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.
You have every right to have a different opinion than "the crowd". I was once a member of a fan forum where the Moderator was of the opinion that absolutely everything about Bond is fantastic and there was nothing to talk about other than saying it's fantastic. I left.
Obviously the stunt guy is going faster than the target plane (for one thing, the target plane is being slowed down by a parachute while the stunt guy has no parachute) unlike Bond in GE whose motorcycle is going slower than the plane. Still no way for Bond to "catch up" in mid-air unless he's wearing Connery's jetpack. )
Obviously the stunt guy is going faster than the target plane (for one thing, the target plane is being slowed down by a parachute while the stunt guy has no parachute) unlike Bond in GE whose motorcycle is going slower than the plane. Still no way for Bond to "catch up" in mid-air unless he's wearing Connery's jetpack. )
In a vacuum, all items fall at the same acceleration. A person can go faster than a plane in free fall because a person has less wind resistance. In this case, the plane's propeller is going, so I don't think Bond could realistically catch up to the plane because of the propeller. Without the propeller going, Bond could have realistically caught up to the plane.
Not really if you consider CR the start of the second timeline.
Einstein explained that a few seconds with your hand over a flame feels like a lifetime but that an hour in the presence of a pretty girl feels like seconds (paraphrasing )
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
"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.
Wolverine isn't a third level Marvel character. Since the mid 80s when they began emphasising grim'n'gritty, he has usurped SpiderMan's position as Marvel's flagship character. This is why he got so much screen time in the films, at the expense of other major X-Men characters.
Yes, but people "know" Bond never dies. If he dies in a movie many will interpret it as the code name theory even if they have never heard the term.
I do think they will have a challenge with Bond26, whether they kill off Craig's Bond or not.
CraigBond uniquely has an internal continuity between films, unlike any previous version of the character, and it contradicts what came before.
Will the next actor be continuing CraigBond's character arc, or will he be returning to the more generic episodic approach of the previous films?
If the CraigBond character arc is never mentioned again, will the next fellow therefor be the return of the character last played by Brosnan?
or an all new character with an all new attitude and character arc?
or somehow both the episodic ClassicBond, CraigBond, and an allnew Bond all at the same time?
Will he have memories of Tracy's death, but not Vesper's, or both, or neither?
What version of Blofeld will he remember having encountered?
Will he have random sloppy memories of both timelines, depending on which is needed to make the story work?
(CraigBond himself seems to experience occasional slippage between realities, eg when he jokes about his car having an ejector seat)
I do expect them to resolve CraigBond's plot threads in his last film, because that has been the unique approach of his films. Whether it is retirement or death or amnesia, he will get an outro to bookend his intro. Therefor, even without knowing about any CodeName theory, the viewer will start asking such questions when they see the new fellow.
The smart ones will understand it's because there are infinite parallel universes with infinite possible James Bonds.
For me "The Garden Of Death" ending is perfect for the Craig era Bond. Bond kills Shatterhand (Doesn't have to be Blofeld, it is the movies) and in the process falls from the battlements, he comes to but is suffering from amnesia and the film ends.
Bond 26 has a PTS of Bond being brainwashed and he attempts to kill M but fails (straight from the pages of Fleming) Bond is sent to Shrublands to recover (begining of Bond 26 proper) and then is sent on a mission to prove he can be trusted. In the novel thats to kill Scaramanga in the film well the Worlds their oyster so to speak (maybe Risico an International terrorist).
The end of YOLT novel and the beginning of THMWTGG novel have never been used. Also the young female MI6 operative I hope is called Gala Brand.
Yes, but people "know" Bond never dies. If he dies in a movie many will interpret it as the code name theory even if they have never heard the term.
I do think they will have a challenge with Bond26, whether they kill off Craig's Bond or not.
CraigBond uniquely has an internal continuity between films, unlike any previous version of the character, and it contradicts what came before.
Will the next actor be continuing CraigBond's character arc, or will he be returning to the more generic episodic approach of the previous films?
If the CraigBond character arc is never mentioned again, will the next fellow therefor be the return of the character last played by Brosnan?
or an all new character with an all new attitude and character arc?
or somehow both the episodic ClassicBond, CraigBond, and an allnew Bond all at the same time?
Will he have memories of Tracy's death, but not Vesper's, or both, or neither?
What version of Blofeld will he remember having encountered?
Will he have random sloppy memories of both timelines, depending on which is needed to make the story work?
(CraigBond himself seems to experience occasional slippage between realities, eg when he jokes about his car having an ejector seat)
I do expect them to resolve CraigBond's plot threads in his last film, because that has been the unique approach of his films. Whether it is retirement or death or amnesia, he will get an outro to bookend his intro. Therefor, even without knowing about any CodeName theory, the viewer will start asking such questions when they see the new fellow.
The smart ones will understand it's because there are infinite parallel universes with infinite possible James Bonds.
Just my guess, they will do a soft reboot and move on as if the Craig films never existed. I think we've all been conditioned to that sort of thing based on the history of the Bond films (it crosses generations also because of the wide availability of viewing opportunities for all Bond films). We also have no idea of where EON will take this going forward after Bond 25. Again, another guess on my part, but things will never go back to the silliness of most of the Moore films. It will certainly be telling with regards to how finite or conclusive an ending Bond 25 has.
I agree with HowardB on this. The transition from Craig to the next actor should be the way it used to be - no clear continuity, but no clear break in the continuity either.
I agree with HowardB on this. The transition from Craig to the next actor should be the way it used to be - no clear continuity, but no clear break in the continuity either.
That worked when there was little continuity within an actor's universe to begin with. Craig's Bond is the first to have a continuous story and character arc. Bond is going to need another reboot to continue after Craig. I don't see any other way around it. And when a new Bond actor comes, I think that any director that EON wants to hire (and they will want to hire a big name again) will want to start Bond from scratch on their own terms if they have the opportunity.
I see your point, but I don't think it's neccesery. Part of the reason is the very long periods between his films. The general audience wont care or remember much about the continuity in hos Bond movies after he's gone. I suspect they don’t care a lot now. It would probably have been different back in the day when these movies came out every two years. Another advantage of a soft "Craigxit" is that the can keep the Scooby Gang, an exellent cast that should be kept on for decades.
I see your point, but I don't think it's neccesery. Part of the reason is the very long periods between his films. The general audience wont care or remember much about the continuity in hos Bond movies after he's gone. I suspect they don’t care a lot now. It would probably have been different back in the day when these movies came out every two years. Another advantage of a soft "Craigxit" is that the can keep the Scooby Gang, an exellent cast that should be kept on for decades.
I think that you are right. Most people are not bothered by it. I think if they choose to they can pick up from wherever they like. Also with such long gaps and very likely another after 25 a whole generation of the audience will probably need reminding who is this Bond chap anyway. We might as well discuss how many fairies can dance on the head of a pin.
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
Also with such long gaps and very likely another after 25 a whole generation of the audience will probably need reminding who is this Bond chap anyway. We might as well discuss how many fairies can dance on the head of a pin.
I don't know about that. These days with all the Bond films available with the push of a button at home through streaming, cable, etc Bond is probably more well known than ever (at least the cinematic version) to the broadest audience ever. EON pretty much has an ongoing 24/7 James Bond promotion that they actually get paid for. Now it appears that Bond is going to get the 4K HDR treatment for streaming (SPECTRE is already available in 4K HDR for free to Amazon Prime subscribers). Bond is never out of sight / out of mind. -{
"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.
Wolverine isn't a third level Marvel character. Since the mid 80s when they began emphasising grim'n'gritty, he has usurped SpiderMan's position as Marvel's flagship character. This is why he got so much screen time in the films, at the expense of other major X-Men characters.
As a standalone movie character, Wolverine is't in the same league as Spiderman (7 movies, the last one did $880 million), Iron Man (3 movies, $2.4 billion total gross) or Captain America (3 movies $2.4 billion total gross).
if they did factor in the passage of five years, they could have the Bond/Swann relationship already ended at some point in the film's past. She is already absent when the story begins. Maybe mentioned in dialog once at the very beginning, but otherwise irrelevant to an otherwise all-new selfcontained plot.
Then she reappears in Bond's life midway through, in some unexpected and inconvenient, even shocking new context.
She could be the Paris Carver concept done right.
I think the way they will get around all of this is by doing a period film set in the 50s/60s. No audience confusion about which Bond timeline we’re in because it will be unto itself. They’ll do a couple like that, and when they want to return to the present, it will necessarily be a reboot without having to define it.
I think the way they will get around all of this is by doing a period film set in the 50s/60s. No audience confusion about which Bond timeline we’re in because it will be unto itself. They’ll do a couple like that, and when they want to return to the present, it will necessarily be a reboot without having to define it.
Are you saying you think they’ll do this with B25, Craig’s potentially last film? Wouldn’t really be a good wrap up for the Craig era interconnecting story arc. Due to that arc, they kind of have to continue on in the modern era. I don’t really see them attempting the Sherlock - The Abominable Bride route and jumping between periods either.
I think the way they will get around all of this is by doing a period film set in the 50s/60s. No audience confusion about which Bond timeline we’re in because it will be unto itself. They’ll do a couple like that, and when they want to return to the present, it will necessarily be a reboot without having to define it.
Are you saying you think they’ll do this with B25, Craig’s potentially last film? Wouldn’t really be a good wrap up for the Craig era interconnecting story arc. Due to that arc, they kind of have to continue on in the modern era. I don’t really see them attempting the Sherlock - The Abominable Bride route and jumping between periods either.
No, Bond 26. Bond 25 will conclude Craig’s arc. The director has said as much.
if they did factor in the passage of five years, they could have the Bond/Swann relationship already ended at some point in the film's past. She is already absent when the story begins. Maybe mentioned in dialog once at the very beginning, but otherwise irrelevant to an otherwise all-new selfcontained plot.
Then she reappears in Bond's life midway through, in some unexpected and inconvenient, even shocking new context.
She could be the Paris Carver concept done right.
Thats how I see it too.
I think that would be the best way to go. Start the film with Bond in the service, and his relationship with her break down some time before. She didn't want him to go back to MI6, but he got the itching to return etc.
But then he bumps into her on the mission, or needs her like Paris Carver.
“The scent and smoke and sweat of a casino are nauseating at three in the morning. "
-Casino Royale, Ian Fleming
I've just watched the film "When Eight Bells Toll" it's opening is brilliant with Calvert (Anthony Hopkins) a British Intelligence Operative wearing a wetsuit climbing up the anchor of a ship to discover two of his colleagues killed, with a flashback to C's office and the outline of the mission, then back to Calvert on the ship. He's attacked by bad guys and fights his way off the ship and back into the sea.
I'd love Bond in the next film to have a gritty PTS, maybe with him showing CQB fighting skills. TWINE is my favourite PTS of the series, with GF and FRWL a close 2nd and 3rd.
According to the ending of the 2006 movie "Blood Diamonds" the price of diamonds are kept artificially high by the big diamond companies by keeping large quantities of stones off the market. In other words lots of diamonds are kept in storage somewhere and very few people know about it.
This can be the basis of a Bond movie. The villan burglars one or more of these diamond storages. Since these Diamonds officially don't exist the robbery of the Century can't be reported to the police. He contacts the diamond companies that he can do two things: he can dump the diamonds in the market en masse and destroy the diamond market for decades, but still make a fortune. The bankability, credibility and myth of diamonds might be destroyed for generations.
The other option is having the diamond companies pay him a huge fortune to have the stolen diamonds back quietly. The MI6 becomes involved because the money from this theft and blackmail will go to ….. financing terrorism has been done, but financing organiced crime (SPECTRE?), a coup, a war or something like that.
This plot offers new twists on very Bondian themes. "Diamonds may be forever, but the value of them won't be …"
New and exiting locations offer themselves, particularely sub-Saharan Africa and Jerusalem. The villan or a hanchman can relax on illegal safaris.
Daniel Craig's Bond hasn't saved the world yet, has he? The closest was in SPECTRE where he stopped the great powers from sharing all their surveillance, but does that really count? It would be great if he got an old fashioned Atomic bomb ticking away or something - a huge physical threat to thousands or even millions that Bond has to stop. Blowing an atomic bomb in the Canary Islands volcano, triggering a gigantic tsunami in the Atlantic is both fairly realistic and very Bondian.
I agree. Bond needs to stop something large, a huge threat to the world.
Although, that might be B26. And they might stick with the toned down Bond plots for the DC era.
I reckon instead of the Canary Islands, drop an atomic bomb on Lake Taupo, NZ. If that volcano ever erupted it would destroy all of NZ. And the Ash cloud would go all the way to China. When it erupted, I think over 3000 years ago, it was seen in Italy and China.
“The scent and smoke and sweat of a casino are nauseating at three in the morning. "
-Casino Royale, Ian Fleming
If the vulcano in the Canary Islands explodes the Atlantic coastlines of Senegal, Mauritania, Marroco, Portugal, Spain, France, Ireland, the UK, Brazil, French Guiana, Suriname, Guyana, Venezuelea and USA will be severely affected, and the closest coastlines will be wiped out. Not to mention all islands in the Carribean. I think that's bad enough.
Comments
He should be the next Bond because he could do all his own stunts
You have every right to have a different opinion than "the crowd". I was once a member of a fan forum where the Moderator was of the opinion that absolutely everything about Bond is fantastic and there was nothing to talk about other than saying it's fantastic. I left.
Cool stunt.
Obviously the stunt guy is going faster than the target plane (for one thing, the target plane is being slowed down by a parachute while the stunt guy has no parachute) unlike Bond in GE whose motorcycle is going slower than the plane. Still no way for Bond to "catch up" in mid-air unless he's wearing Connery's jetpack.
In a vacuum, all items fall at the same acceleration. A person can go faster than a plane in free fall because a person has less wind resistance. In this case, the plane's propeller is going, so I don't think Bond could realistically catch up to the plane because of the propeller. Without the propeller going, Bond could have realistically caught up to the plane.
Einstein explained that a few seconds with your hand over a flame feels like a lifetime but that an hour in the presence of a pretty girl feels like seconds (paraphrasing )
True. He should have had a haircut to make that scene more believable.
CraigBond uniquely has an internal continuity between films, unlike any previous version of the character, and it contradicts what came before.
Will the next actor be continuing CraigBond's character arc, or will he be returning to the more generic episodic approach of the previous films?
If the CraigBond character arc is never mentioned again, will the next fellow therefor be the return of the character last played by Brosnan?
or an all new character with an all new attitude and character arc?
or somehow both the episodic ClassicBond, CraigBond, and an allnew Bond all at the same time?
Will he have memories of Tracy's death, but not Vesper's, or both, or neither?
What version of Blofeld will he remember having encountered?
Will he have random sloppy memories of both timelines, depending on which is needed to make the story work?
(CraigBond himself seems to experience occasional slippage between realities, eg when he jokes about his car having an ejector seat)
I do expect them to resolve CraigBond's plot threads in his last film, because that has been the unique approach of his films. Whether it is retirement or death or amnesia, he will get an outro to bookend his intro. Therefor, even without knowing about any CodeName theory, the viewer will start asking such questions when they see the new fellow.
The smart ones will understand it's because there are infinite parallel universes with infinite possible James Bonds.
Bond 26 has a PTS of Bond being brainwashed and he attempts to kill M but fails (straight from the pages of Fleming) Bond is sent to Shrublands to recover (begining of Bond 26 proper) and then is sent on a mission to prove he can be trusted. In the novel thats to kill Scaramanga in the film well the Worlds their oyster so to speak (maybe Risico an International terrorist).
The end of YOLT novel and the beginning of THMWTGG novel have never been used. Also the young female MI6 operative I hope is called Gala Brand.
"Do you expect me to talk? "No Mister Bond I expect you to die"
Just my guess, they will do a soft reboot and move on as if the Craig films never existed. I think we've all been conditioned to that sort of thing based on the history of the Bond films (it crosses generations also because of the wide availability of viewing opportunities for all Bond films). We also have no idea of where EON will take this going forward after Bond 25. Again, another guess on my part, but things will never go back to the silliness of most of the Moore films. It will certainly be telling with regards to how finite or conclusive an ending Bond 25 has.
That worked when there was little continuity within an actor's universe to begin with. Craig's Bond is the first to have a continuous story and character arc. Bond is going to need another reboot to continue after Craig. I don't see any other way around it. And when a new Bond actor comes, I think that any director that EON wants to hire (and they will want to hire a big name again) will want to start Bond from scratch on their own terms if they have the opportunity.
I think that you are right. Most people are not bothered by it. I think if they choose to they can pick up from wherever they like. Also with such long gaps and very likely another after 25 a whole generation of the audience will probably need reminding who is this Bond chap anyway. We might as well discuss how many fairies can dance on the head of a pin.
I don't know about that. These days with all the Bond films available with the push of a button at home through streaming, cable, etc Bond is probably more well known than ever (at least the cinematic version) to the broadest audience ever. EON pretty much has an ongoing 24/7 James Bond promotion that they actually get paid for. Now it appears that Bond is going to get the 4K HDR treatment for streaming (SPECTRE is already available in 4K HDR for free to Amazon Prime subscribers). Bond is never out of sight / out of mind. -{
As a standalone movie character, Wolverine is't in the same league as Spiderman (7 movies, the last one did $880 million), Iron Man (3 movies, $2.4 billion total gross) or Captain America (3 movies $2.4 billion total gross).
I blame the baggy clothes.
Then she reappears in Bond's life midway through, in some unexpected and inconvenient, even shocking new context.
She could be the Paris Carver concept done right.
Are you saying you think they’ll do this with B25, Craig’s potentially last film? Wouldn’t really be a good wrap up for the Craig era interconnecting story arc. Due to that arc, they kind of have to continue on in the modern era. I don’t really see them attempting the Sherlock - The Abominable Bride route and jumping between periods either.
No, Bond 26. Bond 25 will conclude Craig’s arc. The director has said as much.
I think that would be the best way to go. Start the film with Bond in the service, and his relationship with her break down some time before. She didn't want him to go back to MI6, but he got the itching to return etc.
But then he bumps into her on the mission, or needs her like Paris Carver.
-Casino Royale, Ian Fleming
I'd love Bond in the next film to have a gritty PTS, maybe with him showing CQB fighting skills. TWINE is my favourite PTS of the series, with GF and FRWL a close 2nd and 3rd.
"Do you expect me to talk? "No Mister Bond I expect you to die"
This can be the basis of a Bond movie. The villan burglars one or more of these diamond storages. Since these Diamonds officially don't exist the robbery of the Century can't be reported to the police. He contacts the diamond companies that he can do two things: he can dump the diamonds in the market en masse and destroy the diamond market for decades, but still make a fortune. The bankability, credibility and myth of diamonds might be destroyed for generations.
The other option is having the diamond companies pay him a huge fortune to have the stolen diamonds back quietly. The MI6 becomes involved because the money from this theft and blackmail will go to ….. financing terrorism has been done, but financing organiced crime (SPECTRE?), a coup, a war or something like that.
This plot offers new twists on very Bondian themes. "Diamonds may be forever, but the value of them won't be …"
New and exiting locations offer themselves, particularely sub-Saharan Africa and Jerusalem. The villan or a hanchman can relax on illegal safaris.
Although, that might be B26. And they might stick with the toned down Bond plots for the DC era.
I reckon instead of the Canary Islands, drop an atomic bomb on Lake Taupo, NZ. If that volcano ever erupted it would destroy all of NZ. And the Ash cloud would go all the way to China. When it erupted, I think over 3000 years ago, it was seen in Italy and China.
-Casino Royale, Ian Fleming