I think CR was certainly meant to show Bond at the beginning of his career, but “origin story” is really just a fan created concept because of the recent release of Batman Begins.
Exactly. Since Bond originated as an escape figure, he was conceived with an element of malleability that allowed for him to be re-made as an escape figure in succeeding films. He was not tethered to an origin, so free to adapt to whatever narrative he found himself in (as you noted earlier).
But today, a not insignificant portion of the audience wants to see themselves represented in art. They are not seeking to escape from themselves, but see their lives on the big screen (and still be entertained). Even escapism must now represent (curse/blessing of Marvel/X-Men).
The funny thing is that the cohort I speak of above wants the layers, because it is in the layers that they feel seen.
2 Likes
But which cohort will win out? 
1 Like
I do not think it is a question of who will win.
It is more a question of how artists will respond going forward to the demands of each cohort. One cannot communicate to a mass audience anymore by just creating an anodyne hero, and expecting everyone to identify with it. People want texture, and with texture comes issues.
1 Like
Agreed. But people will watch a new Bond no matter what, I would think.
4 Likes
Agreed. There will be interest in a new Bond, and the world presented. But to keep people invested in the franchise, they will need to have audiences see themselves in Bond and the franchise (unless EON goes the route of doing Bond one-offs with a new actor every time).
4 Likes
Interesting question to ponder: were audiences invested in the franchise because Craig gave the brooding brute?
CR drew crowds because it was a new Bond after four years, and reviews were great, and Craig was different. QOS did not reach these heights - did audiences still see themselves in his Bond? SF was a mega success - but was that because people viewed themselves as an outdated, aged relic? I’m exaggerating, of course. But when SPECTRE did great business again, I would presume it was because people had gotten used to Craig and just wanted a new Bond film. And NTTD definitely profited from the need to get some spectacle during the height of the pandemic AND they wanted to see Craig’s farewell.
But again: was it his portrayal that audiences craved? Or was it merely his more down-to-earth introverted action hero being more in line what audiences got offered during those decades?
2 Likes
Agreed. And the next Bond will come out two decades after CR, to an audience with different expectations/demands.
Exactly. They bought into Craig Bond in 2006, and were continuing their investment.
The audience’s buy-in terms for Bond 2026 will be different from those for Bond 2006. Potential viewers will also have in 2026 a plethora of additional entertainment options.
1 Like
Well put.
What are the buy-in terms for Bond 2026?
- Good will for Bond films will bring in attention no matter what.
- Curiosity for the new guy whoever he will be.
Yes, 3. seems to be the most difficult one.
He should be different from Craig and all the previous ones. But he should be - I don’t know - fun?
The advantage No.7 has is that the big opponents - Marvel and M:I, and I hate to say it: FF - have flamed out currently. Something nobody could predict.
So Bond actually could fill that void. Easier than thought.
2 Likes
Unless it doesn’t. At some point (hopefully long after I have passed on), Bond will stop (or more likely take a very long break of 10-20 years. Tastes change and I will be very surprised if that does not eventually happen to Bond. Bond 7 will face two key challenges: 1) They will need to make a good film (I get the sense this is a lot harder than many of us think). 2) Winning over a new generation of fans. Even if they make a great film, no one knows when tastes will change. Let’s hope it’s not for a while.
5 Likes
Eon´s track record makes me think they know how to at least make a great entry film for a new Bond.
6 Likes
3: Curiosity, again. Of the kind that drew millions to the TV screens for the seceond season of “Sherlock”: how will they solve the issue that we saw him die, and yet he’ll have to be alive and well for the new movie to make any sense (if they don’t do a period film).
2 Likes
Don’t think that’s a hurdle in our day and age. It will simply be a ‘new Bond’ and that’s it. The idea of different parallel worlds is so popular, so omnipresent by now it’s almost a kind of (agnostic) universal religion. A large part of the target audience may not even have seen NO TIME TO DIE by the time BOND 26 premieres.
3 Likes
Yes. Your first two will happen–new guy and residual good will.
But how many people are going to be comparing/contrasting the new Bond with his predecessors (or even just Craig), but instead seeing how Bond and his story reflect their lives, and the present moment of the film.
Bond 26 will be released in a post-BARBIE world, where, as you note, some long-running franchises have “flamed out.” The right Bond will fill the void, but not just any Bond (and by filling the void, I mean generating more than one-shot interest). How does Bond 26 convert curiosity seekers into “When-does-the-next-one-come-out” anticipators?
Agreed. But there is no guarantee that even a great film will pull people into theaters.
3 Likes
While I believe that BARBIE was a phenomenon that will nevertheless not continue to influence mainstream moviegoers, we have five precedents for an actor change (seven if we count Lazenby to Connery again and Connery to Moore) which might explain your question.
Connery to Lazenby: first shake up, with a young, less charismatic actor whose Bond was surprisingly emotional but still as tough as before.
Result: Not embraced by audiences (back then).
Lazenby to Connery: back to business as usual - only not really as usual, changing Bond into a more parodistic and zeitgeist-friendly fun hero (although you could explain the DAF-Bond much better).
Connery to Moore: With DAF paving the way, Moore took the fun and ran with it, although it took three films to really make the audience love him.
Moore to Dalton: While audiences grew tired of the ageing Moore, the concept of a more serious and tougher Bond fitting in with the Lethal Weapons of that time did not succeed. Audiences preferred their Bond more light hearted and funny…
Dalton to Brosnan:… which Brosnan delivered, while the action was 90‘s style, amped up and more important than anything else.
Brosnan to Craig: That mix could have easily continued, judging from the rising box office, but EON smelled the roses of a more serious approach which worked for the other B. And since another Brosnan/Moore clone would have raised the question „why not just continue with Brosnan?“ even the looks of the new Bond changed considerably. And the new shiny object worked, the zeitgeist of a post 9/11 era was met, and with longer waiting periods Bond films became „events“ because suddenly nobody knew when the next would come - or if since the actor was at least PR unfriendly with his comments on continuing in the role (no more baccarat games with the producer would decide).
Craig to ?: A drastic change so far has only worked once. The other changes were careful recalibrations of the tried and true. Will EON completely shake things up now after Craig was crowned as THE BEST BOND EVER? I doubt it. They will rather cast someone who looks differently but has to bring something which will be new while still incorporating the greatest hits.
Yes, I believe a kind of Craig/Brosnan-mix is in the cards, and he will suffer the same fate as Brosnan: be beloved before he will be criticized for only doing what has been done before.
2 Likes
Not “business-as-usual” at all. It was a huge adjustment. A comparable shift is from BONNIE AND CLYDE to NIGHT MOVES and THE MISSOURI BREAKS. Same director. Vastly different film worlds. The shift from the 1960s to the 1970s was immense (at least in the United States. It may have been different elsewhere).
I wonder what would have happened if they had tried to reformat Bond a la the Indiana Jones template. Maybe there were enough Bruce Willis/Sylvester Stallone/Arnold Schwarzenegger/Mel Gibson-type heroes, and people didn’t need/want a Bondian version of one. Admittedly, the 1980s has always been a bit of undiscovered country for me.
EON fit Bond into the times of production:
Connery I & Lazenby–1960s
Connery II & Moore–1970s (Moore was kept too long)
Dalton–1980s (made no headway in a crowded field)
Brosnan–1990s (as you note, the action was 90s-styled, and Brosnan delivered)
Craig–2000s (backstory and trauma)
Bond in the 2020s? What are the trends/templates for action heroes in this decade? Will Furiosa be a model?
5 Likes
This.
Making Blofeld Bond’s brother was an eyeroll of a decision bested in stupidity only by the decision to kill Bond in NTTD.
4 Likes
You’re half right.
I really, really like it when Bond loses a couple rounds of a game and/or looks to be in a position of weakness, only to taunt the enemy and double down.
OP - Bringing out the Faberge egg and winning everything with the ‘lucky dice’
NSNA - Winning Domination with the pain level set at maximum
DAD - Showing Graves the African conflict diamond
It would be good to see something like this again in the future.
9 Likes
Sir Sean’s best line replying to Largo in NSNA
“Tell me Mr. Bond do you lose as gracefully as you win?”
" I don’t know, I’ve never lost."
5 Likes