavish meals, conversations, elaborate explanations of his time as Casino tables. Some of which is loosely translated successfully onto the big screen. Bond vs Largo at the Baccarat table in TB and Bond at the Baccarat table in OHMSS are perfectly translated from book to screen.
But with CraigBond, and particularly the last movie, we're forced to accept the idea that Daniel Craig isn't portraying the same character as the previous movies. And although that's not a problem for some - perhaps most - people, I think for some people it's damaged the integrity of the series. I see the killing off of Bond as a real problem now with the series' credibility. It was, for me, a massive miss-step.
And yes, I know all the arguments about his age jumping twenty five years, and how disbelief has had to be suspended a good many times during the 'main' series. But that was never a problem for me. They had to cast a new actor to keep the series going.
Killing off Bond wasn't a proper screen death, you see. It wasn't Thelma and Louise driving off the cliff, or Sonny being peppered with gunshot at the checkpoint. It didn't matter because - 'James Bond will be back'. It was a sequence played out on screen with no weight behind it. It was a falsehood, because ten minutes later we are told the character we just saw blown to shit will be back. That's not how things work in movie series that are supposed to be based in the real world. Quint didn't re-appear in any Jaws films after being chomped to death, did he?
The truth of the matter is the attitude to movie series has changed since the sixties. You couldn't have killed off a main character in a 60's movie series and expected the audience to shrug it off when they re-appeared in the next movie. I don't watch superhero movies, and very little sci-fi, but I think the whole idea of separate timelines and alternate universes comes from those genres. And as far as I'm concerned, it's really damaged the credibility of the Bond series that they've decided to go down the route of creating different Bond characters tied to specific actors, and we are now forced to accept each cinematic James Bond as 're-imaginings' of the same character. Now, he can die and come back as many times as they want. And in instead of each actor portraying James Bond, as they did in 1962-2002, now each actor will likely have their own self contained James Bond. It's the modern way, and it seems to work for the majority, so I suppose they've done the right thing in changing their approach. But that doesn't mean to say I have to like it.
Fabulous post. I think I would actually jump out my chair and punch the air with joy if the next Bond film continued on from DAD and returned to the traditional style. This would effectively segregate Craig's era as its own 5 film series which, for me, is what it now feels like. A shame cos the Craig era started well but has ended with me not even purchasing his final film.
Unfortunately, I have a horrible feeling that we are going to get a 5 film re-tread of the Craig era. This will mean another separate 5 film series, separate from the original 20 and separate from Craig's 5. Perhaps in this one they could be really original and kill off Q and Moneypenny, instead of M and Felix, that would shock us. Then they could stun us by Bond having a secret son, a revelation, as he'll only ever have had a secret daughter before. Then crown it all with Bond having his head chopped off in film 5, cos they wouldn't want to blow him up again. Oh but don't worry, he'll be back for the next reboot.
Colonel, continuity and timelines aside, what do you think about showing Bond's death in a film? Assuming it was treated as a definitive event, without any "James Bond will return" announcement at the end.
As I said; for me, the James Bond films worked best when they were individual adventures based around the same character, who was portrayed by different actors.
So, I'd prefer for the Bond films to carry on in that style till after I'm gone. So I'd not want to see him die, primarily because the series would end, and secondly, because Bond always escapes. That's what the cinematic Bond did all through my life, so I'm a traditionalist I suppose.
They could still make more movies, they would just have to clarify that they're adventures set before his final mission. That way, there would not be any separate timelines or reimaginings. It would be the same character. However, I suppose it could be argued that even in that situation, Bond's death would lack weight, because it would be followed by more films. And I don't know how I would feel about watching a new Bond film after having him seen him --the exact same character-- die. Sounds depressing.
NTTD's death scene was handled well enough, but an alternative scenario that has been mentioned a few times now seems much more attractive to me: making us think Bond is dead, really dead, and then, when they've got us all depressed, it turns out he's not. That would be incredibly exhilarating. Standing ovation stuff.
My favorite scenario would be Bond appearing out the cloud of the explosion on Rog's jet ski from TSWLM, full pelt across the water with the theme blaring. But they don't make those kind of Bond movies anymore.
Perhaps they will again, who knows?
https://www.timeout.com/news/a-gravestone-dedicated-to-james-bond-has-just-appeared-in-the-faroe-islands-032322
That’s a flawed analogy. If the Jaws films rebooted, there’s no reason Quint wouldn’t make an appearance. I feel like you’re stuck on this point. We’re not gonna get a literal follow up to NTTD where Bond is inexplicably alive in the same timeline as Craig’s. It’s a full on reboot, with a Bond that will have a history independent of Craig’s. That’s why I think they held off a few seconds on “James Bond will return” more than they typically do with the films. It’s both acknowledging Craig’s won’t return, but Bond will return in a new iteration. EON trusts most audiences are smart enough to make that distinction.
You really want WWIII, don't you? ;-)
I'll try to explain.
The James Bond movies take place in the real world, where rules of science apply. They might be fantastical, but they are not fantasy. There's a big difference. People don't have paranormal powers like in Star Wars, or beam up like Star Trek. People don't have special magic powers like superheroes either They might push the limitations of current tech, like the invisible car, but it's always been explainable within the realms of accepted science.
This is what I mean as a 'real word' series. A hollowed out volcano is fantastic, but it's not beyond the realms of science.
I'll agree to disagree there, especially in the case of the invisible car. There was nothing current about it then and there's still nothing current about it. There's a reason why, funnily enough, invisible tech has predominantly been used in superhero flicks since. Invisible jets, invisible aircraft carriers, etc.
How do you explain villains like Jaws in this “real world”?
A good oral surgeon?
You complain about the continuity of the character of Bond being broken after his death. That's perfectly valid. It has been broken. I just don't know what it has to do with fantasy. To me, what you are saying is absolutely the same as this:
"They're doing a remake of Jaws, and Quint is going to appear again. That's nonsense because he died in the last one, and these films are not fantasy."
For most if not all practical purposes, the next Bond film is going to be a remake. They're remaking James Bond. The only difference with most cases is that the people who are making the remake are the same people who made the older films.
If you just said "I could always believe this was the same man in different adventures, and in the future I won't be able to", I'd be fully behind you. But these references to science fiction and fantasy, I don't get them at all. As I said before, it's like saying remakes are science fiction.
I never said that or meant that. I was simply trying to explain the difference between films set in the real world like crime dramas and thrillers, and fantasy films where the laws of recognised science don't apply. Bond is the former.
A man can have steel teeth in the real world. He can't have steel teeth and X-ray vision and be able to fly.
And a remake of a movie is a different beast to an episode in an on-going series. I've nothing against Quint in a Jaws remake. But him appearing again after dying in the same series would be daft, wouldn't it?
You have a different interpretation of a movie 'remake' to me. As far as I know, NSNA has been the only proper Bond movie remake.
That’s why it’s going to be a reboot and NOT a continuation.
Yeah, it would be moronic. But with NTTD, the on-going series of Bond films that we've had since at least 2006 (or 1962, or whenever) is over.
They made one series of about six or seven Poirot films in the seventies and eighties. Now they're making Poirot films again. It's a different series of films, with a different actor. And it'll be the same with the Bond films.
Whatever the meaning of the word, the point is that someone is going to take the premise and recurring characters of the Bond films and make new films using that premise. It's as if EON Productions stopped making Bond films after NTTD, and then another film producer bought the film rights of the Bond character, and hired screenwriters to create his own stories for a new series of Bond films without making reference to EON's films. Why? Because he just wants to make more Bond films. The only difference here is that the new film producer of the example is EON itself.
Lately I have found myself appreciating less how these latest films made Bond's world so dark, and how they turned Bond's adventure lifestyle into something to escape from. I first thought about it when Revelator mentioned it in a piece he wrote about the film.
Casino Royale was a reboot, yet it was made by the same people who made the previous Bonds, unlike most reboots. Even though Bond has just become 007 in 2006, it was still called Bond 21 as opposed to Bond 1, and it had the trappings of the original series like the gun barrel, song, and classic Bond theme. Very different from how Batman gets rebooted with different creative teams, different music, etc.
Martin Campbell said that there was no original plan to make a series of connected Bond movies, it just happened with QOS due to the writer's strike forcing them to lean heavily on CR. With Skyfall it was almost as if they wanted to go back to the original style of making each movie independent of one another, then Spectre went back on that idea and connected all of Craig's movies into one continuity. NTTD was then made to close off that continuity so that the Craig era could be its own thing.
It's not just that CR changed the rules, it's that the following 2 movies kept changing the rules until EON finally settled on a strict continuity with SP that really didn't work. Add to that the constant references to the non-Craig Bonds and the inclusion of Dench as M in the first three movies and it's no wonder that some people have issues with just what the Craig era is supposed to be, how we're supposed to view it in the context of the overall franchise, and how they're going to proceed from it.
This reminds me of a video I did. If a Bond film ended like this, I'd be laughing for days. SPECTRE's most clever trap.
It wouldn't be a large role, but at least Henry Cavill or Idris Elba could claim to have played Bond.
I think that was the ending of NTTD before they were like, "They're really going to give us hell if we don't put the gun barrel at the beginning again. Can we kill him on the island somehow?"
I don't quite understand. In what way are you saying the Bond films have broken the limits of real world science?