Reboot? Remake? Retro? Which direction should the series take next?

Films BOND 26 (title tba)
1273

I like what Wright has said about rumoured names being Daniel Craig 2.

“I think Daniel Craig has so made an indelible stamp on that franchise that I think you have to go in a slightly different direction. Because I don’t think there’s anything to be gained by continuing in the same vein.”

Full agreement. Don’t compete with Craig, because you won’t win. Go with a different approach and instead get people saying ‘Craig couldn’t do this, but [insert name here] can. I wish we got more of this before.’

5 Likes
1274

That‘s something Nolan would definitely never say.

1 Like
1275

I’ll say again: Reveal an already experienced & established 007(Like Sir Sean in Dr. No) no origin story required. Let Chris be Chris and work his magic with or without his wife, and Barbra & Michael apologize to Pierce and let him cameo as 001(or M?)

1276

I suppose it’s safe to say at this point there is literally no demand for another Bond/007 origin story.

6 Likes
1277

Doesn’t mean they won’t push forward with one anyway, unfortunately.

2 Likes
1278

Did I imagine this or was it a rumor last year that Nolan wanted to make Bond a period film, bringing him back to the 50´s?

At this point, I wouldn’t mind that either.

4 Likes
1279

I suppose some up-and-coming suit might pitch a hot take on how to reintroduce Bond with an inspired origin; no doubt that’s possible. But if the top brass really goes for something like that they’ve simply not understood their task.

And I would seriously question any director coming up with a wish to show ‘Becoming Bond’ yet again. That’s something they may dig out in the 2040s and beyond, no sooner.

1 Like
1280

If they go back and do a period film, EON just might as well pack it up and sell the rights to the franchise. Bond is meant to be a man of his time (or 5 minutes into the future, as it was once said). Going back to the 50s or 60s is not what the franchise needs and it would not be a good look for a studio that, for whatever reason, constantly feels the need to ask the question as to whether their own product is relevant in the modern age.

3 Likes
1281

I am probably putting my hand in a hornet’s nest again but…

For me, CR never really told me something about Bond´s origin that was absolutely worthwhile. The orphan, the unrefined blunt instrument, the guy who put on a smoking and liked to look at himself, and then the traumatic death of Vesper… yeah, yeah, yeah.

But I never needed to know Bond´s origin before. And it didn’t add anything I wanted to know either. Like many, I guess, I was happy to arrive at the point when the Bond theme finally played and Bond could be Bond again. (Which he, actually, was from the start of CR, only not in a smoking and not drinking the Vesper.)

5 Likes
1282

Why? The period film gambit would immediately make any doubt of Bond´s relevancy disappear. And it would not be necessary to adapt to the current zeitgeist anymore either. Bond could be the Cold War spy, doing what he did during the Connery years, and the stories could develop accordingly.

Since every new actor’s era was its own thing, a period Bond era is something which could work in a contained cycle.

Of course, I do not want this explicitly. But I wouldn’t mind it either.

We have arrived at a point where Bond films have cannibalised each other so deeply, there isn’t really much new to explore - if at all.

To use the character for different concepts which don’t have to connect, just the way comic book characters went into different directions and restarted differently again, might be its only chance for survival.

1 Like
1283

I have a different take on it, but it’s because I was never much of a Bond fan until Casino Royale. Up until that time, the only two Bond films I liked were For Your Eyes Only and The Living Daylights. I’d wanted to know why Bond was the way he was, and Casino Royale showed that in a way that was appealing to me.

I don’t have your longevity with the series, which I think explains our different attitudes about Bond’s origin story. Since Casino Royale, I have reviewed many of the earlier Bond films and gained a new appreciation for them. Sean Connery’s first four, in particular. But it took that further fleshing out of the character for me to see those nuances in the earlier portrayals.

There are some Bond films I’ll never like. But Casino Royale opened the door for me to like a lot more of them than I did before.

3 Likes
1284

There is the nifty pre-title sequence in b/w supposedly showing Bond’s first two ‘confirmed’ kills and that ‘Considerably’ quip. But even that’s somewhat contradictory if you look closer at it.

As a former member of any kind of special forces outfit after 9/11 he likely has seen his fair share of action before turning up at SIS’ doorstep. And the idea of ordering an agent to kill two times so they join a section of the service whose members are ordered to kill multiple times…is a bit redundant, no?

At any rate I don’t think there ever was a need to show these machinations before. Few people outside the lit-Bond world were probably even aware of these elements*. But I can see how the possibility to finally adapt ‘Casino Royale’ lead to the need to squeeze every interesting angle from those pages. Wouldn’t have been likely had that adaptation been made in the decades before.

*Elements 10 years in the past Bond tells Vesper about without any real need-to-know.

2 Likes
1285

Exactly. „Let’s see if this soldier is ready to follow orders! Oh, the suspense…“

And are there maybe triple-O‘s who have to kill three times before they are let in that club?

1 Like
1286

Now you have to spill the beans…

1 Like
1287

There’s plenty left they can do with the franchise. It’s EON that has run out of ideas. Put the character in the hands of someone else and I don’t doubt for a moment that there’s a lack of directions that they could take the character. But the folks that decided it was a good idea to copy Austin Powers and turn Blofeld into Bond’s “brother” have clearly run out of ideas for what to do with these films.

I just can’t sign up for the idea that there’s nothing left for the franchise to explore when it’s just been the same 4 people leading the films over a span of more than a half century. There are no doubt people out there who could chart a bright new future for Bond, they just don’t currently reside at EON, I don’t think.

1 Like
1288

Oof … now I’m the one sticking my hand in a hornet’s nest. But here goes:

  1. On Her Majesty’s Secret Service – I know, I know, we’ve had this discussion before. There are parts I admire, but mostly it feels like a missed opportunity that just doesn’t come together for me.
  2. Diamonds Are Forever – Sean Connery seems to be sleepwalking his way through this, and the 1970s camp doesn’t do it any favors (even though it’s very much in keeping with the times).
  3. Most of Roger Moore’s era – Again, I know, I know. There’s much to admire, but overall I just have a hard time getting into the campiness of so many of the films from this period. Moore’s Bond is but one example. I liked For Your Eyes Only because I found it to be a better balance of personal warmth with the necessary action and humor.
  4. Licence to Kill – I enjoyed The Living Daylights, which at that point was the first Bond film besides For Your Eyes Only that appealed to me. Timothy Dalton had that quality of “something going on behind the eyes” that gave me more expression, more view into Bond’s inner world, than I’d seen in most Bond films. That quality was greatly missing in Licence to Kill, which disappointed me.
  5. Die Another Day – For most of the reasons that have already been debated at length in this forum. While Brosnan’s era is not my favorite, I find more to like than dislike with most of his films. Die Another Day started well, then just went off the rails with its “Can you top this?” outrageousness.

Which, come to think of it, is a big part of why I don’t connect with many of Moore’s films. Are they fun? Sure, and creating that sense of outrageous fun was in keeping with the times. But I prefer something with a little more substance. That, in a nutshell, explains my likes and dislikes of the Bond films.

And then there’s Bond’s treatment of women, which, out of necessity, has improved through the various iterations in the franchise. Yes, I know this is part of Bond’s character. But that doesn’t mean I seek it out as entertainment.

Sorry, didn’t mean to derail the discussion! To get things back on topic, I do agree that we’ve had Bond’s origin story, and so I don’t think we need to go there again.

3 Likes
1289

I never considered Casino Royale an “origin” story. Origin stories explain some ability or motivation that needs explaining: why does a rich playboy dress as a bat to fight crime? How does a guy end up with a metal skeleton and retractable claws? There’s nothing in CR to explain why Bond takes up a life as an assassin or why he’s particularly good at it: he just does and he just is.

Dialog makes clear he hasn’t been in the section long, but as noted upthread we can assume he’s killed before in his military career and he’s already pushing 40 when we “meet” him. Did he volunteer for the section or did M draft him? We don’t learn that either.

What about Bond even requires an origin? What’s his superpower? Basically it’s that he’s so good at everything he does. How do you “explain” that? Either you go with the magical explanation (“Because he’s James Bond, duh”) or the prosaic one (“Well, he went through years of intensive training and study…”) The first explanation only works if we just accept it without question, the second would make for the dullest film ever if we had to sit and watch the whole process. Personally, I vote for Option 1: Bond has impossible skill and luck and that’s why he’s an aspirational figure. How is it Arthur could pull the sword from the stone? Was it because of his years of training in the art of sword extraction? No, it’s because he was friggin’ Arthur. 'Nuff said.

Anyway, CR seems to want to explain how it is that a ruthless killer can also be cultured and sophisticated with impeccable sartorial taste and an appreciation for the finer things. But this “tension” only existed back in the Connery years, when we had lines like " I’d say it was a 30 year old finé indifferently blended, Sir,…with an overdose of Bons Bois." It was funny to hear that coming from a tough guy like Sean who obviously didn’t have an effete, pampered bone in his frame, but it was played for laughs and pretty much unique to Sean. Once he moved on, it arguably never mattered again: we could accept Roger, Tim and Pierce, to varying degrees, as legitimately upper class, cultured fellows who also had no issues with killing. Craig’s iteration doesn’t ask why would a jet-setting smoothie kill, but comes at it from the other direction: how does a born killer and roughneck develop a surface “polish” and style? Which is interesting – if inverted – but does that qualify as an “origin”? I mean, I guess I always imagined he preferred his martinis a certain way because he tasted a “shaken” one somewhere and liked it: now we know it’s a reminder of Vesper, which is nice, but couldnt’ that have been just as easily established with a couple lines of exposition in another film?

The kills at the start of CR are the ones that make him a Double-O but are they the first he’s ever committed? It seems unlikely. Dryden says the second kill is…(we assume he’ll finish with “easier”) and Bond confirms it is, “Considerably.” But I don’t take that as the second being easier to live with or reconcile emotionally. The first one involved a lot of sweat and cuts and bruises in a fairly evenly matched showdown with a fit young killer in a men’s room, while the second involved shooting an older man from across the room without Bond even having to leave his chair. So yeah, physically it’s easier, but is it “easier” because he has less trouble sleeping at night than he did after the “first” one? There’s no indication that’s the case. He’s already a cold-blooded killer when we meet him, so how’s it an “origin”?

Maybe the “Vesper” romance is supposed to be an origin, as in “Why is it Bond is so callous and superficial in his liasons? Must be because he had his heart broken.” Except before they’re even a couple, Bond makes it clear to Vesper that he’s historically only been interested in married women, which implies pretty strongly that he already has serious issues with commitment and is just in it for the sex. So again, no origin.

Jump ahead to SF and we learn he had a lousy childhood. Does that count as an origin? No, his folks die in a climbing accident, and it doesn’t launch him on a one-man war against mountains.

I don’t know, I just feel like the more you dig into Bond, the less there is to find, and I wish they’d let it go. We haven’t had an “origin” and we don’t need one, but we also don’t need another film showing his “first week on the job.” Just give us a Bond who already knows his stuff and if you want to make him interesting, withhold information.

12 Likes
1290

This.

I’m going to make a controversial statement here: Bond is essentially shallow, hardly more than the ‘blunt instrument’ Fleming conceived him as. There is nothing to find in Bond’s character because he is just the cypher we as readers identify with when reliving his adventures. And what little characterisation there is in the books - fussy with food and drink, sartorial choices comfortable if questionable at times, likes the ‘finer’ things (as if we didn’t all) - is just there because without them the protagonist would disappear entirely.

In effect Bond is simply our placeholder, shaped as smoothly as possible to allow us to slip into his place in our fantasies. Therefore chasing any deeper meaning or resonance in Bond himself is a moot undertaking destined to fall short. It’s luck, endurance and the simple fact he’s the hero in his own tale that ensures his success.

7 Likes
1291

What they have to explore is how James Bond exists/manifests in year xxxx when Bond yy is being made.

3 Likes
1292

To a large degree Bond is a fantasy of always winning, being funny and incredibly skilled. The depth for me is how he endures with his quipping facade, hiding the burden of past loss (Vesper, Tracy, etc) and indulging in his love of alcohol. Bond definitely has a specific mindset and way of looking at the world. He’s a confident man but also an enigma to most, and that’s why minimal insights (such as Dalton catching Della’s garter) work best, without pretending the character work is more significant than it is.

4 Likes