Movies & TV Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for movie and tv enthusiasts. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

In Skyfall, they send a hint that there could be some major changes to the Bond franchise, or even possible a final episode.

For instance:

  • For the first time 007 appears getting old
  • Q is now a different character, not just another actor
  • M dies
share|improve this question
I'd say Casino Royale was the major change in the franchise, because it rebooted the series. Bond's character has been reimagined, so it's not really a surprise that Q and Moneypenny have also been reimagined to fit the "new" Bond series. – Oliver_C Dec 4 '12 at 11:22
Have you even seen the previous two movies? It would be totally different if you had asked this question about Casino Royale. – Napoleon Wilson Dec 4 '12 at 12:57
Yes, but it seems to me somewhat incompatible, those new M and Q, with a physically weakened, sensitive, and even reluctant 007. Don't you think? it's like if he wants but his body doesn't – rraallvv Dec 4 '12 at 13:56
@rraallvv Well, Bond is not such an invulnerable super-guy during the whole Craig-franchise, not just since Skyfall. Of course one might ask if this is still the classic icon James Bond has always been (I for myself like this new direction as well as the traditional movies), but nevertheless this has been consistent through the whole of the new Craig-movies. And the new Q and Moneypenny, as modernized 21st century versions of the classical characters, are pretty compatible with the new direction of the Bond movies... – Napoleon Wilson Dec 4 '12 at 15:04
@rraallvv ...So the question should rather have been if Casino Royale layed ground for a whole new Bond-experience, since Skyfall was pretty true to the modern line started with Casino Royale and, after Quantum of Solace, even went into a more traditional direction rather than exploring totally new ground. Ok, the physical weakness was emphasized here a bit more heavily, but with this the movie didn't introduce something totally new, but only emphasized an aspect that has already been present in the previous two movies. – Napoleon Wilson Dec 4 '12 at 15:06
up vote 11 down vote accepted

Not at all, rather on the contrary.

They rather reintroduced classic characters, but adapted them to the new modern rebooted Bond, like Q (who is now rather a hacker than an inventor) or Moneypenny (who is much stronger and more self-confident than the languishing little secretary she was before the reboot). In the end Bond is a different character himself (and not just another actor), as introduced no later than Casino Royale.

It is true that the modern Bond is much more vulnerable (both physically and emotionally) and the stories center much more around Bond himself and his development. But those "major changes" rather started with Casino Royale and Skyfall is more of a step towards classic Bond movies (while still retaining the modernizations of the "Craig-era").

And I didn't find any hint that there could be a final episode. Bond had his difficulties in this movie (see this related question), but at the end he's more confident and ready to go on than ever before (and this related question). And in the end there will never be a final episode. If you cannot continue a storyline in a reasonable way, you just do a reboot (which is especially common nowadays).

What you may experience is, that the story of the movie centered much more around the internals of MI6 and directly involved major characters in dramatic events, especially M dying. This indeed somehow new ground may spark the deduction that if M can just die throughout the movie, then why not Bond also? But in fact the final scene somehow shows (and Mrs. Dench may forgive me for saying that) how replaceable M actually is and that it requires a bit more than his/her death to endanger the further continuation and overall immutability of James Bond's adventures. It is just that the new Craig-movies have a much closer relation to each other and a higher overall story-consistency. Or call it a more dynamic cross-movie development of the story and characters, compared to the rather ground-up start of virtually each of the pre-Craig movies (in fact Bond's wife and her death is the only major cross-movie story development of the pre-Craig era, I think). But this fine-grained development doesn't neccessarily need to imply major changes in the overall franchise (and in Skyfall it certainly didn't).

And like said, the emphasis on Bond's own character and development and his physical and emotional weakness are not a novum of Skyfall but rather of the modern Craig-Bond at a whole, it's just emphasized a bit more in this movie. But neither does it give me the impression of discovering totally new ground compared to the previous movies. It even promises more traditional directions, even if not dropping all the modernizations, in the future (personal disclaimer: I like both the "Craigian" modernizations as well as the more "traditional" Bond-movies).

And last but not least, I just found this related article which may provide some additional thoughts about Skyfall making a statement for retraditionalizing the franchise. Although I for myself wouldn't go that far, it provides some interresting views.

share|improve this answer
Exactly my feeling after I left the theater.. – Geerten Dec 4 '12 at 15:03

For me it was more like going back to the more traditional Bond and away from the "Jason Bourne" like Action Bond:

  • M is a male again
  • Moneypenny is back, and her office looks exactly like the old ones (Coat hanger, "typewriter", Wooden Door)
  • M's office looks more traditional, it is all heavy wood
share|improve this answer
Those details you mention in your last two points were also very obvious for me. – Geerten Dec 4 '12 at 15:03

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.