I think this is the most depressing thread I've ever read on here..
If it's true that BB and MGW do want to kill off Bond then it's obvious they've really lost interest and lost the plot and DC is on an ego trip. If they want to sell up, just leave it cleverly open, with the audience left to make up their own minds. Why actually kill him off?! ffs X-(
Can somebody please cheer me up..
Fleming killed Bond and brought him back. I'd be okay with Bond dying in the way he was killed in From Russia with Love. Ambiguous death is the way to go, and it gets people talking.
The average cinema goer who makes up a vast majority of the Bond audience don't care who the production company is and most probably don't even know what EON is. It doesn't have the brand recognition of Pixar, for example.
And if EON kills Bond, the company they sell to will end up buying a dead character and they will have the added unnecessary hassle of convincing audiences of another reboot. As I said before, this is in a series where there is already loads of goodwill from audiences regarding the necessity to recast Bond every 10 years or so. This isn't like convincing people of a new actor playing Tony Stark.
Aside from praise from some corners of doing something new, I don't see what any benefit to EON from killing Bond. And doing something new isn't what makes a good Bond movie anyway.
This Friday, August 24th, there will be an emergency meeting with the film crew in London.
At this meeting, it will be announced when the rehearsals will resume (scheduled for September the 3rd) or filming will resume (scheduled for December the 3rd).
Are there any fres sources for this theory that's a little more credible than the Sun?
I think the story that the working title is Shatterhand and the Facebook message from.... Owen.... you know, I have problems remembering that name. Well, I think those are worth discussing more.
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,762Chief of Staff
In your opinion.
Care to tell us why it’s ‘stupid’ ?
Just my opinion. I'm not a fan of heroes being killed off. Whether it be Superman, Batman, James Bond. I personally wouldn't like to see a character I love killed off. And then brought 'back from the dead'. Also kind of been done recently too.
Bringing characters back from the dead is silly in any genre.
"Any of the opposition around..?"
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
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!"
^^ +1 {[]
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
My worry over the idea of killing Bond is if it comes once more from EON's irritating (imo) habit of bandwagon jumping which only works some of the time. As mentioned above, Moonraker was created as a reaction to Star Wars, flash forward 30 years and Eon reboots Bond with CR. Reacting to both Bourne and Batman. QoS doubled down on the Borne asthetic. Skyfall borrows from the Joker for the character of Silva. Spectre tried to jump on the overarching narrative conciet of the MCU. So has the death of bond been thought up because of the bucket loads of cash that Avengers: infinity war just made with it's downer ending, re-enforced by the public's readiness to accept Ben Affleck as Batman only a few years after the dark Knight rises own bait and switch death ending.
NB. I'm sure there are more examples of this that I can't currently call to mind but, to me at least, the Craig era seems to be the filmic equivalent of picking a fight with the biggest guy in prison on your first day inside. Making CR the successful sucker punch of this analogy and Spectre more punching an imovable object.
Good evening everyone, I'm a new member of the group. You'll apologize if my english is... shaken, but i'm not english.
I read the discussion and a couple of considerations came to my mind. I think Bond will die in... a fake death. It could the perfect closure of the Craig's era if they followed the story of OHMSS and YOLT novels. Who does remember the ending of YOLT novel? Maybe they want to make Bond disappear after the killing of the baddie (Blofeld, perhaps?) like Fleming wrote in YOLT... where Bond lost memory and appeared months later, after a brainwash. The story of YOLT novel has largely never been used in movies and it could be "new" material from which to take inspiration.
Now that they inadvertently spoiled the twist, they should just scrap it and rehire him. Otherwise Bond's death will come off as another "He's not Blofeld"
Maybe the 'kill off' idea is really the end of the novel YOLT? Something along those lines?
That said, it might make more sense to have had Blofeld come back in the last one, for just one film, if they were all going to sell up. Y'know, okay, we've got Blofeld, let's not spin Spectre out over several films, just shoehorn it in for Danny's last one...
Also explains the oddness of why it was a studio exec who vetoed the killing of Blofeld at the end of the movie, wanting to extend the character... While Mickey and Babs wanted to bow out and, perhaps like Broccoli in the FYEO pts, didn't mind bumping the character off almost as a two-fingered salute to anyone else taking over.
But how on earth Boyle got roped in to any of this, if true, is beyond me! Just spring it on the director eh? Of course, we don't really know what happened.
Good evening everyone, I'm a new member of the group. You'll apologize if my english is... shaken, but i'm not english.
I read the discussion and a couple of considerations came to my mind. I think Bond will die in... a fake death. It could the perfect closure of the Craig's era if they followed the story of OHMSS and YOLT novels. Who does remember the ending of YOLT novel? Maybe they want to make Bond disappear after the killing of the baddie (Blofeld, perhaps?) like Fleming wrote in YOLT... where Bond lost memory and appeared months later, after a brainwash. The story of YOLT novel has largely never been used in movies and it could be "new" material from which to take inspiration.
Great suggestion. I think that makes sense. Have Bond die an ambiguous death. No body found, no funeral. Kind of 'missing in action - presumed dead' ending. That way Craig and Eon get the death of Bond but is he dead? See, he may not be dead!
Yeah, I think that can work. I'm sure some fans will hate it but the average film goer won't be too bothered. Plus, the hype for Bond 26 will be huge. "How does Bond return? Is he really dead?"
Yeah, I think it has potential. Who knows, perhaps that was Boyle's idea? Bond dies in the story - (not really dead, just assumed to be dead) and the third act doesn't feature Bond? I know there was an item claiming Boyle hated the idea of Bond dying but perhaps the report was wrong. Perhaps Bond dying was Boyle/Hodge's great idea? Eon could use that idea but redo the rest of the story.
To me a lot of bond dying and how he does hinges on whether eon are selling up the franchise, I can well see eon properly killing off their bond, with DC giving his bond Oscar nomination performance in a long drawn out dramatic death scene. They then end Cubbys legacy and sell up leaving whoever buys the franchise to go their own direction with a new actor. After all if they do sell there won't be an "official" bond 26 as such. However if eon do make further Bond films then I would hope they would do a yolt type ending with bond not actually dying but being officially declared dead..... Even though they did that with skyfall and yolt.
“But it still behind Tom Cruise’s Mission: Impossible – Fallout, which earned another $8 million (-25%) in its fifth weekend for a $193.9m domestic total. It should pass $200m by Labor Day and thus zoom past the $195m cume of Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation. The $209m total of Ghost Protocol and the $215m (in 2000) total of Mission: Impossible II should get lapped in the next month.
“That will make Fallout Cruise’s biggest unadjusted domestic earner behind War of the Worlds ($235 million in 2005). Paramount/Viacom Inc.’s $180m sequel has earned $538m worldwide thus far. And it’ll open in China next weekend, where the last two Mission: Impossible movies both topped $100m. How well it holds on around the world and how well it performs in China will determine if it gets past $700m. But at this point, it’s more mission: difficult than mission: impossible.”
“But it still behind Tom Cruise’s Mission: Impossible – Fallout, which earned another $8 million (-25%) in its fifth weekend for a $193.9m domestic total. It should pass $200m by Labor Day and thus zoom past the $195m cume of Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation. The $209m total of Ghost Protocol and the $215m (in 2000) total of Mission: Impossible II should get lapped in the next month.
“That will make Fallout Cruise’s biggest unadjusted domestic earner behind War of the Worlds ($235 million in 2005). Paramount/Viacom Inc.’s $180m sequel has earned $538m worldwide thus far. And it’ll open in China next weekend, where the last two Mission: Impossible movies both topped $100m. How well it holds on around the world and how well it performs in China will determine if it gets past $700m. But at this point, it’s more mission: difficult than mission: impossible.”
A very good and well written post Cheverian, but what's it got to do with Danny Boyle and Bond?
“But it still behind Tom Cruise’s Mission: Impossible – Fallout, which earned another $8 million (-25%) in its fifth weekend for a $193.9m domestic total. It should pass $200m by Labor Day and thus zoom past the $195m cume of Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation. The $209m total of Ghost Protocol and the $215m (in 2000) total of Mission: Impossible II should get lapped in the next month.
“That will make Fallout Cruise’s biggest unadjusted domestic earner behind War of the Worlds ($235 million in 2005). Paramount/Viacom Inc.’s $180m sequel has earned $538m worldwide thus far. And it’ll open in China next weekend, where the last two Mission: Impossible movies both topped $100m. How well it holds on around the world and how well it performs in China will determine if it gets past $700m. But at this point, it’s more mission: difficult than mission: impossible.”
A very good and well written post Cheverian, but what's it got to do with Danny Boyle and Bond?
I was responding to Post 322 among others.
And I didn't write the quoted section of my post. It was part of the article I linked to on Forbes. Hence the use of quotations marks.
Well, .... there has been a bit of Fallout about D Boyle leaving
Bond 25
Can't say I ever seen any reports of MI6:Fallout being anything
Else than a big hit ? They do make a lot of money ........ not as
Much as Bond obviously, but still very successful.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
According to the James Bond International Fan Club, EON was searching for locations in Namibia. We don't know now if what, if anything from that script will be used. I do like the idea of shooting in Namibia. I've wanted Bond to shoot outside the standard area (places that can be reached within a few hours drive from the Mediteranian), and Namibia would fit. The country has the Kalahari desert, but if they just wanted a desert they would just film in Morroco or Tunisia. Namibia isn't Arab, but very much African with savannas, elephants and other exotic animals. We'll see if EON spreads their wing a bit when looking for locations...
Comments
If it's true that BB and MGW do want to kill off Bond then it's obvious they've really lost interest and lost the plot and DC is on an ego trip. If they want to sell up, just leave it cleverly open, with the audience left to make up their own minds. Why actually kill him off?! ffs X-(
Can somebody please cheer me up..
Because it neatly ties up Eon’s ownership.
It is really that neat though?
The average cinema goer who makes up a vast majority of the Bond audience don't care who the production company is and most probably don't even know what EON is. It doesn't have the brand recognition of Pixar, for example.
And if EON kills Bond, the company they sell to will end up buying a dead character and they will have the added unnecessary hassle of convincing audiences of another reboot. As I said before, this is in a series where there is already loads of goodwill from audiences regarding the necessity to recast Bond every 10 years or so. This isn't like convincing people of a new actor playing Tony Stark.
Aside from praise from some corners of doing something new, I don't see what any benefit to EON from killing Bond. And doing something new isn't what makes a good Bond movie anyway.
Have we heard anything from this emergency meeting?
Yes.
Having him walk off into the sunset or retiring would be neat. Actually killing him is just stupid.
I think the story that the working title is Shatterhand and the Facebook message from.... Owen.... you know, I have problems remembering that name. Well, I think those are worth discussing more.
It’s been done. Recently too.
In your opinion.
Care to tell us why it’s ‘stupid’ ?
Just my opinion. I'm not a fan of heroes being killed off. Whether it be Superman, Batman, James Bond. I personally wouldn't like to see a character I love killed off. And then brought 'back from the dead'. Also kind of been done recently too.
Bringing characters back from the dead is silly in any genre.
^^ +1 {[]
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
NB. I'm sure there are more examples of this that I can't currently call to mind but, to me at least, the Craig era seems to be the filmic equivalent of picking a fight with the biggest guy in prison on your first day inside. Making CR the successful sucker punch of this analogy and Spectre more punching an imovable object.
I read the discussion and a couple of considerations came to my mind. I think Bond will die in... a fake death. It could the perfect closure of the Craig's era if they followed the story of OHMSS and YOLT novels. Who does remember the ending of YOLT novel? Maybe they want to make Bond disappear after the killing of the baddie (Blofeld, perhaps?) like Fleming wrote in YOLT... where Bond lost memory and appeared months later, after a brainwash. The story of YOLT novel has largely never been used in movies and it could be "new" material from which to take inspiration.
I wonder if this is what it looked like.
Didn't he do that already at the end of Spectre? Oh no I forget he came back
That said, it might make more sense to have had Blofeld come back in the last one, for just one film, if they were all going to sell up. Y'know, okay, we've got Blofeld, let's not spin Spectre out over several films, just shoehorn it in for Danny's last one...
Also explains the oddness of why it was a studio exec who vetoed the killing of Blofeld at the end of the movie, wanting to extend the character... While Mickey and Babs wanted to bow out and, perhaps like Broccoli in the FYEO pts, didn't mind bumping the character off almost as a two-fingered salute to anyone else taking over.
But how on earth Boyle got roped in to any of this, if true, is beyond me! Just spring it on the director eh? Of course, we don't really know what happened.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Great suggestion. I think that makes sense. Have Bond die an ambiguous death. No body found, no funeral. Kind of 'missing in action - presumed dead' ending. That way Craig and Eon get the death of Bond but is he dead? See, he may not be dead!
Yeah, I think that can work. I'm sure some fans will hate it but the average film goer won't be too bothered. Plus, the hype for Bond 26 will be huge. "How does Bond return? Is he really dead?"
Yeah, I think it has potential. Who knows, perhaps that was Boyle's idea? Bond dies in the story - (not really dead, just assumed to be dead) and the third act doesn't feature Bond? I know there was an item claiming Boyle hated the idea of Bond dying but perhaps the report was wrong. Perhaps Bond dying was Boyle/Hodge's great idea? Eon could use that idea but redo the rest of the story.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2018/08/26/box-office-ant-man-2-passes-ant-man-the-meg-crosses-400m-jurassic-world-2-tops-wonder-woman/#3d3d55df6662
“But it still behind Tom Cruise’s Mission: Impossible – Fallout, which earned another $8 million (-25%) in its fifth weekend for a $193.9m domestic total. It should pass $200m by Labor Day and thus zoom past the $195m cume of Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation. The $209m total of Ghost Protocol and the $215m (in 2000) total of Mission: Impossible II should get lapped in the next month.
“That will make Fallout Cruise’s biggest unadjusted domestic earner behind War of the Worlds ($235 million in 2005). Paramount/Viacom Inc.’s $180m sequel has earned $538m worldwide thus far. And it’ll open in China next weekend, where the last two Mission: Impossible movies both topped $100m. How well it holds on around the world and how well it performs in China will determine if it gets past $700m. But at this point, it’s more mission: difficult than mission: impossible.”
I was responding to Post 322 among others.
And I didn't write the quoted section of my post. It was part of the article I linked to on Forbes. Hence the use of quotations marks.
Bond 25
Can't say I ever seen any reports of MI6:Fallout being anything
Else than a big hit ? They do make a lot of money ........ not as
Much as Bond obviously, but still very successful.