First,we have no idea if the Death of Bond will actually happen in Bond 25. Second, over the years, other directors/screenwriters must've pitched this idea and, obviously, EON hasn't been interested. Maybe Boyle/Hodge have come up with something especially brilliant. I'm always interested in seeing something brilliant. Whatever it is, it snagged the interest of Universal as well as EON and MGM.
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,937Chief of Staff
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.
I thought that’s what you were after but didn’t want to presume...
I’m not sure who said there wasn’t a need for ‘more Bond’ afterwards ?:)
IF this were to happen then the new owners can just start again - as you would with a new actor...and there would be nothing stopping them using the original Fleming titles all over again :v
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.
Then I think you need to get a new circle of friends )
To think that says more about them than anything...
YNWA 97
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,937Chief of Staff
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.
I disagree...it would give any potential new buyer a ‘clean slate’ to start from...especially if they don’t like the incumbent actor for whatever reason.
I think any potential new buyer would be most influenced by the percieved box-office appeal of the incumbent actor in deciding whether to keep him or not.
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,937Chief of Staff
I think any potential new buyer would be most influenced by the percieved box-office appeal of the incumbent actor in deciding whether to keep him or not.
Personally I wouldn’t have thought the box-office appeal of the incumbent actor would ‘most influence’ any new buyer...surely they’d have their own ideas?
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.
I disagree...it would give any potential new buyer a ‘clean slate’ to start from...especially if they don’t like the incumbent actor for whatever reason.
I’m not sure that finally killing your main character off gives a clean slate. You then have 3 choices: either to go for a period piece, which would be very limiting; centre a film around the other characters and not Bond; or resurrect him yet again (yawn) or in some kind of Dallas-esque “it was all a dream”. Far better just to replace the actor - it’s successfully been done five times before )
I have a feeling that BB will persuade DC to do one more for 2022 release to mark the 60th anniversary! Just wondering does anyone else ever wondered why there was never a film released for 10,20 and 30 anniversarys, it was either year before or after or both for 10 and 20th anniversarys )
I think any potential new buyer would be most influenced by the percieved box-office appeal of the incumbent actor in deciding whether to keep him or not.
I don't think that this applies in this case as it's unlikely that DC will continue and even if he did it's pretty much inconceivable that it would be more than one film. I doubt that they would recast before selling. This is all still guesswork as we don't know Rheinland-Pfalz intentions, fun to speculate though.
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
I have a feeling that BB will persuade DC to do one more for 2022 release to mark the 60th anniversary! Just wondering does anyone else ever wondered why there was never a film released for 10,20 and 30 anniversarys, it was either year before or after or both for 10 and 20th anniversarys )
Please God no, that would be a major mistake. It's clear that he wants to go out on a high note, but by and large he is done with Bond. I have high hopes for this one but would not want any more. He's pushing it now in my view, but if the narrative supports it as a last hurrah it could work very well (as long as they manage to avoid the 'I'm too old for this poop cliche's) To go beyond 25 smells bad to me.
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
I have a feeling that BB will persuade DC to do one more for 2022 release to mark the 60th anniversary! Just wondering does anyone else ever wondered why there was never a film released for 10,20 and 30 anniversarys, it was either year before or after or both for 10 and 20th anniversarys )
Please God no, that would be a major mistake. It's clear that he wants to go out on a high note, but by and large he is done with Bond. I have high hopes for this one but would not want any more. He's pushing it now in my view, but if the narrative supports it as a last hurrah it could work very well (as long as they manage to avoid the 'I'm too old for this poop cliche's) To go beyond 25 smells bad to me.
Craig's my favorite Bond but after B25 its time to move on which seems likely anyway. Of course I hope B25 is the best Bond film ever made but currently I think his tenure as Bond peaked in 2012.
I have a feeling that BB will persuade DC to do one more for 2022 release to mark the 60th anniversary! Just wondering does anyone else ever wondered why there was never a film released for 10,20 and 30 anniversarys, it was either year before or after or both for 10 and 20th anniversarys )
Please God no, that would be a major mistake. It's clear that he wants to go out on a high note, but by and large he is done with Bond. I have high hopes for this one but would not want any more. He's pushing it now in my view, but if the narrative supports it as a last hurrah it could work very well (as long as they manage to avoid the 'I'm too old for this poop cliche's) To go beyond 25 smells bad to me.
Craig's my favorite Bond but after B25 its time to move on which seems likely anyway. Of course I hope B25 is the best Bond film ever made but currently I think his tenure as Bond peaked in 2012.
I agree that Craig peaked with Skyfall. And that’s not really a knock on him. Every other Bond actor who had a chance to play the role for a period of years peaked prior to their last film(s). That’s why I was hoping for a new Bond in 25. But, I’ll hold out hope that DC bucks the trend.
I have a feeling that BB will persuade DC to do one more for 2022 release to mark the 60th anniversary! Just wondering does anyone else ever wondered why there was never a film released for 10,20 and 30 anniversarys, it was either year before or after or both for 10 and 20th anniversarys )
good question.
The obvious answer is they were maintaining a steady two year release pattern for all those decades, and years ending in 2 were the off-year.
So taking the year ending in 3 as the closest to an anniversary date, we get... Live and Let Die (1973), introduces Roger Moore, a risky move in itself following the Lazenby debacle. They played it very safe, remaking several elements of Dr No, and today we might consider that a heavy handed homage, but I don't think that was the point at the time. After Connery left the second time, I think the franchise was on shaky legs and they were more concerned with keeping it going into the 1970s than calling attention to how long it had been around. (in the New Hollywood era it was a bit oldfashioned).
Octopussy (1983), the year of the Battle of the Bonds. At the same time Connery returned with Never Say Never Again, and the hype leading up to their releases suggested Connery was the real Bond we had been missing since the classic era, and Moore the fake Bond who had turned the film into campy spectacles completely removed from the source material. So perhaps EON didn't want to draw too much attention to Dr No when Connery's film was playing in the next cinema over? As I recall, NSNA came out a few months earlier anyway. But I don't remember promotion for either film making anything of the 20 year anniversary.
(1992) Middle of the hiatus, maybe there was something else released around this time to mark the 30th anniversary? a book? a cd? a documentary? a video game?
All three opportunities were kind of crisis years, not years of confidence.
As for the very much hyped 40th and 50th anniversary films, I'd rather they hadn't in both cases. The clever references, homages and easter eggs in both films undermined any suspension of disbelief and only called attention to how bereft of ideas the new film was. I concede Skyfall was more original than Die Another Day, but if we're going to group them as anniversary films, it becomes obvious they share the same flaws. I'd rather they put all their energies into creating something original, and good, than waste half of it reminding us how much better the old films were.
I have a feeling that BB will persuade DC to do one more for 2022 release to mark the 60th anniversary! Just wondering does anyone else ever wondered why there was never a film released for 10,20 and 30 anniversarys, it was either year before or after or both for 10 and 20th anniversarys )
Please God no, that would be a major mistake. It's clear that he wants to go out on a high note, but by and large he is done with Bond. I have high hopes for this one but would not want any more. He's pushing it now in my view, but if the narrative supports it as a last hurrah it could work very well (as long as they manage to avoid the 'I'm too old for this poop cliche's) To go beyond 25 smells bad to me.
Craig's my favorite Bond but after B25 its time to move on which seems likely anyway. Of course I hope B25 is the best Bond film ever made but currently I think his tenure as Bond peaked in 2012.
i also hope its a doozie and have a good feeling about it due to the people involved so lets hope its a fitting send off.
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,937Chief of Staff
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.
I disagree...it would give any potential new buyer a ‘clean slate’ to start from...especially if they don’t like the incumbent actor for whatever reason.
I’m not sure that finally killing your main character off gives a clean slate. You then have 3 choices: either to go for a period piece, which would be very limiting; centre a film around the other characters and not Bond; or resurrect him yet again (yawn) or in some kind of Dallas-esque “it was all a dream”. Far better just to replace the actor - it’s successfully been done five times before )
Only 3 choices... ?:)
Obviously they’d have to pick your third option as they wouldn’t have a Bond otherwise ) and whoever is in charge will have to do that anyway :v
So I’d say that was a pretty clean slate really...then the new owners can go and film Goldfinger all over again
No matter what happens to Craig's Bond, I see the next Bond film after he's done rebooting the series again. Craig's Bond was able to reboot the series after Die Another Day, and the Bond character finished Die Another Day just as he finished any other Bond film. Die Another Day didn't do anything special to allow Craig's Casino Royale start with a clean slate. So no matter what happens that finishes Craig's Bond run, the next one can start with a clean slate if it wants to. Or they can find a way to continue the series and even bring Bond back if he dies. It happens in comic books all the time, and Craig's Bond really has turned the series into a comic book in more ways than Moonraker ever did.
Craig's Bond seems to be on a streak of "hit, miss, hit, miss", this isn't any fault of Craig (I feel he's been pretty consistent across the board) but most of the films problems either come from producers fighting over bullshit and then they have to push out a movie or just cheap hurried writing. No matter what the script and direction turn out to be Craig is going to play Bond the way he always has. He'll do the best he can with the script he's given. Whether he's a good Bond or not is up to each individual viewer (especially when it comes to the die hard Bond fans).
They need to be inspired by the character (which is why people keep watching the movies) and not try to put out some two-bit action film like the Fast & Furious saga (looking at you Quantum of Solace/Spectre).
Skyfall was a hit because it was a change for the franchise. Never before had any movie-goer seen Bond on such a personal level. In my opinion, they need more change like that. I figure they have three paths they can follow 1) make Bond as modern as possible, ex-special forces, totally dickish, into ridiculous cars and women and music, and a complete ass**** of Robert Downey Jr. proportions yet progressive, 2) do a period thing, take it back to the 50's, cold war, into jazz, extremely conservative, Bond's a completely calussed douche that smokes 27 cigarettes a day, doesn't give a damn about anything, or 3) stick to the usual shtick, Moore/Brosnan-type movie, and watch the franchise go down in flames.
The times they are a changin' and it's time to get with it.
Ah a 50's period Bond. That's the dream (for me anyway;-))
It could be an excellent way to continue the franchise and get away from the Bourne/MI formula, that has converged with Bond in recent years...
It might feel more like a spin-off though, more a one-off, than a way forward, but I'd be all for it nonetheless.
I think the 50s period adaptations of Fleming would be better suited for television. I was always against it for the films, but in the #metoo era, I think it’s the way Bond survives.
Ah a 50's period Bond. That's the dream (for me anyway;-))
It could be an excellent way to continue the franchise and get away from the Bourne/MI formula, that has converged with Bond in recent years...
It might feel more like a spin-off though, more a one-off, than a way forward, but I'd be all for it nonetheless.
I think the 50s period adaptations of Fleming would be better suited for television. I was always against it for the films, but in the #metoo era, I think it’s the way Bond survives.
I think a politically correct Bond would make more sense in the current era than in the 1950s. Just because you set Bond in the past doesn't mean you can get away with making like Connery again. People would have a fit over him if he were a sexist smoker again, even if it was set in the past and historically accurate.
It could be an excellent way to continue the franchise and get away from the Bourne/MI formula, that has converged with Bond in recent years...
It might feel more like a spin-off though, more a one-off, than a way forward, but I'd be all for it nonetheless.
I think the 50s period adaptations of Fleming would be better suited for television. I was always against it for the films, but in the #metoo era, I think it’s the way Bond survives.
I think a politically correct Bond would make more sense in the current era than in the 1950s. Just because you set Bond in the past doesn't mean you can get away with making like Connery again. People would have a fit over him if he were a sexist smoker again, even if it was set in the past and historically accurate.
I’m not talking about flippant racism or even smoking. There’s no such thing as a politically correct Bond. Even the watered down, post-1995 Bond is offensive by 2018 standards. As long as Bond is a portrayed as a heterosexual white British man who wears a suit and kills people for a living, he will be a lighting rod for criticism from an increasingly vocal portion of the moviegoing public.
I’m not talking about flippant racism or even smoking. There’s no such thing as a politically correct Bond. Even the watered down, post-1995 Bond is offensive by 2018 standards. As long as Bond is a portrayed as a heterosexual white British man who wears a suit and kills people for a living, he will be a lighting rod for criticism from an increasingly vocal portion of the moviegoing public.
No, maybe there is not... it would have to strike a balance, of portraying the times, without stepping over certain lines that a current audience (and even more vocal critics) will accept; although part of me me thinks '**** them' to be honest. For me, it would be more about the aesthetic of the period, rather than the way people behaved [and not every man was a sexist, heavy drinking smoker, even if Bond was ) ] ... so, the clothes, the cars, the music; that post war vibe, that was interesting and vibrant, rather than going further into the (frankly dull) age of the internet and the type of espionage that brings.
Edit:... And as for a TV spin-off? yeah, maybe. With the right production values, and the way TV has caught-up with cinema, in presentation/quality of acting/special effects etc... then why not? I'm inclined to watch 'a made for TV series' now as any made for cinema, and that would not have been the case all that long ago.
I think Trigger Mortis went to far in making Bond too PC. Bond was given a gay work-Friend, accepted it when his girlfriend ran off with Pussy Galore and Bond chose not too kill a henchmen.
I think Trigger Mortis went to far in making Bond too PC. Bond was given a gay work-Friend, accepted it when his girlfriend ran off with Pussy Galore and Bond chose not too kill a henchmen.
Well in regards to the gay work friend - he was someone who Bond had fought with and respected and with who Bond grudgingly ignored his sexuality because he liked the man.
In regards to Pussy Galore - he was delighted to get rid of her. He had grown weary of her and really wanted her to move out of his apartment.
Re: Henchman: Fleming's Bond always tried not to kill if he could help it. In this case Horowitz was trying to show that despite the horrible torture that he had just been through (buried alive), Bond had not lost his humanity. He wasn't really a henchman anyway, just a young man who took a job, then realised he would be killed if he didn't do what he was told or tried to leave. That's not to condone him, but Bond could see that he wasn't evil. Bond knew that if he could show mercy, that he was better than Jason Sin, and that Sin hadn't destroyed him.
I don't think it's about making Bond PC. I think it is about making him believable for today's world. We live in a different world today than even in the 60's when there were still laws in the UK and the USA relating to homosexuality and racial segregation in parts of the the USA. Making Bond a homophobe or being racist in today's world would be a stretch. What he still should be is a patriot who is ready and willing to kill to protect his country and allies. It's alright for him to have moments of doubt and angst about it....he's still human, just a different type of human.
With regard to a retro Bond series I agree that HBO or Showtime, etc would be the best place for that. I would have it take place in the 50's with Bond being a WWII vet just like the novels. Shows like Madmen never had any problems with not being "PC" because they were period pieces and reflected the times in which they took place. I think it would be the same with Bond.
I think Horowitz explained well why Bond accepted those things. I just think he did too many things that are untypical of Bond in Trigger Mortis. If he had scattered those situations over two or three books I wouldn’t mind it.
Comments
I thought that’s what you were after but didn’t want to presume...
I’m not sure who said there wasn’t a need for ‘more Bond’ afterwards ?:)
IF this were to happen then the new owners can just start again - as you would with a new actor...and there would be nothing stopping them using the original Fleming titles all over again :v
Then I think you need to get a new circle of friends
To think that says more about them than anything...
I disagree...it would give any potential new buyer a ‘clean slate’ to start from...especially if they don’t like the incumbent actor for whatever reason.
Personally I wouldn’t have thought the box-office appeal of the incumbent actor would ‘most influence’ any new buyer...surely they’d have their own ideas?
Perhaps that’s why I’m not a movie mogul though
I’m not sure that finally killing your main character off gives a clean slate. You then have 3 choices: either to go for a period piece, which would be very limiting; centre a film around the other characters and not Bond; or resurrect him yet again (yawn) or in some kind of Dallas-esque “it was all a dream”. Far better just to replace the actor - it’s successfully been done five times before
I don't think that this applies in this case as it's unlikely that DC will continue and even if he did it's pretty much inconceivable that it would be more than one film. I doubt that they would recast before selling. This is all still guesswork as we don't know Rheinland-Pfalz intentions, fun to speculate though.
Please God no, that would be a major mistake. It's clear that he wants to go out on a high note, but by and large he is done with Bond. I have high hopes for this one but would not want any more. He's pushing it now in my view, but if the narrative supports it as a last hurrah it could work very well (as long as they manage to avoid the 'I'm too old for this poop cliche's) To go beyond 25 smells bad to me.
I agree that Craig peaked with Skyfall. And that’s not really a knock on him. Every other Bond actor who had a chance to play the role for a period of years peaked prior to their last film(s). That’s why I was hoping for a new Bond in 25. But, I’ll hold out hope that DC bucks the trend.
The obvious answer is they were maintaining a steady two year release pattern for all those decades, and years ending in 2 were the off-year.
So taking the year ending in 3 as the closest to an anniversary date, we get...
Live and Let Die (1973), introduces Roger Moore, a risky move in itself following the Lazenby debacle. They played it very safe, remaking several elements of Dr No, and today we might consider that a heavy handed homage, but I don't think that was the point at the time. After Connery left the second time, I think the franchise was on shaky legs and they were more concerned with keeping it going into the 1970s than calling attention to how long it had been around. (in the New Hollywood era it was a bit oldfashioned).
Octopussy (1983), the year of the Battle of the Bonds. At the same time Connery returned with Never Say Never Again, and the hype leading up to their releases suggested Connery was the real Bond we had been missing since the classic era, and Moore the fake Bond who had turned the film into campy spectacles completely removed from the source material. So perhaps EON didn't want to draw too much attention to Dr No when Connery's film was playing in the next cinema over? As I recall, NSNA came out a few months earlier anyway. But I don't remember promotion for either film making anything of the 20 year anniversary.
(1992) Middle of the hiatus, maybe there was something else released around this time to mark the 30th anniversary? a book? a cd? a documentary? a video game?
All three opportunities were kind of crisis years, not years of confidence.
As for the very much hyped 40th and 50th anniversary films, I'd rather they hadn't in both cases. The clever references, homages and easter eggs in both films undermined any suspension of disbelief and only called attention to how bereft of ideas the new film was. I concede Skyfall was more original than Die Another Day, but if we're going to group them as anniversary films, it becomes obvious they share the same flaws. I'd rather they put all their energies into creating something original, and good, than waste half of it reminding us how much better the old films were.
i also hope its a doozie and have a good feeling about it due to the people involved so lets hope its a fitting send off.
Only 3 choices... ?:)
Obviously they’d have to pick your third option as they wouldn’t have a Bond otherwise
So I’d say that was a pretty clean slate really...then the new owners can go and film Goldfinger all over again
They need to be inspired by the character (which is why people keep watching the movies) and not try to put out some two-bit action film like the Fast & Furious saga (looking at you Quantum of Solace/Spectre).
Skyfall was a hit because it was a change for the franchise. Never before had any movie-goer seen Bond on such a personal level. In my opinion, they need more change like that. I figure they have three paths they can follow 1) make Bond as modern as possible, ex-special forces, totally dickish, into ridiculous cars and women and music, and a complete ass**** of Robert Downey Jr. proportions yet progressive, 2) do a period thing, take it back to the 50's, cold war, into jazz, extremely conservative, Bond's a completely calussed douche that smokes 27 cigarettes a day, doesn't give a damn about anything, or 3) stick to the usual shtick, Moore/Brosnan-type movie, and watch the franchise go down in flames.
The times they are a changin' and it's time to get with it.
Twitter: @mybudgetbond1
It could be an excellent way to continue the franchise and get away from the Bourne/MI formula, that has converged with Bond in recent years...
It might feel more like a spin-off though, more a one-off, than a way forward, but I'd be all for it nonetheless.
I think the 50s period adaptations of Fleming would be better suited for television. I was always against it for the films, but in the #metoo era, I think it’s the way Bond survives.
I think a politically correct Bond would make more sense in the current era than in the 1950s. Just because you set Bond in the past doesn't mean you can get away with making like Connery again. People would have a fit over him if he were a sexist smoker again, even if it was set in the past and historically accurate.
I could mention the Sin City movies or the Transformers series.
I’m not talking about flippant racism or even smoking. There’s no such thing as a politically correct Bond. Even the watered down, post-1995 Bond is offensive by 2018 standards. As long as Bond is a portrayed as a heterosexual white British man who wears a suit and kills people for a living, he will be a lighting rod for criticism from an increasingly vocal portion of the moviegoing public.
No, maybe there is not... it would have to strike a balance, of portraying the times, without stepping over certain lines that a current audience (and even more vocal critics) will accept; although part of me me thinks '**** them' to be honest. For me, it would be more about the aesthetic of the period, rather than the way people behaved [and not every man was a sexist, heavy drinking smoker, even if Bond was
Edit:... And as for a TV spin-off? yeah, maybe. With the right production values, and the way TV has caught-up with cinema, in presentation/quality of acting/special effects etc... then why not? I'm inclined to watch 'a made for TV series' now as any made for cinema, and that would not have been the case all that long ago.
Well in regards to the gay work friend - he was someone who Bond had fought with and respected and with who Bond grudgingly ignored his sexuality because he liked the man.
In regards to Pussy Galore - he was delighted to get rid of her. He had grown weary of her and really wanted her to move out of his apartment.
Re: Henchman: Fleming's Bond always tried not to kill if he could help it. In this case Horowitz was trying to show that despite the horrible torture that he had just been through (buried alive), Bond had not lost his humanity. He wasn't really a henchman anyway, just a young man who took a job, then realised he would be killed if he didn't do what he was told or tried to leave. That's not to condone him, but Bond could see that he wasn't evil. Bond knew that if he could show mercy, that he was better than Jason Sin, and that Sin hadn't destroyed him.
Twitter: @mybudgetbond1
With regard to a retro Bond series I agree that HBO or Showtime, etc would be the best place for that. I would have it take place in the 50's with Bond being a WWII vet just like the novels. Shows like Madmen never had any problems with not being "PC" because they were period pieces and reflected the times in which they took place. I think it would be the same with Bond.