James Bond 26

[phonogram12]

They already did that with Brosnan Bonds, 30 years ago, so it is hardly fresh...

Honestly, as much as I tried to get into Brosnan's Bond, I dipped out pretty quick after he took over. I really haven't been able to get into a Bond since Connery before.

Whole point of Bond is that he is a dinosaur, but a suave and necessary dinosaur, that the world still needs a well-dressed heterosexual British guy to set things straight. That goes back to original books, it's not something which has been attached to the character as times have passed. There is no point making an MI or Jason Bourne style Bond, because then you might just as well make one of those movies.

I agree with the latter, but I do think there's a way to update Bond in a way that can be unique unto him. And honestly, with today's rapidly changing culture (which I am all for, btw), I don't see a dinosaur Bond captivating an audience the way it used to.

[j9ac9k]

I agree with the latter, but I do think there's a way to update Bond in a way that can be unique unto him. And honestly, with today's rapidly changing culture (which I am all for, btw), I don't see a dinosaur Bond captivating an audience the way it used to.

There have been rumors awhile now that they might take Bond back to the 60s where he won't actually be so much of an anachronism. Would people be up for that? I think it could be good, but like anything else, it'd be about the execution.

[Frontier]

There have been rumors awhile now that they might take Bond back to the 60s where he won't actually be so much of an anachronism. Would people be up for that? I think it could be good, but like anything else, it'd be about the execution.

Honestly I'm not sure how I'd feel about it. I don't think of Bond as a period piece even with the anachronistic elements of the franchise and I don't think there's anything wrong with a modern Bond, but a period piece spy flick can be fun.

[j9ac9k]

Honestly I'm not sure how I'd feel about it. I don't think of Bond as a period piece even with the anachronistic elements of the franchise and I don't think there's anything wrong with a modern Bond, but a period piece spy flick can be fun.

Or maybe they'll Multiverse it up and bring back the old actors, and a CG Connery.

[Frontier]

Or maybe they'll Multiverse it up and bring back the old actors, and a CG Connery.

I wish I could put this past them ...

[phonogram12]

There have been rumors awhile now that they might take Bond back to the 60s where he won't actually be so much of an anachronism. Would people be up for that? I think it could be good, but like anything else, it'd be about the execution.

I mean, sticking him in that setting would certainly make more sense if they didn't want to update him for the changing times. That said, as the Craig's movies progressed and he was being called out on his stuff more (by M, Moneypenny, Q, etc.), you could tell he was impressed by the fact that people were willing to call him out, which only added to the amount of respect he had for them. He really didn't seem like he was the least bit offended when he was presented with new ideas or new ways to approach things. I thought this approach worked really well.

[Scott Taylor]

Bond set in the 1960s has already been done. No way they could make such a movie today, not without little quips here and there about its chauvinism, sexism or whatever else ism. No thank you. Lets just continue with the approach of being progressive with Bond, and open about trying to be progressive.

[phonogram12]

Bond set in the 1960s has already been done. No way they could make such a movie today, not without little quips here and there about its chauvinism, sexism or whatever else ism. No thank you. Lets just continue with the approach of being progressive with Bond, and open about trying to be progressive.

I'd be down with either approach, TBH. But some hear the words "progressive" and "Bond" and that's an automatic no for them. I'm not one of those people, but there are some out there.

[ChrisIII]

The Moore era also occasionally had Bond called out on a few things. Bond looks somewhat deflated a few times when Major Amasova manages to outsmart him a few times during their competition for the microfilm. There's a slightly similar dynamic with Michelle Yeoh in Tomorrow Never Dies as well.

He's also somewhat restrained a bit more than usual in FYEO although the whole film in general was made to somewhat roll back the excess of his earlier films.


Some of the comics have worked with the concept of a Period Bond-The graphic novels of Casino Royale and Live and Let Die, for example. Also James Bond Origin has a young Bond doing Naval and OSS stuff during World War II.

[Frontier]

The Dynamite James Bond comics have done a pretty good job with a classical yet modern Bond.

[Jekyll]

I grew up watching Bond films and I really enjoyed the Craig films...............with that being said I am way more interested and invested in the Mission Impossible franchise these days. I think No Time To Die sent Bond out with a bang and they should just leave it alone.

[ChrisIII]

One problem of course with more closely adapting the novels or a period setting-if you think the movies are dated in their attitudes, the novels are even more so.

Also the torture scenes Bond goes through-a lot of what we see in the movies is also toned down from the novels. Bond often spends weeks or months recovering. Casino Royale film's torture and it's aftermath with Bond recovering is the closest we got. Bond is also permanently scarred on his face (Not a huge one like movie Blofeld, more like Le Chiffre without the blood tears) and possibly on his hand too.

[j9ac9k]

Personally, I'd want to see them move forward and not back. With the last Bond film, being progressive or not wasn't really even an issue, partly because things moved too quickly to dawdle and he was always just focused on the mission. The Spectre party was the closest we got to "classic Bond" (aside from the tricked out car) and I thought the balance worked well. (as opposed to "Spectre" which I thought was cheesy and the Craig franchise's one unabashed attempt to just be a throwback 007 film, which didn't work for me)

[Ikari]

I'd be down with either approach, TBH. But some hear the words "progressive" and "Bond" and that's an automatic no for them. I'm not one of those people, but there are some out there.

'Progress' with the Bond series usually has meant one of two different things:
1. Have him engage some current themed bad guys, which leaves the film feeling like a generic contemporary action film with Bond name tacked on it. See 'License to Kill' for the most obvious example.
2. Producers paying lip service to 'modernizing' the franchise by (most common example) claiming how in THIS movie the 'Bond girl' is actually a strong, independent character who can look after herself.

So you can see why 'progress' is not a big buzzword with the fans of the franchise.
For example, much has been made of how 'progressive' Craig era Bond movies supposedly were. But in what way? Were Bond Gi...err, 'female leads' somehow more capable and prominent? Heck no. Actually Craig era is weaker in that regard than Brosnan era. Was Bond himself less womanizing and chauvinistic? No, not at all. Ummm...the M was female! No wait, she was already that during Brosnan era, by same actress no less. Other than the superficial technical aspects, almost only major change was that Craig's character was somewhat more upfront with his emotions than more detached take of his predecessors. But even that was actually just closer to the Bond of original books, rather than some truly novel innovation for the franchise.

[Anthony W]

And honestly, with today's rapidly changing culture (which I am all for, btw), I don't see a dinosaur Bond captivating an audience the way it used to.

Judging from the success of Top Gun Maverick I'm going to have to disagree with you