The future of James Bond

BuilderPlumber

With the reality that Daniel Craig may not play Bond again (or even if he gets an offer he can't say no to, he will only do one more), what style of films do people want to see next? Craig has played a very serious, driven, often substance dependent Bond who is excellent at his job but often completes it in unorthodox ways. Humour is used sparingly and the focus is on more realistic missions. The earliest Sean Connery films (Dr No, From Russia with Love and Thunderball) and Timothy Dalton's second film (Licence to Kill) followed a similar approach. Revenge sometimes reared its head. Other Bond films notably The Living Daylights had a bit more humour but were mostly realistic and serious plotwise.

The other type of Bond was the all action all stunts hero who engaged in humour and showcased the most elaborate gadgets. This started in Connery's later films, was carried through in the earlier parts of George Lazenby's film, was perfected in Moore's tenure and even was present to a certain extent in Dalton's first film and was revived bigtime in Pierce Brosnan's films. More often than not, the plot centred on a madman who wanted to destroy the world or a city unless he got money or in order to create a new society. Space and underwater themes were often in place and an all-gadgets car (or helicopter!) was often featured in a chase.

Which of these 2 types of Bond would one want to see? Does one want to see a film like The Spy Who Loved Me and Octopussy or a film like Casino Royale and From Russia With Love? Should Bond follow the more lighthearted action approach akin to Indiana Jones or should he focus on a serious, unorthodox Jason Bourne approach?

Mister Jingles

I strongly believe like a lot of people that the Bond franchise wouldn't of went the way it did since Casino Royal only for the Bourne movies. It was pretty much the kick up the arse that the franchise needed badly.

I'll be sad to see Craig go if it is a definite that he won't be returning. Of the six actors who have portrayed Bond I would consider him as been one of the most influential.

Back in 2005 when he was chosen to take over the roll, I remember the tabloids printing headlines such as "James Blonde" and what have yeah. Then when CR was released the tables almost immediately turned when it was realised that how serious and suited to the Bond he was.

I don't think going back to the old Moore/Connery style of Bond would necessarily tarnish the franchise but is something that is probably best left alone at the moment.

Another way of looking at the last question in the OP could also be, Cold War Bond or Modern Day Bond.

tigger123

I think if the franchise is to survive (and thrive) it needs to move with the times. Bond definitely went in the Jason Bourne direction and is much better for it. It may be heresy to some here, but I'm in my 30's and never cared about a James Bond movie until Casino Royal. With CR it became gritty, more real and a bit more believable and human. A move to the older themes and campy mood would be a step backwards.

In terms of moving with the times, if you look at The Force Awakens (the latest in the 40 year Star Wars franchise) I don't think it's a coincidence that it has a woman and a person of colour as it's heroes/protagonists. I think there's more diversity creeping into the blockbuster roles and cinema in general is all the better for it IMO (and the film has been a massive commercial success). So in that sense the recent talk of Idris Elba or (it's never going to happen) Gillian Anderson playing Bond is great. I'd love to see either of them take it on.

ziedth

God I don't know about that. Just off team bat (and I could he wrong here) but I don't believe the casting call for Finn in SW looked for someone black it was just sex, age and a brief description of the character.

I wouldn't be behind changing James Bond just to keep with the trend with Ghostbusters and so on. I actually like Ibris Elba as an actor so I could fully get behind him as James Bond but I would have to draw the line with changing the sex.

Don't get me wrong apart taking Ghostbusters as another example changing the sex of those characters doesn't bother me in the slightest apart from it adding fuel to my belief is that one of life's great mysteries is that why Melissa McCarthy is so famous.

James bond shouldn't go down that route. The overhaul it got from Casino Royale was badly needed following the decline in quality of the Bosnian led movies.

If they want Gillingham Anderson to play a British Spy (and it's a good idea as I like her as an actress too) then they should have their own film to do it.

blue note

Does anyone else think that idris Elba is too old to start paying bond? For me bond should be someone early 30s to early 40s. If you gave it to Elba now he'd probably be about 46 by the time the first one comes out. If you're keeping him for 3/4 he could be late 50s and still doing the role. It just wouldn't seem right to me that he'd be going around beating people up and bedding women in their 20s at that age.

I think a black bond wouldn't actually be a big deal any more. But now that the part has come up I just don't think he's the right age for it. Same for Hugh jackman or Clive Owen or the likes.

Michael fassbender would be a good choice, but I'd hope he'd turn it down to be honest, he's too good an actor for it. Tom hardy or James mcevoy would be good choice in my view. Or possibly Sam Worthington.

I'm not entirely against the idea of a female bond either. Probably not though.

tigger123

How old was Daniel Craig when he did his first bond?

McLoughlin

I would like to see the film set in the past like the 60s or even earlier

Daniel Craig was 37 when he first played Bond, Dalton and Brosnan were 42.
Connery was 31 and Lazenby 29, Moore was the eldest he was 45

blue note

McLoughlin wrote: »

I would like to see the film set in the past like the 60s or even earlier

Daniel Craig was 37 when he first played Bond, Dalton and Brosnan were 42.
Connery was 31 and Lazenby 29, Moore was the eldest he was 45

I think that would be 3 films Daniel Craig had under his belt by the time he reaches the age elba would start at.

Moore is my least favourite bond and I thought he was a ridiculous at the end.

I think it's a shame Brosnan didn't get it when he was first supposed to. Partly because he got the dud films with the exception of goldeneye. He could have been great in licence to kill.

tigger123

blue note wrote: »

Does anyone else think that idris Elba is too old to start paying bond? For me bond should be someone early 30s to early 40s. If you gave it to Elba now he'd probably be about 46 by the time the first one comes out. If you're keeping him for 3/4 he could be late 50s and still doing the role. It just wouldn't seem right to me that he'd be going around beating people up and bedding women in their 20s at that age.

I think a black bond wouldn't actually be a big deal any more. But now that the part has come up I just don't think he's the right age for it. Same for Hugh jackman or Clive Owen or the likes.

Michael fassbender would be a good choice, but I'd hope he'd turn it down to be honest, he's too good an actor for it. Tom hardy or James mcevoy would be good choice in my view. Or possibly Sam Worthington.

I'm not entirely against the idea of a female bond either. Probably not though.

Can't say I agree with Elba being too old. He's in great shape, and young enough to pull it off I reckon.

blue note

tigger123 wrote: »

Can't say I agree with Elba being too old. He's in great shape, and young enough to pull it off I reckon.

I think he'd be perfect now. But I don't think he will be perfect to do more than 2.

brevity

I know I'll feel old the day the actor who plays James Bond is younger than me.

Dial Hard

ziedth wrote: »

If they want Gillingham Anderson to play a British Spy (and it's a good idea as I like her as an actress too) then they should have their own film to do it.

I'd rather Anderson than Jamie Bell, quite frankly. Good God, he's a horrendous actor.

tricky D

Fyi/fwiw Aiden Turner (Poldark, The Hobbit x3)touted as an insider's tip on Popbitch.

Oafley Jones

blue note wrote: »

I think he'd be perfect now. But I don't think he will be perfect to do more than 2.

That's the thing, he hasn't got the legs for the role in the long term. He missed his shot. You know they won't cast an age appropriate female lead in these and nobody wants a return to an old lecherous dynamics of the later Moore movies.

Loved him as Stringer Bell, but he's disappointed me in everything since... I've yet to get around to Beasts of No Nation though.

LuckyLloyd

Periodise it. A Bond film set in the 60's would be fascinating imo. Keep it gritty and play with the politics of the era and retro styling. Now that would be a Bond movie I'd be excited about.

sheep?

tricky D wrote: »

Fyi/fwiw Aiden Turner (Poldark, The Hobbit x3)touted as an insider's tip on Popbitch.

I think Tom Hiddlestone is also a hot favourite, probably because of Night Manager.

Harry Palmr

Bond film have always moved with the times even if Bond himself has changed much more slowly which is understandable unless you get in a new fella every two films. Take films from 62, 73, 85, 95, 06 and they have only the handful of "meme's" and bare plot structure scaffolding in common.

Wedwood

Not sure what I'd like from the next Bond, what's left that hasn't already been done ?

We've had Connery's perfect Bond, Lazenby's bizarre Bond, Moore's tongue in cheek Bond, Dalton's serious Bond, Brosnan's smooth Bond and Craig's gritty Bond.

Are we going to get Hiddleston's wimpy Bond ?

Harry Palmr

How about casting a chimp for Brooke Bond.....

Wedwood

Harry Palmr wrote: »

How about casting a chimp for Brooke Bond.....

Or in the age of equality - Panti Bond.

Zubeneschamali

Marty Whelan is Bond, Prize Bond.

tigger123

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Marty Whelan is Bond, Prize Bond.

Made me lol.

Marty would be a great Bond actually. All suits and one-liners.

ISIS trying to destroy the Eurovision and 'Prize Bond' saves the day.

Glico Man

Read an article online somewhere ages ago that suggested that the name 'James Bond' become a codename, and as such the old double 0 become the number of that certain Bond. In theory a different actor could play Bond in each subsequent film, just given a different double 0.

If the role of 'M' can change from Dame Judi Dench to Ralph Fiennes in Skyfall, then perhaps it wouldn't be so farfetched that Bond can change in a different film.

Thought it was a different and interesting proposition, though I don't know how fond of the idea I would be if it came to fruition.

tigger123

Glico Man wrote: »

Read an article online somewhere ages ago that suggested that the name 'James Bond' become a codename, and as such the old double 0 become the number of that certain Bond. In theory a different actor could play Bond in each subsequent film, just given a different double 0.

If the role of 'M' can change from Dame Judi Dench to Ralph Fiennes in Skyfall, then perhaps it wouldn't be so farfetched that Bond can change in a different film.

Thought it was a different and interesting proposition, though I don't know how fond of the idea I would be if it came to fruition.

Pretty sure you're referring to an article on cracked.com, which was fascinating.

Mitch Connor

tigger123 wrote: »

Pretty sure you're referring to an article on cracked.com, which was fascinating.

Was a great theory but skyfall killed it, bond is his name, not a codename.

BuilderPlumber

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Bond film have always moved with the times even if Bond himself has changed much more slowly which is understandable unless you get in a new fella every two films. Take films from 62, 73, 85, 95, 06 and they have only the handful of "meme's" and bare plot structure scaffolding in common.

I think that is very true. We all look back on earlier Bond films and we view them in today's terms. Now, each actor who was with the franchise for a long term consolidated trends. SPECTRE and Blofeld defined Connery's and as a result Lazenby's era. Up to and including Diamonds are Forever, all the early films bar Goldfinger featured Blofeld or SPECTRE.

Moore's Bond really consolidated itself in The Spy Who Loved Me with General Gogol and the Minister of Defence character and the UK/USSR/USA collaborations against common enemies. This seeped into Dalton's The Living Daylights as well.

Brosnan's Bond introduced elements like a female M and Joe Don Baker's CIA agent replacing the severely compromised Felix Leiter. JDB was one of few to feature as both the good and bad guy in Bond. He was the baddie in The Living Daylights. Robbie Coltrane's character also was part and parcel of this Bond.

Craig's Bond was the one where all 4 films can be seen as a continuation of the same story. In this case, it really is useful to have watched his first 3 before watching SPECTRE to understand all the issues.

The series of course has been excellent at keeping up to date with audiences of the times. It has gone through many reinventions and one reboot so far. Some Bond like Dr No, From Russia With Love, Goldfinger, Thunderball, The Spy Who Loved Me, The Living Daylights, Goldeneye and at least 2 of the Craig films are remembered as classics but what about the others. The others are in my view often just as good. Here's a quick review:

You Only Live Twice: Any Bond with Connery is worth watching and this film for me anyway ticks all the boxes. Great fights, chases, shootouts and a great climax. What is there not to love? YOLT should be regarded as one of the best of the best. The Spy Who Loved Me took many elements of course from here too. 5/5.

On Her Majesty's Secret Service: Another solid early entry to the series, this film and Lazenby has gotten unfair reviews for decades. For years, it was the forgotten Bond. There is great fights, ski chases and a great climax that are among the best ever in the series. It also sported the best pretitle sequence so far in the series. The middle part where Bond goes 'undercover' was overlong and for over an hour we do not get any action. That is the only issue I would have. As for ending it Love/Hate style with Bond's wife dead, it was brave and different. 4/5.

Diamonds Are Forever: Connery's last official film is one of the most underrated of the series. The revenge focused pretitle sequence is good and shows us a personal Bond. The idea to have the twist where the main bad guy is actually Blofeld - who Bond thought was dead - hiding behind a kidnapped businessman was very clever. The climax is very good and the Amsterdam fight is one of the 5 best fight scenes in the series. Some have criticised it for being humorous but it is no moreso than its predecessor. This is the last Bond for some time to feature Blofeld as the main enemy. 5/5.

Live and Let Die: No Connery. No SPECTRE. No Blofeld. No world domination plot. This film was different to the 5 that went before it and showed Bond could go into new directions. Moore plays him excellently here and it is the first film where the enemy is the dictator of a country (fictional San Monique). The clever revelation that that dictator and an American drug dealer are one and the same adds to proceedings. Tee Hee is the best henchman since Oddjob. This is a very good entry to the series and shows us how the series can work without SPECTRE and world domination plots. 4/5.

The Man With The Golden Gun: the downside is that the villain really hasn't done anything to merit the work of 007. Even the bullet with Bond's name sent to MI6 is sent from the villain's girlfriend and not the villain in a plan to get Bond to kill the villain. Once past that, this film is surprisingly entertaining with a violent martial arts fight and the like. The climax though may have been a bit of a letdown compared to what we are to expect. 3/5.

Moonraker: The very mention of the word often will get arguments of why it is the worst Bond film ever made. When one looks at it, it clearly is not. In fact, it may be one of the best. It features one of the best fights (Venice), the best boat chase in the franchise (Brazil) and one of the best henchmen in Jaws. That Jaws became good at the end enhances the film and it is a first to see a henchman turn against his boss for once. Many criticise the ray gun shootout and climax in space. Well, if Thunderball can have the action underwater, Moonraker can have it in space. Overall, it is a very entertaining Bond film and has the feel of the Blofeld era entries. 5/5.

For Your Eyes Only: This will be no doubt remembered by most as the Bond film with the parrot talking to Margaret Thatcher! True, this is a scene that is unique and very different to any other scene from a Bond film. But, it is ironically one of the few humorous distractions in what is a taut spy thriller with plenty great action scenes and is a great entry to the series. 5/5.

Never Say Never Again: Back then, Bond was a two horse race: Connery and Moore. Connery then did the unthinkable and made an unofficial remake of Thunderball that manages to be taut and entertaining and does not copy Thunderball religiously either. It is another new entry and a good one. What we have here you could say is an early precursor to Dalton or Craig. Connery shows he still had it. 5/5.

Octopussy: My favorite of the Moore films and one that gets way too much negative reviews for again vague memories of some of the scenes. It will be remembered by many as the film where Bond is disguised as a clown. But what is not remembered is WHY: he is at a circus where a bomb is about to go off chased by cops who think he is a criminal. He disguises himself to get the cops off his back and to get close to the bomb. There is terrific action here and a tense cold war detente era plot that would be further explored in The Living Daylights. Gobinda is one of the best henchmen too. It is also the first film to cover events related to the Afghan civil wars, with the main baddie being an ex-Afghan royal family member. Should be regarded as one of the better of the Bonds. 5/5.

A View To a Kill: Many people hate this film inclusive of Roger Moore himself. Fair enough, Moore is right when he said he was way too old for the series at this stage. But this film is actually a good one. Zorin is the best villain of the entire series arguably. Walken plays him excellently and his psychotic nature and scant value for life is revealed throughout. It may well be the only film where the villain outshines even Bond himself. There is great action throughout with the pretitle and the Golden Gate San Fran climax being particularly good. Mayday becoming good is a nod to Jaws and it works well to see an ex villain become a hero. 4/5.

Licence to Kill: A great, revenge focused film that is the most un-Bond of all Bond films. Dalton took over as Bond in 1987 and debuted in the excellent and well respected The Living Daylights. His 1989 film did not receive the same praise though. And it remains one of the most underrated. The film with its drug dealers and drug related revenge killings feels like Miami Vice and it answered the question of could Bond thrive in a personalised mission setting. LTK was unlucky to run into Batman in 1989, the major summer hit that year. Dalton played Bond excellently here and one wonders if he had done 2 more in 1991 and 1993, what he had in him to become. 5/5.

Tomorrow Never Dies: Brosnan suffered the same fate as Dalton. He does an excellent and well regarded opening film and then an excellent and not so well regarded followup. TND is an excellent traditional style Bond film very much in the mould of You Only Live Twice or The Spy Who Loved Me. If this was made in the 1970s, it would be considered a classic. TND has everything: plenty of action, a great pretitle and climax, an eccentric and vicious villain, a great henchman and a taut, tense plot. It should be regarded as a classic. 5/5.

The World Is Not Enough: A better Bond than is remembered, TWINE took Bond in a new direction where he faces a female main villain and even shoots her! This is also the first Bond where M is more than just the person who sends Bond on a mission and takes part in a good deal of the action. The climax is rather poor. 3/5.

Die Another Day: yes, this is the Bond with the invisible car. In what is easily the most bizarre vehicle Bond ever drove, the series left the thriller genre for science fiction. It may be the poorest of the Bonds in many ways as it redid scenes from earlier films and a poor enough climax and the invisible car spoiled things. But is had its moments and the early POW part brought about a different type of scenario to the norm. 2/5.

Quantum of Solace: As with Dalton and Brosnan, Craig went from an excellent and respected opener to a very good but less respected followup. QOS may have a plot based around resource scarcity that works better in a Mad Max film than a Bond film but the high quality action is very entertaining and the decision to make it a direct sequel to Casino Royale was a first for the series. Only fault is it was way too short. 4/5.

SPECTRE: Following up Skyfall was always going to be difficult. But SPECTRE does a fairly good job with that and while it has its flaws (the main one being the Blofeld backstory), it still is enjoyable fare that would please most. 4/5.

FunLover18

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

With the reality that Daniel Craig may not play Bond again (or even if he gets an offer he can't say no to, he will only do one more), what style of films do people want to see next? Craig has played a very serious, driven, often substance dependent Bond who is excellent at his job but often completes it in unorthodox ways. Humour is used sparingly and the focus is on more realistic missions. The earliest Sean Connery films (Dr No, From Russia with Love and Thunderball) and Timothy Dalton's second film (Licence to Kill) followed a similar approach. Revenge sometimes reared its head. Other Bond films notably The Living Daylights had a bit more humour but were mostly realistic and serious plotwise.

For me, this bit in bold only applies to Craig's first too films. Skyfall and Spectre veered much closer to the outlandish missions and humour while still sparing is still much more prevalent in those latter films. I agree that Bourne gave Bond a much needed kick up the arse but Skyfall was return to the old ways, it's been acknowledged by the makers that they wanted to make it as classic as possible given the occasion and Spectre continued that trend with more nods and winks to the golden oldies. I watched all 4 of Craig's films there recently and the difference in tone between the first 2 and the second 2 is staggering. To me it really feels that CR and QoS are standalone, a failed reboot, where Skyfall and Spectre would be much more at home in boxset with the Connery, even Moore era films. I'd love to see them drop Blofeld and Spectre again and return to the grittiness of CR and QoS, it will be interesting to see which direction they take because with Spectre they tried to replicate what worked which made Skyfall such a success and it was not as well received.

Glico Man wrote: »

Read an article online somewhere ages ago that suggested that the name 'James Bond' become a codename, and as such the old double 0 become the number of that certain Bond. In theory a different actor could play Bond in each subsequent film, just given a different double 0.

If the role of 'M' can change from Dame Judi Dench to Ralph Fiennes in Skyfall, then perhaps it wouldn't be so farfetched that Bond can change in a different film.

Thought it was a different and interesting proposition, though I don't know how fond of the idea I would be if it came to fruition.

No, I hate this theory. It makes no sense. 007 is the code name, why would an agent need two codenames? Personally I wouldn't mind if they ditched 'James Bond' and made it a '007' franchise, it would make far more sense.

Theboinkmaster

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

I think that is very true. We all look back on earlier Bond films and we view them in today's terms. Now, each actor who was with the franchise for a long term consolidated trends. SPECTRE and Blofeld defined Connery's and as a result Lazenby's era. Up to and including Diamonds are Forever, all the early films bar Goldfinger featured Blofeld or SPECTRE.

Moore's Bond really consolidated itself in The Spy Who Loved Me with General Gogol and the Minister of Defence character and the UK/USSR/USA collaborations against common enemies. This seeped into Dalton's The Living Daylights as well.

Brosnan's Bond introduced elements like a female M and Joe Don Baker's CIA agent replacing the severely compromised Felix Leiter. JDB was one of few to feature as both the good and bad guy in Bond. He was the baddie in The Living Daylights. Robbie Coltrane's character also was part and parcel of this Bond.

Craig's Bond was the one where all 4 films can be seen as a continuation of the same story. In this case, it really is useful to have watched his first 3 before watching SPECTRE to understand all the issues.

The series of course has been excellent at keeping up to date with audiences of the times. It has gone through many reinventions and one reboot so far. Some Bond like Dr No, From Russia With Love, Goldfinger, Thunderball, The Spy Who Loved Me, The Living Daylights, Goldeneye and at least 2 of the Craig films are remembered as classics but what about the others. The others are in my view often just as good. Here's a quick review:

You Only Live Twice: Any Bond with Connery is worth watching and this film for me anyway ticks all the boxes. Great fights, chases, shootouts and a great climax. What is there not to love? YOLT should be regarded as one of the best of the best. The Spy Who Loved Me took many elements of course from here too. 5/5.

On Her Majesty's Secret Service: Another solid early entry to the series, this film and Lazenby has gotten unfair reviews for decades. For years, it was the forgotten Bond. There is great fights, ski chases and a great climax that are among the best ever in the series. It also sported the best pretitle sequence so far in the series. The middle part where Bond goes 'undercover' was overlong and for over an hour we do not get any action. That is the only issue I would have. As for ending it Love/Hate style with Bond's wife dead, it was brave and different. 4/5.

Diamonds Are Forever: Connery's last official film is one of the most underrated of the series. The revenge focused pretitle sequence is good and shows us a personal Bond. The idea to have the twist where the main bad guy is actually Blofeld - who Bond thought was dead - hiding behind a kidnapped businessman was very clever. The climax is very good and the Amsterdam fight is one of the 5 best fight scenes in the series. Some have criticised it for being humorous but it is no moreso than its predecessor. This is the last Bond for some time to feature Blofeld as the main enemy. 5/5.

Live and Let Die: No Connery. No SPECTRE. No Blofeld. No world domination plot. This film was different to the 5 that went before it and showed Bond could go into new directions. Moore plays him excellently here and it is the first film where the enemy is the dictator of a country (fictional San Monique). The clever revelation that that dictator and an American drug dealer are one and the same adds to proceedings. Tee Hee is the best henchman since Oddjob. This is a very good entry to the series and shows us how the series can work without SPECTRE and world domination plots. 4/5.

The Man With The Golden Gun: the downside is that the villain really hasn't done anything to merit the work of 007. Even the bullet with Bond's name sent to MI6 is sent from the villain's girlfriend and not the villain in a plan to get Bond to kill the villain. Once past that, this film is surprisingly entertaining with a violent martial arts fight and the like. The climax though may have been a bit of a letdown compared to what we are to expect. 3/5.

Moonraker: The very mention of the word often will get arguments of why it is the worst Bond film ever made. When one looks at it, it clearly is not. In fact, it may be one of the best. It features one of the best fights (Venice), the best boat chase in the franchise (Brazil) and one of the best henchmen in Jaws. That Jaws became good at the end enhances the film and it is a first to see a henchman turn against his boss for once. Many criticise the ray gun shootout and climax in space. Well, if Thunderball can have the action underwater, Moonraker can have it in space. Overall, it is a very entertaining Bond film and has the feel of the Blofeld era entries. 5/5.

For Your Eyes Only: This will be no doubt remembered by most as the Bond film with the parrot talking to Margaret Thatcher! True, this is a scene that is unique and very different to any other scene from a Bond film. But, it is ironically one of the few humorous distractions in what is a taut spy thriller with plenty great action scenes and is a great entry to the series. 5/5.

Never Say Never Again: Back then, Bond was a two horse race: Connery and Moore. Connery then did the unthinkable and made an unofficial remake of Thunderball that manages to be taut and entertaining and does not copy Thunderball religiously either. It is another new entry and a good one. What we have here you could say is an early precursor to Dalton or Craig. Connery shows he still had it. 5/5.

Octopussy: My favorite of the Moore films and one that gets way too much negative reviews for again vague memories of some of the scenes. It will be remembered by many as the film where Bond is disguised as a clown. But what is not remembered is WHY: he is at a circus where a bomb is about to go off chased by cops who think he is a criminal. He disguises himself to get the cops off his back and to get close to the bomb. There is terrific action here and a tense cold war detente era plot that would be further explored in The Living Daylights. Gobinda is one of the best henchmen too. It is also the first film to cover events related to the Afghan civil wars, with the main baddie being an ex-Afghan royal family member. Should be regarded as one of the better of the Bonds. 5/5.

A View To a Kill: Many people hate this film inclusive of Roger Moore himself. Fair enough, Moore is right when he said he was way too old for the series at this stage. But this film is actually a good one. Zorin is the best villain of the entire series arguably. Walken plays him excellently and his psychotic nature and scant value for life is revealed throughout. It may well be the only film where the villain outshines even Bond himself. There is great action throughout with the pretitle and the Golden Gate San Fran climax being particularly good. Mayday becoming good is a nod to Jaws and it works well to see an ex villain become a hero. 4/5.

Licence to Kill: A great, revenge focused film that is the most un-Bond of all Bond films. Dalton took over as Bond in 1987 and debuted in the excellent and well respected The Living Daylights. His 1989 film did not receive the same praise though. And it remains one of the most underrated. The film with its drug dealers and drug related revenge killings feels like Miami Vice and it answered the question of could Bond thrive in a personalised mission setting. LTK was unlucky to run into Batman in 1989, the major summer hit that year. Dalton played Bond excellently here and one wonders if he had done 2 more in 1991 and 1993, what he had in him to become. 5/5.

Tomorrow Never Dies: Brosnan suffered the same fate as Dalton. He does an excellent and well regarded opening film and then an excellent and not so well regarded followup. TND is an excellent traditional style Bond film very much in the mould of You Only Live Twice or The Spy Who Loved Me. If this was made in the 1970s, it would be considered a classic. TND has everything: plenty of action, a great pretitle and climax, an eccentric and vicious villain, a great henchman and a taut, tense plot. It should be regarded as a classic. 5/5.

The World Is Not Enough: A better Bond than is remembered, TWINE took Bond in a new direction where he faces a female main villain and even shoots her! This is also the first Bond where M is more than just the person who sends Bond on a mission and takes part in a good deal of the action. The climax is rather poor. 3/5.

Die Another Day: yes, this is the Bond with the invisible car. In what is easily the most bizarre vehicle Bond ever drove, the series left the thriller genre for science fiction. It may be the poorest of the Bonds in many ways as it redid scenes from earlier films and a poor enough climax and the invisible car spoiled things. But is had its moments and the early POW part brought about a different type of scenario to the norm. 2/5.

Quantum of Solace: As with Dalton and Brosnan, Craig went from an excellent and respected opener to a very good but less respected followup. QOS may have a plot based around resource scarcity that works better in a Mad Max film than a Bond film but the high quality action is very entertaining and the decision to make it a direct sequel to Casino Royale was a first for the series. Only fault is it was way too short. 4/5.

SPECTRE: Following up Skyfall was always going to be difficult. But SPECTRE does a fairly good job with that and while it has its flaws (the main one being the Blofeld backstory), it still is enjoyable fare that would please most. 4/5.

You left off 2 of the best recent ones - Goldeneye & Casino Royale.

pixelburp

Not wanting to sound like a troll, but ignoring the financial realities that there will of course be a new Bond one way or the other - simply because of the ludicrous money Lifestyle brands pump into these productions - is there even any point to new Bond films?

There are already 24 official films so far, 25 if you count Never Say Never Again, and personally it's hard to see where the franchise could go that wouldn't simply be rehashing the same ideas over & over. We've already had the gritty & serious angle, the camp & comedic angle, the Cold War setting, the Modern setting, and so on; technology-wise the pendulum has swung from simplicity to ... well, invisible cars.

I'd almost argue the fact there are page columns dedicated to 'modernising' Bond, be it via race, gender or whatnot, seems less like PC gone mad and more of a franchise that has run out of ideas. Like I said it's an insanely bankable franchise all right, but personally Bond feels less a Blockbuster event & more a financial obligation.

BuilderPlumber

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

You left off 2 of the best recent ones - Goldeneye & Casino Royale.

I left out these 2 and others because these are generally considered to be highly rated. The ones I discussed were the underrated and overlooked films in the series as well as the 'poorer' entries.

dr.fuzzenstein

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

I left out these 2 and others because these are generally considered to be highly rated. The ones I discussed were the underrated and overlooked films in the series as well as the 'poorer' entries.

No sorry, giving Moonraker 5/5? No. Just no.
Besides, it is missing the James Bond hooter. No JB film is any good without the hooter.

BuilderPlumber

pixelburp wrote: »

Not wanting to sound like a troll, but ignoring the financial realities that there will of course be a new Bond one way or the other - simply because of the ludicrous money Lifestyle brands pump into these productions - is there even any point to new Bond films?

There are already 24 official films so far, 25 if you count Never Say Never Again, and personally it's hard to see where the franchise could go that wouldn't simply be rehashing the same ideas over & over. We've already had the gritty & serious angle, the camp & comedic angle, the Cold War setting, the Modern setting, and so on; technology-wise the pendulum has swung from simplicity to ... well, invisible cars.

I'd almost argue the fact there are page columns dedicated to 'modernising' Bond, be it via race, gender or whatnot, seems less like PC gone mad and more of a franchise that has run out of ideas. Like I said it's an insanely bankable franchise all right, but personally Bond feels less a Blockbuster event & more a financial obligation.

Every Bond film is in a way a formula. If one was to come up with a Bond film, it would work something like this:

Pretitle: Bond drops into some undisclosed Middle Eastern country to take out a terrorist training camp. No mention of any specific group or what their aims are is given.
Main: Agent 00 whatever is shot dead in the Philippines and a photograph of a ship is found on him. Bond heads out there to investigate and meets up with the owner of the ship, who runs a seafood product business. As soon as Bond leaves the office of this guy, a series of henchmen chase Bond. Bond meets up with some girl who reveals the baddie's operations and they discover they are leaving on a plane for Canada the next day. Bond and the girl get onboard the plane, take out its other occupants and take their ID. They have overheard what they have to do. Bond and the girl meet a taxi to bring them to a factory where the evil genius is developing a deadly chemical from fish.

Bond gets caught out, so does the girl. Bond escapes and there is a car and boat chase. Luckily for Bond, he has placed a tracer with the girl and discovers they have flown to Belgium. From an industrial estate in Brussels, the villain plans to launch the chemical weapon on London unless the UK pays up billions. Bond arrives and has a fight with one of the henchmen and kills him. He is taken captive and then reunited with the girl. The villain tells Bond of his scheme. Bond escapes, kills the baddie's army in a shootout and then fights with the baddie, kills him, rescues the girl.

Yet, despite the fact that most Bond films play out like this, they are always entertaining and made to look different. One villain may want to plant a bomb to destroy a rival and become the sole supplier of something. Another will launch a bomb unless paid a lot of money. Another will try and start a war to become the next superpower. Another may want to kill off life to create a new race.

Now, tampering with the Bond character would be one sure way of killing off the franchise. Bond is a Scottish heterosexual man at the end of the day. A Bond-like film featuring a different type of secret agent would be the way to proceed to facilitate a gay or black or female agent. I recall that the Jinx character from Die Another Day was meant to have her own spinoff film but it never happened.

I often wonder what Ian Fleming would have thought if he lived longer. When Fleming sat down to write Casino Royale, he could never have guessed how successful his creation would become. Various books both by Fleming and others followed as did 25 films and 1 spoof, various comics and various games. Copycat films and books sprung up everywhere. But how would Fleming view films that deviated almost completely from his books? How would he have viewed the various actors who played Bond? Would he have written books especially for the films from the mid 1960s onwards?

One could argue one sees the future of Bond in the past of Bond too. Elements of films like Goldfinger, Thunderball and You Only Live Twice get repeated over and over. Other ideas also get reused. For example, the bad Russian/good Russian storyline of Octopussy resurfaced just 2 films later in The Living Daylights. Likewise, the ex friend of Bond (or M) turned bad was initiated in Goldeneye and reused in Skyfall and SPECTRE.

BuilderPlumber

FunLover18 wrote: »

For me, this bit in bold only applies to Craig's first too films. Skyfall and Spectre veered much closer to the outlandish missions and humour while still sparing is still much more prevalent in those latter films. I agree that Bourne gave Bond a much needed kick up the arse but Skyfall was return to the old ways, it's been acknowledged by the makers that they wanted to make it as classic as possible given the occasion and Spectre continued that trend with more nods and winks to the golden oldies. I watched all 4 of Craig's films there recently and the difference in tone between the first 2 and the second 2 is staggering. To me it really feels that CR and QoS are standalone, a failed reboot, where Skyfall and Spectre would be much more at home in boxset with the Connery, even Moore era films. I'd love to see them drop Blofeld and Spectre again and return to the grittiness of CR and QoS, it will be interesting to see which direction they take because with Spectre they tried to replicate what worked which made Skyfall such a success and it was not as well received.

The first 2 Craig films had a different tone and feel to the latter 2. It was inevitable a lot of things would be revived in the series as Craig went along. Skyfall of course worked on a lot of levels where SPECTRE didn't. I guess Skyfall had a very exciting and action packed conclusion whereas SPECTRE didn't. SPECTRE came across more as a part 1 of 2. The way Blofeld was handled of course did not please many inclusive of me.

How Bond films end often determines how people rate them. SPECTRE clocks up many great action scenes throughout before limping out on one of the series' most disappointing climaxes. One would have to go way back as far as The Man With The Golden Gun to get an equally poor finale. Skyfall on the other hand built itself up to a very satisfying climatic London to Scotland finale.

I also got the feel that Craig was not as enthusiastic in it as he was in his first 3. The raw and edgy agent Craig brought to the scene is almost replaced in SPECTRE by a formulaic version of the Connery/Moore eras. I like SPECTRE, but the main problem is I always feel is they tagged Blofeld onto it and named it SPECTRE once they got permission to use these. Oberhauser had been written as a copy of the Skyfall villain.

No, I hate this theory. It makes no sense. 007 is the code name, why would an agent need two codenames? Personally I wouldn't mind if they ditched 'James Bond' and made it a '007' franchise, it would make far more sense.

Personally, I think they shouldn't reboot it every time. Just continue on as they did before. Rebooting it too many times and especially if it brings in too radical changes could well finish off the franchise. It needed to be rebooted in 2006 as it would be ridiculous to have the same incarnation going from 1962 to date. An offshoot film featuring say 008 could be the solution to having the same type of film but different. 008 could be a black agent, a gay agent, a woman agent, etc.

There is no doubt that SPECTRE was a decent Bond film but yes it could have been so much better. Now that the 4 Craig films are all tied into its events, a satisfactory conclusion is needed.

BuilderPlumber

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

No sorry, giving Moonraker 5/5? No. Just no.
Besides, it is missing the James Bond hooter. No JB film is any good without the hooter.

I may be in the minority but I think Moonraker was actually one of the better of the Bonds. It also ended an era and was placed in one of the most unstable periods of the cold war. For me, the action was good. The fight in Venice, the boat chases and yes the raygun shootout were all done well. Maybe it is a million miles away from From Russia With Love, but Moonraker is entertaining and consistent.

Part of the reason why I like the film is because it surprised me. I would have watched all the Bonds in the late 1980s when films like Moonraker were actually more respected. Then, I revisited it recently enough expecting to find it lived up to its poor critical reputation.

First off, the pretitle: while it may not be the best one of the series, it was solid and was as good as and better than other Bonds of its era. Afterall, it is the latter pretitles like those in Goldeneye, Tomorrow Never Dies, and Skyfall that have really outshone all that went before.

Then, the plot about stealing a spacecraft and releasing chemical weapons from space to kill millions was a classic Blofeld-type plot. Drax makes a refined but ruthless villain.

The action like the Venice fight, the boat chases, the fight in the van in Brazil and the space shootout were all good. Jaws turning good added to things in my view. It also closes out an era, being the last film to feature Bernard Lee as M and the last to take a title from a full Fleming novel rather than short story until Casino Royale.

Yet, for many, Moonraker defines Moore's Bond at its worst or as a bizarre Star Wars cashin or as a copy of The Spy Who Loved Me. For me, it is where Moore has really settled into his style of Bond and it delivers as a great action film of its time.

Interestingly enough, Moonraker closed out the 1970s and was released in 1979, a year when the cold war was hotting up on several fronts with the so-called iron curtain taking in Iran as a new member and a Russian invasion of Afghanistan setting off a whole lot of new problems and threatening detente. 1979 ushered in a new era and 10 years later, the world would be a different place. Moonraker decided to bypass the new cold war realities but films like Octopussy, The Living Daylights, Goldeneye, and Tomorrow Never Dies hinted at threats like dissident Russians threatening the status quo and the ever increasing threat of al Qaedaism. It is interesting now to look back on films of this time and place them in today's rather than that time's context.

Interestingly enough, the direct followup to Moonraker was For Your Eyes Only, the most anti-Russian Bond film of all (albeit at the very end, Bond and Gogol seem to laugh at the whole thing). Perhaps with the Afghanistan (direct USSR invasion), Poland (military law is imposed to defeat Solidarity) and Iran (a Russian ally for sure and some at the time would believe a client state of the USSR designed to annoy the Americans: it is clearly shown to be a Soviet state on the map Orlov had in Octopussy) situations along with bad feeling between the West and the Russians in the Olympics, that 1981 film took a less positive stance on the Russians than previous and future films. In Octopussy, A View To A Kill and The Living Daylights, Bond and the good Russians were on the same side with Bond even being awarded by the USSR. Whereas in For Your Eyes Only, Kristatos seems to be current KGB affiliate not ex (like Zorin) or not rogue (like Orlov).

1989 produced Licence To Kill, another of the underrated Bonds. Once more, the year defined the film. 1989 may be one of the few times when peace reigned. America and Russia were friends. The Afghan and Iran-Iraq wars ended. More moderate forces were coming to power all over Eastern Europe and the likes of Iran's Rafsanjani and South Africa's De Klerk wanted to be the next Gorbachevs. Unfortunately, all the great hopes of 1989 came crashing down later. The various wars involving Iraq, a coup by Orlov/Koskov types in the USSR almost derailed things and then the rise of suicide terrorism became the new threat. But Bond in 1989 in that short positive period of world affairs could take on apolitical drug dealers and facilitate revenge missions instead.

The Bonds that followed of course have without mentioning anyone dealt with global terrorism. Though mentioned vaguely as on the Russian border, it is most likely the pretitle of Tomorrow Never Dies is set in Taliban Afghanistan. The novelisation definitely places it there. The World Is Not Enough dealt with oil and oil based terrorism. Die Another Day was really a reworking of the old Octopussy/The Living Daylights plot with moderates v hardliners in North Korea instead of the USSR. Casino Royale was all about fundraising for terrorist groups. Quantum of Solace was about the invention of a fictional terrorist network with vast powers. Skyfall and SPECTRE came back to a more personalised setting where M and Bond are revealed as the motivations of the enemies in each.

Moonraker shook up the franchise at the time as much as Casino Royale did later. What Moonraker stated was that it was ok to borrow from other source material. Bond has been doing this ever since. Octopussy has an Indiana Jones flavour. Elements of Rambo and Mad Max run through The Living Daylights and Licence to Kill (the Afghan battle and the truck chase in them are very like Mad Max 2 action scenes). Quantum of Solace also has a Mad Max feel. Licence to Kill has a lot of Miami Vice in there as well. Skyfall even borrows a bit from the Home Alone franchise in the finale. The style of the Jason Bourne films is very much in Craig's films. Yet Moonraker was not the first Bond to borrow from other sources. Live and Let Die was very like Shaft at times while The Man With The Golden Gun had a (for the time a quite violent) homage to martial arts films thrown in. Martial arts films were huge in the 1970s but ironically Bond films were including martial arts before, as shown in You Only Live Twice.

FunLover18

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

The first 2 Craig films had a different tone and feel to the latter 2. It was inevitable a lot of things would be revived in the series as Craig went along. Skyfall of course worked on a lot of levels where SPECTRE didn't. I guess Skyfall had a very exciting and action packed conclusion whereas SPECTRE didn't. SPECTRE came across more as a part 1 of 2. The way Blofeld was handled of course did not please many inclusive of me.

Personally, Skyfall didn't work for me and I really don't think they needed to revive some of those things. I think the only reason they did was because of how poorly received QoS was and because of the anniversary. As mentioned on the Spectre thread, that ending came across as perfectly conclusive to me and I have no desire or need to see Blofeld back.

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

Personally, I think they shouldn't reboot it every time. Just continue on as they did before. Rebooting it too many times and especially if it brings in too radical changes could well finish off the franchise. It needed to be rebooted in 2006 as it would be ridiculous to have the same incarnation going from 1962 to date. An offshoot film featuring say 008 could be the solution to having the same type of film but different. 008 could be a black agent, a gay agent, a woman agent, etc.
.

But it wouldn't be a reboot every time, making it a 007 franchise while removing Bond means that you can change the main/actor but still keep the same M, Q, etc. I think the main reason the Mission Impossible frnachise has started using subtitles rather than numbers is because they know Cruise can't keep making them and they don't want to recast Ethan Hunt. I think the Bond franchise could easily go in the same direction.

BuilderPlumber

FunLover18 wrote: »

Personally, Skyfall didn't work for me and I really don't think they needed to revive some of those things. I think the only reason they did was because of how poorly received QoS was and because of the anniversary. As mentioned on the Spectre thread, that ending came across as perfectly conclusive to me and I have no desire or need to see Blofeld back.

But it wouldn't be a reboot every time, making it a 007 franchise while removing Bond means that you can change the main/actor but still keep the same M, Q, etc. I think the main reason the Mission Impossible frnachise has started using subtitles rather than numbers is because they know Cruise can't keep making them and they don't want to recast Ethan Hunt. I think the Bond franchise could easily go in the same direction.

I enjoyed Skyfall personally but agree there was no need to revive certain things. Skyfall was a good film but was not all that original in concept. The villain was basically a revival of the one in Goldeneye. I think Skyfall divides people in 2 about it. Many love it, many think it overrated. Quantum of Solace is imo underrated. It for me anyway ticked most of the boxes.

The problem is that James Bond and 007 are so linked that another 007 would probably fail. It is best to keep 007 as Bond and stay fairly faithful to Fleming's original incarnation imo. A spinoff with another 00 agent would perhaps serves the other purposes.

I think they really cocked up the Blofeld character in SPECTRE. This is precisely an example of when they take a character from Fleming and then totally rewrite it. The main reason here was imo that the character was written not as Blofeld and then was renamed Blofeld when they got permission to.

I think that they should do a film to kill off Blofeld as the climax of SPECTRE was poor and then continue on with Bond facing down another villain in the rest of the films. This incarnation of Blofeld does not deserve more than 2 films in my view as he is fake. It would have been better to have Blofeld introduced properly in a well thought out story rather than tacking him on as an afterthought.

The climax of SPECTRE was the weakest in the series since The Man With The Golden Gun. At the end of a Bond film, one expects a substantial shootout or fight and in SPECTRE, we don't get this at the end. Indeed, the excellent fight on the train is the last quality piece of action in the film and it is toned down after that. Going on You Only Live Twice, On Her Majesty's Secret Service and Diamonds Are Forever, one expects with Blofeld a shootout climax between Bond/his allies and the SPECTRE army. We see Blofeld as a pathetic man all alone at the end. This is not like the Blofeld of the affore mentioned Connery/Lazenby films.

I think the main problem with SPECTRE is it also tried to copy Skyfall a lot. Blofeld or to give him his original name Oberhauser is more Silva from Skyfall than the real Blofeld. Only he focuses his hatred on Bond rather than M.

Realistically, I feel though this 'Blofeld' could be around for some time. They have waited over 40 years to have permission for this character and SPECTRE. They tried to revive this in Moore's time and I think Brosnan's time too (IIRC, there were talks of an OHMSS remake). Since they now have that permission, Blofeld and SPECTRE will be reused many times imo.

TonyCliftonEsq

Fasdbender said he has some great ideas for Bond and wants to talk to Barbara Broccoli.

Something about Bond as a Navy officer before he becomes 007

blue note

TonyCliftonEsq wrote: »

Fasdbender said he has some great ideas for Bond and wants to talk to Barbara Broccoli.

That sounds like an absolutely terrible bond girl name!

James Bond is ****e. Casino Royale was an anomaly. I thought they might continue with the gritty tone but every Bond film since then was a bland action film. They'd have to go a completely different direction outside of the two options in that poll to spark my interest.

TonyCliftonEsq

If you are not a fan of James Bond why do you think s highly successful franchise should change to suit you?

Wedwood

TonyCliftonEsq wrote: »

Fasdbender said he has some great ideas for Bond and wants to talk to Barbara Broccoli.

Something about Bond as a Navy officer before he becomes 007

And after that, Justin Bieber as Bond after he left school but before he joined the Navy.

dr.fuzzenstein

Deleted User wrote: »

James Bond is ****e. Casino Royale was an anomaly. I thought they might continue with the gritty tone but every Bond film since then was a bland action film. They'd have to go a completely different direction outside of the two options in that poll to spark my interest.

Then Bond isn't for you I'm afraid. The whole point of Bond is the glitzy surrounds, the high life, casinos, yachts, private jets, the tux, the drink (only the best and by the gallon), the girls, the chases, the shootouts and even the violence, but it can never be gritty or grubby.
Bond is unrealistic and over the top, it's the whole point of the franchise. The books were written in very gritty times and they were meant as escapism. If someone now tried to make it realistic, gritty, PC, show Bond to have a healthy lifestyle and turned him into a vegan, lesbian, disabled, Muslim Asian female that tries to solve conflicts by talking rather than violence to tick all the right boxes with the pressure groups, it would be beyond loathsome.
If they want to make a spy movie along those lines, it is absolutely fine and I would even go to see it, because it sounds like a hoot. But it is NOT Bond.
The first step in trying to change Bond is to not change him. Because if you changed Bond, it wouldn't be Bond anymore. I would rather see the end of the franchise, than see Bond being turned into some kind of circus pony performing tricks to please the PC Nazi brigade whilst at the same time whipping around the franchise to make it pay for all the misogamy and general non-compliant to their ideals behaviour.

BuilderPlumber

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Then Bond isn't for you I'm afraid. The whole point of Bond is the glitzy surrounds, the high life, casinos, yachts, private jets, the tux, the drink (only the best and by the gallon), the girls, the chases, the shootouts and even the violence, but it can never be gritty or grubby.
Bond is unrealistic and over the top, it's the whole point of the franchise. The books were written in very gritty times and they were meant as escapism. If someone now tried to make it realistic, gritty, PC, show Bond to have a healthy lifestyle and turned him into a vegan, lesbian, disabled, Muslim Asian female that tries to solve conflicts by talking rather than violence to tick all the right boxes with the pressure groups, it would be beyond loathsome.
If they want to make a spy movie along those lines, it is absolutely fine and I would even go to see it, because it sounds like a hoot. But it is NOT Bond.
The first step in trying to change Bond is to not change him. Because if you changed Bond, it wouldn't be Bond anymore. I would rather see the end of the franchise, than see Bond being turned into some kind of circus pony performing tricks to please the PC Nazi brigade whilst at the same time whipping around the franchise to make it pay for all the misogamy and general non-compliant to their ideals behaviour.

I agree. For the franchise to remain as Bond, it does need to keep Bond as Bond. If they tampered with the essential traits of the character, then they would kill off the franchise and make it a joke. 6 actors have portrayed Bond. Each did it differently, but each were BOND and maintained the essential Bond traits. There have been 25 films and each has had Bond being Bond. Some films were more violent than others, some were funnier than others, some were more realistic than others but ALL had the combination of action and sophisticated lifestyles one has come to expect in the series.

It is essential that Bond of course lives the high life. He has to fit into the world of rich sophisticated criminals who also have a cultural aspect to them. An inner city drug dealer is not the type of villain Bond would ever be investigating so we never see this world in Bond films. Instead, we see villains with posh palaces, playing/listening to classical music, eating lobster, drinking fine champagne, etc. Bond matches them with his lifestyle too.

Today's OTT PC brigade would ruin any franchise. Messing with any franchise can ruin it. For me, the reinvention of Fleming's Blofeld character in SPECTRE left a sour aftertaste in my mouth. Imagine what a radically altered Bond character would do then!

Pepe LeFrits

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Then Bond isn't for you I'm afraid. The whole point of Bond is the glitzy surrounds, the high life, casinos, yachts, private jets, the tux, the drink (only the best and by the gallon), the girls, the chases, the shootouts and even the violence, but it can never be gritty or grubby.
Bond is unrealistic and over the top, it's the whole point of the franchise. The books were written in very gritty times and they were meant as escapism. If someone now tried to make it realistic, gritty, PC, show Bond to have a healthy lifestyle and turned him into a vegan, lesbian, disabled, Muslim Asian female that tries to solve conflicts by talking rather than violence to tick all the right boxes with the pressure groups, it would be beyond loathsome.
If they want to make a spy movie along those lines, it is absolutely fine and I would even go to see it, because it sounds like a hoot. But it is NOT Bond.
The first step in trying to change Bond is to not change him. Because if you changed Bond, it wouldn't be Bond anymore. I would rather see the end of the franchise, than see Bond being turned into some kind of circus pony performing tricks to please the PC Nazi brigade whilst at the same time whipping around the franchise to make it pay for all the misogamy and general non-compliant to their ideals behaviour.

Seems odd to equate ‘gritty’ with being PC and showing Bond as a vegan.

Bond films these days, by and large, are generic and bland cookie-cutter action movies dressed up with nostalgia. If you stripped away the gadgets, catchphrases, Bond theme riff, Bond girls etc and released these films outside the Bond branding where they’d have to stand up on their own merits as films, they’d bomb. There’s little depth or anything fresh in Bond films now and whoever said Casino Royale was outlier was spot on.

You could easily have a Bond film that is ‘gritty’ and also set within glamorous confines of Monte Carlo and the likes. They’re not mutually exclusive. ‘Gritty’ is less about the setting and more about the content. A good example of it would be the Battlestar Galactica remake. It wasn’t gritty because the show made the ship oily and low-tech, but because of the way it dealt with and portrayed complex, dark issues ranging from alcoholism to genocide to suicide bombing.

Bond at his core is a great, complex character, but modern Bond films are less interested in exploring the character and more interested in dropping in all the gimmicks and having him dodge explosions like an Avenger in a tuxedo. Personally, I’d love to see a Bond film that delved deep into the character, focused on spycraft, remained grounded in something resembling reality, and stripped away all of the spyfi action hero bull****, but until the studios have completely milked that cow dry, it ain’t gonna happen.

SimonTemplar

I'm a lifelong Bond fan and I can't think of a better way to revitalize the series than to have it set in the 1960s.

But I also think we need fresh blood on the writing team. Neal Purvis and Robert Wade have written every movie since 1999s The World Is Not Enough with occasional guest writers on each movie. A new Bond actor is the perfect chance to get some new enthusiastic writers involved.

BuilderPlumber

SimonTemplar wrote: »

I'm a lifelong Bond fan and I can't think of a better way to revitalize the series than to have it set in the 1960s.

But I also think we need fresh blood on the writing team. Neal Purvis and Robert Wade have written every movie since 1999s The World Is Not Enough with occasional guest writers on each movie. A new Bond actor is the perfect chance to get some new enthusiastic writers involved.

A movie version of something like Devil May Care would be good and set in the 1960s. Perhaps it would be a great boost to the newly formed future country, Federal Republic of Iran, to have this filmed there. I'm sure most post-Khamenei/Revolutionary Guards era Iranians will want their country back and will love this film and the nostalgia about when their country was a great place before. That book was full of great action and would be an ideal film.

As regards the writers: it is true they can get tired and can reproduce the same contents just in different ways. Wade & Purvis gave us at least 2 classic Bond films. They also gave us films that have poorer reputations and mixed receptions. But after 6 films they probably have done all they can. SPECTRE was really a remake of Skyfall that was a disimprovement. Chances are their next one could be a remake of Casino Royale!

BuilderPlumber

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

Seems odd to equate ‘gritty’ with being PC and showing Bond as a vegan.

Bond films these days, by and large, are generic and bland cookie-cutter action movies dressed up with nostalgia. If you stripped away the gadgets, catchphrases, Bond theme riff, Bond girls etc and released these films outside the Bond branding where they’d have to stand up on their own merits as films, they’d bomb. There’s little depth or anything fresh in Bond films now and whoever said Casino Royale was outlier was spot on.

You could easily have a Bond film that is ‘gritty’ and also set within glamorous confines of Monte Carlo and the likes. They’re not mutually exclusive. ‘Gritty’ is less about the setting and more about the content. A good example of it would be the Battlestar Galactica remake. It wasn’t gritty because the show made the ship oily and low-tech, but because of the way it dealt with and portrayed complex, dark issues ranging from alcoholism to genocide to suicide bombing.

Bond at his core is a great, complex character, but modern Bond films are less interested in exploring the character and more interested in dropping in all the gimmicks and having him dodge explosions like an Avenger in a tuxedo. Personally, I’d love to see a Bond film that delved deep into the character, focused on spycraft, remained grounded in something resembling reality, and stripped away all of the spyfi action hero bull****, but until the studios have completely milked that cow dry, it ain’t gonna happen.

The complexity of Bond's character and the focus on espionage have taken a back seat many times in the films to be blended into an all action almost superhero flick. Though all the films are entertaining, the makers of them have more often than not just jumped onto a formula to remake over and over.

A film like From Russia With Love is probably an example of that perfect Bond movie. It is taut, entertaining, action packed, gritty and glamorous all in the one. It stays non-political yet is full of cold war twists and turns. It is a film that would please action and spy fans equally.

As the series went along, other factors had to be put in. The Goldfinger-type car chase, the Goldfinger/Thunderball/You Only Live Twice plot, the ski chase, the boat chase, the train fight, underwater scenes, a bit of comedy, etc. Pretty soon, it became standard procedure to compulsorarily include at least a few of these per film.

The over the top stunts were also not present in the earlier films. In Dr No, there's none at all IIRC. Another thing one will readily notice is that the pretitle sequences of most of the earlier films are never a main highlight. Now, we expect them to be the second best part of the film after the climax.

Now, how would a film focused on a more realistic, grittier plot go? Suppose if a film was made where a loved one of Bond's was killed in a suicide bomb attack by a person coerced into doing it by a powerful terrorist army called the Global Fascist Alliance (I can see why real groups of this kind would not be named but we would know who the GFA are meant to be at the same time). Imagine then Bond struggling with alcoholism and pill dependency and depression and a quest for revenge that his bosses want to suppress. Suppose then M loses a loved one in the next attack and M then decides to sanction Bond to go after the common enemy and what M is doing is technically illegal. Suppose the GFA then are revealed to be planning a dirty bomb attack on some city and suppose someone close to Bond and M is then revealed as being a main facilitator of it. The film could have the mood of the latter part of the first Mad Max film: total revenge. The film could well end with Bond locking the ultimate villain inside a room with a bomb about to explode in it or tied down in a pot of water that is about to boil and then walks away. Or we could have a situation where Bond thinks there is someone higher up again and has it narrowed down to 4 possible individuals and tells his enemy: you have 10 minutes to think things over and reveal the name (only 4 names can defuse the bomb or turn off the boiling water) or else you die. The film would end there and the sequel could continue with the bad guy mentioning a name and Bond's pursuit of that name and if he is the one behind it .

Grab All Association

This is a rare photo of Sean Connery signed by Roger Moore. It is worth one hundred and fifty dollars.

jimgoose

Fleming's original Bond is a deeply flawed, alcoholic, mysoginistic burnt-out killer. In other words, he's just about perfect. And Tim Dalton was the best Bond. There, I said it!!

BuilderPlumber

jimgoose wrote: »

Fleming's original Bond is a deeply flawed, alcoholic, mysoginistic burnt-out killer. In other words, he's just about perfect. And Tim Dalton was the best Bond. There, I said it!!

Likewise I have always loved Dalton's interpretation of Bond. It was realistic and faithful to Fleming's original. He was brave enough to take the character into new territory and his 2 films are easily among the best in the franchise. He was ahead of his time and was doing what Craig did in Casino Royale 20 years before that.

Though I enjoyed SPECTRE, I think its plot and its treatment of Blofeld let down the background story for it initiated in Casino Royale. The idea of a terrorist financier and a hidden organisation that was the power behind global terrorism should have been explored more. You could imagine Blofeld being written pretty much as in the Fleming novels and updated so that SPECTRE would include an alliance of very funny bedfellows such as ISIS/al Qaeda, European neo-Nazis, survivalist extremists, megarich Iranian Revolutionary Guards hardliners, Ku Klux Klan, Saudi businessmen with extremist ideas, neo-Stalinists in Russia, mafias, North Korean hardliners, etc. all embedded in their own organisation (sometimes even ready to undermine their own organisations in favour of SPECTRE) and planning a new world order. Specific organisations don't have to be named: things like 'white supremists in America' or 'Middle Eastern terrorists' could be used along with the vague neo-Nazi. It would of course be most important to balance that with some good people from any country or countries mentioned akin to what we see in The Living Daylights and the like.

Casino Royale explored that territory but it was not followed up on. Licence to Kill explored that territory well with Sanchez wanting to unite world drug dealers. The Living Daylights played out the struggle between hardliner and moderate Russians, as did Octopussy. These films were not afraid to bring in real world events in a balanced way and it worked. Today's films shy away from it.

tricky D

tricky D wrote: »

Fyi/fwiw Aiden Turner (Poldark, The Hobbit x3)touted as an insider's tip on Popbitch.

Paddy Power have slashed Aidan Turner's odds to 1/3. Wish I'd put my money where my tip was, maybe.