"One of the significant re-writes changed Bond's fate; Fleming had become disenchanted with his books[9] and wrote to his friend, the American author Raymond Chandler: "My muse is in a very bad way ... I am getting fed up with Bond and it has been very difficult to make him go through his tawdry tricks."[10] Fleming re-wrote the end of the novel in April 1956 to make Klebb poison Bond, which allowed him to finish the series with the death of the character if he wanted."
Right. It's an open ending with a cliffhanger. It gave Fleming a way out and the ending allowed Fleming to say that Bond was dead if he wanted. But the ending also gave Fleming the option to bring Bond back because he never actually killed Bond in the book.
It was Fleming's intention to kill off Bond in FRWL because a. the books weren't selling that well; b. the critical reception had gotten worse (even Chandler didn't like DAF, the book that preceded FRWL); c. he hadn't been successful in selling the books to the movies; and d. he was tired of writing about Bond.
There are conflicting stories as to whether or not he truly wanted to kill Bond in From Russia with Love. The fact is that Bond does not die in the last few pages of From Russia with Love. We may think that he's going to his death and that a few minutes later he will be dead. But if you read the words on the page, Fleming did not kill Bond, even if he wanted to at the time. He intentionally left Bond's fate ambiguous.
If Bond actually died, Fleming probably would have written, "the son of a bitch is dead."
But if you read the words on the page, Fleming did not kill Bond, even if he wanted to at the time. He intentionally left Bond's fate ambiguous.
We have the benefit of actually knowing that Bond survives the poisoning at the end of the novel. But if you were reading it in real time, you could easily surmise that he was dead. In other words, it could have been Fleming killing Bond if he hadn’t written a follow-up novel.
"One of the significant re-writes changed Bond's fate; Fleming had become disenchanted with his books[9] and wrote to his friend, the American author Raymond Chandler: "My muse is in a very bad way ... I am getting fed up with Bond and it has been very difficult to make him go through his tawdry tricks."[10] Fleming re-wrote the end of the novel in April 1956 to make Klebb poison Bond, which allowed him to finish the series with the death of the character if he wanted."
Right. It's an open ending with a cliffhanger. It gave Fleming a way out and the ending allowed Fleming to say that Bond was dead if he wanted. But the ending also gave Fleming the option to bring Bond back because he never actually killed Bond in the book.
Correct. And if they are going to “kill” Bond in this film, they should do it in the same way. In fact, I’m rather hoping that they go this route. I’m pretty tired of Craig’s Bond at this point. I don’t want him back again in 3-4 years time.
There's no reason to have to kill Bond in Bond 25 to move on from Craig....EON could just do a soft re-boot with a new actor. But I guess the logic is if Craig's Bond is killed, then they have no choice but to move on from Craig. I don't think they will end Bond 25 on that sort of down note. Personally, I'm not so much tired of Craig but just think he has one film left in him....unless they want to bring him back in a Bond geezer film. Title of Bond 26 w/ Craig: Dirty Old OO7? Bad Grandpa Bond?
with all the talk about Craig being too old and fat, and too much time having past...
I think that should all be factored into the story. Bond25 should explicitly take place five years after the events in SPECTRE. Maybe Bond is not only married/cohabitating with Swann, and retired from the Service, he is in fact now a full-time househusband and all worn out and frazzled from looking after a gaggle of toddlers and in really bad condition for spy work, when M calls him into the office one last time, because after all it is his foster brother blackmailing the assembled world leaders.
(A bit like Mr Incredible, come to think of it. Now there was a good 21st century Bond movie)
I have been thinking about this a lot (too much time on my hands perhaps) Although we saw Burnt out Bond in Skyfall the overarching theme was resurrection. The spin was that he was not really burnt out at al. Just like in QOS he 'never left' A very skilful script could still make this work. Perhaps we could see him firing on all cylinders in an unseen mission, with PTS that accounts for the passage of time.
In 25 perhaps the Mcguffin is that he is really burnt out now maybe by the death of Madelaine?
#experimenting with being more positive. :007)
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
Judging by the Bond25 poll people want Madeleine too survive the movie, but not in the arms of Bond.
Perhaps the events i the PTS should be the drop that makes her leave Bond, or Bond leave her?
I'd like to see Bond and Madeleine on holiday when Bond is forced to chose duty over her yet again.
Later SPECTRE plans some evil scheme and MI6 turns to the jailed Blofeld in desperation. Blofeld will only talk if he gets a fine dinner with Madeline Swann. They sit together in Blofeld's cell wearing a dress and tux, eating as if they are in a top resturant. The MI6 are watching on CCTV, tensly waiting for information and ready to send SWAT in to intervene if Blofeld tries anything. In a reverse of Dr No Blofeld tries to hide a knife, Madeline discovers it. They play an inteligent cat and mouse game where both of them tries to get more information without giving away too much.
I think this could be a nice way to give Madeline and Blofeld something interesting to do without making the plot and screentime about them.
I was thinking they could do a Licence to Kill thing and have Blofeld's paddywagon sink in the Thames and have him fished out with scuba divers, but the last Mission Impossible just did that apparently from the trailer.
This video is of a man skating on very thin ice on a lake in Sweden. The ice is so think it cracks behing him. The sound you hear is the actual sound the cracking ice makes. Could inspire a very special scene in Bond25.
Right. It's an open ending with a cliffhanger. It gave Fleming a way out and the ending allowed Fleming to say that Bond was dead if he wanted. But the ending also gave Fleming the option to bring Bond back because he never actually killed Bond in the book.
Correct. And if they are going to “kill” Bond in this film, they should do it in the same way. In fact, I’m rather hoping that they go this route. I’m pretty tired of Craig’s Bond at this point. I don’t want him back again in 3-4 years time.
There's no reason to have to kill Bond in Bond 25 to move on from Craig....EON could just do a soft re-boot with a new actor. But I guess the logic is if Craig's Bond is killed, then they have no choice but to move on from Craig. I don't think they will end Bond 25 on that sort of down note. Personally, I'm not so much tired of Craig but just think he has one film left in him....unless they want to bring him back in a Bond geezer film. Title of Bond 26 w/ Craig: Dirty Old OO7? Bad Grandpa Bond?
The reason to kill Craig's Bond isn't to move on from Craig. It's to bring Craig's Bond's character arc to a fitting and satisfying end.
If the Death of Bond can be done well, there's no reason not to do it. If it can't be done well then it should be avoided at all costs.
And the average film goer can suspend disbelief enough to understand that even though Bond dies in a film, he can still come back in future films.
Not everyone would agree that killing him would bring Craig's Bond character to a fitting and satisfying end. Plus, I highly doubt that EON would kill Bond.....a bummer ending like that could hurt the box office of Bond 25. The ending of OHMSS apparently did it no favours at the box office. Plus, for me, anything that could remotely give any life to the James Bond is a code name thing, as completely unintentional as it would be on EON's part, is bad, bad, bad.
As far as I can remember, only 2-3 members want Bond to die in Bond25. There are few ISSUES in the poll AJB members agree more on: we don't want Bond to die.
Not everyone would agree that killing him would bring Craig's Bond character to a fitting and satisfying end. Plus, I highly doubt that EON would kill Bond.....a bummer ending like that could hurt the box office of Bond 25. The ending of OHMSS apparently did it no favours at the box office. Plus, for me, anything that could remotely give any life to the James Bond is a code name thing, as completely unintentional as it would be on EON's part, is bad, bad, bad.
"Logan" did $620 million (compared to "Wolverine" which did $373 million and "The Wolverine" which did $414 million). And that was for a third-level Marvel character. And in 5-10 years, he'll be back.
OHMSS did relatively poorly at the box office because people didn't accept Lazenby as Bond.
The code name theory is something only the hardcore fan boys care about. We've had six actors play Bond, they all look different and the character and personality of Bond is different with each actor. Yet only 1% of the people who see James Bond films have heard of the "code name theory."
The Avengers: Endgame will come out in four months and I expect several of the characters (Iron Man and Captain America, among others) will die, so Bond dying may not even seem like a huge deal by February 2020.
The Avengers: Endgame will come out in four months and I expect several of the characters (Iron Man and Captain America, among others) will die, so Bond dying may not even seem like a huge deal by February 2020.
Comic book characters never actually die. The writers can always invent a fantastic way they can return. James Bond is set in a world people think of as more realistic than intergalactic superhero comics
The Avengers: Endgame will come out in four months and I expect several of the characters (Iron Man and Captain America, among others) will die, so Bond dying may not even seem like a huge deal by February 2020.
Comic book characters never actually die. The writers can always invent a fantastic way they can return. James Bond is set in a world people think of as more realistic than intergalactic superhero comics
I also am reluctant to apply superhero movie logic to Bond. Logan made a lot of $$$, so did Avengers 3. But we all know Avengers 4 will bring the dead back, even as it kills off a very few others (that’s my guess).
Personally, I don’t want Bond to die on film for a number of reasons:
1. He’s an aspirational hero. I have no interest in seeing this character I’ve loved and admired bested by Blofeld, Hinx, or some random punk.
2. I cant imagine I’d want to rewatch a James Bond movie where he dies. What would be the message of such a film? That even the best of us dies? Gee, there’s a new one.
3. What stakes could possibly justify his death? He’s already literally saved the world, back in the Sir Roger days. He’d have to die in a worthy, noble cause (as Logan did, although I was unmoved by the ending of that film). So what does he do — save HRH?
4. I seem to remember a story about a golden goose....
Ultimately, I’m hoping they don’t do it because there are lots and lots of ways for the storyline to go wrong. Ask the people at Disney behind the Star Wars franchise about how easy it is to pull off narrative twists.
As far as I can remember, only 2-3 members want Bond to die in Bond25. There are few ISSUES in the poll AJB members agree more on: we don't want Bond to die.
Alas, I confess I have never been one to go with the crowd.
The Avengers: Endgame will come out in four months and I expect several of the characters (Iron Man and Captain America, among others) will die, so Bond dying may not even seem like a huge deal by February 2020.
Comic book characters never actually die. The writers can always invent a fantastic way they can return. James Bond is set in a world people think of as more realistic than intergalactic superhero comics
Bond, like Iron Man and Captain America is a fictional character so he can die a thousand deaths. And he's defied the laws of nature in the past (e.g. the PTS in Goldeneye where in free fall he catches up with a falling airplane, thus breaking Newton's Law of universal gravitational attraction).
Comments
There are conflicting stories as to whether or not he truly wanted to kill Bond in From Russia with Love. The fact is that Bond does not die in the last few pages of From Russia with Love. We may think that he's going to his death and that a few minutes later he will be dead. But if you read the words on the page, Fleming did not kill Bond, even if he wanted to at the time. He intentionally left Bond's fate ambiguous.
If Bond actually died, Fleming probably would have written, "the son of a bitch is dead."
We have the benefit of actually knowing that Bond survives the poisoning at the end of the novel. But if you were reading it in real time, you could easily surmise that he was dead. In other words, it could have been Fleming killing Bond if he hadn’t written a follow-up novel.
“please santa give us real news please santa give us real news please santa give us real news“
There's no reason to have to kill Bond in Bond 25 to move on from Craig....EON could just do a soft re-boot with a new actor. But I guess the logic is if Craig's Bond is killed, then they have no choice but to move on from Craig. I don't think they will end Bond 25 on that sort of down note. Personally, I'm not so much tired of Craig but just think he has one film left in him....unless they want to bring him back in a Bond geezer film. Title of Bond 26 w/ Craig: Dirty Old OO7? Bad Grandpa Bond?
I think that should all be factored into the story. Bond25 should explicitly take place five years after the events in SPECTRE. Maybe Bond is not only married/cohabitating with Swann, and retired from the Service, he is in fact now a full-time househusband and all worn out and frazzled from looking after a gaggle of toddlers and in really bad condition for spy work, when M calls him into the office one last time, because after all it is his foster brother blackmailing the assembled world leaders.
(A bit like Mr Incredible, come to think of it. Now there was a good 21st century Bond movie)
-Casino Royale, Ian Fleming
I agree. Bond was burnt out before he ever really became fully formed.
I have been thinking about this a lot (too much time on my hands perhaps) Although we saw Burnt out Bond in Skyfall the overarching theme was resurrection. The spin was that he was not really burnt out at al. Just like in QOS he 'never left' A very skilful script could still make this work. Perhaps we could see him firing on all cylinders in an unseen mission, with PTS that accounts for the passage of time.
In 25 perhaps the Mcguffin is that he is really burnt out now maybe by the death of Madelaine?
#experimenting with being more positive. :007)
Perhaps the events i the PTS should be the drop that makes her leave Bond, or Bond leave her?
I'd like to see Bond and Madeleine on holiday when Bond is forced to chose duty over her yet again.
I think this could be a nice way to give Madeline and Blofeld something interesting to do without making the plot and screentime about them.
I could see that tux dinner scene be one of the most memorable scenes in the film.
-Casino Royale, Ian Fleming
Thank you. If well written it would give Lea Seydoux and Cristoph Waltz a better chance to show their acting talents.
Well, I understand double 00s have a very short life expectancy.
The reason to kill Craig's Bond isn't to move on from Craig. It's to bring Craig's Bond's character arc to a fitting and satisfying end.
If the Death of Bond can be done well, there's no reason not to do it. If it can't be done well then it should be avoided at all costs.
And the average film goer can suspend disbelief enough to understand that even though Bond dies in a film, he can still come back in future films.
"Logan" did $620 million (compared to "Wolverine" which did $373 million and "The Wolverine" which did $414 million). And that was for a third-level Marvel character. And in 5-10 years, he'll be back.
OHMSS did relatively poorly at the box office because people didn't accept Lazenby as Bond.
The code name theory is something only the hardcore fan boys care about. We've had six actors play Bond, they all look different and the character and personality of Bond is different with each actor. Yet only 1% of the people who see James Bond films have heard of the "code name theory."
I don't think there's any reason to worry.
They'll understand that its just a movie.
Comic book characters never actually die. The writers can always invent a fantastic way they can return. James Bond is set in a world people think of as more realistic than intergalactic superhero comics
I also am reluctant to apply superhero movie logic to Bond. Logan made a lot of $$$, so did Avengers 3. But we all know Avengers 4 will bring the dead back, even as it kills off a very few others (that’s my guess).
Personally, I don’t want Bond to die on film for a number of reasons:
1. He’s an aspirational hero. I have no interest in seeing this character I’ve loved and admired bested by Blofeld, Hinx, or some random punk.
2. I cant imagine I’d want to rewatch a James Bond movie where he dies. What would be the message of such a film? That even the best of us dies? Gee, there’s a new one.
3. What stakes could possibly justify his death? He’s already literally saved the world, back in the Sir Roger days. He’d have to die in a worthy, noble cause (as Logan did, although I was unmoved by the ending of that film). So what does he do — save HRH?
4. I seem to remember a story about a golden goose....
Ultimately, I’m hoping they don’t do it because there are lots and lots of ways for the storyline to go wrong. Ask the people at Disney behind the Star Wars franchise about how easy it is to pull off narrative twists.
This incarnation has been around for a while though has it not
Alas, I confess I have never been one to go with the crowd.
Bond, like Iron Man and Captain America is a fictional character so he can die a thousand deaths. And he's defied the laws of nature in the past (e.g. the PTS in Goldeneye where in free fall he catches up with a falling airplane, thus breaking Newton's Law of universal gravitational attraction).