Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 101
  1. #31
    Sailing the seas Chris Lang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    3,573

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Username taken View Post
    That ending though..very intriguing. I guess this is cleaning the deck for an entirely new type of James Bond. But I don't know why modern film makers feel the need to end the heroes journey in death. In this instance it just seemed rather unnecessary especially now that James Bond had a family.
    I'm reminded of this Neil Gaiman quote. "All Bette's stories have happy endings. That's because she knows when to stop. She's realized the real problem with stories -- if you keep them going long enough, they always end in death."

    In any case, I think part of the point is that James Bond is someone who was destined to never have a normal life and settle down with a family. This idea has been explored in the past as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by AnakinFlair View Post
    When Bond and M meet on the streets of London, the score calls back to the theme of 'On Her Majesty's Secret Service'- one of MANY callbacks to that movie.
    The basic idea that any time James Bond comes even close to having a normal life with a family, something tragic will happen to stop it, is present in that film as well. So the callbacks to that film certainly work within the context of this one.

    Quote Originally Posted by Frontier View Post
    So are we assuming Craig's cast are going to carry over to the next Bond or will they do a complete overhaul since it seems like they really wanted to cap off and "end" the Craig era? Like they just got done seeing Bond die and toasting to him, but then in the next movie it's business as usual?

    Killing Craig's Bond just opens up a lot of questions for where they're going to move forward with the franchise.
    Quote Originally Posted by AnakinFlair View Post
    Well, Ben Whishaw has said in an interview that he's done the three he was contracted for and is done. But this is an intriguing question. In the past when the supporting players carried over, you never really questioned it because it was always Bond going on another mission. Even with the Craig reboot, having Judi Dench carry over felt natural. But with Bond having died, it would feel kind of weird to see Moneypenny bantering with a new Bond. I could go with Mallory carrying over, though. It would be a kind of symmetry.
    Generally, it's bringing Daniel Craig's whole series full circle. It began with a reboot: Casino Royale had a Bond beginning his career in the post-9/11 era, with the Cold War long behind us. The series continued by giving us a new version of Blofeld, and ended the series in such a way that it seems unlikely that "James Bond will return" unless there's another reboot.

    I was confused when Judi Dench's M carried over to the Craig reboot, but I didn't mind too much as she was one of my favorite parts of the Brosnan films. I just had to keep in mind that while she was M, that in the universe Casino Royale is set, she became M at an earlier point in Bond's career than in the Brosnan films.
    Last edited by Chris Lang; 10-11-2021 at 02:50 PM.

  2. #32
    Moderator Frontier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    75,352

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thunderous Monkey View Post
    It would let them go a bit Dr. Who going forward, where each new 'Bond' brings enough of their own characteristics to make it believable. In their world they call each other M and Q, Bond wouldn't be too much of a stretch.

    It would also let them keep the previous Craig arc as canon, wouldn't have to replace the surrounding cast, and can tell non Fleming stories. Each time an actor is ready to leave there is a built in mechanism to replace them without the hand waving of the past.
    But those are established codenames, like 007 is, James Bond is an actual name.

  3. #33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Frontier View Post
    But those are established codenames, like 007 is, James Bond is an actual name.
    It is now yes. But the premise of the next movie would be to establish the creation 'James Bond' as a codename to honor Craig's character by his supporting cast. i can just imagine the final scene of the next film with the protagonist sitting down at a casino somewhere and announcing himself with his new codename. Bond.....James Bond.

  4. #34
    Moderator Frontier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    75,352

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thunderous Monkey View Post
    It is now yes. But the premise of the next movie would be to establish the creation 'James Bond' as a codename to honor Craig's character by his supporting cast. i can just imagine the final scene of the next film with the protagonist sitting down at a casino somewhere and announcing himself with his new codename. Bond.....James Bond.
    I just can't really see the Craig cast going along with that.

  5. #35
    Amazing Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    82

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thunderous Monkey View Post
    It would let them go a bit Dr. Who going forward, where each new 'Bond' brings enough of their own characteristics to make it believable. In their world they call each other M and Q, Bond wouldn't be too much of a stretch.
    All this just smacks of "lets make a different movie but call it Bond to ride the money". Bond is an established character with an established look and characteristics and an established supporting cast that act in certain ways. Regardless of what some fans will tell you, the "code name" theory holds no water in the films and each film is the same James Bond. If you cant make a movie using that, go off and do your own, don't do you own but then just rubber stamp "bond" "Q" etc on completely different characters.

  6. #36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SpiderTBliss View Post
    All this just smacks of "lets make a different movie but call it Bond to ride the money". Bond is an established character with an established look and characteristics and an established supporting cast that act in certain ways. Regardless of what some fans will tell you, the "code name" theory holds no water in the films and each film is the same James Bond. If you cant make a movie using that, go off and do your own, don't do you own but then just rubber stamp "bond" "Q" etc on completely different characters.
    Well I wouldn't exactly say 'established' looks. Bond has been black haired, brunette, blond, 30's, 40's 50's 60's, hairy chested, smooth chested, etc. And not 100% 'established' characteristics either. But that's neither here nor there. I'm not trying to say they are going to retcon the past movies to fit the 'code name' theory. I'm guessing they are going to make the code name idea the standard going forward. It seems to me the only way they can make a new movie, keep the same supporting cast, tell non Fleming stories, and most importantly keep the Craig rebooted origins of James Bond canon. On top of that they will have a built in way of explaining new actors going forward without having continuity issues.

    And for the record I'm not even saying it would be the best idea, I'm just saying that's where it looks to me like it's headed based on how they ended NTTD.

    Personally I would love to see a genuine reboot with the story taking place in the 50's settings of the original novels.

  7. #37
    Extraordinary Member ChrisIII's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    5,828

    Default

    In a way each actor has brought different stuff to the role. One of the problems with the earlier Moore films is that he was asked to play it like Connery but it didn't really fit Moore, so from TSWLM onward Moore brought more of his own personality into the role.

    Also Dalton was pretty much a total 180 from Moore as well. Moore seemed more calm and collected while Dalton's was *very* quick to anger and more brutal, almost a proto-Craig.
    chrism227.wordpress.com Info and opinions on a variety of interests.

    https://twitter.com/chrisprtsmouth

  8. #38
    Extraordinary Member ChrisIII's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    5,828

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chris Lang View Post
    I'm reminded of this Neil Gaiman quote. "All Bette's stories have happy endings. That's because she knows when to stop. She's realized the real problem with stories -- if you keep them going long enough, they always end in death."

    In any case, I think part of the point is that James Bond is someone who was destined to never have a normal life and settle down with a family. This idea has been explored in the past as well.
    In the novels, Bond actually has a son with Kissy when he develops amnesia after the battle of YOLT. However, he never finds out as he leaves for Russia to find clues to who he really is. https://jamesbond.fandom.com/wiki/James_Suzuki
    chrism227.wordpress.com Info and opinions on a variety of interests.

    https://twitter.com/chrisprtsmouth

  9. #39

    Default

    Think about this too....which characters would have been the most problematic with the code name Bond scenario going forward? His best friend? His evil step brother? Good thing they are conveniently both dead.

    But here is the real mind blower. For those folks that clamor for a female 'James Bond' they just need to wait until the next actor or two is done. By then Bond's daughter will be old enough to take up her father's code name.

  10. #40
    Sailing the seas Chris Lang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    3,573

    Default

    As far as I know, the whole 'James Bond is a codename' thing has never been anything other than fanon, headcanon, fan theory -- whatever you choose to call it. There are no 'canon' sources for it.

    In any case, while there were small implications that the Connery, Lazenby, and Moore Bond movies were set in the same continuity (or at the very least, events in a prior Bond's movies happened in the universes the other Bonds' movies were set in as well), the Daniel Craig movies were clearly, from the start (Casino Royale), set in their own distinct continuity separate from what had gone before.

    In the Craigverse (or whatever you choose to call it), Bond's career began post 9/11, with the Cold War long behind us (hence the events of movies like From Russia With Love did not happen in the Craigverse - at least not in the same way). Judi Dench's M, in this universe, was Bond's superior officer at an earlier point in his career, and characters like Felix Leiter and Ernst Stavro Blofeld likewise had different experiences.

    The Daniel Craig movies are, in essence, a five-part saga set in their own universe, separate from what has gone before -- and (outside of possible spinoffs featuring some of the new characters introduced) from any Bond movies that will come afterward. The ending of No Time To Die pretty much bookends the whole Daniel Craig era, and makes it clear that though 'James Bond will return', it will be in a different continuity than the universe the Craig films are set in.

  11. #41
    Extraordinary Member ChrisIII's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    5,828

    Default

    Some of Craig's Bond games kind of try to shoehorn many of the Bond movie adventures in-between QOS and Skyfall, although modernized. The Goldeneye Wii game, for example.

    It kind of words to explain why Craig's DB5 has all the Goldfinger stuff, unless they're Dimitrios's gadgets.....
    chrism227.wordpress.com Info and opinions on a variety of interests.

    https://twitter.com/chrisprtsmouth

  12. #42
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    28,980

    Default

    spoilers:
    I guess James Bond did have time to die after all.
    end of spoilers

  13. #43
    Standing Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    15,909

    Default

    Is Bond in the SHOWGIRLS Cinematic Universe?
    it's a lovely day
    *
    virtue is its own reward

  14. #44
    Extraordinary Member ChrisIII's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    5,828

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Kelly View Post
    Is Bond in the SHOWGIRLS Cinematic Universe?
    There's a theory that he's in THE ROCK's one.

    Both have Robert Davi with corny dialogue though...
    chrism227.wordpress.com Info and opinions on a variety of interests.

    https://twitter.com/chrisprtsmouth

  15. #45
    Moderator Frontier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    75,352

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisIII View Post
    Some of Craig's Bond games kind of try to shoehorn many of the Bond movie adventures in-between QOS and Skyfall, although modernized. The Goldeneye Wii game, for example.

    It kind of words to explain why Craig's DB5 has all the Goldfinger stuff, unless they're Dimitrios's gadgets.....
    007 Legends was pretty egregious with it, although I kind of loved that .

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •