Was having a chat with a work colleague about the James Bond franchise. We were both underwhelmed with the recent movies and very apprehensive about any future iterations with the rumours so far released. There is, understandably, a desire to find fresh direction for James Bond and to reinvent him somewhat. The problem we see, though, is that at some point he'll be reinvented so much that he ceases to be James Bond. For good or for bad James Bond is a product of his times. If the movie hero that writers and directors want to produce is essentially different from who James Bond is then perhaps they should simply work on producing different movies and franchises, like Jason Bourne or someone new. As for James Bond, perhaps future movies should be set somewhat in the past. Tell stories from the Soviet era, the Cold War etc. Let James Bond be a character in his world, part of a world, rather than simply a name or code that gets reinvented all the time. What do you think?
To the broader point of Bond perhaps changing too much, its very valid. Modern society just is far less accepting of the character, even in its/his scaled back form played by Daniel Craig today. I read an article a little while ago about "movies that couldn't be made today" and they basically listed the entire Bond franchise among the options. Although its not my desire, I think what's likely to happen is that the franchise goes into hibernation/hiatus for a while, and then gets brought back later on. However, even if movies were to be set in the past, today's and future audiences would demand that the character behave differently than when he was played by Connery or Moore, or even Brosnan. So Bond probably won't ever be like that again.
How about just creating new characters instead of just making more Bond films? The movies are still there.
When I see someone say that they want to massively change an existing character, that's generally my thought too. Just create a new one with a new property, and then write stories for he or she to be the main character in.
"If the movie hero that writers and directors want to produce is essentially different from who James Bond is then perhaps they should simply work on producing different movies and franchises, like Jason Bourne or someone new." Precisely. In general, I hate it when someone picks up an existing work (movie or book) and then decides to reinvent things...it almost feels like abuse - taking your own work and selling it on the name of something established. Just produce your own work.
I generally don't mind when people change different characters to "reinvent" them if you will. I enjoy most of the modern interpretations of Sherlock Holmes for example. Also, not one MCU character is pulled directly from the comic books other than maybe Nick Fury, and that is only because they fashioned Ultimate Nick Fury after Samuel L. Jackson. The problem with James Bond is that the character is a terrible spy and only works during the cold war era. With at least the modern idea of what it means to be a spy, he doesn't really fit, and modernizing his character just changes him into a Bourne.
That's fair. I think I agree. Movie Bond isn't the same as the book. I think it's clear that most movie adaptation are going to have to take liberties with characters. Perhaps the difference comes down to how far you adapt things. Where a character begins to lose essential qualities to the extent that they're not the same person, that's where it gets off track, maybe?
Leave Bond in the past... Do throw back movies along the same lines of "Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy" with Bond. Even Borne was a product of the 70s and based on a book that came out in 1980. Just failed to catch on at the time and the original movie from the 80s with Richard Chamberlain was just ok.
