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

Films BOND 26 (title tba)
1353

Bond has always had a doomed vibe to him even when we knew he was safe during whatever story we were following. Fleming often alluded to this. Sitting at the airport with double bourbons inside him, thinking about life and death. Surmising he will one day die on the job, thus endless supplies of cigarettes are smoked.

With NTTD it’s not the actual death scene I like the most, per se. It’s the aura the knowledge of that scene has at the back of your mind while watching the content before it. That’s a large part of the appeal to me with Craig’s incarnation, amplifying something that already existed to a degree it never reached before.

Which now leaves plenty of room to go the other direction.

6 Likes
1354

I think the ending would have been more powerful if Bond had decided to go dark, leave everyone and everything behind, the real YOLT ending.

Self-sacrifice is over the top, melodrama of the cheaper kind, and it gets undermined by the promise „James Bond will return“ - it’s like saying: whatever we do to the character, it doesn’t really matter, we just want you to think it is meaningful until the credits run.

5 Likes
1355

No DAF? No Bambi and Thumper. No Mr. Kidd and Mr. Wint? No pink tie? No gateway film for 1970s cinema?

1m3tw1

6 Likes
1356

While I do like NTTD and don’t have a major issue with the ending, I do think not showing a missile literally explode at Bond’s feet would have sufficed.

Seeing the misiles aproach and the shot of them exploding across the whole island would have given just enough ambiguity for those wanting him to survive. Seeing him actually engulfed in flame just strikes me as Craig wanting a hard line under it so he will never have to answer questions about if he’d ever come back to Bond. It felt less about killing Bond than killing the idea that Craig may ever return. In that regard I find the death scene a bit self-serving.

1 Like
1357

Once you introduce a child, which I remind was directly from Fleming and the books, keeping Bond alive at the end of NTTD would have left us thinking about a future where he was home caring for a wife and daughter. I wouldn’t have wanted that.

Given that, killing him was the most purely Bond way it could have ended.

And once you’ve decided to do that, don’t go down the ambiguous route. Stand by your decision, do it with conviction, and kill the man.

10 Likes
1358

In two minds about this.

Initially, I hated the idea. As many will be aware it’s been floated time and again in fandom, usually as a ‘way-out-there’ vision nobody - well, few - really considered earnestly.

When it became apparent this was going to get done for real by Eon, I commended their boldness to go where I certainly never would have expected them to. And strangely, I think it’s the fitting conclusion to Craig’s Bond.

The premise of that character had always been that his adventures impact on him, deform him in ways that were rarely alluded before. Fitting that one adventure would finally break the mould for good.

My problem is not so much the finale itself but the wasted opportunities of Craig’s tenure as a whole. They started out strong but then just burned good ideas and characters for, effectively, very underwhelming results. And having Bond just disappear, mind wiped clean but living happily a life of simple work, would have been the preferable choice in my view.

The worst about it though is the absence of any sign of forward momentum. NO TIME TO DIE sits like a tombstone to the series and it feels like the industry environment isn’t helping at all for now.

That said, would it be much different had NO TIME TO DIE never been? I doubt it. Even if a new actor had taken over after SPECTRE we’d likely be in the doldrums between productions now.

4 Likes
1359

Same opinion here…what a waste to never make one cool Bond film with Craig where he is on top of his skills. He goes from Rookie in the first two gapless in to burned out old guy mode…

5 Likes
1360

At the end of SF, with him saying he is back „with pleasure“, I thought: okay, now the fun part of the era starts.

Instead, an unnecessary longer wait, a troubled production and a creative tug of war leading to a compromised mess, leading to another long wait - and I‘m not talking about the pandemic.

When Craig announced he would return, it was the summer of 2017. But weirdly, the release date already was set for a late 2019.

I have no knowledge about the reasons for that. I only know that everyone took their time to move forward with this film, and after SP they could have accelerated the process so it wouldn’t have been (planned) four years until a new film could be released.

Yes, the Boyle/Hodges situation didn’t work out. But quite frankly: didn’t they get a briefing? Did they so desperately want Boyle that they said: whatever you want… and then they saw the result and said: no?

And the search for a new director, ending on Fukanaga, also leaves the impression that either all the bigger names said „no way“ or the search was done too late.

With everything that happened afterwards I get the feeling that EON post Cubby has changed considerably. BB definitely rules with an iron fist and has enormous power. But maybe she has bet too much on Craig and too little on a functioning production process for Bond films. Maybe she does feel burned out on it, with the franchise being the albatross around her neck. And maybe it is time that someone hungry for Bond will take over.

The constant pushing away of the question „Any movement for Bond?“ with „Not in the near future“, „We haven’t started yet“ and „We have to find out how that could look“ is always taken as code for „they are already working on it and want to keep things secret“.

But it also could signal a deep depression leading to procrastination. And right now I believe: they are at that point.

6 Likes
1361

I do find it interesting that, on the one hand, there’s been endless discussion here about how the big franchises are failing and that Bond is destined for failure and cannot succeed in today’s climate because Indiana Jones and the other franchises have disappointed at the box office in the past year.

On the other hand, EON is also being criticized for moving too slowly to bring this next film, which is said to be assured to fail, to the cinemas. There seems to be a disconnect there, to me anyway.

Maybe EON is taking their time because, as I’ve suggested, they see that an event such as Bond’s death needs room to breathe before they bring on his successor. This probably isn’t likely because, at the end of the day, they’re about bringing in as much money as possible, and this would stand in the way of this.

They may not have a direction in mind that they want to go, which I also find unlikely. Or, they may, as the tone of the discussion around here the past few months would possibly indicate, be taking their time and figuring out why their contemporary franchises have been disappointing at the box office and trying to figure out a way to position themselves in a way that will allow them to rise above this and continue making Bond the box office juggernaut he’s been the past few films out.

Or, maybe they are burned out and are looking to get someone in that has more of a hunger to make the films, which will also take some time.

The next Bond film will get moving in due time. It’ll be awesome because an actor’s first Bond film always is.

8 Likes
1362

Does it?

Isn’t it much more a non-event and an obvious ploy to get attention when „James Bond will return“ is nevertheless immediately promised?

Time passing has not worked out for Indiana Jones. I would say the only franchise profiting from a huge time gap was „Top Gun“ - although that had not been a franchise, the pandemic made people hunger for a great movie experience and Cruise delivered. A unicorn.

Really? OHMSS has been reevaluated over decades, but at the time of its release it could have killed the franchise had they not been able to bring back Connery after it.

LALD, for my taste the gutsiest reboot in the whole series, worked out but is not considered one of the best. TLD, again one film I love, only helped to get to the next one but with a much reduced budget. GE was a success and extended the life guarantee of the series, but was it that awesome? CR extended it again - yet let’s be honest, it is extremely overrated. And while the whole Craig era was financially successful, the costs of the films rose significantly, and the whole operation stood on unsure legs where and when to go.

More time passing, and yes, CraigBond‘s death, will mean a huge risk to start fresh. The situation for GE was easier because Brosnan had always been a favorite for the part, people were eager to see him.

Who would be that right now? Nobody.

I guess EON is hesitating to pull the trigger because everything now is a huge risk. They will rather leave things as they are.

2 Likes
1363

In my opinion it does, but if you read the rest of what I had to say, I stated that this is certainly not the reason for any perceived “delay” on EON’s part. They were foolish to put the “Bond Will Return” bit at the end, but just on a narrative level, it works better to give the death of the franchise’s main character some time to breathe in order for it to have any effect. What point would it serve if there was a new Bond film out last year or this year to have Bond die in 2021? Not much and it would completely cheapen the decision to make that leap that the franchise had not previously taken in its 60+ years. Even Fleming, when he intended to make that move, left enough wiggle room in his writing to bring the character back for another installment.

The two quoted bits from my previous post, though, are very much beside the point. There is an attempt to try to have the argument both ways. There has been this doom and gloom over how the next Bond film is certain to be a failure and that there is no way to make Bond popular with the younger crowd anymore (despite the fact that they’ve been doing this time and time again over the course of the franchise’s history) and that, because of this, Bond will fail when it’s released next. Yet, even with that assured failure, there’s constant criticism of EON for not rushing to put this assured failure out there to… fail and, therefore, lose themselves money.

I don’t for one instance buy the argument that the next Bond film will be a financial failure. But, just for the sake of argument, let’s say that it is a certainty that the next Bond film will fail at the box office, which has been the argument around this forum for the past couple or a few months now. If that is the case, let’s assume that EON is smart enough to know that as well. In that instance, why would they want to rush something out to the market that they know is going to lose them money?

1 Like
1364

Of course, we’re all speculating here. And Bond, so far, has always been able to snatch success from the jaws of defeat.

But as we see now in this world: to rely on the thought “oh, everything has always gone well in the end” is dangerous.

1365

It is all speculation, of course, but the two main arguments that I’ve seen are contradictory. If the film is going to be a failure, why rush it out? The argument that the film will be a failure would lend to a further argument on the timing issue for EON to wait until box office returns are in a more stable place where they would stand a better chance of making the kind of money they need/want to make.

Maybe EON knows that the film is doomed for failure if they release it in the near future. As I’ve said, I don’t subscribe to that argument, but as one of the least knowledgeable people around here, it’s certainly possible that I’m wrong on that front. So, taking that argument that it will fail as a certainty, EON is doing exactly what they should be doing right now, waiting things out and seeing where the box office and the industry is in a couple of years so that they can plot a financially responsible path forward for the franchise.

1366

I believe every producer and studio is scared right now - but to wait until the budget/box office situation is sorted out is not and has never been the way to go.

A film production is always targeted for release a year or even two in the future. If next year suddenly people are buying cinema tickets again, you can’t expect this the following years, too. That way you would have to wait forever.

Bond has one advantage: world wide awareness.

You “only” have to deliver what people expect from Bond. What that is, nobody can predict. But making movies are about risk-taking.

And you will take that risk when you are convinced you know what you’re doing.

1 Like
1367

Ben Collins the stunt driver in the Craig films was speaking at a Gumball 3000 event here in the UK at the weekend, he stated that he knew who the next Bond actor is!

1368

He is joking.

1369

Is it a new scared? Or a variation on previous scares:

  1. The Paramount Decree and the rise of the suburbs and television–post-WWII
  2. The decline of the studios–late 1960s/early 1970s
  3. The introduction of the video cassette–the late 1970s
  4. The rise of cable–mid-1980s
1 Like
1370

A new scared:

  • nothing we did before guarantees a big opening anymore
  • where do we market for those audiences which don’t get all their information from TikTok
  • why do streamers still outpay us when all these platforms are losing money
  • what do we do if there are no stars anymore
  • how often can we milk the same IP
  • why can’t I buy a fifth yacht anymore
4 Likes
1371

Thank you. That is my sense as well, though I am at a far professional remove from the issue.

In the previous instances, the model needed to be tweaked, but was essentially sound. I am not sure that the model is sound any more.

3 Likes
1372

Some more thoughts of the behind the scenes in my view.

Some people are swearing that Martin Campbell should come back. I could go either way about this. It has nothing to do with his age. People think that his movies feel just like Bond movies. Same with Sam Mendes. Forster and Fukunaga are regarded as feeling like Bond movies. I will also defend Fukunaga in one regard: everyone views artwork differently. I could go either way if he came back (obviously, I don’t think he will). Same with Campbell, as I said before. EON’s directors are similar to IFP’s authors. Especially recently. Deaver and Forster are similar in the sense that they tried something TO different. At least Deaver was a Bond fan though. As someone said on here years ago, in 2008, we got 2 big Bond products from 2 people who weren’t Bond fans. And it showed, in more ways than one. We don’t want IFP or EON doing that again! So, what I’m saying is that, while we can trust someone, don’t always put all bets on them. Even if they are “professionals” in any creative experience. Purvis and Wade aren’t to blame, but nothing needs to change more than the script writing. They might be the “professionals,” for Bond, but I think the main four (them, BB and MGW) are as @secretagentfan said: they are depressed about losing Craig and leaning into procrastination. Hearing them come back would upset a lot of fans, then make them happy. And it would prove EON doesn’t want to change or take risks. LALD is more a risk taker than people realize. It proved that some trademarks weren’t needed. The biggest one being Richard Maibaum being used. He probably wouldn’t have made the script better. People burn out, TMWTGG is arguably the biggest behind the scenes about this. Richard Maibaum, who thought he was best, arguably made the script worse by adding the Solex subplot. He should have followed Tom Mackiewicz’s idea of Bond and Scaramanga’s battle(s) of the equals. Limited time or not, message or not, he probably shouldn’t have written that script. Guy Hamilton shouldn’t have directed it, honestly. The cynicalism of everyone shows on the screen. What I’m saying is that experience does not equal quality. Martin Campbell is no different. As I said before, he might just want to leave on a high note. And as for budget problems, if Amazon has true financial control, no producer should be too worried, as they can give it money that MGM never had. So, EON just needs to learn from the past (as they often have) to better prepare for the future.

1 Like