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
How is it redundant? It's 5 films that tell a cycle of stories and have arguably repositioned Bond culturally. As mentioned above, all great mythic characters die and are reborn.
I think you underestimate audiences. They’ll obviously understand that this will be a new iteration of Bond, much like how there’s different iterations of Sherlock Holmes. The difference is that it’s coming from the same production company. When a new Bond is being introduced, EON won’t need to tell people “forget about Craig”. They’ll focus on the new actor continuing a legacy that was started by Connery and is putting his own stamp like his predecessors.
I have not seen the movie yet, but if Craigs Bond is dead, it makes sense. As we saw in the first 20 movies, Bond is ageless that means than the Connery Bond is the Brosnan Bond. Die another day also confirms that telling about the 20 watches and the old equipment. This was stupid though because the movies were not set in specific time lets say 60s to 80s, but every movie was set to present day and you can see it from cold war mentions, gadgets, cars etc, which does not makes sense because Bond in day another day should be in his 60s like 65 years old. On the other way Craigs Bond gets older as movies are passing, meaning that the quantum case is set hours after casino, but skyfall is not. Malory mentions that Bond in Skyfall is already old. Spectre takes place in unknown time and NTTD 5 years after that. This means that the next Bond cannot be the same because he must be in his 50s. For the new Bond to be the same all his missions have to take place between quantum and Spectre, all set in the past. So as Craig is not the same as the other Bonds, the next one will not be the same as Craig, we may meet him as a veteran already though, without mention to his early years. This will not be a continuity error. A good continuity error was Lazenby telling "this never happened to the other fella" who was supposed to be the same man as Connery, and not just another 007.
Also it was supposed that fired Boyle wanted to kill Bond and Barbara did not. So what changed now?
Fleming's Bond has a lot of interior dialogue that is unfilmable. It's great stuff but hard to translate. Craig's Bond takes those interior emotions and translates them to action.
Yes, I, who have been a devotee of this franchise since I was 7 years old, am definitely just a "casual" fan and the people saying they're abandoning the franchise because they spoiled a movie for themselves and didn't like what they read are the "loyal" fans. Sure, makes perfect sense.
If you don't want to go see the movie that's your choice, but I'm not going to sit here and be insulted because the franchise took a massive risk that I think paid off. I think the film IS brilliant and I care profoundly that they did what they did. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
The serious answer is no, the silly answer is lol.
Blofeld escapes prison. Bond persues Blofeld.
- James you are alive
- Yes this is my second life
- You only live twice mister Bond.
This is an interesting conversation because Bond fans have never had to deal with something like this but comic book fans regularly do. I'm not saying Bond should mimic comic book characters but Superman and Batman and X-MEN fans have been through this.
Audiences are much more sophisticated about this kind of stuff now. Marvel and Star Wars and Star Trek have played in this of sandbox for years. Audiences know there will be a new Bond. They're not as tripped up on things like this. Audiences are groomed to now accept that the MCU Spider-Man is different from the one that Tobey Maguire played. They know that Ben Affleck's Batman is not the one appearing in next year's "The Batman."
Comic book movies have made it so details like this aren't the confusing liability they once were. Bond will get rebooted. Audiences will know that he next Bond is different from Craig's Bond.
Blofeld dies too in this one.
Nearly every single frame of this film is masterfully composed. Skyfall might still edge out a win in that department, but either way it's neck-and-neck. I think I'd have to watch the two films back to back to really, definitively state which one wins. And I say that as someone who sobbed out of joy - in front of my entire family! - when Deakins won his first Oscar. Linus Sandgren did an absolutely sublime job.
are we sure? hahaha
But we've known that this Bond was distinct from the other fellas since 2006.
As for what he achieves as a mythic hero YMMV, clearly.
He doesn't. He knows right away. I don't know if you've seen the film but it's written on his face.
Yes. There's maybe not strictly a flat out one-on-one (the biggest one I can think of is initiated by something significant that happens with a gun) but Bond does get to throw some fists during the action, all of which is glorious in this film.
That's good, at least. I think the fight choreography in QoS really spoiled me. The Hinx fight in SP is probably the only highlight of the film for me. I always enjoy at least one good, proper fight in these films; it seemed hinted at during the Matera chase in the trailers but I wasn't sure if that'd be a couple of fists thrown and that's the end of it.
Really? Oh, well. I read on Reddit that he doesn't know. She explicitly tells him?
Just being curious... his death occurs off screen? I mean, do we clearly see him engulfed by the flames of the explosion?
Yeah, Tony Stark dying really killed the audience score/rewatchability of Endgame… Oh wait.
I've seen the film, and I couldn't agree more.
First of all: Anyone who's spoiled it for themselves -- that's on you. Full stop. This is absolutely a film that must be enjoyed (relatively) cold to have it "work" to its intended effect, and if you read a paragraph on Reddit about the climax and form judgements before you've seen it -- obviously that intended effect won't work. An audience pays money to have an experience, but they're subverting their own experience by doing that. Again -- and I'm sorry, I know how tricky it will be to avoid these big spoilers for some -- but if you go that route, you have only yourself to blame.
Second: Not only did I find the ending exceptionally well done, but it feels right. It's the right ending for this story. For his story. It's tragic, it's impactful, it's subversive. But it's also incredibly moving and illuminating. In death, it's teaching the rest of us something about life. A lesson many of us could probably do well to heed. That, to me, makes it the stronger artistic choice with the added built-in beauty that there are no real commercial consequences because Craig's era is self-contained. James Bond Will Return.
Third, and I feel like I could write an entire book on this: the movie happening around this choice is such a direct conversation with fans -- call it a love letter, call it a paternal challenge, call it what you want -- that the ending feels so earned. My immediate reaction to the ending was along the lines of, "Well, they've just given me 150 minutes of classic Bond containing absolutely everything I've ever wanted to see, and there's almost nothing left. So yes, let's embrace this. Let's push this. Let's see what it does to me. There's no reason to cling to what's come before. There's nothing left to want, to see, or to say. We've earned it, let's go with it, let's find out just what this means to us."
And sitting here, the day after, I know the answer to that last bit more than ever. It may be a controversial film, but it's crystallized what James Bond means to me. My heart is broken but it's also full. It's a weird feeling. But a meaningful one.
I think that's the point.