For me, that summarizes the question: will a strategy that worked three decades ago work in a much changed world?
&
Today’s youth have a much different relationship to older, authority figures than previous generations had. There was always a certain resistance, but it is much higher in the present moment. They want to upend the structure/values of their parents’ generation, since they have witnessed the destruction that has occurred.
At the moment, the established order is not too fondly regarded by a significant cohort of the population, who will be part of the target audience for Bond 26.
That is the challenge: livening up the character in the time of both the Ukraine/Gaza/Iran wars and the oligarchs.
The difficulty will be establishing what the large organization stands for and defends, and what Bond’s rebellion against these positions looks like. An oligarch’s company is not going to make an anti-oligarch film (there go many Bond villains out the window), and who in 2026/2027 does the British political/military establishment regard as threats?
They may have to go the DAF route–start Bond on a mission to save British financial interests (“But surely, sir, there’s no need to bring in our section on a relatively simple smuggling matter”), that morphs into a battle with a global, non-oligarch menace. In that way, Bond (whatever his age) can be both a compliant company man, and a rebellious company man–one whose rebelliousness ferrets out, and then defuses, a larger threat.
Excellent thought. Never occurred to me (do not possess enough imagination to conjure the character “good oligarch”).
Additional thought: following the DAF template would also please @dalton in that M’s and Moneypenny’s screen time would be minimal, and Q’s would be just above minimal.
Willard Whyte? Just a few sizes bigger (but obviously without the Whyte House gag)? It’s not such an uncommon phenomenon to have some super rich entrepreneur regarded as good/positive/a force for progress and evolvement. Even Modesty Blaise had John Dall (as a deus ex to provide transport or infil/exfil support without using ‘official’ US/CIA channels).
I could see them use some dichotomy where the ‘good’ oligarch helps crushing the bad one - if they absolutely must choose that route. The tough part of any Bond film, in my view at least, is thinking of a good villain (and by extension, a villain’s scheme). When the villain is lacking the entire film suffers. Sadly, that task hasn’t gotten any easier recently…
The answer staring me in the face from my beloved DAF.
Which would certainly fit the tenor of our times (at least from a propaganda angle).
Today’s writing assignment class: a 500-word essay on developing a believable and effective James Bond villain during in a time when it is increasingly difficult to differentiate the behavior of society’s good guys from that of society’s bad guys.
I suspect they may hope to catch someone like Dalton in their late 20s. But it’s really up in the air at the moment. Production starting this year is not a given - and candidates may get other offers in the meantime.
Which cohorts of men and which of women? For me, a great difference between today and the world of 30 (or more) years ago, is the fracturing of society. Is there any broad agreement on the type of man men want to be, or the type of man women want?
Exactly, and the best it could do was sixth place (you inspired me to look up the list). People prefer their heroes animated. They relate better to them that way.
EON did not stop making Bond movies. They adjusted the template to keep the franchise humming, and box office receipts flowing. The Bond Movie schematic of 1962 was not going to remain a draw over decades. People/culture/society change, and these changes result in different heroes (or iterations of them) being born.
Look at John Wayne’s evolution in just the films of Howard Hawks. Or trace Cary Grant’s career from THE AWFUL TRUTH to WALK, DON’T RUN (or restrict the frame to only his films with Alfred Hitchcock).
There is a good reason (beyond the fighting with AmazonMGM and the money) EON decided to stop.
And everyone developing the next film is encountering that reason.
There really is no way to go except go back in time and do a period Bond or to change things up so drastically that it will not feel like Bond to the hardcore fans of yesteryear.
Eon made a series of 25 films of varying styles and merits - but the vast majority of them was financially successful. So they must indeed have done something right. It remains to be seen how their successors will fare.
Entirely possible Amazon might do just as well, repeat the trick of adapting the property to the times and selling some stuff with it in the bargain. Amazon is good at selling - and maybe the series has always been about that, selling something, a good time, a fantasy, a feeling of making sense of a frustrating world? A world where even the villains and those in power - not always different people - wish for distraction and an easier, more dependable way of having their cake and eating it. One where 007 prevents the worst in the last few seconds and we can all leave the cinema-of-life with a relieved chuckle.
That is the third way to go: business as usual, set in a world which has governments which do their job as they did in earlier times, a western and an eastern block coming together to prevent crises through Bond and female spy from Russia/China/India/Iran, and we all don’t mind because we all would love to live in that fantasy world.
There’s a school of thought - perhaps not a very big school - that Eon stopped making James Bond films in 1969 and thereafter made very entertaining films with James Bond in them, reflecting current popular trends. Perhaps that was survival.
