The future of James Bond

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.

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 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.

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!

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.

sky88 wrote: »

Ive always been a sucker for a toung in cheek bond like roger moore was but i dont think that would work at all now.

The craig bonds except for casino royale have been bad and just boring. I think craig was a good bond laboured with bad films just like brosnom was after goldeneye.

I would like a style closer to goldeneye where it was gritty but still had that cheesyness about it.

I think there has been a tendency to underrate Moore's films. It is obvious though that many of them are actually among the better of the Bond films. We must remember he made great films for his time and I remember Christmases in the late 1980s where TV schedules would not be complete without Octopussy, The Spy Who Loved Me and Moonraker (3 very good Bond films imo). Films like these provided great action and gave us views of exotic countries like India, Egypt and Brazil at a time when the average Irish person was not travelling to any of these.