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
As far as I'm concerned there is no Craig timeline (at least it's much looser than it officially is). Quantum doesn't exist, Craig's Bond never met Blofeld and he never had a foster brother. There is only CR and SF. Bond 25 will be the conclusion of the Craig trilogy. If the producers and Fukunaga approach Bond 25 with the same mindset and deliver a killer movie, they won't have to worry about Public Joe not remembering Craig's lesser movies.
We may disagree on some things, @Mendes4Lyfe but I'm with you and @Birdleson here - 100%. The general audience are unaware or doesn't care about the continuity of the Craig era - that's just the way it is. I had a discussion about the continuity in SP after going to the cinema with some friends to watch it. One of them mentioned the interrogation tape with Vesper Bond is seen looking at, asking (something in the lines of):
"What was the deal about that old tape Bond stares at?" - where I answered: "That's an interrogation tape of Vesper – you know - the girl Bond falls in love with in CR, who dies at the end of the film?".
"Who?"
They had completely forgot about the character of Vesper, even having watched CR more than once. They had also forgot about Mr. White – being totally unaware that this was the man Bond shot at the end of CR, and was transported by Bond to M at the start of QoS.
The Craig films have been released with too long gaps between them to make the continuity work for the general audiences, IMO. Most of them will find it hard to pick up what happened in the previous film – and won't pick up on previous events at all. Why the Craig era then has to be "wrapped up", is beyond me.
So which is it? Was Craig expressing his desire to make another FRWL movie, or follow the book and its grand finale more closely this time? As no one really knows the answer, we're all jumping to the conclusion that this is how he'd want the movie to end. when Craig, himself, might actually prefer the 1963 movie's ending.
I won't weigh in with whether I think killing Craig's Bond off is a good idea yet, until there's more substance to this rumour and that this is the direction Bond 25 is going in. However, I will say that this idea has been floating around these boards ever since Logan proved to be a huge success at the multiplexes. Is it just a case of journalists joining the dots when they heard that Craig had a passion for Connery's FRWL? I'm still unsure.
Watching this weekend as to get accustomed to Fukunaga eye, visually amazing so far....
Cheap article.
True Detective is probably Fukunaga's best work and in that project he basically fulfilled Nic Pizzolatto's vision with his excellent creative skills. Fukunaga is not an uncompromising kind of author like Boyle, a director who seemed always reluctant directing a big blockbuster like Bond and requested total creative freedom in order to stay completely faithful to his (and Hodge) principles. On another note, even if Casino Royale wasn't directed by an "author" it was crafted using tons of Fleming material and, more importantly, the final script was written by another author like Haggis. So I really don't see how a director like Fukunaga could be a wrong choice, given the fact that all the Craig era has been marked from day one by a never seen before autorish take on the character.
That's hilarious. XD
Craig's era is totally separate to what went before, there is no connection and it is too contained for another actor to pick up the reigns and move forward.
Maybe the average joe doesn't see the continuity but it is there and too explicit for it to be ignored and modern approaches to film series and franchises will dictate this happens, future directors and writers will want a clean slate and I think BB & MGW know this.
We can try and say that the previous era had soft reboots, maybe Brosnan era possibly but before that it was the same character from Dr No to LTK. There are too many links back to major moments, most significantly, SPECTRE, Blofeld, definitelty Tracy's death, both Moore and Dalton referenced this in their films.
You might not like it that the DC era ( and it's nothing to do with die hard fans) has gone this way and yes it's not been perfectly handled but as @peter said this will have a beginning and an end that much has been clear for sometime now and with the awkward tying up of all entries it's almost a definite that this is going to happen.
I don't think an outright death but DC's time as Bond will have a full stop as too much as paid attention to his aging, something never really touched on before Casino Royale. The FRWL option or even the YOLT one seem most plausible.
I don't see a problem, you can disregard all that quite a few of you have issues with, get a new actor be it Aidan Turner, Henry Cavill or whoever.
They can then try and deal with the elements that were poorly handled with this era properly like SPECTRE & Blofeld. I would have thought that would make a good few of you happy, this is not like before, I can't see how this is hard to grasp.
It's not about what you'd like it's about what is inevitable and some of us are ready for it. Some of you can't let your dislike of DC as Bond and your wanting to look at him as just the next guy, this isn't the case. His appointment changed the character and the way they approach this.
They possibly might shift back to what was before but this era has been far from a disaster that some make out. This isn't your personal opinion or desire for what should happen this is a property that is mass marketed and has never been about fulfilling fan boys wet dreams.
I think the comic book films are more likely to sate this kind of desire due to the amount of source material but Bond has only really the Fleming novels and once that dries up entirely, they'll either recycle or reinvent, whereas CB films have an almost never ending source to pull from.
The Daniel Craig era has had some signifcant bumps in the road but even then it has reset the character, reinvented it and made survive and thrive in the 21st Century. This isn't some time piece frozen in a particular moment.
This is a living breathing film series like no other, also the longest running in film history and in order for it to survive it needs to evolve and it was necessary whether you like it or not to change it's approach and this will happen again and again for it to continue.
We may well look back on what has happened here as mere minor changes compared to what might happen with Bond in years to come once other parties have taken control of the property.
We can either accept this or find a new film franchise to follow, it's coming and it's inevitable.
In SF Mendes set aside the stripped-down CR and QoS. He reintroduced Q and Moneypenny and more or less reset MI6 to the DN-DAD years, forgetting that the whole point of the CR reboot was to clear the canvas of its 20-film baggage (which had become unwieldy by DAD).
As much as I like SF, it lost its focus on Bond. It is more M's story than Bond's, a very well-done spinoff film.
By SP Mendes' decision to reintegrate all the MI6 characters led to bloat and character drift (such as Tanner's inexplicable "ratting out" Bond to M). Because grafting Bond's past onto M's present worked in SF, Mendes went back to that well again, this time sewing Bond's distant and recent (!) past onto Blofeld's present, like the limbs of Frankenstein's monster.
We may have dodged a bullet with the Hodge-Boyle departure. Who's to say it wouldn't have been another Logan-Mendes digression?
I hope that Bond 25, in starting with a script by P&W, not by an outsider like Logan--and instead of demanding that P&W clean up someone else's digressions (SF-SP) that they push the Bond character forward--marks a return to the lean-and-mean days of CR and, yes, QoS.
At least, that's what I hope.
Precisely, it had become unwieldy by DAD, but that was on account of poor decisions on the part of the producers post-Cubby. They overplayed the tropes and cheesy jokes, and over relied on them during the Brosnan run. After Austin Powers became a global phenomenon by essentially taking the piss, they had to reset. However, they could just have easily reset with the MI6 team at the outset in a more serious vein if they wanted to. The whole idea with CR/QoS was to deconstruct Bond. That was pretty much done by the end of the latter film.
That's true, but I think that's why it was a massive success. The film focused on an interesting character (one who was not confined by the limitations of James Bond himself but whom the audience could relate to nevertheless) and explored a past relationship which proved compelling for the audience. Bond was just a bystander for most of it and I personally liked that aspect after two films dwelling on his inner psyche. Given the film's success, I'd say most felt that way.
SP had many problems, but fundamentally having Blofeld and Bond have a past relationship may have been its most egregious sin. Tonal imbalances, poor performances, tired action direction, a regurgitated score and an overcast filter also contributed to a mediocre viewing experience, no matter how successful it was.
That doesn't appear to be the case, based on comments I have read. What I can surmise is that the script was in fact very toned down - perhaps too much so. If anything, it may have been too predictable.
I hope we have a coherent script this time too. However, I also want something which works cinematically. Something which transcends the mundane. A visionary director can definitely contribute to creating that experience.
Craig's off the cuff remark of a desired 'high' has led to all sorts of assumptions here. Ultimately, I'd say he just wants a decent film to exit on. That's probably the only reason he chose to return. Throughout his tenure he has shown that he is mindful of audience and fan expectations and has desired and attempted satisfy them. Some of us (most definitely me) may feel that he failed miserably in SP, but that's not for lack of trying. I honestly don't think we're going to see something too radical from a story perspective, and so this rumoured (and very polarizing) 'death' scenario likely isn't on the cards. Rather, it's more likely that we get a decent, holistic thriller with a few narrative twists and turns.
Excellent observation. I agree.
I'm with you gentlemen. The general audience doesn't give a toss. Bond is Bond. The actor is merely occupying the role until the next chap gets a chance. We've had years and years of speculation (fueled by Craig no less) of a recast now, and that's still a hot topic of conversation in the ether. That sort of ongoing discussion just doesn't happen with other series because they are essentially seen as self contained. This is not the case with Bond, even after the lengthy Craig era and even after the reboot. As far as Joe Public is concerned, EON just replace and move on when they're ready.
I'll never forget my parents (big Bond fans, who introduced me to the character) both being slightly confused after seeing SP for the first time, and asking me why they keep calling back to earlier films with these new ones. They only see the films occasionally and so forget all the connections. They aren't alone out there. Most just want an entertaining film.
But if it began with his getting his double zero status, then surely that means it must end with either his death, or hanging up the Walther and retiring. Since they already tried the "Bond resigns and drives off" idea with SPECTRE, I don't think they would do that again. So the only other option is too kill him off right? If it's not one of the those two options how else can they make it "explicitly" an ending. Perhaps if he finally tracked down and killed an escaped Blofeld, then you could say it wrapped up the Saga, but I can't see that happening personally.
Gotta' disagree here. People may like Dench, she's an accessible actress, but did any of them go into this film anticipating a compelling story about M's actions? And who is relating to her? Besides, this ground was already gone over to a different degree in TWINE and it wasn't involving then.
This is why I find SF an overblown, overrated film because it dwells on M and her decisions. I don't go to a James Bond film to focus on his boss. Just give him his mission and check in as needed.
Same as I don't give a toss about reading comics devoted to Monepenny or Felix Leiter or Moneypenny Diaries or anything like that. The tidbits in the novels are fine for these characters, but this is film, a completely different medium. Focus on the main character and toss in some interesting villains and girls for him to play off of.
Even with Bond in this film it's also about his psyche being screwed with. But then he's back to being the same Bond everybody knows by mid film, doing Bondian things. I honestly would like to see exit polls to know why general audiences found SF so appealing when for me it was yet another entry into the "this time it's personal" theme that has run through each of the films since LTK.
Is it a polarizing film? Definitely, as was SP. Many don't like either & some like one and dislike the other immensely. Pick your poison.
The 'this time it's personal' theme for Bond himself has run its course. On that I can agree.
I’m not sure it is a binary option. There’s the potential for something ambiguous. The inception spinning top. Is he dead, is he not?
Look, I get where you’re coming from. I think the end of SP is pretty awful and wholly unsatisfying, but I think there’s room for something interesting to round out his tenure. It, of course, relies on the film justifying the ending - something that SP didn’t achieve and I’m sure everyone involved feels the same.
Then it's probably not explicit, it's interpretive. The reason the spinning top ending works in Inception is because the whole film is about questioning reality. The fact there's still some indecision come the ending just cements the central theme. I'm not saying it's impossible but it would be extremely difficult for Bond to pull something like that off, it was an achievement that Inception managed it TBH. Not to mention that death and rebirth are already thoroughly trodden ground in the Craig era, they could be at risk of repeating themselves with something like that.
I don’t disagree. I’m my previous comment I was talking about the idea it wasn’t a leap to expect an ‘explicit’ ending - likely death - because I don’t think it is. My preference is ambiguous, if at all.
I for one can imagine Bond dying in ways that make audiences cheer: a noble, heroic, purpose-filled and adrenaline-fueled sacrifice to save the world one last time which would make all the other heroes in Valhalla envious that they had not died so well.
Moneypenny: “How did he die, sir?”
M: “Gloriously.”
Like hiring Aidan Turner to be Bond...
MIC DROP
Definitely agree. If this is they way they're going with Bond 25, I'm not watching it.
I think it's important to realise that Craig ending his film on a high is him wanting to end his tenure with a really good film. It's got nothing to do with Bond having to be killed just because he's driven off with the girl in the last movie. It's all about the quality and execution of the film itself. Bond being killed off in the films is a stupid idea and as much as Mendes movies wholly did nothing for me, the one thing he did that I commend him for is explicitly putting to rest that stupid code name theory rubbish. People need to learn that the only code name is 007! James Bond is the man's name NOT a code name!
Now QoS is on itv2 I'm off to watch it.
It wouldn't be my choice, but folks itemizing and campaigning on all these points that they don't want likely will be disappointed. And instead of the depends-how-it's-done ethos, it's a digging in on positions for things that may not even exist.
It hasn't been used because it shows a lack of imagination.
At least there's no point in getting upset over something we don't even know if it's going to happen. And if they go that route they'll probably and hopefully manage keep it a secret, cause I don't want to know it in advance.
disclaimer: I don't ofter wear a hat, so depending on the timing of said confirmation, a hat may be eaten or not.
Inigo Montoya.
Fleming is my favourite author, but let's be honest, not everything he wrote is pure gold. Goldfinger's plan as described in the novel, for once, was impossible to achieve and doint it in the film would have just been a massive plot hole.
Besides, Fleming only killed Bond once (not twice) and eventually retconned Bond's death in the subsequent novel which came out a year after FRWL.
Had they "killed" Bond at the end of Thunderball only for him to show up at the beginning of You Only Live Twice and revealing MI6 staged his own death so he could seek out Blofeld would have been another thing altogether.
The problem with killing off Craig's Bond and then having a new actor in the role would only make people claim that the codename theory is true. And we wouldn't want that, would we?