Bond 26 (2 Viewers)

[Bob Cashill]

But yes the larger point, one they’re wrestling with, is what does Bond mean in the here and now? You could go backwards and period, like the Man from UNCLE movie, but that found few takers. The Bourne and M:I films captured the zeitgeist but I assume the former’s on ice and the latter will be wrapping up. Not many 60-year-olds reinvent themselves…would it be the same worst thing if this was it, and we left 007 in peace after a 25-film run?

 

[DanH1972]

What we don't need is a grumpy, humorless, self-absorbed woman hater, especially like Craig's tenure.

They need some of the gadgets back, a light-hearted Q Branch, and a Bond with a dashing twinkle in his eye. Maybe a mix of Connery and Moore to make him seem Alpha but with a wink and a nod to the fact these Bond films are escapist adventure romps, not dour and moody pieces.

 

[Bob Cashill]

And enough with the serialized storytelling if it is to go on. I still can’t believe the way the Craig era messed up Blofeld and SPECTRE.

 

[Rich Vincent]

I don't have any suggestions at the moment on who to cast, I just can't name a lot of today's actors so don't have a real good feel for who would be good.

I'm a Bond traditionalist so to me Bond should be:

British
Male
A womanizer
Have a bit of a nasty streak
Look like someone that could kick your ass
Be somewhat charming (not overboard on this aspect)

I feel like he should be a white guy as that has been the character all along but if you want to change that this is fine as long as he meets the above requirements.

If you do totally "reinvent" Bond, well, it is not going to be a Bond picture and Bond fans will be pretty unhappy. Personally, I don't think Bond has ever been reinvented, they essentially just try to take aspects of the actor and incorporate them into the role. So, Bond has just shifted a bit depending upon who was playing him and the best Bonds or most memorable ones do take on traits that the actor is good at portraying.

There is a Bond formula that is what has basically sold every picture in the franchise, so I would not tinker with that too much because essentially, we know what has worked and what people expect from Bond. However, when you replace an actor that has been as iconic as Craig was in the role, you do want to freshen things up to create a somewhat new dynamic for the new actor to make his mark.

The primary change I think they could and maybe should make is just hire a younger actor to play Bond. We basically have had a lot of middle aged Bond. Plus if you have a younger guy he can play Bond longer if you want and it makes sense for a younger guy to be doing all the off the wall stuff Bond does.

Also, since the whole Craig Bond deal was kind of this "personal rogue" thing, you could shift to young Bond being sent on missions he needs to complete. And they don't have to be about saving the world.

Now, neither of those things would be a huge reinvention but it would be a reboot and a different take than what we got with Craig.

As astute as everyone here is about film I'm a bit surprised that anyone is coming up with suggestions for a new actor. I'm sure the reason that they haven't even started casting is because until they re-invent their approach to the franchise they have no idea who will be most appropriate for the role. And I doubt reinvention necessarily has anything to do with Bond's race or sex.

The Bond franchise has been reinvented several times over its history. The Moore films have a very different tone from the Connery films NOT because of the actor but because they wanted to re-invent their interpretation for a new decade. The same for the Pierce Brosnan and Daniel Craig versions. The last of the Craig version was completed over 2 years ago, and it is likely that the next one will be at least 2-3 years away. We will be well into a new decade before Craig was first cast.

The Bond franchise has survived this long because the producers are canny enough to keep it contemporary for the times.

 

[Reggie W]

Maybe it's just time to ditch the tired franchise concept and just create a new character and storyline for a spy/hitman. Yeah, I know that's just too radical of an idea for Hollywood and would require actual creativity and work.

Bond is a very long running film franchise. It is long running mostly because it has continued to draw audiences. In many ways, it has outlived itself. In that yes, the ideas and concepts that it began with and the attitudes of the main character are now, well, no longer seen as good qualities in a man.

Drinking, womanizing, and kicking ass while enjoying a wonderfully cool fossil fuel guzzling vehicle are now pretty much frowned upon. So, are we going to have Bond in an electric car, chatting his way out of bad situations, while expressing his disdain for any relationship that is not monogamous? Posting on social media to get "likes" and the approval he so desperately seeks?

In some ways I think a change they could make would be to create a period Bond, set in the 1950s or 1960s but this probably would not draw in the younger audience they likely want.

I do think rather than "reinventing" Bond if they want a new very different spy character they should invent one rather than trying to twist Bond into something that Bond has never been nor is meant to be.

I mean, I understand the idea that Bond is a name they don't have to presell, it is a known brand and has a built-in audience that will pay to see it based on that name. However, change it too much and that is the audience that you will alienate.

They are obviously going to continue to make Bond pictures. The idea that a good story and good writing can rescue other changes you make does stand.

I basically expect they will take the same approach to how they "reinvent" Bond in that they will find the new actor and then build around that actor. Nothing in the Bond history says they should change the character a lot. Bond has basically been the same character all along with some tweaks that nod to the person playing him. Moore seemed more English gentleman than badass action hero and so his Bond was more droll and humorous. As he aged in the part he became more and more ridiculous as Bond but some people enjoyed that.

Dalton seemed an attempt to go back to being more like Connery, Brosnan seemed more over the top, then Craig seemed an attempt to remove the silly aspects and go more spy action film.

My favorite Bonds are Connery, Craig, and Lazenby (mostly because his single entry was just a great Bond film in my opinion) and I was not a fan of Moore, Dalton, or Brosnan. So, I think they did well casting Bond on three occasions and pretty much not so great on the other occasions.

Connery set the bar for me as the first. He embodied the aspects of Bond I enjoyed. He was tough, a bit nasty, enjoyed women but they could not sway him from his goals, and he enjoyed life...food, booze, cars, and obviously globetrotting. Craig lived up to all the tough guy aspects but was taken in the direction of "this is personal" and made more dramatic through his emotional turmoil. Connery's Bond did not have emotional turmoil he had a clarity of mission and completing the mission made him emotionally satisfied it seemed. Well, this and he generally would complete the mission then get laid again.

Lazenby got lucky in that his Bond film was wonderfully written and beautifully shot and also had that emotional aspect that the Craig films would incorporate. It was a great Bond film and that was the one Connery should have used as his exit.

I don't know what will come next but I sat out the Dalton and Brosnan years and if they blow things with a new Bond I will just sit out these as well.

Bond is a dinosaur and the truth is, for me, that is part of his charm.

 

[Worth]

…The Moore films have a very different tone from the Connery films NOT because of the actor but because they wanted to re-invent their interpretation for a new decade...

The films were already headed in a lighter, more comedic, over-the-top direction when Moore took over. It’s pretty easy to picture Moore in You Only Live Twice, or especially Diamonds Are Forever.

 

[Johnny Angell]

If the next Bond has Paloma, I’ll be there. Hell, they could star her in her own franchise, IMHO.

 

[Reggie W]

But yes the larger point, one they’re wrestling with, is what does Bond mean in the here and now? You could go backwards and period, like the Man from UNCLE movie, but that found few takers. The Bourne and M:I films captured the zeitgeist but I assume the former’s on ice and the latter will be wrapping up. Not many 60-year-olds reinvent themselves…would it be the same worst thing if this was it, and we left 007 in peace after a 25-film run?

If you think about it the final Craig picture was the perfect place to end the Bond series. It certainly ended the Craig years with an exclamation point.

However, they have no intention of ending the series and they now do have to reboot.

I love the idea of a period Bond, mainly in the hope you could and would ignore a lot of things about the present day I feel Bond would be much better off without.

However, I agree that I am not sure that is what younger audiences want and with big budget pictures they are aiming them at the younger audience.

 

[Reggie W]

The Bond franchise has been reinvented several times over its history.

I don't feel they have reinvented it really. It has basically been the same idea tweaked to fit the actor or take an approach that is appealing to the time they were making the film in.

A reinvention to me would indicate some sort of drastic changes. They have stuck with the same character for the series, a white British guy that women find sexy, who drinks and kicks ass, while always getting the job done. Not much reinvention going on at all, I think.

Sometimes they leaned more into the humor other times more into the action. I think the Craig films leaned more into the action because what big budget pictures became over the last 25 years are all action hybrids. Every one of them is an action picture mixed with something else. Superhero pictures are action films. Sci-fi pictures are also action films. Horror mixed with action, comedy mixed with action, basically the preferred approach to modern big budget films is to make everything part action film.

Some people did not like the Craig Bond but basically it did just trend toward what other big budget pictures were doing. I don't consider that a reinvention though. Really, all the Craig Bonds did was add more drama and emotion and tone down some of the silly.

 

[Reggie W]

What we don't need is a grumpy, humorless, self-absorbed woman hater, especially like Craig's tenure.

They need some of the gadgets back, a light-hearted Q Branch, and a Bond with a dashing twinkle in his eye. Maybe a mix of Connery and Moore to make him seem Alpha but with a wink and a nod to the fact these Bond films are escapist adventure romps, not dour and moody pieces.

Was he a woman hater? I did not really get that from Craig's Bond at all. He was emotionally invested in what he was doing which I guess made him seem grumpy, that and I guess he has sort of a grumpy face.

 

[JimmyO]

I doubt that they will change much of the basic formula or substance. They can keep the cars, women and gadgets, and still have a very effective Bond. At the end of the day I can see them having many meetings to discuss the whole retooling of the franchise and they will scare themselves into keeping things mostly the same.

They will count on the actor for the projected attitude and swagger, and just give the actor notes on tweaking things.

 

[Keith Cobby]

Bond started the spy action adventure but more recently has had a lot of competition. It almost seems now like a box ticking exercise (villain, cars, girls, locations etc), he has lost his raison d'être. They are unquestionably well made films but new producers should cut back on the CGI.

For me, great films have memorable, quotable dialogue, and this has been lacking since the Connery/Moore films.

 

[DanH1972]

Was he a woman hater? I did not really get that from Craig's Bond at all. He was emotionally invested in what he was doing which I guess made him seem grumpy, that and I guess he has sort of a grumpy face.

Yes, like Connery's Bond, Craig's Bond had a disdain for women even though Connery's is more in the physical abuse category. As soon as Craig thinks one has betrayed him, when she has not, he starts bedding them and dumping them all over again. He even takes advantage of a woman who has been sexually abused and traumatized in one of his later films. The script even made a point of that fact.

Moore's Bond was more of a lady's man where a majority of the women, just like him, were only in it for a quick roll in the sack, which went with the times.