Can you add the polls regarding the films with considerable victims?
In Dr. No, who’s really the victim?
A. Strangways
B. Quarrel
In Thunderball, who’s really the victim?
A. Jacques Derval
B. Angelo Palazzi
C. Paula Caplan
D. Ladislav Kutze
E. SPECTRE agent number 9
In You Only Live Twice, who’s really the victim?
A. Dikko Henderson
B. Aki
C. Helga Brandt
In Diamonds Are Forever who’s the victim?
A. Dr. Tynan
B. Unnamed Pilot killed by Wint and Kidd
C. Joe (also killed by Wint and Kidd)
D. Mrs. Whistler
E. Peter Franks
F. Shady Tree
G. Plenty O’Toole
On technical basis, can’t edit a poll once it’s had a vote in it but on gameplay basis, if they’re a seed, which Quarrel, Paula and Aki are, they’re not changing, and tbh some of those Diamonds are Forever ones are a bit thin - Plenty is plainly the Victim. It’s not “everyone who dies”. I mourn Joe, though.
Might do it next year but may all depend on whether those seeds lose that status, and also if Plenty is edited out of Diamonds are Forever.
Never quite realized what a body count there is in DAF.
Have to add in Bert Saxby; Dr. Metz, two guards at the surgery pavilion; one medical professional at the surgery pavilion; two false Blofelds; and the man doing the countdown on the oil rig.
Mm-hm, I’m not suggesting it was planned, but it’s an interesting little parallel. Poor little Mathilde; Grandfather sacrifices himself, as does her Dad. Dou-Dou’s bound to be sacrificed at some point. Kid’ll be in therapy for years. Fortunately, that’s her Mother’s job, even if she is very bad at it. What a very odd endpoint for this little pocket universe.
Just as the Craig interlude regularly referenced the previous 20 films to a greater or lesser extent (not much Brosnan, wisely), whatever else is coming in the next generation of Bond films, there should be obvious callbacks to the unique specifics of the Craig period (Vesper, Dou-Dou, Quantum, Algerian love knot, Silva, Skyfall M THE DENCH, Skyfall lodge, Brofeld, dead Felix etc etc)
Yes please
Some of it but not very often and only if it makes sense in the story
Been there, done that. We’ve had WAAAAY too much callbacks to the series’ history during the Daniel Craig era. It was almost a bit much when it was done in Pierce Brosnan’s Die Another Day, but, at the time, it was considered a one-off anniversary thing. But then we kept on getting them during the Craig run, so much so that it has been more than played out. Time to move on and get back to basics.
There’s no way to make it work. Brosnan’s Bond could make references to past entries (but shouldn’t have) because there was never any real continuity in the old days, so maybe everything from DN to DAD happened in the life of one guy and maybe it didn’t. But Craig’s version can’t be reconciled with any of that: the only reference that’s credible is the portraits of previous M’s: Lee and Brown could have served MI-6 in an era before there was a James Bond. The DB5 reference does NOT work.
For sure no future Bond can reference the Craig era because that Bond died. On screen. Mayyyyyybe Roger’s Bond could have said, “Oh yeah, I remember meeting Goldfinger,” but Next Bond can’t say, “Remember that period that ended with me disintegrated by massive explosions? Good thing I got better.”
Among the positive things that came out of the Craig era…I hope (though likely in vain)…is that it’s now impossible to keep leaning on nods to the past. The next guy can’t have ever been Craig, and with the Craig era as a 15-year buffer, he also can’t logically have been any of the other guys who were part of a chain that broke for good in 2006. Time to move forward.
But it’s EON, so any forward motion will probably occur in that @!*#&^ DB5.
There needs to be a completely clean break from the Craig era to preserve it, which is a good thing for both fans and critics of those movies. There can’t be any suggestion the new era takes place in the same continuity. I’d find it really annoying to give people room to come up with silly theories to explain how Bond 26 is actually a continuation rather than a new beginning.
And here’s the thing: the “callbacks” in the Craig era are to iconic, universally familiar Bond elements. Turning the “beauty rising from the sea” schtick upside down in CR was clever, but it relies on our familiarity with the infinitely more iconic Ursula scene. “Do I look like I give a damn” is only funny because the whole world knows how he’s supposed to order his drink. Only two cars make any real impression during the Craig, and both of them because they belonged to former Bonds. And so on.
What exactly is there for future entries to call back to in the Craig era? If they call back to movies that were themselves calling back, then they’re ultimately just double-calling back to the originals. Of the examples listed in the original question, I’d say there’s a decent chance of a Dench portrait slipping in as a visual easter egg at the London office, but if so it could just as easily be interpreted as a nod to Dench-M of the Brosnan era. Overall, I’d argue that while the Craig era was often entertaining and certainly profitable, its iconography is nowhere near as central to pop culture nor as universally recognized as elements from the 60s-70s eras of Bond.
(I’m not, but I do look utterly butterly in her frocks).
I have four ideas for relaunching Bond, which is four more than I am regularly considered to possess.
Because I’ve been apologising for the character of James Bond since 1995, all of them marginalise 007 because that’s only right and fair and, look, Skyfall made a billion doing that, but please vote for the one that you consider least disastrous and will sell the most wristwatches and smartphones.
I like uncontrived and natural multi-film arcs. The last one was a brilliantly planned and coherent effort. Why are you making that snorting sound?
Trevelyan Genesis (I am not calling it this) - over the course of 3 films, we see how and why Trevelyan goes from Bond’s chum to nemesis. Unconnected to GoldenEye, we just use the character name.
Blofeld Begins (I might be calling it this) - over the course of 3 films, we see how Bond’s successes inadvertently cause Blofeld to rise to power. Bond and Blofeld are not related in any way, shockingly.
I’m going back to Fleming! This time, The Spy who Loved Me and over the course of 3 films, we see the same story told from the perspective of the Bond Woman, the Villain and then Bond.
The inadvertent Henchperson - over the course of 3 films, we witness as a side-plot the increasing mutilation by Bond of a Henchperson, into full-blown body horror by halfway through the final one.
.