Craig is back: Discuss Bond 25 here

11213151718276

Comments

  • Revolver66Revolver66 Melbourne, AustraliaPosts: 470MI6 Agent
    edited September 2017
    Killing Bond is a stupid idea. Sensationalist and gimmicky. In fact, the early films used to play on it (FRWL, TB,YOLT) because the idea of killing Bond is so ridiculous. Everybody in the world knows that if you kill Bond, there will still always be another Bond film, so there's absolutely no point. It would be for shock value plain and simple. And it would be a hollow shock indeed. A waste of celluloid. Bond is not killable, hence why the character has been going in one form or another for 64 years. EON please Spare everyone this and get on with it -{
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy Behind you !Posts: 63,792MI6 Agent
    Also wasn't he sort of killed in the pts of Skyfall ? ....... his stuff was put in storage and home sold.
    "I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
  • Revolver66Revolver66 Melbourne, AustraliaPosts: 470MI6 Agent
    Also wasn't he sort of killed in the pts of Skyfall ? ....... his stuff was put in storage and home sold.


    Ah yes forgot about that one! Good call :) Taking SF into account then it's probably safe to say that It's been touched upon enough in the series already
  • Sir MilesSir Miles The Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,664Chief of Staff
    Revolver66 wrote:
    Killing Bond is a stupid idea. Sensationalist and gimmicky. In fact, the early films used to play on it (FRWL, TB,YOLT) because the idea of killing Bond is so ridiculous. Everybody in the world knows that if you kill Bond, there will still always be another Bond film, so there's absolutely no point. It would be for shock value plain and simple. And it would be a hollow shock indeed. A waste of celluloid. Bond is not killable, hence why the character has been going in one form or another for 64 years. EON please Spare everyone this and get on with it -{

    But what IF Eon don't want to "get on with it"...what IF they've had enough...?...wouldn't it be a nice coda for Eon to round off their ownership before selling it on...?
    YNWA 97
  • BarbelBarbel ScotlandPosts: 37,768Chief of Staff
    ...then it's still a stupid idea! :p
  • Sir MilesSir Miles The Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,664Chief of Staff
    Barbel wrote:
    ...then it's still a stupid idea! :p

    Now I'm certain it's the right idea :))
    YNWA 97
  • BarbelBarbel ScotlandPosts: 37,768Chief of Staff
    :)) I think we'll never agree on this one...
  • Number24Number24 NorwayPosts: 22,276MI6 Agent
    edited September 2017
    I wonder if EON has considered simply sending Bond on a new mission to some exotic locations, let him meet some pretty ladies and kill Blofeld in the end? It might work :v
  • Revolver66Revolver66 Melbourne, AustraliaPosts: 470MI6 Agent
    Sir Miles wrote:
    Revolver66 wrote:
    Killing Bond is a stupid idea. Sensationalist and gimmicky. In fact, the early films used to play on it (FRWL, TB,YOLT) because the idea of killing Bond is so ridiculous. Everybody in the world knows that if you kill Bond, there will still always be another Bond film, so there's absolutely no point. It would be for shock value plain and simple. And it would be a hollow shock indeed. A waste of celluloid. Bond is not killable, hence why the character has been going in one form or another for 64 years. EON please Spare everyone this and get on with it -{

    But what IF Eon don't want to "get on with it"...what IF they've had enough...?...wouldn't it be a nice coda for Eon to round off their ownership before selling it on...?

    Yes what a triumphant ending to EONS 57 year reign... Killing James Bond. I couldn't think of a more morose, downbeat way to end the EON Bond franchise...
  • Miles MesservyMiles Messervy Posts: 1,772MI6 Agent
    edited September 2017
    They should kill "Bond" without killing the man. In other words, use the ending of Fleming's YOLT!! That, to me, would be an appropriate ending to Both EON's Bond and Craig's. The idea would be that, as long as the man has his wits about him, his first loyalty will always be to his duty (why he didn't "stay dead" in SF). But if he has no memory of his prior life, he can live in peace. I could get behind that ending. The audience would also buy this given how many times Craig's Bond has tried to quit the service, only to come back again (which, presumably, will happen once more in B25).
  • BarbelBarbel ScotlandPosts: 37,768Chief of Staff
    Now that I could live with. Twice, in fact. :)
  • Sir MilesSir Miles The Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,664Chief of Staff
    Barbel wrote:
    :)) I think we'll never agree on this one...

    No, probably not :D
    YNWA 97
  • Sir MilesSir Miles The Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,664Chief of Staff
    Revolver66 wrote:
    Sir Miles wrote:
    Revolver66 wrote:
    Killing Bond is a stupid idea. Sensationalist and gimmicky. In fact, the early films used to play on it (FRWL, TB,YOLT) because the idea of killing Bond is so ridiculous. Everybody in the world knows that if you kill Bond, there will still always be another Bond film, so there's absolutely no point. It would be for shock value plain and simple. And it would be a hollow shock indeed. A waste of celluloid. Bond is not killable, hence why the character has been going in one form or another for 64 years. EON please Spare everyone this and get on with it -{

    But what IF Eon don't want to "get on with it"...what IF they've had enough...?...wouldn't it be a nice coda for Eon to round off their ownership before selling it on...?

    Yes what a triumphant ending to EONS 57 year reign... Killing James Bond. I couldn't think of a more morose, downbeat way to end the EON Bond franchise...

    Me neither...fantastic, isn't it -{
    YNWA 97
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy Behind you !Posts: 63,792MI6 Agent
    You've agreed to disagree, so you're halfway there. :))
    "I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
  • Sir MilesSir Miles The Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,664Chief of Staff
    You've agreed to disagree, so you're halfway there. :))

    I can agree he's wrong - if that helps? :D
    YNWA 97
  • BarbelBarbel ScotlandPosts: 37,768Chief of Staff
    Hell, we've been disagreeing for years- Sir M thinks that AWTD is acceptable! ?:) ?:) ?:)
  • Sir MilesSir Miles The Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,664Chief of Staff
    Barbel wrote:
    Hell, we've been disagreeing for years- Sir M thinks that AWTD is acceptable! ?:) ?:) ?:)

    Acceptable :o

    That's slanderous X-(

    I think it's bloody wonderful :x

    :p
    YNWA 97
  • BarbelBarbel ScotlandPosts: 37,768Chief of Staff
    ...see what I mean? :#
  • Sir MilesSir Miles The Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,664Chief of Staff
    Barbel wrote:
    ...see what I mean? :#

    :))
    YNWA 97
  • HowardBHowardB USAPosts: 2,755MI6 Agent
    Sir Miles wrote:
    Revolver66 wrote:
    Killing Bond is a stupid idea. Sensationalist and gimmicky. In fact, the early films used to play on it (FRWL, TB,YOLT) because the idea of killing Bond is so ridiculous. Everybody in the world knows that if you kill Bond, there will still always be another Bond film, so there's absolutely no point. It would be for shock value plain and simple. And it would be a hollow shock indeed. A waste of celluloid. Bond is not killable, hence why the character has been going in one form or another for 64 years. EON please Spare everyone this and get on with it -{

    But what IF Eon don't want to "get on with it"...what IF they've had enough...?...wouldn't it be a nice coda for Eon to round off their ownership before selling it on...?

    Because it serves no purpose....even if EON was selling out and moving on, killing off Craig's Bond would put the new producers at a disadvantage even with a new Bond actor. They might be forced into another hard reboot. The new producers wouldn't want to be painted into a corner.
  • JarvioJarvio EnglandPosts: 4,241MI6 Agent
    Thing is though, I am puzzled as to why EON would want to sell bond when at the moment the bond films are making more money than ever?
    1 - LALD, 2 - AVTAK, 3 - LTK, 4 - OP, 5 - NTTD, 6 - FYEO, 7 - SF, 8 - DN, 9 - DAF, 10 - TSWLM, 11 - OHMSS, 12 - TMWTGG, 13 - GE, 14 - MR, 15 - TLD, 16 - YOLT, 17 - GF, 18 - DAD, 19 - TWINE, 20 - SP, 21 - TND, 22 - FRWL, 23 - TB, 24 - CR, 25 - QOS

    1 - Moore, 2 - Dalton, 3 - Craig, 4 - Connery, 5 - Brosnan, 6 - Lazenby
  • Dirty PunkerDirty Punker ...Your Eyes Only, darling."Posts: 2,587MI6 Agent
    Jarvio wrote:
    Thing is though, I am puzzled as to why EON would want to sell bond when at the moment the bond films are making more money than ever?
    "The trick is to quit while you're still ahead" ?:) ?:)
    Barbel wrote:
    Now that I could live with. Twice, in fact. :)
    {[]
    Barbel wrote:
    ...then it's still a stupid idea! :p
    {[] {[]
    a reasonable rate of return
  • Sir MilesSir Miles The Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,664Chief of Staff
    HowardB wrote:
    Sir Miles wrote:
    Revolver66 wrote:
    Killing Bond is a stupid idea. Sensationalist and gimmicky. In fact, the early films used to play on it (FRWL, TB,YOLT) because the idea of killing Bond is so ridiculous. Everybody in the world knows that if you kill Bond, there will still always be another Bond film, so there's absolutely no point. It would be for shock value plain and simple. And it would be a hollow shock indeed. A waste of celluloid. Bond is not killable, hence why the character has been going in one form or another for 64 years. EON please Spare everyone this and get on with it -{

    But what IF Eon don't want to "get on with it"...what IF they've had enough...?...wouldn't it be a nice coda for Eon to round off their ownership before selling it on...?

    Because it serves no purpose....even if EON was selling out and moving on, killing off Craig's Bond would put the new producers at a disadvantage even with a new Bond actor. They might be forced into another hard reboot. The new producers wouldn't want to be painted into a corner.

    It serves the purpose of any new producers having a 'clean slate' to start from...so it's an actual advantage -{

    Why would you have to start with a 'hard reboot' ? ?:) I apologise up front, but I find that stance ridiculous...everyone knows Bond and we haven't had a 'hard reboot' for every change of actor, have we?
    YNWA 97
  • Sir MilesSir Miles The Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,664Chief of Staff
    Jarvio wrote:
    Thing is though, I am puzzled as to why EON would want to sell bond when at the moment the bond films are making more money than ever?

    Ill health...and it's tough keep having to get the money together, eventually you just get too old to continue...
    YNWA 97
  • Bond44Bond44 Vauxhall CrossPosts: 1,581MI6 Agent
    OK in the cold light of day and sober I can see my plan was somewhat floored.

    Maybe have Bond unconscious and when he awakes in next film he is Tom H - Simple :D

    Do think there should be at least one shot of DC in a Commanders uniform at least once in his tenure.

    Cheers :007)
    My name is Bond, Basildon Bond - I have letters after my name!
  • ichaiceichaice LondonPosts: 602MI6 Agent
    No death of Bond, no setup for the next incumbent, no more history and anguish. Just concentrate on making a cracking stand alone film. After the mess that was Spectre that will do nicely :)
    Yes. Considerably!
  • Number24Number24 NorwayPosts: 22,276MI6 Agent
    Good to see You've come to your senses, Bond44. :)
    If the Blofeld/SPECTRE storyline won't continue with the next Bond it has to be delt with in Bond25. Wasting that character and organisation on just one ((mediocre) movie would be a shame, especially since Blofeld is still in prison.
  • LoeffelholzLoeffelholz The United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
    Sir Miles wrote:
    Revolver66 wrote:
    Killing Bond is a stupid idea. Sensationalist and gimmicky. In fact, the early films used to play on it (FRWL, TB,YOLT) because the idea of killing Bond is so ridiculous. Everybody in the world knows that if you kill Bond, there will still always be another Bond film, so there's absolutely no point. It would be for shock value plain and simple. And it would be a hollow shock indeed. A waste of celluloid. Bond is not killable, hence why the character has been going in one form or another for 64 years. EON please Spare everyone this and get on with it -{

    But what IF Eon don't want to "get on with it"...what IF they've had enough...?...wouldn't it be a nice coda for Eon to round off their ownership before selling it on...?

    IF they did it before selling, it would merely set the table for the ultimate 'hard reboot,' wouldn't it? The new owner would have carte blanche - as well as the theme song, logo, etc. Merely an academic discussion, mind you...
    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
  • caractacus pottscaractacus potts Orbital communicator, level 10Posts: 4,088MI6 Agent
    do we know for a fact they're looking to sell? or is this just another rumour?
    and would the gunbarrel and the Barry music go with the filmrights? (I hope so)

    you know the end to the You Only Live Twice book is very particular to Fleming. if you've read them all in order it is obvious the Japanese fishing village is his idea of paradise, it evokes the lengthy scuba diving sequences from Live and Let Die and Kissy is similar to the admirable Honey Rider character. The films haven't really dwelled on Fleming's obsessions, but rather have their own set of ideals, and the Craig films are themselves unique. So if we were to end Bond25, not literally with Fleming's idea of Paradise for Bond, but with CraigBond's specific idea of Paradise, what would that be?
  • Gassy ManGassy Man USAPosts: 2,972MI6 Agent
    It's not necessary to kill Bond off. All they really need to do is either choose an actor who physically resembles Craig if even in a vague way -- pale and light hair, a la Hiddleston -- or change the films tonally -- make them more comedic, a la Roger Moore -- to suggest to the viewer that this is the same character but not quite the same way. That's what they've done in the past.

    But I don't think contemporary films are really all that concerned about this sort of continuity. The Batman films took a pretty sharp turn after Tim Burton and Michael Keaton left, for example, and by the time Craig is replaced, a new generation of young fans will be coming up who may not be invested in Craig's Bond interpretation.
Sign In or Register to comment.