James Bond Franchise (1962-∞)

[domino harvey]

Read somewhere that the first book was written shortly after Queen Elizabeth took power, guess it’s kind of fitting that the series died with her, because they are 10000% going to turn this into a dozen spinoffs, origin stories, and limited series like Marvel and Star Wars until no one cares about 007 (and hey, I’m wayyyyy ahead of y’all on this count already)

[Matt]

The basis for spinoffs and series is there already with the Young Bond, The Moneypenny Diaries, and the Double O series of novels. I'm still in favor of rebooting the series with a youngish, post-Naval Intelligence Division, pre-00 Bond but NOT as an origin story since Skyfall already gave us the now-requisite troubled childhood backstory. Ultimately, I also don't really care either.

[knives]

I don’t care as pertains to this specific franchise which I consider to be almost universally terrible, but it was a franchise that seemed to at least buck modern trends by taking artistry first via the producers rather than how to utilize it for a dollar.

[Altair]

I think rather EON (Broccoli and Wilson) were always very canny about monetising Bond, including with all the product placement and merchandising which is now indelibly associated with Bond. It's just a different, more 'event' focused approach to the franchise as opposed to the 'flood the zone' approach of Disney in the past decade and a half.

It would be interesting to see the next iteration of Bond set in the 1950s and 1960s, but it'd be impossible to adapt the original Ian Fleming novels faithfully - I've read all of them, and, as entertaining as they are, they are incredibly misogynistic and imperialistic versions of John Buchan novels. The sex and violence meant they couldn't be adapted straight originally in the 1960s, and now the attitudes in the novels prevent them from being adapted today.

[aox]

it'd be impossible to adapt the original Ian Fleming novels faithfully - I've read all of them, and, as entertaining as they are, they are incredibly misogynistic and imperialistic versions of John Buchan novels. The sex and violence meant they couldn't be adapted straight originally in the 1960s, and now the attitudes in the novels prevent them from being adapted today.

When you put it that way, it doesn't bode well for a potential five seasons of The Chronicles of Sheriff J.W. Pepper spinoff series where a Rod Steiger character from In the Heat of the Night is the hero:

[Brian C]

The basis for spinoffs and series is there already with the Young Bond, The Moneypenny Diaries, and the Double O series of novels.

I take your point, and I'm not really arguing as much as using this as a jumping off point for how I've been thinking about this today, but this seems like a very thin basis for franchising 007 to death. For example, I've never heard of any of those things ... which doesn't mean much, there's lots of stuff I've never heard of, but it doesn't seem like the ancillary Bond stuff has the cultural ubiquity of Marvel/Star Wars/Lord of the Rings needed to keep these franchises going, unless Amazon wants to crank these out on the cheap.

I guess that the appeal of all those franchises is that there were already a million pre-existing characters/backstories ripe for the adaptation, for better or worse. But the appeal of Bond has always centered entirely on Bond. Anything can be made into something good - anything's possible! - but it's just hard to believe that there's some untapped market out there for a series about Moneypenny or random double-0 agents that aren't Bond or whatever. The Bond universe just seems inherently limited to me in terms of franchise potential.

But it seems we'll probably find out.

[The Curious Sofa]

I think rather EON (Broccoli and Wilson) were always very canny about monetising Bond, including with all the product placement and merchandising which is now indelibly associated with Bond. It's just a different, more 'event' focused approach to the franchise as opposed to the 'flood the zone' approach of Disney in the past decade and a half.

It would be interesting to see the next iteration of Bond set in the 1950s and 1960s, but it would be impossible to faithfully adapt the original Ian Fleming novels - I've read them all, and as entertaining as they are, they are incredibly misogynistic and imperialistic versions of John Buchan novels. The sex and violence meant they couldn't be adapted straight in the 1960s originally, and now the attitudes in the novels prevent them from being adapted today.

I have read a few Bond novels, and there is a way to stay reasonably close to the plot and characters without endorsing sexist or racist attitudes. Just like previous Bond movies, most adaptations aren't 100% faithful anyway. A Mad Men approach that depicted these attitudes but questioned them would be ideal, but of course, that will never happen. We will probably just get a blander, generic action movie version of what came before. And since much modern period drama engages in a kind of revisionism that smooths over ugly truths, so as not to offend current sensibilities, we would probably end up with something compromised anyway.

In the early '70s, the Bond movies were arguably more sexist than some of the books, turning female characters like Tiffany Chase and Holly Goodnight, who were highly capable women on the page, into deadweight eye candy who nearly sabotaged missions with their stupidity (and their butts).

[yoloswegmaster]

Denis Villeneuve Directing Next James Bond Film

[Matt]

I hadn't realized that Dune: Messiah was shooting this summer. I think when Villeneuve was doing press for Dune 2 he said he didn't even have a script yet.

I'm eager for him to get out of the franchise ghetto and make something like Arrival or Prisoners again (he's got a couple of original projects in "pre-production" according to IMDb, but perhaps he can reboot Bond in an interesting way. And maybe keep it under two hours.

[beamish14]

I hadn't realized that Dune: Messiah was shooting this summer. I think when Villeneuve was doing press for Dune 2 he said he didn't even have a script yet.

I'm eager for him to get out of the franchise ghetto and make something like Arrival or Prisoners again (he's got a couple of original projects in "pre-production" according to IMDb, but perhaps he can reboot Bond in an interesting way. And maybe keep it under two hours.

I want him to get back to Quebec and make the smaller-scale films I fell in love with…

[Brian C]

I hadn't realized that Dune: Messiah was shooting this summer. I think when Villeneuve was doing press for Dune 2 he said he didn't even have a script yet.

I'm eager for him to get out of the franchise ghetto and make something like Arrival or Prisoners again (he's got a couple of original projects in "pre-production" according to IMDb, but perhaps he can reboot Bond in an interesting way. And maybe keep it under two hours.

Not only did he not have a script, he was saying at the time that he wanted to do another non-Dune movie first. I think he said that he wanted to do Rendezvous with Rama in the interim.

I love Villeneuve but I dunno. One of my problems with the Craig movies was how seriously they took the character of James Bond, which seemed like a really funny but kinda tedious mistake to make. As if "character development" is something that's necessary in a James Bond movie, which led them down all kinds of weird paths like making M a mother figure to him, or tying all the plotlines together to make avenging his dead girlfriend his actual motivation for saving the world all those times.

I don't think a Villeneuve take on Bond will be that dumb, but there's also not a lot in Villeneuve's movies that show the kind of light touch to just let a Bond movie be a Bond movie.

[reaky]

I’m not expecting a return to the “I’ve lost my charm!” “Not from where I’m standing” Bond, then.

[The Curious Sofa]

Spoiler

I hadn't realized that Dune: Messiah was shooting this summer. I think when Villeneuve was doing press for Dune 2 he said he didn't even have a script yet.

I'm eager for him to get out of the franchise ghetto and make something like Arrival or Prisoners again (he's got a couple of original projects in "pre-production" according to IMDb, but perhaps he can reboot Bond in an interesting way. And maybe keep it under two hours.

Not only did he not have a script, he was saying at the time that he wanted to do another non-Dune movie first. I think he said that he wanted to do Rendezvous with Rama in the interim.

I love Villeneuve but I dunno. One of my problems with the Craig movies was how seriously they took the character of James Bond, which seemed like a really funny but kinda tedious mistake to make. As if "character development" is something that's necessary in a James Bond movie, which led them down all kinds of weird paths like making M a mother figure to him, or tying all the plotlines together to make avenging his dead girlfriend his actual motivation for saving the world all those times.

I don't think a Villeneuve take on Bond will be that dumb, but there's also not a lot in Villeneuve's movies that show the kind of light touch to just let a Bond movie be a Bond movie.

This is essentially the same complaint as saying that the Nolan Batman films are no match for the Adam West series. Maybe let's just acknowledge that, as with any Bond era, the Craig films had their highs and lows. One thing Bond has always done is adjust to prevailing cultural trends. During the Craig era, as with franchises in general, storytelling became more continuous, and characters were taken more seriously. There was humour in the Craig films; it just came at the expense of Bond's chauvinism. Without the rose-tinted glasses of nostalgia, I don't think there are two better Bond movies than Craig's Casino Royale and Skyfall (and no worse than Quantum of Solace).

[Mr Sausage]

Despite 'M is Bond's mom' sounding dumb on paper, it played out perfectly, starting as a cynical and believable act of spycraft on M's part, playing mother-figure to orphans to keep them in line, and then developing unexpected heft in Skyfall when M and Bond deal with the consequences of playing around with emotions that deep. Skyfall is the only Bond movie where the Bond girl isn't the love interest, yet at the same time, is the person Bond perhaps loves the deepest. Cool.

I'm with Curious Sofa: there are no two better Bond's than Casino Royale and Skyfall. Terrific action movies.

[Zot!]

I like this pairing, and I don't even like the Villeneuve genre films. But he's done a good job being faithful to the intentions of his sources so far.

It helps that I hated the Craig era, which beyond what was already stated here, seemed to move the franchise into the trendy Guy Ritchie gritty MCU-style bully mode, instead of the cruel but suave allure of the character that built the franchise. I like the French-Canadian take as well on the queen and country heroics. The next villain should be a Quebec secessionist!

[Mr Sausage]

seemed to move the franchise into the trendy Guy Ritchie gritty MCU-style bully mode

What? The Craig movies don't resemble either Guy Ritchie or the MCU (which also don't resemble each other). The second, Quantum of Solace, came out in 2008. That's the same year as Iron Man. It's also a year before Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes, ie. a full year before he'd take the step out of British crime thrillers into blockbuster filmmaking. You're saying the Craig films are imitating trends that the series pre-dates.

[The Curious Sofa]

It's long been acknowledged that, to bring them up to date, the early Craig Bond movies took their cue from the Matt Damon Bourne movies and its easy to see that. But the MCU and Guy Ritchie really is a stretch.

[Zot!]

It's long been acknowledged that, to bring them up to date, the early Craig Bond movies took their cue from the Matt Damon Bourne movies and its easy to see that. But the MCU and Guy Ritchie really is a stretch.

Yeah, all cut from the same cloth as far as I'm concerned.

This is not a hill I'm going to die on, and forgive my timeline, but I'm referring to the overcranked maximalist tendencies that both Ritchie and MCU (and Bourne) indulge in when portraying action. I liked it when the Matrix mixed CGI and appropriated wuxia techniques in a western context, but for me the approach is exceedingly tired and unpleasant to watch what looks like to me a theme park motion simulator ride. I simply don't like modern action movies, and Bond seemed to follow the popular trends. Add to that a brutish, brooding, and butthurt emo Bond, and I check out. Counterpoint: for some reason I realized I really like all the crazy John Woo Hollywood-era movies, which probably also ushered in that whole kind of mise-en-scene. It's likely a matter of degrees..or maybe something is just off with my action-meter.

[Mr Sausage]

I'm guessing you haven't watched Casino Royale or Skyfall in a real long time. Your description of their action is not accurate. Head over to youtube to watch the first action scene from the former, the parkour chase, and you'll see an exemplary action scene that does not at all resemble the Bay-influenced style of the MCU or Ritchie action scenes (let alone the shaky, cut-up Bourne stuff).

Also, if you don't like modern action films across the board, that would disqualify you from the conversation, right? I don't like coffee--does anyone care to hear how it all tastes exactly the same to me?

[Zot!]

I'm guessing you haven't watched Casino Royale or Skyfall in a real long time. Your description of their action is not accurate. Head over to youtube to watch the first action scene from the former, the parkour chase, and you'll see an exemplary action scene that does not at all resemble the Bay-influenced style of the MCU or Ritchie action scenes (let alone the shaky, cut-up Bourne stuff).

Also, if you don't like modern action films across the board, that would disqualify you from the conversation, right? I don't like coffee--does anyone care to hear how it all tastes exactly the same to me?

I'll do that. In terms of being disqualified from the conversation I like Bond 1962-2002 just fine, so maybe my participation is allowable. In fact my post was related to the idea that I hope Villeneuve will take his inspiration from the history of the franchise (his track record in this respect has been good), rather than an effort at further "modernization".

[The Curious Sofa]

I'm guessing you haven't watched Casino Royale or Skyfall in a real long time. Your description of their action is not accurate. Head over to youtube to watch the first action scene from the former, the parkour chase, and you'll see an exemplary action scene that does not at all resemble the Bay-influenced style of the MCU or Ritchie action scenes (let alone the shaky, cut-up Bourne stuff).

Also, if you don't like modern action films across the board, that would disqualify you from the conversation, right? I don't like coffee--does anyone care to hear how it all tastes exactly the same to me?

I'll do that. In terms of being disqualified from the conversation I like Bond 1962-2002 just fine, so maybe my participation is allowable. In fact my post was related to the idea that I hope Villeneuve will take his inspiration from the history of the franchise (his track record in this respect has been good), rather than an effort at further "modernization".

For me, the biggest appeal of the Bond films has always been how they reflect the fashions, attitudes, and aspirations of their time, including filmmaking techniques and approaches to storytelling. This longest-running blockbuster franchise has always reinvented and modernized itself, only to later for the films to become cinematic time capsules.

And throughout its history, there have always been fans shaking their fists at the sky, declaring the latest iteration to be an abomination. That's no less of a cliche then trying to win the arguement on action movies by invoking John Woo. It's all so...90s.

[colinr0380]

Although the big Bond related project coming before the next film (and the first thing Amazon is doing with the property) is the 'young Bond' videogame 007: First Light, from the people behind the Hitman games (who have celebrated the announcement by having Mads Mikkelsen come back to play Le Chiffre as this month's assassination target in the current Hitman game)

[Mr Sausage]

I'm guessing you haven't watched Casino Royale or Skyfall in a real long time. Your description of their action is not accurate. Head over to youtube to watch the first action scene from the former, the parkour chase, and you'll see an exemplary action scene that does not at all resemble the Bay-influenced style of the MCU or Ritchie action scenes (let alone the shaky, cut-up Bourne stuff).

Also, if you don't like modern action films across the board, that would disqualify you from the conversation, right? I don't like coffee--does anyone care to hear how it all tastes exactly the same to me?

I'll do that. In terms of being disqualified from the conversation I like Bond 1962-2002 just fine, so maybe my participation is allowable. In fact my post was related to the idea that I hope Villeneuve will take his inspiration from the history of the franchise (his track record in this respect has been good), rather than an effort at further "modernization".

I didn’t say you were disqualified from talking about James Bond in general. That’d be absurd. But your across-the-board dislike of modern action leaves you unable to distinguish among types, and that leaves us with little to discuss there. I just don’t know what to say to someone for whom Skyfall, The Bourne Identity, and Avengers: Endgame are indistinguishable.

[Zot!]

This IS getting a little absurd, but am I not in the "James Bond in general" thread? I was just expressing my enthusiasm for the continuation of the series in what will likely be a new direction, and what Villeneuve might do with it. I fully accept that you are more of an authority on action pictures in the new century, and certainly the Bond films since the reboot. I have not studied the genre in that capacity, and was offering what I guess are incorrect and offending opinions, that are no doubt rooted in equal parts nostalgia for the franchise and personal disdain for earmarks of what I view as enshitification of genre I used to enjoy. I don't wish to waste your time any longer, but I did take a look at the Casino Royale scene reference, and while I think it is certainly accomplished and well paced I find it does suffer from the relentless close-focus movement and overall exhaustive tendencies for "crowding the frame with as much extraneous visual debris as possible and endless cutting that I associate with the types of films I posted before. I remember this getting worse as the series went on, but I'll accept my opinion is uninformed, and I'm sure you are correct that my enjoyment, and ability to discern the quality accurately is due to my own limitations.

[Brian C]

This is essentially the same complaint as saying that the Nolan Batman films are no match for the Adam West series. Maybe let's just acknowledge that, as with any Bond era, the Craig films had their highs and lows. One thing Bond has always done is adjust to prevailing cultural trends. During the Craig era, as with franchises in general, storytelling became more continuous, and characters were taken more seriously. There was humour in the Craig films; it just came at the expense of Bond's chauvinism. Without the rose-tinted glasses of nostalgia, I don't think there are two better Bond movies than Craig's Casino Royale and Skyfall (and no worse than Quantum of Solace).

Well, no, it's not "essentially the same complaint." But even if someone preferred the Adam West Batman series to the Nolan films, what's wrong with that? It's not even necessarily "rose-tinted glasses of nostalgia" that might lead a person to that preference, it could be just a preference!

For me, the biggest appeal of the Bond films has always been how they reflect the fashions, attitudes, and aspirations of their time, including filmmaking techniques and approaches to storytelling. This longest-running blockbuster franchise has always reinvented and modernized itself, only to later for the films to become cinematic time capsules.

And throughout its history, there have always been fans shaking their fists at the sky, declaring the latest iteration to be an abomination. That's no less of a cliche then trying to win the arguement on action movies by invoking John Woo. It's all so...90s.

If that's the appeal to you, so be it, but that is simply not a very interesting way to look at the films - or films in general - to me. There were thousands of movies made during the last 60+ years while the Bond franchise has been active, and all of them have in some way or another reflected their time. The idea that the Bond films are unique in this way, or somehow are clearer reflections of their times than any other number of movies, seems very strange to me. I mean - whose attitudes do you think they're reflecting? Whose aspirations? And don't even get started on "approaches to storytelling" when, until the Craig films, this was a notoriously formulaic franchise: M, Q, Bond girls, villain.

But even taken at face value, it's saying that it's enough for these films to simply exist - after all, simply by existing, they're a reflection of their time period in which they were made and thus have merit. Existing is all they need to do! And anyone who is applying a more critical lens to viewing them is simply spouting cliches while shaking their fists at the sky.

What you're saying sounds like the lede of the marketing copy from the back of a 007 boxset. All in all, it seems like the opposite of actual engagement with the films to me. You're not really saying anything about them except for the extremely broad truism that they're a reflection of the time they were made.