'The Spectator' Article - Why it's time to kill off James Bond

Silhouette Man

Link here:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/arts/heckler/9493932/the-heckler-why-its-time-to-kill-off-james-bond/

So what do we make of this then? -{

AlphaOmegaSin

The Franchise has not ran out of Ideas. In fact, there are many more to be used -{ (There is still quite a bit bit of Fleming Material to be mined)

Matt S

This article is nonsense! I don't care much for Daniel Craig's Bond films either, but I don't agree at all with this piece.

broadshoulder

It may be that now that the bonds have gone stratospheric the spectator needs an article about this to get noticed
No one reads the spectator anyway but what it could mean someone else picking this up and running with it
We had enough trouble regarding idris Elba and the race row. Bond is big news now. I expect lots of silly stories.

HowardB

I guess the author subscribes to the time honored literary tradition of "never let the facts get in the way of a good argument".
Using anything gleaned from the Sony leaks is a joke....those were the ramblings and rumblings of a bunch of Hollywood bean counters who only give a fat rat's arse about the financial bottom line. The story about EON giving in to the the Mexican government for money has never been proven as fact and even if they did, EON is not the British or American Government, they are in the entertainment business and making a Bond film not a documentary on the troubles in Mexico. Finally, who cares what this twit thinks. Too much of what is written these days is to insite a reaction. The other thing that this bozo also ignores is the 5000 lb gorilla in the room....Bonds films are just as popular as ever. The bottom line is, as long as people will pay money to see James Bond films, there will be James Bond films.

Firemass

ha ha ) I loved that article and agree with every point of criticism about Skyfall and the direction of the new films.

Gassy Man

I agree with a lot of what the article has to say, though I don't think its writer is as clever or droll as he thinks he is.

The basic gripe is that the writing, especially after Casino Royale, has been underwhelming, substituting the trivia of Bond's back story for what the series would in the past have embraced -- wit, romance, adventure, derring-do. He's right. The first film was enough of an origin story that we could have moved on. Bonds are a film franchise, not a cable TV serial.

Collectively, the three films seem to have spent a lot of time to keep the character spinning his wheels while the films still feel like they want to build to something better. It's becoming trite, especially for audiences who grew up on the classic films.

While I don't think it's time to end the Bond films, I'd agree that it's time to move on from the current approach.

broadshoulder

The election isn't going to well for the tories so hit the bond fans where it hurts

Absolutely_Cart

I agree that Bond needs to challenge it's own formula a little bit and it needs to find an identity that's both rooted in Fleming but also different than anything done before. But we don't need to kill off James Bond.

Thunderpussy

So after the most successful Bond film ever, it's now time to
Kill off the series ? ...... )

chrisisall

Rubbish.

Absolutely_Cart

Thunderpussy wrote:

So after the most successful Bond film ever, it's now time to
Kill off the series ? ...... )

AlphaOmegaSin

The Article is from The spectator, and that isn't exactly a brilliant Publication.

Number24

The article makes some valid points about the series getting too introspective an other franchises being more fun and having better gadgets, but on the whole it's wrong. The series is very vital and popular and it's full of ideas. :007)

always shaken

I agree with me old mucker AOS (I normaly do ) ) an article in the spectator ,a political slagging rag ,
what next ,a article in Zipper )

Silhouette Man

Ian Fleming wrote for 'The Spectator' too however.

002

M has a target drawn on this article. All double-ohs have been briefed but I think 007 should have first refusal...

AlphaOmegaSin

Silhouette Man wrote:

Ian Fleming wrote for 'The Spectator' too however.

Never knew that

And AS, don't you mean 'Young Mucker' ? )

broadshoulder

Silhouette Man wrote:

Ian Fleming wrote for 'The Spectator' too however.

Sounds like it was a scandal rag back in Flemings day. Honestly, who reads the Spectator?

Silhouette Man

broadshoulder wrote:

Silhouette Man wrote:

Ian Fleming wrote for 'The Spectator' too however.

Sounds like it was a scandal rag back in Flemings day. Honestly, who reads the Spectator?

Conservative Party voters and members as it's their publication, just as the left-wing read the New Statesman.

clublos

While I cannot comment on the political motivations of this publication nor on the political landscape of the UK, I believe the topic of conversation in this article is extrememely relevant and should be discussed, perhaps in a more intelligently crafted piece.

Casino Royale, while far from perfect, did an admirable job of reinventing the character for modern times, a trend most certainly de rigueur. I gave an allowance to QOS for completing the story arc, but Skyfall's bastardization of Fleming's character and its fear of offending anyone classifies it as one of the series' lesser entries. Brutality, sexism and wit are key ingredients sorely missed.

I'd agrue that another reboot will be required after Craig's tenure, not in story but in tone, similar to FYEO's following of Moonraker. However, given current trends, the Bond custodians (I cannot refer to them as producers) will most likely revert back to the over-indulgence and fantasy of Brosnan's films.

BIG TAM

Silhouette Man wrote:

Link here:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/arts/heckler/9493932/the-heckler-why-its-time-to-kill-off-james-bond/

So what do we make of this then? -{

Oh dear, another writer with an anti-Bond agenda. I really have no time for these essays by superior types. They read dull & humourless despite their striving for cool irony. In fact I could write such pieces for them as I know exactly what they're going to say in advance. It's also a little laughable when they attempt to show a knowledge of 007 by shoehorning in the clichéd 'glory days' line, as though their (limited) knowledge is well on a par with real Bond fans. Film critics have always come unstuck with this & the Spectator writer is no exception. A long-running series has to evolve with the times whilst staying faithful to the ethos of the character. I think the last three films have done just that.
So, I can accept criticism from my fellow AJB fans - people with a passion for the character, books & films. But not from somebody with a desire to hate a well-loved series of films because it doesn't fit in with their skewed political ideology.

Silhouette Man

clublos wrote:

While I cannot comment on the political motivations of this publication nor on the political landscape of the UK, I believe the topic of conversation in this article is extrememely relevant and should be discussed, perhaps in a more intelligently crafted piece.

Casino Royale, while far from perfect, did an admirable job of reinventing the character for modern times, a trend most certainly de rigueur. I gave an allowance to QOS for completing the story arc, but Skyfall's bastardization of Fleming's character and its fear of offending anyone classifies it as one of the series' lesser entries. Brutality, sexism and wit are key ingredients sorely missed.

I'd agrue that another reboot will be required after Craig's tenure, not in story but in tone, similar to FYEO's following of Moonraker. However, given current trends, the Bond custodians (I cannot refer to them as producers) will most likely revert back to the over-indulgence and fantasy of Brosnan's films.

Well, I really wouldn't go that far, old chap.

clublos

Silhouette Man wrote:

clublos wrote:

While I cannot comment on the political motivations of this publication nor on the political landscape of the UK, I believe the topic of conversation in this article is extrememely relevant and should be discussed, perhaps in a more intelligently crafted piece.

Casino Royale, while far from perfect, did an admirable job of reinventing the character for modern times, a trend most certainly de rigueur. I gave an allowance to QOS for completing the story arc, but Skyfall's bastardization of Fleming's character and its fear of offending anyone classifies it as one of the series' lesser entries. Brutality, sexism and wit are key ingredients sorely missed.

I'd agrue that another reboot will be required after Craig's tenure, not in story but in tone, similar to FYEO's following of Moonraker. However, given current trends, the Bond custodians (I cannot refer to them as producers) will most likely revert back to the over-indulgence and fantasy of Brosnan's films.

Well, I really wouldn't go that far, old chap.

I guess what I meant was that a drastic shift in narrative and characterisation might substitute for a reboot, thus presenting the world an updated Bond that more closely represents Fleming's idea but inserts a modern pathos, for those that find it necessary...

CmdrAtticus

Though I understand some of his points, I would not be surprised if he had read even one of Fleming's novels.

How many of these "journalists" have pronounced the Bond series and the character to be a dead, anachronistic piece of art every time a new actor was brought in or the direction was updated. It really gets tired after a while. It's almost as if they are forced by their employer to write the piece so they already have a bad attitude to start with.

They cover up their ignorance of a subject by attempting to write with a pseudo sense of style and pompousness that to me just reveals their contempt for the subject and the laziness of their ideas (lets compare the third act of SF to Home Alone - once again, since no one on the planet has ever seen any other film in the history of cinema where this has been done before - and it certainly doesn't belong in a Bond film!).

"Journalists" like these scare me. Because their article is in a well known publication, those reading their work automatically assume they know what they are reporting on.
Instead, they remind me of many of their generation. They don't care about the past very much - in particular anything that happened of relevance before their lifetime - and what's worse will forget it. Then they will produce another generation who will think Sherlock Holmes is a film character that was played by Iron Man or that Orson Welles only did Rosebud - oh, wait, Cititzen Kane, or....wait, who's Orson Welles?

Thunderpussy

Pathos !, I don't want any of the Musketeers in a Bond film ! )
( Sorry, silly joke ) ;%

Blackleiter

Any valid points the author may have, and in my opinion there aren't many, are totally obscured by the unrelenting and condescending garbage he spews throughout. Such trash! :v

Thunderpussy

Over the years so many bad journalists have written Bond off. luckily
Their powers of prediction have proven to be as bad as their prose. )

Jag

I was surprised to agree with most of the article. I don’t want Bond to live in a fictitious world. The countries he visits and even embassies he attacks should be real. The Craig-formula Bond has been largely exhausted. I hope it’s not time for Bond to go, but it’s time to re-invent the

Thunderpussy

Hasn't Bond visited fictitious countries before ( LALD), I can see why they do it. As
They don't want to insult or cause problems during filming in a country, even ( LTK)
Had a fictional country, as I'm sure any S.American country would be complaining
if they were shown to have corrupt politicians in the pocket of a drug lord.

AlphaOmegaSin

Look at the Problems that EON has had with filming in Rome

But thats more to do with Rome's Mayor and Council.