News on BOND 25


Oh, M wouldn’t have to die. This version was introduced as a bit of a Whitehall career horse, supposedly even so familiar to ordinary troopers that they immediately jump at attention when he growls something about ‘00-section’ (which we may assume is something so well known not even the tabloids bother to cover any more…).

So this M gets a promotion and this Bond gets to meet the Queen again. It’s the logical conclusion to a career we’ve seen from start to finish. They could even shoehorn the Royal Navy in by making Bond (rear) admiral.

Yes, it blows everything. But I bet Fleming wouldn’t have complained. What I mean is, if we’re bold we can be really bold, not just a teeny-tiny bit of b-b-bold-and-let’s-finish-before-we’re-caught kind of. Nobody would count on such an outcome.


Bond did the memory loss plotline before Bourne. Sure, that was in the novels, but the point stands. It has grounding in the material and Bourne doesn’t have the monopoly on it. In my mind, the hypothetical scene in question would only be moments before the credits rolled, just like the novel. Bond retiring in happiness with a newfound love, finally moving on from Vesper saga, is triumphant in my opinion. He’s smiling and in a happy place. He’s no longer fighting. He’s leaving with what he has left.


What if they went in the complete opposite direction and ended Bond 25 and the Craig era with Bond (and perhaps the villain) left for dead? Bond 26 and the new actor would then pick up in the exact place 25 leaves off with a new actor arising from the ashes and moving forward from there. Is this too close to the ending of the PTS of Skyfall? Would a scenario like this even work?


Problem is: I don´t see CraigBond as a deskjockey nor as someone who would actually want to be in charge. He already is due to his constant rogue actions.

However, I would love to see M going the villain route - something that SPECTRE tried in one of its incarnations until Fiennes vetoed it. But to give Bond an example how the going rogue thing can quickly descend into utter madness an M-villain could be perfect for him. And it would be in line with CraigBond´s trust issues.


No, Craig’s Bond is definitely not the desk type. If he was however forced by a condition to give up the superhero act…

The thing about making M the villain - or a villain - is that Dench’s M was in a way already close to a Frankenstein character in her last act. And as you point out, Denbigh, forgettable as he was, has already covered that part. So at least Fiennes’ M has to keep British Intelligence from going full scale Cambridge Three…

I know, seeing Craig’s Bond promoted out of the Service is entirely against the grain. But it depends what people want, a satisfying finish for Bond that is more meaningful than SPECTRE’s was - or an ending that doesn’t touch the character at all so Craig’s successor can take over without any much ado. Stuffing both into one package will be most difficult.

I agree that the amnesia road is Bond’s very own territory. Sadly, nowadays nobody will much care about the source material and the public tenor will likely not take the time to research the facts. Also, most of the elements of that story were used in SKYFALL and we’d have to come up with something not one but two or three steps removed from it. Could be that’s a bridge they will want to cross when they arrive there in BOND 26. But they’ve written themselves into a corner with SPECTRE and it would be sensible not to end up in another one at the end of BOND 25.


I think the amnesia element would have to be jettisoned. The only way is to sidestep that would be to go for the full-scale brainwashing in the book version of TMWTGG. Now that would be a heck of a way to send Craig off with a cliffhanger! Not that I’m actually proposing that. It sure would be a tough way to introduce a new Bond though in the next film.


This is news to me, and I’m not sure I like the implications. Not that I want to see an evil M, but the idea that Fiennes has veto power strikes me as uncool. I’m not even sure I’m crazy about Craig having that much say, but when the supporting cast gets script control, things have gone too far.

This is what comes from casting increasingly prominent performers in roles that have grown from bit parts to indispensable “team mates.” IMHO, it’s changed the nature of the films and not necessarily for the better.


I like Mr. Fiennes and all but he is not more prominent than Dame Dench.


Point taken, poor choice of words. But my point is I wouldn’t rate either of them more highly than Bernard Lee, and he didn’t get script approval.


I actually agreed with your premise. About the only person who should have script approval is Bond (and maybe the villain under certain circumstances)


I’m just trying to imagine the whole conversation: “Hey, Ralph, I know you’ve got a regular gig with this M thing that you could milk well into your dotage, but wouldn’t it be much cooler if you turned out evil and we just killed you off right now?”

Ffienes (house shopping on line): “Yeah, thanks but I’m gonna pass.”


I’m not sure it’s actual script approval, I suppose it was more like that Fiennes didn’t like it and the writers were not all that happy or sure about the idea and when they had one of their various powwows nobody was hot about the feedback and that’s how ideas die on the road to a finished script, more by lack of support but veto.


I think it was in the Sam Mendes-curated Empire issue in which it was stated that Fiennes vehemently disagreed with the idea that M could be part of the Spectre-scheme that Denbigh finally fronted.

Maybe at that time, with Fiennes only starting out in his first full film as M it was too soon and therefore a bad idea.

But now, with the proper explanation, M being disillusioned with the way politicians are treating the 00-section, I would welcome him going his own way - and CraigBond discovering that this rogue behaviour he himself liked to indulge in can lead down a very dangerous path.

Then again, and I myself argued so many times that way, I don´t really want to see another personal angle in a CraigBond-film. I´d rather have him go out on a normal mission in a light adventure style.

However, SPECTRE and the treatment of Blofeld left so much to be desired that a return to Blofeld and the personal angle seems inevitable, even necessary.

It´s kind of a mess, really, and I am curious how EON will resolve this.


It could be as easy as Bond #7 walking through the door in Bond 26, with M saying “feeling better 007?”, “yes sir”. And then they carry on. A soft reboot that still keeps Craig’s run contained. As for M being a bad guy…I’m not really a fan of that. I think the mole angle has been overdone as it is. They’ve also established M has his heart in the right place with his opposition to Nine Eyes.


Yeah, that is true.

But whichever way EON decides to end BOND 25 I don´t think nor need an explanation as to why and how Bond will return in BOND 26.

Every actor´s tenure needs its own continuity. When a tenure ends I think it´s better to not try to make the audience believe that M, Moneypenny and Q still think the new guy is the old guy. That approach did not work for me at all in OHMSS, for example.

I prefer the way they did it after that in LALD, with M and Moneypenny just addressing Bond as Bond (and the film dispatching old rituals connected to Connery). Or with TLD and GE, establishing new timelines.

So, for my taste, BOND 25 has a carte blance for its ending.

It probably will be another four years at least anyway until the new guy steps in.


Interesting - on the basis that SPECTRE sort-of-ish ends like Dirty Harry could such an idea lead to a parallel to Magnum Force (I’m stretching this, but I could see the appeal).


Well since they’re so besotted with Nolan’s Batman films, they should follow their example here: Nolan featured a specific arc about a particular interpretation of the character and now that it’s done it has no ties whatsoever to the Affleck version. That’s how it should be for Craig’s Bond, even if it means recasting M, Moneypenny and Q in Bond 26 to make it work.

I’m against making M a bad guy if only because I’ve had my fill of scripts that revolve around “the office.” We need 007 out in the field, preferably without an earpiece and a running commentary from the London contingent.


Lots of great notions here. Perhaps they could, depending on B25 of course, sort of shoe in the backstory at the opening of ‘License Renewed’ for B26. The Double-O section is seemingly removed, but M won’t have it. “There are times when this country needs a blunt instrument and by God it’s going to have one. You will remain ‘007’ and you will, as always, take your orders directly from me. Understood 007?”

Something along those lines. It could be a great intro for whoever fills the tux and also sort of redefine the original covert ideal of HMSS. I can see Fiennes giving that lecture.

Hopes and dreams folks.


Good lord, I hope we don’t go down the amnesia route. Bourne has already done that, even if technically Bond did it first in the source material. What an awful way to end CraigBond’s tenure.

Bond 25 has to be explosive. In every way. Not in a mindless QOS climax way, but it has to be epic in YOLT sorta-scale.


If CraigBond bows out of the service for good, maybe they should look at the beginning of YOLT and do a fake assassination which allows Bond to be missing in action - but also to return.

Hey, wait… Nolan did that with Batman already.