Your Average Joe & the aftermath of Bonds death
John from Cork
Posts: 129MI6 Agent
in Bond 26
I've had someone say to me, "How could there be an next Bond Film, didn't he die in the last one?" (Most of ) us movie buffs get that the whole Craig era was a completely stand alone timeline but you'd be amazed at the amount of "average punters" who see Bond as Ken Barlow from Coronation Street and won't be able to compute his return. I don't think eon factored that in
Comments
Bond's nothing like Ken Barlow. Ken's had far more women:
When I've been talking to non-Bond aficionados who don't see how there can be another Bond film after No Time To Die, I say it's like the different film portrayals of Batman, Superman, Sherlock Holmes etc.; it's the same character in all of them but there are different versions and Daniel Craig's Bond is one of those versions, rather than the same as Connery. However, No Time To Die shows paintings of Bernard Lee and Robert Brown as M, so it's understandable how us fans get confused too! I've read a fan theory that the cinematic Bond timeline starts with Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace at the beginning of Bond's career, continues to Connery, Lazenby, etc. then finishes back with Craig in Skyfall (contemplating he's worn out) and finishes with his death in No Time To Die.
The years of death of Tracy and Vesper are both written on their tombstones (1969 in FYEO and 2006 in NTTD). Then I don't really see how the second one could have met Bond after he got his wife killed while the theory we are dealing with makes CR06 the very first spot of the whole timeline.
I think if they could cope with Felix's leg growing back they'll be okay with Bond returning.
In Dark Knight Rises (space for spoilers if you haven't seen it). . . . . . . . . . Batman essentially dies as far as the public in that world are concerned, and yet a couple of years later there's Ben Affleck playing Batman. Audiences will be fine with it- they know it's not real.
Not to forget the ending of DKR is ambiguous. There are several readings, which makes Batman's return easier.
I suppose the audience is careless about the Ben Affleck iteration lorewise because Nolan's trilogy has absolutely no link at all with the previous Burton and Schumacher movies (even the score), while many people (even some fans) seem to consider the last scene of Skyfall as a link between the Craig era and the "classic" timeline. I don't share this reading, and just having Gareth Mallory instead of Miles Messervy is quite enough to me...
The funny thing is that the 007 Legends video game released in 2012 used such a trick with GF, OHMSS, MR, LTK and DAD. It wasn't bad but I think GF is much more relevant plotwise considering the 1964 context.
I don't think any 'average Joe' who decided to take a trip to the cinema on a Friday night to watch Affleck as Batman was sitting there thinking 'Hmm, I guess the ending of Dark Knight could work with this if you look at it as being ambiguous...'- they were just sitting with their friends eating popcorn and watching Batman and forgot about it by the time they got to McDonald's afterwards.
I think all of the Batman movies have a producer or two in common, so not a million miles away from the Bonds.
I am not the one you have to convice. I never asked myself whether Bond could come back or not, and I don't think the ending of NTTD is a problem lorewise. I see the Craig era as a distinct entity within the series, and I have no issue with a new reboot from the moment it deals with a character faithful to Fleming's, with all the modern constraints a new movie implies (Bond unable to use a computer wouldn't match for instance).
I think audiences will accept Bond’s return without much thought. But I also think that the fact they decided to kill him is partly to blame for the gap we’re in between films. It was a momentous decision taken, as near as I can tell, to feed Daniel Craig’s ego and convince him to do one last film. But when you do something like that, you have to put a bit of daylight between the films or it looks more like a PR stunt than an artistic choice.