I feel this, and frankly glad I’m not alone in this. I don’t want the Bond universe expanded beyond more films. I fear it will become diluted and less precious to me.
I could see this happening. It would open up a lot of the short stories or otherwise unadapted bits from the literary Bond. If they were to do this, would they use the same actor or a different one? Any ideas?
Well, for the time being we’re not even at the stage where BOND 25 has a distributor, so all speculation about possible future TV or streaming series are premature at best. But if this indeed would be picked up I cannot see them using different actors. Identification with the role is still a prime goal for any production.
I know it’s way too early to accurately speculate on such things. The main reason I was asking was that if this is something that they would do and if they would do it with the same actor, that would give an indication of what actor(s) would be under consideration for the role moving forward. Something like this - movies + a streaming mini-series/short story adaptation(s) would tend to point toward either a younger or less known actor or someone that would be willing (and able) to commit to this type of arrangement - and also (as in the case of the Marvel extended universe - Daredevil for example - the distributor would feel more sure in their ability to create a household name because of all of the exposure they would be getting.
I would think that a more traditional movie-only setup would most likely mean another big name or almost big name actor most likely.
If only that were true… In fact it’s such a good idea that I can easily imagine the miniseries, if done right, would at some point become more popular, more appreciated than the mainstream movies.
Frankly, this latest round of news has me concerned.
First, we hear that Craig wants this to be his ‘Logan’. I can understand why he would, Logan was great and I’m sure a lot of actors wish they could be in something like that. But actors shouldn’t always get what they want. In my opinion such a move would be detrimental to Bond franchise. Logan worked because Hugh Jackman defined Wolverine across 7 films as a lead (plus 2 cameos) and is the only actor to have played the role in live action. To the best of my knowledge there are no plans to recast and the X-Men films will continue without him. Craig does not have the same relationship with Bond, he’s the 6th actor to play the role as far as the official series goes and there’s no indication that he’ll be the last. If they were to kill Bond there would be no consequences. The inevitable recast will cheapen any impact a death might have and I’m getting really sick of continuous reboots.
Then we hear that they’re taking inspiration from Taken. To me this misses the point of what made Taken great. It looked like it had been written with someone like Steven Seagal in mind but then cast a acclaimed dramatic actor Liam Neeson. That was Taken’s great innovation; the unlikely leading man. The story was pretty basic, it was Neeson’s performance that elevated the material and made the film.
And now there’s the news that streaming platforms feel Bond is underdeveloped. I find the comparisons to Marvel or Star Wars to be ludicrous; Marvel had a whole slate of characters who existed in interconnected continuity for decades while Star Wars has a literal universe and a story that spans generations. Whether books or films Bond has been about the exploits of one man and almost by design doesn’t have other viable lead characters. A Bond cinematic universe also doesn’t promise much diversity of genre. The MCU has spanned; high-tech action, monsters, fantasy, period war, alien invasion, conspiracy thriller, space opera, heist, psychedelia and high school comedy. In comparison what would a BCU be other than various flavours of spy/action films?
What people seem to forget is that there have been more failed attempts to start cinematic universes than successful ones and of the the reasons for this failure is that the concepts simply don’t support a cinematic universe (and good old fashioned bad management). And right now I’d say there’s only one truly successful cinematic universe: Marvel. Even Star Wars seems to be struggling thanks to behind the scenes turmoil.
In the end a Bond cinematic doesn’t sound like developing an underutilised property, it sounds more like strip mining that will leave the land barren for generations to come.
Of course this could all be rumour and I’ve just got all worked up for nothing.
It was good enough for Fleming!
I wonder whether the “real Bond as imagined by Fleming” would be something they actually consider. It would be a huge contrast to the movies (on which they already love to claim that they are “going back to Fleming”).
Also, only hardcore fans loving that faithful Fleming TV Bond will not turn that into the major success that can further “the brand”.
The sensible conclusion would be that TV Bond has to spin the Movie Bond plots in further directions, with new characters that are on the fringe of the Movie Bond universe, building a story platform on which they can connect - with having them appear in smaller roles in the movies and maybe even Bond having a guest role in the tv series.
I don´t want that kind of “Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.”-approach for Bond to happen, by the way.
And frankly, that approach did not really work out for Marvel either. While I enjoy the “Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.”-show, it is struggling in the ratings and is only celebrated by a hardcore fan audience. The other Marvel shows also only work for that fraction of the audience on streaming platforms which don´t need the huge numbers but thrive on the brand prestige, marketing them internationally.
Which could also mean that different characters getting their own show, characters which could somehow fit into universe the Bond Movies are creating but function independently.
But what kind of character would that be? Other 00-s, probably. Maybe some Jinx-type.
Which I would not recommend nor want either.
The essential appeal of Bond is his singularity. He is the best, the most important and interesting. That´s why the movies worked. To tell the audience: oh, by the way, he is just one of many, will be detrimental to the brand.
Of course, the beancounters only looking for money, won´t see it that way.
I don’t think the ‘original’ Fleming Bond would attract that many viewers either, outside hardcore fans. Its potential would be limited anyway, since only two or three books would really lend themselves to this kind of adaptation with much hope of success. But one could imagine two or three episodes made out of LALD in The Night Manager style. And maybe if that works the same in the following year with MOONRAKER. These are the books with enough novelty potential to justify taking a chance on them.
One could also think of an ‘alternate’ version of Bond.
Imagine Bond didn’t enter ‘a branch of what subsequently was to become the Ministry of Defence’ at 17 because some tall posh type with a florid face shook his head ever so slightly at his interview. Bond would have been ordinarily drafted, would have seen service like thousands of other Britons, would have survived the big human mincing machine and demobilised by '46, ready to pursue a life as whatever.
What would have changed?
Well, in May 1954 the centre of London, together with nearly all of the UK’s elite of politicians, civil servants and administration, as well as the largest part of the Windsor family, would have been annihilated by a nuclear blast engineered by German Nazi terrorists. Subsequently, the USSR would have rushed across Europe and the UK had to build up itself with Edinburgh as capital.
Fast forward to 1968, the eve of the nation’s referendum on becoming the 52nd state of the US (after Ireland the previous year). The British PM is enormously popular on both sides of the Atlantic for facing off the Soviet threat at the doorstep for over a decade now. The outcome of the referendum is all but foregone and Americans eagerly await to welcome the UK under the Stars and Stripes.
But there are rumours about the fateful disaster of 1954, rumours that insist it could have been prevented. And James Bond becomes involved in researching the truth behind it…
Any such thing would be possible once you’ve got Bond under one roof. It would not necessarily need to be other 00s or Moneypenny spin offs, you could also imagine stories which wouldn’t have been possible in the official canon.
It is such an effing terrific idea you should at least copyright it for yourself right now!!!
Thinking about it…
Regarding Apple and Amazon, can you imagine the product placement, given what Sony has done?
Bond orders Q’s gadgets on Amazon via his Apple watch? Does Whole Foods carry Dom Perignon? Some stores do indeed have a bar in them … is that where martinis get shaken, not stirred? Ugh.
Well, at least Amazon’s Original content doesn’t seem to be any more burdened by product placement than any other given production of our day and age. So that wouldn’t support your fears. As for Apple, it’s not as if they’re not already present in many different productions, I frankly don’t think the casual viewer will notice a big difference there.
In every film Q could give Bond his new Apple charging cable
Apple used to be the antidote to Microsoft. Now they are Microsoft.
Apple products would be ubiquitous in an iBond movie.
Product placement and a Bond have been natural bedfellows since 1953! Fleming never used a noun if he could name a product - look at the vesper, which lists specific brands for out of its 3 main ingredients.
Good point, but there’s a difference between naming brands in order to tell you something about the character and a particular brand popping up whenever possible as marketing.
One informs the story & character, the other distracts from the story & character.
This is true - see the razor in Skyfall for the former, the one in DAD for the latter.
BB spoke about the choice of female directors for BOND 25 during the premiere of the recent EON production: