James Bond dies ?

13»

Comments

  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 20,199
    This is an interesting thread from almost half a decade ago in light of certain recent developments.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Snake on a plane of being
    Posts: 42,448
    I think this thread is sort of going off track here. What I think @Problem_Eliminator was suggesting was simply the death of Bond as the end of an actors era. Which I think, if done right, could be a great idea.

    The Craig era has changed things and any notion of every Bond actor existing in the same continuity has pretty much gone out the window (you could actually go further and argue this actually happened as far back as OHMSS). I think from now on we'll get more different/experimental interpretations of the character, each in their own universe (sort of like Batman going from the 80s ones to the Nolan trilogy to the new one). Like they did with the Craig era, I think there's a good chance that EON will probably try the overarching story thing in the future. Rather than just having stand alone films, at some point down the line another Bond actor will have a clear beginning middle and end to his tenure. I can see Bond's death being a great end to an era. Whether they do a big dramatic sacrificing himself to save the world or a more simple dying in battle death (I'm reminded of Walter White's death in Breaking Bad, he knows this is the end, his last stand, but he's killed by a single stray bullet that doesn't actually finish him off until he's finished taking care of things; this sort of thing could work for Bond) I think it could be a great ending.

    I vaguely remember an interview with Brosnan where he suggested Bond dying saving the world. Shame he couldn't have got a great final film that used this plot device. How great would that have been. Brosnan goes out on a high note, the old Bond dies in a blaze of glory making way for the origin story of CR.

    I created a similar thread, but after this one as I wasn t aware of its existence. Nice read, and this post in particular is very poignant.
  • goldenswissroyalegoldenswissroyale Switzerland
    Posts: 3,091
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    They'll never kill off the goose that lays the golden eggs so this debate is a non-starter in my opinion.

    Well, the new Bond ended differently than expected ;)
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 20,199
    Back when certain things were still inconceivable...
  • Posts: 2,265
    it would definitely be unexpected and I think it could make for one of the best bond movies ever.At the end of the day it is just a what if and I don't think they would ever have the balls to do it , but I could see it working if done right.

    This comment aged terrifically, really.
  • Man if Bond ever died at the end of the film, think of how divisive that would be...
  • DragonpolDragonpol Writer @ http://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 15,063
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    They'll never kill off the goose that lays the golden eggs so this debate is a non-starter in my opinion.

    Well, the new Bond ended differently than expected ;)

    Yes, how wrong could I be? Very wrong as it turned out. Still, I really enjoyed NTTD.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 7,030
    I think this thread is sort of going off track here. What I think @Problem_Eliminator was suggesting was simply the death of Bond as the end of an actors era. Which I think, if done right, could be a great idea.

    The Craig era has changed things and any notion of every Bond actor existing in the same continuity has pretty much gone out the window (you could actually go further and argue this actually happened as far back as OHMSS). I think from now on we'll get more different/experimental interpretations of the character, each in their own universe (sort of like Batman going from the 80s ones to the Nolan trilogy to the new one). Like they did with the Craig era, I think there's a good chance that EON will probably try the overarching story thing in the future. Rather than just having stand alone films, at some point down the line another Bond actor will have a clear beginning middle and end to his tenure. I can see Bond's death being a great end to an era. Whether they do a big dramatic sacrificing himself to save the world or a more simple dying in battle death (I'm reminded of Walter White's death in Breaking Bad, he knows this is the end, his last stand, but he's killed by a single stray bullet that doesn't actually finish him off until he's finished taking care of things; this sort of thing could work for Bond) I think it could be a great ending.

    I vaguely remember an interview with Brosnan where he suggested Bond dying saving the world. Shame he couldn't have got a great final film that used this plot device. How great would that have been. Brosnan goes out on a high note, the old Bond dies in a blaze of glory making way for the origin story of CR.

    I created a similar thread, but after this one as I wasn t aware of its existence. Nice read, and this post in particular is very poignant.

    Interesting to see that 'just an idea' thread could end up beeing the 'who's the greatest visionary at MI6' thread ;-)

    I'm glad I didn't participate.....
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    They'll never kill off the goose that lays the golden eggs so this debate is a non-starter in my opinion.

    Well, the new Bond ended differently than expected ;)

    Yes, how wrong could I be? Very wrong as it turned out. Still, I really enjoyed NTTD.

    Well, you can't win them all, now can you?
  • edited November 2021 Posts: 4,854
    "They called me mad, insane! They said I was a fool for thinking Bond could ever die! They banned me from every forum until I had no choice but to flee to an island to conduct my Bondian research! Well, who's mad now, who's crazy now, hppmh?!?!?!?!?"

    CompleteTatteredCrayfish-size_restricted.gif
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    edited November 2021 Posts: 9,571
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    They'll never kill off the goose that lays the golden eggs--
    FOR LONG!!! They'll never kill off the goose FOR LONG!
    200w.gif

  • Posts: 10,792
    Having watched it a third time today, the “James Bond Will Return” message at the end really does wipe out some of the weight of the death scene X) particularly this go around for me. It’s the story that was intended to be told, but I hope they never retread Bond’s birth (CR) or death (NTTD) again.
  • edited November 2021 Posts: 469
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    This is an interesting thread from almost half a decade ago in light of certain recent developments.

    "half decade" sounds like a long time, but thats like 1 bond film apart
  • DragonpolDragonpol Writer @ http://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 15,063
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    They'll never kill off the goose that lays the golden eggs--
    FOR LONG!!! They'll never kill off the goose FOR LONG!
    200w.gif

    Well, if a week is a long time in politics then I suppose five years is an even longer time in Bondology. Who knows what the future still holds? :)
  • There's a big problem with Bond's death in NTTD. By saying he'll return at the end, it makes the death inconsequential. It simply doesn't make sense, and it's quite dishonest to ask the audience to invest any emotion in the screen death when it's announced the character didn't die after all at the end of the credits.
    Oh, hang on, the character did die, but they're coming back with a different character, which is actually the same character, but not the same person that just died. It's just that he's got the same name, and it's an alternate universe he lives in.
    But it's still James Bond.
    What a load of drivel.
  • BennyBenny Classified Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 12,174
    There's a big problem with Bond's death in NTTD. By saying he'll return at the end, it makes the death inconsequential. It simply doesn't make sense, and it's quite dishonest to ask the audience to invest any emotion in the screen death when it's announced the character didn't die after all at the end of the credits.
    Oh, hang on, the character did die, but they're coming back with a different character, which is actually the same character, but not the same person that just died. It's just that he's got the same name, and it's an alternate universe he lives in.
    But it's still James Bond.
    What a load of drivel.

    Are Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton and Brosnan the same person?
    If you can accept that, I don't understand why you can't see how Daniel Craig's era was a separate timeline that followed his five film tenure. Unlike previous films it followed the same storyline, actors and continuity.
    I'll put it another way, at the end of AVTAK we read, James Bond will return. Is this the same Bond we see hanging off a Land Rover in Gibraltar?
    If so, we have very different views on the Bond universe.
    And unlike some, I'm fine with that. ;)
  • edited November 2021 Posts: 385
    Benny wrote: »
    Are Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton and Brosnan the same person?

    Yes indeed, Brosnan sniffed the shoe.

    There was always an accepted loose chronology that gave a wink to the audience that it was the same man. And even with the 'Bond begins' reboot they eventually got back to that same man who was ready to go back to work at the end of Skyfall. I'm well aware it doesn't make sense that Brosnan was fifty in 2002 and 35 in 1962 (or whatever), but that was the deal and it was fun to run with it. It was one thing that made the franchise special, the fact that they'd been making films about the same character all those years.
    Where they've cocked it up is killing Bond off and asking the audience to accept there are now two James Bonds, living in some Star trek type sci-fi alternate universe.
    It's bobbins.
    If some people are okay with it, good for them, and they're the winners because they'll be able to enjoy the movies better because of their acceptance. I wish I could watch NTTD and think 'oh, that's excellent - the James Bond of Daniel Craig's timeline has died, a hero, I wonder what the next James Bond will get up to?'.
    After all these years thinking I'm watching the same character, to be suddenly told there are multiple James Bonds, with different endings, and some might die and some might not, is just daft.
  • edited November 2021 Posts: 385
    Benny wrote: »
    I'll put it another way, at the end of AVTAK we read, James Bond will return. Is this the same Bond we see hanging off a Land Rover in Gibraltar?

    Yes, because Felix said "he was married once, a long time ago". And Moore went and visited her grave. Ask agent XXX, she knew!

    . . . and before anyone says "I don't see what you don't understand about the timeline".... I DO understand it, but I still think it's daft. I'm allowed to understand something and still think it's silly.
    Like I thought Bobby Ewing in the shower was daft. It's the same thing.
  • BennyBenny Classified Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 12,174
    Of course you can @ColonelAdamski and Bobby Ewing in the shower really was daft. It was where Dallas jumped the shark for many. But back to Bond.
    The thing with Bond is that he's ever evolving, we can accept him as the same character from DN to DAD. That the same man hasn't aged in 40 years. And with Bond 26 and the seventh actor playing James Bond that will continue.
    I can be onboard with that, just like you. Don't let your feeling's on one film ruin the enjoyment you've had for many years. It's just not worth it.
    As always James Bond will return. ;)
  • Thanks Benny.

    It hasn't spoiled the series for me, and I'd be daft myself to let it. It has spoiled my enjoyment and enthusiasm for the latest film though, I have to admit. But I'll get over it, and it's only a movie. You could make a list of all the daft things that don't make sense in the Bond movies. . . (why didn't Telly's Blofeld recognise Bond is always a good one), so I can understand why people say "why are you letting one plot aspect spoil things?", but it's such a bit plot aspect that it's too jarring to ignore.
    Did Dalton's Bond ever go into space and have a laser battle? It seems ludicrous to think he did. But for me, it's an acceptable ludicrousness. Having the the James Bond character die, and come back in an alternate universe, is a ludicrousness that isn't acceptable for me. It's narratively dishonest, and I'm afraid I can't get past it.
  • edited November 2021 Posts: 4,854
    Did Dalton's Bond ever go into space and have a laser battle? It seems ludicrous to think he did. But for me, it's an acceptable ludicrousness. Having the the James Bond character die, and come back in an alternate universe, is a ludicrousness that isn't acceptable for me. It's narratively dishonest, and I'm afraid I can't get past it.

    I don't know, you say you understand the timeline stuff, but this example that you give makes me think you're conflating different things. Bond going into space is a thing within a film. The filmmakers deciding to ignore that Bond died in No Time to Die is something outside the films. Bond 26 is not going to be a film set in a science fiction world in which there are "alternate universes".

    Sean Connery left and got replaced by George Lazenby as Bond. But I don't watch On Her Majesty's Secret Service and think it's ridiculous that Bond's face, height and voice suddenly changed completely. There was an external factor --an change in actors-- that had an effect on the film, but I know that within the world of the film, this effect is completely irrelevant from a narrative point of view.
  • Okay, is there any other example, in literature or movies, where a none sci-fi/superhero 'real world' character gets properly killed off and bought back with no explanation other than 'it's a timeline'?
    And when I say 'real world' character, I mean one based in the world of drama, where the boundaries of known science are adhered to.
    I ask this because all the arguments I've seen saying it's okay to kill Bond off, have cited single stories (Hamlet etc) or sci-fi.
  • Posts: 4,854
    Okay, is there any other example, in literature or movies, where a none sci-fi/superhero 'real world' character gets properly killed off and bought back with no explanation other than 'it's a timeline'?
    And when I say 'real world' character, I mean one based in the world of drama, where the boundaries of known science are adhered to.
    I ask this because all the arguments I've seen saying it's okay to kill Bond off, have cited single stories (Hamlet etc) or sci-fi.
    Rather than answering the question, let me try to get the point across in a different way, because I think it would be more useful. I'm gonna go back to my earlier example because it's appropriate.

    Did you need an explanation for the fact Bond suddenly stopped looking like Sean Connery and started looking like George Lazenby?

    If the answer is no, why do you think Bond coming back in the next film needs an explanation?

    The point is that both decisions/changes exist outside the world of the film. They don't get, or need, any explanation inside the world of the film. "It's a timeline" is not an explanation within the world of the film. "It's a timeline" is akin to the producers saying "we couldn't get Connery back so Lazenby is going to play Bond now, sorry for any inconvenience."
  • edited November 2021 Posts: 385
    mattjoes wrote: »
    Did you need an explanation for the fact Bond suddenly stopped looking like Sean Connery and started looking like George Lazenby?

    If the answer is no, why do you think Bond coming back in the next film needs an explanation?

    I don't need an explanation for a change of actor, no. that's allowed. What isn't allowed, is killing off a character in a series of novels or films, and bringing them back to life with no explanation. An explanation is most definitely required in that instance, especially if the reader/viewer is expected to have any trust or emotional investment in the character at all.
    It's simply good storytelling manners. You can't kill a 'real world' fictional character off and resurrect them on a whim, without explanation. I'm actually surprised most people think it's acceptable.
    If we accept they can do this, then they might as well do anything. They could have him sprout wings and fly to the moon, then in the next movie just pretend he never did it?

  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,055
    Given how NTTD turned out, it's fair to say killing off Bond is allowed as well. Movies are not novels. Time change things. The franchise evolved. Before Craig the transition between characters was fluid and seamless, because Bond wasn't even a real character for most of his outings. Now that Bond is treated like a character with an actual story arc, every era is a total reset.
  • edited November 2021 Posts: 385
    Perhaps that's my my problem, I expect the same narrative coherence in movies, as I do in novels. I rarely watch blockbusters, Bond is the exception, and I enjoy the movies as an extension of the books. I stupidly expect that the storytellers are going to be as mindful to logical storytelling as authors are.
    No writer would kill off a character, then bring out another book with them back to life and say "this book is a different timeline". They'd feel duty bound to place the events of the new book before the death of the character, or do a Holmes style explanation of how they didn't really die after all. Anything other, would be seen as dishonest storytelling.
    Obviously, a lot of movies are different in that respect. Bond movies hadn't used to be different in that respect, but now they are.
    Brave new world.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,055
    Yes that pretty much sums it up.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 7,030
    Perhaps that's my my problem, I expect the same narrative coherence in movies, as I do in novels. I rarely watch blockbusters, Bond is the exception, and I enjoy the movies as an extension of the books. I stupidly expect that the storytellers are going to be as mindful to logical storytelling as authors are.
    No writer would kill off a character, then bring out another book with them back to life and say "this book is a different timeline". They'd feel duty bound to place the events of the new book before the death of the character, or do a Holmes style explanation of how they didn't really die after all. Anything other, would be seen as dishonest storytelling.
    Obviously, a lot of movies are different in that respect. Bond movies hadn't used to be different in that respect, but now they are.
    Brave new world.

    I think you're a bit ahead of the game. You don't know how eon are going to treat his death. For me the Bond-films have always had a saga aspect. It explains why Bond isn't always acting the same way (Moore's and Brosnan's lighter touch VS connery, lazenby, Dalton) and why there's incoherence in the stories. It's campfire stories about the same guy, that may or may not fit in the whole series. For me Craig's era tells the story of the start, some episodes in the middle and the end. New films should be set inside this frame, no matter the time period. After all, it also encompasses dr no, filmed in 1962... So judgment on the meaning of nttd can only be made after seeing the next film. They might even go for Fleming's own story (yolt-tmwtgg) in which he Bond survives the blast but loses his memory...
  • Posts: 469
    Stitches (the rapper) predicted James Bond's death.

    8c4JO4D.png

    stitches-brick-in-yo-face-Cover-Art.jpg



Sign In or Register to comment.