27 replies to this topic

[DamnCoffee]

Bond was killed off for real. Killed in action at the end of Craig's final Bond film, we have a send off, buried at sea, etc. And for Bond 25, or 26, whichever one it was, Bond begun in the 1950's/1960's, with a new actor, and back in the cold war? Would be a very interesting move! Would be nice to see Bond as a period piece, again!

(I LOVE Craig, this is not a hate post)

[Captain Tightpants]

I would say ... cantaloupe.












In all seriousness, I don't think EON would do that. Bond has survived for so long because he has remained relevant - and he has remained relevant because he remains contemporary. I think killing Bond off and returning him to the Cold War period would divide a lot of people. Bond already takes heat for (supposedly) imitating Jason Bourne, but going back to the 1960s would open the franchise up to even more criticism, particularly if Michael Fassbender were cast in the role, because of the success of X-MEN: FIRST CLASS and (hopefully) TINKER, TAILOR, SOLDIER, SPY.

[domnule alb]

When has the Bond series ever been presented as a "period piece" in the truest sense?

[AMC Hornet]

We already have six films set in the sixties.

If you kill Bond off in the 'now,' and the retro idea tanks, how do you bring him back?

He's Bond, not Spider Man. How many reboots does he need?

In other words, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[Guy Haines]

I could accept an ambiguous ending to a Bond film. (Not so much "James Bond Will Be Back" as "Will James Bond Be Back?") Of course, Ian Fleming left his readers with that sort of conclusion twice - poisoned knitting needles in FRWL, loss of memory and an assumption he's dead (Right down to an obituary in The Times) in YOLT. I don't think most of the readership out there really believed Bond was gone for good - the interest was in how Ian Fleming would bring him back. Handled well, that might work within the Bond film series. Plus it could provide the basis for the next film to begin with that infamous "assassination attempt" from the book TMWTGG.

But "killed off" as in "really dead"? No, I can't see this working. It would be a real "downer" for many Bond fans, especially the younger ones who have only experienced one or two films in the cinema and only know 007 from DVDs, TV and computer games. And, even if the character was brought back in a period piece with a much younger man in the role, well, as has already been said here, supposing the public doesn't accept such a take on Bond? Fleming's Bond wasn't permanently "pickled in aspic" - stuck in the early to mid 1950s. By the time of the "Blofeld Trilogy" Bond was moving into a new era, and Fleming took that into account, right down to giving 007 a more world weary approach and a bit of a sense of humour (Though one suspects the films may have had some influence in that!)

As for "back to being a period piece" - Bond has never been a period piece series, it just seems like it at times because the franchise has been going since 1962. Each film reflects the era it is set in, though not to excess - we hear Bond briefly refer to The Beatles in GF, but not listen to them, not even with ear muffs! Even the "re-boot/ret-con" Casino Royale was firmly set in 2006.

If Bond is killed in a future film, and a period piece successor flops, where does the series go? I can only see one way to bring Bond back to the present day, and that would be a new agent re-named "James Bond" as per CR1967. Would we want that, watching an actor going around saying "The name's Bond, James Bond" and thinking "Er, actually, no it isn't!"?

[Dustin]

To me it seems obvious EON are looking for different ways to tell their stories and a lot of stuff appears to be possible now that wouldn't have been ten years ago. But such a move to me is still beyond their abilities. I won't say they aren't considering even outrageous and most unconventional ideas. But they have to remain within a certain mainstream potential to get financed by EON's partners, whoever that happens to be. I just don't see that at the moment.

[Captain Tightpants]

I could accept an ambiguous ending to a Bond film. (Not so much "James Bond Will Be Back" as "Will James Bond Be Back?") Of course, Ian Fleming left his readers with that sort of conclusion twice - poisoned knitting needles in FRWL, loss of memory and an assumption he's dead (Right down to an obituary in The Times) in YOLT. I don't think most of the readership out there really believed Bond was gone for good - the interest was in how Ian Fleming would bring him back. Handled well, that might work within the Bond film series. Plus it could provide the basis for the next film to begin with that infamous "assassination attempt" from the book TMWTGG.

Okay, crazy idea: Bond is on a mission to flush out an assassin. However, the assassin gets the better of him, and Bond is killed. M dispatches another Double-Oh to track down Bond's killer, and they learn that the assassin is now targeting M. He seems to have all the knowledge of the inner workings of MI6 and could be successful if he gets close enough.

In the end, it is revealed that Bond was never killed off - he is the assassin, and he is trying to flush the real assassin out into the open. MI6 have learned that M is the target of an actual assassination attempt, and Bond comes up with the strategy of forcing them to make a mistake. He stages his own death and adopts the monkier of a rival assassin (possibly using Felix Leiter as his go-between), performing several kills to establish his crediblity, and then "going after" M, using his own knowledge of her routine to get close enough to kill. His rival will come after M, and make a mistake in the rush to kill her. Bond will then have arranged for the second Double-Oh to be in position to capture or kill the real assassin before revealing himself. The catch is that the second Double-Oh will be largely unaware of Bond's scheme and so will chase after Bond without realising who he actually is. Most of the film would follow this second Double-Oh, leading the audience to believe that Bond really is dead until he reveals himself. It would give the film a chance to explore the concept of Bond dying, the way the world perceives Bond (because everything until now has been the way Bond perceives the world) and use parts of TMWTGG that have been unfilmed.

[Binyamin]

Would love to see a period piece. But, doubt it will happen, and hard to image how they'd pull it off.

[SecretAgentFan]

I´m actually against the idea. Besides, isn´t every Bond film a period film? If I want to watch a 60´s Bond, I´ve got lots of films to choose from.

[jaguar007]

Most of the film would follow this second Double-Oh, leading the audience to believe that Bond really is dead until he reveals himself. It would give the film a chance to explore the concept of Bond dying, the way the world perceives Bond (because everything until now has been the way Bond perceives the world) and use parts of TMWTGG that have been unfilmed.

I think most people want to go to see a Bond movie to follow the adventures of James Bond, not another 00.

[Miles Miservy]

Bond was killed off for real. Killed in action at the end of Craig's final Bond film, we have a send off, buried at sea, etc. And for Bond 25, or 26, whichever one it was, Bond begun in the 1950's/1960's, with a new actor, and back in the cold war? Would be a very interesting move! Would be nice to see Bond as a period piece, again!

(I LOVE Craig, this is not a hate post)

Bond was never a period piece. It only seems so when you look back at the movies from 30 & 40 years ago. When they were new... they were cutting edge. NOBODY was doing what they were doing.

Didn't see a car phone or pager until they were featured in a 007 movie.

Didn't see a Mustang until it was featured in a 007 movie.

Didn't see a hang glider until it was featured in a 007 movie.

Didn't see a bullet-proof vest until it was featured in a 007 movie.

Didn't see a Jet Ski until it was featured in a 007 movie.

Didn't see a Z3 Roadster until it was featured in a 007 movie.

[MajorB]

Mharkin, I'm thinking the word "again" may have been a casual throwaway on your part that's pulled some of the focus from your main point, which seems to be: What if Bond were re-rebooted in the '60s? If so, I'm with the others here who have said no. Somewhere I saw a suggestion that it would be interesting to see the books done in period, more or less as written by Fleming, as TV movies. That would be interesting, though it has basically zero chance of happening. But I don't see that there's anything to be gained by putting the main film series back in the '60s. Those movies have been made, and made well. If the U.N.C.L.E. movie ever gets made, we'll see whether a retro spy movie (without Austin Powers) can work for today's audiences. But I say let Soderbergh tackle that, not Eon.

[Captain Tightpants]

I think most people want to go to see a Bond movie to follow the adventures of James Bond, not another 00.

I was simply playing on Guy Haines' suggestion, that a film leave the audience in suspense with the question of whether or not Bond is actually dead. After all, Fleming did it twice; once in FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE, and once in YUO ONLY LIVE TWICE. But I think that simply leaving Bond's fate in the balance at the end of the film would be a rather artificial way of generating tension because audiences would be forced to wait for the next Bond film to find out what happened. I was reading Matthew Reilly's The Six Sacred Stones a while ago, and he did just that: at the end of the book, the protagonist was left falling to his death. When the book's sequel, The Five Greatest Warriors came around, it was instantly resolved with a plot device the author had been using for years (and thus was very disappointing). It's very easy to leave the hero's life on the line at the end of the story and simply pick it up with the next entry in the series, but I find the results tend to be rather flat.

I think a better way to explore the concept of Bond dying would be to present him as actually being dead before revealing the entire thing was a set-up at the end. And the audience wouldn't necessarily be watching a Bond film without Bond in it - he would be there, but they would be unaware that it was actually him until the end, probably because he'd be wearing some kind of mask.

[OmarB]

If they killed Bond in a movie I would simply stop watching the series. It's not as if I'm married to the filmic interpretation of the character, heck, most of the movies I don't like at all. Killing him on film would just make it easier for me to say screw it, I'll just read the books now.

Not like getting out to see a new Bond film was ever that important to me anyways, always preferred the books.

[00Kevin]

Bond 23 - near the end of the film, Bond is killed

Bond 24 - 008 goes to continue bond's mission and avenge him...at the end of the film a bond clone is created, bond clone continues the rest of the series like nothing happened

when i was a little kid i thought this actually happened, thankfully i was wrong. not sure who put that in my mind, haha

[Ozzman313]

Wasn't there a script floating around for Bond 20 where Bond is definitely killed?

[Captain Tightpants]

I believe it was called THE FINAL ASSIGNMENT, and it was a fan creation that was peddled as the genuine article.

[coco1997]

Wasn't there a script floating around for Bond 20 where Bond is definitely killed?

He was drowned, declared dead but then resuscitated. So yes, he was killed, but only momentarily.

[mrevans]

I don't think Bond's death would ever be a satisfying way to end a Bond film. Bond has been around for so many years and saved the world so many times over those years that I think him dyeing in the line of duty after going on so many successful adventures would just come across as anti-climactic. Plus I think the character deserves a better resolution than a meaningful death. He is basically a tortured soul. If the series ever did come to a decisive end, I would like to see the character find some meaningful and lasting peace. And it would really have to be satisfying to be justified as a proper end to such an epic series. This is a tall order because this would come after 23 plus films of buildup.

[Vauxhall]

I really can't imagine a scenario when the primary Eon movie would be a period piece. It would be a box office killer for the general public.

If we want a Bond (almost) dying scenario, I'd be content with them using the From Russia with Love cliffhanger between SKYFALL and BOND 24, for instance.

[Zorin Industries]

Bond was killed off for real. Killed in action at the end of Craig's final Bond film, we have a send off, buried at sea, etc. And for Bond 25, or 26, whichever one it was, Bond begun in the 1950's/1960's, with a new actor, and back in the cold war? Would be a very interesting move! Would be nice to see Bond as a period piece, again!

(I LOVE Craig, this is not a hate post)

Nope. It's not in the ballpark for Bond HQ and their plans (and history) for the Bond fillums.

[Miles Miservy]

To me it seems obvious EON are looking for different ways to tell their stories and a lot of stuff appears to be possible now that wouldn't have been ten years ago. But such a move to me is still beyond their abilities. I won't say they aren't considering even outrageous and most unconventional ideas. But they have to remain within a certain mainstream potential to get financed by EON's partners, whoever that happens to be. I just don't see that at the moment.

It is known, in several articles, that one of the demands Cubby Broccoli made of his daughter, when he passed the 007 torch to her, before he died was, "Don't mess it up."

So to consider if Bond is to be killed off, I'd have to say, "No... ain't gonna happen."

[MrKidd]

I'd say I want my 10 bucks back please. I came here to watch Bond kill the bad guy and snog the girl over the end credits. As I said, I want my 10 bucks back please.

It's like ordering steak in a restaurant and they bring you cabbage pie instead..not what was ordered I'm afraid.

[Jim]

I'd say I want my 10 bucks back please. I came here to watch Bond kill the bad guy and snog the girl over the end credits. As I said, I want my 10 bucks back please.

It's like ordering steak in a restaurant and they bring you cabbage pie instead..not what was ordered I'm afraid.

Quite.

[Righty007]

Harkin, please start being more descriptive in your thread titles. "What would you say if?" is a move right out of iBond's playbook.

[CasinoKiller]

I could accept an ambiguous ending to a Bond film. (Not so much "James Bond Will Be Back" as "Will James Bond Be Back?") Of course, Ian Fleming left his readers with that sort of conclusion twice - poisoned knitting needles in FRWL, loss of memory and an assumption he's dead (Right down to an obituary in The Times) in YOLT. I don't think most of the readership out there really believed Bond was gone for good - the interest was in how Ian Fleming would bring him back. Handled well, that might work within the Bond film series. Plus it could provide the basis for the next film to begin with that infamous "assassination attempt" from the book TMWTGG.

Okay, crazy idea: Bond is on a mission to flush out an assassin. However, the assassin gets the better of him, and Bond is killed. M dispatches another Double-Oh to track down Bond's killer, and they learn that the assassin is now targeting M. He seems to have all the knowledge of the inner workings of MI6 and could be successful if he gets close enough.

In the end, it is revealed that Bond was never killed off - he is the assassin, and he is trying to flush the real assassin out into the open. MI6 have learned that M is the target of an actual assassination attempt, and Bond comes up with the strategy of forcing them to make a mistake. He stages his own death and adopts the monkier of a rival assassin (possibly using Felix Leiter as his go-between), performing several kills to establish his crediblity, and then "going after" M, using his own knowledge of her routine to get close enough to kill. His rival will come after M, and make a mistake in the rush to kill her. Bond will then have arranged for the second Double-Oh to be in position to capture or kill the real assassin before revealing himself. The catch is that the second Double-Oh will be largely unaware of Bond's scheme and so will chase after Bond without realising who he actually is. Most of the film would follow this second Double-Oh, leading the audience to believe that Bond really is dead until he reveals himself. It would give the film a chance to explore the concept of Bond dying, the way the world perceives Bond (because everything until now has been the way Bond perceives the world) and use parts of TMWTGG that have been unfilmed.

Sounds a hell of a lot like The Bourne Identity novel to me...

[Safari Suit]

I do suspect that when Craig leaves the follow-on film will be a more overt "reboot" than LALD and TLD. I'm struggling to think of any recent ventures where a lead actor has simply been recast, it seems to me that these days the reboot button has to be pressed as well. Period pieces are probably unlikely though, if they were going to go that route they would have done it with CR methinks.

[Safari Suit]

If they killed Bond in a movie I would simply stop watching the series. It's not as if I'm married to the filmic interpretation of the character, heck, most of the movies I don't like at all. Killing him on film would just make it easier for me to say screw it, I'll just read the books now.

Not like getting out to see a new Bond film was ever that important to me anyways, always preferred the books.

One is lead to wonder why exactly you need an excuse like that to stop habitually spending time and money on movies you obviously don't enjoy very much.