James Bond is the kind of character that constantly is reimagined with a new actor taking on the title. So why now are we suddenly so stuck on making sure the films…flow together?
Daniel Craig’s films as James Bond followed a bit more closely to Ian Fleming’s novels, starting with Casino Royale and setting the scene for Bond as a character. The film literally shows how he got his 00 status and his license to kill. I saw that as a “restart” to the franchise in a way. But I also recognize that Bond movies are contained things.
Apparently that’s…not what others think? Did you guys think that the Sean Connery movies and the Daniel Craig movies were linked? They’re just…stories about James Bond. It’s kind of like Sherlock Holmes in the sense that they’re stories of the character but not necessarily all connected to each other. At least, that’d been my interpretation of things.
According to a report from Radar, a source close to the franchise though is saying it is “hard” to bring the character back because….Craig’s No Time to Die blew him up. “Writers are tearing their hair out. Bond didn’t just vanish off a cliff or fake his death – he was blown to pieces on screen. Everyone agrees it was a massive mistake because Bond is supposed to be eternal. They are now stuck trying to find a believable way to resurrect him, and it is proving almost impossible.”
Anthony Horowitz, who wrote 007 books, also had this concern apparently. He said: “The last time we saw Bond, he was poisoned and blown to smithereens – how will they get past the fact he is dead with a capital D? I think that was a mistake, because Bond is a legend. He belongs to everybody, he is eternal – except in that film. If I was asked tomorrow to write the script, I wouldn’t be able to do it. Where would you start? You can’t have him waking up in the shower and saying it was all a dream.”
I didn’t think it was this serious?
To me, Bond isn’t like The Doctor on Doctor Who. Each actor doesn’t carry the weight of the Bond before him. I saw them as separate eras of the same characters but all their own individual stories. Yes, Pierce Brosnan’s films should all flow together because they’re one man but I didn’t think that his work should also connect to Timothy Dalton’s. Roger Moore and Sean Connery are two different types of Bond and that’s fine.
So the idea that Craig’s Bond is now derailing the continuation of the story feels like an excuse, quite frankly. Yes, Daniel Craig’s Bond is dead but even though certain characters carry on (like Dame Judi Dench’s M), that doesn’t mean I thought of Bond being the same man.
Whatever your “theory” is about the name James Bond, I do think that these stories can and should be viewed as specific storylines per the actor playing Bond and not an overall arc of the franchise but hey, maybe that’s just me.
(featured image: MGM)
Have a tip we should know? [email protected]
