News on NO TIME TO DIE (no spoilers)

I think there would be a lot of people, should they follow up a BOND 25 in which Bond dies, with BOND 26 just 2-3 years later, who would be saying “Wait a second, didn’t he die in the last one?”

Not everyone follows these films as closely as we do. In all honesty, though, if you were to remove a line or two of dialogue from CASINO ROYALE, then the whole reboot angle of that film and its sequels completely crumbles, as these films can pretty easily be taken as something that exists within the world the previous 20 films had built without a whole lot of effort. It wouldn’t surprise me in the least that there is a good number of people out there who either don’t know, or don’t remember, that these films are supposed to be a reboot. I’m also not certain that these films were meant to be their own self-contained storyline until they did what they did with SPECTRE.

Well I think the marketing for CR was quite insistent that this was a hard reboot in the style of Batman Begins.

But then obviously it wasn’t , as, bar the pts and one or two lines of dialogue, they could’ve gotten away with it as a sequel to Die Another Day. It was Skyfall that later confused that when the film casually makes a Goldeneye reference then Mendes stood firm on the DB5 being the one from Goldfinger (somewhere Purvis mentioned that in the script it was the specifically meant to be the DB5 he won in CR) however I don’t think there’ll be that much overlap between people who didn’t remember that Craig’s was meant to be a hard reboot, and those who care about any continuity in Bond films.

I don’t disagree that the marketing, and the intention of EON at the time, was for a hard reboot, but ultimately it didn’t turn out that way. I can’t imagine that the average movie patron is going to remember that this was supposed to be “Bond Begins”, though.

Even if they do, though, I think they’d really be robbing BOND 25 of its impact if Bond were to die in it only to bring him back 2-3 years later, rebooted yet again. To have the impact that they’d want it to have, I think you’d have to leave the franchise on ice for at least 5-6 years. It would really take away from the “danger” or unpredictability of the films to have Bond die in one and then all of a sudden he’s back two years later as though nothing had happened.

To be honest, i don’t see them going for the death route either, Bond accepting that this will always be his life seems more likely, and the idea that MI:6 is his family fits with Craig’s other 4 as they all, to certain degrees, look at Bond’s desire for a more meaningful relationship whether that be familial or romantic.

I think death is just not in the cards for Bond. It would have to be some kind of meaningful sacrifice and that would pretty much have to have some pathos-ridden state burial in an epilogue. The whole balance of the film would be messed up by that, regardless what happened beforehand.

The proper way to end Craig’s Bond - any Bond - would be to have him disappear without a trace. Ideally he’d have lost his memory too so he can finally live in peace as a fisherman in some remote corner of the world. Shame the scripts already burned up that idea without much impact.

I certainly hope they will not have CraigBond die at the end.

But I would totally be surprised if BOND 26 with a new actor would follow 2-3 years later. Considering all the problems and hesitations that delayed the films during the last decade I expect the next Bond actor to start four years after BOND 25 at the earliest. Probably they will take an even longer hiatus just to distance the next era from the almighty CraigBond.

It’s very likely there will be an even longer hiatus after BOND 25, provided there are no major changes to the makeup and ownership of Bond-on-screen. Given that we’ve seen now anything from two to six years between film it’s difficult to imagine what set of circumstances would be necessary to get this series back on a regular schedule. And that’s not even counting in the fierce battles that will no doubt come with casting Craig’s replacement. Just remember the buzz from 18 months ago…

I wonder what the deal with the new distributor will comprise: really only BOND 25 (with the Craig-factor as a guarantee for success) or in addition to that a series of films with the next actor.

If it´s only about BOND 25 that everybody involved already will be mightily happy to get off the ground then we have to expect a very, very long hiatus, I’m afraid.

If the next era is part of the deal, financiers will want to see a quick return.

And if I want to be optimistic (or naive) I would imagine that during the long silence about Bond´s future EON, MGM and the new distributor have already laid down concrete plans how to move on, with a director in place who has secretly cast the new Bond.

In that case, unlikely but not totally impossibly, I suspect it really will be Nolan who guides the next phase since he has already stated that he had talks with BB and that he only would want to reimagine Bond instead of coming in now during Craig´s last stand.

At the rate they’re going, I too find it difficult to believe that Bond 26 would hit theaters just 2-3 years after Bond 25. Also, it would be odd if the gap between Craig and Bond #7 were shorter than the gap between the final two CraigBond movies.

As much as I love Craig, the downside to his return (after another four year hiatus) is that we’ll most likely be in for a longer gap next time out. Real shame.

I think the whole kill-Bond-then-reboot things is a terrible idea and would ultimately be bad for the series in the long run. Back in the early 2000’s reboots were a new an novel way of breathing some life back into a series and Casino Royale was a rebooted franchise done well. But in the years since then we’ve been hit with a deluge of reboots and people are growing tired of them, or at least I am. The rebooted Spider-Man from 2012 never found its feet leading to it being rebooted again into a more successful series while people aren’t really taking to the post-Nolan Batman in the DC films.
I’ve heard that Craig wants his ‘Logan’, and since Logan was great why wouldn’t he? But his relationship with Bond is very different to Jackman’s relationship with Wolverine. The X-Men films are continuing without him and exploring new characters but you can’t have a Bond film without James Bond. We already know there will be Bond 26 and more actors in the role after Craig, to kill Bond now would seem like a cynical and ultimately meaningless move that would most likely alienate fans.
James Bond will always return.

What worries me, is what might happen after 25. The very last thing I want to se is EON caving in to today’s hollywood and having Bond cast as either a woman or even a person of colour. (Not that there’s anything wrong with it, it’s not a race concept, it’s a purist thing.)

I’d be in favour of Idris Elba if he were another 00 if he were younger or even wanted the part, but Gillian Anderson can shove right off. Hollywood is too political now when they have no right to be and I think they will put pressure on EON to change Bond into what they may want the franchise to be now, because in this ‘modern age’ no cows are sacred.

I agree. I just don’t think killing Bond is something the franchise should ever do.

I of course don’t want EON to ever do the killing Bond thing, but it’s certainly worth noting that Fleming himself killed him at the end of FRWL…

I’d be okay with an ambiguous ending like that. But stone cold dead wouldn’t be my preference.

I’m guessing that when Nolan signs up for at least 2 in a row with Bond 7 the first will be a cliffhanger ending.

Nearest we’ve come so far to a cliffhanger is CR, but i think Nolan will take Fleming’s lead and leave Bond at death’s door (like the rumoured unused ending of QoS)

Can’t leave out OHMSS…

Thanks for reminded me! This ending, along with CR are indeed ‘To Be Continued…

It’s semantics to try and discern a difference between a ‘to be continued…’ and a 'cliffhanger’. I guess it’s about what’s at stake, or more importantly for whom.

The OHMSS and CR endings leave the stakes low for Bond - in both the damage is already done and what will follow is revenge.

But in Fleming’s FRWL ending the stakes couldn’t be higher for Bond, since he’s left for dead. I know it wasn’t intended to be a cliffhanger - it was intended to be the final James Bond book. But Eon could learn something from this ‘accidental cliffhanger’; how exciting it was for the readership to learn what happened next when Fleming did after all resurrect Bond.

In fact i think the OMG cliffhanger ending of Fleming’s YOLT shows that he did indeed learn a thing or two about how much his readers love a cliffhanger.

However, in the current broken pattern of Eon’s Bond productions, we’re lucky to get anything at all, let alone continuity between films. That’s why my hopes for a real cliffhanger rest with Nolan, who has form for making 2 or 3 movies in a row. He may even opt for a back-to-back shoot to facilitate this.

But it’s some way down the road in Bond 26 or 27, depending upon how much they want Villeneuve for 26.

Despite all the rumors about Nolan, however, it is still absolutely likely that he will not be asked to helm the next phase at all. Nor Villeneuve.

Granted, both have acknowledged talks with BB. But as with so many actors who were in the running to play Bond, some because they were hot in demand at the time, all these name directors might end up on the huge pile of could-have-beens.

1 Like

Obviously, the whole networking and keeping-in-the-loop routine is part and parcel of showbizz. During the days of the original Eon couple Broccoli/Saltzman it seems now they offered the role of Bond to all and sundry after Connery refused to carry on. Nowadays it seems directors are almost as hard to convince to take on Bond - those offering themselves excluded…

As for YOLT‘s ending, it’s debatable whether that really was supposed to be a ‘cliffhanger’ - many argue plausibly Fleming wanted this as Bond’s final curtain and had no intention of picking him up again. The book itself ends with Bond and Kissy still together, Vladivostok is only mentioned as a distant trace to Bond’s former life. If this had been the last book we could have imagined the rest of Bond’s life any way we wanted, from fisherman to spy.

Interestingly, in a business climate in which even A-list directors are struggling to get their usual drama fare green lighted it is much easier for them to enlist for a franchise installment. Otherwise, for example, Sam Mendes would never have signed on.

Nolan, so far, is an exception, and will continue to be as long as his films bring in money and good reviews. Then again, he made his career take off with a franchise reboot. So maybe, after DUNKIRK, he will not be too eager to get off his personal route and choose Bond.

As for the other directors, I bet everyone will love to get a high-profile job with excellent pay - so all the hesitating will mostly be done for the sake of contract negotiations. Villeneuve, for example, will be happy to do Bond should he still be considered, since his BLADE RUNNER 2049 was a massive box office disappointment and DUNE will be an extremely tough sell now (as reported lately, there still is no script to start with).

Regarding Fleming´s cliffhanger: I always wonder whether Fleming would have continued with Bond after TMWTGG if he himself had lived on. Despite stating that he wanted to put an end to Bond the demand for new installments could have enticed him to send Bond on other missions.

Then again: what could the character have done after TMWTGG? He had been married, had been made a widower, had lost his memory, had been brainwashed, had rejoined the service despite being fed up with the whole business.

Fleming´s Bond was at a stage CraigBond seems to be now (and has arrived at in a much shorter time). Broccoli and Saltzman instinctively made the better choice (for a long-lasting treatment of the character) by stripping him of his depressed state and making him much more laid back and content.