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
Anyway, preserving strict continuity is an overrated concept. It is in filmmaking in general. I personally wouldn’t want them to backtrack on the ending of NTTD because of that, just like how I wouldn’t have wanted them to rewrite OHMSS to account for Bond meeting Blofeld in YOLT. I think a fresh start is more beneficial for Bond 26, and OHMSS is all the better for its decision. Hell, even some of the ‘retcons’ in the Craig era are for dramatic storytelling reasons (ie. Madeline’s mother being killed by Safin whereas in SP White seems to imply she left him). Just tell the most interesting story and don’t worry about any of us trying to nitpick the logic. Most audiences don’t care.
;)
Anyway It's not that they have stopped being populist filmmakers. There are creative differences...
And now Eon has another opportunity to make a new film that will effectively be a first Bond film for a new generation of audiences.
Well yes, but they're also awful. I would rather watch the 60s Casino Royale or Die Another Day than watch either Sonic movie again.
Yes, and even by the point of NTTD, how much is there to pick up on? Bond has retired to be with his love and Blofeld is in prison after Bond captured him. It’s not really overwhelming to someone who didn’t see Spectre as its all presented to you and not hard to follow. Oh and Bond had a love called Vesper who died, but I reckon a lot of people would remember CR.
Well, to each their own. I'm thankful for the families that go to the theaters for Sonic. Also, most video game movies aren't that good. Sonic is rare in that sense. Plus, it feels like the old Jim Carrey is back. One of his better performances in recent years. And a lot of people go to see Kenau Reeves movies simply because of how nice he is to everyone. A lot of kids are going to see presents under the tree this year probably because of him.
As for Bond and Amazon, it seems that IFP has followed their wants for spinoffs. I don't know how this will play out. It'll be interesting, and we're truly seeing history unfold before us. I agree with Barbara and EON that Bond (movies, at least) ALWAYS deserve time at a public cinema. Maybe Amazon doesn't want Purvis and Wade writing another script? Just joking, everyone ;) they'll always be rumors.
Amen to that. Please don't watch Knuckles, either. That TV series is even worse.
Also, why should we care? I can go to MacDonalds for a tasteless meal that's high on calories and low on nutrition. But hey, at least they throw that garbage on a hot plate faster than you can eat it. Instead, I prefer a meal that takes time to be properly prepared, with ingredients fresh from the market, hand-picked by the chef himself. I cannot just walk into the restaurant and expect to have it ready, but it'll be worth the wait. Yes, we used to get a Bond film every one or two years. Things were different then.
I’d say the Craig films are a lot like the 60s films. They have overarching threads and even stories which carry over from film to film but are separate adventures. Continuity wise it’s not strict though, and on an individual film basis it doesn’t have to be airtight. Bond can, in one film, claim he visited Japan years ago, and in another say he’s never been there previously. So long as the stories work for the individual films.
I do find it interesting that the biggest plot hole of the 60s films - namely the Blofeld not recognising Bond in OHMSS - came from Peter Hunt, an editor in his earlier career. A lot of Hunt’s editing work on Bond, like most great editors, isn’t heavy on continuity and prioritises storytelling (there’s all kinds of continuity ‘mistakes’ in the 60s Bond films like cigarettes jumping between hands from shot to shot. Some in DN are pretty egregious by today’s standards. It doesn’t matter as, again, it’s all about the storytelling, and I can imagine he brought that mentality to his direction).
I like that way of describing the next Bond film and I like the idea. It’ll be someone’s first Bond film.
100%.
That way you preserve the continuity, Bond 26 is a soft reboot. I don't think Eon and Amazon would find reason to disagree over that. Also, from a cinema going experience....Bond surviving is a surprise twist! Everyone thought he was dead but da da daaa... he survived! Given the right director the explanation how he survived - the reveal - can be exciting. I think it has huge potential, be a great way to get people to see the film - the first teaser can hint Bond survived - and the huge advantage is you preserve continuity. Amazon should be happy and maybe they'll forget about Bond tv spin offs or whatever.
If Eon commit to Bond not dying that's a decent foundation to get a screenplay in motion. Bond alive, living in a country, has a new identity. MI6 track him down and convince him to return. Meanwhile the rest of the plot unfolds. A new villain threatens the world. There you go, the first act of the screenplay established! Surely that's the easiest way to do Bond 26?
If Arthur Conan Doyle can undo Sherlock Holmes' death... so can Eon. 😉
I'd also prefer Bond is at a time in his career sometime prior to retirement.
Well, this worked for Godzilla at the end of 1966's Ebirah, Horror of the Deep. :))
Starting from scratch seems the sensible way to go. Just start it like DR. NO where everything already established with Bond just taking a new mission and move forward from there.
Trying to connect to the 62-02 “timeline” wouldn’t work either. That Bond was called a relic of the Cold War. You could stretch your imagination just enough to suggest Connery through Brosnan could be the same guy that fought the Soviets. Wouldn’t be convincing with an actor who was either an infant or not even born when the Berlin Wall fell.
No, no and no to all of this.
I'm ever more convinced that people are bouncing around terminology that they don't really understand when they say they want to undo the ending to NTTD as a "soft reboot".
The Craig-era was a very financially successful experiment that made some very specific choices that cannot simply be undone. I liked a lot of it, but disliked plenty. Let it be its own thing.
Give me a new Bond, clear of any and all connection to the Craig era. Audiences aren't idiots and I believe they love the Bond character over all else. You don't need to explain why Bond is "still alive". He just needs to be alive and we're on to the next adventure.
You'd be tying yourself up in further knots trying to explain it. Using your example, Conan Doyle ran into similar issues when he clearly designed the Reichenbach arc to end with Holmes demise. Any explanation afterwards seemed hollow.
Well stated. Let's just move forward with a new Bond and a new continuity.
I'd add that I don't want the new Bond mooning over Vesper or Madeleine or even Tracy. It is time to change!
Think I would pass on that one as well 😏
Yeah. Like Godzilla, Bond leaps away. I'm sure there are lessons in 'How to escape a relentless missile attack' at the 00 training school. ;))
So you want the new Bond era to feature an elderly retired agent?
Sounds thrilling. Goldcarpool and Thunderhomework.
With Spectre that became more difficult, and frankly it wasn’t a good enough story that I want it in the canon - I decided I could safely ignore it without too much trouble. With NTTD, however, I’ve got a film that is built around the events of Spectre, compounding that misfire, and heavily leans into plot-points that are difficult to work around: Bond has a love of his life and daughter that are obviously very important to Bond, but presumably will never be mentioned again in the series; and of course Bond has to give up his life to save them, with we’ll never hear mentioned. These are two films that never happened in the previously existing (in my mind at least) Eon continuity - they are as canonical as the CR’67, and NSNA. They’re fanfic in this context, and they try to tie themselves closely to the rest of the Craig films, so am I supposed to decide that CR, QOS, and Skyfall don’t exist in any way to non-Craig films? Are Eon going to take this more obviously compartmental approach to future iterations of Bond, where anything goes in terms of continuity?
For some of us this takes away from the films and the character they portray, and that’s why you’re getting these complaints or attempts to tie the Craig films back into the main sequence by some people. I get it. Not everyone feels that way - I get that, too.
I understand not liking the idea of Bond’s death. But ultimately that’s how they ended the Craig era and thought it best to do so. I’m pretty sure it’ll be a fresh start and I’d say that’s the best route creatively. I think trying to tie Bond 26 to the Craig era even in a roundabout way and just to retcon a decision some fans don’t like is pointless and a bit ‘fan fiction’.
The Moore films may be more explicit in referencing events in past films, but that could just be a case of Bond simply having a shared history. After all, Craig has a shared history with his predecessors too. Connery thru Brosnan probably had their own Vesper on their past that we were never privy to. Then there’s choices like setting the PTS in 1986, as if suggesting they’re overwriting the Dalton films.
It doesn’t really matter because most of these films are supposed to function individually to an extent. The events in a movie like GOLDFINGER doesn’t necessarily inform events that take place in GOLDENEYE. Eon is fully aware that each new film is potentially someone’s first Bond film and 85% of the time they treat it as such.
“Shared history” is loose continuity in this context. Nobody’s going to be sharing NTTD though, so it becomes no more consequential than CR’67.