It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Yes, I’ve read it, but I’m skeptical.
I can kind of believe it, sure. I think it makes sense.
I'm sure it wasn't something he was dead set on the whole time: I would imagine if they had come up with another great ending he'd have gone there instead, but it does work. I see no reason to not believe it.
I think there are a few backflips required to see it that way :)
It might be true but as they say you shouldn't believe everything you read.
Also you don't know who's on drugs when it comes to the rich and famous ?
So many stories around over the years about drugs in show biz i'm sure everyone has read about ?
I remember reading one story about John Barry a few years ago.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1353931/My-crazy-days-John-Barry-naughtiest-boys-Sixties-Glenys-Roberts.html
I feel the same way, and I never really understood the need to make it seem like there was always a grand plan and ending point for everything. It rarely rings true to me. They make it up as they go and that's absolutely fine.
I believe him, but I don't think he was serious about it at first. He probably meant it in half-jest back in 2006, but then turned it into his price tag for NTTD when he wanted to quit. "I won't come back to this role unless you kill me off" is another way of saying, "I don't want to play this role anymore." I bet he was shocked when Barbara agreed to his terms. She should have just let him go.
IMO the bigger question is why Craig wanted to kill his character off to begin with. I don't believe for one moment his claim that he thought it would make it easier on the next actor, because that doesn't make any sense.
The comment that killing the character assists the next actor taking on the role has some logic to it. I don't have to explain it further.
Killing the character was a surprise concept to me, at the same time it's not so unique that it wasn't floated before. It's true there's nothing new under the sun, as here. From Craig and wherever else, the decision to execute it goes to the main producers and other key filmmakers. A bold decision.
Why do it? It makes sense for the story as they presented it, simple as that and very compelling. And it makes sense of the character as done in simpler ways in 2006 for items like the martini, the sacrificial lamb, the car chase, getting captured and tortured by the villain.
They've been validated by critical reviews, viewer ratings, and box office. Congratulations to them on their success and their amazing franchise still going strong after all these years.
I've said it before, but taken to the nth degree, I swear some Bond fans would just have had Dr. No 25 times at this point.
Well put. All that really needs to be said on the matter.
Put a beard on her, and she is good to go.
As long as they get the gun barrel right.
A perfect comprise dear @Thunderfinger!
Don't view it as them trying to backtrack a grand story plan, if it ever actually happened. Instead rather I think this fits with Craig's pattern of post-film depression and attitude of "I'd die before doing another" so Broccoli et. al. probably had to deal with Craig's "jokes" about it after every production. (I'm a fan of the guy, just extrapolating.)
We're just responding to what he himself has said.
I don't see this logic. If the Craig era was its own separate continuity, it didn't need to have any particular ending. After all, no previous actor required his predecessor's Bond to die in order for him to take on the role.
He just said the ending has some logic, not that it *needed* to happen. Like the ending or not (and I can certainly understand both opinions), of course it represents the closing of an era before the opening of a new one.
I don’t think having an end in mind is the same as a grand plan.
Yes indeed, it seems kind of self evident that it wraps his period up. I’m not sure why everyone seems so set on taking offence at anything the guy says.
Have you seen the film @slide_99 ?
So there's an evaluation of the bumblebee that proposes it's aerodynamically incapable of flight.
And yet it flies.
I think that is indeed where the franchise will go, or at least, it's my ideal way forward as well.
No, it's not. And I never specifically said it was, either. But the way it comes across to me - specifically in the "Being James Bond" documentary - suggests that's what they would like people to think and it doesn't ring true to me. And it's an unnecessary pretense, too.
I look forward to what comes next for this very reason. The possibilities are endless. The next era will be a lot of fun, I expect.
Next James Bond Odds
Rege-Jean Page +300
Tom Hardy +490
Richard Madden +800
Henry Cavill +950
Tom Hopper +1000
James Norton +1050
Jamie Dornan +1200
Idris Elba +1400
This would actually be a cool thread... every member that participates starts with $1,000 or something and then we bet on things that we think will happen... it might be better to do closer to the release of a film.
Second prize: 2 Casino Royale 1967 dvd's :))
I’m not sure what gave you that impression, I think they were quite clear about things like Quantum not being fully written. He just said here that he thought killing him would be a good ending.