I'm fairly convinced that No Time To Die establishes two unambiguous precedents for the series moving forward:
1. Finally puts to rest the codename theory (not that it had any credibility to begin with)
2. Allows for future writers and producers to establish their own "series" with each Bond incarnation
In essence, the series will be rebooted and will allow it to experiment with each of its respective eras (within certain boundaries). No, I certainly don't think they will go as far as having an entire era of a Jane Bond, but it will be more in the closure. They may kill 007 again, they may have him retire, they may have him take M's job, they may have him defect - the possibilities are plentiful.
Unless they decide to go back to the classic formula. Stand alone missions, putting aside the psychological part that has been almost "overused" in the Craig era and reintroducing geopolitics and international tensions instead of creating a whole story from the characters, mainly basing the twists on their own past, which is not really what I expect from a spy fiction. I desperately miss the old days with movies using the global geopolitical context to justify any assignment...
Concerning Bond's possible death in the next movies, I hope from the bottom of my heart they won't do it again. Once is quite enough IMHO. We all discovered how it feels to have Bond dying on screen, and the least I can say is "painful" isn't strong enough to describe this sensation.
I'm still uspset about the movie, and if there are producers/screenwriters reading this post (who knows?), I want them to know or understand I belong to this part of the audience going to the theater to see the hero living on, otherwise I loose every kind of pleasure when I leave the room. I consider it as a deserved reward. The ending of NTTD prevented me from identifying with Craig's Bond. Those who wanted to see Bond dying were rewarded, now they have no possibility to claim it has never been done anymore. I want Bond back again, again and again...and living on everytime so I can leave the theater with my childhood happiness. The real world is ugly enough to have in addition the hero I grew up with killed off. Grant me this satisfaction at least, as a request from a lost soul since the release of NTTD.
Well, the entire Craig-era puts the theory to rest.
But, to me, the entire point of Lashana's 007 not being named James Bond solidifies the point that James Bond is not a code name, but the job title of "007" is transferable. I also think it was Barbara very cleverly acknowledging political correctness in the current climate by accommodating the peanut gallery a female "James Bond" through having Lashana's character be 007. While this is a tangent point, it would also go hand-in-hand that No Time To Die, once and for all, declares that James Bond is his birth name.
If Barbara really wanted to go down the codename route, we would have seen M exit his office after clinking the glass to appoint the new James Bond. Instead, "back to work" heavily implies that MI6 must soldier on without James Bond.
As always, i'm open to debate (because it is a fun topic, I admit) but I fail to see how any of the above does anything but declare that James Bond is not a code name.
thanks for expanding! I like these logical exercises, its fun to overanalyze random details of harmless pop culture instead of whatever it is I get paid to use my brain for.
Certainly if Lashana Lynch's character had been named James Bond that would have proven the codename theory. Just imagine! The fact she is named Nomi does not disprove it, same as the absence of any other new agents with the CodeName. Its just an absence of proof, but that absence does not therefor prove the opposite.
The near-definitive proof in the Craig era that James Bond was not a codename being handed round is Andrew and Monique Delacroix Bond's tombstone in Skyfall, on the ancestral estate near Glencoe. We also see M typing Bond's obituary earlier in the same film (though as with the similar Obit in Fleming's You Only Live Twice, I have to assume its full of disinformation: Secret Service chiefs don't reveal the truth about their agents in the press even if they do die heroes!) But that tombstone confirms at the very least Bond is indeed this man's surname, if he was assigned a codename of James Bond it'd be a heck of a coincidence and defeat the purpose of the codename: to confuse the enemy.
On the other hand in Casino Royale, M speaks the otherwise meaningless line "that's when I knew you were you". I think that's a bit of clumsy metafiction, acknowledging to the audience that this new guy is worthy to take on the part played by five previous actors. But in-universe its near meaningless and tempts us to believe the character, not the actor, has been hired to continue the myth.
Anyways @Trigger_Mortis I was hoping you had spotted something definitive I'd missed. Your logic's not bad, Nomi definitely was not using the codename nor was anybody else, but absence of proof for one hypothesis does not constitute proof of the opposite. Though we could argue the CodeName is so over-elaborate its a non-parsimonious explanation of the facts and therefor less likely to be true.
I, too, use Skyfall to support my argument to counter the code name theory - although some have used this to suggest the opposite given DaSilva's reaction to reading the tomb stone. If i'm being generous, Skyfall does establish that 00-Agents are assigned code names (the "reflect on your sins" hacking). There is also the adoption of Bond given that he is an orphan,along with the fact that his brother obviously has two totally different names, none of which end in "Bond".
But, the point still stands; if ever there was a time to establish the code name theory as valid, this era would be it. The point, as such, would be made clear as day, so to allow passage for the next film (in much the same way The Dark Knight Rises teases that Bruce Wayne doesn't necessarily need to be the man in the batsuit).
Just to finish - think back to the final meeting at MI6 with M, and company. That would have been a great time to allude to the code name theory, if you really wanted to have that as part of the lore. A simple line, at minimum, to tease it like "the James we knew is no longer. The real tragedy being is that we have lost two great men, James, and the ones who never knew James existed". That would have been a cool tease.
I would have pointed to Skyfall as definitive proof, but your question was in relation to No Time To Die, in particular ;)
yes I see what you mean: if EON ever did intend to confirm the CodeName theory, that last scene in M's office would have been the time to do it.
Imagine if after the toast, M abruptly said "right, that's done, now for the interviews" and we saw outside the red door Aiden Turner, Tom Hiddleston, Henry Cavill and all the other usual suspects sitting in a row next to Moneypenny's desk, nervously doublechecking what they'd claimed in their resumes! ("Norse God of Mischief? how's that relevant? surely they're hiring good guys!" "better than Man of Steel, that's just a meaningless buzzword!" etc)
That's exactly what the Mission Impossible franchise ought to do - best of all, you can cast virtually anyone in the lead. I'd love to see a female protagonist lead Mission Impossible, just for the fun of how the disguises could work!
IMO the only conceivable to continue in true Bond style would be to utilise and adapt the story line from the beginning of TMWTGG book.
I don't care how 'improbable' or 'unrealistic' it may seem - this is Bond, for God's sake - if I want reality I'll watch a documentary!!
As was referred to in the OP, the camera angles where we see the missile salvo 'land' were interesting - as was the fact that we didn't see Bond blown up or even into the air and certainly weren't shown either a broken, twisted body or body parts that would have prevented any ambiguity as to our hero's fate.
Personally, any form of 're-boot' that ignores DCs Bond story arc will see me ending my 'association' with James Bond after some 50 odd years.
If they take their time making Bond26 I hope they reveal the new Bond actor relatively soon, ideally for the aniversary next year. That would be a loud and clear way to say "Bond will return" to the world. I understand the choise of actor influenced the final movie, but they most have a rough idea by now. Will it be another origin story (hope not) and will they go for a lighter tone or a gritty tone.
thanks @Royale-les-Eaux for the info straight from the Creators themselves. I wish they were there to take questions at every screening!
When they say "it will be a while" and they mean to take it "slow" I hope they're not counting this latest one as right on schedule, for comparison. Even the original pre-pandemic opening date was long overdue!
I wonder what is this "whole new Bond world"? World sounds awful like Universe, yet they say they "don't want to saturate the market with product", implying no spin-offs (which I've also seen claimed in many other PR pieces lately). So just fleshing out the world in which he will live within bond26? Meaning also presumably its not the old preCraig world, so therefor a third timeline...
I don't consider it a re-boot, but if that's the terminology you wish to use then, yes, I'm okay with it because they didn't previously kill Bond and then say, "Oh, don't worry, we're just going to start again now."
If Bond is dead then that's okay - disappointing, but okay - just leave him dead.
I'd even prefer a scenario where the producers jump forward 30 years and follow the MI6 career/exploits of Mathilde Bond (perhaps that might even satisfy those that want a female Bond?). There are numerous arcs they could utilise depending on whether she knows who her father was, finds out as part of her job, is seeking revenge - the possibilities are endless, and all would be preferable to me than a dead Bond miraculously resurrected.
CR was absolutely a reboot in my opinion and the writers too. I don't want any Mathilde Bond movies. I'd much rather have what we got. But of cource talking about Bond is what the forum is for and different opinions is a part of this.
I'd even prefer a scenario where the producers jump forward 30 years and follow the MI6 career/exploits of Mathilde Bond (perhaps that might even satisfy those that want a female Bond?). There are numerous arcs they could utilise depending on whether she knows who her father was, finds out as part of her job, is seeking revenge - the possibilities are endless, and all would be preferable to me than a dead Bond miraculously resurrected.
I'd like to see this too, or at least imagine how it could work. Its more fun to imagine than the hyped up introduction of a edgy new Bond with even a badder attitude than this last one. If they waited til 2035, they could show Mathilde at her first day in university (Cambridge because of its history as a hotbed of spies and all that gorgeous architecture), with the MI6 recruiters waiting in the wings watching her every move. Or if EON got back to the proper biannual schedule, we could see Mathilde solving mysteries and saving the world in the first grade (sorry, I cant remember if the British school system has grades)
Remember how cool under pressure she was during that car-chase: she's got the makings of a superspy!
thanks @Royale-les-Eaux I can come up with raw concept, but obviously unqualified to write the actual script as I never seem to grasp all that Forms and Years stuff. Our Mathilde Bond film will have to be a collaborative effort.
So you want to wait 30 or 14 years for movies about .... Mathilde Bond???
That would really kill the James Bond character in the public conciousnes. And jumping forward to pretend years have passed in four years or whenever we get the next movie sounds like a very bad plan too. Is wonder why some are so sure continuing making Bond movies in a second reboot is so wrong and impossible, but the solution is never making James Bond movies again and instead have movies about a completely different character is somehow better.
By the way, NTTD ended with Madeleine telling her daughter about James Bond. Clearly Mathilde will know who her father is.
Of cource I don't know what style of Bond movies are ahead of us, but it seems like the mood is for a lighter tone than CraigBond.
you can relax, @Number24 , I am quite sure EON and Amazon are not reading ajb007 for ideas what to do with Bond26. They're probably already developing much worse ideas than what we can possibly come up with.
I am just talking about what is fun to imagine. And yes I am having more fun imagining the Adventures of Mathilde Bond, whether first year of Cambridge or first year of elementary school (whatever thats called in Britain).
why? because we've just had 15 years of "James Bond" with a bad new attitude for the 21st Century, and I'm fearful of the next evolutionary stage if thats what they thought audiences wanted. The idea of the Bond-franchise holders having meetings with marketers to determine what a hip new generation really wants reminds me of that episode of The Simpsons where they added Poochie to the cast of the Itchy and Scratchy Show. I try to imagine such meetings and I gotta admit I don't want to see what they come up with.
as long as its a thought exercise, we can imagine the Adventures of Mathilde Bond starting in two years (back on the Classic Schedule!) and its just in time for her first day of school. Or we wait 14 years til her first day of university (classic real world spy recruiting time) and it will coincide with my 5000th post at ajb007 at my average historic rate of posting.
you know if Mathilde Bond were having her adventures in first grade at age of 6, she could be going to school in Norway? cuz it seems like she was living at that house?
you'd like that wouldnt you? authentic Norway content in every adventure!
Madeleine would be driving her to school over that cool bridge every morning, and Mathilde would be saying "I wemember when your fwend dwove the Wange Wover over this same bwidge and der was hewicopters chasing us! Whee, that was fun mommy! Can we do that again? Can we, pwease mommy?"
I'm guessing Madeline, sick of guns and death, raised her daughter in the most safe and boring circumstances imaginable, so Mathilde Bond grew up to be an accountant.
you could have an exciting chase where two children ski onto the T Bane and then have to stare at each other for 3 stops as you can't do a ski walk down the carriage! 🤣
Comments
As I said @caractacus potts :
Amazing how the mind removes obvious pitfalls
I'm fairly convinced that No Time To Die establishes two unambiguous precedents for the series moving forward:
1. Finally puts to rest the codename theory (not that it had any credibility to begin with)
2. Allows for future writers and producers to establish their own "series" with each Bond incarnation
In essence, the series will be rebooted and will allow it to experiment with each of its respective eras (within certain boundaries). No, I certainly don't think they will go as far as having an entire era of a Jane Bond, but it will be more in the closure. They may kill 007 again, they may have him retire, they may have him take M's job, they may have him defect - the possibilities are plentiful.
Unless they decide to go back to the classic formula. Stand alone missions, putting aside the psychological part that has been almost "overused" in the Craig era and reintroducing geopolitics and international tensions instead of creating a whole story from the characters, mainly basing the twists on their own past, which is not really what I expect from a spy fiction. I desperately miss the old days with movies using the global geopolitical context to justify any assignment...
Concerning Bond's possible death in the next movies, I hope from the bottom of my heart they won't do it again. Once is quite enough IMHO. We all discovered how it feels to have Bond dying on screen, and the least I can say is "painful" isn't strong enough to describe this sensation.
I'm still uspset about the movie, and if there are producers/screenwriters reading this post (who knows?), I want them to know or understand I belong to this part of the audience going to the theater to see the hero living on, otherwise I loose every kind of pleasure when I leave the room. I consider it as a deserved reward. The ending of NTTD prevented me from identifying with Craig's Bond. Those who wanted to see Bond dying were rewarded, now they have no possibility to claim it has never been done anymore. I want Bond back again, again and again...and living on everytime so I can leave the theater with my childhood happiness. The real world is ugly enough to have in addition the hero I grew up with killed off. Grant me this satisfaction at least, as a request from a lost soul since the release of NTTD.
Trigger_Mortis said:
I'm fairly convinced that No Time To Die establishes two unambiguous precedents for the series moving forward:
1. Finally puts to rest the codename theory (not that it had any credibility to begin with)
2. Allows for future writers and producers to establish their own "series" with each Bond incarnation
How does this film put to rest the Codename Theory?
Well, the entire Craig-era puts the theory to rest.
But, to me, the entire point of Lashana's 007 not being named James Bond solidifies the point that James Bond is not a code name, but the job title of "007" is transferable. I also think it was Barbara very cleverly acknowledging political correctness in the current climate by accommodating the peanut gallery a female "James Bond" through having Lashana's character be 007. While this is a tangent point, it would also go hand-in-hand that No Time To Die, once and for all, declares that James Bond is his birth name.
If Barbara really wanted to go down the codename route, we would have seen M exit his office after clinking the glass to appoint the new James Bond. Instead, "back to work" heavily implies that MI6 must soldier on without James Bond.
As always, i'm open to debate (because it is a fun topic, I admit) but I fail to see how any of the above does anything but declare that James Bond is not a code name.
thanks for expanding! I like these logical exercises, its fun to overanalyze random details of harmless pop culture instead of whatever it is I get paid to use my brain for.
Certainly if Lashana Lynch's character had been named James Bond that would have proven the codename theory. Just imagine! The fact she is named Nomi does not disprove it, same as the absence of any other new agents with the CodeName. Its just an absence of proof, but that absence does not therefor prove the opposite.
The near-definitive proof in the Craig era that James Bond was not a codename being handed round is Andrew and Monique Delacroix Bond's tombstone in Skyfall, on the ancestral estate near Glencoe. We also see M typing Bond's obituary earlier in the same film (though as with the similar Obit in Fleming's You Only Live Twice, I have to assume its full of disinformation: Secret Service chiefs don't reveal the truth about their agents in the press even if they do die heroes!) But that tombstone confirms at the very least Bond is indeed this man's surname, if he was assigned a codename of James Bond it'd be a heck of a coincidence and defeat the purpose of the codename: to confuse the enemy.
On the other hand in Casino Royale, M speaks the otherwise meaningless line "that's when I knew you were you". I think that's a bit of clumsy metafiction, acknowledging to the audience that this new guy is worthy to take on the part played by five previous actors. But in-universe its near meaningless and tempts us to believe the character, not the actor, has been hired to continue the myth.
Anyways @Trigger_Mortis I was hoping you had spotted something definitive I'd missed. Your logic's not bad, Nomi definitely was not using the codename nor was anybody else, but absence of proof for one hypothesis does not constitute proof of the opposite. Though we could argue the CodeName is so over-elaborate its a non-parsimonious explanation of the facts and therefor less likely to be true.
I, too, use Skyfall to support my argument to counter the code name theory - although some have used this to suggest the opposite given DaSilva's reaction to reading the tomb stone. If i'm being generous, Skyfall does establish that 00-Agents are assigned code names (the "reflect on your sins" hacking). There is also the adoption of Bond given that he is an orphan,along with the fact that his brother obviously has two totally different names, none of which end in "Bond".
But, the point still stands; if ever there was a time to establish the code name theory as valid, this era would be it. The point, as such, would be made clear as day, so to allow passage for the next film (in much the same way The Dark Knight Rises teases that Bruce Wayne doesn't necessarily need to be the man in the batsuit).
Just to finish - think back to the final meeting at MI6 with M, and company. That would have been a great time to allude to the code name theory, if you really wanted to have that as part of the lore. A simple line, at minimum, to tease it like "the James we knew is no longer. The real tragedy being is that we have lost two great men, James, and the ones who never knew James existed". That would have been a cool tease.
I would have pointed to Skyfall as definitive proof, but your question was in relation to No Time To Die, in particular ;)
yes I see what you mean: if EON ever did intend to confirm the CodeName theory, that last scene in M's office would have been the time to do it.
Imagine if after the toast, M abruptly said "right, that's done, now for the interviews" and we saw outside the red door Aiden Turner, Tom Hiddleston, Henry Cavill and all the other usual suspects sitting in a row next to Moneypenny's desk, nervously doublechecking what they'd claimed in their resumes! ("Norse God of Mischief? how's that relevant? surely they're hiring good guys!" "better than Man of Steel, that's just a meaningless buzzword!" etc)
That's exactly what the Mission Impossible franchise ought to do - best of all, you can cast virtually anyone in the lead. I'd love to see a female protagonist lead Mission Impossible, just for the fun of how the disguises could work!
IMO the only conceivable to continue in true Bond style would be to utilise and adapt the story line from the beginning of TMWTGG book.
I don't care how 'improbable' or 'unrealistic' it may seem - this is Bond, for God's sake - if I want reality I'll watch a documentary!!
As was referred to in the OP, the camera angles where we see the missile salvo 'land' were interesting - as was the fact that we didn't see Bond blown up or even into the air and certainly weren't shown either a broken, twisted body or body parts that would have prevented any ambiguity as to our hero's fate.
Personally, any form of 're-boot' that ignores DCs Bond story arc will see me ending my 'association' with James Bond after some 50 odd years.
But the reboot in CR was okay by you?
this is from a Bond Facebook group. Point 2 seems to answer the thread question.
I'll be honest I am not sure P&W should be at the helm for a reinvention. "...and we thank you for your service, again..."
Thanks for your post!
If they take their time making Bond26 I hope they reveal the new Bond actor relatively soon, ideally for the aniversary next year. That would be a loud and clear way to say "Bond will return" to the world. I understand the choise of actor influenced the final movie, but they most have a rough idea by now. Will it be another origin story (hope not) and will they go for a lighter tone or a gritty tone.
should point out - not my post, just didn't want to out the author without permission.
thanks @Royale-les-Eaux for the info straight from the Creators themselves. I wish they were there to take questions at every screening!
When they say "it will be a while" and they mean to take it "slow" I hope they're not counting this latest one as right on schedule, for comparison. Even the original pre-pandemic opening date was long overdue!
I wonder what is this "whole new Bond world"? World sounds awful like Universe, yet they say they "don't want to saturate the market with product", implying no spin-offs (which I've also seen claimed in many other PR pieces lately). So just fleshing out the world in which he will live within bond26? Meaning also presumably its not the old preCraig world, so therefor a third timeline...
I think so too.
I don't consider it a re-boot, but if that's the terminology you wish to use then, yes, I'm okay with it because they didn't previously kill Bond and then say, "Oh, don't worry, we're just going to start again now."
If Bond is dead then that's okay - disappointing, but okay - just leave him dead.
I'd even prefer a scenario where the producers jump forward 30 years and follow the MI6 career/exploits of Mathilde Bond (perhaps that might even satisfy those that want a female Bond?). There are numerous arcs they could utilise depending on whether she knows who her father was, finds out as part of her job, is seeking revenge - the possibilities are endless, and all would be preferable to me than a dead Bond miraculously resurrected.
CR was absolutely a reboot in my opinion and the writers too. I don't want any Mathilde Bond movies. I'd much rather have what we got. But of cource talking about Bond is what the forum is for and different opinions is a part of this.
Supervox said:
I'd even prefer a scenario where the producers jump forward 30 years and follow the MI6 career/exploits of Mathilde Bond (perhaps that might even satisfy those that want a female Bond?). There are numerous arcs they could utilise depending on whether she knows who her father was, finds out as part of her job, is seeking revenge - the possibilities are endless, and all would be preferable to me than a dead Bond miraculously resurrected.
I'd like to see this too, or at least imagine how it could work. Its more fun to imagine than the hyped up introduction of a edgy new Bond with even a badder attitude than this last one. If they waited til 2035, they could show Mathilde at her first day in university (Cambridge because of its history as a hotbed of spies and all that gorgeous architecture), with the MI6 recruiters waiting in the wings watching her every move. Or if EON got back to the proper biannual schedule, we could see Mathilde solving mysteries and saving the world in the first grade (sorry, I cant remember if the British school system has grades)
Remember how cool under pressure she was during that car-chase: she's got the makings of a superspy!
Forms and Years depending on age and fees...
I do like the idea of formative years Bond.
thanks @Royale-les-Eaux I can come up with raw concept, but obviously unqualified to write the actual script as I never seem to grasp all that Forms and Years stuff. Our Mathilde Bond film will have to be a collaborative effort.
So you want to wait 30 or 14 years for movies about .... Mathilde Bond???
That would really kill the James Bond character in the public conciousnes. And jumping forward to pretend years have passed in four years or whenever we get the next movie sounds like a very bad plan too. Is wonder why some are so sure continuing making Bond movies in a second reboot is so wrong and impossible, but the solution is never making James Bond movies again and instead have movies about a completely different character is somehow better.
By the way, NTTD ended with Madeleine telling her daughter about James Bond. Clearly Mathilde will know who her father is.
Of cource I don't know what style of Bond movies are ahead of us, but it seems like the mood is for a lighter tone than CraigBond.
you can relax, @Number24 , I am quite sure EON and Amazon are not reading ajb007 for ideas what to do with Bond26. They're probably already developing much worse ideas than what we can possibly come up with.
I am just talking about what is fun to imagine. And yes I am having more fun imagining the Adventures of Mathilde Bond, whether first year of Cambridge or first year of elementary school (whatever thats called in Britain).
why? because we've just had 15 years of "James Bond" with a bad new attitude for the 21st Century, and I'm fearful of the next evolutionary stage if thats what they thought audiences wanted. The idea of the Bond-franchise holders having meetings with marketers to determine what a hip new generation really wants reminds me of that episode of The Simpsons where they added Poochie to the cast of the Itchy and Scratchy Show. I try to imagine such meetings and I gotta admit I don't want to see what they come up with.
as long as its a thought exercise, we can imagine the Adventures of Mathilde Bond starting in two years (back on the Classic Schedule!) and its just in time for her first day of school. Or we wait 14 years til her first day of university (classic real world spy recruiting time) and it will coincide with my 5000th post at ajb007 at my average historic rate of posting.
I'm washing the house for Christmas - I can't relax now! 😮
you know if Mathilde Bond were having her adventures in first grade at age of 6, she could be going to school in Norway? cuz it seems like she was living at that house?
you'd like that wouldnt you? authentic Norway content in every adventure!
Madeleine would be driving her to school over that cool bridge every morning, and Mathilde would be saying "I wemember when your fwend dwove the Wange Wover over this same bwidge and der was hewicopters chasing us! Whee, that was fun mommy! Can we do that again? Can we, pwease mommy?"
I'm guessing Madeline, sick of guns and death, raised her daughter in the most safe and boring circumstances imaginable, so Mathilde Bond grew up to be an accountant.
Mathilde probably knew Norwegian since she watched Fantorangen on TV. Nowadays finding English language childrens' TV is easy, so it was by choice.
If much of the plot happened here in Norway I'd deny all my previous posts om the topic and supported it 100% 😁
you could have an exciting chase where two children ski onto the T Bane and then have to stare at each other for 3 stops as you can't do a ski walk down the carriage! 🤣
6 years between the last 2 films and the next one will "be a while". I miss the 20th century Bond movie schedule.
Love over, Purvis and Wade!