A preposterous proposal?

Hoagie

Ok, I'm writing this as a staunch Bond fan, and and I always look forward to the next installment, but...what if the next film, number 25 was to be the last?

I loved Spectre and really want DC to return and do one more film. Something that has it all and can be all out 'Bond' without worrying too much about it, a celebration of all that has gone before and...just maybe the last one!!!
As I say I loved Spectre, but I worry the writers are already beginning to tread old ground again, and let's be honest after 24 films it's hard not to, so I have every sympathy for the writers in that respect.

So after 25, a new actor probably takes over the role, where do the films take us? Is all that we have to look forward to a new face for Bond? How much of a new take on the character can any actor give, whilst maintaining Bonds characteristics? Also the films have to keep traditional elements, but when does this become repetitive? I'm not saying that we've got there yet but I fear we might...especially after another re-boot. After DC's brilliant portrayal (in my opinion), will the next actor revert back to a Moore / Brosnan style? If so we've been there before post Dalton.

I know the franchise won't end, there's too much money involved for a start, but wouldn't it be nice to have 25 glorious (for the most part) films to watch and not risk ten years of Bond becoming a parody? However unintentional. As a lifelong fan I would hate to see this happen.

Maybe, T.V could be the future. Most good shows on TV have the same production values as cinema, and at least as good if not better writing...perhaps an opportunity to make Bond a period piece? Not sure I like the idea of a period piece myself to be honest but it would shake things up!

Anyway, I love Bond movies, Love the 24 I have seen and would love at least one more, here's just hoping there is a good way of sustaining by far my favorite cinematic character. Just thought I'd put the thought out there!!

Asp9mm

After DC and his self contained films, the next actor and film will just continue where Brozza left off. No need for a reboot, it'll just be back to Bond basics without the backstory that Craig's films had. No need for reflection. Pretty much what they did with DAF after OHMSS.

Hoagie

Asp9mm wrote:

After DC and his self contained films, the next actor and film will just continue where Brozza left off. No need for a reboot, it'll just be back to Bond basics without the backstory that Craig's films had. No need for reflection. Pretty much what they did with DAF after OHMSS.

yeah, kind of thought that myself...but to me that runs the risk of self parody, and it would be good to go out on a high and and not a damp squib...DAF was not the best entry after all. (enjoy it for what it is though as I do).

Matt S

Daniel Craig showed that there could be a completely new take on the character. He's hardly recognisable as the character five actors played before him. There's a lot that could be done with Bond that hasn't been done before, but I'm sure the filmmakers still want to make Bond what the audience expects it to be. I would like if they made Bond a true spy again and not an action hero, brought it back closer to the original Fleming stories or the original Connery films in tone. But I think most people now expect Bond to be an action hero. But I've always hated the idea of Bond being a period piece because then the character looses relevancy. I think Fleming's Bond can be updated for modern audiences without making him a full-on action hero. It's not like every film made these days is an action film. People still go to see other kinds of films. The Bond films need better writers than Purvis and Wade. Simply replacing them would bring something new to Bond. If they could get Roald Dalh for YOLT (who is really responsible for increasing the scale for Bond) they can get another highly regarded author to change the direction of the series again. They should move some of the action budget to the writing budget, since action still costs a lot more than hiring the best writers.

Matt S

Asp9mm wrote:

After DC and his self contained films, the next actor and film will just continue where Brozza left off. No need for a reboot, it'll just be back to Bond basics without the backstory that Craig's films had. No need for reflection. Pretty much what they did with DAF after OHMSS.

I too would like if they just brought Bond back to basics, but from where Craig leaves off. They can continue on with the same M and Q, and maybe the same Moneypenny as long as Bond isn't too much younger than Moneypenny. Hopefully by then, Bond will have been able to move on with his life and become a more 3-dimensional character who can have a wider variety of emotions.

Hoagie

Matt S wrote:

Daniel Craig showed that there could be a completely new take on the character. He's hardly recognisable as the character five actors played before him. There's a lot that could be done with Bond that hasn't been done before, but I'm sure the filmmakers still want to make Bond what the audience expects it to be. I would like if they made Bond a true spy again and not an action hero, brought it back closer to the original Fleming stories or the original Connery films in tone. But I think most people now expect Bond to be an action hero. But I've always hated the idea of Bond being a period piece because then the character looses relevancy. I think Fleming's Bond can be updated for modern audiences without making him a full-on action hero. It's not like every film made these days is an action film. People still go to see other kinds of films. The Bond films need better writers than Purvis and Wade. Simply replacing them would bring something new to Bond. If they could get Roald Dalh for YOLT (who is really responsible for increasing the scale for Bond) they can get another highly regarded author to change the direction of the series again. They should move some of the action budget to the writing budget, since action still costs a lot more than hiring the best writers.

I agree, new writers for sure, but too much of a change of pace would alienate many filmgoers who as you say want an action packed Bond...heck I do...I just think there is too much pressure to always bring Bond back to the one we have seen before...He's been stripped back once...where next to go? I must say I've loved the Craig Bond having a reason for putting his life on the line, not just for queen and Country, so maybe that's enough to carry the next actor through?

Jimatay

I don't see why we can't have action packed Bond films with a good balance of realism and escapism. The problem first happened with Die Another Day when things got out of hand. Goldeneye had a perfect balance of plot and action and should be an example of "rebooting" Bond with a new actor.

They NEED to get rid of Purvis and Wade though, they simply can't write good comedy without it being a paraody, nore good plot or dialogue.

The other option is to strip down the films and make them spy thrillers. Like a modern day FRWL. I'd personally love to see them keep things simple, but with too many hands in sponsorship deals, they're forced to fit everything in.