Should They Continue The James Bond Film Franchise ?

BAYLOR

There Are Always new Things to Learn.
Joined
Jun 29, 2014
Messages
23,653
In the 27th film No Time to Die , Bond dies . One could argue that it's a great capstone to one of the most successful film series all time . Now , there is talk of a new Bond and Film . Should they continue or should the film simply end with this last film ?


Thoughts on this and the Bond films ?
 
2006’s Casino Royale had Bond acquiring his 00 status, it was a reboot of the franchise. So killing him off doesn’t mean the entire thing should end. The Daniel Craig films made a few billion, so they’re unlikely to stop.
 
Passe , been there done that , time to retire it .
 
Passe , been there done that , time to retire it .
Probably the most likely time was when Roger Moore stopped, or maybe when they finished filming all the Ian Fleming stories.

They didn’t stop then, they won’t stop now. A successful franchise which has already long since dealt with the issue of changing the actors might go on for another sixty years.
It’s the same with (for example) Tarzan films. There were six actors in the title role before Johnny Weissmuller, and so far there have been eight more since he stopped. There are probably other examples.

In short, if people want to see more, there will be more
 
Probably the most likely time was when Roger Moore stopped, or maybe when they finished filming all the Ian Fleming stories.

They didn’t stop then, they won’t stop now. A successful franchise which has already long since dealt with the issue of changing the actors might go on for another sixty years.
It’s the same with (for example) Tarzan films. There were six actors in the title role before Johnny Weissmuller, and so far there have been eight more since he stopped. There are probably other examples.

In short, if people want to see more, there will be more

There will be Bond films well into the next century.
 
They probably will make endless James Bond films, forever, but I think they should kill it off. I've always found the Bond films deeply naff: the awful jokes and the fantasy batchelor lifestyle stuff feel beyond kitsch. ("Hello Mr Bond, I am called Miss Bigboobies." "Hello Mish Bigboobies, do you have... big boobiesh?") I'd much rather watch a spy thriller like The Bourne Identity: I wouldn't want to be Bourne, but his adventures are gripping in a way that Bond has never been, even when they tried to make it more serious.
 
They probably will make endless James Bond films, forever, but I think they should kill it off. I've always found the Bond films deeply naff: the awful jokes and the fantasy batchelor lifestyle stuff feel beyond kitsch. ("Hello Mr Bond, I am called Miss Bigboobies." "Hello Mish Bigboobies, do you have... big boobiesh?") I'd much rather watch a spy thriller like The Bourne Identity: I wouldn't want to be Bourne, but his adventures are gripping in a way that Bond has never been, even when they tried to make it more serious.

Bond is very 1960's .
 
Personally they should have stopped after Roger Moore. None of the Bond films since then have been any good. I met Roger Moore once during his stint as 007.

The last Roger Moore Bond film A View to A Kill wasn't very good .
 
I think the only Bond film I've seen and can say I truly liked was License to Kill. What I really liked about it was the fact that Bond's actions had consequences, and his attempt to go solo for revenge had repercussions that negatively impacted innocent people. I guess that means it had a layer of intelligence other Bond films don't have. Also, thought Dalton and the supporting cast carried the film really well. Bless your heart!
 
It's interesting reading what some critics wrote when the Bond books were first published. It makes you realise that many of the reasons people don't like Bond today aren't a product of our more (allegedly) enlightened times and existed way back then too. Reading of his life, I think I'd rather watch a biopic on Ian Fleming than another Bond movie.

 
The major selling point of the film were fancy stunts--but there are so many other films doing that now--and with CGI assistance, the series just does not have the advantage of novelty anymore.
I am sure one reason for a delay in making another is they can't decide how to proceed with so many conflicting investor interests and what kind of image they want to present. They have to satisfy a board room of people at the very least and far more than they had to think about in 1960.
 
I think the only Bond film I've seen and can say I truly liked was License to Kill. What I really liked about it was the fact that Bond's actions had consequences, and his attempt to go solo for revenge had repercussions that negatively impacted innocent people. I guess that means it had a layer of intelligence other Bond films don't have. Also, thought Dalton and the supporting cast carried the film really well. Bless your heart!

I liked Timothy Dalton and his take on Bond. :)
 
I have to admit that I love the Bond movies. I love his urban cool. But I don't think anyone can see them as any more than so "leave your brain at the door" kind of entertainment.

If they make another Bond movie, I'll likely find myself watching it again.


***I know a family who watches all the Bond DVDs between Christmas and New Year's. It's their "family tradition."

(Parson wonders if there are any Hank Williams Jr. fans out there who recognize what I did there.)
 
This reminds me of one of Eco's essays. I think he wrote that the Bond stories follow iterations of the same sets of characters, i.e., Bond saving the world, opponents becoming co-protagonists and love interests, and antagonists of unknown origins, e.g., mixed-race like Dr. No, or part of an international or fringe, pariah group.
 

Similar threads


Back
Top