I'm always up for new Bond.

I have no issues with a female bond, though I don't think it's likely to happen. Modern Bond bears so little resemblance to the character that Ian Fleming created that any suggestion of staying true to the character hold no weight anymore.

The best idea I've heard people say is Idris Elba as Bond. His name was thrown about a bit after Skyfall when it wasn't clear if Craig was gonna stay on, but sadly he's probably too old for the role now. More than likely they'll go with someone young, not any of the big names that's being thrown around.


Also the Mission Impossible films don't even come close to Craig's bond films, wtf?

 

"The name is Bond, Jane Bond."

 

Somehow I picture her holding a riding crop while saying that.

 

It's been too long since I've seen the others to make direct comparisons, but Spectre came out the same year as and had a very similar plot to Rogue Nation (which makes comparing them easy), and was absolutely the inferior movie.

While Craig is a good Bond, the actual films have been very uneven. The genuinely good Casino Royale and decent Skyfall are dragged down by the weak QoS and Spectre.

Meanwhile, there's only been one other MI movie since Casino Royale came out (Ghost Protocol), and I remember it being good. The others are all over 10 years old now, and I can't remember them clearly. Still, after Craig's debut that's MI going 2 for 2 in creating good movies while Bond is 2 for 4.

While I wouldn't take their word as gospel, critics seem to agree: Craig's Bonds average 69-70 points while post-Craig MIs average 74 and MI overall averages 66-67.

Also I'd be shocked if they went for someone as old and high profile as Elba, when historically they've gone for the cheaper option of finding someone less well known.

 

Oh wow, it almost feels like people's taste in movies varies and depends on mostly subjective opinions.

 

You could say the exact same thing about fanfic, and you don't see people going "But dude it's mostly subjective so lol you're dumb to disagree with someone." about that here.

I never claimed critics agreeing made my opinion scientific fact (even outright stated it didn't, including it merely to show the general consensus of a group one would hope has a decent understanding of the medium). Sure I could have gone into excruciating detail about all the specific things that made me find movie X better than movie Y, but I don't think a simple "they don't even come close wtf" requires an in-depth review for a response. Nor does every post about a work of fiction's quality require a "This is my opinion and you're entitled to your own" disclaimer when that should be obvious.

 

I'm a pretty big Bond fan, and Daniel Craig is my favorite Bond. Two of Craig's films are in my top five: Casino and Skyfall (the other three being Goldfinger, From Russia with Love, and Goldeneye). On the whole, I think the Craig films make up the best four-film run in the franchise. I'd love for Craig to do Bond 25.

 

I liked Casino Royale very much, but found the other three of Craig's Bond movies to be bland, badly paced and all around not to my taste. Craig has been good for the most part though, but he's not a top three Bond to me. So I'm looking forward to them finding a new Bond and going to a slightly different direction.

As for the matter of female Bond, I'd hope they would create a new franchise instead of messing with a long running franchise, but it's not a big deal to me all in all. I expect it's not even seriously considered anymore seeing as the new Ghostbusters which changed the main cast to women seemed to do rather badly.

 

This is true, to an extent. I posted that mostly for your own benefit since what I wanted to say at the time (and will say now) is that you are so full of shit that you not only absolutely believe your opinion is based in fact (when it is not) but you are absolutely convinced that you are right, leaving no room for doubt in your head even though people very clearly disagree with you.

Yes, there are some objective angles from which to compare movies of similar genres or even movies in general. But guess what? That doesn't mean that there are no subjective lenses from which we look at them. Spectre was very clearly not a badly produced movie, and any attempts you make to say otherwise comes from your own personal prejudices, not any degree of objectivity.

At the end of the day, when top of the line movies such as the Bond series and MI roll around, most of the production quality is similar enough that any comparison has to be made on personal preferences.

 

This.

The main problem for me is continuity. The Craig era has made a real thing of Bond's origins, sometimes successfully and sometimes not (while I thoroughly enjoyed SPECTRE, I thought the linking of Blofeld and Bond was really dumb), so if they try to maintain continuity with those films then they should keep him as is.

If on the other hand they make it clear it's a new interpretation, with no specific links to previous films (at least in terms of plot/setting), then fuck it. Why not? I'd probably roll my eyes a little, then forget about it until the trailer came out, at which point I'd judge it based on quality.

It does strike me though that the main reason this is even a debate is that a huge portion of the fandom have taken a few jokey in-universe references to the different actors too seriously, and it's become accepted almost as fact that the different Bonds are actually different characters, not just the same character re-cast. There's never been any serious suggestion that that's the case, certainly prior to Craig. Casino Royale was a confirmed reboot, and as I said above, his films have gone out of their way to make it clear that Bond isn't a code name, it isn't a cover, anything like that - I got into a massive argument on Facebook over this after Skyfall came out, when people were arguing the case for Bond being a codename having just watched a film where the last hour takes place (and the whole film is named after) his family estate, you can see his parents grave, he uses his dad's old gun, and he's supported by the family groundskeeper, who reminisces about Bond's childhood.

 

Except that's not the case at all. If it really makes you feel better, you're welcome to mentally add "IMO" to the end of every sentence I wrote (and erase 'absolutely' I guess if you're taking it more literally than most), but that shouldn't be remotely necessary in a thread where things are clearly going to be 99% a matter of opinion. I assume everyone here is a grown up and doesn't actually believe they are the universal arbiters of taste when I read their posts (unless they outright say "this is objective truth" without a hint of humor).

Take a look at the post I replied to in the first place, for instance:

While I may disagree with Bill Door, and while this was phrased as a statement (just like my horribly objectionable response), I very much doubt it was intended as a declaration of absolute heavenly-inspired truth.

Same goes for a lot of other posts itt, such as the last 4 posts on the first page.

It'd be great to be given that same benefit of the doubt.

Hell, I even explicitly stated that critics agreeing with me shouldn't be taken as proof of anything, on the off chance that someone mistook my mentioning them to mean I believed they actually prove me "correct". That should have been a hint that I wasn't going for a universal theory of objective action movie quality.

I disagreed with someone and said how I disagreed. Perhaps I'd have been better served just saying "Nah I think they do come close, might even be better on average recently" but decided to give at least a little detail on why I feel that way. Utterly bizarre to jump down someone's throat for that.

As I never claimed objectivity, denied the existence and importance of subjective factors in judging films, or said Spectre was lacking in overall production values, I haven't quoted the remainder of your post.

In any case, I've said my piece (regrettably long-windedly). At this point anybody who still wants to believe I'm a moron convinced he's the one true expert on movie quality isn't going to change their mind, so I won't drag things any more off topic.

 

James Bond is the quintessential male fantasy of the Cold Era, with plenty of misogyny, fetishism and idealization around. Making a female Bond could be doable but it would neither to either make the character a woman wearing a man's skin, which is annoying tbh, or further descharacterize Bond. Both bad options. Bond is a label and there are certain expectancies towards it.

Why not just create your own character? Or choose one from the many interesting works, be it television or books, with women as the leads? Just to cash in? Or make it a spin off, that's good too

But yes, I do think that Bond should take a few step backs in the timeline. Today is not much of a physical action age.

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I'm all for genderbending. That said, there has to be a point to gender swapping established characters.

If they have a story that would be better served with a man-eater femme fatale Bond at the helm, then by all means, genderbend away.

But don't do it just for the sake of genderswapping.

If all you really want is to have a female lead with the Bond brand's selling power, then write a really good transition film where Craig's Bond hands the reigns over to a daughter or something.

 

The entire Bond Franchise has worked very hard to stay rather traditionally Bond. In a time where sex on the screen is more the norm than the exception they have maintained their stance that it is best to leave it up to the viewer's imagination. It is the small things like that which lead me to believe that they will not go for the female role. The fact that James is a playboy male is such a cornerstone of his character that to change that to being female would just not work. Society pretty much labels a man who plays around as lucky and cool whereas a woman that plays around is not labeled so nicely.