For me, the only continuity I want is within an actor’s set of films. That does not necessarily mean a big story arc. But it does mean the returning characters are played by the same actor (unless they cannot due to death or health reasons). That means setting up contracts with M, Moneypenny, Q, Felix Leiter and other potential returning characters with contractual options for the future that EON can exercise. I know others may disagree, but the revolving door for actors playing Blofeld in the 60s I found to be rediculous - but to each their own.
If it were up to me, I would probably set the next Bond up as taking place in the 50s (we already got the 1960s) and using the Russians and particularly SMERSH for a series of films. Not some huge arc, but perhaps a series of adversaries from them. I think this would be a good way of breaking Craig. They could perhaps do 2-3 pictures with the actor and then return to the modern era with someone new. Alternatively, given the current state of affairs, I don’t think it would be a big deal to make Russia the adversary but not sure what that might do the box office in some countries.
Whatever they do, I will open to it and try to find ways to enjoy it because even the worst films have elements I always enjoy.
At the same time, I think leaving it for a while could make it harder for the character to return. 6 years between 1989 and 1995 seemed like forever and I know a lot of people weren’t bothered that Bond was back, but then Goldeneye was so good / successful.
Being purely selfish, I’d like another Bond movie soon because we had to wait 6 years for this year’s.
Tom Hiddleston ruled out already. BB & MW didn’t like him. Pity. He did excellent job in Night Manager,may be too recognized as Loki. Fits Fleming’s description of 007. “Slim and fit.”
Fresh start. Like Dr. No. Already established as 007, M assigns mission, he goes to work. Any reference to past is paying homage. ie constant use of DB5 by both PB and DC
Let me paraphase author/comic book writer/editor Denny O’Neil. “Use continuity as a tool,not a guide.”
Example given if you want to believe Batman has foughtt pink fuzzy aliens, go ahead. Those stories were wriiten in the '50’s. James Bond 007 continues to draw readers/movies goers after 50+ years. As long as a good story happens does continuity really matter?
While I understand that the pandemic has undoubtedly thrown a wrench into the works for EON, as well as everybody else, my feeling is that if they’re going to do something as monumental as kill off Bond, then there has to be a plan in place for how to handle that. I know that we’ve often debated before around here about the merits of the filmmakers having a plan in place, but in this instance having one is absolutely necessary.
Taking the extraordinary step of killing off a character like Bond, 25 films into a nearly 60 year franchise, it has to be handled right. I think it completely robs his death of any punch it may have (even if I think it’s handled poorly in the film) to simply move on quickly from it, recast, and say to the world “here’s the next Bond”. At that point, what was the point of killing him?
To wrap up one era, and begin another. I don’t think an extended break is required. I honestly don’t think it’s much of a problem and there’s no point delaying the inevitable. There is going to be Bond #7 and the search is in the early stages. Craig’s incarnation dies, but the franchise doesn’t. After the way some people felt about the ending, I actually believe they want the next film sooner rather than later.
Spot on, Dave. I’ve seen commentary that Craig’s Bond deserved better but that ignores the very strong likelihood the man himself wanted this. He didn’t just read the script one day and reluctantly act out the scene - he had a lot of input and standing with the production team. I believe it was a firm requirement for his return: Casino Royale was the birth of his Bond and NTTD was the end.
I was totally against the idea, but my initial reaction after actually experiencing the moment was feeling at peace. A sense of closure. It really is the last five or so minutes of a near three hour film, and I really like most of the content that precedes it. I wouldn’t put all those scenes in the bin for something so brief, even if it dominates the film’s overall reputation and eventual legacy.
In the James Bond Archves they explicitly say that Bond‘s death was something Craig and EON talked about even when they were making CR. It was always a possibility to end his tenure on that.
While I believe that we will still have a bit of a wait until the next Bond movie, maybe 2026, I still think it’s worth re-casting and moving on relatively quickly. Partially because not everyone was happy with Bond being killed. In fact talking to my friends, looking at Twitter, seeing reactions on British radio and Australian television, the casual fans are 50/50 about the whole thing. There is a backlash, and some Bond fans are devastated, gutted and even angry about the ending of NTTD.
To appease them, they’re going to need to see 007 back soon, or you run the risk of losing them forever.
I doubt it. Despite the (largely undeserved) backlash of The Last Jedi, it still made almost $1.5 billion at the global box office. Then TROS still came close to its gross. So people are still going to keep going, especially the more time that goes by since the ending of NTTD.
I’ve been consistent for the last couple of weeks on this. The minute the idea first arose about this film’s possible conclusion, conversations were simultaneously had about what to do on the other side. To make this film, was far and away the bravest, ballsiest move in the history of EON. Bigger than hiring an unknown SC, and even more unknown Laz; moving on after the demise of the original production partnership. Bigger than coming back in '95, bigger than hiring some blonde jug-eared indy-actor and going “back to Fleming.”
I don’t believe that Babs and Mike are on some suicide-pact drive it off the edge of the cliff Thelma and Louise style death wish. They have always known they have the single most valuable IP in cinema and anticipated that doing what they did would have this reaction. If anything, I’d argue that they might be a little surprised that there hasn’t been more noise and reaction to the film.
I’ve done my fair share of EON-bashing over the years but regardless of how one feels about NTTD, there can be no disputing that a franchise that has been notoriously risk-averse (you don’t keep making the same thing over and over if you’re comfortable with taking risks…), should get it’s due for making a big-time call and following through.
Every moment that EON has had to take a chance (a hard re-boot with TLD, starting over with GE) to make a creative leap, it’s shied away from the opportunity. With hindsight, one could even say that CR wasn’t that big of a creative risk - they basically did their best to follow the source material in spirit, so the hard creative work had already been done 65+ years ago.
But with their decision-making for this film, they swung for the fences and swung hard. And for that - that being owning the biggest IP in the business and finally realizing that being brave isn’t going to break it (no, being banal actually is the greatest enemy of the franchise) - I’m going to stand up and give Babs and Mike their due.