He "no time to die" at the end. How are they going to explain this in future movies? Clone? Twin? Multiverse? Or "James Bond" is a code name, it can be give to anyone?
shareNo idea. I think it was dumb to kill him off.
shareI doubt they'll continue strangling themselves with continuity now that Craig's run is over.
shareI don't get this obsession with somehow making all the Bond movies "work" together in one cohesive universe.
You don't see people trying to figure out how Affleck's Batman fits into Nolan's trilogy, or -- goofier yet -- trying to figure out how Adam West's Batman fits into it. Nobody gets worked up trying to relate Cavill's Superman and Reeve's version.
As a character Dracula has been around for nearly 100 years in cinema, but everybody understands that it isn't literally the same person in all these movies. Some of them are connected -- the Hammer films for example -- but most stand alone.
Everybody accepts that the original comedy Casino Royale occurs in a different 'universe' somehow even though the character of Bond is in it. Connery's Never Say Never Bond is understood to be a stand alone version of Bond.
I've always considered each new actor to be a re-boot of the character. Each version had their own serious 'Casino Royale'... we just never got to see it made as a movie.
It won't bother me at all that we'll eventually get a new interpretation of the character with a different actor. The real test is whether anything new can be done with the character that we haven't seen before.
very true.
I'm no expert but as far as i know nearly all the bond films, even within a particular actor's run , were "standalone" , until Craig came along and started getting married and havingh kids n stuff.
I think in this movie they set up the structure that 007 is not necessarily Bond, then they killed Bond. The director did not seem to like Bond, or at least the dominant male super spy thing. 2 equally capable female agents were in the movie, and neither slept with Bond. The current social cultural shift just no longer allows the glorification of a womanizer.
In the next movie, if there is going to be one, 007 will become just a code name for a British agent, could be anyone. A woman, not necessarily the one in the movie, seems to be likely.
"Shaken, not stirred" is going to be history.
Yep, it's going to be either a woman or a Black guy. Say goodbye to the Bond franchise.
shareThey can just create a new Bond movie as if the Craig-era story arc never happened.
Franchises do this all the time: Spiderman, Halloween, Terminator, Batman......
Problem solved.
All these weenies who try to suggest “007” and/or “James Bond” is a code name, rather than a specific individual....have no idea what they are talking about.
Exactly.
shareFool. You're all over the place with this shit.
shareDid I read somewhere though that the end credits end with the statement:
"JAMES BOND (my emphasis) will return."?
The producers have also stated publicly that the character will always be male. Beyond that though, I guess anything goes.
I don't think they're going to stray too far from the formula though. Money talks, baby. Give the people what they want.
They already strayed with Daniel Craig. Craig's Bond fell in love, more than once, can hardly be called womanizer anymore.
They already changed the formula, even that did not seem to be drastic enough and they killed Bond, so if there is going to be a next one, something a lot more drastic is likely to happen.
"Craig's Bond fell in love, more than once..."
On Her Majesty's Secret Service, The World Is Not Enough... both featured or heavily referenced Bond falling in love and paying a terrible price for it. Obliquely referenced in a Moore film as well. Not such a new thing as people are making it out to be.
"can hardly be called womanizer anymore"
Craig pulled a Connery on women in Casino Royale, Skyfall, and I believe QoS as well, but am not fully sure on that one. (I can think of three specific scenes, not the movies they are attached to though.) The last two movies deal with him towards the end of his career when he is older and softer around the edges. Random sex scenes wouldn't fit into the narrative. But, the unseen stories? The ones between the adventures we see in the movies? Who knows how much of a horn dog he was?
He'll regenerate into a woman next time and Mr Moneypenny will be her companion... one can only hope.
shareWell he's certainly not going to have an identical twin or a clone as Daniel Craig ain't coming back...
shareit already is a multiverse. judi dench as m never made sense in the craig bond movies, as she already appeared in pierce brosnan's bond, despite the fact that the craig movies were designed as a reboot.
share
"the craig movies were designed as a reboot."
They were? then they've already got the answer this "bond is dead" problem
You are clearly right. I just wonder how big is the percentage of fans who have become accustomed to this goofy need for "canon" within a series of movies that were only loosely connected in the past (References to previous event in From Russia With Love and OHMSS etc.) The idea that some necessary internal consistency requires the Bond films to all be one long, labored story is bizarre.
James Bond films have always been set in a version of the present day when they were made and the next official re-boot can simply serve to introduce new actors and a new contemporary continuity... Because, people like their continuity and catering to the public taste is what popular fiction does. James Bond may die again... Or they may just wait till the new Bond gets too old or too unpopular and do it all again.
I like your 4th option. I hadn't considered it.
share