It wouldn’t make sense to bring him back in this timeline. I don’t like reboots, but now that what happened happened, a reboot is the only way forward.
It only has to make sense commercially. If No Time to Die fares poorly at the box office -- and it's looking like it will have to make $800-$900 million just to break even -- and there's no one viable on deck to take over the lead role in a few years, they may have to come up with something to recoup costs. That could well be a Daniel Craig Bond film with a lower budget. The writers would have to come up with a reason for how he survives, but that wouldn't be hard to do.
Of course, it also depends on how whatever studio that owns Bond at that point is doing -- if they're flush with money, it may not matter. But if they're hurting, too, then a Bond movie with wheels at the box office would be in order. And Daniel Craig announcing his return to the franchise might be exactly what's needed to get people excited. Then, after that film does well, recoups costs, and puts EON or whoever in a strong financial position, they can take a risk with a new actor in the role.
There's certainly no reason they have to go that direction, but the general public hasn't been this interested with Bond since the Connery days. And we know what bringing Connery back for one more (well, two if you count NSNA) did.
Does anyone know the exact budget for NTTD.? I'm stunned to hear it cost over $800m. I know there was a lot of delays which ballooned interest payments etc, but even so. I'm just thinking, how can they make a film look so ordinary and spend all that cash? I don't even remember any flashy effects.
Back to topic. I can't see Craig returning. IMO he's starting to look a little frayed at the edges anyway.
Given how NTTD ends, I would go for a comprehensive reboot. New Bond, new Scooby Gang, new writers. No mention of CraigBond. I'm not even averse to a new "arc" but I'd prefer not.
If I had my choice, I'd look to the continuation novels, but I suspect EoN and Amazon won't do that.
Asp9mmOver the Hills and Far Away.Posts: 7,535MI6 Agent
edited October 2021
It didn’t cost anywhere near that much to make. But they had to pay £millions a week to insure it over the pandemic.
My thoughts exactly. Although most of the reviews of NTTD have been positive, a number of hit the same note: Bond is exhausted as a character. The Cold War culture that birthed him is long dead. He has no relevance to modern life, etc.
Eon will reboot, tweaking the character in a way calculated to appeal to Gen Z and Millennials. But they won't throw the formula out entirely because Bond is still a highly profitable franchise with global appeal.
IMO the stakes are higher for Eon now than they were before CR. It's no wonder they wanted to hold onto Craig.
Barbara and Mike certainly are not getting any younger, and I have no if anyone else from the family is interested in taking over the helm?
Unfortunately, if EON stops, they could sell "the franchise" for big bucks to someone like Disney (god forbid).
Have been a Bond fan since I saw OHMSS (3 straight showings in the theatre) upon initial release as a wee lad. To this day, routinely spin my John Barry discs and have read ALL of the books.
Perhaps, it is the old man in me, by maybe, just maybe it is time to stop.
I love ya Chevarian, but I have to disagree on a couple points. Eon has gone through plenty of crisis before. By the fifth film, the franchise was already a huge money maker. And then their big star quits, to be replaced by an actor that only lasts one movie (which also ended on a downer). Cheery times, more or less, through the Moore years. Dalton underperforming. And then Brosnan the savior. But by that time the media (and M) was already taking about Bond being a relic of the cold war. And now we're hearing it all again with Craig's final film. It's been the same story for almost 3 decades now: Bond needs to change, Bond should be black/gay/female to make the character relevant, "we're not Bond Girls, we're Bond women", the character and the franchise have run out of ideas. Maybe this time it seems more intense because social media and the internet in general are amplifying those messages more than ever before. But the messages themselves have been around for what seems like forever.
I think a look at some simple facts would show Eon is actually in a pretty good place right now. They've just finished the run of a very popular Bond. His last film has been well received critically and by the general movie goers (if the 88% audience rating score on Rotten Tomatoes is to be believed). NTTD has to make a lot of money to break even. But even if it doesn't (and it probably won't), any financial problems can be blamed on the COVID situation so the Bond Brand doesn't look too tarnished. And they'll still have streaming and DVD revenue to add in. Amazon has deep pockets to help with future promotion and distribution. Plus brands once again lined up to be part of the magic of Bond, no doubt paying a hefty sum for the privilege in most cases. No reason to think they won't do so again. Let's not forget that once all the noise around NTTD dies down, the Eon marketing machine will once again kick into gear with the hunt for the new Bond, which will keep them in the spotlight.
As for what comes next, I know what I'd like to see. But Eon has always charted their own course, alienating some fans while appeasing others and gaining some new fans in the process. IMHO, we can only be 100% sure of one thing: whatever they decide for the future won't be popular with everyone and they'll be lots of armchair quarterbacking 😁
TL;DR: Eon has gone through situations like this many times before and they're old hands at managing it. I'm sure Babs and Michael are sleeping just fine.
Estimates are in the $200-$300 million range. The rule is to double that (or more) to including marketing. NTTD is also several years late to debut, so there may be debt service on costs. Big studios often shuffle money around, attaching losses for one film to others. Or, a slow performing film may recoup losses from a more successful one later. It’s not about the artistry or reviews but how much profit and loss incurs.
If I had to guess, another hard reboot would be in order, with a completely new cast,
What I wouldn't mind personally would be a retro Bond series on Amazon with the following:
It would take place from after WW II through the 50's. This would be uncharted cinematic territory for Bond and could also avoid comparisons with the first 5 Connery films.
The series should be very much "R-rated" and doing it as an Amazon series would give them much more freedom in that regard. An "R-rated" 50's Bond, in addition to having a bit more "bloody" license to kill would be free to smoke, drink, and womanize to his cold heart's content.
Amazon (and Netflix, etc) series tend to reach out across demographics better than theatrical releases.
Lot's of new plot lines; we have the "cold war", SMERSH, nuclear espionage, assassinations, and any other machinations of evil the writers can come up with relative to that era. EON could also examine the less bombastic, more grounded threats like drug smuggling or human trafficking.
A good dose of old fashioned spy craft and of course some cool retro "gadgets" along with a return of the Bentley or some other cool sports cars from that era
As far as casting, IMO, Tom Ellis would make a perfect 50's Bond
Well, that's my personal wish list at the moment that I am throwing out there ( which could change at any time ).
I couldn't disagree more on the Cold War culture. If you get interested in geopolitics, you can notice the global context of this first quarter-century is weirdlyreminiscent of what happened back to the eatly 1980s, with explicit tensions between the US and former or current communist nations (Russia, China and even North Korea in some way).
The Trump mandate and the way of dealing with issues like these in terms of diplomatic relationships can be seen as a modern version of the Reagan years, which leads me to the following question: what if the Cold War never really ended ? Isn't the current situation one of the consequences of some "hidden" mutations of the conflict over the past three decades ?
That's precisely why I consider it would have been much more interesting to get topics like this one in the last movie of the Craig era than building a whole plot on an umpteenthromance between Bond and a female character (OHMSS has already done it and a far better way IMHO). At least Broccoli, Wilson, Craig, Purvis and Wade could have imagined a story based on this including the romance/psychological part if it was so meaningful to them from a narrative point of view. I do believe international issues and espionage are not obsolete concepts, and saying Craig's Bond doesn't seem very focused on these fields is putting it mildly.
I'm curious to know what Danny Boyle had in mind plotwise. I don't know if it would have been satisfying but I really want to learn what his script contained.
I've already expressed what I think will happen with the character of Bond. But I was thinking today and an idea came to mind: a Paloma and Nomi miniseries. I think it would be great fun watching them team up for a mission (with the inevitable caveat "if done right"). It would be a way for EON to expand the Bond universe, without relying on the the main character and "diluting his brand". It could have that Bond feel and tone, but since Paloma and Nomi are so different to Bond, it would be a fresh take on that world of espionage. You could have brief cameos from Q, Moneypenny, Tanner, M and even bring back a character like Camille for a more expanded role.
Sort of Falcon and the Winter Soldier meets Alias.
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.
In the old time movie serials, they would end each episode with a seemingly inescapable death scene, thatd be the "cliffhanger", and in the next episode we'd see how the hero survives. We all know that, but the thing is the way they usually did that was with a narrative cheat. The next episode would usually begin by showing the final scene of the previous episode all over again, but this time with a few different camera angles revealing details they concealed from us the first time, and these newly revealed details would be how our hero escapes.
I call this unfair storytelling, I prefer when all the information is given to the viewer and its a challenge to the viewer to guess how its all going to fit together (in a good story there should be no irrelevant details anyway). But this kind of escape is longstanding cinematic precedent.
So I'm sure Gassy like myself and all other who've read their Fleming were watching for the weather balloon on top of Safin's headquarters. As Bond was waiting for the missiles to reign down, it was a fairly wide shot showing the edges of the roof to either side. There was no weather balloon, not even one they could have concealed from the viewer. If there was a weather balloon cropped just outside the frame, it was well beyond Bond's reach. And we saw the first missile explode just about a metre behind his right shoulder while he was still standing there.
So if they do reveal to us a previously unseen means of escape, it wont be the weather balloon, itll have to be something else. What else could it be?
for those of you who havent read their Fleming, here's Fay Dalton's illustration of the scene from the recent Folio Edition
Having Bond survive would indeed present a problem now we know he has a family. Either he would have to be like Mr Incredible, sharing his future adventures with wife and kids, or else he'd be a deadbeat dad never acknowledging them again. Of course this plot gives him an out, as Safin's virus means his proximity would kill them. So itd be one of those situations where the hero has a family out there he can never see again, which is I think the situation in the Mission Impossible movies.
_____________________
I dont buy the argument that a period film would attract a smaller audience. People dont stay away from Indiana Jones movies because theyre set in olden days do they? The product placement argument makes more sense, but frankly the product placement is one of the most objectionable aspects of these Bond movies and I'd be very happy if they quit being glorified commercials for watches and range rovers.
_____________________
somewhere upthread one poster argues the Bond fantasy is irrelevant in a post Cold War world. Another correctly responds the tensions between Russia and the West have been referred to as a new Cold War, and in our current geopolitical climate (declining American power, rise of new hostile powers both State and nonState) the spy fantasy may be more relevant than it has been in decades.
Only thing is, much of current espionage seems to be cyberhacking, which is boring visually, exactly as seen in recent Bond films. But even in vintage SpyMania the espionage was hardly realistic, so why should new spy films have to be realistic? Lets go back to gadgets and rubber masks and everybody hanging round the Riviera in fancy hotels. it works in rival spyfranchises like Kingsmen, so why does the Bond series suddenly need to be depicting realworld espionage?
_____________________
@Number24 asked for an example of a popculture hero who came back from the dead. The correct answer is Sherlock Holmes, who Doyle wrote a death scene for in 1893. then he changed his mind a decade later and wrote another story explaining how Holmes survived. Its probably been done 1000s of times since.
In the comics its a cliche that they will kill off a character like Superman, get lots of mainstream publicity that bumps sales for a few months, then inevitably find a way to bring the character back because the trademark is too valuable to give up. No comic book character ever really dies, the Death Scene story is done for the mainstream marketing potential. EON is benefitting from this cynical ploy as we speak.
Some James Bond fans (guilty as charged) sit through the end titles waiting for the inevitable "James Bond will return" line to appear. I wonder how many of us waited this time UNSURE if it would appear or not, breathed a sigh of relief, then started wondering how the hell they would manage it.
We've never talked about the Fay Dalton illustrations much. I may start a thread in the Literary section image-linking to as many of them as I can find online, as they should be better known. What you think @Barbel ? any issue with copyright?
I cant afford these expensive editions myself, but whenever a new one comes out I try to Save as many JPGs as I can find from the various sites promoting them. They've just announced ...Golden Gun, and only have the two volumes of short stories left.
Please ignore the above quote. I wanted to reply to it days ago, but decided against it. Now it seems I can't remove it.
I think using Nomi, Paloma, the current Scooby Gang and even feepfake CraigBond (Craig would never agree to it) will probably delute the brand. Making a TV-series set in the 50's or 60's with Bond as the central character is in my opinion a better solution. This could be done as a high-end animated series or sort of Mad Men meets Alias. Either way this solution sets it apart from the Bond movies and any current TV-series I can think of. If well done it'll strengthen the brand instead of deluting it and the two writing teams won't make problems for each other.
Ha, I have that issue of Superman. My father bought it for me while I was in school.
In terms of bringing Bond back, it would be relatively easy to do. The simplest explanation would just be showing him being thrown into the ocean by the explosion. More complicated explanations could be a trap door, not all the bombs had warheads, some sort of hologram, Bond was not just injected with smart blood but something else to keep him alive, etc. It's fiction, so creating something is easy; convincing audiences to accept it would be tougher. To me, the screen went white for that reason -- to give them the option. But it's been done before in the Bond series.
They never explained exactly how Bond became a bullet-riddled corpse in You Only Live Twice, given he was naked. Did the submachineguns shoot paint? If so, how did they make the bullet holes? Were those just squibs? If Bond put fake blood on himself, where was it hidden? We'll have to assume his paramour for the evening was in on the plot -- but if not, how'd he fool her?
The point is, we didn't have to have a clear explanation. Occam's Razor: We've been shown Q gadgets and deception so often, we can accept they did it somehow because it was done.
In the case of No Time to Die, a more complete explanation would likely need to be given, but it's not impossible. Just requires imagination.
But much of the point of killing Bond in that way was most likely to remove all doubt he's dead. If they find some "he survived!" solution for Bond26 it will look like the biggest cheat in the history of the series and take away the emotional impact of NTTD. There's only one realistic solution now, a re-boot.
I agree @Number24 but it is kind of fun to think up possible explanations how he could survive.
I was thinking maybe the roof could collapse, and he falls into one of those mysterious but cool-looking chemical pools, only instead of being acidic, this chemical pool is filled with some sort of life enhancing super-healing chemical.
I don't think it could be one of Q's gadgets that saves him, because Q was at the memorial in M's office and didn't say anything. But maybe that watch also had a site-to-site transporter they didn't tell the audience about.
There was some talk of Sherlock Holmes above, and Conan Doyle bringing him back from the dead. However, one important element was not discussed and I'd like to think that Eon have this in mind.
Conan Doyle didn't bring Holmes back from the dead.... at first. After pressure, he wrote another Holmes story, called "The Hound Of The Baskervilles". Now, you may have heard of that one- in fact, I'd be surprised if you hadn't. It sold phenomenally, still does to this day, and has been filmed many times.
So, what did Conan Doyle do? He set this story prior to "The Final Problem", ie before Holmes "died". Problem solved- the public got the new Holmes story they had been clamouring for, without Holmes having to be resurrected. This meant that when Holmes did come back from the dead in "The Empty House" their appetites had been at least partially satisfied.
So... BB and MGW persuade Craig to return for Bond26 (if they haven't already), but set the story prior to NTTD. This takes some of the pressure off Bond27, which still has to explain how he's back but with just a shade less attention being centred on it- more attention being given to the new actor playing Bond.
I think that's entirely possible, too, though Craig's face has aged considerably since Casino Royale. Though they could use software to make him look younger, the film would likely have to be set prior to Spectre since in the years since, Bond was off the grid, or at least that's how I took it. Perhaps he returned to the Secret Service for a mission or two before disappearing?
Comments
It wouldn’t make sense to bring him back in this timeline. I don’t like reboots, but now that what happened happened, a reboot is the only way forward.
It only has to make sense commercially. If No Time to Die fares poorly at the box office -- and it's looking like it will have to make $800-$900 million just to break even -- and there's no one viable on deck to take over the lead role in a few years, they may have to come up with something to recoup costs. That could well be a Daniel Craig Bond film with a lower budget. The writers would have to come up with a reason for how he survives, but that wouldn't be hard to do.
Of course, it also depends on how whatever studio that owns Bond at that point is doing -- if they're flush with money, it may not matter. But if they're hurting, too, then a Bond movie with wheels at the box office would be in order. And Daniel Craig announcing his return to the franchise might be exactly what's needed to get people excited. Then, after that film does well, recoups costs, and puts EON or whoever in a strong financial position, they can take a risk with a new actor in the role.
There's certainly no reason they have to go that direction, but the general public hasn't been this interested with Bond since the Connery days. And we know what bringing Connery back for one more (well, two if you count NSNA) did.
Does anyone know the exact budget for NTTD.? I'm stunned to hear it cost over $800m. I know there was a lot of delays which ballooned interest payments etc, but even so. I'm just thinking, how can they make a film look so ordinary and spend all that cash? I don't even remember any flashy effects.
Back to topic. I can't see Craig returning. IMO he's starting to look a little frayed at the edges anyway.
Given how NTTD ends, I would go for a comprehensive reboot. New Bond, new Scooby Gang, new writers. No mention of CraigBond. I'm not even averse to a new "arc" but I'd prefer not.
If I had my choice, I'd look to the continuation novels, but I suspect EoN and Amazon won't do that.
It didn’t cost anywhere near that much to make. But they had to pay £millions a week to insure it over the pandemic.
My thoughts exactly. Although most of the reviews of NTTD have been positive, a number of hit the same note: Bond is exhausted as a character. The Cold War culture that birthed him is long dead. He has no relevance to modern life, etc.
Eon will reboot, tweaking the character in a way calculated to appeal to Gen Z and Millennials. But they won't throw the formula out entirely because Bond is still a highly profitable franchise with global appeal.
IMO the stakes are higher for Eon now than they were before CR. It's no wonder they wanted to hold onto Craig.
Are they going to continue?
Barbara and Mike certainly are not getting any younger, and I have no if anyone else from the family is interested in taking over the helm?
Unfortunately, if EON stops, they could sell "the franchise" for big bucks to someone like Disney (god forbid).
Have been a Bond fan since I saw OHMSS (3 straight showings in the theatre) upon initial release as a wee lad. To this day, routinely spin my John Barry discs and have read ALL of the books.
Perhaps, it is the old man in me, by maybe, just maybe it is time to stop.
I love ya Chevarian, but I have to disagree on a couple points. Eon has gone through plenty of crisis before. By the fifth film, the franchise was already a huge money maker. And then their big star quits, to be replaced by an actor that only lasts one movie (which also ended on a downer). Cheery times, more or less, through the Moore years. Dalton underperforming. And then Brosnan the savior. But by that time the media (and M) was already taking about Bond being a relic of the cold war. And now we're hearing it all again with Craig's final film. It's been the same story for almost 3 decades now: Bond needs to change, Bond should be black/gay/female to make the character relevant, "we're not Bond Girls, we're Bond women", the character and the franchise have run out of ideas. Maybe this time it seems more intense because social media and the internet in general are amplifying those messages more than ever before. But the messages themselves have been around for what seems like forever.
I think a look at some simple facts would show Eon is actually in a pretty good place right now. They've just finished the run of a very popular Bond. His last film has been well received critically and by the general movie goers (if the 88% audience rating score on Rotten Tomatoes is to be believed). NTTD has to make a lot of money to break even. But even if it doesn't (and it probably won't), any financial problems can be blamed on the COVID situation so the Bond Brand doesn't look too tarnished. And they'll still have streaming and DVD revenue to add in. Amazon has deep pockets to help with future promotion and distribution. Plus brands once again lined up to be part of the magic of Bond, no doubt paying a hefty sum for the privilege in most cases. No reason to think they won't do so again. Let's not forget that once all the noise around NTTD dies down, the Eon marketing machine will once again kick into gear with the hunt for the new Bond, which will keep them in the spotlight.
As for what comes next, I know what I'd like to see. But Eon has always charted their own course, alienating some fans while appeasing others and gaining some new fans in the process. IMHO, we can only be 100% sure of one thing: whatever they decide for the future won't be popular with everyone and they'll be lots of armchair quarterbacking 😁
TL;DR: Eon has gone through situations like this many times before and they're old hands at managing it. I'm sure Babs and Michael are sleeping just fine.
Cheers!
Estimates are in the $200-$300 million range. The rule is to double that (or more) to including marketing. NTTD is also several years late to debut, so there may be debt service on costs. Big studios often shuffle money around, attaching losses for one film to others. Or, a slow performing film may recoup losses from a more successful one later. It’s not about the artistry or reviews but how much profit and loss incurs.
Ok, @canoe2, you've reassured me!
Besides it's easy to sleep well when your pillows are stuffed with cash.
I have no idea what EON will do at this point.
If I had to guess, another hard reboot would be in order, with a completely new cast,
What I wouldn't mind personally would be a retro Bond series on Amazon with the following:
I couldn't disagree more on the Cold War culture. If you get interested in geopolitics, you can notice the global context of this first quarter-century is weirdly reminiscent of what happened back to the eatly 1980s, with explicit tensions between the US and former or current communist nations (Russia, China and even North Korea in some way).
The Trump mandate and the way of dealing with issues like these in terms of diplomatic relationships can be seen as a modern version of the Reagan years, which leads me to the following question: what if the Cold War never really ended ? Isn't the current situation one of the consequences of some "hidden" mutations of the conflict over the past three decades ?
That's precisely why I consider it would have been much more interesting to get topics like this one in the last movie of the Craig era than building a whole plot on an umpteenth romance between Bond and a female character (OHMSS has already done it and a far better way IMHO). At least Broccoli, Wilson, Craig, Purvis and Wade could have imagined a story based on this including the romance/psychological part if it was so meaningful to them from a narrative point of view. I do believe international issues and espionage are not obsolete concepts, and saying Craig's Bond doesn't seem very focused on these fields is putting it mildly.
I'm curious to know what Danny Boyle had in mind plotwise. I don't know if it would have been satisfying but I really want to learn what his script contained.
I've already expressed what I think will happen with the character of Bond. But I was thinking today and an idea came to mind: a Paloma and Nomi miniseries. I think it would be great fun watching them team up for a mission (with the inevitable caveat "if done right"). It would be a way for EON to expand the Bond universe, without relying on the the main character and "diluting his brand". It could have that Bond feel and tone, but since Paloma and Nomi are so different to Bond, it would be a fresh take on that world of espionage. You could have brief cameos from Q, Moneypenny, Tanner, M and even bring back a character like Camille for a more expanded role.
Sort of Falcon and the Winter Soldier meets Alias.
Sign me up.
I'd love them to coax Craig back for one more and use CGI/Deepfake to set it between QoS and SF
By biggest issue with the Craig films is that we go from newbie agent to over the hill vet without seeing him in his prime
yeah I would love a Nomi miniseries (no reason Paloma couldn't be used either)
Could be set between Spectre and NTTD
Gassy Man said:
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.
In the old time movie serials, they would end each episode with a seemingly inescapable death scene, thatd be the "cliffhanger", and in the next episode we'd see how the hero survives. We all know that, but the thing is the way they usually did that was with a narrative cheat. The next episode would usually begin by showing the final scene of the previous episode all over again, but this time with a few different camera angles revealing details they concealed from us the first time, and these newly revealed details would be how our hero escapes.
I call this unfair storytelling, I prefer when all the information is given to the viewer and its a challenge to the viewer to guess how its all going to fit together (in a good story there should be no irrelevant details anyway). But this kind of escape is longstanding cinematic precedent.
So I'm sure Gassy like myself and all other who've read their Fleming were watching for the weather balloon on top of Safin's headquarters. As Bond was waiting for the missiles to reign down, it was a fairly wide shot showing the edges of the roof to either side. There was no weather balloon, not even one they could have concealed from the viewer. If there was a weather balloon cropped just outside the frame, it was well beyond Bond's reach. And we saw the first missile explode just about a metre behind his right shoulder while he was still standing there.
So if they do reveal to us a previously unseen means of escape, it wont be the weather balloon, itll have to be something else. What else could it be?
for those of you who havent read their Fleming, here's Fay Dalton's illustration of the scene from the recent Folio Edition
Having Bond survive would indeed present a problem now we know he has a family. Either he would have to be like Mr Incredible, sharing his future adventures with wife and kids, or else he'd be a deadbeat dad never acknowledging them again. Of course this plot gives him an out, as Safin's virus means his proximity would kill them. So itd be one of those situations where the hero has a family out there he can never see again, which is I think the situation in the Mission Impossible movies.
_____________________
I dont buy the argument that a period film would attract a smaller audience. People dont stay away from Indiana Jones movies because theyre set in olden days do they? The product placement argument makes more sense, but frankly the product placement is one of the most objectionable aspects of these Bond movies and I'd be very happy if they quit being glorified commercials for watches and range rovers.
_____________________
somewhere upthread one poster argues the Bond fantasy is irrelevant in a post Cold War world. Another correctly responds the tensions between Russia and the West have been referred to as a new Cold War, and in our current geopolitical climate (declining American power, rise of new hostile powers both State and nonState) the spy fantasy may be more relevant than it has been in decades.
Only thing is, much of current espionage seems to be cyberhacking, which is boring visually, exactly as seen in recent Bond films. But even in vintage SpyMania the espionage was hardly realistic, so why should new spy films have to be realistic? Lets go back to gadgets and rubber masks and everybody hanging round the Riviera in fancy hotels. it works in rival spyfranchises like Kingsmen, so why does the Bond series suddenly need to be depicting realworld espionage?
_____________________
@Number24 asked for an example of a popculture hero who came back from the dead. The correct answer is Sherlock Holmes, who Doyle wrote a death scene for in 1893. then he changed his mind a decade later and wrote another story explaining how Holmes survived. Its probably been done 1000s of times since.
In the comics its a cliche that they will kill off a character like Superman, get lots of mainstream publicity that bumps sales for a few months, then inevitably find a way to bring the character back because the trademark is too valuable to give up. No comic book character ever really dies, the Death Scene story is done for the mainstream marketing potential. EON is benefitting from this cynical ploy as we speak.
Sidney Paget's illustration from The Final Problem, as published in The Strand magazine December 1893
cover of the notorious Superman 75, January 1993
Some James Bond fans (guilty as charged) sit through the end titles waiting for the inevitable "James Bond will return" line to appear. I wonder how many of us waited this time UNSURE if it would appear or not, breathed a sigh of relief, then started wondering how the hell they would manage it.
That Dalton illustration is fabulous.
We've never talked about the Fay Dalton illustrations much. I may start a thread in the Literary section image-linking to as many of them as I can find online, as they should be better known. What you think @Barbel ? any issue with copyright?
I cant afford these expensive editions myself, but whenever a new one comes out I try to Save as many JPGs as I can find from the various sites promoting them. They've just announced ...Golden Gun, and only have the two volumes of short stories left.
Seriously, I don't know. Best not to take the chance, I think.
Please ignore the above quote. I wanted to reply to it days ago, but decided against it. Now it seems I can't remove it.
I think using Nomi, Paloma, the current Scooby Gang and even feepfake CraigBond (Craig would never agree to it) will probably delute the brand. Making a TV-series set in the 50's or 60's with Bond as the central character is in my opinion a better solution. This could be done as a high-end animated series or sort of Mad Men meets Alias. Either way this solution sets it apart from the Bond movies and any current TV-series I can think of. If well done it'll strengthen the brand instead of deluting it and the two writing teams won't make problems for each other.
Ha, I have that issue of Superman. My father bought it for me while I was in school.
In terms of bringing Bond back, it would be relatively easy to do. The simplest explanation would just be showing him being thrown into the ocean by the explosion. More complicated explanations could be a trap door, not all the bombs had warheads, some sort of hologram, Bond was not just injected with smart blood but something else to keep him alive, etc. It's fiction, so creating something is easy; convincing audiences to accept it would be tougher. To me, the screen went white for that reason -- to give them the option. But it's been done before in the Bond series.
They never explained exactly how Bond became a bullet-riddled corpse in You Only Live Twice, given he was naked. Did the submachineguns shoot paint? If so, how did they make the bullet holes? Were those just squibs? If Bond put fake blood on himself, where was it hidden? We'll have to assume his paramour for the evening was in on the plot -- but if not, how'd he fool her?
The point is, we didn't have to have a clear explanation. Occam's Razor: We've been shown Q gadgets and deception so often, we can accept they did it somehow because it was done.
In the case of No Time to Die, a more complete explanation would likely need to be given, but it's not impossible. Just requires imagination.
But much of the point of killing Bond in that way was most likely to remove all doubt he's dead. If they find some "he survived!" solution for Bond26 it will look like the biggest cheat in the history of the series and take away the emotional impact of NTTD. There's only one realistic solution now, a re-boot.
I agree @Number24 but it is kind of fun to think up possible explanations how he could survive.
I was thinking maybe the roof could collapse, and he falls into one of those mysterious but cool-looking chemical pools, only instead of being acidic, this chemical pool is filled with some sort of life enhancing super-healing chemical.
I don't think it could be one of Q's gadgets that saves him, because Q was at the memorial in M's office and didn't say anything. But maybe that watch also had a site-to-site transporter they didn't tell the audience about.
That's a perfectly doable solution.
There was some talk of Sherlock Holmes above, and Conan Doyle bringing him back from the dead. However, one important element was not discussed and I'd like to think that Eon have this in mind.
Conan Doyle didn't bring Holmes back from the dead.... at first. After pressure, he wrote another Holmes story, called "The Hound Of The Baskervilles". Now, you may have heard of that one- in fact, I'd be surprised if you hadn't. It sold phenomenally, still does to this day, and has been filmed many times.
So, what did Conan Doyle do? He set this story prior to "The Final Problem", ie before Holmes "died". Problem solved- the public got the new Holmes story they had been clamouring for, without Holmes having to be resurrected. This meant that when Holmes did come back from the dead in "The Empty House" their appetites had been at least partially satisfied.
So... BB and MGW persuade Craig to return for Bond26 (if they haven't already), but set the story prior to NTTD. This takes some of the pressure off Bond27, which still has to explain how he's back but with just a shade less attention being centred on it- more attention being given to the new actor playing Bond.
I think that's entirely possible, too, though Craig's face has aged considerably since Casino Royale. Though they could use software to make him look younger, the film would likely have to be set prior to Spectre since in the years since, Bond was off the grid, or at least that's how I took it. Perhaps he returned to the Secret Service for a mission or two before disappearing?
Oh, I'm sure a little problem like that is not beyond the powers of writers of the calibre of Purvis & Wade.