BOND POLLS 2017: So if Bond #25 is Craig's last? How should we approach his final 10 minutes?

2

Comments

  • Posts: 11,119
    Please keep voting people
  • Posts: 6,682
    My friend, I'll take A. Keep the fruit. ;)
  • edited August 2017 Posts: 12,242
    I'll say A, though it's a tough one. I definitely don't want Bond dying (this would ruin the film for me), but I can envision both an open or closed ending for Craig's Bond - and it also could be either more lighthearted or serious. I think ultimately though it'd be best if it just ends with Craig's Bond having won the day and still staying in MI6, with the status quo being kept as he exits the role. I also definitely don't want Bond to have permanently retired from MI6; I think the ending should at least include:

    -Bond is still alive and doing fine
    -Bond returns and remains in MI6
    -Bond does not settle down with anyone
  • Posts: 1,031
    Option D
  • NSGWNSGW London
    Posts: 299
    D - If they are ever going to go down this route and make it work, Craig's Bond will be the best fit.
  • Posts: 4,599
    Most humble movie fans have no idea about the timelines/reboot. As far as they are concerned, DC is James Bond and thats it. You just can't kill him off as the mainstream audience just wont be able to understand whats going on.
    In sci-fi, you have some slack and people understand that. Kill Spock, he comes back! OK,
    Dr Who changes every few years! OK. Alec Guiness comes back as a vision? OK

    James Bond gets killed! no , sorry, I understand the seperate timeline/reboot stuff but we have to have some kind of empathy with the mainstream audience and its "a bridge too far" for them.

    Overall, the audeince have great affection for DC (despite SP) and I think audeinces will be sad to see him go so it makes sense to tap into that emotion and have a thoughtful/sensitive/poignant ending rather some horrible Rambo style blaze of glory.

    Bond is meant to be undercover and (like Bourne) I would prefer he just merges in with the crowd into the distance, knowing, when the time is right, he will come out from the shadows again.

  • @patb Batman retired at the end of TDKR few years ago and the public still had no problem accepting the new movies. If they kill him off in Bond 25, all they have to do with the next one say it's seperate to the Daniel Craig films. Isn't that hard a concept to grasp and I really think people worry too much about what another "reboot" would entail. All they have to do is make a new one that doesn't address the DC movies.
  • Posts: 4,599
    @thelivingroyale Fair points but Batman still did not die, big difference from an audience perspective re seeing a character die and seeing them retire, plus Batman is obviously much more of a fantasy, comic book character. Im trying to think of an example of a character set in the "real World" who is killed and then we see them again via a reboot,

    also, it undermines the grief/emotion invested in the character if you know they are going to come back. Death must mean death to have emotional impact. When we saw Spock die, we did not know he was coming back. It genuinely was the end (or we thought it was), when the character is too big to die (we all know Bond will return) killing him seems a little pointless. ("The Black Knight Rises...again)
  • Posts: 11,119
    @patb Batman retired at the end of TDKR few years ago and the public still had no problem accepting the new movies. If they kill him off in Bond 25, all they have to do with the next one say it's seperate to the Daniel Craig films. Isn't that hard a concept to grasp and I really think people worry too much about what another "reboot" would entail. All they have to do is make a new one that doesn't address the DC movies.

    Ehhh, I don't know if you have seen "Batman vs. Superman", but it certainly wasn't the big money cash cow WB was hoping for. On aspects it actually lost money. Also the reviews were pretty damn negative...to average at best. The movie didn't even make more money than "SPECTRE". And then it doesn't really matter if you ignore the storyline as set in Nolan's trilogy.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited August 2017 Posts: 23,883
    patb wrote: »
    Most humble movie fans have no idea about the timelines/reboot. As far as they are concerned, DC is James Bond and thats it. You just can't kill him off as the mainstream audience just wont be able to understand whats going on.
    That's a good point. I personally couldn't care less if they killed him off or not. His iteration is a standalone in my mind as it is, given the timeline thing, so if they want him to go out permanently it's fine with me.

    However, you're right in stating that the general audience would likely get confused. I mentioned on another thread that I did a quick unscientific survey of fair weather fans and they really had lost the plot on all of the goings on in this new universe (obviously they don't rewatch the new films with the same regularity that we do). Many had forgotten that it was a reboot to begin with.
  • @patb Batman retired at the end of TDKR few years ago and the public still had no problem accepting the new movies. If they kill him off in Bond 25, all they have to do with the next one say it's seperate to the Daniel Craig films. Isn't that hard a concept to grasp and I really think people worry too much about what another "reboot" would entail. All they have to do is make a new one that doesn't address the DC movies.

    Ehhh, I don't know if you have seen "Batman vs. Superman", but it certainly wasn't the big money cash cow WB was hoping for. On aspects it actually lost money. Also the reviews were pretty damn negative...to average at best. The movie didn't even make more money than "SPECTRE". And then it doesn't really matter if you ignore the storyline as set in Nolan's trilogy.

    I didn't see it and don't plan to but my point was I didn't see anyone complaining about it being confusing. People just accepted that this was a new one who had nothing to do with the Christian Bale movies.
    patb wrote: »
    @thelivingroyale Fair points but Batman still did not die, big difference from an audience perspective re seeing a character die and seeing them retire, plus Batman is obviously much more of a fantasy, comic book character. Im trying to think of an example of a character set in the "real World" who is killed and then we see them again via a reboot,

    also, it undermines the grief/emotion invested in the character if you know they are going to come back. Death must mean death to have emotional impact. When we saw Spock die, we did not know he was coming back. It genuinely was the end (or we thought it was), when the character is too big to die (we all know Bond will return) killing him seems a little pointless. ("The Black Knight Rises...again)

    I think dead or alive it was still a definitive closed ending, and I don't remember there being anyone saying it was confusing when he came back a couple of years later being played by Ben Affleck in a movie that clearly had nothing to do with the last one. People just accepted it was a new version.

    I'm not sure that Bond being more "real world" (besides, a lot of Bond films are more fantastical than Nolan's Batman movies) makes a difference. And I can think of one real world character who off the top of my head who died and got rebooted: Robin Hood. I remember him dying in the ITV show back in the 80s and they've done loads of versions of that. Not a very recent example but like I said I think the Batman example still holds weight even though he didn't actually die. I also think that it'd still have an emotional impact, and I think Doctor Who is proof of that: the character lives but the death of each incarnation is still always a big emotional moment. So if done right you could still get the audience welling up even though they know they're obviously going to make more Bond movies.

    I'm not saying I necessarily want Craig's Bond to die (I do think he has to have a defintive closed ending though, at this point not sure carrying on from him with a new actor would work) but I'm open to it and I don't think the audience would be confused at all.
  • Posts: 11,119
    bondjames wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    Most humble movie fans have no idea about the timelines/reboot. As far as they are concerned, DC is James Bond and thats it. You just can't kill him off as the mainstream audience just wont be able to understand whats going on.
    That's a good point. I personally couldn't care less if they killed him off or not. His iteration is a standalone in my mind as it is, given the timeline thing, so if they want him to go out permanently it's fine with me.

    However, you're right in stating that the general audience would likely get confused. I mentioned on another thread that I did a quick unscientific survey of fair weather fans and they really had lost the plot on all of the goings on in this new universe (obviously they don't rewatch the new films with the same regularity that we do). Many had forgotten that it was a reboot to begin with.

    The thing is @BondJames, the 'death button' has been used in overkill mode during the Craig era. Whereas back in 1969 Tracy's death was an atypical, traumatic experience, during the Craig era we saw subsequently emotional deaths of Vesper Lynd, René Mathis, 'M' and some other. They worked yes, but it would be nice if the writers of Bond #25 can touch a different, more unique emotion, so that the film won't get blamed being too much of, again, a rip-off of a previous movie ("Logan"?).

    I think the Bond screenplay writers seriously need to give this a thought. I did exactly that in my story treatment (I'm curious if you like it @BondJames). Or what about a reimagined, more positive spirited resignation from the Service (Bond sitting in 'M's chair when 'M' enters his own office. Bond: "I always liked to understand how it feels to be a bureaucrat, but this time I give the calls. I'm leaving the service!).

    That to me is a sign of true creativity. Of writing/doing things that no action film of spy franchise has done before. The 'death button' to me is not very much so.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited August 2017 Posts: 23,883
    I don't disagree with you @Gustav_Graves, but perhaps you have a more positive opinion of this era than I do. I don't see it as highly original in the context of popular culture, although it certainly has been brave for the Bond universe (and even then, perhaps not so much since the winds were already blowing in this direction with edgier fare and reboots). Therefore, while I prefer your approach and agree that it's more original, I won't really mind if they want to kill him off. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me.

    I'm afraid I haven't read your treatment yet, and for that I apologize. I will try to get to it soon.
  • edited August 2017 Posts: 11,119
    Here are the results after 14 people have voted (please be clear with your choice, as this is a poll:

    Option A --> 57,14% = 8 votes
    Option B --> 07,14% = 1 vote
    Option C --> 14,29% = 2 votes
    Option D --> 21,43% = 3 votes
    yLSkcyr.jpg
  • edited August 2017 Posts: 11,119
    bondsum wrote: »
    I think it's possible to end a Bond movie with, both Bond bedding the girl in some fashion and saving the day, without the need for hilarity. Personally, I'd like the movie to close on somewhere more glamorous and exotic than gloomy old, heavily-filtered London. I know some here have an unreserved hatred of DAF, but I like the ending between Tiffany and Bond on the cruise liner. It's simple, effective and ends posing a question, rather than in a post-coital embrace.

    The final 10 minutes could be the "Guy Hamilton double-ending", whereupon the audience is reminded of the reappearance of a henchman that's gone unaccounted for up until the final moment. Examples are the GF, DAF, LALD and MWTTGG closing sequences. Let's not forget OHMSS also does this as well. I also don't think the audience needs to see closure on his tenure, especially as it's been such a long gap in between SP and Bond 25. It's not as if the previous movie is going to be fresh in our minds, unless we all universally sit down and watch it before Bond 25 premieres. I certainly don't want to see any Logan (Shane or John Wayne) influences, that's for sure. The Logan death was slightly reminiscent of Batman's death in TDKR, or faked death, which is pretty much how you're suggesting Bond ends in your category D. The category B worked in book-form as a cliffhanger of sorts, but I can't see it working for a movie without there being a sequel. Also, didn't Fleming intend to end Bond's life in FRWL, much like Arthur Conen Doyle did with Sherlock Holmes, but had a change of heart?

    Sorry, @Gustav_Graves, I'm just not seeing the appropriate choice for my own "double-ending" and "posing a question" suggestion.

    Or....really turn it into a double ending, in which both parts are in its entirety not related to each other. The part where Bond is featured in is the more happy send-off, whereas the part where the villain is in, is a bit more sinister. A bit like Marvel, but then not intercut with end itltes. A bit like this @bondsum ?
    PfjGDs8.jpg
  • Posts: 4,599
    If you are going to kill off Bond, there must be an emotional payoff for the audience or its pointless. So he has to die with someone that he (and the audience) have an emotional connection with. So who have you got? Tanner? no way. M is too new (although a wonderful actor) so that leaves Moneypenny and I'm not sure if she has the gravitas to pull it off but she is your only option.

    Thats why the end of SF worked so well. The audience were compleley commited to both characters. If JD was still around, I can imagine an amazing death scene for Bond.

    It is intriguing to imagine/consider.

    PS Star Wars failed on this IMHO re Solo. He should have died in Chewie's arms.
  • James Bond should never be killed killed.

    What they could do with a future Bond who holds some continuity from film to film is a FRWL ending where Bond "dies" at the end of one—have it be a shocking, gloomy, even artistic ending if you want with the would be Bond girl walking in the rain in tears and whatever—then "resurrect" him through medicine and physical therapy in the next one with eval by Sir James Maloney, maybe after a unique modern Bondless PTS getting a jumpstart on the villain's scheme. No reason the Bond team couldn't have the foresight to work that out across two films. That framework wouldn't even necessarily have to have anything to do with the actual plots of either movie—just perhaps the tones.
  • Posts: 4,023
    patb wrote: »
    If you are going to kill off Bond, there must be an emotional payoff for the audience or its pointless. So he has to die with someone that he (and the audience) have an emotional connection with. So who have you got? Tanner? no way. M is too new (although a wonderful actor) so that leaves Moneypenny and I'm not sure if she has the gravitas to pull it off but she is your only option.

    Thats why the end of SF worked so well. The audience were compleley commited to both characters. If JD was still around, I can imagine an amazing death scene for Bond.

    It is intriguing to imagine/consider.

    PS Star Wars failed on this IMHO re Solo. He should have died in Chewie's arms.

    Harrison-Ford-Chewbacca.png
  • Posts: 6,682
    While it would be fascinating to see Bond die, I'd absolutely hate to see Bond die.

    I know, it's complicated.

    No, what I really mean is that as interesting as seeing his death might be, the fact is I watch Bond films to see Bond get out of the hairiest situations by the skin of his teeth. I want to see him win! Bond is a survivor, dammit; that's one of the things that makes him cool! So I wouldn't want them to kill him off, ever.

    Ever.



    Ever.
  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    Posts: 2,730
    How about it is revealed in the film that M is part of spectre and the final scene is bond going back to base to kill M
  • keep voting ;-)
  • GumboldGumbold Atlantis
    Posts: 118
    I think the producers have painted themselves into a corner with the whole "James Bond is too old" schtick, and I'm afraid that they might kill Bond to end Daniel Craigs tenure. This would in effect give credence to the code name theory, which I hate, and I think it would make Daniel Craigs run as Bond the worst and most off track tenure of any of the other Bond actors. I don't have much faith in the producers anymore. This is just my opinion, but the Bond movies now aren't really "Bond" anymore, and with Blofeld being James Bond's adoptive brother... I mean.. What are they doing?? They shouldn't give Daniel Craigs tenure an ending, just like the actors before him never got one. Keep it going not just with more movies, but story-wise aswell
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Gumbold wrote: »
    I think the producers have painted themselves into a corner with the whole "James Bond is too old" schtick, and I'm afraid that they might kill Bond to end Daniel Craigs tenure. This would in effect give credence to the code name theory, which I hate, and I think it would make Daniel Craigs run as Bond the worst and most off track tenure of any of the other Bond actors. I don't have much faith in the producers anymore. This is just my opinion, but the Bond movies now aren't really "Bond" anymore, and with Blofeld being James Bond's adoptive brother... I mean.. What are they doing?? They shouldn't give Daniel Craigs tenure an ending, just like the actors before him never got one. Keep it going not just with more movies, but story-wise aswell
    You're not alone in thinking they've boxed themselves in. I'm not sure they'll kill him off although I wouldn't care if they did. I've always viewed his reboot creation as being somewhat distinct anyway.

    The only concern I have with him being bumped off is that we probably won't see a film in 2022 then, as they'd probably have to let the series lie dormant for a bit longer before reactivating it. Sadly I'm not getting any younger, so anything that moves this along from the overly leisurely pace they've been operating at over the past decade would really be appreciated and encouraged by me.
  • GumboldGumbold Atlantis
    Posts: 118
    bondjames wrote: »
    Gumbold wrote: »
    I think the producers have painted themselves into a corner with the whole "James Bond is too old" schtick, and I'm afraid that they might kill Bond to end Daniel Craigs tenure. This would in effect give credence to the code name theory, which I hate, and I think it would make Daniel Craigs run as Bond the worst and most off track tenure of any of the other Bond actors. I don't have much faith in the producers anymore. This is just my opinion, but the Bond movies now aren't really "Bond" anymore, and with Blofeld being James Bond's adoptive brother... I mean.. What are they doing?? They shouldn't give Daniel Craigs tenure an ending, just like the actors before him never got one. Keep it going not just with more movies, but story-wise aswell
    You're not alone in thinking they've boxed themselves in. I'm not sure they'll kill him off although I wouldn't care if they did. I've always viewed his reboot creation as being somewhat distinct anyway.

    The only concern I have with him being bumped off is that we probably won't see a film in 2022 then, as they'd probably have to let the series lie dormant for a bit longer before reactivating it. Sadly I'm not getting any younger, so anything that moves this along from the overly leisurely pace they've been operating at over the past decade would really be appreciated and encouraged by me.
    Really hope they get someone fresh and energized to keep making the movies at a faster pace. I agree with you! Craig really slowed this franchise down to a hault. Not saying it's just his fault, but.. It probably is
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,254
    Film is a director’s medium.
  • edited October 2017 Posts: 19,339
    No way...If Bond is killed then so is the series.
    If he comes back in another re-boot he will be a laughing stock.
    Not all normal cinema-goers or very casual Bond fans see this as a story arc period,they are just Bond films,so to do something stupid like killing him off would be very detrimental....very.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Gumbold wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Gumbold wrote: »
    I think the producers have painted themselves into a corner with the whole "James Bond is too old" schtick, and I'm afraid that they might kill Bond to end Daniel Craigs tenure. This would in effect give credence to the code name theory, which I hate, and I think it would make Daniel Craigs run as Bond the worst and most off track tenure of any of the other Bond actors. I don't have much faith in the producers anymore. This is just my opinion, but the Bond movies now aren't really "Bond" anymore, and with Blofeld being James Bond's adoptive brother... I mean.. What are they doing?? They shouldn't give Daniel Craigs tenure an ending, just like the actors before him never got one. Keep it going not just with more movies, but story-wise aswell
    You're not alone in thinking they've boxed themselves in. I'm not sure they'll kill him off although I wouldn't care if they did. I've always viewed his reboot creation as being somewhat distinct anyway.

    The only concern I have with him being bumped off is that we probably won't see a film in 2022 then, as they'd probably have to let the series lie dormant for a bit longer before reactivating it. Sadly I'm not getting any younger, so anything that moves this along from the overly leisurely pace they've been operating at over the past decade would really be appreciated and encouraged by me.
    Really hope they get someone fresh and energized to keep making the movies at a faster pace. I agree with you! Craig really slowed this franchise down to a hault. Not saying it's just his fault, but.. It probably is
    He definitely has a bit of influence on how and when things move along, although they've had other problems lately. Yes, like you I hope the next chap is a bit more keen to get a move on and hopefully he can influence the producers to do the same.

    The most important thing will be a new corporate structure which facilitates this though, and that is why unlike most, I'm open to a sale (of either EON's interest or MGM's) or a full sale of MGM to a larger and more stable concern with full distribution capabilities.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,882
    barryt007 wrote: »
    No way...If Bond is killed then so is the series.
    If he comes back in another re-boot he will be a laughing stock.
    Not all normal cinema-goers or very casual Bond fans see this as a story arc period,they are just Bond films,so to do something stupid like killing him off would be very detrimental....very.

    If they kill Bond, that would finally fully convince me that they know longer have a clue how to make a Bond films. In 4 films, they still haven't got the gun barrel right, so I wouldn't be that surprised if they did kill Bond.
  • edited October 2017 Posts: 12,837
    barryt007 wrote: »
    No way...If Bond is killed then so is the series.
    If he comes back in another re-boot he will be a laughing stock.
    Not all normal cinema-goers or very casual Bond fans see this as a story arc period,they are just Bond films,so to do something stupid like killing him off would be very detrimental....very.

    If they kill Bond, that would finally fully convince me that they know longer have a clue how to make a Bond films. In 4 films, they still haven't got the gun barrel right, so I wouldn't be that surprised if they did kill Bond.

    I wouldn't mind if they did. To me it seems like they've decided that the Craig era is its own self contained thing ala Nolan's Batman. I think the idea of it being the start of a whole new series went out the window with SP. It's all too tied together now to just carry on with a new guy and I mean, they made Blofeld his brother. After SP it's anything goes at this point imo. Sort of a parallel universe take on the old Bond legend.

    I think killing Bond off could be a really cool ending to that if done right. But really I don't mind how they end it at all as long as it has a proper ending. Keep the Craig films seperate from the other movies.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    barryt007 wrote: »
    No way...If Bond is killed then so is the series.
    If he comes back in another re-boot he will be a laughing stock.
    Not all normal cinema-goers or very casual Bond fans see this as a story arc period,they are just Bond films,so to do something stupid like killing him off would be very detrimental....very.

    If they kill Bond, that would finally fully convince me that they know longer have a clue how to make a Bond films. In 4 films, they still haven't got the gun barrel right, so I wouldn't be that surprised if they did kill Bond.

    I wouldn't mind if they did. To me it seems like they've decided that the Craig era is its own self contained thing ala Nolan's Batman. I think the idea of it being the start of a whole new series went out the window with SP. It's all too tied together now to just carry on with a new guy and I mean, they made Blofeld his brother. After SP it's anything goes at this point imo. Sort of a parallel universe take on the old Bond legend.

    I think killing Bond off could be a really cool ending to that if done right. But really I don't mind how they end it at all as long as it has a proper ending. Keep the Craig films seperate from the other movies.
    I completely agree. I see them as distinct and a parallel universe as well. Strictly formative origin story stuff (whether it be Bond, MP, M, Blofeld etc.).
Sign In or Register to comment.