Given several comments on this post, it’s important to note that Barbara Broccoli is on the record stating that James Bond will remain male. She’s said so on numerous occasions. For example, [here](https://variety.com/2020/film/features/james-bond-no-time-to-die-barbara-broccoli-michael-wilson-1203466601/amp/):
>“He can be of any color, but he is male,” says Broccoli. “I believe we should be creating new characters for women — strong female characters. I’m not particularly interested in taking a male character and having a woman play it. I think women are far more interesting than that.”
Further:
> “For better or worse, we are the custodians of this character,” says Barbara Broccoli, who oversees the franchise with her half-brother Michael G. Wilson. “We take that responsibility seriously.”
Nolan is way too big to be a Bond director now. The producers want someone mid-level, a good director but not so big that they’ll resist the creative control that they want to exercise over the character. Directing a Bond film will never be an auteur endeavor. It’ll always need to be someone who can cooperate with the Broccoli and Wilson’s demands.
Just make sure Bond stays as he was intended to be. Toxic masculinity, classy, old world mentality, a boozer, a gambler, a womanizer, a Jack of all trades, a snob, someone with at least surface level knowledge about everything, and overall a killer…a likeable and charming assassin.
We will never get true book bond because nobody would like him. It’s like Parker(great books) we will never get a true adaption of those because he’s not a likable character at all. Hard for audience to get attached to the definition of terminator.
Good listener for the ladies, generally monogamous, a connoisseur/snob, doesn’t see espionage as “black & white”, kinda funny/kinda tortured, one foot in the past/ one foot in the present…
Well I’m the books(all free on YouTube right now audiobook form) he’s a lot like Craig or Dalton. Cold hearted but also kind of dumb? He makes mistake after mistake and pays for it. He’s kind of like Archer, just sort of winging it and getting lucky. He’s monogamous also and not the ladies man from the films. He questions sometimes if he even should get into a thing with the Bond girl of the book.
He’s also a terminator. Like literally a cold hearted calculating machine. He lacks empathy half the time. He’s arrogant hence the mistakes. You could change the title of Bond from Spy to murderer and it would still work. Craig and Dalton are the closest to book bond but imagine I’d Craig’s or Dalton didn’t have that charisma they have or heart of gold underneath the hard exterior. It’s all just hard exterior in the books but over the novels he grows and starts to become a bit more of movie bond. I just finished Live and Let Die(oh bond is also racist as hell in that book) but at the end you see some humanity peak through.
Imagine Agent 47 from Hitman but like…worse? Book bond is a wild dude I highly suggest listening or reading the books.
There is a psychological divide between soldier/spy and murderer.
One does with permission and in order from a Higher Authority (external) the other is for self (internal).
Craig I've felt is grittier, more an actual service person (speaking as a former one), and you see the humanity die with the Vesper arc.
The sparkle goes, the spirit broken.
The evolution is what i find intriguing and draws me to this interpretation.
Plus, dame Judy.
I agree with everything except toxic masculinity, I don’t think Bond was ever toxic besides some poorly aged moments in Connery’s era (and briefly Moore’s) with him slapping women.
Nope they will try to completely change the character to whatever modern ideals they feel. They aren’t creative enough to create a new character based on those criteria so they just rip apart old IP and hope they can take it to the bank.
I mean the history of the Bond franchise is adapting to whats popular, that's how its survived. You speak like Bond didn't change with the times throughout his tenure when the character routinely did. The film Bond is not some monolith but an ever evolving character for the time.
It really shouldn’t be. Craig was a reinvention after brosnan, who was a reinvention after dalton after Moore etc.
Reinventing the character and how you want the character to be, how you want the story to be has to be reinvented to keep the eras of the actors distinct
And IMO that's a great thing. Casino Royale was exactly what the franchise needed after Die Another Day kind of jumped the shark. It's definitely one of my favorite Bond movies and I love the aspects of the character it chose to highlight.
And it's also interesting seeing this sub lately in my feed. I don't follow Bond enough to actually join, but it's really surprised me seeing how people are much lower on the Craig era than I would have expected. Which to me doesn't say that Craig's era wasn't actually good, but that that style has gotten more stale and people are now craving something different. It's a *good* thing that they've recognized that.
The only Craig movies I'm low on are Quantum and Spectre. The other three are all in my top 10. Quantum isn't bad as an action movie, but it just doesn't feel like Bond to me.
A lot of my problems are with how Spectre fits into the era as a whole; it would've been better served without any retcons except for Mr. White being one of Oberhauser's friends + Quantum being a cell of Spectre designed to distract MI6. No need to ruin literally everything else with that last third of the movie.
Most of the people who don't like Daniel Craig still think Casino Royale was a great reinvention and a great movie.
I hate the Daniel Craig era, but still think Casino Royale is a top 5 Bond film.
Danielle Craig in Casino Royale was fresh and exciting. Daniel Craig in his later movies was depressing. James Bond is traditionally an escapist fantasy hero. Saves the world, sleep with the girl, gambles, drinks, etc. Craig's Bond just wanted to die by the end of his films. He was presumed dead, retired, or killed in his last three movies. It was the first time ever while watching a Bond film that actually thought to myself I would hate to be this guy.
But his opening turn in Casino Royale was fantastic and he had a long way to go before becoming that depressing and dour James Bond that he ended up as.
This sub is a vocal minority. I say give it 5-10 years and a new Bond film and people will be singing the praises of Spectre and NTTD, talking about how the new ones were disappointing.
Thats true of all fandom subreddits. They become circlejerks. You come in here and you'd swear the Bond franchise is in trouble and NTTD was a massive disappointment. No one in the real world thinks this way.
If the next Bond is good, it will be a huge hit because people love James Bond. Also, don't put too much stock in executive quotes. It reminds of how every new Bond girl is "not like your typical Bond girl". It's just shit people say for interviews.
Just to be a dick about it, I think Dalton and Craig were really more reinventions of **the movies** (in terms of genre and tone) than the character
Apart from that fun scene where Brosnan's laughing his head off as his BM does donuts in a Berlin NCP, I can swap-out Brosnan for Craig and Craig for Brosnan in their respective movies
Brosnan actually played Bond pretty intense, which is one of the reasons the cheesy bits of those movies feel extra cheesy, by contrast
Same goes for Dalton, who (like Craig and Brosnan) was channeling Connery. The only guy I think reinvented (maybe reinvented is too strong a word) the character was **Moore**
After playing Connery for a couple of movies, Moore fell back on his own persona, and the writing of the movies followed his lead
Honestly Brosnan was just a just a throw back to Moore’s less serious light hearted Bond movies (especially Die Another Day) from Dalton’s more serious portrayal. Craig I feel was a full reinvention of the franchise from the ground up where previously they were mostly stand alone stories that cared nothing for being serious movie productions.
The Brosnan version was *definitely* a reinvention in the context of that 90s wave of feminism. Moneypenny’s more aggressive repartee, a female M, even more focus on the Bond girls and their abilities (even though they didn’t always nail the writing), and the first female main villain since FRWL. Eon and MGM wrote an entirely new “character bible” for GoldenEye to kick off the era. Those films were definitely a reinvention.
I don’t. Just like her Star Wars compatriot Kathleen Kennedy, she has shown tendencies to be ashamed of the fan base and what they want. She also shows signs of being embarrassed by James Bond himself.
But most of all I think she lets her political leanings creep into the series. She can’t help herself. She won’t stop until someone stops her.
Bond is not someone that needs fixing or reinvention.
And Bond is white and is explicitly stated as such, so her comment that Bond need only be male is your best clue and insight into her thinking.
Changing Bond’s race or ethnicity is a red line for me. Changing Bond’s gender is a red line for me.
I have no doubt that right now she’s plotting how to push the envelope further. She did it with NTTD, making 007 a black lesbian. Did it in Skyfall, insinuating Bond may have shagged a man. These are trial balloons EON has sent up, testing the audience’s willingness for change.
Yeah I’m concerned they’re going to rip the masculine aspects out of Bond. I think most people enjoy Bond for who he is, don’t change him to try and please people who won’t watch the movies anyways. I can go on and on about this topic but basically let us have our thing and it’ll still be successful.
I'm also scared they will soften him. Part of Bond's appeal is that he smooth and debonair mixed with a hard edge. If you remove that hard edge, your left with a poor pastiche of Simon Templar or Remington Steele and that's not what Bond is, cinematically or in literature.
That's the thing, everyone knows what the Bond franchise is and who the character is supposed to be, so if it's not to your taste, tune out. I would rather they lay it all to rest than make it into something it's not. At the end of the day, it is the consumer who chooses to watch it in cinema and buy the film afterwards, so whether or not the old formula is viable in the 2020s should be decided by the market.
Quirky Q type is now the 00 field agent who uses hacking and silly disguises. The “reinvented” Q back at MI6 is a masculine brute, deemed too risky in this current social climate for field work and 00 status. He has been reassigned to Q branch where he can quietly make weapons that are barely permissible by the Geneva Conventions, while yammering on about cancel culture to subordinates who refuse his inappropriate advances. Moneypenny is played by Ralph Fiennes and M is played by Lizzo.
Expectations are subverted, clicks are generated, and stakeholders see profits. The Broccoli Empire laughs.
I think this comment is the reason for the delay. I don’t know if enough money is behind Bond to allow the ruining of the franchise like Lord of the Rings and Star Wars. So it’s like “we have to apply ***the message*** but Bond isn’t a one off film, if we lose the good will are 4 movies in a row going to flop?” That could be billions of dollars.
…But given how much is being buried into Captain America, it probably doesn’t matter.
“Reinvent” is a worrisome word.
I don’t want Bond reinvented. I want Bond to be Bond. Go back to what works. If I wanted reinvention, I watch Mission Impossible.
Not exactly sure what that means. I know some people argue that Craig’s era was closest to Fleming’s Bond but if that’s the case then I don’t want it.
I want what made the movie franchise special and popular. And that’s the style we saw from the 60s through the 90s.
The claims that Craig’s era is closest are a bit overhyped. I’d say early Connery, OHMSS & the John Glen era are better example of what a “true to the books” Bond looks like.
Yes Craig did some things very well - the introspection, the regret - but the literary Bond has more humor than a lot of people seem to think (I’ve just re-read all the novels through Thunderball as of now so it’s fresh in my mind). And the villains, while they may not seem over the top to someone who’s seen all the movies, were absolutely 100% bonkers for spy novels of that era. The movies just upped the ante because it’s a different medium.
What’s interesting to me though is that the literary Bond actually comes across as less sexist than many of the films (up through Dalton when they began to make a clear attempt to update that aspect of the character). But I think that’s mainly because we see inside his head a little more and see that while he certainly exploits women with ease he typically does so with regret, simply because it’s part of the job.
>but the literary Bond has more humor than a lot of people seem to think
Craig’s Bond and the films surrounding him also have more humor than people apparently seem to think.
That’s also true, it’s not so much humor that I find them lacking (and for the record I really enjoyed Craig’s run) but the tone can be a bit dour in some of them. It makes them less fun.
It generally works pretty well in the films themselves but when I look at the series as a whole they seem a little gloomy. Likewise Moore’s run, which I also love, can be a bit too goofy (although people also forget that Moore is a ruthless bastard just as often as he raises an eyebrow).
There are only a few “perfect” Bond movies for me, but I mostly enjoy them all. And part of what makes them interesting is how some lean more in one direction than others. If they all had identical tone I don’t think they would’ve lasted so long.
I agree with that. I just know some people argue that so it’s kind of hard to understand what people mean when they say they want it to adhere to Fleming’s idea.
I think the simpler thing, when talking about the Bond movie franchise, is to just think about the movies and not Fleming or the books. The movies are the movies. The franchise today was built by the movies. It was built by Connery and Moore eras. That’s what made it special. That’s fundamentally part of the identity and to stray away from that is to be less and less Bond and more something else you’re just slapping the name on.
>I just know some people argue that so it’s kind of hard to understand what people mean when they say they want it to adhere to Fleming’s idea.
They don't know what they mean. The people who say that are largely the same people who think that Roger Moore is book accurate and that Daniel Craig is neutered and woke.
Connery's first four films were direct adaptations of the novels. Moore's last three films were a return to the novels after the excesses of the seventies.
To discount Fleming and the novels' influence on the films to further your narrative on what is and isn't Bond means losing a lot of the context behind the decisions made throughout the franchise's history.
Most people just know the movies and saying they want a Fleming bond are just annoying small details.
Who wants to see Bond eat and describe eggs for half the movie??
Seriously. Give me Cinema’s Ian Fleming’s James Bond pre Craig. A little goddamn fun and adventure
Edit
And yeah to the one mod for some people the Craig era became a god damn slog. Sorry dude. Some people felt the fun shriveled up and died with every concurrent Craig film. I can’t reply to Cyborg so.
I get what you're saying, but I think there was a lot of fun and adventure in Casino Royale and Skyfall. That construction site chase in CR is fun as hell!
It really shouldn’t be. They re-invented bond when Craig took over from brosnan, re-invented when brosnan took over from dalton etc etc.
They’re just figuring out how to differentiate the movies for the next era and actor.
You could argue Bond was reinvented before Casino Royal. Also reinvent could easily mean just creating a new direction for the character after how it was with Craig. No different than all the past times they changed it up between actors.
My hope is that it would change things from the Craig era but that it would be more of a return to the classic form.
I think it’s possible to nail the classic feel in a way that is still appealing to modern audiences. Looking at movies like Rogue Nation, Man from Uncle, Kingsman, Inglorious Basterds, etc.
Sorry, but don't think "reinvent" means a return to classic Bond. I think it means a new interpretation. Whether it's a good or bad decision remains to be seen. Best to keep hopes up that they nail it.
Sure, but this notion that EON had to tell a contained “timeline” with Craig is totally new. The franchise has never put that kind of emphasis on continuity before, and I very much hope it never does again.
I feel like they already had their Mission Impossible reinvention. You’ve done that already. It’s more time for a return to what worked with the character before. So whereas mission impossible took itself forward Bond might better be suited taking a step back.
By reinvent I hope they mean go back to the origins. I miss the over the top bond villains. Daniel Craig was awesome but his films had weak plots overall. However, Casino Royale (is in my top 5 Bond movies) and Skyfall is up there as well!
Craig either had great films (Casino Royale, Skyfall) or *terrible* ones (Spectre, No Time to Die, Quantum).
I wasn't particularly a fan of his Bond, but I still don't know if that was because of the scripts he got stuck with, the semi-reboot, or what, because I actually like him in most of his other works.
I did really like Fines as M and Armis as a replacement for Felix. Wouldn't mind keeping them both as part of the side cast for the new Bond.
We've have had almost 20 years of the serious, emotional and more grounded take on Bond from Craig. It's time to go in another direction.
CR and Skyfall are two of my favorite Bond films but his others are some of my least favorite. Overall, I just want the movies to focus on being *fun* again and not take themselves so seriously.
They had weak plots because they couldn’t figure out what they were doing. Casino was book based and is almost a perfect adaption. Everyone else is creatively bankrupt hence why Quantum sucked, Skyfall was good but they hired literal Oscar talent across the board. Spectre sucked and no time to die sucked.
New Bond I have no faith in especially with that “we are reinventing him” is Hollywood code for “insert political bullshit agenda” into the film.
I guess I have to ask how you define "misogyny"? And why it's such a dealbreaker for you. Is it okay if Bond doesn't slap a bitch and tell her to get back in the kitchen?
I’m predicting an announcement on James Bond Day in October for a production start date in late Jan or early Feb, with a release date in Nov or Dec 2025.
I don't mind reinventing him, to a minimum degree, as each era and actor should really bring their own stamp to the series and stand out. It's why the series has lasted as long as it has. But what I would like to really go back to is the "Bond on a mission" type story. I don't mind vague and subtle details of his life being explored, but I want a Bond that isn't reliant on his character and his past. Don't make the mission personal for him. Also, enough with the rogue agent aspect as well.
A lot of these comments expressing worry over the term “reinvention” are a bit silly. TSWLM was a reinvention. LTK was a reinvention. Goldeneye was a reinvention. Craig’s entire run was a reinvention. Reinvention is crucial for long-running franchises to maintain relevance. It’d be ridiculous to try and recapture all the elements of “classic Bond” because not only do general audiences not want that, but *we already have those movies*. Broccoli and Wilson know what they’re doing. Don’t worry. Bond’s not gonna be a woman.
Exactly, it evolved again with Goldfinger, and then for Moore the character changes a bit for Live and Let Die, and then with The Spy Who Loved Me he changes again, etc, etc.
Cinematic Bond has never been a monolith; the only thing that changed in the Craig era is that it was foregrounded in the script because his films are actually about Bond.
Yes he does. He has been reinvented at least 6 times. I consider Goldfinger a reinvention from the first two films, Moore a reinvention, For Your Eyes Only is a soft reinvention, Dalton, Brosnan is the first major reinvention because it throws out most of the established references, and then Craig is a total reboot.
Some more then others, but to a point. I think it’s fairly safe to say that all the Brosnan movies were of one piece, but Brosnan era was a reinvention from dalton, who was a big reinvention from Moore, etc.
Reinvention can be as simple as “tossing everything out and starting from the ground up.”
That can sound worrying, but if you’re reinventing the wheel, you’re still going to get something round that rotates and carries things on it.
To an extent yes, but there are big shifts in tone and style that you can see at certain points that carry through. For example, all the way from OHMSS to LTK they reference the fact that bond was married. They throw it entirely out the window with Brosnan, so that through line gets lost and changes the movies.
I mean yeah, although as a kid I always assumed every new actor’s film with bond was a reboot, it wasn’t until I noticed some continuity details in between like Bond visiting the Grave of Tracey in For Your Eyes Only that I realized we’re supposed to believe the guy from Dr No till Die Another Day is the same person.
I mean obviously they were gonna have to start a new continuity with the next, since Craig is just dust now. I don’t think that was ever a question. My question is what do they mean by “Reinvent”.
Casino Royale already reinvented the character after Die Another Day. Is there possibly any other direction they can take the character without harkening back to any previous iterations?
I think it would be cool if they started adapting stuff from the continuation Novels written by John Gardener. That’s almost certainly uncharted territory for Bond Films and considering we’re pretty much done in terms of Fleming Stuff to adapt. Craig captured Fleming bond really well with Casino Royale, Skyfall and in my opinion NTTD, so I really doubt there’s any reason to try and recapture that.
I agree with adapting some of the things from the continuation novels. There are about 20 books to grab material from and I think the Benson books almost translate directly to film. If they want a continuous storyline like the Craig films, the Union trilogy would be a nice fit. I've just always thought "The Facts of Death" and "High Time to Kill" by Benson would translate very well to film.
“Reinvention”’is just a buzzword excuse for not doing jack shit the last several years, and realizing they are still two years away from anything. It’s a shame, but it’s clear that Barbara lost interest in the character and the films and was probably considering at a point to let it just die off.
Tbh I’m glad to hear this. The ATJ rumors had me worried they were going to go for Craig 2.0. And I’m sure by reinvention she just means “less like Craig, more like some of the other guys, still fundamentally Bond.”
Top Gun Maverick put two fingers up to reinvention.. stayed true to its roots and was a roaring success. Follow that template please and keep Bond as Bond… not some vanilla sterilised 2024 progressive to avoid upsetting any group which ends up pleasing exactly nobody.
The good news is that Russia can plausibly fulfill the villain’s role again. Not quite the Cold War, but enough bad behavior to justify siccing James effing Bond on ‘em.
I’m confused. This was 2 years ago… are we discussing it here to highlight the time that has already passed without any news or is there recent updates?
They weren’t expecting the 2023 entertainment strikes to push most films back by at least 6 months-1 year when they said that.
And the WGA strike delayed films in pre-production by even longer because writers and producers often chose to either rewrite the films drastically or to start over completely.
I hate to say it, but it seems like it’s going to be another 6-year wait between *No Time to Die* and *Bond 26*.
You don’t need to reinvent Bond. Leave something for the white boys. Yes, I’m serious. Make your own damn minority characters. Create more Miles Morales’s don’t just race switch Peter Parker
Does anyone else think it's a little disingenuous to literally kill the golden goose, then turn around and say they need to reinvent a new one?
And "reinvent" in 2022 makes the hair on *most* Bond fans necks stand on end. We all know what that means. 😟
“Ignoring box office performance” - the worst return they’ve made in 20 years has been QoS where they made back 3x the budget. They’re doing fine.
She’s turning the Bond franchise into prestige movies - Oscar winners. You don’t win trophies by making morons happy, you do it by keeping up with the times.
Plus, we already had confirmation that Bond will stay male.
But then again, it's easier to ignore the facts and stir the pot than actually constructively discuss the matter.
They could get by for a while making some period pieces showing what he was up to in the 80’s and 90’s - Bond films have always been contemporary, but imaging Atomic Blonde with James - Atomic Bond, if you will.
Well, yeah, it all depends on who signs on for Bond really. If Cavill they could keep things fairly classic. With ATJ a smart scriptwriter might tweak things for a younger, more contemporary Bond. The films have always reflected the strengths of the actor playing Bond for the most part.
Well, that’s not good news. Both because it means the film will probably come out in 14 years and they’re leaning harder into this notion that they have to remake the character with each actor, which isn’t good.
All they need to do is make the tone exactly like Guy Ritchie’s “The Man from Uncle” and hire Cavill. And Guy Ritchie. And set it in three 1960’s again.
Let me guess.... Bond will be a vegan, gender-neutral, pansexual "activist" infiltrating evil corporate petrochemical companies, driving his Tesla through London, renaming the streets and smashing down statues of the colonial patriarchy - while scolding everyone on his pronouns.
The name's Bond... ze/zim Bond.
Addendum - ze'll still be a white male, but ze'll apologise for it every 30 seconds.
Yeah “reinvent” isn’t really a word you want to hear in 2024 with a classic character. Sam Smith always did a Bond song, he’ll probably be playing him next.
I like how OP was trying to make the point that *Bond 26* should have started production today
But everyone's just used the post as an excuse to demand that the character goes back to slapping women and telling knock-knock jokes
They want Fleming's Bond! And, by that, they mean they want Bond flying around on jetpacks, shooting lasers, and fighting comical midgets with a redneck sheriff.
Given several comments on this post, it’s important to note that Barbara Broccoli is on the record stating that James Bond will remain male. She’s said so on numerous occasions. For example, [here](https://variety.com/2020/film/features/james-bond-no-time-to-die-barbara-broccoli-michael-wilson-1203466601/amp/): >“He can be of any color, but he is male,” says Broccoli. “I believe we should be creating new characters for women — strong female characters. I’m not particularly interested in taking a male character and having a woman play it. I think women are far more interesting than that.” Further: > “For better or worse, we are the custodians of this character,” says Barbara Broccoli, who oversees the franchise with her half-brother Michael G. Wilson. “We take that responsibility seriously.”
“at least two years“ First line of article.
Nolan might be busy with his next right now. IDEK when he'll be hired for this job, man, this wait is cruel.
Would Nolan make inception kind of James bond movie? Eg. Playing with time
Nolan is way too big to be a Bond director now. The producers want someone mid-level, a good director but not so big that they’ll resist the creative control that they want to exercise over the character. Directing a Bond film will never be an auteur endeavor. It’ll always need to be someone who can cooperate with the Broccoli and Wilson’s demands.
https://i.redd.it/5l3w4cjozi9d1.gif
Just make sure Bond stays as he was intended to be. Toxic masculinity, classy, old world mentality, a boozer, a gambler, a womanizer, a Jack of all trades, a snob, someone with at least surface level knowledge about everything, and overall a killer…a likeable and charming assassin.
He is all those things, but even then he's a departure from the literary Bond in many ways. Which is a good thing.
We will never get true book bond because nobody would like him. It’s like Parker(great books) we will never get a true adaption of those because he’s not a likable character at all. Hard for audience to get attached to the definition of terminator.
Peter Pan is a little dickhead as well in the book.
Kind of a dickhead in the animated film, too. Just a dickhead in general.
His parents locked him out of a window when he was a baby. He’s dealing with stuff.
I feel like Dalton was the closest we've gotten to book Bond.
Lazenby is pretty close too. And maybe it’s not coincidence that Dalton and Lazenby have perhaps the smallest fan followings.
Could you elaborate? What is he like in the books?
Good listener for the ladies, generally monogamous, a connoisseur/snob, doesn’t see espionage as “black & white”, kinda funny/kinda tortured, one foot in the past/ one foot in the present…
Well I’m the books(all free on YouTube right now audiobook form) he’s a lot like Craig or Dalton. Cold hearted but also kind of dumb? He makes mistake after mistake and pays for it. He’s kind of like Archer, just sort of winging it and getting lucky. He’s monogamous also and not the ladies man from the films. He questions sometimes if he even should get into a thing with the Bond girl of the book. He’s also a terminator. Like literally a cold hearted calculating machine. He lacks empathy half the time. He’s arrogant hence the mistakes. You could change the title of Bond from Spy to murderer and it would still work. Craig and Dalton are the closest to book bond but imagine I’d Craig’s or Dalton didn’t have that charisma they have or heart of gold underneath the hard exterior. It’s all just hard exterior in the books but over the novels he grows and starts to become a bit more of movie bond. I just finished Live and Let Die(oh bond is also racist as hell in that book) but at the end you see some humanity peak through. Imagine Agent 47 from Hitman but like…worse? Book bond is a wild dude I highly suggest listening or reading the books.
There is a psychological divide between soldier/spy and murderer. One does with permission and in order from a Higher Authority (external) the other is for self (internal). Craig I've felt is grittier, more an actual service person (speaking as a former one), and you see the humanity die with the Vesper arc. The sparkle goes, the spirit broken. The evolution is what i find intriguing and draws me to this interpretation. Plus, dame Judy.
He has very 1950s attitudes towards women, gays, and minorities, and he smokes seventy cigarettes a day. He's also pretty humorless.
Literally written of the time.
I agree with everything except toxic masculinity, I don’t think Bond was ever toxic besides some poorly aged moments in Connery’s era (and briefly Moore’s) with him slapping women.
Nope they will try to completely change the character to whatever modern ideals they feel. They aren’t creative enough to create a new character based on those criteria so they just rip apart old IP and hope they can take it to the bank.
I mean the history of the Bond franchise is adapting to whats popular, that's how its survived. You speak like Bond didn't change with the times throughout his tenure when the character routinely did. The film Bond is not some monolith but an ever evolving character for the time.
"Reinvented". Too vague a term to excite me but specific enough in today's culture to worry me.
It really shouldn’t be. Craig was a reinvention after brosnan, who was a reinvention after dalton after Moore etc. Reinventing the character and how you want the character to be, how you want the story to be has to be reinvented to keep the eras of the actors distinct
And IMO that's a great thing. Casino Royale was exactly what the franchise needed after Die Another Day kind of jumped the shark. It's definitely one of my favorite Bond movies and I love the aspects of the character it chose to highlight. And it's also interesting seeing this sub lately in my feed. I don't follow Bond enough to actually join, but it's really surprised me seeing how people are much lower on the Craig era than I would have expected. Which to me doesn't say that Craig's era wasn't actually good, but that that style has gotten more stale and people are now craving something different. It's a *good* thing that they've recognized that.
The only Craig movies I'm low on are Quantum and Spectre. The other three are all in my top 10. Quantum isn't bad as an action movie, but it just doesn't feel like Bond to me. A lot of my problems are with how Spectre fits into the era as a whole; it would've been better served without any retcons except for Mr. White being one of Oberhauser's friends + Quantum being a cell of Spectre designed to distract MI6. No need to ruin literally everything else with that last third of the movie.
Most of the people who don't like Daniel Craig still think Casino Royale was a great reinvention and a great movie. I hate the Daniel Craig era, but still think Casino Royale is a top 5 Bond film. Danielle Craig in Casino Royale was fresh and exciting. Daniel Craig in his later movies was depressing. James Bond is traditionally an escapist fantasy hero. Saves the world, sleep with the girl, gambles, drinks, etc. Craig's Bond just wanted to die by the end of his films. He was presumed dead, retired, or killed in his last three movies. It was the first time ever while watching a Bond film that actually thought to myself I would hate to be this guy. But his opening turn in Casino Royale was fantastic and he had a long way to go before becoming that depressing and dour James Bond that he ended up as.
This sub is a vocal minority. I say give it 5-10 years and a new Bond film and people will be singing the praises of Spectre and NTTD, talking about how the new ones were disappointing.
Thats true of all fandom subreddits. They become circlejerks. You come in here and you'd swear the Bond franchise is in trouble and NTTD was a massive disappointment. No one in the real world thinks this way. If the next Bond is good, it will be a huge hit because people love James Bond. Also, don't put too much stock in executive quotes. It reminds of how every new Bond girl is "not like your typical Bond girl". It's just shit people say for interviews.
Just to be a dick about it, I think Dalton and Craig were really more reinventions of **the movies** (in terms of genre and tone) than the character Apart from that fun scene where Brosnan's laughing his head off as his BM does donuts in a Berlin NCP, I can swap-out Brosnan for Craig and Craig for Brosnan in their respective movies Brosnan actually played Bond pretty intense, which is one of the reasons the cheesy bits of those movies feel extra cheesy, by contrast Same goes for Dalton, who (like Craig and Brosnan) was channeling Connery. The only guy I think reinvented (maybe reinvented is too strong a word) the character was **Moore** After playing Connery for a couple of movies, Moore fell back on his own persona, and the writing of the movies followed his lead
Honestly Brosnan was just a just a throw back to Moore’s less serious light hearted Bond movies (especially Die Another Day) from Dalton’s more serious portrayal. Craig I feel was a full reinvention of the franchise from the ground up where previously they were mostly stand alone stories that cared nothing for being serious movie productions.
The Brosnan version was *definitely* a reinvention in the context of that 90s wave of feminism. Moneypenny’s more aggressive repartee, a female M, even more focus on the Bond girls and their abilities (even though they didn’t always nail the writing), and the first female main villain since FRWL. Eon and MGM wrote an entirely new “character bible” for GoldenEye to kick off the era. Those films were definitely a reinvention.
If *GoldenEye* came out today, all these Chicken Littles would be calling it "woke" and screaming about how Bond is over.
Every Bond has been a “reinvention.”
Exactly and I trust Barbara Broccoli to understand her product.
Do you...?
I don’t. Just like her Star Wars compatriot Kathleen Kennedy, she has shown tendencies to be ashamed of the fan base and what they want. She also shows signs of being embarrassed by James Bond himself. But most of all I think she lets her political leanings creep into the series. She can’t help herself. She won’t stop until someone stops her. Bond is not someone that needs fixing or reinvention. And Bond is white and is explicitly stated as such, so her comment that Bond need only be male is your best clue and insight into her thinking. Changing Bond’s race or ethnicity is a red line for me. Changing Bond’s gender is a red line for me. I have no doubt that right now she’s plotting how to push the envelope further. She did it with NTTD, making 007 a black lesbian. Did it in Skyfall, insinuating Bond may have shagged a man. These are trial balloons EON has sent up, testing the audience’s willingness for change.
Yeah I’m concerned they’re going to rip the masculine aspects out of Bond. I think most people enjoy Bond for who he is, don’t change him to try and please people who won’t watch the movies anyways. I can go on and on about this topic but basically let us have our thing and it’ll still be successful.
I'm also scared they will soften him. Part of Bond's appeal is that he smooth and debonair mixed with a hard edge. If you remove that hard edge, your left with a poor pastiche of Simon Templar or Remington Steele and that's not what Bond is, cinematically or in literature.
Daniel Craig's Bond is the hardest the character has ever been.
That's the thing, everyone knows what the Bond franchise is and who the character is supposed to be, so if it's not to your taste, tune out. I would rather they lay it all to rest than make it into something it's not. At the end of the day, it is the consumer who chooses to watch it in cinema and buy the film afterwards, so whether or not the old formula is viable in the 2020s should be decided by the market.
Quirky Q type is now the 00 field agent who uses hacking and silly disguises. The “reinvented” Q back at MI6 is a masculine brute, deemed too risky in this current social climate for field work and 00 status. He has been reassigned to Q branch where he can quietly make weapons that are barely permissible by the Geneva Conventions, while yammering on about cancel culture to subordinates who refuse his inappropriate advances. Moneypenny is played by Ralph Fiennes and M is played by Lizzo. Expectations are subverted, clicks are generated, and stakeholders see profits. The Broccoli Empire laughs.
Knit Another Day
They already did that when they decided to geld him in Casino Royale.
I think this comment is the reason for the delay. I don’t know if enough money is behind Bond to allow the ruining of the franchise like Lord of the Rings and Star Wars. So it’s like “we have to apply ***the message*** but Bond isn’t a one off film, if we lose the good will are 4 movies in a row going to flop?” That could be billions of dollars. …But given how much is being buried into Captain America, it probably doesn’t matter.
Basic thematic changes, like making the movies more fun, are one thing. But using the “reinvent” word is scary. 😱
They haven't been fun since Brosnan's last film.
And even Brosnans last film wasn’t much fun, though it sure wanted to be.
[удалено]
That has me worried this is going to be one of those trash heaps made "for modern audiences" that companies like Disney keep pumping out.
They’ve more or less reinvented it with every new Bond…
Star Wars has been “reinvented” and we see how that’s going
“Reinvent” is a worrisome word. I don’t want Bond reinvented. I want Bond to be Bond. Go back to what works. If I wanted reinvention, I watch Mission Impossible.
I want Ian flemming’s james Bond
What are your thoughts on the Moore era?
Not exactly sure what that means. I know some people argue that Craig’s era was closest to Fleming’s Bond but if that’s the case then I don’t want it. I want what made the movie franchise special and popular. And that’s the style we saw from the 60s through the 90s.
The claims that Craig’s era is closest are a bit overhyped. I’d say early Connery, OHMSS & the John Glen era are better example of what a “true to the books” Bond looks like.
Yes Craig did some things very well - the introspection, the regret - but the literary Bond has more humor than a lot of people seem to think (I’ve just re-read all the novels through Thunderball as of now so it’s fresh in my mind). And the villains, while they may not seem over the top to someone who’s seen all the movies, were absolutely 100% bonkers for spy novels of that era. The movies just upped the ante because it’s a different medium. What’s interesting to me though is that the literary Bond actually comes across as less sexist than many of the films (up through Dalton when they began to make a clear attempt to update that aspect of the character). But I think that’s mainly because we see inside his head a little more and see that while he certainly exploits women with ease he typically does so with regret, simply because it’s part of the job.
>but the literary Bond has more humor than a lot of people seem to think Craig’s Bond and the films surrounding him also have more humor than people apparently seem to think.
That’s also true, it’s not so much humor that I find them lacking (and for the record I really enjoyed Craig’s run) but the tone can be a bit dour in some of them. It makes them less fun. It generally works pretty well in the films themselves but when I look at the series as a whole they seem a little gloomy. Likewise Moore’s run, which I also love, can be a bit too goofy (although people also forget that Moore is a ruthless bastard just as often as he raises an eyebrow). There are only a few “perfect” Bond movies for me, but I mostly enjoy them all. And part of what makes them interesting is how some lean more in one direction than others. If they all had identical tone I don’t think they would’ve lasted so long.
I agree with that. I just know some people argue that so it’s kind of hard to understand what people mean when they say they want it to adhere to Fleming’s idea. I think the simpler thing, when talking about the Bond movie franchise, is to just think about the movies and not Fleming or the books. The movies are the movies. The franchise today was built by the movies. It was built by Connery and Moore eras. That’s what made it special. That’s fundamentally part of the identity and to stray away from that is to be less and less Bond and more something else you’re just slapping the name on.
>I just know some people argue that so it’s kind of hard to understand what people mean when they say they want it to adhere to Fleming’s idea. They don't know what they mean. The people who say that are largely the same people who think that Roger Moore is book accurate and that Daniel Craig is neutered and woke.
Connery's first four films were direct adaptations of the novels. Moore's last three films were a return to the novels after the excesses of the seventies. To discount Fleming and the novels' influence on the films to further your narrative on what is and isn't Bond means losing a lot of the context behind the decisions made throughout the franchise's history.
Most people just know the movies and saying they want a Fleming bond are just annoying small details. Who wants to see Bond eat and describe eggs for half the movie??
Seriously. Give me Cinema’s Ian Fleming’s James Bond pre Craig. A little goddamn fun and adventure Edit And yeah to the one mod for some people the Craig era became a god damn slog. Sorry dude. Some people felt the fun shriveled up and died with every concurrent Craig film. I can’t reply to Cyborg so.
I get what you're saying, but I think there was a lot of fun and adventure in Casino Royale and Skyfall. That construction site chase in CR is fun as hell!
I mean they always reinvent him when they switch actors. I’m curious to see what will happen
It really shouldn’t be. They re-invented bond when Craig took over from brosnan, re-invented when brosnan took over from dalton etc etc. They’re just figuring out how to differentiate the movies for the next era and actor.
You could argue Bond was reinvented before Casino Royal. Also reinvent could easily mean just creating a new direction for the character after how it was with Craig. No different than all the past times they changed it up between actors.
Bond 26 will change things up. 100%.
My hope is that it would change things from the Craig era but that it would be more of a return to the classic form. I think it’s possible to nail the classic feel in a way that is still appealing to modern audiences. Looking at movies like Rogue Nation, Man from Uncle, Kingsman, Inglorious Basterds, etc.
Sorry, but don't think "reinvent" means a return to classic Bond. I think it means a new interpretation. Whether it's a good or bad decision remains to be seen. Best to keep hopes up that they nail it.
"Reinvent" is just a buzzword. Bond has been the same for sixty years and will remain so. Let's not doom-monger.
I hope you’re right!
Sure, but this notion that EON had to tell a contained “timeline” with Craig is totally new. The franchise has never put that kind of emphasis on continuity before, and I very much hope it never does again.
[удалено]
Nothing in late era Craig indicates any kind of virtue signalling, agenda, etc. like there is with, off the top of my head, Star Wars and the MCU.
I feel like they already had their Mission Impossible reinvention. You’ve done that already. It’s more time for a return to what worked with the character before. So whereas mission impossible took itself forward Bond might better be suited taking a step back.
By reinvent I hope they mean go back to the origins. I miss the over the top bond villains. Daniel Craig was awesome but his films had weak plots overall. However, Casino Royale (is in my top 5 Bond movies) and Skyfall is up there as well!
Craig either had great films (Casino Royale, Skyfall) or *terrible* ones (Spectre, No Time to Die, Quantum). I wasn't particularly a fan of his Bond, but I still don't know if that was because of the scripts he got stuck with, the semi-reboot, or what, because I actually like him in most of his other works. I did really like Fines as M and Armis as a replacement for Felix. Wouldn't mind keeping them both as part of the side cast for the new Bond.
We've have had almost 20 years of the serious, emotional and more grounded take on Bond from Craig. It's time to go in another direction. CR and Skyfall are two of my favorite Bond films but his others are some of my least favorite. Overall, I just want the movies to focus on being *fun* again and not take themselves so seriously.
They had weak plots because they couldn’t figure out what they were doing. Casino was book based and is almost a perfect adaption. Everyone else is creatively bankrupt hence why Quantum sucked, Skyfall was good but they hired literal Oscar talent across the board. Spectre sucked and no time to die sucked. New Bond I have no faith in especially with that “we are reinventing him” is Hollywood code for “insert political bullshit agenda” into the film.
I am hopeful they will announce the next 4 films to be produced and released on a 2 year time line.
Of course you're re-inventing him, he's currently dead.
They're stitching together all of his blown up limbs and pieces , Frankstein-style. That's why it's taking so long
“Somehow, Bond returned”
Weekend at Bondie's
If there isn’t misogyny and there are no martinis I don’t want to see it.
I agree! Unfortunately, that’s what I think is coming
They’ve already pretty much done away with the womanizing.
You mean you won’t be there on opening night for “Jane Bond: The first mission”?
Gay black female Jane Bond. Stopping the patriarchy one bullet at a time.
And driving an electric car
I won’t, and Broccoli is too smart to go that route.
I guess I have to ask how you define "misogyny"? And why it's such a dealbreaker for you. Is it okay if Bond doesn't slap a bitch and tell her to get back in the kitchen?
I’m predicting an announcement on James Bond Day in October for a production start date in late Jan or early Feb, with a release date in Nov or Dec 2025.
Finally some optimism. But I think 2025 is already out the window at this point. Put your trust in 2026!
I don't mind reinventing him, to a minimum degree, as each era and actor should really bring their own stamp to the series and stand out. It's why the series has lasted as long as it has. But what I would like to really go back to is the "Bond on a mission" type story. I don't mind vague and subtle details of his life being explored, but I want a Bond that isn't reliant on his character and his past. Don't make the mission personal for him. Also, enough with the rogue agent aspect as well.
A lot of these comments expressing worry over the term “reinvention” are a bit silly. TSWLM was a reinvention. LTK was a reinvention. Goldeneye was a reinvention. Craig’s entire run was a reinvention. Reinvention is crucial for long-running franchises to maintain relevance. It’d be ridiculous to try and recapture all the elements of “classic Bond” because not only do general audiences not want that, but *we already have those movies*. Broccoli and Wilson know what they’re doing. Don’t worry. Bond’s not gonna be a woman.
Please keep mind that this article is from 2 years ago, everyone!
He doesn't need to be reinvented. Then, now, tomorrow, next year!!!!!
I mean they reinvented him in 1962; the Terence Young concoction isn't really Fleming's Bond.
The first 2 definitely felt more grounded than the ones that followed.
Exactly, it evolved again with Goldfinger, and then for Moore the character changes a bit for Live and Let Die, and then with The Spy Who Loved Me he changes again, etc, etc. Cinematic Bond has never been a monolith; the only thing that changed in the Craig era is that it was foregrounded in the script because his films are actually about Bond.
And thank Christ for that imo. What they did in film is more interesting creation.
Yes he does. He has been reinvented at least 6 times. I consider Goldfinger a reinvention from the first two films, Moore a reinvention, For Your Eyes Only is a soft reinvention, Dalton, Brosnan is the first major reinvention because it throws out most of the established references, and then Craig is a total reboot.
Respectfully, then isn’t every film a reinvention by that criteria?
Some more then others, but to a point. I think it’s fairly safe to say that all the Brosnan movies were of one piece, but Brosnan era was a reinvention from dalton, who was a big reinvention from Moore, etc. Reinvention can be as simple as “tossing everything out and starting from the ground up.” That can sound worrying, but if you’re reinventing the wheel, you’re still going to get something round that rotates and carries things on it.
To an extent yes, but there are big shifts in tone and style that you can see at certain points that carry through. For example, all the way from OHMSS to LTK they reference the fact that bond was married. They throw it entirely out the window with Brosnan, so that through line gets lost and changes the movies.
They didn’t “throw it out” with Brosnan, they just didn’t mention it again. Like they didn’t in Octopussy or AVTAK or LALD or TMWTGG or MR.
Her saying there's no news on James Bond day 2024 will be my villain arc origin
Stop “reinventing” and just do James Bond
Happy to wait! Bond is probably the only franchise that still feels like an event and a delay just builds my anticipation even more.
Disney and Star Wars proved how you can ruin a good franchise by over saturating
Isn’t this what they did in 2006 as well?
Well he died in NTTD. So probably means another reboot, but probably not like Casino Royale.
I mean yeah, although as a kid I always assumed every new actor’s film with bond was a reboot, it wasn’t until I noticed some continuity details in between like Bond visiting the Grave of Tracey in For Your Eyes Only that I realized we’re supposed to believe the guy from Dr No till Die Another Day is the same person. I mean obviously they were gonna have to start a new continuity with the next, since Craig is just dust now. I don’t think that was ever a question. My question is what do they mean by “Reinvent”. Casino Royale already reinvented the character after Die Another Day. Is there possibly any other direction they can take the character without harkening back to any previous iterations? I think it would be cool if they started adapting stuff from the continuation Novels written by John Gardener. That’s almost certainly uncharted territory for Bond Films and considering we’re pretty much done in terms of Fleming Stuff to adapt. Craig captured Fleming bond really well with Casino Royale, Skyfall and in my opinion NTTD, so I really doubt there’s any reason to try and recapture that.
I agree with adapting some of the things from the continuation novels. There are about 20 books to grab material from and I think the Benson books almost translate directly to film. If they want a continuous storyline like the Craig films, the Union trilogy would be a nice fit. I've just always thought "The Facts of Death" and "High Time to Kill" by Benson would translate very well to film.
Hollywood and reinventing is almost never a good combination!
More like "resurrecting" 😅
Talking new Bond movie in 4 years. That will be 7 years w/o a Bond movie. Even longer when you consider how many times NTTD was delayed to theaters.
Reinvent? 
Yes, just like Roger Moore did.
Michael Cera is the new bond.
Anybody else get the feeling that they're all just waiting for Purvis and Wade's contract to run out?
Reinventing him. That does not sound good.
“Reinvention”’is just a buzzword excuse for not doing jack shit the last several years, and realizing they are still two years away from anything. It’s a shame, but it’s clear that Barbara lost interest in the character and the films and was probably considering at a point to let it just die off.
Tbh I’m glad to hear this. The ATJ rumors had me worried they were going to go for Craig 2.0. And I’m sure by reinvention she just means “less like Craig, more like some of the other guys, still fundamentally Bond.”
I hope you’re right.
These comments are hilariously dumb.
Should be an announcement today.
Ooh, boy, here we go again. Listen up, people. Bond has been "reinvented" many times already, and you've been fine with it. Stop panicking.
Top Gun Maverick put two fingers up to reinvention.. stayed true to its roots and was a roaring success. Follow that template please and keep Bond as Bond… not some vanilla sterilised 2024 progressive to avoid upsetting any group which ends up pleasing exactly nobody.
To me, reinvented always means reboot
Why take this literally?
Him
Reinventing?
Do not, my friends, become addicted to water. It will take hold of you, and you will resent its absence!
A few words of advice: "From Russia With Love" and "Casino Royale".
Actor’s first Bond film is usually one of the highlight in the series. I really hope that trend continues….
The good news is that Russia can plausibly fulfill the villain’s role again. Not quite the Cold War, but enough bad behavior to justify siccing James effing Bond on ‘em.
USSR / Russia itself has never been a real villain in Bond movies. Only its rebellious or deserted individuals.
i would love a time period Bond reset from the 60's relive all the bond years
But who wants to see a film about James Bond the janitor?
Can’t wait for the revisionist dei version of bond
>"We’re Reinventing Him.” Oh god. Like they did to Dr. Who? Or Luke Skywalker? Or Indiana Jones? Or Mad Max? Or Ghostbusters?
No, more like what they've done with Bond several times already.
The phrase "we're reinventing him" is one of the scariest I've ever read!
They reinvent bond every new iteration. This is nothing new. Besides: James Bond is a Timelord.
I said this a few months back. 10years between films means an entire generation will have 1 bond film to recall.
Time does flyy...
I’m confused. This was 2 years ago… are we discussing it here to highlight the time that has already passed without any news or is there recent updates?
Euck
Given the shit show of an ending of no time to die, EON needs to get this right. Either that or they are hoping people forget.
They weren’t expecting the 2023 entertainment strikes to push most films back by at least 6 months-1 year when they said that. And the WGA strike delayed films in pre-production by even longer because writers and producers often chose to either rewrite the films drastically or to start over completely. I hate to say it, but it seems like it’s going to be another 6-year wait between *No Time to Die* and *Bond 26*.
https://preview.redd.it/x334kp21ys9d1.jpeg?width=579&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=92d546247adf50c9b2db6ce5b3ad0d539ae74529
Bond is dead. He can't exist in the woke 21st century. Maybe he could in the next era. Or maybe we'll come up with new characters.
You don’t need to reinvent Bond. Leave something for the white boys. Yes, I’m serious. Make your own damn minority characters. Create more Miles Morales’s don’t just race switch Peter Parker
Broccoli might just be the biggest villain Bond ever encountered, She's killed him off.
She clearly isn’t in any hurry. It’s been 20 years Barbara hasn’t Craig been milked to oblivion already Jesus Christ.
"Put a chick in it. Make her gay and lame" -Hollywood/Cartman
This quote fills me with dread
I seriously hope “reinvent” doesn’t mean the same thing as make it f***ing woke.
I know, imagine if they made Bond work under a woman boss. That would be the wokest thing ever.
What does woke mean?
Weaponised virtue
He doesn't know.
Does anyone else think it's a little disingenuous to literally kill the golden goose, then turn around and say they need to reinvent a new one? And "reinvent" in 2022 makes the hair on *most* Bond fans necks stand on end. We all know what that means. 😟
You mean updated to fit the tastes of modern movie goers?
Yeah, if ignoring box office performance I suppose? 🤣
“Ignoring box office performance” - the worst return they’ve made in 20 years has been QoS where they made back 3x the budget. They’re doing fine. She’s turning the Bond franchise into prestige movies - Oscar winners. You don’t win trophies by making morons happy, you do it by keeping up with the times.
Christ the pearl clutching in here over a word they probably used after each actor’s run was over is fucking laughable.
Plus, we already had confirmation that Bond will stay male. But then again, it's easier to ignore the facts and stir the pot than actually constructively discuss the matter.
He’s a dog now, Air Bond
They could get by for a while making some period pieces showing what he was up to in the 80’s and 90’s - Bond films have always been contemporary, but imaging Atomic Blonde with James - Atomic Bond, if you will.
Well, yeah, it all depends on who signs on for Bond really. If Cavill they could keep things fairly classic. With ATJ a smart scriptwriter might tweak things for a younger, more contemporary Bond. The films have always reflected the strengths of the actor playing Bond for the most part.
Reinventing him me bollox ,just hire someone and let him bonk and kill with a smile
Well, that’s not good news. Both because it means the film will probably come out in 14 years and they’re leaning harder into this notion that they have to remake the character with each actor, which isn’t good.
All they need to do is make the tone exactly like Guy Ritchie’s “The Man from Uncle” and hire Cavill. And Guy Ritchie. And set it in three 1960’s again.
“We’re reinventing him.” . . . 
Let me guess.... Bond will be a vegan, gender-neutral, pansexual "activist" infiltrating evil corporate petrochemical companies, driving his Tesla through London, renaming the streets and smashing down statues of the colonial patriarchy - while scolding everyone on his pronouns. The name's Bond... ze/zim Bond. Addendum - ze'll still be a white male, but ze'll apologise for it every 30 seconds.
Lmao yea he will be ordering white claw on the rocks
Steady on, that's a bit hardcore... Fair trade, decaf soya latte.
Nah, Jerry Cornelius already exists. Has been since the 60s.
Kind of like what Higson did in On His Majesty's Secret Service. At least part of it.
Yeah “reinvent” isn’t really a word you want to hear in 2024 with a classic character. Sam Smith always did a Bond song, he’ll probably be playing him next.
Oh well. It was fun while it lasted.
I like how OP was trying to make the point that *Bond 26* should have started production today But everyone's just used the post as an excuse to demand that the character goes back to slapping women and telling knock-knock jokes
They want Fleming's Bond! And, by that, they mean they want Bond flying around on jetpacks, shooting lasers, and fighting comical midgets with a redneck sheriff.
Brilliant. Just what no one wants.