Should Daniel Craig's Bond have a definitive ending?

I figure this might stir up some real discussion particularly for this forum. This is a subject that has rarely been covered in the films and books: the ultimate fate of James Bond. Instead of ending Craig's last film as if it were just another Bond film ending, should a solid conclusion be written for Craig's? Is it too radical of a change for your taste? Should they just stick to the old formula of Bond shagging? Perhaps having M and the Defense Minister walk in? "007! My goodness Bond, what are you doing?!" Or do you think a definitive end would be something refreshing for a 007 actor's swan song? The closest we ever had to something like that was with A VIEW TO A KILL and that was only because the narrator in the trailer was hinting on Bond's fate, and that it was Sir Rog's last film. NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN only hinted at the idea of Bond retiring when he says "those days are over" when swimming with Kim Basinger. THE DARK KNIGHT RISES recently did this with Bruce Wayne by giving him a definitive ending. Now I know that if 007 were to go that route that would look like an imitation of TDKR but at the same time it's something genuinely new for a Bond film.

Tom Mankiewicz in fact thought of giving this concept a shot:

Tom Mankiewicz wrote:

I had said to Sean back then, if you want to do a completely original film (and I talked to Cubby about it), we should do a James Bond where you are in the Caribbean or wherever and you’re on the heels of an assassin. And you are one step slower. You realize that your time is up. He outmaneuvers you. It’s only through your wits that you finally [kill him.] During the film, you fall in love and we’d cast a big movie star. I was thinking of Sophia Loren, back then, who would be about Sean’s age, and they’d sail off into the sunset. Cubby said, “That’s great except there’d be no more fucking Bond movies and I want to keep making them.”

Cubby may have a point, but that doesn't necessarily mean you will never make a Bond film again if you end one actor's tenure definitively. Of course, if they give Craig a definitive end that would mean that who ever becomes the next 007 would be in a newer separate timeline, but I rather treat that like they did with the other actors: New Bond, new mission, moving on. They did it with Moore, Dalton, Brosnan. Treating the films episodically with little connection with eachother besides a few recurring characters.

It really depends on what you mean by "definitive ending." If the ending is too unambiguously definitive you may convince many viewers that not only is Craig's Bond is ending, but that Bond films in general are ending. I just don't see a lot of upside to this concept, but I do see a good deal of risk.

Bond could learn that he has a teenage son, then end the film by marrying the boy's mother (the leading lady from a previous film) and snatching his hat away from him as they leave the church.

That hasn't been done too often...

But seriously, the only time EON ever came close to visually drawing an incumbent (and recumbent) Bond actor's tenure to a close was when Roger Moore sailed off into the sunset with Octopussy. Then they went and spoiled that image by dusting him off for one more go, and leaving him in the arms of Sheena, Queen of the Bungle.

Dalton's time wasn't supposed to end so soon, nor was Brosnan's, so neither got a proper sendoff. But, as mentioned above, who wants to give the impression that the series is ending with the current star's departure? Better to just let the old guard slide away and forestall the lamentations by introducing the new turk in a sensational manner.

Honestly, does anyone ever feel sorry for the elderly 'Last Year' character when the cherubic 'New Year' character emerges at midnoght on Dec. 31?

No, defininately not. It would be nice to see Bond go off in to the sunset with his latest leading lady, but apart from perhaps DAD (had they already pre-planned CR in a 'what-if' universe), it simply would just not work, simply because of what Cubby said which I wholeheartedly agree with, “That’s great except there’d be no more fucking Bond movies and I want to keep making (watching) them”.

Even if, God forbid, the Bond franchise did die a long, slow and painful death one day, it would always bounce back a few years later, it could be five years, maybe even ten, but I reckon that there is always going to be new generations around who will see the Bond of old and want to continue the franchise. Simply because there are no other films quite like them and they are essentialy a genre of their own.

I know that there is always the prequel/reboot/remake etc option around but personally I would not like this option to become exploited as it would smack of pure laziness. We have already seen 'Bond become Bond' once with CR, we do not need or want to see it again (at least I don't).

I don't see how Craig's Bond getting an ending whether it's retiring or dying necessarily means "no more Bond films". I think it would be something interesting to aim for, and if not with Craig perhaps with a different actor.

James Bond wrote:

I know that there is always the prequel/reboot/remake etc option around but personally I would not like this option to become exploited as it would smack of pure laziness. We have already seen 'Bond become Bond' once with CR, we do not need or want to see it again (at least I don't).

They don't necessarily have to revisit that. Just begin the next Bond actor like they did with Connery, a Bond who's already had his share of adventures and is still in his prime.

But, as I stated in my original post, that would then mean yet another reboot or even a prequel/remake which I do not think that we need and that I certainly do not want.

Besides, it would mean a 'definitive' ending for all future Bonds and so would take away from the impact ultimately leaving no definitive ending. Also, they could not do a definitive ending for all of the future Bonds even if they wanted to because some of them are bound to be around for longer or shorter than their contract states.

It's not a definitive ending for Bond, I'm talking about a definitive ending for Craig's Bond, much like how CASINO ROYALE was the definitive beginnings of Craig's. Besides, every time a new actor is brought in is practically rebooting the series. They may share the same background and actors are carried over but there are always different styles that come in to play to make things different. I don't see how that would be different with the actor that takes over the next time.

AMC Hornet wrote:

But seriously, the only time EON ever came close to visually drawing an incumbent (and recumbent) Bond actor's tenure to a close was when Roger Moore sailed off into the sunset with Octopussy.

Octopussy really does feel like an ending for Moore.

I don't think Craig should have a definitive ending. It was a novelty to show Bond's origin. But beyond Bond's beginning, the films have always existed in a floating timeline. And I don't think Craig's run is going to be significant enough to warrant an ending.

They've hardly been hitting the right beats for Bond's career, have they? They're going from Bond's first mission & appendix to said mission, to having Bond out-of-touch a la Fleming's YOLT in Skyfall. Then what? His career is over after a handful of jobs? Not a good idea, IMO, unless they indicate that quite some time has passed between films (which they may in Skyfall, who knows). Even then, one might wonder why EON chose to immortalize on film the parts of Bond's life that they did.

I'll admit right now that the biggest reason I'm against a definitive ending is that it opens up an even worse possibility: another beginning. Yes, another reboot with the next actor. Which reboot would inevitably end up a.) too similar to CR, and b.) not similar enough to CR. By that I mean that they would likely go over the same "James becomes Bond" territory, while simultaneously using even less Fleming than they did in the 2006 origin story.

Of course, they wouldn't have to do a reboot. But we are in the age of the reboot and the direct sequel. Studios have a hankering to tell stories spanning multiple films, and audiences swallow these stories as some sort of epic, well-planned saga (when in reality only the Nolan Batmans and maybe LOTR can really lay claim to that praise). We've already seen EON take heed of this phenom with the release of QoS. After a definitive ending, I think a reboot would be all but inevitable. Dangerous possibility there.

All that said, giving Bond a proper ending is a good idea, just not in the film series. The Bond films are like comic books - work-for-hire, loose with chronology, never-ending. For Bond's story to end, it would have to be planned that way from the start. That would mean keeping an eye to properly telling Bond's story (eg. no extraneous, knee-jerk reaction entries like QoS). Perhaps if EON ever do a TV series, they can begin Bond's story, play it out right, then end Bond's story. It would have to be a limited series. Or maybe if you want a definitive telling of Bond's story, you can just read the Flemings & Pearson.

Makeshift Python wrote:

Besides, every time a new actor is brought in is practically rebooting the series.

I don't agree. I think "reboot" implies taking the character back to square one.

Louis Armstrong wrote:

Makeshift Python wrote:

Besides, every time a new actor is brought in is practically rebooting the series.

I don't agree. I think "reboot" implies taking the character back to square one.

Of course, I'm thinking of a different word actually. Reinvention? I keep getting the term "reboot" mixed up, probably because it's a term that has been overused.

They should (in my opinion):
1) end Skyfall at M's original office, hinting that the Craig's trilogy was a prequel of Dr. No and following movies (ignoring the time), then continue with new actors.
2) keep Craig for a while until he's too old (not only on age terms) make Live and Let Die's novel as movie next, making it as close as possible to Fleming's novel, then continue with every Fleming novel, making the films as close as possible to the books; this whether Skyfall ends on M's original office or not.

I can't see any positive gain from such an approach and would consider it inappropriate and unwelcome after such a long history. If nothing else i, would toss the idiotic 'Bond is a codename' fraternity a bone that would irritate fans indefinitely, even if it did allow for more bond in general audience minds.It would also require yet another reboot, a precedent that would probably initiate a perpetual return to the same few ideas.

In my Bond 25 end it take 5 years before we get Bond 26 in 2022 with Bond 7, with keeping in mind Bond 25 be Daniel Craig his fift and last Bond movie. If he deside to make a 6th movie then that wil be Bond 26 in 2019 and new Bond actor starts with Bond 27 in 2022.

In 2022 it is 60 Years James Bond movie and the best year to start with Bond 7 or DC must deside to make a 7th movie.

But as some other people i expect he wil quite with Bond 25 for 2017. That's mean final movie for DC and Dench. In my fanart she is on the run in Bond 23, but wil die in Bond 25. She wil not been seen in Bond 24.

5 years:

- Time to help to find the next actor with a good age. Actor can be in 2017 to young but in 2021 having the age and then time to get in to the part. I not have the feeling there is already English born actor who can replace Daniel Craig.
- We the audince and the producers mabey need a break aka Goldeneye. I have this feeling sometimes,whyle i think there are original with some changes with QOS and Skyfall.. Time is needed to let the producers think about writers or prepair excutive producers taking over Michael G Wilson job.
- In specialy: What count for the actor age also count for the age of the audince. People from the Goldeneye generation born in the 80's are 35-42 (1987-1980) year old in 2022. Iam 42 in 2022 and a actor of 36 year old is easier to accept then.

I'm going to be very boring and just flat out say no. I think there's something about it that really fundamentally goes against what has made Bond work, this eternal sense of JAMES BOND WILL RETURN that the overt beginning in Casino Royale doesn't clash with. I'm open to them doing all sorts of things, I mean for God's sake we're spoiled by 20-odd of the damn things, but I think that'd be going a touch too far.

Oh poop.

I'm inclined to say a flat out no too, however..........one could still contrive some sort of bowing out for Craig, as his films are uniquely his., without signaling the end of the series. He's got a whole new take on this character. It wouldn't be hard to do. For three films, Craig has been dealing with issues as opposed to just the mission. The drama is part and parcel of the Craig era.

I am sorry Python but I still do not entirely understand what you are getting at here.


Do you just mean a good, solid ending for Craig ala Moore's in OP? If so that is fine by me.

Or

Do you mean that you want the Craig Bond films to be completely seperate from the rest of the Bond franchise with Bond #7 coninuing on from where the 1962-2002 series left off, complete with Tracy references. If so, then maybe that would not be quite so bad although I am still very iffy about it.

Craig's films are already separate from the first twenty films, that doesn't mean they aren't part of the official EON canon, just a separate timeline. Basically my idea is that Craig's films would be a unique case of being self contained from not just the 1962-2002 series but separate from what comes after. They go their own route, eventually end Craig Bond's story either retiring or dying. I'd prefer Mankiewicz's retiring idea, with Bond no longer fit for 00 duties but through his wits wins the day and sails off into the sunset retired.

Now, approaching Bond #7. Given EON's stance on not redoing the books or touching the non-Fleming books, if I had my way I would have the next Bond film be a continuation of Fleming's novels, right after TMWTGG. They would be period specific and Bond #7 naturally has the entire history of Fleming's Bond established. But I doubt EON will ever go for a period setting, purely for commercial reasons. Therefore the second ideal approach for me would be to establish Bond #7 as a veteran with with a 21st century version of Fleming Bond's history having already gone through those adventures including his marriage to Tracy.

One thing that wouldn't work at all is having Bond #7 be a continuation of the 1962-2002 films, otherwise you're going to have a difficult time convincing audiences that the new actor in his mid-30s is playing a Cold War veteran in 2010s. Also, I would ban the idea of revisiting his beginnings. There's no need to after CR. Just start with Bond #7 already having a history and moving on with a new mission.

Maybe that could work, but I am not really too bothered whether or not Craig's Bond gets a definitive ending, any old ending for him will do just fine for me (except perhaps a threesome with Judi Dench and Barbara Brocolli 'shudder' :pale: ).

I suspect that the next Bond will merely inherit Craig's Bond's history, and then go on his merry way. The reboot was a drastic measure - I'm hoping the franchise is never in a state again where we need that.

FourDot wrote:

I suspect that the next Bond will merely inherit Craig's Bond's history, and then go on his merry way. The reboot was a drastic measure - I'm hoping the franchise is never in a state again where we need that.

This would make the most sense, but done in a very oblique way. I don't really care how Craig finishes up, just bring in Bond #7 as young (very early 30's) and tough, yet very experienced and ready to go. Just like Sean in DN. He can have Craig's history. Craig-Bond, the origins Bond, afterall is just an old looking mid 30's-something or of indeterminate age.;) Eventually the history doesn't matter as the actor will need continual recasting every ten years or so anyway.

I agree with Sean. He always said Rog was too old to be playing Bond and allowed that he himself post DAF, was also too old.Even with NSNA he insisted on playing Bond as a 52 year-old (his own age) called out of semi-retirement. Sean maintains Bond should be in his 30's, and he seems to be on board as well with Fleming's mandatory double-0 retirement age of 45.

James Bond without Daniel is too hard to think about. Three more films at least, PLEASE. However they want to end it is ok, as long as he doesn't die. Something like the ending of Quantum of Solace would be good, Bond walking off still waiting to find the right woman. Hint hint...

Python wrote:

It's not a definitive ending for Bond, I'm talking about a definitive ending for Craig's Bond, much like how CASINO ROYALE was the definitive beginnings of Craig's. .

The end of QUANTUM was a perfect exit, then. It took the better part of two films for me to even be able to stand him, so he should have quit while he was still ahead.

That way Craig's Bond is just 'the transitional Bond,' and then you go with somebody else to reestablish the veteran Bond, somebody a helluva lot less grizzly.

trevanian wrote:

That way Craig's Bond is just 'the transitional Bond,' and then you go with somebody else to reestablish the veteran Bond, somebody a helluva lot less grizzly.

Someone who's less of a bear?

Or do you mean 'grizzled' or 'grisly'? :joker:

He looks a little fury, and I'm pretty sure I've seen the word used not just as a noun, but as an adjective (this, coming from a guy who got an "F" in 7th grade grammar) to describe somebody who is aging fast or rough (maybe graying?)

Basically I meant switching to somebody tall dark & handsome.