What (not who) the Next James Bond Should Be, in my opinion
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 2 ต.ค. 2024
- We're in between 007's right now, and people are inevitably spit-balling who the next one will be. But that's the wrong question to ask. Instead of "who," we should be asking "what" James Bond will be next.
Tbh, misogynistic bond is my favorite. Sorry not sorry
You're absolutely correct.
That's what the Bond character was written to be
Amen. Long live the patriarchy.
Well, most people don't want James Bond to be an asshole, so enjoy being not sorry and go read some incel's fan fiction, instead.
Yes enough of the woke crap
I would like to see someone like Timothy Dalton. He was the most faithful adaptation from the book. Sort of like a 2-3 movie deal for the next actor to take the helm.
Yeah, I don't think we need another guy in it for almost 2 decades. I want to see more new Bonds before I die!
Dalton was the closest to the Bond in the Fleming novels.
He was also the most brutal Bond
Love Timothy Dalton!
I got very worried when you said "James Bond should pull from Jack Ryan." and there's a very good reason for that. As a fan of both characters, Jack Ryan is the anti-James Bond. Family man, boy scout, Jack Ryan is the guy with a moral compass in a job where he has to rub elbows with people who are not. James Bond on the other hand is the guy who you point at a problem and he solves it just...uh...don't ask questions okay?
Good point, I guess I didn't think to disarm that worry in the video. I wouldn't want Bond to be a boy scout, for sure. I just figured he could pull a little bit from Ryan's groundedness.
Actually, Bond (Dalton) was asked if he is a problem solver. Bond replies "More a problem eliminator."
@@rusparr2528 fair
Simply put : Ryan is American.
It just means the guy who made this video is CLUELESS lmao
One thing Craig's tenure has achieved is they really have to sit down and think what to do with the character, it wasn't always the case, for decades the franchise has fared on auto-pilot mode, and it got stultifying. You are right in that respect, choosing the actor should be a consequence of the direction they take. The actor is still important however and they need to get it right, I just hope for a couple of things: what sets Bond apart from other action heroes is his Britishness, I hope that doesn't get lost, I equally hope they don't start pandering to the politically correct climate, elements of it already crept in in No time to die. Bond is flawed, sanitize him, won't help making him interesting or funny. As for the actor, I hope they bear in mind that Bond is as much a female's, as well as a male's fantasy. Of course, he must have the looks, but he also must have the presence and that effortless, undercurrent ''don't f... with me quality'', Connery and Craig had in spades. Some of the names that are being tossed around are just pretty faces, they can bulk up all they want, presence is not something you can train.
I like it many aspects of your comment, especially the thoughts on Britishness. Britishness is a term which encompasses a broad range of values... including those someone from outside of the country might not recognise. We are by no means a homogenous or unified society with identical ways of belonging to and interacting with our nation. In fact, right now, our nations have never been more questioning of our conventions and the ways in which we are being governed. Anti-establishment attitudes such as republicanism, unionism, workers' rights, a belief in a commonwealth that treats each person fairly, and tolerance are just as much a part of that Britishness as unthinking deference to our political hierarchy, jobs for public schoolboys, and snobbery. This was played with somewhat in such films as The Ipcress Files, which stood as a sort of wry rejoinder to the popularity of Bond in its heyday. If James Bond can be defined by character, and that character is up for debate and adaptation, then I'd like to see occasionally a Bond who represents some of these values and the Britain I belong to - not the archaic and frankly corrupt clique from which we allow our chief politicians to be selected... though I'm sure that is appealing as a stereotypical image to viewers from elsewhere. Diverging from that stereotype is as British as all the previous portrayals have been. Of course, to some, that might suggest overtones of 'wokeness' as it challenges their rigid take on what they are willing to really accept. When names such as Idris Elba are brought up, forced smiles are put on, and there's always an excuse along the lines of, "No, not British like that..."
@@MinesAGuinness I'm not saying I don't agree with what you say, or I dislike it but you went much deeper than I intended to. I brought up the Britishness, but I meant the ethos and the aesthetics. Most importantly though, I meant not American, which is all pervasive nowadays in movies and culture or lack thereof. Bond, if taken seriously, something not even fans like myself should ever do, is quite insufferable. It reminds of those public school, Jack the Lads I've had the misfortune to come across occasionally but what redeems him is his unfailing patriotism, the willingness to put everything on the ine for Que..Well, King and country and in in a world all too ready be subservient to the US, culturally speaking and not, he remains a classic, remains British which means more than faking an accent and mannerisms. A breath of fresh air in action movies. I am a self-confessed Anglophile and doubtlessly when enamored with a country and a culture one tends to idealize it, as far as I'm concerned everybody there speaks like Stephen Fry, rather than the Gallagher brothers, so I'm afraid my idea of Bond is far from being inclusive, he is in fact quite exclusive and a bit of a snob, that's how he was conceived and we should be wary of any sanitation process hurling him into wokeness. He was educated in the best schools, he moves in places where you still have to wear a tuxedo, who does that today? I wouldn't want him to be stripped of those elements quite frankly. Bringing up Elba was IMO, ridiculous and slightly offensive to the man, he said so himself, he's a smart guy and he knows quite well why his name was being mentioned. He is, I believe the same age as Craig which would have made casting him moronic, but he was being constantly brought up anyway, because of a questionable need to shake up the franchise and it bordered on racism in my view.
Well they lost the Britishness when they hired Brosnan FFS LMAO
Killing Bond in No time to Die was a serious mistake. it was a sign they don't understand their franchise. So I'm cynical for the future and part of that comes in that film. Whilst Fleming himself promoted Bond in 'The Man with the Golden Gun' and gave him a new number - 'four sevens' - No time to Die issued the number 007 to another character. There's no problem with that in story-telling terms but I suspect they might take a lead from that in separating Bond from the number '007' and greedily think they're going to have success with two franchises - one of James Bond - say, suave high-class international jewellery-thief, and '007' British Secret Agent. This would be an incredibly bad idea but as we see, they see no problem in putting bad ideas on the screen without shrugging.
For the record, my personal choice for James Bond 007 would be Tom Ellis. (Lucifer). But ultimately it's down to the quality of the writing to pull the series off. And an aversion to serious mistakes.
Tom Ellis would make a great Bond, no arguments here! Personally, I think EON would know better than to separate Bond from his 007 moniker. He IS 007. If anything, I could see them expanding the universe with another double-0 agent on streaming, maybe with a limited series; which I'd be more okay with. Whatever the case, I hope we don't get saturated with the franchise, like what happened with Star Wars. Bond films should always be events.
Good choice with Ellis. And I agree, killing off Bond was a serious mistake
Yes, killing Bond was a tremendous mistake. It's left me so frustrated that I've burnt out on the franchise. It's like they gave Bond a series finale with no intention of ending the series. Though, it seems the series has ended due to a lack of enthusiasm on Barbara Broccoli's part (she's done nothing to get the series going again). If they do bring the series back, Bond will be just another action hero like Jason Bourne or John Wick. Much of what makes Bond who he is will be absent.
You say that killing Bond was a mistake in terms of a continuing franchise - which it might well be, if you want there to be a sense of continuation. I wonder what you think of the ending in terms of the Craig films in and of themselves, however? Not particularly thinking about whether there might be more films in the future, I certainly found it poignant and narratively fulfilling to have a Bond story which saw him prepared to make that sacrifice for something or someone he loved. Other stories have an ending; some of the best have a tragic one. Is it really fair to insist that any character be written without a resolution for over 60 years, constantly engaged in new adventures - but never allowed to change or to grow too much from where they began?
For my part, I am perfectly content to see a new actor take on the role of James Bond, and for their run of films to have a quite different way of getting to becoming an agent and undertaking their missions, with little to no reference to the continuity of Craig's films or to anyone else's. Perhaps younger, or older, from a different perspective of British society; set in the 50s, or in the present day - each one existing as its own thing. I don't think I've ever truly watched Connery or Moore, Dalton or Brosnan, and truly imagined them to be the same, identical version of the character, somehow living the same life - beyond little Easter eggs such as Moore's visits to his wife's grave and Felix's mention that Bond was married. But for me, those moments were for the audience: they were informed by previous films, or books, but didn't have to rely upon things having played out exactly as a previous production portrayed them. If I had taken them literally, my head would have exploded as I saw Sean Connery return as Bond in Never Say Never Again whilst Roger Moore was still active as 007. Of course, people managed to cope a little better with the apparent contradiction... perhaps by recognising that it wasn't real life.
@@MinesAGuinness It's fine for Craig's Bond to have a sense of resolution but the tragic ending was very unnecessary and mean-spirited. Spectre could've easily been the final Craig film with Bond finally letting go of the past and quitting MI6 to be with the woman he loves. No Time To Die simply exists to kill Bond (the ending was predetermined before the rest of the story was written) and the Craig era becomes so depressing that I stop caring about the story. Craig requested that his Bond die at the end of his run and Barbara Broccoli agreed likely because he's her favorite Bond actor. Finally, the #1 reason why it's bad to kill Bond is because Fleming never did it. Most of us watch these movies to be entertained not depressed. James Bond films are not Honk Kong John Woo films like The Killer or Bullet In The Head. NTTD tries to be like those films but ends up being contrived, cliched and dramatically inert.
The problem has always been the producers are trend chasers. They might start with a vision of a grounded Bond and then completely abandon it in fear that it won't be popular, or just wing it.
Yeah, they've tended to be just behind the curve for years.
I agree with some points, but I have to entirely disagree with the idea of James Bond being a team player. James Bond is the epitome of man; he’s good at everything, all women want to be with him, and he has the sharpest mind. As an audience member, we all know James Bond is going to win and the villain is going to lose, but keeping tension within action is a lot easier than most people think. The new M:I is a part one, but people will still be sweating when Ethan Hunt is in hot water I bet.
I don’t entirely dislike the idea of Bond returning to the goofy side of things either. EVERY major IP / summer blockbuster is trying to be gritty with slow burns and 3 hour runtimes and it’s so dull. Bring back Brosnan’s style with serious plot lines and a charismatic, light hearted lead role.
I like the content, hoping to see more in the future. Hopefully this was more constructive than me ranting haha
I really don't understand the criticism of Pierce Brosnan. Speaking as one of the '80s kids who was a big fan of Remington Steele and eagerly welcomed Brosnan Bond ... his movies were exactly what I and my friends expected and hoped for. And the box office figures show movie audiences liked them. The video games were also successful.
My point is ... at the time, people were just happy with Brosnan Bond, as I recall?
As for the next 007 ... well, honestly I miss the witticisms. Like, my favorite Brosnan line is a witticism ("I don't know any doctor jokes.") But there's one Craig Bond line I remember because of how Q reacted to it.
He says something like "the lead was a dead end", and Q is like, "Damn it! He killed him!" ... but Q would have had a very different reaction if it were Brosnan Bond. She might still say, "Damn it! He killed him!", but she'd be rolling her eyes at the bad pun.
I love the Craig Bond movies, but I still miss the humor mixed in. So for me personally, I wouldn't want the next 007 movie to double down on the gritty serious tone.
Still, swinging too far into the silly would throw people off too much, I think. So here's how I'd tackle it:
Okay, realistic scenarios are good. With the war in Ukraine, Taiwan Straight tensions, heck even drama over Barbie's Weird Barbie Real World Map ... there's no need to question whether or not MI6 espionage is relevant. It is. And plausible real life scenarios are often absurd enough as they are (like whatever the heck is going on with the Prigozhin not-a-coup).
What I'd like to see from the next 007 is some of those witticisms as a natural feeling complement to the absurdity of the real world, as it evidently is. In other words, 007 uses humor and light-heartedness as, perhaps, a coping mechanism for the ridiculousness of the world.
"I really don't understand the criticism of Pierce Brosnan"
Have you seen any of the Brosnan Bonds? They're not great. Brosnan was wasted potential in everything but Goldeneye.
Also you mean M, not Q
@@drno62 I liked them at the time, and I still like them?
Of course, I'm just one person so who cares about that. The box office returns, though, were good for all of the Brosnan Bond movies. So evidently, enough people liked them enough to keep the franchise profitable.
I'm not going to pretend that being profitable means a movie is necessarily a "good" movie, but it's certainly a "good enough" movie.
We need to bring the golf back into James Bond
And I desperately hope for an Aaron Taylor Johnson Bond
I truly hope not, a pretty boy with puffy lips and a David Beckham's on helium voice?
@@fabriziocamisani5477 right -- here's the thing. What you're saying is the same thing they said about Daniel Craig. He was too thin, too "ugly" too blonde -- too *different*. When are we going to learn that we should take a chance on talented actors who aren't just the look of the part. Bond doesn't have to look a certain way or sound a certain way, he has to *be* a certain way. Aaron Taylor Johnson proved he could be gritty and funny in Bullet Train. That could be what we need. Henry Cavill proved he could be a secret agent in the Man From UNCLE -- but we'll expect too much out of him. Let's look to just give the next guy a chance, not bash on him before he gets started.
James Bond is meant to be a little larger than life. The man we WANT to be, not the man we COULD be. He doesn't need a team but one good sidekick. Brosnan was a good Bond, but other than Goldeneye, he had weak plots. Craig started with a good performance, but again was let down by the narrative arc with Vesper & Swann. Give us one good, stand alone Bond movie. Then another one.
Very good points. Bond being the man we WANT to be is part of the fantasy. Nothin' wrong with that either. Despite the unanchored nature of his character, I do agree that Brosnan was good at what he did. He was a good serious Bond, a good lighthearted Bond, a good pensive Bond...the problem is he was forced to wear too many hats, I think. I also agree that we could stand to go back to standalone installments. Or go the Mission: Impossible route where they feed into the next, but it's not 100% necessary to watch them all. If anything, you'd get filled in on character relationships, but not plot points.
@@ToughMartin I did like Brosnan, he was my third favorite Bond after Connery and Craig, he definitely looked the part, but I think he was more a Ladies, rather than a Gents Bond. He is ridiculously good looking and, don't get me wrong Bond must be handsome, but he also must look like someone who can kick your ass and, in my opinion, Brosnan fell a bit short in that department, he would often resort to scowling when he wanted to look serious or menacing but put it down to the fact that he was too pretty and probably his limitations as an actor, he was quite unconvincing to me. Sure, my wife, would drool but that's another story....
@@fabriziocamisani5477 Yeah I think you're pretty on the mark in that assessment. He was really strong in some parts. In particular, during the augmented reality training scene in Die Another Day. I like how he moved, if that makes sense. I wish more of his tenure was THAT kind of Bond. But yeah, overall I couldn't see him throwing a punch.
He brought up the wrong Mission Impossible. The First Movie had Hunt doing separate things with others but ended up with him doing everything anyway. No, what he described was the TV Series. With a group of people doing a bunch of things to get a common goal done right.
Time to retire Jame's Bond Completely....he's done his shift.
A very interesting video. The script is just as important, as the quality of the acting. Kudos for displaying the little used sketch of James from Fleming’s books. A really good point that the name “James Bond” was chosen because Fleming, thought it sounded unremarkable.
The woke mob will fight for it not to be a straight white male.
The "basis" for Fleming's character is whatever - do people even know when it was written and the period in which it was based????
the Bond we know from the movies is about the gadgets, having a sense of humour for entertainment (since we are WATCHING it), and - it's 2023, FFS.
An updated Bond would be natural; Britain has left Europe, the world has changed again with Ukraine and Israel at War, India has surpassed China as the most populous and Russia has been isolated.
I really don't think people understand Fleming's Bond to begin with.
I'm here to be entertained by the MOVIE, not have the old politics from 70 years ago and an old English character be ruthless and stupid FFS lmao
Bring back the funny in Bond, it's supposed to be an action movie FFS
Fleming was a bird watcher (hobby) and he had a famous book on ornithology (the study of birds) on his bookshelf and the author of it was a Dr. James Bond. He went with this name because it was short (1 syllable), strong and easy to remember.
Is it the name James Bond, or is it the 007 licence we need to focus on, like they did in the last movie. For me, it's James Bond, womaniser, ruthless assassin, the man everyone wants to be, every woman wants to be with. I definitely think they should go more Sam Fisher Splinter Cell, but also Eathan Hunt Mission Impossible, and stop making a comedy out of it. I've been impressed with the Jack Ryan tv show and the Jason Bourne movies. It would be good to see a restart of the Bond movies with a script writer that can blend them all together. The next Bond for me would be Andrew Lincoln or Tom Hiddleston.
The next Bond should be made for an INTELLIGENT audience. Don't explain any clue with a hammer. Don't explain everything. Hitchcock's movies were so good, because they had their MacGuffin. They did not explain it. But it created suspense by its presence. No movie nowadays can really create suspense anymore. The movie should also have some clever dialogue. Witty jokes. A little self irony. Sean Connery at his best was provocative to his enemies, teasing them all the time, while pretending to be harmless. And he was brutal and had short action with the enemy's underlings. No need for all these hyperchoreographed fights. No need for a lot of mindless chasing action. It's all boring, because we have seen it a thousand times. Sean Connery hit the underlings with one stroke of his hand or foot to knock them out. The people who make it should also always think if any of Bond's actions are LOGICAL. Too many plot holes in the past. Too many irrational moves. Let him think before he does something.
Sadly, we won't get the traditional James Bond from the old days. With the current state of Hollywood and woke politics running things, it just won't happen.
I absolutely hope they don’t cast a woman to play Bond. If people want a female british spy character then they can create a completely new franchise centered around a female british spy character. Bond’s identity lies in him being British and a Man, he always has, there’s always room for nuanced and well written minority characters but the franchise will firstly and always pander to a male fantasy. To make Bond a woman would be simply performative.
Instead I hope they create more female main villains a la Elektra King because while I haven’t actually seen ‘The World Is Not Enough’ to see whether the execution was good, the twist of the main bond girl actually being the main villain is so incredibly genius that I’m surprised they’ve only done something like that once and never again, I need more female main baddies in the Bond movies!!
Good analysis but highly encourage you to read the original Fleming novels. You will be surprised that everything you say here are in those books and Bond is a very different character in them. Craig came close but Dalton was even closer.
It does matter who the next James Bond going to be. He neeeds to have Daniel Craig's Bond ruthlessness, Sean Connery's suave, and Pierce Bronson's wordsmith. The next Bond movies need to have a great villian like MI3 Owen Davian. The next Bond going to have to carry at least 3 movies over 10 years. Bond needs to be younger maybe mid 30's to start. Would not mind Bond franchaise reboot older classic Bond movies with modern update.
So your idea is to dismantle the character completely and create what exactly ?
Before you answer however, let us not forget how deconstructing characters is playing out for these folks at the minute..
I completely agree. I would love a 1 or 2 film palate cleanser with a retro period piece in the 1950s.
Great analysis
After a reasonable start in Casino, I never warmed to Craig as bond, or his movies. Agree with most of your basic premise, though, for future direction.
Absolutely not Idris Elba, it's not racist to say Bond was created as a white man, I wouldn't want Blade changed to a white man either, the creators of these characters and their intentions need to be respected simple as that
I respect that, for sure. Like, I'm very much against making him female. Personally, I don't mind shifting his race as long as the core of his personality still feels right. But that's just me. Whatever the case, I hope the producers find someone they're inspired by.
@@ToughMartin sorry man if it’s not preferable to make him female then for the same reasons his race shouldn’t change it’s absolutely unacceptable and antithetical to what Fleming intended. This shouldn’t be conflated with racism or sexism on my part it’s strictly to do with respecting the creators and their art
@@chrisnolan8885 EON tried doggedly to get the Bond franchise accepted by the authorities in China. Eventually they succeeded with 'Skyfall'. (To the best of my knowledge). If you know the controversy over the size of the image of John Boyega on the poster of the Chinese marketing for 'The Force Awakens' then that's a pointer. If they want the money the market in China promises, then it's extremely unlikely they'd select a Black actor.
@@chrisnolan8885 You can't speak for Ian Fleming, if he was still alive he might be so damn sick of Bond he'd welcome a female version just to break the monotony. EVERY live action version of Bond has been a massive departure from the literary racist homophobic WWII vet who smoked 60 cigarettes a day, so deal with it.
He is too old to be Bond, but more suited to be M.
Personally, I'd like the Bond movies to go back to being more standalone and have barely any references to previous movies. I felt the Craig-era movies were getting a bit too self-referential and indulgent. Do we really need to see the bloody Aston Martin DB5 in every movie now? Also, being a bit more light-hearted wouldn't go amiss either.
Yeah, a bit of levity wouldn't be unwelcome, especially as long as it didn't take from the Marvel model of constantly underground the drama. Standalone installments should make a comeback too. Maybe we can have the occasional 2 part story arc, but there's no need for Spectre-level connectivity; it's hard to do well.
I dont mind the continuity itself but Spectre was done badly IMO, Blofeld being some kind of jealous brother was one of worst aspects of Craig era. Book stories include references to previous entries, you just cant rely too much on this.
Just do the books as written in the era they belong and make them without pandering to the PC brigade
Adapting the books more faithfully is never a bad idea; I'd be down for that as well
@@ToughMartini would like to see adaptation showing everyday pieces of Bond life more. Going out with friends for a poker, doing some paper work between mission, going to shooting range to keep his skills etc.
Let James Bond die. The Broccoli's now have a unique opportunity to develop a new concept, rather than rehash the 1960s Bond series, and failing badly to make that character remotely relevant today. Look what happened with the Indy Jones series. Know when to stop, and try something different.
How about a short-term (ie no more than 3 movies) sub-franchise focused on "Q", "Moneypenny" or "M" if they want to keep it in the Bond universe? Or a spy thriller trilogy from the 'bad guys' perspective. Just please no more carbon copies of James Bond, John Wick, Jason Bourne, Jack Ryan or another other action/spy hero with a name that starts with the letter "J". And that includes Jane Bond, Janet Bourne, Jenny Ryan, Julie Wick etc. Original characters, original stories and sincere diversity that doesn't exploit cast/crew or insult the audience's intelligence.
Developing a new concept is okay, but why not both? The 007 franchise has proven it's got staying power, and Craig Bond has been very popular.
Ever since the end of the Cold War, 007 movies have had this running theme of questioning MI6 espionage's relevance. But today? With the hot war in Europe and the expected hot wars in Asia? That's not even a question anymore. In fact, it's gotten to the point where QoS can be based on an _actual_ Bolivian water wars, and most viewers think, "Gee, this is a surprisingly plausible fictional scenario." (being oblivious to the reality).
A reboot is the perfect time to introduce a new 007 where there simply isn't the question of relevance. No M going to justify the existence of his MI6 to some committee.
Today's world is dangerous, and personally I'd like a new James Bond that brings back some of the humor to take some of the edge off. My preference would be Daniel Radcliff, although I suppose he doesn't need it or want it. I just think it he can bring the humor of the absurd.
@@IsaacKuo Yeah, the beautiful thing about James Bond is he can be reborn with each new actor. They can expand the universe with new characters, but there's no reason to throw him out.
The next gen of Bond film should be more realistic and cold blood, or more cartoonish but exciting, honestly I have no idea🤔
*Hear me out* Bring back Pierce as the “palette cleanser” for 1 final film so he can leave properly, the way Connery came back. Then get a NEW bond.
I'd vote for that in a heartbeat. Brosnan needs his Dark Knight Returns-style sendoff.
I dunno. My list goes Connery, Craig, Brosnan. From Russia with Love, Casino Royale, Goldeneye
It would be odd for Bond to suddenly change race or gender. With "The Man from UNCLE" they did do a "The Girl from UNCLE" and you could have a female agent cross paths with Bond occasionally. But if I remember correctly, "The Girl from UNCLE" did not fare as well as the male version.
I didn't even know there was a Girl From UNCLE, ha!
Brosnan should get a swan song, as an ageing Bond who has to rely on his wits and experience… but not bleed quite as much as Craig’s.
I would love that. I may have criticisms of his tenure, but that would be awesome to see, and I think he would enjoy the opportunity to return to the role more than anybody else.
And it would actually follow some sort of “trend” with recasting older actors in their previous roles…
BOND IS NOT BLACK, GET THAT INTO YOUR THICK HEADS!!!!! Idris is an amazing actor, but Bond is not black.
I agree, James Bond should be Asian. I don't know about y'all, but my nominee is Randall Park, but Ken Jeong is a close second. Thoughts?
I hope the next 007 is a black woman. We need that to wake up people #Accelerationism
Bond doesn't exist, you incel.
I disagree, I found Carte Blanche to be an atrocious reboot.
Well, they killed him, so..........
LMAO
I know, I know, just joking!!!!! He can't die LMAO
AARON TAYLOR-JOHNSON is the next Bond.
Tom Hardy got no chance, there’s a higher chance Pierce Brosnan comes back as an old Bond than it is for Tom Hardy to play 007.
I’m trying to follow this..but it seems he’s all over the map. Maybe it’s just me. I think the new Bond movie should have support inter3sting characters. It’s difficult to follow Craig..but we will move on.
Tough Martin, Casino Royale may have been a good film for some people but it was a bad Bond film. The absolute worst Bond film in the series. Analyze it. The charcter of James Bond is deconstructed. The women excoriate him for constantly doing stupid things. I hate what Craig did to the franchise. Insisting on a definitive death James Bond is no way to preserve the franchise. I wish his tenure had never happened. I do agree with you, however, that it's time to invest in the character again. If you watch Dr. No, From Russia With Love and OHMSS you'll see that a lot of thought and care is put into the character and in how he is played. Let's return to that positive vision and put the depressing, miserable Craig films in the past. I hope that ape never drags his knuckles across the screen again.
I think "James Bond 007" should become a code name given to "an upcoming agent because the World needs Bond 007" type of thing. That way new fresh backgrounds to explore AND the series has a built in way to introduce new actors when the previous ones retire.
That'd definitely be a new direction, but I'd give it a try for sure
That’s a damn terrible idea.
@@michaelengle1413 Whatever. It works for Dr Who
In my opinion, Timothy Dalton is the blueprint for what James bond should be. How hard is it to go shopping for an actor who literally fits the profile of what he is because when he read the source material by Fleming, he is James Bond it’s just sad back then that it was just wasted potential when he came in because he did a good job and hit it right out of the ballpark
I agree with quite a lot of what you say if you take a look at the Brad Pitt, Robert Redford film Spy Game - directed by Tony Scott , it's an old spy helping out a new one and their relationship. With the old spy heading off into the sunset giving the new spy a second chance.
Nice left field ish vibe. Refreshing. Thanks.
Didn't like Mission impossible movies pretty much ripped off bond. Shame because the tv series was amazing.
Very much agree with you! I loved Casino Royale precisely because it was surprisingly grounded and realistic.
You really don't know how Bond works. He's supposed to get every woman and Bond supposed to save the day. Back then the slogan was one man can make a differenc, it gave little boys a cause to be better.
When everyone else does it better, you've made a very good case for 'Who Needs James Bond?"
Come on. If you don’t know that Jack Ryan and James Bond are totally different sub genres… 😂😂😂
I would really like a period noir take on 007. I think it would be a really aesthetic take on the character and his adventures.
Is that "God rest ye merry Gentlemen" in the beginning of the video? :D I need the full version
A rainbow unicorn with a transgendered horn. Farts lucky charms and shits out Skittles.
The bond should be gritty as real life guys that have to do that would have broken lives and families no normal person does that kind of work or for long
Daniel Craig was the smallest James Bond cast! No even 6’ tall and weight in 160 lbs.
I think they should keep the fight scenes gritty like the Craig era but the tone in general should be Sean Connery
I absolutely agree with just a little bit of grounding to pull me into the character and the plot.
Next JAMES BOND should be a 1950s period piece 3-4 (3rd film split into two) films. The ONLY way to tell James Bond is to go to the source material and it being after WWII and during COLD WAR.
I'd be very interested to watch that. I get what people mean when they say Bond should be contemporary to the times, but we should at least try a few installments that are period pieces. The beauty of having revolving actors is we get to reboot each time.
@@ToughMartin YES. At least have a period peace take … before doing another modern adaption?
So you don't want 1 actor, you want 2. Thats your 0. It's your problem.
James Bond is white.
I don't see why this is so hard for people to understand.
Still think that Creg was not good for James Bond...
And those movies with him are not as fun, as techy, as gadgety, as sexy, as real 007 movies...
Define real Bond movies. I like Dalton as Bond and his movies were different from Moore flicks. I like OHMSS with Lazenby, which was more serious in its approach and i dont care how much people care criticise Lazenby acting. His fighting skills were much more believable than what Moore was doing.Bond had a lot of different approaches through years which is obvious cause you cant do the exact same thing for years.
You must be joking - Brosnan was in some of the best Bond films of all time!
Phoebe Waller Bridge. Why not, she's ruined everything else.
Great content so far, keep it up!
Thank you so much, I appreciate it!
I like the Jack Ryan template
I hope they can get a man’s man and not a Hollywood boy.
I would like to see a series on how he became 007. From his Military service to becoming 007. Each movie being a part of the complete series.
I could see that being pretty good. Sort of like the 'Pennyworth' series, only more fitting.
Fingers crossed its a transgender bond.
I really enjoyed this. Thank you :)
Good vid!
I like your take.
To this day, I have been so repelled by Daniel Craig's "performance" that I'm unable to watch any of his 007s to the end. Sean Connery created the successful "Bond" 🎥 🎞 character ♥️ 👌 uniquely his and different to the novels. We need a new unknown "Connery-type" to recapture that winning formula
I agree at least that an unknown actor who completely and utterly captures the producers would be great. Someone with that natural charisma.
So you are basically stuck in the past and want to see the same things replayed again and again.
Changing successful formulas risks total failure as Disney has proven by wrecking the Star Trek and Star Wars franchises. Most notably the box office Catastrophe of Indiana Jones 5. Even Shakespeare had to follow basic storytelling rules of the hero. If stuck in the past means being entertained rather than bored, hell yes.
@@James-nl6fu but you know Bond had different approaches through years? Dalton and Lazenby Bond was much darker than Moore stuff. The same goes with Sherlock, different actors bring different touch to character .
There’s a tumbler post floating somewhere where someone described a dream they had where a new Bond movie came out and it was a complete mystery on which character was James Bond, and the film was STACKED with famous actors, any one of whom could feasibly be James Bond. I forget who ended up being Bond in the dream, but if the next movie is a “palate cleanser” I kind of like the idea of the the mystery of who the ‘real’ James Bond is. We go through the movie, everyone thinks Bond is this person or that person, but one by one they get eliminated as the true Bond.
At the very end, it’s confirmed to be Idris Elba. :D
You had me until the last sentence.
@@JP-1990 XD.
You just described the 1967 Casino Royale's plot LOL. Minus Idris of course
0:43 Well played
Woke answer Idris Elba! Want a Black spy then write a character. Bond should stay as he was, before Craig. Craig did good in CR, Skyfall, but the last two went the wrong direction, off a cliff wrong direction for fans. A blend between Connery,Moore, is still warranted. I did enjoy Dalton as Bond. Brosnan's tenure would have been better if given better material. TWINE,DAD were bad. Tomorrow never dies was his best.
Bond is now crap
Don't need the Brosnan era slander
The James Bond character was killed off in The No Time to Die. The next 007 cannot be a James Bond again. That number went to a lady anyway.
Everybody remember James Bond is dead. If the name was code name then you can give somebody else the name kind of like Bourne franchise . Jason Bourne real name was David Webb. The problem is you made the point that Bond’s family owned the Skyfall estate in Skyfall. A real person. So you either have to close the franchise down or pickup someone else either as 007 or a different 00 number. But they really aren’t James Bond.
Or reboot the franchise again. At the end of the credits for No Time To Die, it said "James Bond Will Return." So it looks like that's what the producers are looking at doing.
Of course this is of big interest to me as well. I have videos about the future of Bond also. But I really want a no name actor, with a return to classic Bond and no current agenda statements. But that is an impossible wish I'm afraid. I feel Bond was always the hero we knew would win, but it was an adventure watching him pull off the victory and in style.
I 100% agree
Also I love how you seemed to enjoy the editing on this video. XD
It doesn’t matter because the series is DONE. RIP 007 🪦
Daniel Craig should continue being James Bond. The story can be followed by Bond having an operation & comes back to life.
I’m a James Bond fan! My father gotten me into the Bond franchise as a kid in the Seventies! Each Actors brought something different to Bond character that make them rememberable!
Sean was the rough and action hero! Yet, he has some funny lines too.
Roger brought his Saint character out and made Bond humor shine as well he did an excellent job being serious too when calling for his to be!
Tim was no nonsense action hero! A little stiff and what Craig brought out of the latest Bond.
Pierce was funny yet show that he can be serious action hero! A different favor than Roger but on the same pathway!
Craig is what they were trying to get Tim’s Bond to be! Craig was like Sean’s Bond era, tough and serious that kick butt!
Bond franchise was a Sean Connery vehicle. "Thunderball" was perhaps the last real Bond film. Everything else after that (perhaps other than OHMSS, which should have had Connery in it) are just bad adventure films that anyone could star in and don't hold a candle to the Bourne franchise or the Tom Cruise Mission: Impossible movies. After "The Spy Who Loved Me', every Bond movie just repeatedly ripped off the franchise's previous movies, over and over and over again. I totally agree with this video, but what he doesn't realize is that it's way, way too late. The franchise owners destroyed their own property loooong time ago.
I hope the next 007 is a black woman. We need that to wake up people #Accelerationism
Part of me now genuinely hopes this is case, just to piss off the obnoxious human garbage that is the anti-diversity mob. Nothing could have converted me on the matter harder than gradually seeing those trash develop into what they are now, so anything that makes their "lives" less easy is welcomed by me.
It's funny that some of the same people who thought that Craig was too blond and blue-eyed, also think that Edris Elba should be the next Bond...lol.
I promise you.... those were not the same people.
@@DPMusicStudio I've met them online, and they try to use the ''well, Bond is not supposed to be blond'' argument, while also favoring Edris Elba or some other black actor.
@@francisdashwood1760 Bond is fiction, and has been radically reinvented many times, so deal with it.
@@imcallingjapan2178 I think that Idris Elba should have the role of the next Charlie Chan the Chinese Detective, don't you?
@@francisdashwood1760 Why do you think that?
Daniel killed the franchise.
No Idris Elba.
No worries. Point is, I think having the next guy be a "one and done" thing would be good, and let us have a longshot candidate. Heck, having Brosnan come back for one more ride would be pretty cool.