I do think Craig wants to get Bond 25 made with him in the lead role. I don’t doubt that. He has already waited long periods of time between Bond films already, so I’m sure he’s willing to do that again if necessary. And I’m hoping they find a director soon, which they may. I love him in the role and want that fifth under his belt too.
1 Like
Need to translate this article
3 Likes
The question is: when did she do it?
Perhaps just before Boyle jumped ship. Hard to tell whether that means certain characters now won’t appear in the film
Make of this what you will.
Regardless if this is true, I actually quite like the concept. Ambiguous enough to be a final ending for Craig (if that’s what Bond 25 becomes), but with Fleming’s own use of the trope being enough to convince fans he didn’t die and will pull through. Stone cold dead is what I have issue with.
I suppose they have the room to do that now the series allows for Bond to age, but, y’know, it’s The Mirror, salt is recommended at all times.
3 Likes
I have a general problem with that idea.
We all know that Bond will survive. So what‘s spectacular about this?
It’s a desperate attempt at a shock ending which will not shock, only frustrate.
Especially if BOND 26 will follow another 4-5 years later.
If they want CraigBond to die then they have to do it for real. End of an era, end of this version of Bond. Start over completely fresh.
FRWL has a pretty stark ending:
“…Bond pivoted slowly on his heel and crashed headlong to the wine-red floor. THE END.”
Nothing there to suggest he’ll pull through!
However there’s also no further epilogue which makes it a cliffhanger rather than an ending and of course a cliffhanger needs resolution and if that resolution in the next novel were bonds obituary it’d be short book.
So, while I don’t want a full on Bond death with all the supporting cast getting their sad farewell moment - following that up would be awkward - I’d welcome a Flemingesque cliffhanger.
However, a cliffhanger such as FRWL would again prove awkward to follow up with a new actor, whereas YOLT’s ending is far more suitable: Amnesiac Bond sails off into the horizon, heading for SMERSH, whom he misremembered as being his people. The follow up in which a brainwashed bond returns to kill M would obviously suit a Craig return, but more importantly it would imo be far less awkward for a new face than an out and out death scene cliffhanger.
This would also inject a new exciting dynamic into the franchise. Imagine wandering with every new bond movie if Bond will die in this one, or survive?
Naturally we’ll assume that bond will not die if it’s the actor’s first couple of movies. Likewise we’ll guess he does die if the rumour mill tells us he’s fed up with the role. But every now and then there be the added jeopardy of not knowing.
1 Like
I have to disagree with you there, I don’t think the death of Bond wouldn’t make new films more exciting and dramatic. Rather it would raise the question ‘why should I care if he lives or dies? He’ll be back in a few years no matter what’. It would weaken the connection the audience feels towards the character.
I think this is a general problem with the current reboot cycle. Back in 2006 reboots were a new and interesting idea that could allow you to do new things with a franchise. Now everything’s getting a reboot, some multiple times. This stop-start nature of film franchises is going to start alienating the audience rather than helping them get invested (if it hasn’t already).
The only way the death of Bond isn’t going to feel like a gimmick is if they let it sink in and step away from franchise for a good long time (I’m taking 10 years minimum). Maybe Rhythm Section/Stephanie Patrick could be their new big franchise in that time.
But we all know that’s not going to happen. James Bond will return and will always return.
As he should - Bond is a constant assurance, a hero who will return.
Again, this “Bond will die at the end of BOND 25” is an old rumor, in connection to “Craig wants his LOGAN”.
If true, however, I would seriously question whether EON is still interested in Bond films as a continuing endeavor. Also, I would ask if Craig has become a real problem for the franchise - demanding and getting everything he wants, keeping the films from going on in a steady rhythm and even developing into fresher approaches.
I don´t want him to hold the franchise hostage, strengthening the idea in EON´s and MGM´s mind: I am the only actor who can make Bond films a success.
1 Like
Or The Mirror made it up? 
General question for the good members…
Without having the quote in front of me…am I the only one who interprets the Logan quote differently? I always assumed that when DC spoke those words, he was suggesting a film that was “Loganish” in tone - older, grizzled, veteran hero whose “powers” are at the stretched end, the bottom of the tank. Did he actually refer to “Logan” as in hero dies at the end? (sorry, spoiler… 
)
I’ve always assumed he was referring to the overall tone of the film, rather than the plot point.
I’ve never seen an actual quote of him saying that, just op-Ed’s giving angry takes on it.
Yep. I don’t think there is a quote by DC actually stating: I want my LOGAN.
1 Like
I have to reiterate what I said here a while ago, DC was always down for 5 Bonds. What if contract negotiations were about number 6 ?. If there is any truth to the Mirror article DC doing 6 makes sense for that cliffhanger ending as described.
I do feel a sense of deja vu with the BB / DC dynamic and the relationship between her father and RM. I’m up for DC doing this one but I don’t want him to go one too many
What if CASINO ROYALE had bombed? Or if Craig had had a serious accident between 2006 and now?
I’m sorry but this understanding of ‘up for 5 Bonds’ is simply not how it works. All of these contracts are agreements of intent - both sides can bow out for any number of reasons. There simply isn’t a contract today that goes beyond the specific production, everything else are options - they can be drawn or not. And frequently they’re not, for lack of box office, for demands on either side, creative differences and so on.
Example in case: Waltz surely had a paragraph in his SPECTRE contract talking about possible sequels. But the paycheque for such a hypothetical return would be up for negotiations if such an offer was made. Why?
Say Waltz would have landed another Oscar, that would have upped his market value. For the same reason they could have offered his role to another actor, Waltz could simply have become too expensive. Or, another possibility, say his market value had been damaged by a number of bad b/o bombs and/or indecent behaviour in public. No production would then have wanted to have him on board, at least not for the asking price of SPECTRE.
So you can effectively have any number of contracts for however-many-films, they’re all not worth a lot if they don’t actually reach production stage.
1 Like
The contract is so Craig can’t say no, not that the producers HAVE to hire him. He had a first refusal on his fourth (that all Bond actors were given) later extended to 25 just before Skyfall came out. Craig had to be asked for Bond 25 per his contract, he said yes, but seemingly had no interest in extended his contract when he did. At this point both parties have fulfilled their ends. EON offered him first, Craig said yes and turned up for work. Whether or not this version happens is irrelevant as far as the contract goes.
3 Likes
What you say is true of any contract in any industry, I’m merely saying that acts of God aside DC was always going to do 5 , 6 is where it gets interesting
1 Like
He may have always seen himself doing 5 or 6, he just never imagined it would take this long. Now perhaps he finds himself somewhere between doing the stretch he’d originally intended and his body telling him ‘no more!’
1 Like
I imagine his feelings flit between them each day. Knee surgery after an action sequence - counting the days till this contract is up. Aston Martin is sent to you on your birthday - thinks this is the best job in the world.
3 Likes