32 replies to this topic

[whitesox]

An idea came to me for the end of the movie.What if...

...M welcomes his (her?) new secretary, miss Moneypenny.
Her first task is to send an agent to pick up 007, who is relaxing after his mission, at the club "Les Ambassadeurs". He must immediately go to Jamaica, where agent Strangways has interrupted all communications with London........

[Timothy]

An idea came to me for the end of the movie.What if...

...M welcomes his (her?) new secretary, miss Moneypenny.
Her first task is to send an agent to pick up 007, who is relaxing after his mission, at the club "Les Ambassadeurs". He must immediately go to Jamaica, where agent Strangways has interrupted all communications with London........

Well, I don't really like this idea.

First, all those who are afraid of a chronological problem will critisize that Moneypenny will not be played by Lois Maxwell.

Second, I still hope that CR is a reboot. This would make things much easier. However, a DN would not fit.

Third: What comes after CR ? Shall they do another DN ? No ! Thus, where should Bond 22 set ? After DAD ? Nah, although I do not care much about chronology, I would like to have some continuity after CR - as Craig will be Bond again (probably).

Thus, I don't want any allusions to DN or any other Bondmovie. We had plenty in DAD - enough for the next 20 Bonds. I appreciate Loomis version of a possible end:

I think it should end as the book does.

Bond on the phone to someone:

BOND:

/spoiler.gif

Yes, dammit, I said "was". The bitch is dead now.

/gen_line.gif

Fade to black.

The credits (white on black) start rolling, and The James Bond Theme starts playing, quietly at first and then louder and louder until it reaches full volume.

Perfect.

Edited by Timothy, 26 October 2005 - 02:11 PM.

[Kronsteen]

That would be quite an amusing ending, which I think I'd like actually. Hehe, yep, that would be a excellent ending.

[whitesox]

An idea came to me for the end of the movie.What if...

...M welcomes his (her?) new secretary, miss Moneypenny.
Her first task is to send an agent to pick up 007, who is relaxing after his mission, at the club "Les Ambassadeurs". He must immediately go to Jamaica, where agent Strangways has interrupted all communications with London........

Well, I don't really like this idea.

First, all those who are afraid of a chronological problem will critisize that Moneypenny will not be played by Lois Maxwell.

Second, I still hope that CR is a reboot. This would make things much easier. However, a DN would not fit.

Third: What comes after CR ? Shall they do another DN ? No ! Thus, where should Bond 22 set ? After DAD ? Nah, although I do not care much about chronology, I would like to have some continuity after CR - as Craig will be Bond again (probably).

Thus, I don't want any allusions to DN or any other Bondmovie. We had plenty in DAD - enough for the next 20 Bonds. I appreciate Loomis version of a possible end:

I think it should end as the book does.

Bond on the phone to someone:

BOND:

/spoiler.gif

Yes, dammit, I said "was". The bitch is dead now.

/gen_line.gif

Fade to black.

The credits (white on black) start rolling, and The James Bond Theme starts playing, quietly at first and then louder and louder until it reaches full volume.

Perfect.

I understand your point of view, but I have a problem with the "reboot" notion... Does it mean that C.R. happens (long) BEFORE all the other movies, or that we must forget all the other movies and take C.R. as the first picture of a new serie?
In the first case, C.R. should be set in the 50's, and that's not the case I think.
In the other one, whe should take james Bond as a character we have never known, a brand new one spy... And I don't agree with that! It's always our good old 007! so....

[Timothy]

An idea came to me for the end of the movie.What if...

...M welcomes his (her?) new secretary, miss Moneypenny.
Her first task is to send an agent to pick up 007, who is relaxing after his mission, at the club "Les Ambassadeurs". He must immediately go to Jamaica, where agent Strangways has interrupted all communications with London........

Well, I don't really like this idea.

First, all those who are afraid of a chronological problem will critisize that Moneypenny will not be played by Lois Maxwell.

Second, I still hope that CR is a reboot. This would make things much easier. However, a DN would not fit.

Third: What comes after CR ? Shall they do another DN ? No ! Thus, where should Bond 22 set ? After DAD ? Nah, although I do not care much about chronology, I would like to have some continuity after CR - as Craig will be Bond again (probably).

Thus, I don't want any allusions to DN or any other Bondmovie. We had plenty in DAD - enough for the next 20 Bonds. I appreciate Loomis version of a possible end:

I think it should end as the book does.

Bond on the phone to someone:

BOND:

/spoiler.gif

Yes, dammit, I said "was". The bitch is dead now.

/gen_line.gif

Fade to black.

The credits (white on black) start rolling, and The James Bond Theme starts playing, quietly at first and then louder and louder until it reaches full volume.

Perfect.

I understand your point of view, but I have a problem with the "reboot" notion... Does it mean that C.R. happens (long) BEFORE all the other movies, or that we must forget all the other movies and take C.R. as the first picture of a new serie?
In the first case, C.R. should be set in the 50's, and that's not the case I think.
In the other one, whe should take james Bond as a character we have never known, a brand new one spy... And I don't agree with that! It's always our good old 007! so....

And I understand yours. What I understand as reboot is, what you mentioned second: This were the first 20 movies - finished - now come the next 20 movies.

I don't want Bond with a totally new charakter or that we are supposed to have never known James Bond - it should be a mix. In my opinion, James Bond should still drink his Martini shaken not stirred, introduce himself as Bond...James Bond etc. , but there should not be any connection between CR and the first 20 movies. In my view, this is not a problem as I see every James Bond as own movie. If I see a Bond, I don't care what comes before and what comes after.
This reboot idea is just a help for those who have seen James Bond as a series which is chronological correct.

I can understand that many fans might have problems with this idea, but at least to me it's much easier than a prequel or such stuff with a following jump. The same actor as James Bond one time in Bond 0 (CR) and then in Bond 22 - this is even to high for my imaginativeness.

[Loomis]

In the other one, whe should take james Bond as a character we have never known, a brand new one spy... And I don't agree with that! It's always our good old 007!

Well, I think that's exactly what Broccoli, Wilson and co. are planning. Not a huge fan of the idea, myself, but there we are.

[ComplimentsOfSharky]

In the other one, whe should take james Bond as a character we have never known, a brand new one spy... And I don't agree with that! It's always our good old 007!

Well, I think that's exactly what Broccoli, Wilson and co. are planning. Not a huge fan of the idea, myself, but there we are.

I hate it...but I also want to think that they can get it right on after the brackets that were TWINE and DAD...

[hcmv007]

Here's my end for CR:

"That's right, was. The bitch is dead now."

Then the music begins and the end credits roll.

[Double-Oh Agent]

Why is it so hard to think that Casino Royale can be a prequel and Bond 22 can be a continuation film after Die Another Day with both starring Daniel Craig? He is James Bond in both as was Sean Connery, George Lazenby, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton, and Pierce Brosnan before him in their films. They are all playing the same man so why isn't it conceivable that Craig can do both films? I think it would be kind of interesting bookends myself. It is only due to the passage of time/aging and the changing tastes of the previous actors/producers that we got a new 007 before anyway.

[tdalton]

The end of Casino Royale should be just how Ian Fleming wrote it in the novel. That was a perfect ending to an excellent novel, IMO.

[00-FAN008]

Third: What comes after CR ? Shall they do another DN ? No ! Thus, where should Bond 22 set ? After DAD ? Nah, although I do not care much about chronology, I would like to have some continuity after CR - as Craig will be Bond again (probably).

Casino Royale should take place before Dr. No, as if Dr. No took place in present day. But I'm not saying they should re-vamp Dr. No for present day. That would be awful.

[Mister Asterix]

Third: What comes after CR ? Shall they do another DN ? No ! Thus, where should Bond 22 set ? After DAD ? Nah, although I do not care much about chronology, I would like to have some continuity after CR - as Craig will be Bond again (probably).

Casino Royale should take place before Dr. No, as if Dr. No took place in present day. But I'm not saying they should re-vamp Dr. No for present day. That would be awful.

[mra]I

[Harmsway]

[quote name='Mister Asterix' date='9 November 2005 - 17:21'][quote name='00-FAN008' date='9 November 2005 - 17:17']
Casino Royale should take place before Dr. No, as if Dr. No took place in present day. But I'm not saying they should re-vamp Dr. No for present day. That would be awful.

[/quote]

[mra]I

[tdalton]

Casino Royale has to end the way that the novel does. Otherwise, they should just go ahead, IMO, and change the title, because it's not CR without the ending that it currently has.

[Leon]

I don't like that at all, sorry. Making in your face connections with the other films is naff. Plus if they do that how are they going to make the next film?...think about it.

[trumanlodge89]

i dont understand why this is so difficult to grasp. you have the james bond series: DN through DAD. lets call that "A." CR through whatever is "B." its not before, not after, its a seperate universe, running alongside the previous films.

[Stephenson]

Personally, I think the chronology of the Bond universe is so inconsequential that there really isn't much point in considering the first twenty films as "Group A" and the films from CR on as "Group B". It seems to me that there has only ever been "James Bond's next adventure" with only the slightest concern about what came before or what may come after. The pattern (if that's what it can be called) is that there is no pattern.

Obviously, CR is setting itself up to be an origin film, and in that regard it may be treated as an anomoly because it is acutally acknowledging a timeline of sorts. But I don't think that means that they have to reference a 40 year old film to show where it is supposed to fit in the context of the cinematic Bond's history. CR is a one-off. In 22, they'll most likely go back to doing what they've always done: acting, for the most part, like the previous 3 or 10 or 18 or 21 films never happened.

[GreggAllinson]

I have no idea what they're doing. If it's a "prequel" or reboot set in the modern day with a new cast, fine- we've had to stretch dates and imaginations before (for example, On Her Majesty's Secret Service was explicitly mentioned in Licence to Kill, but I really don't think we're meant to believe that Bond is 20 years older in LTK than he was in OHMSS, even if one is clearly set in the late '60s and the other is clearly set in the late '80s; Dalton's Bond is meant to be Lazenby's Bond, impossible as it may seem). But if they really are re-hiring Judi Dench as M (which, given Craig's comments on the main page, sounds like a possibility) and/or John Cleese as Q...then how does that work? Both characters were explicitly introduced during the Brosnan era as "replacements". So did Bond work with them before Goldeneye, then suddenly forget all about them?

[trumanlodge89]

if you insist on keeping some form of continuity, which stephenson made a great point about the complete lack of continuity, then look at it this way. bond films do not occur in any specific year, or in any order. therefore, LTK could be 20 years after OHMSS, or it could be 10 years. in turn, FYEO could take place directly after MR, or directly after DAF.

[Lounge Lizard]

On matters of continuity, a problem linked with the Flow of Time and the Face of Bond...

Let me say first, I never really understood the radical need for continuity in the Bond movies, as if it were the Holy Grail of Storytelling. The prime continuity is in the character, Ian Fleming's Commander James Bond, CMG, RNVR, No. 007; he's always the same guy, no matter that his face changes and the slate of his earlier experiences seems to be wiped clean every decade or so. Even Fleming himself reinstated his character a couple of times. The literary Bond could have been born anywhere between 1915 and 1925, he never seemed to exceed the middle/late Thirties age range; in order to make that believeable, certain elements of his biography had to be added, others obscured or rewritten (Bond buying a Bentley in 1933 for instance, at which time he had to be 13 according to the data supplied in the obit of You Only Live Twice).

Likewise, we can't expect the exploits of a character that has lasted for 43 years on the silver screen to have a fluent and hermetic continuity, besides the established character of the hero (his tastes, his appearance, his skills, etc.)- wouldn't it be slightly superficial to have CraigBond, or even BrosnanBond, remembering Tracy, as if that doomed marriage happened only a few years ago? This was perhaps less constructed in 1977, but not in 2006, unless we start inventing alternative universe theories that would make even a devoted Trekkie blush. Bond visibly aged in the guise of Roger Moore, than suddenly transformed into a fit and lean man in his early Forties. Every actor's cycle of films is a different epic of sorts. Bond is not reinvented every decade or so, he's reinstated- mostly by means of the actor who plays him. Every new casting is a reboot of sorts, though I admit the approach for CR shapes up to be the most drastic one yet.

Wasn't it Hitchcock who always complained about what he called 'The Plausibles', the people who are unable to suspend disbelief because they apply real-life logic to the movies? Continuity is, in a way, the territory of 'The Plausibles', and in my opinion, it got a little out of hand in Bond fandom. It even got a little heavy-handed. I suppose I make it sound easier than it is at some points (can a character be the same if you take away some of his earlier experiences?), but my point is: Bond is forever, and that doesn't have anything to do with grandfather-paradoxes or flux-capacitors- just with buying into an illusion, and seeing that illusion as the gift of fiction. That gift is not freezing or embalming a character by chaining him to his past, but sustaining his lifetime for generations to come, letting him triumph over time.

Cue 'Ode to Joy'.

[Leon]

I am not that bothered with continuity, but I do think the M. issue is something which needs to be dealt with.

Change back to a male M. based on Flemings admiral, a good English actor somewhat reminiscent of Bernard Lee's style.

It wouldn't make me annoyed really, but it would just be a little niggle in my head watching it with Dench. Also there are plenty of people, even regular cinema goers who would be like "what??".

[Mr Malcolm]

I am not that bothered with continuity, but I do think the M. issue is something which needs to be dealt with.

Change back to a male M. based on Flemings admiral, a good English actor somewhat reminiscent of Bernard Lee's style.

It wouldn't make me annoyed really, but it would just be a little niggle in my head watching it with Dench. Also there are plenty of people, even regular cinema goers who would be like "what??".

I'd agree with you there. Other than that, I'm not that bothered about continuity. As I've said before, the best Bond films have (for me anyway) a sort of timelessness to them, so I don't have trouble accepting that the guy in DN is also the guy in DAD.
I'm guessing that Craig's signed on for maybe 2 or 3 films; from the hints I've heard (in the spoiler forum, so I don't want to blab too much here!), it sounds like there will be some sort of continuity between CR and at least Bond 22. Maybe there'll be some sort of ongoing story over however many films Craig's contracted for. Then, Bond'll be injured at the end of Craig's last one, leading to M's remark in DN about him being out of action for 6 months (yes, I know it's from FRWL the book!). That way, if Craig decides to do more, we could always pick up the timeline sometime after DAD.
Or is that complicating things unecessarilly?

[Scorpion]

The prime continuity is in the character...

Even Fleming himself reinstated his character a couple of times.

Exactly.

Casino Royale is supposed to be like all 20 movies that came before it...i.e. a STAND ALONE movie.

Any references to a criminal organization (Spectre), it's leader (Blofeld) or a wife (Tracy) in any of the movies, in my mind, were references to the character's universe, NOT to past movies.

Why can't Bond fans view Casino Royale as just one movie? A movie to be viewed as is. I can see DAF, TSWLM, FYEO, LTK and TWINE as a single solitary movie even though they may have a reference to a woman in Bond's past. They ALL are "stand alone" movies.

Any other view borders on anal geeky-ness. I implore people not to be geeks. James Bond fans are supposed to be cool...not geeks. Be cool, people. LOL.

[Mister Asterix]

The prime continuity is in the character...

Even Fleming himself reinstated his character a couple of times.

Exactly.

Casino Royale is supposed to be like all 20 movies that came before it...i.e. a STAND ALONE movie.

Any references to a criminal organization (Spectre), it's leader (Blofeld) or a wife (Tracy) in any of the movies, in my mind, were references to the character's universe, NOT to past movies.

Why can't Bond fans view Casino Royale as just one movie? A movie to be viewed as is. I can see DAF, TSWLM, FYEO, LTK and TWINE as a single solitary movie even though they may have a reference to a woman in Bond's past. They ALL are "stand alone" movies.

Any other view borders on anal geeky-ness. I implore people not to be geeks. James Bond fans are supposed to be cool...not geeks. Be cool, people. LOL.

[mra]Well, yes, exactly too. When I agreed with 00-FAN008 that Casino Royale, I certainly do not mean that Casino Royale should have any references to Dr. No. Bond films should be stand-alones but there are certain events that happened in Bond

[killkenny kid]

The end of Casino Royale should be just how Ian Fleming wrote it in the novel.  That was a perfect ending to an excellent novel, IMO.

indeed, this is the only way to end this movie. Its makes a strong statement about Bond at this point of his life.

[tdalton]

[quote name='killkenny kid' date='11 November 2005 - 09:58'][quote name='tdalton' date='26 October 2005 - 18:02']The end of Casino Royale should be just how Ian Fleming wrote it in the novel.

[double-O-Durg]

with purvis and wade already penning Bond 22, will it say 'James Bond Will Return In (whatever they decide to call it)'????

[Scorpion]

Casino Royale's ending is a real downer. There is a lot of crying and sadness. If the film ends like the book then this movie will TANK at the box office and will take a long time to make it's studio some money. The same happened to OHMSS and needed a sweet deal with Connery to get the series back on track.

Now a days the forces of the movie business are less forgiving and it may be 4, 5, 6 or 7 years before they replace Daniel Craig (who'll incorrectly end up the fall guy) and make Bond 22.

Be careful what you wish for.

[Scorpion]

with purvis and wade already penning Bond 22, will it say 'James Bond Will Return In (whatever they decide to call it)'????

Yes James Bond will return... but when will be a fuction of Bond 21's financial figures.

Also, penning is one thing...having it made is another. "Jinx", anyone? LOL

[whitesox]

with purvis and wade already penning Bond 22, will it say 'James Bond Will Return In (whatever they decide to call it)'????

It would be the GREATEST thing I can imagine!
Hum, I've got a question about that: I'm french, and I really like the title "Quantum of solace" never used by Eon, and one of the last originally imagined by Fleming, with "the property of a lady" and "risico". You "english-languaged" people( ), can you explain why this title has never been used? Is it really bad in english?