James Bond

I say no. Instead, go full Negative Continuity and have Idris Elba and Daniel Craig and Benedict Cumberbatch and Tom Hiddleston and Michael Fassbender and Tom Hardy all play James Bond in movies that don't have anything to do with each other. Why be content with just one Bond?

Instead of a James Bond Cinematic Universe, we would have a James Bond Cinematic Multiverse.

edited 29th Jun '17 11:57:40 PM by TompaDompa

which would then lead to a Crisis of Infinite Bonds crossover. Martinis were shaken, martinis were stirred. And M was never Dame Judi Dench again.

Well, there's theoretically 000 to "any number that's not 007" to do if they wanted. But why?

There was talk back in the day about Michelle Yeoh getting her own Wai Lin spinoff film, and I'd have watched the heck out of that (partially because of my love of Michelle Yeoh in-general, but her character was also really cool).

And I'm fond enough of Jeffrey Wright's Felix Leiter that I'd probably watch a film about him dealing with CIA stuff away from Bond.

Christopher Nolan is "tempted" to direct a Bond movie

http://io9.gizmodo.com/christopher-nolan-is-tempted-to-direct-a-james-bond-fil-1796780261

I don't think the Bond franchise needs to be soaked in even more pretension.

How about no, and hell no?

He's the guy I single handedly credit with me losing my love of D.C movies. I'm already on shoogly ground with the Bond franchise as it is - if he comes on board I'm never watching another modern Bond film.

Okay but if it gets good again, then you still won't watch it just because one guy directed it? I mean I don't think he's a good fit for a Bond movie, for the record, but it just feels kind of hyperbolic?

I put up with critics saying that Craig was good as Bond for years, and decided to give Skyfall a chance. Because people would. Not. Shut. Up. About. It.

And it was dire. I reviewed it earlier on in this thread and explained why I don't like it and will never watch another film with the same actor. I did pretty much the same thing on one of the many DC-based threads here for why I'm not touching anything Nolan does with a bargepole.

So forgive me if I'm not willing to waste my time again by watching something I know I will not like or gain any enjoyment from.

Hyperbole? Please.

Yeah but what if it does become better? I ain't a big fan of Jason Craig here either, Connery's always been my Bond, but I still wouldn't give it up because of that.

Eh, Darker and Edgier just kind of seems rather passe these days. It's not 2005, anymore. We don't need every spy film to follow Bourne's lead, nor do we necessarily need Christopher Nolan's rather maudlin, gray brand of pseudointellectual philosophy and endless navel-gazing. It's not that I particularly hate Daniel Craig — I don't really like him, either, but whatever — it's that these movies are becoming boring, and they take themselves way too seriously.

Oh yes, definitely. I think it's almost comparable to Batman: yeah, you can make some good material by taking it seriously but in the end the premise is completely silly. I think it's gotten to where I get more enjoyment out of Austin Powers than modern Bond.

How is Craig's Bond anything like Bourne?

... Am I the only one who likes Craig's Bond?

(I know it's very different than old Bond but still)

To be honest I'd rate him higher than Dalton. Never really got into Dalton.

You're not. Although in my case, it may be due to how I've seen Craig!Bond the most out of the other Bonds.

Although I suppose everyone's got a point in that James Bond could benefit from a return to form. If I'm not mistaken, movies like GoldenEye were much more fantastical than, say, Skyfall or Spectre.

It's possible that the producers are reluctant to stop being dead-serious with Bond is because they don't want a repeat of Die Another Day.

However, if the audiences are getting tired of dead-serious Bond and even Craig is preferring to "slash his wrists" than do Bond again (until recent news, supposedly), then maybe it's time to go back to the drawing board?

edited 13th Jul '17 3:42:10 PM by TargetmasterJoe

I prefer Dalton as the "faithfully adapted literary Bond."

He was serious, but he didn't outright act like he was playing a role in a movie adapted from Le Carre.

edited 13th Jul '17 3:42:32 PM by CrimsonZephyr

If he was faithfully adapted he'd be even more of a sexist racist drunk. That said I don't, like, hate him I guess? Craig and Dalton are kind of torn between last for me.

edited 13th Jul '17 3:45:48 PM by AdricDePsycho

A combination of 9/11 and Austin Powers supposedly making the classic formula hard to take seriously anymore were apparently the reasons for the grim-n-gritty reboot.

I'd say make something similar to Lego Batman I guess? Something lighter that references how silly Bond has been in the past and kinda acts as a tribute to the older films.

Huh. I guess I can't blame them if that's the case.

Then again, both 9/11 and especially Austin Powers are ancient history by now, so there's not much reason to not try to bring back classic-styled Bond, is there?

EDIT: What if they did the next Bond move following Craig, but it's only for 5-10 minutes, and we follow a new Bond for the rest of the movie?

edited 13th Jul '17 3:56:17 PM by TargetmasterJoe

Apparently, they felt that since the majority of the cinematic Bond's adversaries are terrorists, portraying them as hammy, larger-than-life supervillains would offend post-9/11.

Eh, debating on the "Bond is a codename" theory. Fairly certain lots of people wouldn't like it.

"Bond is a codename" belongs in the SPECTRE piranha pool IMO.

I mean, there's the whole Bond family estate that is Skyfall, and the Bond's family motto is "The World is Not Enough." There's definitely a Bond family.