I don’t know about you guys, but I only watch these movies for the mysterious character played by Michael G Wilson in every movie since TSWLM, my first, in 1977. Who is he? How does he go from a priest in FYEO to a Carver Media VP, to a hotel guest in Hotel de Saline to a SPECTRE general in NTTD? Was he DNA targeted by Heracles?? He didn’t die too, did he? Talk about throwing away a golden opportunity.
EON OWES US ANSWERS TO THIS GREAT MYSTERY! After all, it’s the only link to all the M’s and Q’s. He’s seen the last 4 Bond actors. Does he work for MI6? Can he verify the Code Name Theory? Or is he a by product of the cloning experiments from DAF? That’s why he’s not in any Connery or Lazenby movies, right? We are owed answers, dammit! He’s the only link to the last 15 Bond pictures. Maybe Amazon can finally answer this with a streaming series.
Surely, that’s what’s driving ticket sales all these years!!
Hmm. I mean, this is a franchise that has been running consistently for 60 years. So it would seem that the Wilson/Broccoli family themselves believe the fans ought to have Bond movies.
As a fan, obviously I want them to come out more often. As far as the way I’m expressing it, I mean I’m just having a bit of fun. Obviously if I ran into Barbara Broccoli in an elevator I wouldn’t say “what’s going on with you people? You have one job.” But this is a fan forum and I think it’s ok to have fun with sarcasm from time to time.
The more I think about it the more I think a lesser known actor wouldn’t work for a scene like this. And because I believe a scene like this is necessary for the next film, they’ll need a better known name. The need for a scene like this is to almost bring a sense of comfort back to the audience after NTTD’s ending. The Bond you’ve grown to love is back, settle in and enjoy. But if the actor is lesser known, the audience may be in a more cautious and watchful mood (is he going to pull this off?) And so a scene like this would be a bit presumptuous from an unknown. However in the hands of an Elba, Cavill, Hiddleston, or Hardy, the audience would get that comfort, because the actor is more comfortable (chops required of course, but all these would qualify). So, because I do believe a scene like this is necessary for the new film, you’ve got to have someone who can carry it believably.
If someone says ah but Laz was an unknown and he pulled off his version of the scene… my answer is I think they got very lucky there. It was aided by the fact that the scene as a whole was fantastic.
So JC, as you know, I’m the record that I continue to be ambivalent with the “other fella” moment. I say ambivalent - as you say the whole scene is terrific, Laz does pull the line off, it comes, and then it’s gone. But…I do remember (now to qualify this, I was but a young pup when I first saw OHMSS, in an old DAF-OHMSS double-bill that circulated UK cinemas way back in time; ahem, showing my indeterminate middle-age)…being thrown by the moment. Someone correct me, but OHMSS is the only film in the series that breaks the fourth wall to that extent (and to a lesser with the GF whistler currently featuring in another thread).
But I have no doubt it was felt at that time, that it was necessary. Bond and SC were one and the same, and now “one” was gone. But this is a half-century on and we collectively are a very different audience, Bond-fan or not. I don’t think a single person who buys a ticket next time round is going to be ignorant of the end of NTTD, even if they didn’t see the film.
So…do we need any kind of moment at all? The moment a new actor is cast, “we” all know that the series is moving on. So just move on.
Laz replacing SC is a result of an off-screen, off-script, however you want to put it, next step; having a new film with a “dead” character is very much an “inside-the-lines” moment. That there is a new film, is explanation enough. So it doesn’t need to spend a single moment acknowledging what’s gone before.
Unless…it’s done entirely for laughs, and at that moment, we’re breaking the fifth, sixth, and seventh wall…
Yeah I think your comments are good and may very well be how they handle it. And at the end of the day if would be fine if they did.
For me to have no acknowledgement of the death at all would be a little strange given the magnitude and controversy of it. So if they decide to go the route of doing something quick, I like the idea that @MajorB had a lot, or some version of it.
If they’re not going to acknowledge Bond’s death by allowing it to linger (i.e., leave the franchise dormant for a couple of years), then it’s best to just plow through it and just not acknowledge the ending of NTTD. Bringing it up only seeks to invite further comparisons between the new guy and Craig (something EON shouldn’t want, considering the Connery-esque shadow Craig will cast over his replacement), but it will also give those that subscribe to the code-name theory a very slight piece of credibility, which is not something that the franchise should be doing at all, and especially not for something that just amounts to a fourth wall-breaking gag.
I’m at a loss as to why you want the franchise to be dormant for a while for story reasons. That’s not going to happen, especially after 4 and 5 year waits two of the last three times. That’s leaving money in the table.
EON will make a Bond film as soon as an actor is picked. Probably within 3 years of that, if not 2. So 2024-25
I imagine now being financially backed by the worlds richest man is going to definitely change how they make movies following two decades of MGM having to constantly file bankruptcy.
I agree: the impact of NTTD is not about Bond dying, it’s about Bond films still being a massive draw at the box office.
When Connery left after DAF it would have been a major mistake not to move on to the next actor as quickly as possible. Audiences still loved Bond, and this is what needed to be capitalized on.
Bond’s death in NTTD only meant that Craig‘s era was over.
From 2022 onwards it will be imperative to prepare the next era and not lose the momentum by waiting too long.
I’m perfectly aware that it’s not going to happen.
Skyfall and No Time to Die, the films where Bond has enjoyed his best box office (a billion-plus in a “normal” box office environment and then being the highest grossing pandemic release to date with the other), at least provide cover for one who wants to make an argument for waiting, given that both came on the heels of fairly lengthy delays. The appetite for Bond is there, regardless.
It’s a moot point, though, because they’re not going to wait. Ultimately, I think NTTD will be an interesting little entry in the franchise’s history, but ultimately I don’t think it will, at least the level of how an ending like that should register, make a particularly big impact. Which is a shame, I think, because killing off a character like Bond should pack a huge punch to the viewer. I don’t feel they accomplished it, unfortunately.
But why would that pack a bigger punch if the next film came five years later?
It was never in question that James Bond will return. It was only about Craig‘s version not returning.
That’s why the next film has to start fresh and not explain the ending away.
But the amount of time between NTTD and the next one is mainly dependent on box office considerations. 2 years might not work due to financing issues with the Amazon deal not yet fully done. But 3 years after NTTD could at least use the interest in Bond without having to make the next generation of moviegoers aware of what Bond is.
I know you have. I’ve just never heard of any franchise doing that. Long gaps between movies are usually due to financial reasons or actor availability. I don’t think story considerations ever come in to play like that.
When something comes back after long delays, like Tron or Bladerunner, the sequels did about as well as the originals–neither a box office smash. Usually poor box office of the last entry is what kills a franchise, or causes a long delay (Die Hard). Indeed, Mission Impossible movies are coming out like clockwork now.
I’ve never advocated for a long delay like these films that you’ve cited.
Something more like the delay between Spectre and No Time to Die would be more appropriate, I think. First, going back to work right after taking the monumental, once in more than a half-century step to kill off a legendary character like Bond lessens the impact of that decision. Oh look, they killed Bond. A year later? Oh, here’s the new guy. It also lessens the impact of that decision moving forward in future installments. If they’re just churning these things out immediately after, it puts the death of Bond on the table in literally every installment. Are they going to kill him again? They might, and then they could just turn around and reboot again and then kill him again 3 or 4 films down the pike again. A delay indicates that there are consequences for the decision to kill a character like that. He’s not a Marvel character where they can conjure up some magic nonsense to explain away his reappearance. They could literally kill Bond in every film now and there’s no consequence for doing so.
I know this will be shrugged off as the usual hysterics, but I think that, firstly, killing Bond is going to be looked at, eventually, as a massive mistake, especially given how they ultimately did it. Second, even if you’re one who can reconcile the story beats that ultimately lead to his death and even how he actually meets his end, I think not treating this move with the respect and the weight that it deserves will have some negative effects on the franchise at some point down the road.
I agree. DAF effectively ignores the previous film and shifts the tone completely, giving no emotional payoff on the death of his wife. There isn’t any unfinished business with NTTD. It’s all done. Keeping the Craig era as a standalone series is the best and only way to treat this Bond’s death with the respect and weight it deserves. They will have to carry on at some point - I’d rather the ball started rolling.
In an ideal world there would be some downtime after No Time To Die, a mourning period of sorts. Unfortunately things are far from ideal right now. By missing its original 2020 release date it’s given audiences an additional 18 months to come to terms with the fact that this was the end of an era, even if the specifics weren’t know Bond’s death was heavily speculated.
However there’s still a ways to go before work on Bond 26 can start. The sale to Amazon still has to be finalised not the mention scripting along with the rest of the filmmaking process. And unless we get COVID under control in the forseeable future there’s potentially longer filming and pre/post production period. So by the time that’s all done I think we’ll all be primed and hungry for more Bond.
