The story goes something like Harrison Ford wanted Han Solo to die a hero's death in ROTJ but he sold to many action figures and lunchboxes so George Lucas wouldn't allow it. I did read that he insisted on the death being in The Force Awakens and will make up some sort of plot line for the rest of the films.
Anyhow, back to Bond. I'm not sure how I would feel about seeing him die on screen, I take each actor as a new entity anyway so it shouldn't be a big deal for me yet somehow I am not sure I want to see it.
the difference is Harrison Ford was the one and only Han Solo (I know there's a Li'l Han Solo prequel in the works, but we haven't seen it yet and it is a prequel)
whereas Craig is at least the sixth actor to play the same character (eighth if you count the two earlier versions of Casino Royale)
and if his version of the character does die at the end of Bond25, then it will absolutely necessitate yet another origin story for the next actor's debut, which I'm sure none of us want
if it was true that he made such a condition a la Han Solo, then it would be on account of his swollen ego, believing he was somehow more definitively Bond than Connery, Moore, et al. I really think the producers gave him too much power when even Connery was just another employee
for comparison, I didn't even like the way David Tennant dragged out his regeneration scene with the overly-dramatic "I don't want to go..." speech. Nine previous doctors (actually seven as seen on-screen) had regenerated much more perfunctorily, and none had to ham it up for such a chunk of the episode like Tennant did ... but that was also a handover between showrunners, with a complete cast replacement, so maybe that's part of the deal with Bond25? if rumours of the sale of the franchise are true...
Maybe I lack imagination, but I can't see how killing Bond would benefit either the story or the franchise in any way. If this is being considered (which I doubt), then it simply means they need to find new writers because obviously the well of good ideas has run dry with P and W.
I much prefer the standard way they've done the change of actors in the past. Very much
" The King is Dead, Long live the King " ... with us the audience playing along as if we've
never even noticed
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,920Chief of Staff
Maybe I lack imagination, but I can't see how killing Bond would benefit either the story or the franchise in any way. If this is being considered (which I doubt), then it simply means they need to find new writers because obviously the well of good ideas has run dry with P and W.
Killing Bond off has been muted for over a year (apparently even longer in 'the business')...DC wants to do it and it fits perfectly for the franchise...if we get back-to-back movies then I wouldn't be surprised to see this happen...do I want to see it happen...?...hell yes!!! B-)
I really hope they don't kill Bond in the next film. I really don't see the point of that at all. One out, one in as its always been sounds good to me.
Besides how would they do the James Bond will return in....
I have always thought a good end would be old Bond selecting and training the new (introduce the RN uniform just once) given he has been there and seen it, a joint mission (maybe more military action focused) leaving the old to retire into the sunset or lick his wounds if injured, or 00 status revoked and actually retires. Obviously not as simple as that but you get my drift.
It would allow the scene set for the new character especially if it was a two parter.
Cheers :007)
My name is Bond, Basildon Bond - I have letters after my name!
No. Absolutely not. Stupid idea. Totally disagree. No way.
(I hope I'm not being too ambiguous- Bond dying????)
Another in full agreement. The scenario of the old Bond dying or moving on and introducing the new Bond at the end of the film or whatever would be bringing that awful "James Bond is a code name" theory to fruition. That could be the one thing that would push me over the edge to a BondJasonBond006 like state of unhappiness with the franchise )
I have always thought a good end would be old Bond selecting and training the new (introduce the RN uniform just once) given he has been there and seen it, a joint mission (maybe more military action focused) leaving the old to retire into the sunset or lick his wounds if injured, or 00 status revoked and actually retires. Obviously not as simple as that but you get my drift.
It would allow the scene set for the new character especially if it was a two parter.
Cheers :007)
Are you implying that James Bond is a time traveller and trained a younger version of himself? I'm not so crazy about that.
I have always thought a good end would be old Bond selecting and training the new (introduce the RN uniform just once) given he has been there and seen it, a joint mission (maybe more military action focused) leaving the old to retire into the sunset or lick his wounds if injured, or 00 status revoked and actually retires. Obviously not as simple as that but you get my drift.
It would allow the scene set for the new character especially if it was a two parter.
Cheers :007)
Are you implying that James Bond is a time traveller and trained a younger version of himself? I'm not so crazy about that.
Little known fact: Bond's mother's maiden name was "Who" and she was a trained physician ...
The whole charm of Bond is that he is eternal. He is a (dark) fantasy.
I have no issue with EON choosing to humanize him more during the Craig era. Fleming's Bond was always more complicated than the cinematic Bond so one could argue the move was to bring the two closer in alignment.
But what would the point of Bond dying be? It's not like the world is waiting for Moneypenny to pick up his mantle. EON isn't foolish enough to kill its golden goose.
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,920Chief of Staff
The whole charm of Bond is that he is eternal. He is a (dark) fantasy.
I have no issue with EON choosing to humanize him more during the Craig era. Fleming's Bond was always more complicated than the cinematic Bond so one could argue the move was to bring the two closer in alignment.
But what would the point of Bond dying be? It's not like the world is waiting for Moneypenny to pick up his mantle. EON isn't foolish enough to kill its golden goose.
Sherlock Holmes is eternal as well and he's been killed any number of times, first by Conan Doyle.
The first time Bond was killed was by Ian Fleming in FRWL.
But what would the point of Bond dying be?....EON isn't foolish enough to kill its golden goose.
Unless you are selling the goose anyway...
Audiences don't want a film in which James Bond dies. It would be box office poison (at least that would be the thinking in Hollywood, the town where fear is king) which means EON's partners would use their veto. Even if it somehow got made, test screenings would roast the film because movies with unhappy endings always score poorly.
Bond dying also decreases the value of what EON has to sell, especially if the film bombs. Disney, for example, would want to buy the rights to the one and only James Bond because the character — popular worldwide in an increasingly international box office — is what holds all the value.
Does anyone honestly believe that Cubby's daughter and stepson want to "kill" their dad's life's work?
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
IF Eon kills Bond...and then sells the franchise, I'm ok with it, actually. It will make film history.
But they'd better do it well :007)
...IF they do it.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I made a thread probably about 10 years ago about the possibility of Bond dying in a film, and everyone thought I was crazy! But now people are discussing the idea as a possibility? So what's changed? ?:)
I made a thread probably about 10 years ago about the possibility of Bond dying in a film, and everyone thought I was crazy! But now people are discussing the idea as a possibility? So what's changed? ?:)
Now DC is defiantly back, just wondering if it was confirmed that Hiddlston was on some sort of retainer in case needed! Probaly already been discussed and I haven't seen it, would be glad if someone could enlighten me! IMO think the whole Hiddleston thing was just a smokescreen and DC was coming back all tne time, am probaly wrong( as per)
Comments
No offence taken. Genuinely not read this before.
Indeed I read this about HF in Star Wars but not DC in Bond.
Oddly I hadn't heard that about HF
Anyhow, back to Bond. I'm not sure how I would feel about seeing him die on screen, I take each actor as a new entity anyway so it shouldn't be a big deal for me yet somehow I am not sure I want to see it.
whereas Craig is at least the sixth actor to play the same character (eighth if you count the two earlier versions of Casino Royale)
and if his version of the character does die at the end of Bond25, then it will absolutely necessitate yet another origin story for the next actor's debut, which I'm sure none of us want
if it was true that he made such a condition a la Han Solo, then it would be on account of his swollen ego, believing he was somehow more definitively Bond than Connery, Moore, et al. I really think the producers gave him too much power when even Connery was just another employee
for comparison, I didn't even like the way David Tennant dragged out his regeneration scene with the overly-dramatic "I don't want to go..." speech. Nine previous doctors (actually seven as seen on-screen) had regenerated much more perfunctorily, and none had to ham it up for such a chunk of the episode like Tennant did ... but that was also a handover between showrunners, with a complete cast replacement, so maybe that's part of the deal with Bond25? if rumours of the sale of the franchise are true...
" The King is Dead, Long live the King " ... with us the audience playing along as if we've
never even noticed
Killing Bond off has been muted for over a year (apparently even longer in 'the business')...DC wants to do it and it fits perfectly for the franchise...if we get back-to-back movies then I wouldn't be surprised to see this happen...do I want to see it happen...?...hell yes!!! B-)
Besides how would they do the James Bond will return in....
It would allow the scene set for the new character especially if it was a two parter.
Cheers :007)
(I hope I'm not being too ambiguous- Bond dying????)
Another in full agreement. The scenario of the old Bond dying or moving on and introducing the new Bond at the end of the film or whatever would be bringing that awful "James Bond is a code name" theory to fruition. That could be the one thing that would push me over the edge to a BondJasonBond006 like state of unhappiness with the franchise
For BondJasonBond006
Are you implying that James Bond is a time traveller and trained a younger version of himself? I'm not so crazy about that.
Little known fact: Bond's mother's maiden name was "Who" and she was a trained physician ...
In to an Aston, as it's bigger on the inside ?
I have no issue with EON choosing to humanize him more during the Craig era. Fleming's Bond was always more complicated than the cinematic Bond so one could argue the move was to bring the two closer in alignment.
But what would the point of Bond dying be? It's not like the world is waiting for Moneypenny to pick up his mantle. EON isn't foolish enough to kill its golden goose.
Unless you are selling the goose anyway...
Goose, we'll end up getting Plucked !
The question is, does killing Bond reduce the value of the franchise?
Sherlock Holmes is eternal as well and he's been killed any number of times, first by Conan Doyle.
The first time Bond was killed was by Ian Fleming in FRWL.
Audiences don't want a film in which James Bond dies. It would be box office poison (at least that would be the thinking in Hollywood, the town where fear is king) which means EON's partners would use their veto. Even if it somehow got made, test screenings would roast the film because movies with unhappy endings always score poorly.
Bond dying also decreases the value of what EON has to sell, especially if the film bombs. Disney, for example, would want to buy the rights to the one and only James Bond because the character — popular worldwide in an increasingly international box office — is what holds all the value.
Does anyone honestly believe that Cubby's daughter and stepson want to "kill" their dad's life's work?
But they'd better do it well :007)
...IF they do it.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
1 - Moore, 2 - Dalton, 3 - Craig, 4 - Connery, 5 - Brosnan, 6 - Lazenby
Why would it? ?:)
It's still an if though...
The idea that Eon will sell...