Is James Bond past his sell-by date?

[doubleoLisa]

Found this on a film blg he made a few good points about stopping the series although I think in the plus column the combination of "the Sam Mendes Bond, the Peter Morgan Bond" were a continuation of all that was wrong in Quantum of Solace.

The next 007 movie has been cancelled, so should the producers just use their licence to kill off a tired old spy?

Actor Daniel Craig as James Bond in Casino Royale Final shot? ... Daniel Craig as James Bond in Casino Royale. Photograph: Reuters

Bond 23 – the Sam Mendes Bond, the Peter Morgan Bond, the Bond that was going to right all the wrongs of Quantum of Solace – is no more. Although its status had been set to "indefinitely delayed" since April, the continuing financial mess at MGM means that the film has now been cancelled altogether. It also means that we're back in a situation where the next 007 movie could feasibly be several years away.

The ramifications are huge, not least for Daniel Craig who, at 42, may have slipped into the old tuxedo for the last time. But maybe it's time that a bigger question was asked. Should James Bond's enforced hiatus be turned into a permanent retirement? Some arguments for and against:

In favour of keeping Bond

1. Bond 23 actually sounded quite good. Combining a script by Peter Morgan with the cinematic know-how of Sam Mendes seemed like a match made in heaven, and casting Rachel Weisz as the big baddie was nothing short of a masterstroke. The plans might be mothballed now but, if MGM can sort itself out soon, this still seems like a film worth making.

2. The 007 series thrives on long sabbaticals. The six years between Licence to Kill and Goldeneye reinvigorated the franchise, as did the four-year gap between Die Another Day and Casino Royale. Given a few more years off, there's no reason why the next James Bond film shouldn't manage to come back just as strongly.

3. Quantum of Solace would be a sorry epitaph for such a distinguished franchise. It featured a near-mute hero, a nondescript baddie who screamed like a girl when he was being beaten up, an indecipherable Bond girl and even a scene where James Bond actually wore a cardigan. A cardigan. That's no way for an icon like 007 to bow out. He deserves his Abbey Road; his final fan-pleasing shot at glory complete with tuxedos, gadgets, Moneypenny, exotic locations, single karate chops that can render villains unconscious, quips aplenty, barely disguised misogyny, a Russian baddie who lives in an underwater lair and zero-gravity sexual intercourse. It's what the fans demand. Probably.

In favour of ditching Bond

1. James Bond isn't James Bond any more. He's a tedious exercise in relentless product placement transparently modelled on Jason Bourne. James Bond actually died long ago, when Roger Moore strapped himself into his first male girdle and started wheezing around in a safari suit. The Connery films will still exist no matter what happens at MGM. Do people really want anything else?

2. Although sabbaticals bring out the best in Bond, things never stay that way. It didn't take long for Brosnan's Bond to descend into a death spiral of invisible cars and sky-lasers and diamond-powered Korean dream machines and Teri Hatcher. On the basis of Quantum of Solace, Daniel Craig has already turned into a cartoon of a nightclub bouncer whose mother didn't hug him enough. Even if the franchise does make a successful return, it'll soon slip back into the same old mediocrity. So why even bother?

3. Admit it, you wouldn't miss the James Bond films if they disappeared. Nobody would. The hype never justifies the finished product. Maybe we should just let the character die with dignity while he still can.

So which side of the fence are you on? Should the producers use this break in proceedings as an opportunity to put James Bond out to pasture, or is it still too early to send him to the glue factory? Your thoughts below, please.

[katied]

Found this on a film blg he made a few good points about stopping the series although I think in the plus column the combination of "the Sam Mendes Bond, the Peter Morgan Bond" were a continuation of all that was wrong in Quantum of Solace.

The next 007 movie has been cancelled, so should the producers just use their licence to kill off a tired old spy?

Actor Daniel Craig as James Bond in Casino Royale Final shot? ... Daniel Craig as James Bond in Casino Royale. Photograph: Reuters

Bond 23 – the Sam Mendes Bond, the Peter Morgan Bond, the Bond that was going to right all the wrongs of Quantum of Solace – is no more. Although its status had been set to "indefinitely delayed" since April, the continuing financial mess at MGM means that the film has now been cancelled altogether. It also means that we're back in a situation where the next 007 movie could feasibly be several years away.

The ramifications are huge, not least for Daniel Craig who, at 42, may have slipped into the old tuxedo for the last time. But maybe it's time that a bigger question was asked. Should James Bond's enforced hiatus be turned into a permanent retirement? Some arguments for and against:

In favour of keeping Bond

1. Bond 23 actually sounded quite good. Combining a script by Peter Morgan with the cinematic know-how of Sam Mendes seemed like a match made in heaven, and casting Rachel Weisz as the big baddie was nothing short of a masterstroke. The plans might be mothballed now but, if MGM can sort itself out soon, this still seems like a film worth making.

2. The 007 series thrives on long sabbaticals. The six years between Licence to Kill and Goldeneye reinvigorated the franchise, as did the four-year gap between Die Another Day and Casino Royale. Given a few more years off, there's no reason why the next James Bond film shouldn't manage to come back just as strongly.

3. Quantum of Solace would be a sorry epitaph for such a distinguished franchise. It featured a near-mute hero, a nondescript baddie who screamed like a girl when he was being beaten up, an indecipherable Bond girl and even a scene where James Bond actually wore a cardigan. A cardigan. That's no way for an icon like 007 to bow out. He deserves his Abbey Road; his final fan-pleasing shot at glory complete with tuxedos, gadgets, Moneypenny, exotic locations, single karate chops that can render villains unconscious, quips aplenty, barely disguised misogyny, a Russian baddie who lives in an underwater lair and zero-gravity sexual intercourse. It's what the fans demand. Probably.

In favour of ditching Bond

1. James Bond isn't James Bond any more. He's a tedious exercise in relentless product placement transparently modelled on Jason Bourne. James Bond actually died long ago, when Roger Moore strapped himself into his first male girdle and started wheezing around in a safari suit. The Connery films will still exist no matter what happens at MGM. Do people really want anything else?

2. Although sabbaticals bring out the best in Bond, things never stay that way. It didn't take long for Brosnan's Bond to descend into a death spiral of invisible cars and sky-lasers and diamond-powered Korean dream machines and Teri Hatcher. On the basis of Quantum of Solace, Daniel Craig has already turned into a cartoon of a nightclub bouncer whose mother didn't hug him enough. Even if the franchise does make a successful return, it'll soon slip back into the same old mediocrity. So why even bother?

3. Admit it, you wouldn't miss the James Bond films if they disappeared. Nobody would. The hype never justifies the finished product. Maybe we should just let the character die with dignity while he still can.

So which side of the fence are you on? Should the producers use this break in proceedings as an opportunity to put James Bond out to pasture, or is it still too early to send him to the glue factory? Your thoughts below, please.

Weirdly enough, I don't think I would miss the Bond films if they were to go away for good. There would be much rending of garments at the fanboy sites but that's just too bad.


Spot on about the the villain though. I liked Le Chiffre, but Greene was and Elvis-a Bond henchman who looks like Lurch? Not threatening at all!

[Blowfeld]

Unless 007 is in the stages of preproduction people are always eager to start in on this line of thought and they are always wrong. Bond will always be pertinent so long as we as a society have need of a heroes.

Althou this is particular round of critiques is more damning of the reboot than of James himself. Wasn't Daniel supposed to have reinvigorated the once proud now sagging franchise. How could it possibly have run out of petrol so quickly? World worst reinvigoration in my opinion This kind of talk was missing from Pierce's 007 era when that fateful hiatus began.

I saw an interesting theory on this earlier I'll repost it in a moment.

[Blowfeld]

Someone poseted this on the BJMDDS:EON's direction with James Bond thread at Alternate 007 forum

Someone posted this on the recent Ain't It Cool MGM thread.

I'm A Lifelong Bond Fanatic And, through my work, I have some connections to the people who make the films - and I have to put forth a theory here that I don't think anyone seems to be picking up on. The Broccolis, that is Barbara and her stepbrother Michael Wilson, are in complete control of Bond and seem to be using MGM's status as an excuse to stop making the films. Why would they do that? Because they're greedy and lazy and they're tired. This is a family business they inherited and thus they never had the same passion (or, IMHO, the creative understanding) for that their father did. They have swung like a pendulum trying to guess what the public wants, but they don't seem to truly "get" what makes their hero/franchise so special. But on every film they have made these unbelievable "Producer Fees" above and beyond their ownership of the franchise and they are filthy ****ing rich. Ever wonder why Bond doesn't seem to end up in a major city anymore, like Bourne does? Because instead of putting the money "back on the screen" the way Cubby did, they put it all in their pockets. They don't really care that much, but they are also confused by the mixed responses they get their flailing. (QOS was a good film that could have been great, IMO, with just a better edit) It's not unlike what happened after Licence To Kill. Cubby stopped making the films not because he was in the middle of a lawsuit - that is the PR myth that Bond fans have been repeating for years - no, he was tired. Dalton's second film was the closest thing the series had to an outright box office bomb. His stepson was in charge and running this great series into the ground. Wilson wrote a script all by himself...Cubby read it and rejected it...and a six year "hiatus" was born. At that point, Cubby was old and didn't want the grief, wanted a break after 25 years of making Bond movies. I think the same thing is happening now. I think these two just want to do nothing and enjoy life. It could be the development of the new script wasn't going very well, or it just presented choices they were tired of making. But they have the right to take Bond anywhere they want. This MGM situation just gives them an excuse to go on holiday. I'm not demonizing them. They're just very very rich and this business is not something that's really in their veins - it could be a chain of hardware stores for all they really care. I say this not just as a fan, but as somebody who has known people working on the films. So... While I'm very disappointed, I'm wondering if maybe this isn't the beginning of the Broccolis selling off Bond altogether and getting out of the 007 business. I hope so. I think the series would benefit from the stewardship of someone new and fresh and who really loves it. That's my two cents. Sorry for the long post, guys

.

[Capt. Sir Dominic Flandry]

Someone poseted this on the BJMDDS:EON's direction with James Bond thread at Alternate 007 forum

Someone posted this on the recent Ain't It Cool MGM thread.

I'm A Lifelong Bond Fanatic And, through my work, I have some connections to the people who make the films - and I have to put forth a theory here that I don't think anyone seems to be picking up on. The Broccolis, that is Barbara and her stepbrother Michael Wilson, are in complete control of Bond and seem to be using MGM's status as an excuse to stop making the films. Why would they do that? Because they're greedy and lazy and they're tired. This is a family business they inherited and thus they never had the same passion (or, IMHO, the creative understanding) for that their father did. They have swung like a pendulum trying to guess what the public wants, but they don't seem to truly "get" what makes their hero/franchise so special. But on every film they have made these unbelievable "Producer Fees" above and beyond their ownership of the franchise and they are filthy ****ing rich. Ever wonder why Bond doesn't seem to end up in a major city anymore, like Bourne does? Because instead of putting the money "back on the screen" the way Cubby did, they put it all in their pockets. They don't really care that much, but they are also confused by the mixed responses they get their flailing. (QOS was a good film that could have been great, IMO, with just a better edit) It's not unlike what happened after Licence To Kill. Cubby stopped making the films not because he was in the middle of a lawsuit - that is the PR myth that Bond fans have been repeating for years - no, he was tired. Dalton's second film was the closest thing the series had to an outright box office bomb. His stepson was in charge and running this great series into the ground. Wilson wrote a script all by himself...Cubby read it and rejected it...and a six year "hiatus" was born. At that point, Cubby was old and didn't want the grief, wanted a break after 25 years of making Bond movies. I think the same thing is happening now. I think these two just want to do nothing and enjoy life. It could be the development of the new script wasn't going very well, or it just presented choices they were tired of making. But they have the right to take Bond anywhere they want. This MGM situation just gives them an excuse to go on holiday. I'm not demonizing them. They're just very very rich and this business is not something that's really in their veins - it could be a chain of hardware stores for all they really care. I say this not just as a fan, but as somebody who has known people working on the films. So... While I'm very disappointed, I'm wondering if maybe this isn't the beginning of the Broccolis selling off Bond altogether and getting out of the 007 business. I hope so. I think the series would benefit from the stewardship of someone new and fresh and who really loves it. That's my two cents. Sorry for the long post, guys

.

I think this chap has summed up the situation.

The article doubleolisa posted was interesting too. Although the author is palying devil's advocate with his arguments for and again Bond returning the line "Admit it, you wouldn't miss the James Bond films if they disappeared. Nobody would" is a bit daft as the Bond movies always make lots of money. There are many big budget flops in the movie world but Bpond has not been one of them which means people will always watch Bond even if he is being played by a mumbling mini Bourne knock off.

[The Sweeney]

Interesting post...and insight into what could be going on behind the scenes.

I wouldn't give a toss if Babs and Mickey sold it off to someone who actually cares about Fleming's legacy and the Bond franchise. I will always be pleased they gave us CR in the past 20 years, but will never forgive them for the 4 movies under Brozza's reign, or QoS, a film that could have been superb, instead of an inferior sequel, totally devoid of Fleming traits (despite Forster's pretentious claims otherwise).

There is still plenty of unused Fleming material, and the fact that Babs and Mickey haven't tapped into this and exhausted it means they either -

1) Haven't read the Fleming novels, so have no idea what has not been put on screen, and what is still left remaining to be used.

2) Have read the Flming novels, but don't feel the unused material is worthy of being put on screen, in which case a big question mark has to be stuck over their pathetic heads. Do they honestly believe the abysmal scripts churned out for the likes of GE, TND, TWINE, DAD and QoS are far superior to Fleming's unused MR, DAF, TSWLM, YOLT and TMWTGG?

The more I think about this, the angrier I get!!!!!!

[Kristatos]

Do they honestly believe the abysmal scripts churned out for the likes of GE, TND, TWINE, DAD and QoS are far superior to Fleming's unused MR, DAF, TSWLM, YOLT and TMWTGG?

I simply don't think they value writers, which is odd considering MGW is a writer himself (hey, I never said he was a good writer...). To them, a script is almost an afterthought. Roger Michell pulled out of QOS because they didn't have a script ready AFTER SHOOTING HAD ALREADY BEGUN!God knows what they were actually shooting, it must have been like a $200 million edition of Whose Line...?

[The Sweeney]

Do they honestly believe the abysmal scripts churned out for the likes of GE, TND, TWINE, DAD and QoS are far superior to Fleming's unused MR, DAF, TSWLM, YOLT and TMWTGG?

I simply don't think they value writers, which is odd considering MGW is a writer himself (hey, I never said he was a good writer...). To them, a script is almost an afterthought. Roger Michell pulled out of QOS because they didn't have a script ready AFTER SHOOTING HAD ALREADY BEGUN!God knows what they were actually shooting, it must have been like a $200 million edition of Whose Line...?

Utter shambles!!

[Omega]

1) Haven't read the Fleming novels, so have no idea what has not been put on screen, and what is still left remaining to be used.

2) Have read the Flming novels, but don't feel the unused material is worthy of being put on screen, in which case a big question mark has to be stuck over their pathetic heads. Do they honestly believe the abysmal scripts churned out for the likes of GE, TND, TWINE, DAD and QoS are far superior to Fleming's unused MR, DAF, TSWLM, YOLT and TMWTGG?

The more I think about this, the angrier I get!!!!!!

You might have to go back further than GE to some of the Moore and Dalton movies.
I do wonder if they do not know what they have done before and that isn't why a reboot captivated them. Looking at it this way maybe it is why they depend on P&W as writers to know the history and novels and why P&W are indispensable to them.

[Kristatos]

I do wonder if they do not know what they have done before and that isn't why a reboot captivated them. Looking at it this way maybe it is why they depend on P&W as writers to know the history and novels and why P&W are indispensable to them.

They certainly seem to know their Fleming, from the interviews I've read with them, and the seem to be about the only people involved with the franchise who actually "get" Bond. That's why I can't understand the venom they attract, except when it comes from people who don't really like Bond and want to transform the franchise into something else.

[Kokopelli]

What about the books not written by Ian Flaming if his books are used up why not use the other books for some ideas.

[Kristatos]

What about the books not written by Ian Flaming if his books are used up why not use the other books for some ideas.

Won't happen. EON don't own the rights, and it's cheaper to pay screenwriters for "original" plots that to buy the rights and then have to pay screenwriters the same amount of money to adapt them for the screen.

[Mazer Rackham]

What about the books not written by Ian Flaming if his books are used up why not use the other books for some ideas.

Won't happen. EON don't own the rights, and it's cheaper to pay screenwriters for "original" plots that to buy the rights and then have to pay screenwriters the same amount of money to adapt them for the screen.

It is not all that much money to buy the rights but as you say, since the days of Cubby and Saltzman EON has shied away from all the books they didn't already own. Even a partnership for the most successful Bond in history Thunderball was a tough sell and even tougher for them to swallow their pride enough to stomach the cut in their share of the profits. Cubby could have made CR with Connery as Bond (around the time of YOLT), given it would entail another partnership he didn't want to.

However seeing as his kids are bereft of ideas I understand why fans say just use Gardner and Benson books, it really isn't necessary or that good a source material. Cubby did show is kids the way with GE but they were too incompetent to bother working on new material to make it quality. The TND script and shooting was a disaster, another rush job. Foreshadowing the horror stories of the Quark melt down ten years later. You'd think as a script writer himself Mikey would have half a clue. Except he was rubbish, he got to where is by nepotism. Easily the degrading of Bond can been seen from where he comes on board continuing right up to the point where Cubby pulls the plug. Six year later MGW was moved to where he could do less harm and the series was a success again. All that said if Mikey were to retire like he had talked about the franchise would be left in very dangerous hands. For all his flaws as producer and writer Mike at least gets it, where as his half sister doesn't have a clue. She crashed the series in this ditch. If they are to get out of it Mikey needs to be involved. His gut feelings on actors and direction have been better than Babs and closer to Cubbys.

[Blowfeld]

Speak of the devil.

The Slingshot Syndrome - John Gardner's Licence Renewed - Alt 007

'The World is to be held to ransom by an an insane nuclear physicist who threatens meltdown of six nuclear power stations. Believing he has designed a truly safe nuclear reactor, his plan will demonstrate the threat of current reactors, and supply him with the capital he needs to build his own...'

In 1981 a new series of James Bond books began and it was British author John Gardner who had the enviable/unenviable task of writing them and trying to fill the late Ian Fleming's shoes. Gardner was not Vladimir Nabokov (or even Kingsley Amis for that matter, Amis once the author of an excellent Bond novel called Colonel Sun) but was seen as a solid sort who could churn out a thriller fairly rapidly so he got the job. I remember once starting a Gardner book about an invasion of Britain by the Soviet Union or something and never got beyond seven pages so I can't claim to say he's a personal favourite of mine. His James Bond continuation novels tended to divide opinion on the whole with some enjoying the cinematic nature of the plots and feeling they were actually better than the scripts EON were conjuring up for the films and others feeling they were very prosaic and that it was a tad jarring to have Fleming's literary character transplanted into the eighties.

In Licence Renewed the elite 00 section of British agents has been disbanded due to budget cuts but M insists on keeping James Bond around. 'There are moments when this country needs a troubleshooter - a blunt instrument- and by heaven it's going to have one.' Bond now has flecks of grey in his hair, has cut down on his drinking and smoking and drives a, er, gadget laden Saab instead of a gadget laden Aston Martin. 'James Bond shifted down into third gear, drifted the Saab 900 Turbo into a tight left-hand turn, clinging to the grass shoulder, then put a fraction more power to bring the car out of the bend.' The plot has SIS becoming aware of connections between Franco Oliviero Quesoscriado, a terrorist, and Anton Murik, a nuclear physicist who left the International Atomic Energy Commission. Murik is Laird Anton of Murik and hosts Highland Games. He also has a castle and a henchman named Caber. Bond is sent to investigate Murik and discovers a potentially devastating plot to take over six nuclear power plants and hold the world to ransom.


As this was the first Gardner Bond book it's understandable that he still seems to be finding his feet and riffing on moments from the films with Goldfinger, Thunderball and On Her Majesty's Secret Service all seeming to provide inspiration here in one form or another. It's not all one way traffic though as Gardner's excellent fight between Bond and Murik's henchman Caber in a C-14 cargo plane later turned up in the 1987 James Bond film The Living Daylights with Timothy Dalton battling henchman Necros in a cargo plane. Gardner does not have the languid descriptive abilities and charm of Ian Fleming but he does know how to keep a story going and makes Licence Renewed as action packed as possible. A weakness of the book though is the fact that while you can just about get away with having the cinematic Bond in the present day the literary character is a slightly different animal and it never quite felt right to me to have him wandering around in the eighties and driving a Saab etc. There are a lot of gadgets in Bond's Saab but Gardner maintained they were based on real life inventions and not pure fantasy.

Licence Renewed benefits from a good villain in Anton Murik who is five feet tall and collects weapons and torture instruments. The relationship between Bond and M is quite pleasantly done too and a little warmer than it sometimes was in the Fleming books with Bill Tanner also returning. Licence Renewed was the first James Bond novel since 1968 and the sense of a sort of rebirth here is quite nicely done. 'James Bond's heart leaped, and he felt a new urgency coursing through his veins. It was a long time since M had addressed him as 007, and it signified that he could well be off into the real unknown again. He could almost smell the possibilities.' The banter between Bond and Moneypenny owes quite a bit to the films in Licence Renewed. Q branch is still run by Major Boothroyd but he has an assistant called Ann Reilly known as Q'ute who features instead. As I understand, Gardner couldn't use Q because that character was a creation of the film series and so decided to introduce something new to Q branch. Major Boothroyd remains in the background here and isn't seen.

Although it lacks the polish and elegance of Fleming's better works, Licence Renewed is likable enough for rattling along at a good pace with some fun set-pieces and decent characters. The plot is slightly reminiscent of a film called The China Syndrome but at least supplies a grand and dangerous scheme for the villain to plot and explain to Bond. The last actual Bond film had a truly rubbish villain trying to steal water or something so I'd take nuclear reactor ransom any day of the week when it comes to Bond baddie schemes. With locations including London, Murik Castle (Scotland) and Perpignan (France) this is a modestly inventive book that can be read relatively quickly and is undemanding fun. The main quibbles would be Gardner lacking Fleming's descriptive abilities and parts of the plot being rather contrived with Bond able to gain confidences and infiltrate places just a little too easily at times.

Like many of the Gardner Bond books, Licence Renewed is readable and entertaining but somewhat forgettable and lacks the panache of Ian Fleming. I don't think this is the best example of his Bond related works but it's of interest as the novel which relaunched the literary adventures, paving the way for others to follow. James Bond fans will get a mild kick out of Licence Renewed but the heavy shadow cast by Ian Fleming is a difficult one to escape.

- Jake