True. I forgot some of those elements were explored in the novels.
Mostly trying to offer a way to think about all of this for those who are struggling with the death of the character (I include myself in this).
If we want to think of this character as existing in some kind of coherent story arc, NTTD needs some kind of explanation. “What if…?”, we were just having a bit of fun but Bond doesn’t really die, the last 5 films was more about Craig’s modern art tribute to James Bond… however you decide to think about it, doesn’t really matter, but we have to pick one.
Otherwise Bond is dead, but James Bond Will Return doesn’t make a ton of sense.
Even though it’s a moment that I doubt many saw, having the “James Bond Will Return” bit at the end does, in a small way, rob the ending of any punch it might have had.
Ideally what you’d do with an ending like that is shelve the franchise for a few years and let the franchise get some distance from that moment before starting again. Killing a character that has been around since the 50s is something that should be a monumental moment, which I think turning around and immediately recasting the part and moving on robs the film of the chance of having that moment hold the weight that such an event deserves, not that the way he died didn’t already make a substantial effort at lessening the impact of it, but I digress
JC, I hear what you’re saying. But the problem itself is that the series has historically not picked. Logic went out the window pretty early, and the moment the series stuck it’s tongue firmly in its cheek (for all the talk of 70s Bond taking the p*&s, the ultimate moment for me is still Laz breaking the fourth wall), the ability and desire to create continuity and long-term narrative sense was dispelled forever (perhaps until now, when 06-21 can make an attempt up to that “demand” - though even that has failed because of the constant appearance of a single car…).
I’ve said before that I’m less “bothered” by some of NTTD’s decisions because IMHO the author himself tried to have it both ways on a number of occasions. But that said, the literary form did try to follow general continuity rules.
The films though, threw that all out the moment they first changed leads - and since then have, without any consistency, picked and chosen what parts of its own history “count.”
EON are not interested in story “arcs” in the truest sense. Instead, I’d offer they have spent the last 40 years trading in “echos” - moments that reflect the series’ history rather than relying on that history as waypoints in a greater story.
What was that old Brocoli/Saltzman quote - “50 guys have played Tarzan” or something like that? Continuity just isn’t a concern to EON.
Historically yes. But the series has endured as long as it did thanks to a willingness to change and evolve. More and more modern film franchises are embracing multi-film arcs so it makes sense for EON to as well. The Craig era already gave us more character development for Bond that we’ve seen in the past as well as running plot threads and recurring characters.
The way we consume media has changed so much in recent years. With Bond now being available on screaming it’s easier than ever for your audience to get caught up.
Not to mention that if they did want to explore more arcs in future they’re in the perfect position as Bond 26 will be a fresh start.
Actually, I’d argue that they lost continuity by filming You Only Live Twice out of sequence. Blofeld introduces himself in YOLT but doesn’t recognize Bond in OHMSS? You can skip EON’s YOLT and DAF and the rest of the continuity is perfectly fine up to FYEO.
It’s these partial reboots that hampered continuity more than changing lead actors: new M in OP/AVTAK, new Moneypenny in TLD/LTK, new MI6 crew but same Q in GE-TWINE. At least they set up John Cleese as R for DAD.
@plankattack, this is a great way to think about it. Much better than my “what if” idea. The only thing I would say is that, with respect to continuity issues, Bond’s actually dying is much more difficult to unsee. Even than Laz breaking the 4rh wall (which I thought was a great idea for that transition). Also, Eon did kind of go all in on arc with Craig’s tenure. So the question is what are we doing?
I’m fine with treating CraigBond as a stand alone story among a lot of other stand alone stories that have no particular arc. That makes sense. This is why I’ve advocated for a kind of 4th wall break for the next transition. So I think it would be good if Eon were to remind the audience, we’re not really doing continuity here. So I’m not in favor of a long layoff so that the death can have a lasting impact. Not for that at all.
“You’ve never been to Japan, Mr. Bond?”
“No, Never”
Also, Bond and M talk about the book of FRWL in the the film’s Dr. No, then the film’s FRWL made reference to Dr. No
Eon, and Fleming, never gave that much thought on continuity. QOS, Spectre and No Time To Die are the only films to actually bother with it out side of a wink and a nod and even there, you don’t need to have seen the films they follow to keep up with the plot.
It’s easy to say you’re not really doing continuity when all you’re doing is having Laz and Sean wink into the camera. Much more difficult when you’re saying Blofeld and Bond grew up together and then killing off the main character.
I agree with the non-continuity approach, I just think they’ve made it more challenging for themselves.
Agreed and that’s pretty much how I choose to think about it. It’s also why I think a cool transition trick a la OHMSS wink/nod/salute is important. Just come out and tell the audience in a cool way we’re back to business as usual.
Maybe Bond 7 wakes up in Blofeld’s torture chair? Or crawls to the shore from a Turkish river? Or wakes up in Montenegro in his Aston Martin? Or in an Italian hospital with Madeleine telling him she’s pregnant and he nearly died in front of an exploding tomb?
It’s all from his perspective, then she holds up a mirror and we see Timothy Dalton’s 75 year old visage!
