My theory on why James Bond is a thing of the past

[Duke Nukem]

I love James Bond. I really do. I'd say that the Roger Moore Era is my favorite. Not all his films are great, but most of them stand out. It's strange; technically, being born in the 80's, I grew up with Pierce Brosnan's Bond movies, but I prefer Moore's old school movies to the new new-age Bond. I wonder why...

Let me say that I think Brosnan makes (or made) a great Bond. He was suave, sly, dangerous and still had a bit of sense of humor. But, no matter how great he is as Bond, the movies themselves don't feel as special as, say, the older Bond movies. They had fantastic action, the gadgets, the villian's ridiculously elaborite plans to take over the world...but, something was missing.

I have a theory on the Bond world. The films were apparently great in the 60's, they were great in the 70's, they were great in 80's (argubly)...but no so great in the 90's, I don't think. Well, the films weren't exceptional, but they stood out from the rest of movies coming out. The Bond movies were practially a genre in itself. Even apart from the action movies. Or lack of action movies, actually.

Not all may agree, but aside from the James Bond series, there weren't really any real action movies in the 60's, 70's and early 80's. It was the late mid 80's and up that action stars like Sly Stallone, Jean Claude Van Whatever, Steven Seagal, etc. would come along and whoop our butts. I'm sure some may argue this point, but I think its fair to say that action movies, Bond asides of course, weren't that big before the mid-80's.

My theory. Part of the Bond series' previously great reign was that they were, in a sense, their only kind in the 60's, 70's and early 80's. When Bond would return in 1995 with "Goldeneye," and when I watch it, I don't feel the same sense of awe watching it. It's like, it's just any other action movie. Now living in a world of generic action films that have dragged the action movie formula to the ground and further, the James Bond series doesn't feel so special anymore. Even though I especially enjoy "Tomorrow Never Dies" and Brosnan's presence, the film doesn't feel so special. Even though it is a better film than Roger Moore's "A View To a Kill" which I still enjoy fondly, I still don't get that "awe" feeling from it.

So, the question is: is James Bond forever lost in our world of degenerated and generic action films? Are they being lost amidst the the several other action films that have taken over the 90's and up? I'm not completely sure. But, I wonder about that. Or is it just me? What are your thoughts on the subject?

[bob]

I think that the Bond films are becoming more action oriented, but that's a choice of the producers and directors to pander to the mainstream audience, which is a good way to make money, but is bound to disappoint Bond geeks like myself.

They need to refocus on the suave, sly aspect of Bond that is what sets him apart from Rambo and the Terminator or whatever comes out. Anyone can blow something up, but it takes Bond to blow something up, believably charm a woman into bed, and then say something that is so freaking suave you'd sleep with him even if you're a staunchly heterosexual man.

[max zorin]

The producers have spent a lot of time concentrating on the great stunt, the 'blow everyone's mind' openings. It started with The Spy Who Loved Me and has progressed since then, each film using a more daring and spectacular stunt to open with.

Would I class a Bond film with other off the shelf action flicks? No, not yet. It does appear that this is the direction the producers and writers with EON are going, which in my opinion is a huge mistake. EON now has a great opportunity to re-evaluate where they want Bond to go. They need a new actor to play Bond, someone who has the swagger Bob pointed out in his post. They must possess the charm, the underlying cold heart that makes killing easy and painless, the professional spy. Time is on their side, the writers can do a far better job with a more believable story line and plot. Fleming's stories were always based on fact, there was the element that the villians ambitious plans to take over the world could actually happen, although unlikely.

Take a View to A Kill for example, not the best Bond flick, but that's not the point. Zorin devised a plot to sink Silicon Valley into the Pacific. Using an explosive device placed on a very fragile fault line, the high spring tides, and a little engineering it could potential have succeeded in reality. Remember, such a plot would be highly unlikely to happen, that's the charm with the Bond films.

In Die Another Day, M made a point about Bond being sent in to always mix it up a bit, to force the villians hand and stop him from succeeding. That's the formula EON has to always keep in mind when producing future films. Don't get me wrong, the mouth dropping stunts will always be welcomed as long as they are part of the story, not the sugar coating to sweeten a bad film.

[Duke Nukem]

If EON would re-think their direction for the series and give the movies the old school feeling of "awe" again, I would appreciate it. I don't know what it is, but the last four Bond movies just didn't do it for me. No matter how great the usual ingredients are, they didn't feel like Bond movies. They felt like other action movies of their time.

One thing I thought before was that the new Bond movies lack some familiar elements. The villians in the older films were over-the-top and crazy with their eleborite plans to take over the world. The villians now seen in James Bond are like your usual villains in today's action movies actually. They should bring back some old villians, like Blofeld.

Blofeld always returned here and there through the 60 and 80's. He has not been seen since "For Your Eyes Only" in 1981. I know that, technically, he'd be considered "dead" after James Bond finished him off in the beginning of FYEO, but I think that they should bring him back anyway with a good actor of choice.

But, there's more. The new villians should stand out more from regular action movie villians and be more crazy and over-the-top again. I think the lack of that might have the weaknesses in the newer Bonds.

[TheDeadWalk]

When I think James Bond of today, I think ridiculous stunts.

Bond was always sly and suave, similar to a con artist, but not a super quick talker.

Now he seems invincible. Not only a secret agent, but a gymnist, stuntman, etc. Jack of all trades. He no longer seems human to me, he feels like a superhero.

I get a very different feeling when I watch Goldfinger though. Bond was human, accessible to error, and able to create high tension and suspense.

[max zorin]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Duke Nukem
[B They should bring back some old villians, like Blofeld.

I couldn't agree with you more. I think SPECTRE or something similar should appear in future Bond films. Sadly Blofeld met his untimely end at the beginning of FYEO, but that doesn't mean a successor couldn't be introduced.

The new villian should be over the top, wanting to take over the world in a plot that is a little out there, but can also be believable. It should be somewhat grounded with fact. The villian should also possess the same qualities Bond has, the charm, swagger and determination to achieve his goal, regardless of the cost.

A James Earl Jones type, the charm, the voice, sends chills down your spine. This would be a great new direction for EON to follow, to look at what has worked in the past and build on that.

[Mr-Blonde]

Originally posted by max zorin:

I couldn't agree with you more. I think SPECTRE or something similar should appear in future Bond films. Sadly Blofeld met his untimely end at the beginning of FYEO, but that doesn't mean a successor couldn't be introduced.

Blofield is still alive and well after his fallout w/ the 007 producers over not getting sharks w/ friggin' laser beams attached to their head. Since then he has been appearing in a certain other spy series w/ Mike Myers.

http://img88.exs.cx/img88/8008/y4qdrevil.jpg

[Duke Nukem]

Lol, can't forget about Dr. Evil! He was a great spoof variation of Blofeld.

But, in accordance with new Bond movies, I think they could still use him. It's not like there's a major sense of continuity among the movies. A new Bond actor, a new Blofeld, a new take-over-the-world plot, that's all they need. I've also thought: what if they brought back the henchman, Jaws? Richard Keil is too old to reprise the part now, but what if they found a good, tall stunt guy to take over the part? It would also be cool because Jaws has never worked under Blofeld before.

[max zorin]

How could I forget about Dr Evil,
thanks Mr. Blonde:D

[jeo4]

Originally posted by TheDeadWalk
When I think James Bond of today, I think ridiculous stunts.

Bond was always sly and suave, similar to a con artist, but not a super quick talker.

Now he seems invincible. Not only a secret agent, but a gymnist, stuntman, etc. Jack of all trades. He no longer seems human to me, he feels like a superhero.

I get a very different feeling when I watch Goldfinger though. Bond was human, accessible to error, and able to create high tension and suspense.

That's a great observation. I think Bond has become far too superhuman to maintain anyone's interest. There aren't enough films where the hero is portrayed as a flawed character. The joy of being a Bond character in the past is that he has wome natural weaknesses. He's a womanizer. He has a weakness for a good martini. He breaks conventional rules to beat his opponents. The joy of watching the show is in Bond's attitude and the way he carries himself. That is the mystique of being 007. If the plot and the dialogue don't reflect the depth of his character, then Bond films (particularly the later ones) come off as one-dimensional.

[quoth_the_raven]

Just to add an extra element to this thread.

do you really think its all over for Bond? Do you think we will get even a sniff of the next movies? this long lay-off is realllllllly worrying for a bond-maniac like me.

[max zorin]

Originally posted by quoth_the_raven
Just to add an extra element to this thread.

do you really think its all over for Bond? Do you think we will get even a sniff of the next movies? this long lay-off is realllllllly worrying for a bond-maniac like me.

EON would be foolish to walk away from the Bond Franchise. It won't happen. Far to much money at stake.

Remember back in the old days when Timothy Dalton's last appearance as Bond was in 1989, License To Kill. It took 6 years for Bond to come back in Goldeneye, with Brosnan being the new face for Bond.

With that said, am I panicked about this long delay? No. However, ask me again in 2 years and you might get a different answer.

MZ

[bob]

I'd like to at least see some sort of progress, but MGM has basically just been dicking around since Die Another Day was released.

[max zorin]

Before Brosnan took the role from Dalton, there was very little information coming out of EON and the studios regarding an upcoming Bond film. Bond fans knew that Bond would return sooner or later. I think it's the same thing here as well.

Would EON be wise to let six years pass between films again? God, I hope not. They do need to start filtering some information out to assure us Die Hard Bond Fans that Bond will return sooner rather than later.

[Duke Nukem]

I like Bond and all, but have any of you ever thought that maybe the James Bond series should just end already? Believe me, I would love to see some new good `ol fashioned James Bond movies again. But, there have been around 20 Bond movies in the last 40 years.

How long is this series supposed to last? For a 100 years? I mean, Albert R. Broccoli who produced all of them up to "Goldeneye" has already passed away tragically, and I just haven't felt the same Bond magic since in the last three Brosnan films.

And, I'll be honest. while "Die Another Day" also lacked the Bond magic and feeling of "awe,", I felt it was considerably better than "Tomorrow Never Dies" and "The World is Not Enough." I also think it is extremely underrated on these boards and was a decent end to the Bond franchise.

I just don't know if they can continue this series anymore. If they can bring back the old 60's-80's magic back and go back to the basics, I would appreciate it a lot. But if Eon is going to keep making the same `ol bland Bond movies that feel like regular action movies of today, than I'd rather see it end already.

[max zorin]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Duke Nukem
[B]I like Bond and all, but have any of you ever thought that maybe the James Bond series should just end already? Believe me, I would love to see some new good `ol fashioned James Bond movies again. But, there have been around 20 Bond movies in the last 40 years.

How long is this series supposed to last? For a 100 years?

Allow me to introduce you to: James Bond Economics 101

This is from Forbes.com:Bond at the Box Office

These are box office gross dollars

Thunderball $63.6 Million
Goldfinger $51.1 Million
Tomorrow never dies $125.3 Million
The World is not enough $126.9 Million
OHMSS $22.8 Million
A view to a Kill $50.3 Million

Can you say Cash Cow?

This doesn't include monies from Product Endorsements and Product placements in the movies.

Bond has promoted Erricksen Cel Phones, 7up, Ford car products (including the Jag and Aston Martin in DAD) Marlborro cigerette, etc etc.

If you were making this kind of money, would you stop?

That's like asking Warren Buffet, Donald Trump and Bill Gates to stop what their doing and call it a day, it's not going to happen!

Eon: Keep the Bond Movies coming, please...

[bob]

Originally posted by max zorin


These are box office gross dollars

Thunderball $63.6 Million
Goldfinger $51.1 Million
Tomorrow never dies $125.3 Million
The World is not enough $126.9 Million
OHMSS $22.8 Million
A view to a Kill $50.3 Million

[/B]

Yes, but if you alter budgets and grosses for inflation, the James Bond series is making nowhere near as much money as it once did.

I mean, think about it: Thunderball made $63.6 million in 1965 dollars...TWINE didn't even make twice that in 1999 dollars.

[Ted Pikul]

Post Moonraker the budgets for Bond films were cut to the bone so I doubt the profit margin was affected any.

Unlike most here I'm pretty optimistic for Bond 21.

Columbia is an excellent film studio that knows how to make movies.

Unlike MGM which was dead on it's arse & gave Barbara Broccoli way too much leeway in production matters which is why the post Cubby Bonds sucked so bad.

[bob]

Originally posted by Ted Pikul
Post Moonraker the budgets for Bond films were cut to the bone so I doubt the profit margin was affected any.


For the films in the 80s, maybe. But there's nothing "to the bone" about 140 million plus ample publicity for Die Another Day.

The series makes money, no doubt, but I don't think it's the force that some people believe it is.

[max zorin]

The series makes money, no doubt, but I don't think it's the force that some people believe it is. [/B][/QUOTE]

Which brings up an interesting point; should the Bond story lines move back to a sinister organization, such as SPECTRE or SMERSH, being the antagonist in future movies? The root cause of all evil that Bond has to face and defeat.

It is a formula that worked when Connery played Bond.

One last thing, a lot less emphasis on product placement, DAD was a two hour plus commercial for Ford Motor Products, British Airways, etc. Sure the money is good, but it is taking away from a potentially good story.

[bigred760]

I agree with the majority's opinion in that the Bond movies have become more stunt and action oriented. But I also think Pierce Brosnan deserves a lot of credit as to why the series has thrived so well. He is the perfect James Bond, and when the character isn't jumping through exploding hoops and chasing psychotic villains - he really is fun to watch. He is definitely the best Bond to grace the screen since the original - the great Sean Connery. I think he deserves the most credit for keeping the character fun and interesting.

And Duke Nukem's theory on action movies saturating the movie market isn't that far off. But I think the action genre became more popular with the Star Wars movies in the late 70s and even more so in the early 80s with Indiana Jones. I don't think it was so much Van Damme and Seagal movies, but folks like Bruce Willis (Die Hard) and Sly Stallone (Rambo,which I believe you mentioned).
There was nothing for James Bond to do but try to up the ante, so to speak. But I don't think this onslaught of action movies hurt the Bond series that much - each new Bond movie that's released breaks its predecessor's box office record.
Good observation though. I like reading stuff like that - gets the brain juices going.