Asp9mmOver the Hills and Far Away.Posts: 7,535MI6 Agent
What people seem to forget is.... Craig’s Bond is not a direct lineage of the films that came before. It started afresh and rebooted everything. He never married Tracey etc.
It’s a self contained set of films, like Nolan’s Batman, it has a beginning and an end. Well, it had an end until Craig came back for another, er... end. So continuation of the series if Craig’s Batma..er, Bond dies, isn't going to be a problem. They’ll just make a film in the same vein as all of them post 62, where Bond is just established and does Bond things.
I personally don't think EON is planning on selling the franchise any time soon. Look at all of the recent licensing agreements EON has announced. From Omega's new image with Daniel last week, to a multi-year Orlebar Brown partnership, to Aston Martin remaking Goldfinger DB5s (how cool is that by the way?!) the Bond brand is incredibly profitable and I can't see EON wanting to part with that, especially with the easy way out of killing Bond.
A few things here,
I'd quite happily conclude that bb and mgw are not excited by o
Bond anymore, their lacklustre approach seems to prove this point. Bond could be a legacy they are happy to conclude.
Bond is DC's career high, he's intelligent enough to understand this and probably would like to kill, "his" character off.
DC is also bbs golden boy, never before has the star had so much input, who follows Craig? Who knows but couldn't "give a fcuk"
Then there is the continuation, as the asp says, since 2006 bond has been a reboot, the value of the bond franchise is in the name, the iconography, the logos, the music not the current story arc, eon could quite happily conclude their bond, sell off and ride into the sunset topping up their bank accounts with more money than an average banks annual profits, as would DC with his cool 25 million. Why do we all expect eon to feed our bond appetite?
What people seem to forget is.... Craig’s Bond is not a direct lineage of the films that came before. It started afresh and rebooted everything. He never married Tracey etc.
It’s a self contained set of films, like Nolan’s Batman, it has a beginning and an end. Well, it had an end until Craig came back for another, er... end. So continuation of the series if Craig’s Batma..er, Bond dies, isn't going to be a problem. They’ll just make a film in the same vein as all of them post 62, where Bond is just established and does Bond things.
I've said before I don't see any upside to killing Bond. To me, it just doesn't make sense creatively, financially or as a hook to keep the general audience interested in the character. IMHO, it reeks of desperation. Maybe I just lack imagination, but I can't conceive of a way that offing 007 will do anything except damage the brand.
I have no idea how true the Sun story is, but I'm taking it with a huge grain of salt.
I personally don't think EON is planning on selling the franchise any time soon. Look at all of the recent licensing agreements EON has announced. From Omega's new image with Daniel last week, to a multi-year Orlebar Brown partnership, to Aston Martin remaking Goldfinger DB5s (how cool is that by the way?!) the Bond brand is incredibly profitable and I can't see EON wanting to part with that, especially with the easy way out of killing Bond.
When someone wants to sell a brand, they want to make the brand as valuable as possible.
I wonder what the public perception to killing off Bond will be. With Bond killed off, will people be more exciting to see Bond return again? Or will they put Bond out of their minds because they think Bond has finally ended after 6 decades? A few casual Bond viewers thought Bond was over after Skyfall because they think all film series come in trilogies. When I mentioned Spectre to them, they had no idea there was another Bond film!
Doesn't it say at the end of each Bond film........James Bond will return or something similar? Forget about killing off Bond, just stick to what has worked for 50+ years I say.
What people seem to forget is.... Craig’s Bond is not a direct lineage of the films that came before. It started afresh and rebooted everything. He never married Tracey etc.
It’s a self contained set of films, like Nolan’s Batman, it has a beginning and an end. Well, it had an end until Craig came back for another, er... end. So continuation of the series if Craig’s Batma..er, Bond dies, isn't going to be a problem. They’ll just make a film in the same vein as all of them post 62, where Bond is just established and does Bond things.
I agree with all of this. However, this is also precisely the reason why I think bond shouldn't die - because what would it even achieve? A bit of shock value? Closure for Babs? These reasons do not justify killing bond IMO, killing bond would be pointless, because like what you say, they can just start a clean slate anyway, whether he dies or not, like they have been doing from the start of the series. DC may have been a hard reboot, but all the others have been soft reboots.
Anyway, killing off the main character wouldn't even be original either. For bond maybe it would (as he's never "truly/permanently" died before), but I'm still not buying it. The world does not need bond's death IMO.
What people seem to forget is.... Craig’s Bond is not a direct lineage of the films that came before. It started afresh and rebooted everything. He never married Tracey etc.
It’s a self contained set of films, like Nolan’s Batman, it has a beginning and an end. Well, it had an end until Craig came back for another, er... end. So continuation of the series if Craig’s Batma..er, Bond dies, isn't going to be a problem. They’ll just make a film in the same vein as all of them post 62, where Bond is just established and does Bond things.
I agree with all of this. However, this is also precisely the reason why I think bond shouldn't die - because what would it even achieve? A bit of shock value? Closure for Babs? These reasons do not justify killing bond IMO, killing bond would be pointless, because like what you say, they can just start a clean slate anyway, whether he dies or not, like they have been doing from the start of the series. DC may have been a hard reboot, but all the others have been soft reboots.
Anyway, killing off the main character wouldn't even be original either. For bond maybe it would (as he's never "truly/permanently" died before), but I'm still not buying it. The world does not need bond's death IMO.
I am not against Bond dying, but agree with you that they can achieve everything with another reboot, or just ignore it and carry on. I think vanity could be a factor if the rumours are true. Dannybabs would get a bang out of it and it could make for a great film. It's a bit like Spectre in as much as the cat was out of the bag from the get go as a consequence the 'reveal' fell flat. Given where we are the most radical approach might be a return to 'James Bond will return' perhaps even with a title for 26.as the credits roll...
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
I thinK Babs or MG must have been reading this comic:
(spoiler - he came back to life!)
It would be hilarious if Bond were to die at the end of Bond 25 and as the end credits are about to finish there is the text:
JAMES BOND WILL RETURN
Gala Brand wrote:
I see that the latest MI film is doing comparatively poorly at the box office. The reason is that Ethan Hunt is a complete cipher without even the thinnest layer of character development. Audiences today want more than seeing basically the same film with the same unchanging character.
You might have to factor in Cruise's age. He's 56 so he's not going to appeal to teens or 20 somethings. Arguably the only old action hero to get away with it was Ford in Indiana Jones 4. He was in his 60s.
Bond was fairly two dimensional up till Dalton's casting. Connery's Bond never evolved. Moore's didn't evolve. Lazenby's Bond got married but that was a one-off moment.
If some Bond fans want a return to a Connery/Moore type Bond - an impersonal Bond out on a mission (no backstory stuff) then we need Eon to sell up. New owners could revert back to the 1960s/1970s style of Bond but times have changed. It's a much more politically correct world and the old Bond style - less emotional, no backstory, Bond using women for sex and little else - might seem a bit old fashioned or in bad taste. I recall Matt Damon saying he disliked James Bond:
“I like Bourne better than Bond,” he said. “Bourne has today’s values; Bond has the values of the 1960s. Daniel [Craig]’s Bond has upgraded him and brought him more into the present, but, classically, that character is a misogynist who likes swilling martinis and killing people and not giving a sh*t.”
But that is what made Bond so popular and iconic! It's the non-PC traits that distinguished Bond from all other action heroes. Barbara Broccoli took over and started to dilute, lessen Bond's non-PC traits. I doubt we'll ever see a Connery/Moore type Bond. A Bond that has no personal issues. A Bond that does a mission, doesn't get emotionally involved. I say "forget the PC social justice warrior snowflakes - let Bond be Bond!"
I personally don't think EON is planning on selling the franchise any time soon. Look at all of the recent licensing agreements EON has announced. From Omega's new image with Daniel last week, to a multi-year Orlebar Brown partnership, to Aston Martin remaking Goldfinger DB5s (how cool is that by the way?!) the Bond brand is incredibly profitable and I can't see EON wanting to part with that, especially with the easy way out of killing Bond.
When someone wants to sell a brand, they want to make the brand as valuable as possible.
I wonder what the public perception to killing off Bond will be. With Bond killed off, will people be more exciting to see Bond return again? Or will they put Bond out of their minds because they think Bond has finally ended after 6 decades? A few casual Bond viewers thought Bond was over after Skyfall because they think all film series come in trilogies. When I mentioned Spectre to them, they had no idea there was another Bond film!
This is right on. I don't see how killing off Bond makes him more valuable. The new owners of the film rights can already reboot him without having the world confused about how he has risen from the dead.
And even from the financial standpoint of Bond 25 itself, the story of his death can't help but be a downer. What's the final scene? M, Q, and Moneypenny at his funeral after Bond died saving the Queen, saying how he always put his duty first? It's the feel-good movie of 2019! Part of these huge grosses for films like the Avengers and Black Panther is people returning for multiple viewings. I'm trying to imagine teenagers flocking back to the cinema to see DC getting shot again and again.
Because I missed it, can someone point me to the direct Craig quote where he says he wants to play Bond's death?
Only Ian Fleming should be allowed to kill off James Bond! He's no longer with us so I say "no, you shouldn't do it, Eon!"
Also, as mentioned by others, Bond will return in the next film. It's not as if Bond 25 is going to be the final James Bond motion picture (well, very unlikely). Bond dies in Bond 25 but returns in Bond 26? Seems pointless and kind of silly. I suppose it could generate more interest in the franchise, that's all. A PR gimmick to help get people to go see Bond 25 and 26.
This is what I am hoping is happening: Yann Damange or David MacKenzie are presently or will be shortly reviewing a draft of John Hodge's script for Bond 25, including some notes from EON regarding some things they would like to see changed or revised. Damange or whoever will resubmit a polished draft with re-writes to EON and EON will sign off on the new draft. Pre-production will continue and Bond 25 will start filming only 2-3 weeks later than originally planned with a screenplay written by John Hodge and Yann Damange (or David McKenzie). Now just go and make a great Bond film. -{
If the dispute was over killing/not killing Bond, would they have gone as far down the road with Boyle as they did, only to have this rift now? Seems like more tabloid nonsense. Two days earlier they were saying it was a casting dispute. Why should we give the tabloids more credit over one story than another?
Perhaps there is an obscure bit of Fleming Bond work that Danny and Idris can use? Sort of Thunderball version 3. Yeah, that will annoy the far-right, the Craig fans, heck everyone.
I thinK Babs or MG must have been reading this comic:
(spoiler - he came back to life!)
It would be hilarious if Bond were to die at the end of Bond 25 and as the end credits are about to finish there is the text:
JAMES BOND WILL RETURN
Gala Brand wrote:
I see that the latest MI film is doing comparatively poorly at the box office. The reason is that Ethan Hunt is a complete cipher without even the thinnest layer of character development. Audiences today want more than seeing basically the same film with the same unchanging character.
You might have to factor in Cruise's age. He's 56 so he's not going to appeal to teens or 20 somethings. Arguably the only old action hero to get away with it was Ford in Indiana Jones 4. He was in his 60s.
Bond was fairly two dimensional up till Dalton's casting. Connery's Bond never evolved. Moore's didn't evolve. Lazenby's Bond got married but that was a one-off moment.
If some Bond fans want a return to a Connery/Moore type Bond - an impersonal Bond out on a mission (no backstory stuff) then we need Eon to sell up. New owners could revert back to the 1960s/1970s style of Bond but times have changed. It's a much more politically correct world and the old Bond style - less emotional, no backstory, Bond using women for sex and little else - might seem a bit old fashioned or in bad taste. I recall Matt Damon saying he disliked James Bond:
“I like Bourne better than Bond,” he said. “Bourne has today’s values; Bond has the values of the 1960s. Daniel [Craig]’s Bond has upgraded him and brought him more into the present, but, classically, that character is a misogynist who likes swilling martinis and killing people and not giving a sh*t.”
But that is what made Bond so popular and iconic! It's the non-PC traits that distinguished Bond from all other action heroes. Barbara Broccoli took over and started to dilute, lessen Bond's non-PC traits. I doubt we'll ever see a Connery/Moore type Bond. A Bond that has no personal issues. A Bond that does a mission, doesn't get emotionally involved. I say "forget the PC social justice warrior snowflakes - let Bond be Bond!"
I never found Connery or Dalton for that matter impersonal. I think the Mission vs Backstory narrative misses something. It's not a binary choice but question of balance or air-fuel mixture. There is always 'skin in the game' for Bond, whether it's the death of Quarrel or Saunders there is something of a personal element for Bond. My contention is just that the balance is out of whack. This predates the Craig era, I started getting out of hand for me in TWINE. It's a question of prime focus rather than mission or non mission.
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
I must admit that I’m starting to lose interest in Bond 25. It seems destined to be a film I won’t enjoy since I didn’t want Craig back after Spectre (a tidy end for his arc), and have no interest in seeing Bond die. Add on the production turmoil and the whole thing starts to feel a bit tired. And once it’s over, God only knows how long we’ll go until 26. Not a great time to be a Bond fan I’m afraid.
I must admit that I’m starting to lose interest in Bond 25. It seems destined to be a film I won’t enjoy since I didn’t want Craig back after Spectre (a tidy end for his arc), and have no interest in seeing Bond die. Add on the production turmoil and the whole thing starts to feel a bit tired. And once it’s over, God only knows how long we’ll go until 26. Not a great time to be a Bond fan I’m afraid.
I oscillate about it. I was optimistic until Boyle bailed. I still hope it turns out well, but am starting to feel it's a bit doomed. Mind you CR was surrounded by the most rampant negativity. I have said before that the difference may be that EON knew what they were doing even if we did not. Now 26, that I am looking forward to...
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
Oh for the days when at the end of Spy Who Loved Me half the cinema waited for the end of the credits to find out what the next movie would be. (That was our equivalent of Marvel's end of credit teaser)
It said. "James Bond will return in For Your Eyes Only" It did, you know.
Wait a minute.
2 years later we got Moonraker after Cubby saw the buckets of money Star Wars had made.
But at least we didn't have to wait 4 or 5 years!
Now that's what I call using creative differences.
Asp9mmOver the Hills and Far Away.Posts: 7,535MI6 Agent
Ridiculous article. Instead of making a valid argument, he attacks the people he doesn’t agree with. And not very well either. Typical juvenile Guardian article.
Ridiculous article. Instead of making a valid argument, he attacks the people he doesn’t agree with. And not very well either. Typical juvenile Guardian article.
Big Guardian fan , but definitely not their finest hour. Sloppy.
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
I can't understand why Barbara would want to kill Bond. I mean, she has been involved in the franchise her whole life so it's not like she is some radical newcomer wanting to shake things up.
There are three reasons I can think of:
1) Shock value. This will get people talking about the film, increase word of mouth, leading to higher grosses.
2) Acting. I can understand an actor wanting to do something new with a character they've been playing for 10 years but ultimately the franchise needs to be put first.
3) Broccoli selling up. I've seen internet rumours (by their very nature probably untrue) that she and Michael G. Wilson will sell EON when Craig leaves the franchise. A death will be a clean slate for the next company. But this doesn't make sense because of all the franchises out there, audience are most accepting of a Bond recast. It is part and parcel of the series. There is no need to kill the character to justify it.
All three reasons are not good enough to fundamentally change the franchise with what I think is a bad decision. It is very early days yet, but if she stuck to her guns to the point that Boyle left and threw the film into chaos, I wouldn't be surprised if Bond ends of being killed in the film.
BTW, I don't understand how Boyle could get so far into the production that they were in the casting process and yet a core point of the film's script was still a very contentious issue for him.
Comments
It’s a self contained set of films, like Nolan’s Batman, it has a beginning and an end. Well, it had an end until Craig came back for another, er... end. So continuation of the series if Craig’s Batma..er, Bond dies, isn't going to be a problem. They’ll just make a film in the same vein as all of them post 62, where Bond is just established and does Bond things.
I'd quite happily conclude that bb and mgw are not excited by o
Bond anymore, their lacklustre approach seems to prove this point. Bond could be a legacy they are happy to conclude.
Bond is DC's career high, he's intelligent enough to understand this and probably would like to kill, "his" character off.
DC is also bbs golden boy, never before has the star had so much input, who follows Craig? Who knows but couldn't "give a fcuk"
Then there is the continuation, as the asp says, since 2006 bond has been a reboot, the value of the bond franchise is in the name, the iconography, the logos, the music not the current story arc, eon could quite happily conclude their bond, sell off and ride into the sunset topping up their bank accounts with more money than an average banks annual profits, as would DC with his cool 25 million. Why do we all expect eon to feed our bond appetite?
When someone wants to sell a brand, they want to make the brand as valuable as possible.
I wonder what the public perception to killing off Bond will be. With Bond killed off, will people be more exciting to see Bond return again? Or will they put Bond out of their minds because they think Bond has finally ended after 6 decades? A few casual Bond viewers thought Bond was over after Skyfall because they think all film series come in trilogies. When I mentioned Spectre to them, they had no idea there was another Bond film!
The story of a big delay in the films release.
I agree with all of this. However, this is also precisely the reason why I think bond shouldn't die - because what would it even achieve? A bit of shock value? Closure for Babs? These reasons do not justify killing bond IMO, killing bond would be pointless, because like what you say, they can just start a clean slate anyway, whether he dies or not, like they have been doing from the start of the series. DC may have been a hard reboot, but all the others have been soft reboots.
Anyway, killing off the main character wouldn't even be original either. For bond maybe it would (as he's never "truly/permanently" died before), but I'm still not buying it. The world does not need bond's death IMO.
1 - Moore, 2 - Dalton, 3 - Craig, 4 - Connery, 5 - Brosnan, 6 - Lazenby
I am not against Bond dying, but agree with you that they can achieve everything with another reboot, or just ignore it and carry on. I think vanity could be a factor if the rumours are true. Dannybabs would get a bang out of it and it could make for a great film. It's a bit like Spectre in as much as the cat was out of the bag from the get go as a consequence the 'reveal' fell flat. Given where we are the most radical approach might be a return to 'James Bond will return' perhaps even with a title for 26.as the credits roll...
(spoiler - he came back to life!)
It would be hilarious if Bond were to die at the end of Bond 25 and as the end credits are about to finish there is the text:
JAMES BOND WILL RETURN
Gala Brand wrote:
You might have to factor in Cruise's age. He's 56 so he's not going to appeal to teens or 20 somethings. Arguably the only old action hero to get away with it was Ford in Indiana Jones 4. He was in his 60s.
Bond was fairly two dimensional up till Dalton's casting. Connery's Bond never evolved. Moore's didn't evolve. Lazenby's Bond got married but that was a one-off moment.
If some Bond fans want a return to a Connery/Moore type Bond - an impersonal Bond out on a mission (no backstory stuff) then we need Eon to sell up. New owners could revert back to the 1960s/1970s style of Bond but times have changed. It's a much more politically correct world and the old Bond style - less emotional, no backstory, Bond using women for sex and little else - might seem a bit old fashioned or in bad taste. I recall Matt Damon saying he disliked James Bond:
But that is what made Bond so popular and iconic! It's the non-PC traits that distinguished Bond from all other action heroes. Barbara Broccoli took over and started to dilute, lessen Bond's non-PC traits. I doubt we'll ever see a Connery/Moore type Bond. A Bond that has no personal issues. A Bond that does a mission, doesn't get emotionally involved. I say "forget the PC social justice warrior snowflakes - let Bond be Bond!"
This is right on. I don't see how killing off Bond makes him more valuable. The new owners of the film rights can already reboot him without having the world confused about how he has risen from the dead.
And even from the financial standpoint of Bond 25 itself, the story of his death can't help but be a downer. What's the final scene? M, Q, and Moneypenny at his funeral after Bond died saving the Queen, saying how he always put his duty first? It's the feel-good movie of 2019! Part of these huge grosses for films like the Avengers and Black Panther is people returning for multiple viewings. I'm trying to imagine teenagers flocking back to the cinema to see DC getting shot again and again.
Because I missed it, can someone point me to the direct Craig quote where he says he wants to play Bond's death?
Also, as mentioned by others, Bond will return in the next film. It's not as if Bond 25 is going to be the final James Bond motion picture (well, very unlikely). Bond dies in Bond 25 but returns in Bond 26? Seems pointless and kind of silly. I suppose it could generate more interest in the franchise, that's all. A PR gimmick to help get people to go see Bond 25 and 26.
Bond is dead!
Not really, Bond is back!
8-)
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/lostinshowbiz/2018/aug/16/far-righters-james-bond-not-on-your-team-idris-elba
-{
Just a naive prediction.
Choose SJW/PC? 50% drop in audience.
Go full Bond? Billion dollar club returns.
Let the box office returns speak for themselves.
MATT DAMON?
Example
US boxoffice Adjusted for Ticket Price Inflation
The Bourne Ultimatum 2007 $306 million
A "let Bourne be Bourne" story
Jason Bourne 2016 $176 million
SJW Bourne
Danny Boyle presents
Idris Elba in
Never Say Racism Again
So now I'm on the far right.......
I never found Connery or Dalton for that matter impersonal. I think the Mission vs Backstory narrative misses something. It's not a binary choice but question of balance or air-fuel mixture. There is always 'skin in the game' for Bond, whether it's the death of Quarrel or Saunders there is something of a personal element for Bond. My contention is just that the balance is out of whack. This predates the Craig era, I started getting out of hand for me in TWINE. It's a question of prime focus rather than mission or non mission.
I must admit that I’m starting to lose interest in Bond 25. It seems destined to be a film I won’t enjoy since I didn’t want Craig back after Spectre (a tidy end for his arc), and have no interest in seeing Bond die. Add on the production turmoil and the whole thing starts to feel a bit tired. And once it’s over, God only knows how long we’ll go until 26. Not a great time to be a Bond fan I’m afraid.
I oscillate about it. I was optimistic until Boyle bailed. I still hope it turns out well, but am starting to feel it's a bit doomed. Mind you CR was surrounded by the most rampant negativity. I have said before that the difference may be that EON knew what they were doing even if we did not. Now 26, that I am looking forward to...
It said. "James Bond will return in For Your Eyes Only" It did, you know.
Wait a minute.
2 years later we got Moonraker after Cubby saw the buckets of money Star Wars had made.
But at least we didn't have to wait 4 or 5 years!
Now that's what I call using creative differences.
Ridiculous article. Instead of making a valid argument, he attacks the people he doesn’t agree with. And not very well either. Typical juvenile Guardian article.
Big Guardian fan , but definitely not their finest hour. Sloppy.
There are three reasons I can think of:
1) Shock value. This will get people talking about the film, increase word of mouth, leading to higher grosses.
2) Acting. I can understand an actor wanting to do something new with a character they've been playing for 10 years but ultimately the franchise needs to be put first.
3) Broccoli selling up. I've seen internet rumours (by their very nature probably untrue) that she and Michael G. Wilson will sell EON when Craig leaves the franchise. A death will be a clean slate for the next company. But this doesn't make sense because of all the franchises out there, audience are most accepting of a Bond recast. It is part and parcel of the series. There is no need to kill the character to justify it.
All three reasons are not good enough to fundamentally change the franchise with what I think is a bad decision. It is very early days yet, but if she stuck to her guns to the point that Boyle left and threw the film into chaos, I wouldn't be surprised if Bond ends of being killed in the film.
BTW, I don't understand how Boyle could get so far into the production that they were in the casting process and yet a core point of the film's script was still a very contentious issue for him.
(Long time Bond fan, first time poster)
Welcome to the forum, John Barry :007)