› › ›

No Time To Die: Production Diary

1…18131814181618181819…2507

Comments

  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,330
    Just end it like Skyfall and boom. Bring in the next actor.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,459
    Yes, the general audience always buys the new Bond as being Bond. They always have; that's okay. I think this Bond needs an appropriate conclusion, yes, due to Craig starting with Bond as a rookie 00. But I'm not concerned about the next Bond picking up any storyline - the audience will believe it's Bond, sure. That's the nature of the series; it's whole history shows that.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    edited September 2018 Posts: 12,988
    peter wrote: »
    With no disrespect, do you think you would believe, or the general audience would believe, that if (say) Henry Cavill walked into M's office, that this is the man that experienced Vesper's death, Greene, Silva and Blofeld?
    I believe every previous pre-Craig Bond experienced Vesper's death. It's the defining event for the character. It will apply to the next Bond regardless.

    On the other hand, I do agree closure for Craig Bond (okay, not outright killed dead) is the best way to set up the next Bond actor. As absorbing ALL that came before in the sloppy continuity of the franchise and moving to more stand-alone missions.

    And with Fiennes, Whishaw, Harris, even. That's how they do.

  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,484
    The re-boot of '06 changed the game: we wiped out SC, GL, RM, TD and PB....

    CR was the beginning of this time line-- there was no Auric Goldfinger, or Largo or Kanaga, .

    The re-boot CR was the beginning for this agent. This is unique to Eon where they had never re-booted before.

    This Bond needs a logical conclusion (as @ColonelSun has mentioned, the one from SP didn't have the impact it was going for).

    But @4EverBonded, I agree-- I don't think the end needs to be dire and I'm not saying the end needs to be dire-- however, the Craig Bond losing his identity/memory at the end would be interesting. Or;

    Everyone thinking Craig Bond died on a mission only to see him saunter into the sunset with the Bond theme rising, may also do the trick.

    In the end, I don't have the answers. I only propose that the Craig era needs to conclude with an end.

    The new guy needs to be his own man, without Vesper, Greene, M dying in Bond's arms, anchoring the new era. None of Craig Bond should have happened in the new 007's time-line.

  • RemingtonRemington I'll do anything for a woman with a knife.
    Posts: 1,533
    After Craig leaves, I wouldn't be against them just returning to the DN-DAD timeline.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,484
    By the way, I don't think any post of mine supports a James Bond death-- just a closure to this tenure (since the re-boot was unique, and I think, shouldnt be a part of the next guy's stories)
  • FoxRoxFoxRox
    Posts: 12,258
    It’s an interesting debate to have - if Craig’s continuity should completely be its own thing, to have or not have a soft reboot next. So long as they handle it well, I’m fine with either option. That definitely means no killing Bond - Craig or otherwise.

    For Bond 26 and beyond, I’d like them to introduce Bond basically how he was introduced in DN - no origin stuff or anything special. Just Bond being Bond from the get-go, like SN through PB. Soft or hard reboot, I hope that’s how the new Bonds are introduced. We already got a perfect origin film with CR - let it and DC’s introduction remain unique!
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    FoxRox wrote: »
    I
    For Bond 26 and beyond, I’d like them to introduce Bond basically how he was introduced in DN - no origin stuff or anything special. Just Bond being Bond from the get-go, like SN through PB. Soft or hard reboot, I hope that’s how the new Bonds are introduced. We already got a perfect origin film with CR - let it and DC’s introduction remain unique!
    +1

    My thoughts exactly.
  • FoxRoxFoxRox
    Posts: 12,258
    The whole continuity thing doesn’t bother me much at all. The series obviously has never prioritized continuity, and it kind of helps give it such an everlasting feel. If they want Craig’s 5 to be separate, I’m not bothered; it’s still Bond, just in one timeline.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    edited September 2018 Posts: 10,588
    IMO, the ideal scenario for this next chapter is to keep the MI6 regulars (maybe add Wright in there), and have a story disconnected from the previous four films. I'm fine with the film alluding to prior events in the arc, as long as the story itself is its own deal.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited September 2018 Posts: 5,961
    peter wrote: »
    Tuxedo wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    peter wrote: »

    The Craig era has been it's own time-line, and I can't imagine a completely new actor playing Bond as if he experienced Vesper and everything that followed thereafter.

    Perhaps after the next guy, they will go back to soft re-boots.

    So, having an ending that puts a firm end to the DC time-line shouldn't be unexpected. And if this is the case, a FRWL-type conclusion, or YOLT, would be wholly appropriate to this era and it cleans the slate for the next guy.

    I 100% agree, Peter. I can see Craig wanting his ending to be something unique and, for the wider audience, very surprising. The SP ending, obviously designed as a potential Craig farewell, didn't have great impact. I think Craig knows that.

    I understand your point. But it should be all about Ian Fleming’s James Bond and not Daniel Craig.

    It's not as if DC is bigger than Bond. But this re-boot WAS unique. And DC is as big as Bond in THIS time-line. THIS Bond needs a conclusion to this time-line, opening it clean for the next guy.

    Since '06, this has been a unique era precisely because of the re-boot. And now it must reach its conclusion.

    This is something the other Bonds didn't need.

    Craig is the best, and most important, Bond since Connery and Craig deserves a proper sendoff. Connery got that sendoff (while camp, DAF was popular and triumphant in a GF kind of way). Craig should too.

    I agree that Craig's tenure needs a definitive end. He began in a shadowy room in CR and ended in one in QoS, which was a nice callback. Maybe something like that again.

    Because the Craig era has taken so long, I doubt the next actor will have as many visceral connections to past films as, say, Moore or Dalton did to Lazenby. Even by Brosnan so much time had passed since 1969 that the Tracy echoes became ever more faint...

    I'd love a Craig YOLT ending and a Bond #7 TMWTGG opening, which would seem to almost require Fiennes. And then a proper adaptation of MR, which would seem to fit a younger Bond actor better.
  • FoxRoxFoxRox
    Posts: 12,258
    That’s fair. Story-wise, I’d want something SF-esque in the sense that it has a few familiar faces, but can be watched completely on its own without needing other films to understand it. That’s part of the beauty of CR and SF. They are perfect on their own as well as within Craig’s continuity. I’m hopeful Bond 25 can pull that off.

    QOS still was a better standalone watch than SP though. SP just spends a few too many moments stuck on the past films.
  • BennyBenny In the shadowsAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,864
    I just had a crazy idea.
    Bond 25 ends with the death of James Bond. We then end in M’s office with M talking to an unseen man. Turns out James Bond 007 has been a code name all along, and the unseen man is told, you’re now James Bond. Camera then reveals unseen man, who utters the immortal line back to M.

    It makes me cringe just writing it. Imagine if this was the big twist or hook they had for Bond 25 under Boyle.
    I’d hate it myself.
  • FoxRoxFoxRox
    Posts: 12,258
    If that was Boyle’s hook and they shot it down, they we dodged a huge bullet. I dislike the codename theory.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,330
    Skyfall ruled that out.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 12,988
    Bond as a code name has a history of rejection by the producers. They don't view that in a positive light.

  • FoxRoxFoxRox
    Posts: 12,258
    Interesting. Perhaps that was Boyle's big idea??? One way or another, I really want to know what Boyle's story was - what his idea/script were, why exactly he left, etc.
  • Tuck91Tuck91
    Posts: 1,680
    at the end of spectre the 00 program is disbanded, mi6 is physically destroyed, bond leaves the service. i am curious though how their going to put mi6 back together. On a sidenote I have a feeling Craig's final scene will end with him uttering the names bond James Bond in a similar way to the ending of cr.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,459
    Well, a big NO to the code name. I want him as the real thing, real name.
    But surely it does not matter in Bond 26. I agree with Birdleson. I've never (and I think general audiences don't) really picture all or many of the past deeds done in previous films into the current Bond. Just yeah, it's in his past but no kind of timeline needed for me.

    I want an excellent finish for Craig's Bond, though. Yes to that.
  • BennyBenny In the shadowsAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,864
    If the writers, director or producers decide to kill James Bond, then they don’t get James Bond.
    Part of Bond is that he always wins. He always survives no matter how hard or dangerous it is. To kill him, if only for one movie, isn’t required. We should leave the theatre on a high, with 007 saving the world. Not on a downer with the greatest spy in the world deceased.

    *The codename idea was a nightmare scenario. Not one I agree with or would endorse*
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    FoxRox wrote: »
    If that was Boyle’s hook and they shot it down, they we dodged a huge bullet. I dislike the codename theory.

    Tamahori already had that idea before. Perhaps he thought CR67 was canon?
  • RemingtonRemington I'll do anything for a woman with a knife.
    Posts: 1,533
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    If that was Boyle’s hook and they shot it down, they we dodged a huge bullet. I dislike the codename theory.

    Tamahori already had that idea before. Perhaps he thought CR67 was canon?

    You mean it's not?
  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    Posts: 2,730
    Regarding bonds death: I think that Craig’s tenure has largely been based on his characters thematic arcs. Nothing has really happens to his character that didn’t make sense in the context of the film. CR is about him learning to trust no one. QOS is about him learning to get over loss. SF is about him rising out of the ashes. SP is about... well spectre is about not pulling a trigger or some nonesense. I can’t see them making a film that’s is thematically based on Bond making sacrifices (because he never does) and then his arc culminates in him dying. It just doesn’t make thematic sense for his character. Craig plays bond like an ape and I could very easily see all the Mi6 regulars get killed, but somehow Craig’s bond would survive and continue on. He’s a survivor and a wild card, bonds would go against everything we know about his character thus far.
  • Ottofuse8Ottofuse8
    Posts: 832
    Continuity has never really mattered in bond. People think in terms like “connery- brosnan’s bond is the same, craig’s is different”. Or connery- moore. Or whatever. It doesnt really matter at all though.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 7,964
    While not the most popular theory I look at the span of 25 films as 3 Timelines based on the ages of the actors. Yes, some of the supporting actors cross timelines but Judi Dench showed that you could play the same character in different timelines; Brosnan’s M is not Craig’s M even if portrayed by the same actress.

    I see Connery, Lazenby and Moore as the same Bond. The 007 of Dr.No is the same 007 as the one in A View to a Kill.

    Next, Dalton and Brosnan are the same Bond; the 007 of Living Daylights is the same as the 007 of Die Another Day.

    Finally, Craig.

    Part of what supports this Idea is that the Bond films have always been set in the present day. The Beatles are mentioned by Connery, Thatcher is seen in the Moore era and 911 is mentioned in Casio Royal.

    Bond being set in the present means that the The actors ages dictate a change in timeline . Dalton’s Bond is not Moore’s, Lazenby ‘s or Connery’s

    Craig stands alone; more than likely, the next will be it’s own self contained incarnation
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,079
    I agree with Birdleson here. There's a small contingent of diehard Craig fans that have convinced themselves that the general public is as invested in the Craig run as they are. I bet if you showed the average Joe pictures of all the Craig era Bond girls and asked them to point out which one Vesper is, at least half would get it wrong. You simply can't expect ordinary non-Bond fans to keep up with a tineline dating back to 2006. Non-Bind fans just don't spend their time thinking about Bond films, and they certainly aren't thinking "god I hope this next one concludes Craig's run in an appropriate way, given how this era is unique a distinct from the rest." If anything I'd say we're reaching a point of the current era outstaying it's welcome with the public. "Bond comes first, not the actor" is probably closer to how the public thinks.
  • boldfingerboldfinger
    edited September 2018 Posts: 5,767
    peter wrote: »
    boldfinger wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    jake24 wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    Can anyone explain to me how and when did this "They're gonna kill him" thing start? Who said so? Any reliable sources?
    Just tabloid stuff. I doubt there's any truth to it

    Really?!? There's pages and pages of tabloid discussion here? Why? I thought there was some basis of seriousness to it. But if it's just tabloid trash, why don't we elaborate on more serious and interesting matters?
    People seem to be more interested in discussing the most outlandish Scenarios than in reading media articles and other people´s post properly ;-).




    Well done, @boldfinger !! Well done, lol!
    Thank you, sir! Thank you very much!

    Having said that, I notice the Bond´s death discussion is raving more than ever….

  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    Benny wrote: »
    I just had a crazy idea.
    Bond 25 ends with the death of James Bond. We then end in M’s office with M talking to an unseen man. Turns out James Bond 007 has been a code name all along, and the unseen man is told, you’re now James Bond. Camera then reveals unseen man, who utters the immortal line back to M.

    It makes me cringe just writing it. Imagine if this was the big twist or hook they had for Bond 25 under Boyle.
    I’d hate it myself.

    from Boyles recent comments I think it's highly unlikely he'd have proposed this
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,079
    Interesting article regarding the Fukunaga appointment.

    http://www.digitalspy.com/movies/james-bond-007/feature/a866647/bond-25-cary-fukunaga-wrong-choice/
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    Interesting article regarding the Fukunaga appointment.

    http://www.digitalspy.com/movies/james-bond-007/feature/a866647/bond-25-cary-fukunaga-wrong-choice/

    Didn’t know you wrote for Digital Spy.
Sign In or Register to comment.