It’s certainly interesting that Batman has so eclipsed Superman – and all other heroes – in the public imagination, and I think the cultural shift you cite is the reason. Superman traded on the perhaps naive faith that power doesn’t have to corrupt and that those given the most have the greatest obligation to look out for others. I know that comes close to Spider-Man’s signature phrase, but it’s true of Superman as well: with the power to take anything he wants and bend the world to his will, he instead devotes himself to watching out for the little guy, not out of guilt like Spidey or vengeance like Batman but simply because it’s the right thing to do. We seem to have lost our capacity to believe in a character like that, and are likely to mock anyone who does.
On the other hand, we can all relate to trauma and loss and the urge to punch back at an unfair world, so Batman is the perfect protagonist for modern audiences. A “hero” is no longer someone we aspire to be, some idealized paragon of moral virtue, altruism or goodness. It’s someone who we get to watch do the things we aren’t able to, because we’re afraid to or don’t live in a mansion or have supreme fighting skills or – most importantly – invincible plot armor. We’re not looking for an example to live up to, we’re looking for an avatar through which we can vicariously kick the world’s ass. Batman isn’t interested in healing his emotional scars because its much more satisfying to feed the rage. We don’t love him because he offers hope that we can be something better than we are; we love him because his life is miserable just like ours: we understand him and he understands us.
Honestly, I get it. But a lot of times for me it all boils down to watching one madman beat up a bunch of other madmen, and I wonder how we got here. Superheroes started in the mold of Fairbanks’ Zorro and now they have more in common with Bronson’s Paul Kersey, and most of that evolution happened in my lifetime. For me, I guess the issue isn’t with the fictional characters; it’s their job to always change to meet the demands of the audience if they’re to endure. The issue is that if that’s true, the “heroes” of today reveal a lot about us. And it ain’t a pretty picture.
Occupying as you are this alternative reality of the 2006-2021 films being the only “James Bond” there is, yet you find your good self lumbered with that same quandary as the real persons who produce these things; the decision about what is worth taking forward.
You remain accountable for deciding how, if at all, that original series of “Bond films” (as they have become known) might be referenced in the increasingly forlorn hope of a new start.
Today’s choices:
Jaguar Land Rover products in abundance as a shorthand for probably being a BADDY*
The stakes are high because this “James Bond” is a character who can die.
The word “Trust” is used roughly a billion times in each film.
My view possesses many of the characteristics of No; it looks like No, sounds like No, smells like No. It is in fact No. SNIFF MY NO.
0voters
*I know the Ms get driven around in Jaguars but, given their collective moral turpitude, it’s still baddy-signalling. I know Bond drives a battered Land Rover in the last film, but then he dies so must be a baddy as well. That, or boringly it is so old it is not a JLR product. Res ipsa loquitur.
First thought I’d go with being mortal - but perhaps that’s the wrong way? Up to now, people only know this Bond guy as a fairly dour character ultimately destined to self-sacrifice. But how about if we just won’t let him die? If we put him in impossible situations and he’s got to find his way out of them, if necessary by the skin on his teeth? Ideally, by making him think of a lifeline - as opposed to just being so awfully badass that every threat turns to dust under his gaze?
Sure, that too could get old hat with time. But maybe we manage to keep the stakes high and this Bond guy a character we’re never sure how he will survive. Instead of that he will ultimately fail. People kind of know that from their own lives.
So for purely materialist reasons I chose the JLR option. Bad guys need black hats. And our target audience loves to imagine themselves as slightly dangerous and individualist people; just the folks to buy this stuff. Never change a running system.
Although I did not think nor ever will that killing off a main character, especially James Bond, is adding depth, the danger threatening the hero is the most important element of storytelling. Without it everything is just uninvolving, going through the motions (see: multiverse sagas).
The death of Bond in the Craig era, sacrifing himself to let his family live, should be kept as a reminder that you can only do this once, and that every „nostalgic“ quote (copying attempt) shall only end with the childish „tricked you! We will not do it again after all!“.
Of course, in the right mood BB will just go there anyway. With DC she obliged because he never wanted to go back to the role and also thought as a serious actor he had to have at least one big death scene („and damnit, if Hugh can get one why can‘t I?“).
Also she probably wished to have thought of this before, killing PB off screen with just one phone call was not that satisfying for her.
Then again, wait a minute: PB standing there, looking out at the sea, with a phone to his ear, while the „we’ve reached an impasse“-missiles approaching… reminds you of something?
With the possible exception of Bond’s confrontation with Red Grant at the end of FRWL, I don’t think I ever believed Bond could really die (including when he actually DID in NTTD). That was never an important element to me when watching these films. I always knew Bond would cheat death; the fun part was seeing HOW he did it.
Here’s the thing: any benefit NTTD imparts to the series by establishing “James Bond can die” will be instantly undone as soon as he comes back for the next film. It won’t matter if “James Bond can die” in the films because that sentence will always end “…but it won’t be permanent.” We’ve seen the same thing in comics: the first time you kill of a character, it might be powerful, but the 2nd and 3rd time and beyond, it just gets more and more tiresome. We know it doesn’t matter.
I would argue that killing off Bond in NTTD didn’t add to the stakes in future films; it undermined them. Now in addition to the usual “Oh, he’ll survive; he’s James Bond” we have merely added, “And even if he does die, so what? He’ll be back.” In effect, NTTD has taken death off the table for Bond forever.
As for today’s menu, like Bond when offered Drax’s cucumber sandwich I say, “Thank you, no, nothing at all.”
Possibly because so many of real life people designated “hero” have behaved in an unheroic manner. Also, we had the rise of the anti-hero, which set the stage for the arrival of the trauma hero.
Audiences are also looking for a character who they can identify with–one who seems real/possible since they have traumas just like everybody else.
Exactly. Just as people today define themselves by their traumas, so fictional characters are defined that way as well.
Except for the most feeble-minded among us, I’m not sure anyone ever believed that perfection was attainable for flesh-and-blood “heroes,” but for a long time we were able to enjoy fictional characters who were perfect, or darn close. We could aspire to be more like them even while acknowledging that the odds were we’d fail because we’re real and they’re not. Religions were built on a similar foundation: we know we can’t rise to the level of the Messiah, but he’s still an example to try and emulate. The fact that we couldn’t achieve perfection was not an excuse to stop trying.
At some point we seemed unwilling to walk that line between knowing perfect heroes are make-believe and seeing merit it emulating them anyway. We’re too jaded for that, now. What’s interesting is that where previous generations were content to “leave behind childish things,” now we’ve opted to retool those childish things and make them conform to our “mature” world view. Rather than move on from superheroes and leave them to the next generation of kids, we instead drag them into adulthood with us, loading onto them themes of moral ambiguity, psychosis, nihilism, depravity or what have you. The characters are made to “grow up” but no one asks the same of the audience, which gets to drag along their comics like a security blanket into middle age and beyond. Previous generations left the toy box intact for the next batch of kids; we took the ball and went home.
“We work to better ourselves - and the rest of humanity.”
Jean-Luc Picard, STAR TREK - FIRST CONTACT (1996)
Granted, it sounds a bit cheesy. But I think that aspiration is maybe the highest human spirit can reach for in its existential voyage through life. And there was a time we didn’t cynically laugh about that wish, however far from reality it may be.
I’m more of a TOS guy, partly because with TNG Roddenberry took it too far and tried to sell us on the idea that humanity was perfected by the 24th Century. Nobody wants to watch a show about a bunch of perfect saints, but it was encouraging to see a future where we hadn’t given up on trying, and where you could see that we will indeed have made visible progress over the centuries.
Steven Pinker has written several great books about the progress we’ve made as a species over time, and how wrong-headed it is to imagine things are worse now than they’ve ever been, and that the only possible fates for us are dark ones. However bleak the current headlines, in the long term things have gotten better for us over history and if we keep trying there’s no reason to think they can’t get better. I guess I’m just more attracted to heroes and narratives that peddle hope as opposed to retribution, but I admit that wasn’t always the case. Maybe it’s a by-product of getting older. As a really young kid, you want to believe in a bright future, as you get older you decide the world’s woes are too big to fix, so you’ll settle for just seeing your enemies crushed. But then when you get older still you turn back to that (desperate?) hope that things might get better after all, if not for you then maybe for your kids.
A goody two-shoes Superman may be laughed at, but one who embodies hope could really succeed. We’ll see where the new film takes us in that regard. It’s not an easy needle to thread, apparently.
Another thing that contributed to the breakdown was that heroes started coming in different flavors and colors, and with that, the definition of what constituted heroism changed, since different people face different challenges, and what may be considered heroic in one circumstance, may not be so in another.
I remember one of the great days of my youth when I played with my GI Joes in the basement, and enacted WWII. I had all my European/Japanese GI Joes on one side, and all the American ones on the other (I wasn’t a history buff yet), and to this moment, I recall the joy of that summer afternoon. A week or so later, I tried to do it again, but the magic was not there. I stopped playing with GI Joes around then, as well as Lego and Lincoln Logs, and went on to other pursuits.
My husband and I were talking the other day about the concept of an “inner child,” and how it seems to be something everyone wants to maintain in order to have a sense of awe. We both noted that we both possess a sense of awe, but it seems to emanate from our inner adult, and not our inner child.
I do think that many desires that were deemed childish/to-be-grown-out-of, in actuality were standard human fare, e.g., in my life, same-sex attraction, which in my youth was seen (at best) as something akin to a phase that one grew out of. I think the ongoing contention over which desires are properly ported into adulthood fuels the desire/need to keep childhood elements alive in later life.
Sorry for taking this thread so far off-topic. To bring it back to Bond, and at the risk of getting ahead of Jim, there’s one thing I for sure never want to see again, and that’s the lead actor having “producer” powers and being able to call the shots as far as what’s written or filmed. I think the risks far outweigh any positive potential in that scenario.
I hear you, but this scenario becomes more likely the more we get what we wish for the franchise: success.
We get a new actor who does his usual three, and said actor is widely accepted and the new movies are critically acclaimed and a financial success. It’s only natural that TPTB will want him to do more movies. Now, if our man isn’t just a greedy bastard who’s happy with a new truckload of cash in his money bin every few years, chances are high that Eon will have to put more on the table than just the Bank of Monte Carlo to lure him back. #ratherslashmywrists
Or the new actor and movies tank so massively that Eon is forced to pull the plug and do an absolute big name stunt casting, and as they’re short of money by then, they have nothing else to put on the table, so producer powers are the next best thing they have to offer. Of course, they might ask that other J.B. for some extra money, but that would mean a handover to Amazon, and I guess that really is what no one wants to happen.
Personally I think if we’re going to continue to have these extended hiatuses between entries, I’d rather see the role recast every time. New director, new lead actor for each film, with each entry a unique take on the character. Why devote another 20 years to watching one guy getting old? The “classic” Bonds had zero continuity anyway and the recent ones IMHO didn’t benefit at all from the haphazard and retroactive efforts to apply one, so just make every film a standalone. If the lead actor doesn’t stay around forever, then we don’t have time to get tired of him. I imagine for every fan Craig brought in and to whom he seems irreplaceable, there’s at least one other fan who got tired of waiting for him to step aside and lost interest in the series entirely.
Let’s make it about the character and not the star. Eon already has that “silhouette” Bond in the classic pose, just market the series with that.
Personally, I’d like to see them give this a try for three or four movies, but I fear that it would not be about the character but instead about who’ll be the “Next Guy”. The entire rumor mill would be about him, and after he’s announced, how he does things and this’n’that. I mean, this is what we had with a new actor all the time, but it would happen with every new movie, it would turn into a personality show.
The rest of the franchise would have to take the backseat and the forums would be flooded with actor XY fanboys/girls every few years, interchanging through a revolving door, with little interest for Bond – heck, let’s say it as it is, a bunch of bloody noobs who don’t give a dam if in London, April is a spring month and ask if this Flemmming guy is on TokTok.
And it would nourish a theory which is one of the most hated among Bond fans. (executes self-flagellation for even thinking about “codename”)
I’m not sure there are that many left, or left willing to stir up bad blood; not in the way some of Brosnan’s fanbase did in the buildup to CASINO ROYALE and afterwards.
Would perhaps also be a bit pointless since the essence of Craig’s run from a post-NTTD perspective is that it’s over. If one wants to go on, clean slate is the only reasonable route. Unless one is bizarrely, religiously demagogic about Craig to the point of insisting his was THE definite portrayal and nothing must ever come after his to not sully the image. Never underestimate the human potential for pompous delusion and fervour.
Your search for thematic draw-through (a ghastly expression masking creative indolence) continues. Your only sources of inspiration, albeit the energised discussions above bringing into doubt how inspiring they are, are the 2026-2021 “James Bond” films.
Today’s options:
It is better to wait years for critically fashionable directors / writers / actors etc to become available to flatter producer-vanity award-baiting, than to use solid industry professionals to produce things more speedily.
If more than one film is made (not at this rate…), everything’s connected.
The home quartet of M, Q, Moneypenny and Tanner have varying levels of story agency and must appear beyond the first 10 minutes or so.
Which bit of “No” is too nuanced to understand, thickboy?
I am never going to understand “hating on the last guy” thing that happens in all franchises the second the p45 turns up…unless it’s Star Wars where the hate starts the second you finish your signature.
