Obviously there has been a lot of press given to the news that Bond will not be 007 in the new Bond movie and that 007 will be a new black, female character. While I feel that it's a decision that is disrespectful to the source material and character without editorial justification, that is not what this post is about.
This post is about the inference of having yet another movie beginning with a dysfunctional Bond who's not functioning as an employee of HMSS; namely, the writers don't know how to write an functioning Bond in today's geopolitical, social, and technological environment.
The Bond character is a relic of a Cold-War, colonial, ethnocentric western perspective who existed in a world without mass surveillance, drones, satellites etc. When the character was created he naturally fitted at the cutting edge of a nation's home security; not the case in today's world.
If we look at the last number of Bond titles since the turn of the century we see that this is a recurring theme and problem with many of the original scripts.
Goldeneye (1995) Although there is mention from M about Bond being a relic from the Cold War and a dinosaur he is still used functionally though the villain eventually turns out to be a fellow secret serviceman and a former friend.
Tomorrow Never Dies (1997) Again Bond is allowed to function as a spy and weapon of HMSS and stop a global terrorist threat
The World Is Not Enough (1999) Bond is sent by M to investigate a known terrorist and prevents a global threat. He is a functioning member of HMSS and M reveals that he is the best that they have.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Die Another Day (2003)
And so it begins. Bond is captured at the beginning of the movie and traded in a prisoner swap. He is treated with suspicion on his return and eventually has to go rogue to escape his own employers and prove his innocence, thus preventing a global threat.
Casino Royal (2006) A faithful adaption of the Ian Fleming novel has Bond as a (barely) functioning, useful member of HMSS using all of his skills to prevent a global threat.
Quantum of Solace (2008) Bond goes rogue again and goes off on a personal vendetta mission to avenge Vesper's death, inadvertently stumbling upon an international global threat and preventing it.
Skyfall (2012) Bond gets shot by his own t
... keep reading on reddit ➡
Sean Connery: 32 years, 1 month, 1 week and 3 days
George Lazenby: 30 years, 3 months, 1 week and 6 days
Roger Moore: 45 years, 8 months, 1 week and 6 days
Timothy Dalton: 41 years, 3 months, 1 week and 1 day
Pierce Brosnan: 42 years, 6 months and 1 day
Daniel Craig: 38 years, 8 months, 2 weeks and 1 day
Who do you think would play the role the worst?
Please dont post anything racist or sexist to rile people up. Thats not what im looking for here.
Off the top of my head, i think i would choose either Adam Sandler or Sylvester Stallone. I like both of these guys, but I think they would absolutely butcher the role. I can just picture Sandler cracking fart jokes in the casino while rolling dice, and scaring off all the bond girls, and Stallone gumming up the plan by acting like a doofus and letting the villain escape.
This is an expanded version of the post I wrote two years ago, reflecting some changes in my mind regarding how the series should have gone.
With Nando v Movies's video on Fantastic Beasts, which suggests the series should have been something akin to James Bond or Indiana Jones in Potterverse than another Harry Potter story formula, I also think Pirates trilogy should have been like that too.
After the massive success of Black Pearl, Disney's kneejerk reaction was to do their own big budget trilogy in the same vein of Star Wars (before acquiring Star Wars), The Lord of the Rings, and The Matrix. A grand saga full of cliffhangers, going full darker, big character arcs, lore, worldbuilding, continuity, complex plot, serious character drama, reviving previous characters, politics, human connections, etc.
It could be done I guess. I mean Star Wars was indeed intended to be a standalone film at first, but even for A New Hope, Darth Vader was escaped, the Empire was still there, the rebels weren't completely won the war, and the ending ceremony wasn't a marriage of Han/Luke and Leia. There were enough loose ties to warrant a sequel. Black Pearl feels like a solidly standalone story that ended and tied every thread of Will's story. The only loose tie The Black Pearl showed was not on Will Turner, but on Jack Sparrow, saying "Now... bring me that horizon," announcing he is set to have a brand new adventure.
However, Dead Man's Chest brought back Will and Elizabeth again, Norrington being a villain again, the whole Bill Turner family plot, and brought Barbossa as a good guy all felt like cheap DVD direct Disney sequels, making a mess of trilogy. Pirates of the Caribbean's formula fits better as a James Bond, Indiana Jones, Lupin the Third series style of the same iconic character going in different adventures for each film.
Oh wait, the last two Pirates films try that and failed, so that does not work, right? As Jack Sparrow has been commonly pointed out as the worst part about Pirates movies after the trilogy, I see the problem is they tried to make Jack Sparrow a protagonist.
Black Pearls worked well because he was not the protagonist. It is true his character got so famous, he stole all the attention from the audience, but if you think about it, the protagonist was Will and it was his story, who
... keep reading on reddit ➡
This is counting Rami Malek. Rami and Javier Bardem have each won a single oscar for acting and Christopher Waltz has won 2 oscars for acting.
EDIT: SEE NEWEST POST
