(SPOILERS) So, Will They Start Over or . . .
bring Bond back in this timeline?
For starters, I've watched the ending several times now. We see Craig's Bond standing in the path of what we assume are high-energy explosives destroying the lair. He's swallowed up in what looks like bursts of fire. The angle quickly switches to a faraway view showing what appear to be more explosions.
What we don't see is his body literally destroyed, which on the surface sounds ridiculous, of course, but this is a Bond movie, and as we've seen in the Craig films, each has gotten a little less terrified of embracing the wilder aspects of the ones previous. It could be a holographic projection of Bond for all we know, or there could be some other fantastic explanation for how he survives.
We also know the Craig Bonds have mixed up or rehashed many of the elements of the previous film iterations, as well as the novels. For instance, the film You Only Live Twice fakes Bond's death, and the novel ends with him presumed dead. In the novels, Blofeld regularly changes his identity to avoid capture, relying on everything from plastic surgery to weight loss to voice alterations, in addition to a host of new identities.
Could this movie's ending set up the next film with Bond occupying that space? That is, if Craig can't be coaxed back to do just one more (it wouldn't be the first time in the franchise history for this to happen), then his successor would be explained as the same character, somehow having survived, but physically altered, perhaps to conceal scars from injuries. Perhaps he's even more youthful for some reason as a result, maybe even connected to the process to neutralize the nanobots or whatever.
I'm not saying this to grasp at straws or for wish fulfillment. It will be easy just to sneer and say something dismissive like, "He's dead, dude" or whatever. That's not my point. I'm looking at it from the writing point of view. In some ways, it may seem like they've boxed themselves in by ostensibly killing Bond, but I don't know that that's the case. Of course they could always just start over -- and Craig will be close to 60 by the time the next Bond film comes out if they drag their feet again making one. It might be quite impractical to make another with him.
But then so much is determined by box office, both in terms of how well NTTD does and how big a paycheck they dangle in front of Craig to return.
Comments
You Only Live Thrice?
It's less likely, IMO, that they will bring Craig back. Connery returned because of the poor box office returns for OHMSS. Moore returned because the producers perceived that there were no suitable candidates to replace him. In latter years, however, BB and MGW have taken more gambles and I think there will be no lack of obvious - and more controversial - candidates to consider, and get the public talking. So my guess is that they will start a new story arc, possibly a period piece set in the 50's.
If Craig comes back, which won’t happen… he’s done, I would lose any respect for him.
It’ll start over.
Perhaps, as Sir Miles suggests, with the presumed dead story line from the book TMWTGG?
However they do it, they won’t mention this death, obviously 🤨
My guess is they'll do a soft reboot. Bring back maybe one or two of the MI6 regulars, recast some of the others (For example, Ralph Fiennes stays as M, Kinnear stays as Tanner but new Moneypenny and Q). Same office set, but the new Bond is younger but already has his 00 status and no mention of Madielene and Mathilde. (That's the thing Id hate if they made Bond somehow survive the explosion, and then recast him, it would completly undermine Bond's arc, and Madielene and Mathilde if Bond survived, and then ignored his family and returned to the service.
-Casino Royale, Ian Fleming
The You Only Live Twice line they could use in the next film if they mention NTTD is when M says "Well now that your dead, maybe you're old friends will take a little less attention to you" or something like that? Who knows? Let's just wait and see what happens?
CraigBond is obviously and undeniably dead, and that's why they killed him in that way. They will have to do a hard re-boot like they did in CR, it's the only realistic option. No need to bring up Judi Dench. Brosnan's Bond didn't die in DAD and more importantly the director admitted it made no sense logically.
I hoped the MI6 regulars were going to stay in the series for decades, but I don't think that'll work now. When they cast a new actor for Bond26 it'll be very jarring to the audience if the old group is kept. Remember the last time we saw them they were mourning James Bond. The code name theory will be popular.
Will be interesting to see who the new M, Q, Moneypenny and Tanner are going to be, must admit Fiennes, Wishaw, Harris and Kinnear are going to be as impossible to replace as Daniel Craig.
Craig took Bond through the entire possible arc of that character, from newbie 00 to death. My guess is EON simply reboots in about 3 to 4 years with a 30-something actor and the next film is a back to basics mission-based plot with minimal "peeling back the emotional layers". Sort of palette cleanser after the emotional roller coaster of the Craig years. If they try and continue the story they'll be accused of a cop out with NTTD's ending. If they try to go deep and dark again, they'll be accused of repetition (and I doubt the direct comparisons to Craig's tenure will be favorable). Everyone from the past 5 films will be recast. And as much as I'd love a 1950s period film, I doubt they'll go this route. Locking themselves into one film "style" robs them of the ability to adapt to changing audience tastes from film to film, which has always been a franchise strength. Basically, I see a TLD or GE type of movie on the horizon.
I just started a thread on the subject in the JB films sub-forum. You're welcome to join.
Lets say genies were real and I could have anything I wish for. I would like to see the next Bond timeline take place in the 1960s. M, Q, and Moneypenny are played by Bernard Lee, Desmond Llewelyn, and Lois Maxwell somehow digitally removed from previous Bond films and reinserted into this one using CGI magic. (Or perhaps they are new actors where you deep fake the original actors on their faces.) Quentin Tarantino always wanted to direct a Bond film in the 1960s, so we finally have him take a crack at it. Whoever plays Bond will be playing the character from the Connery to Brosnan era.
I kind of wish we didn't have to reboot again though. I'm going to miss the new cast we have for MI6 and I wish a new Bond actor didn't mean we had to recast all those roles.
I'm with you on the era..... But a full reboot back to the (cue Judi Dench quote, "God I miss the cold war") 60's would have so much potential.. Break away from all the current / late Mission Impossible / Bourne films... Give something nostalgic to Bond fans but with modern film making technology and ability... And there's so much potential for the supporting cast. Go with an older frumpier M.. a Jim Broadbent say... Take the character of Moneypenny back to the concept she's a few years older than Bond and the attraction is simply more of a coy "never going to happen" banter.. That original relationship was more Bond playing into the wishful flirtation of a coworker that won't cross that line in real life - so there's an innocent playfulness to it.... A Michael B Jordan as Felix.. Cumberbatch would be a brilliant Q.. anyway... again.. all wishful thinking as well.... but a reboot to that era would be ideal...
A reboot det in the 50s or 60s would be interesting to me as a Bond fan, but I really doubt it'll happen. What I absolutely don't want is deepfake Bond movies with fake performances made in a computer to simulate dead actors. It's not what I want for the Bond series or cinema in general. It's a helpful tool if an actor dies while making a movie or some other special circumstances, but I don't want movies based on that technology.
I would love the see that as well! I wish EON would loosen up a little and allow a miniseries done in that style, exploring the tone and themes of the novels in more depth. I'm just being pragmatic about them committing to a feature film in that style. Done right it could be brilliant. But it would require deft hands to do it right and sustain it over several movies. And if it fails it really would be a franchise killer. I just don't think they'd take the risk.
A Bond mini-series set in that period is probably the best solution if they're going to do more than the Bond movie series. People wouldn't mix it up with the movies and it wouldn't have any effect on each others plot. A series det in the modern world would require some of the movie actors to take part and The plots would influenced each other. The TV series could focus more on what happens in London and it would be more of a thriller. That would give the series more of a seperate identity and cut cost.
Another solution is an animated series that's closer to Fleming's stories than the movies are.
Count me in as someone who’d love to see a period accurate 1950s Bond.
But the economics of contemporary moviemaking make this unlikely at best. Eon’s focus on making Bond films worldwide blockbusters (financed in part by product placements and other partnerships) dictates and constrains their creative decisions. I would argue that Eon’s need to satisfy so many special interests and earn a billion dollars a pop is what sabotages the actual movies.
Yeah…. The Product Placement wouldn’t work.. which - as you allude to - is a shame for storytelling potential..
But if they focused more on the domestic side (office, home life) and made the missions more thrilleresque the budget wouldn't be that large. "Agent Carter" was set in the 50's. Alias had international missions all the time, bit used CGI, stock establishing shots, good sets and good local location work to pull it off. Even NTTD used Scotland to stand in for Norway and there are lots of other examples from the movie series. The series could also use one famous actor to play M and use fresh talent for the other regulars. That cuts cost too
I'm beginning to have a theory that Bond may have made it but is presumed dead which explains Daniel Craig's exit? So that in a few Years time when the next film is released with a new actor in the role? Who knows?
I realise this is fanciful and highly unlikely but as they tied up so many loose ends in the film, referenced and nodded to so many of the earlier films and Fleming's books I'd be happier if that was it. All done. Bond is over. Dead - and the franchise closes.For me, that is the best scenario and I would be really impressed.
As that's pretty unlikely I can't see how any film set after this one can have any credibility really.
While I disagree with you, DB6 makes me think of something: can anyone mention major cultural figures who die, but are brought back successfully in sequels? Other than the original JC, that is .... 😁
Terminator
True, he litterally rebooted. So far we have the son of God and a cyborg. Can we think of any human examples?
Well, Eon's exclusivity with the character ends in 2034, as that will be 70 years after Fleming's death. After that, Eon will retain their 007 trademark logo, and the theme song, etc., but anyone will be able to make a Bond film, as they might a Tarzan or a Sherlock Holmes. This gives Eon time for one more actor's longish tenure, so I believe Barbara will wait a year or two, but will get busy on whatever they decide to do with the character, and make hay while the sun shines.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Or sell up while the franchise is still worth money.
Certainly a possibility. That would surprise me, but we're in a world of surprises.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Many series have been rebooted, when the past events of one don’t affect the events of another. How is Bond dying in one continuity any different than Bond marrying Tracy in another? Craig’s Bond didn’t marry Tracy. He wouldn’t have still been obsessed with Vesper at the start of NTTD if he had dealt with Tracy’s death. So Bond could have died in Die Another Day and still have been rebooted just the same in Casino Royale. Bond’s death is no different than any other event where a reboot is concerned.
I would understand that a lot of people won’t get Bond coming back in a reboot because a lot of people didn’t get the Casino Royale reboot. People make up all kinds of reasons to help themselves understand the changes in the Bond series. They try to fit the original timeline into the Craig films. They convince themselves that the codename theory is a thing. They’re not satisfied with simple explanations, particularly the one that the Bond series was always careless about continuity.
Even if Craig’s Bond survived, there would still need to be a reboot. It would be impossible to cast an actor who is 15 years younger and continue Craig’s story. It wouldn’t make any more sense if he had survived. But it doesn’t mean Bond can’t be rebooted to tell new stories.
Exactly. They’ll just start off as Dr No and every other non Craig film did. Bond going off on a self contained mission with no connection to the Craig/Bond films.
One of the issues with the Craig films was that everything was linked together. No need to bring in a codename theory for it to 'make sense'; we accept that in a franchise which is more than fifty years old, different actors will need to play the character. In Harry Potter films, when Richard Harris died they didn't make Michael Gambon an alternative universe Dumbledore. The audience just accepted that a new actor had to play the role and got on with things.
Just to be clear - I like the nods and references to the whole Bond universe; I don't see it 'making sense' beyond acknowledging that universe. I've been alive through every Bond actors tenure and am more than happy for them to be renewed - wouldn't be feasible otherwise - same as Dr Who and every other long running character. I don't think they will stop here - it's way too successful and too much of an institution - I juts had a moment when I thought 'wow, that would be quite something'
Exactly. As it should be.
And they won’t do a period piece, at least not for the cinema. One of the big takeaways of the NTTD box office is going to be how the Bond audience is skewing even older than it used to. They won’t want to do anything to exacerbate that trend even further, which is precisely what a period film would do. Instead, they’ll cast someone in their late 20s or early 30s—a non-white if they can find someone who tests well-enough with their core demographic.
I could see a period piece on Amazon Prime, inspired by but not necessarily faithful to the world of Fleming’s Bond. It could work in the right hands, but it could also be a disaster.
He's dead, dude.
Yeah, they could do that, but how awful and disrespectful (and classless) would that be?