Increasingly i am starting to feel that the best option to square the circle and get out of the tight corner is to do Bond in period cold war, sexism the whole shebang. Probably by Netflix with glossy production values and a Flemingeque Bond.
I’m starting to come around to this as well.
Somewhere i read which resonated with me, is that Bond was initially designed to represent the power of the individual, which is the antithesis of communism: the power of the group. I have been researching the four stages of ideological subversion. Everything that has been happening in the political climate has been predicted by the USSR defector Yuri Besmenov in the 80s. It shocked me to the core how accurate he was. Now everyone is either Cis or lgbt or feminist or SJW or male or female or Muslim or Christian, people are no longer judged on individual ideas or actions. Now victim-oppressor mentality can ensue. A reverse psychology strategy seems to be to lose on purpose to play the victim and kill their enemies with oppressor propaganda. Of course in the final stage, the victim ideologues will be the first rounded into the Gulag. It will be a dark day for me when James Bond is hijacked by victim culture (although i believe that has already happened in the Dynamite comics) so I hope EON holds true to their name and holds Bond to his original concept.
I have to say, all this "Bond should die in Bond 25" stuff does touch a raw nerve for me personally that goes back to a bit of childhood trauma. Prior to the release of YOLT I was nine years old and a huge Bond fan. My brother, ten years my senior had picked up a copy of Esquire which was doing a preview of YOLT with a cover teaser playing off Bond's faked death in the film. The cover was three women in funeral garb mourning over a casket with the headline "If you are sick of James Bond: Rejoice! Rejoice! James Bond is Dead" My brother, not one to miss an opportunity to tease and torture his Bond smitten younger sibling showed me the magazine cover and insisted to me that Bond dies in YOLT and there will be no more Bond films...ha, ha. Well at nine I took this very much to heart and remained quite unhappy until seeing YOLT and having Bond emerge from his burial at sea unscathed. Looking back, it's all more than a bit silly but at the age of nine, during the Connery era of "Bond Mania" and no internet, etc for information it was a big deal for me. Funny thing though, all these years later, the idea of Bond being killed off still stings a bit.
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,757Chief of Staff
I have said this before: who in the world wants this storyline?
Actually, I do.
May I ask why it intrigues you? You moderate a Bond forum so your thoughts about this possible storyline strike me as worth sharing. I am genuinely interested in hearing you.
Mainly because it’s something I’m interested in seeing...how it will be written and approached...who would kill him - I’d love it to be totally mundane, just shot by a random minion... I think it’s quite ‘edgy’ and plays to my mischievous inquisitiveness...plus it’s obviously something the majority of Bond fans wouldn’t want or expect...and with Eon probably selling up it makes sense...I think it’s the perfect time to kill Bond.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that if EON is interested in selling off their half of Bond they would want to get as much money as possible. Would Bond being killed off in Bond 25 devalue the franchise even with the potential new owners planning on another significant reboot? Are EON, MGM, et al fearful that an unhappy ending ie Bond dying would hurt the box office? Personally, I have no curiosity as to how Bond would be killed off. The totally mundane, shot by a random minion, hit by a drunk driver, killed by a jealous husband thing has been done before in other films. James Bond is like the cockroach....he never dies, he just comes back embodied by another actor.
Bond defeats Blofeld after an epic battle in the garden of death. Then as he is exiting the garden, bond accidentally plucks himself on a poisonous plant and dies.
This is actually why I think EON will sell, even more than the IP issue. Starting with Goldeneye, they became self-conscious about Bond’s very non-PC roots and felt the need to repeatedly psycho-analyze him in an attempt to “explain” Bond. Skyfall was the culmination of this (with an actual psycho-analysis!), and Spectre felt like a rather weak re-hash. I think EON (Babs) has come to believe that a character like James Bond can’t survive in the #metoo era without a major PC-overhaul, and I don’t think they’re interested in being a part of that.
I can’t blame them, because I’m not interested in that either.
Increasingly i am starting to feel that the best option to square the circle and get out of the tight corner is to do Bond in period cold war, sexism the whole shebang. Probably by Netflix with glossy production values and a Flemingeque Bond.
I’m starting to come around to this as well.
I thought this was a distinct possibility when there was the initial talk of Nolan moving into direct, and I think Guy Ritchie was even mentioned once which piqued my intrest
I think there is a good 'reboot' opportunity to kill off Bond in Bond 25, and then start again - a period film. I loved The Man from UNCLE reboot because the styling, props and sets were done well, and so the sexism and other non-PC stuff that is the essence of the Fleming Bond can live on, as the film will represent 'social history', and not a masoganistic dinosuar as the press refer to the modern Bond.
Would Bond being killed off in Bond 25 devalue the franchise even with the potential new owners planning on another significant reboot?
Look, I have no interest is seeing Bond die. But if EON really is planning to sell (something I also have no interest in), they should 100% kill their Bond. It wouldn’t devalue the franchise in that event. Quite the opposite I think.
I have no particular desire to see Bond die, also no great aversion to it. The period reboot would not depend on it at all. Also an in period reboot would not rule out a return to the present. There is probably no compelling resason to do anything more than cast a new Actor and carry on regardless. My fear is that this approach ups the likelihood of diminishing returns as I feel sure that I can see the end of the runway from here...
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
I have no particular desire to see Bond die, also no great aversion to it. The period reboot would not depend on it at all. Also an in period reboot would not rule out a return to the present. There is probably no compelling resason to do anything more than cast a new Actor and carry on regardless. My fear is that this approach ups the likelihood of diminishing returns as I feel sure that I can see the end of the runway from here...
That depends on if eon as it stands now want to continue regardless? And if they have the appetite to reboot after DC departs the role?? Finding an actor that will bring in good box office returns, it's always a bit of risk when they change the actor that may not pay off until his second or even third outing.
It was either that.....or the priesthood
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,757Chief of Staff
May I ask why it intrigues you? You moderate a Bond forum so your thoughts about this possible storyline strike me as worth sharing. I am genuinely interested in hearing you.
Mainly because it’s something I’m interested in seeing...how it will be written and approached...who would kill him - I’d love it to be totally mundane, just shot by a random minion... I think it’s quite ‘edgy’ and plays to my mischievous inquisitiveness...plus it’s obviously something the majority of Bond fans wouldn’t want or expect...and with Eon probably selling up it makes sense...I think it’s the perfect time to kill Bond.
I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It.
I have no particular desire to see Bond die, also no great aversion to it. The period reboot would not depend on it at all. Also an in period reboot would not rule out a return to the present. There is probably no compelling resason to do anything more than cast a new Actor and carry on regardless. My fear is that this approach ups the likelihood of diminishing returns as I feel sure that I can see the end of the runway from here...
That depends on if eon as it stands now want to continue regardless? And if they have the appetite to reboot after DC departs the role?? Finding an actor that will bring in good box office returns, it's always a bit of risk when they change the actor that may not pay off until his second or even third outing.
I think a new actor is more or less guaranteed to pay off in his first film at least. This has been true since Connery with the possible exception of Georgy Boy. Even that is questionable as I've seen arguments where it was both a success and an unqualified disaster. Also he had publicly jumped/had been pushed before the Premiere which may have conrtibuted. Box office returns are relevant to costs of course so it depends on how much they spend. Cannily they tend to scale back when a new actor is installed. This may be a contributory factor as to why the first films of a tenure are amongst the best (personal view I know)
Bond is bigger than the particular actor. However so desperate were they to return to Big Tam they put up with his well known tantrums, refusal to 'get in shape' etc. I recall at one point he was even refusing to wear the rug apparently. They then begged Roger to do AVTAK, and now have delayed 25 so that Danny Boy can finally agree to his 50 mil and make the film.
I think curiosity alone is almost certain to carry the first film. The risk probably comes later as a Turkey could( to mix my metaphors) kill the golden goose.
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
sigh...the death of Bond...maybe we have reached the end of the rope here?
This is what I fear the death of Bond could bring in the public's eye. Once people have seen Bond killed, that could kill interest for Bond in the future and less the interest for another company to purchase it. When people on a Bond forum think that killing off Bond means that Bond films have had enough, that probably means that the idea is telling the public that they don't need more Bond either.
I hate the idea of Bond being killed off, but Barbara and Michaels seemingly lack of Bond interest coupled with other rumours on here don't rule out something as horrific as Bonds death being an option for them. Unless of course they do get another actor and get back to more regular film releases.
I hate the idea of Bond being killed off, but Barbara and Michaels seemingly lack of Bond interest coupled with other rumours on here don't rule out something as horrific as Bonds death being an option for them. Unless of course they do get another actor and get back to more regular film releases.
Is it a lack of interest or are they both just tired of telling essentially the same story with the same character over and over again?
sigh...the death of Bond...maybe we have reached the end of the rope here?
This is what I fear the death of Bond could bring in the public's eye. Once people have seen Bond killed, that could kill interest for Bond in the future and less the interest for another company to purchase it.
I don’t see it that way at all...the public are very fickle for starters )
There will be continued interest in Bond films regardless, it’s similar to when one actor leaves the role and another takes over.
Companies will fight to get hold of the Bond franchise...
It’s all speculation though...
When people on a Bond forum think that killing off Bond means that Bond films have had enough, that probably means that the idea is telling the public that they don't need more Bond either.
I’ve read this bit several times and I don’t really understand what you mean ?:)
I’m not being rude (possibly thick though ), I’m just stumped by “...means that Bond films have had enough...”
I think killing Bond is also not the best idea. It is a little gimmicky, and as people have mentioned, would only happen because of current cinema trends, where films like Logan and Infinity War have either killed or supposedly killed off their protagonists. I hope they can be a little more inventive than that.
Though I do think now that it is a definite possibility for Bond 25. The other thing that annoys me is that if there is something like that in it then i'll have to avoid the internet for 3 weeks because it won't open in Australia till mid November ) The Blofeld reveal was spoiled for me by some goose over at Mi6, haven't gotten over it yet )
Also, say if EON are selling soon and wish to end it all by killling him, how would that work as an ending? I mean once he's died, do you just cut to the credits? Or do you have his funeral? I cant see the Bond theme working over the credits with an ending like that it would almost feel like a taunt. If it was to be eons last gasp then for me there's no real way to end it fittingly without Bond walking off in the sunset.
Is it a lack of interest or are they both just tired of telling essentially the same story with the same character over and over again?
They don't need to keep telling the same story over and over again. That's just a lazy habit they've fallen into.
There is a good half of what Fleming wrote that has yet to be adapted. I think I listed the titles that remain partially or completely unadapted a few pages back.
There's no need to get bored and start swiping plot elements from Logan quite yet.
If the rights expire or whatever in 2034, then I think they should keep churning out bond films until there's 30 films, then kill him off in Bond 30 instead, and end it there. That is, if they are planning to sell or whatever. Who knows. But 2034 is a while off, so that would leave them time to make it to the nice round number of 30 bond films. Craig ends at Bond 25 with Blofeld being killed in The Garden Of Death. Bonds 26-30 could then be another reboot directed by Nolan (wishful thinking), they could be period pieces like many people want, and they could use all the remaining Fleming titles, with Blofeld returning for one last time in Bond 30.
And at the end of all this, there would be a total of 7 007 actors
I like your numerological logic. There should be seven official 007 actors before the official franchise packs it in. But I hope the next actor manages better than five films over the next 16 years.
When people on a Bond forum think that killing off Bond means that Bond films have had enough, that probably means that the idea is telling the public that they don't need more Bond either.
I’ve read this bit several times and I don’t really understand what you mean ?:)
I’m not being rude (possibly thick though ), I’m just stumped by “...means that Bond films have had enough...”
Yeah, that makes no sense. I think I meant to say: When people on a Bond forum think that killing off Bond means there is no need for more Bond, the public will really get that message.
A few people told me that thought that the Bond series was finished after Skyfall! They thought that the story completed Bond's character and expected that the Bond films were finally through. They put Bond out of their mind and thought I was living in the past because I was still a Bond fan.
Personally, I'd rather they shoot Bond into space again than shoot him dead. IMHO, his death should play no part in a Bond film and if they really need that kind of a plot "trick" to get audiences in seats then they're doing something wrong with the character.
Not saying anything new here, but after all the twists, turns, double crosses, interconnecting plot-lines and drama of the last 4 films (which I mostly enjoyed immensely), a straight ahead one-off mission like FRWL, GF or (gasp!) DAD would actually feel "original". There are endless routes they can go before they stick a fork in 007.
Personally, I'd rather they shoot Bond into space again than shoot him dead. IMHO, his death should play no part in a Bond film and if they really need that kind of a plot "trick" to get audiences in seats then they're doing something wrong with the character.
Not saying anything new here, but after all the twists, turns, double crosses, interconnecting plot-lines and drama of the last 4 films (which I mostly enjoyed immensely), a straight ahead one-off mission like FRWL, GF or (gasp!) DAD would actually feel "original". There are endless routes they can go before they stick a fork in 007.
So, Bond was killed in the PTS of YOLT and lived again. Then in Casino Royale when he’s poisoned. And a third time when he’s shot by Moneypenny in Skyfall. Of these, arguably only the Casino Royale death counts as an actual death, but yet another version of Bond dying, only to be resurrected, wouldn’t be too original.
I’m not sure why you’d want to kill off your greatest asset at the end of your franchise - A future buyer would not be too happy with that.
So, Bond was killed in the PTS of YOLT and lived again. Then in Casino Royale when he’s poisoned. And a third time when he’s shot by Moneypenny in Skyfall. Of these, arguably only the Casino Royale death counts as an actual death, but yet another version of Bond dying, only to be resurrected, wouldn’t be too original.
I’m not sure why you’d want to kill off your greatest asset at the end of your franchise - A future buyer would not be too happy with that.
You're right, not that I endorse the idea of Bond dying to begin with but after Skyfall's whole "enjoying death" sequence I think they've explored that outcome well enough already without actually killing the character.
Comments
Love this! Well said -{
Mainly because it’s something I’m interested in seeing...how it will be written and approached...who would kill him - I’d love it to be totally mundane, just shot by a random minion... I think it’s quite ‘edgy’ and plays to my mischievous inquisitiveness...plus it’s obviously something the majority of Bond fans wouldn’t want or expect...and with Eon probably selling up it makes sense...I think it’s the perfect time to kill Bond.
1 - Moore, 2 - Dalton, 3 - Craig, 4 - Connery, 5 - Brosnan, 6 - Lazenby
I thought this was a distinct possibility when there was the initial talk of Nolan moving into direct, and I think Guy Ritchie was even mentioned once which piqued my intrest
I think there is a good 'reboot' opportunity to kill off Bond in Bond 25, and then start again - a period film. I loved The Man from UNCLE reboot because the styling, props and sets were done well, and so the sexism and other non-PC stuff that is the essence of the Fleming Bond can live on, as the film will represent 'social history', and not a masoganistic dinosuar as the press refer to the modern Bond.
Look, I have no interest is seeing Bond die. But if EON really is planning to sell (something I also have no interest in), they should 100% kill their Bond. It wouldn’t devalue the franchise in that event. Quite the opposite I think.
https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/james-bond-museum-austria/index.html
Bond on the Box - Website | Twitter | Facebook | Instagram | LetterBoxd | YouTube
I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It.
I think a new actor is more or less guaranteed to pay off in his first film at least. This has been true since Connery with the possible exception of Georgy Boy. Even that is questionable as I've seen arguments where it was both a success and an unqualified disaster. Also he had publicly jumped/had been pushed before the Premiere which may have conrtibuted. Box office returns are relevant to costs of course so it depends on how much they spend. Cannily they tend to scale back when a new actor is installed. This may be a contributory factor as to why the first films of a tenure are amongst the best (personal view I know)
Bond is bigger than the particular actor. However so desperate were they to return to Big Tam they put up with his well known tantrums, refusal to 'get in shape' etc. I recall at one point he was even refusing to wear the rug apparently. They then begged Roger to do AVTAK, and now have delayed 25 so that Danny Boy can finally agree to his 50 mil and make the film.
I think curiosity alone is almost certain to carry the first film. The risk probably comes later as a Turkey could( to mix my metaphors) kill the golden goose.
This is what I fear the death of Bond could bring in the public's eye. Once people have seen Bond killed, that could kill interest for Bond in the future and less the interest for another company to purchase it. When people on a Bond forum think that killing off Bond means that Bond films have had enough, that probably means that the idea is telling the public that they don't need more Bond either.
I don’t see it that way at all...the public are very fickle for starters
There will be continued interest in Bond films regardless, it’s similar to when one actor leaves the role and another takes over.
Companies will fight to get hold of the Bond franchise...
It’s all speculation though...
I’ve read this bit several times and I don’t really understand what you mean ?:)
I’m not being rude (possibly thick though
Though I do think now that it is a definite possibility for Bond 25. The other thing that annoys me is that if there is something like that in it then i'll have to avoid the internet for 3 weeks because it won't open in Australia till mid November
Also, say if EON are selling soon and wish to end it all by killling him, how would that work as an ending? I mean once he's died, do you just cut to the credits? Or do you have his funeral? I cant see the Bond theme working over the credits with an ending like that it would almost feel like a taunt. If it was to be eons last gasp then for me there's no real way to end it fittingly without Bond walking off in the sunset.
There is a good half of what Fleming wrote that has yet to be adapted. I think I listed the titles that remain partially or completely unadapted a few pages back.
There's no need to get bored and start swiping plot elements from Logan quite yet.
I like your numerological logic. There should be seven official 007 actors before the official franchise packs it in. But I hope the next actor manages better than five films over the next 16 years.
Yeah, that makes no sense. I think I meant to say: When people on a Bond forum think that killing off Bond means there is no need for more Bond, the public will really get that message.
A few people told me that thought that the Bond series was finished after Skyfall! They thought that the story completed Bond's character and expected that the Bond films were finally through. They put Bond out of their mind and thought I was living in the past because I was still a Bond fan.
And that's just the films.
Not saying anything new here, but after all the twists, turns, double crosses, interconnecting plot-lines and drama of the last 4 films (which I mostly enjoyed immensely), a straight ahead one-off mission like FRWL, GF or (gasp!) DAD would actually feel "original". There are endless routes they can go before they stick a fork in 007.
Amen to that. -{
I’m not sure why you’d want to kill off your greatest asset at the end of your franchise - A future buyer would not be too happy with that.