The new 007

[batguy]

Eh, I think that time is passed, really. Sure, the old school 60s Bond films were a blast to watch, especially for the first time, but that material has been mined out completely, and I think modern audiences just aren't gonna buy it.

Even in the 60s, Bond movies became formulaic. How many of them end with a commando raid on a villain's remote-yet-impossibly-well-defended lair? You've got the undersea battle in Thunderball (always a fav of mine), then the ninja raid in You Only Live Twice, the commando raid on the mountaintop fortress in OHMSS, the attack on the oil rig in Diamonds Are Forever, etc., etc., etc. The evil plan in You Only Live Twice gets lifted and stuck underwater for The Spy Who Loved Me (as does the commando attack at the end), and then shot into space for Moonraker.

'Austin Powers' stabbed a fork into the eye of 1960s-70s Bond movies. The early Bond material has no hope of going over with a straight face until the memory of AP fades.

That said, the AP movies are already 20-25yo. Lots of younger kids haven't seen them now. Those were pure derivative send-up comedies (not action/comedy, etc) and that class of stuff tends to age out of pop culture pretty quickly no matter how good it is.


But yeah, in the bigger picture James Bond is another 20th-century franchise that is struggling to keep up in the 21st. As the decades go by it's getting painted into a corner:

-- the character & story feels like classic Bond.
-- the story takes place in this century.
-- the movie is feasible/sellable today.

Pick any two.

 

[Solo4114]

'Austin Powers' stabbed a fork into the eye of 1960s-70s Bond movies. The early Bond material has no hope of going over with a straight face until the memory of AP fades.

That said, the AP movies are already 20-25yo. Lots of younger kids haven't seen them now. Those were pure derivative send-up comedies (not action/comedy, etc) and that class of stuff tends to age out of pop culture pretty quickly no matter how good it is.

Yup. That was definitely in the back of my mind while I was writing. But I think Austin Powers falling out of the public eye also ties into the notion of "Nobody would really go for 60s/70s Bond anymore." Like, it's not just that kids don't care about anything older than them (although that's also true). It's that the style and era that Austin Powers was trying to emulate is just...not in the cultural zeitgeist.

If you had really wanted to do it, probably around the time they did Casino Royale would've been the time to do it. Why? Because Mad Men was a big success at the time, and people were getting into 1960s stuff again for half a beat. I tend to think this is how Man from UNCLE got greenlit, at least partially. "So it's like Mad Men but with action and spies? Yeah, ok, I can see that..."

Now, though? Nah. Don't think so.

But yeah, in the bigger picture James Bond is another 20th-century franchise that is struggling to keep up in the 21st. As the decades go by it's getting painted into a corner:

-- the character & story feels like classic Bond.
-- the story takes place in this century.
-- the movie is feasible/sellable today.

Pick any two.

Exactly! I think you can sort of brush the edges of "classic Bond" in terms of the literary character, but you can't do "Ah, Dr. Villain, you have me at a disadvantage." "Why yes, Mr. Bond. That is exactly how I'd describe being suspended over a tank of mutated killer octopi!"

 

[batguy]

Yup. That was definitely in the back of my mind while I was writing. But I think Austin Powers falling out of the public eye also ties into the notion of "Nobody would really go for 60s/70s Bond anymore." Like, it's not just that kids don't care about anything older than them (although that's also true). It's that the style and era that Austin Powers was trying to emulate is just...not in the cultural zeitgeist.

If you had really wanted to do it, probably around the time they did Casino Royale would've been the time to do it. Why? Because Mad Men was a big success at the time, and people were getting into 1960s stuff again for half a beat. I tend to think this is how Man from UNCLE got greenlit, at least partially. "So it's like Mad Men but with action and spies? Yeah, ok, I can see that..."

Even when the 'Austin' movies were hitting in the late 1990s I think a fair percentage of the teenage audience had never seen the early Bond movies that they were mocking. But those Bond flicks were embedded far enough into the culture that kids could still get the jokes indirectly. It's like laughing at 'Spaceballs' or 'Airplane!' without having watched their direct source material.

I agree that the early 1960s are pretty far back to try to make a retro Bond movie now. The 1990s are the current retro-cool decade (and the early 2000s will be taking over soon). It's not just that Bond's era was 60 years ago, it's also 45-50 years before the target audience of a new Bond movie was born. If it was 1993 and you were 13yo, would you be enthused about a spy movie set in 1933? That would feel pretty ancient for a movie that's marketed on action & wild gadgets.

The Indiana Jones movies pulled it off back in the day. I think that's at least partly because they leaned into it. Indy lived in an era of early cars & planes but he often rode horses & shot pistols like a cowboy. James Bond doesn't really lend itself to that approach. Bond was always cutting-edge in its own time.

 

[mikesprops]

I've loved Bond since I was a child and to see Henry Cavill take the role would fill my heart with joy. He already looks like he fell out of the books and everything I know about the man says to me that he'd do a great job. I'd personally love for them to make Cavill a 60's era Bond.

 

[dascoyne]

I always thought a younger Clive Owen could have been a perfect choice for Bond. More than just the look, he has just the right screen presence.
Owen is naturally stoic and methodical. He can communicate emotional availability but, at the same time, is also capable of ruthlessness to the point of sadism.

 

[PoopaPapaPalps]

If we're on dream-cast Bond, mine has always been Michael Fassbender and the closest he got was the intro of X-Men: First Class. Big action with him I don't think would be suitable seeing just how slim a build he is. Something smaller and more of an "infiltration/double agent" kind of story would be great; less action, more thriller.

 

[batguy]

If we're on dream-cast Bond, mine has always been Michael Fassbender and the closest he got was the intro of X-Men: First Class. Big action with him I don't think would be suitable seeing just how slim a build he is. Something smaller and more of an "infiltration/double agent" kind of story would be great; less action, more thriller.

Fassbender would have been a great actor if they were making more faithful adaptations of Fleming's 1950s novels. He could really nail the dark-triad anti-hero Bond that only qualifies as a 'protagonist' because he's the main character in the book you are reading.

 

[Malibu139]

I always thought a younger Clive Owen could have been a perfect choice for Bond. More than just the look, he has just the right screen presence.
Owen is naturally stoic and methodical. He can communicate emotional availability but, at the same time, is also capable of ruthlessness to the point of sadism.

loved him in The International.
Also I remember the (untrue I think) rumors he turned down Bond for Shoot ‘em Up

 

[Malibu139]

If we're on dream-cast Bond, mine has always been Michael Fassbender and the closest he got was the intro of X-Men: First Class. Big action with him I don't think would be suitable seeing just how slim a build he is. Something smaller and more of an "infiltration/double agent" kind of story would be great; less action, more thriller.

Fassbender would be great in almost anything

I think your specific point is made with his part in Soderbergh’s Haywire. It was a nice surprise when he turned up as a British suit wearing agent in that film.

 

[Riceball]

For me Craig was the best Bond by miles.
Although I like him a lot, Cavill is too old - as previously posted - and for me he is far too big.

Cavill's age might be a bit of a factor, but he doesn't look all that old and can probably play younger. As for size, he can slim down easily enough. Just because he's Witcher/Superman big now doesn't mean that he can't slim down, he just has to eat a bit less and work out less. A good example of this is Chris Hemsworth, the man is huge when he plays Thor, but in every other role, he's much slimmer, still very fit but not godly big. I'm sure that Cavill is only as large as he is because he has to play the Witcher and he probably finds it easier to maintain his current build (more or less) rather than slim and then have to bulk back up sometime before filming starts up again.

 

[Paul Andrew]

My first Bond was Brosnan so I don't have any nostalgia for anything prior to Goldeneye. I thought Craig made an excellent action star though. If this is the route they go I'm more than happy to give it a shot.

 

[batguy]

Cavill's age might be a bit of a factor, but he doesn't look all that old and can probably play younger. As for size, he can slim down easily enough. Just because he's Witcher/Superman big now doesn't mean that he can't slim down, he just has to eat a bit less and work out less. A good example of this is Chris Hemsworth, the man is huge when he plays Thor, but in every other role, he's much slimmer, still very fit but not godly big. I'm sure that Cavill is only as large as he is because he has to play the Witcher and he probably finds it easier to maintain his current build (more or less) rather than slim and then have to bulk back up sometime before filming starts up again.

A lot of these actors (*cough* HEMSWORTH *cough*) get steroid help for those transformations. The speed tends to be the giveaway. Their biggest size might never exceed what could be done naturally, but it's unnatural to gain/lose so much size in a few months. Especially for guys in their 30s-40s who are well past their natural peak hormone levels.

I mean, it makes sense. They aren't competing in a sport so there isn't a serious moral issue. They are just getting paid to look a certain way for a short time. They don't have the long prep time that's necessary. Going from skinny-nerd to visibly muscular takes literally years without drug help.


When Cavill did 'Man of Steel' the studio demanded a list of everything he was putting into his body. They probably feared that a steroid scandal would look particularly bad for a noble hero character like Supes. (Would anybody care if RDJ got caught juicing for Ironman?) So at least in that movie Cavill is probably all-natural. Pretty rare for a big superhero in Hollywood these days.

 

[joberg]

Cavill's age might be a bit of a factor, but he doesn't look all that old and can probably play younger. As for size, he can slim down easily enough. Just because he's Witcher/Superman big now doesn't mean that he can't slim down, he just has to eat a bit less and work out less. A good example of this is Chris Hemsworth, the man is huge when he plays Thor, but in every other role, he's much slimmer, still very fit but not godly big. I'm sure that Cavill is only as large as he is because he has to play the Witcher and he probably finds it easier to maintain his current build (more or less) rather than slim and then have to bulk back up sometime before filming starts up again.

It seems that people also forget that Cavill was in "The Man from U.N.C.L.E." I thought he was just right in terms of body type.

 

[AJK001]

I've been a Bond fan since I was 4 back in 1962 but I hated the way it got campy and over the top. I always thought Timothy Dalton made a great Bond and when I saw Craig in his first movie I was very hopeful but as has already been said, it soon devolved back in to over the top mindless drivel. I would love to see some movies that follow the books more closely like they did in the very early moves but I doubt that will ever happen.

 

[Riceball]

A lot of these actors (*cough* HEMSWORTH *cough*) get steroid help for those transformations. The speed tends to be the giveaway. Their biggest size might never exceed what could be done naturally, but it's unnatural to gain/lose so much size in a few months. Especially for guys in their 30s-40s who are well past their natural peak hormone levels.

I mean, it makes sense. They aren't competing in a sport so there isn't a serious moral issue. They are just getting paid to look a certain way for a short time. They don't have the long prep time that's necessary. Going from skinny-nerd to visibly muscular takes literally years without drug help.


When Cavill did 'Man of Steel' the studio demanded a list of everything he was putting into his body. They probably feared that a steroid scandal would look particularly bad for a noble hero character like Supes. (Would anybody care if RDJ got caught juicing for Ironman?) So at least in that movie Cavill is probably all-natural. Pretty rare for a big superhero in Hollywood these days.

Be that as it may, my point was that any actor who bulks up for a role can always slim back down, and many do in between roles.

 

[Lightning]

If it was 1993 and you were 13yo, would you be enthused about a spy movie set in 1933?

Yes, absolutely. But to be fair, I was an odd kid

 

[HeartBlade]

A lot of these actors (*cough* HEMSWORTH *cough*) get steroid help for those transformations. The speed tends to be the giveaway. Their biggest size might never exceed what could be done naturally, but it's unnatural to gain/lose so much size in a few months. Especially for guys in their 30s-40s who are well past their natural peak hormone levels.

I mean, it makes sense. They aren't competing in a sport so there isn't a serious moral issue. They are just getting paid to look a certain way for a short time. They don't have the long prep time that's necessary. Going from skinny-nerd to visibly muscular takes literally years without drug help.


When Cavill did 'Man of Steel' the studio demanded a list of everything he was putting into his body. They probably feared that a steroid scandal would look particularly bad for a noble hero character like Supes. (Would anybody care if RDJ got caught juicing for Ironman?) So at least in that movie Cavill is probably all-natural. Pretty rare for a big superhero in Hollywood these days.

The guy in always Sunny also basically all but stated that PEDs are essential to get the body shapes they need, in addition to all the access they have with trainers, personal chefs, and time to fit in two workouts a day with optimal rest. Its not that they dont work hard but they also get that extra edge to get in the shape they need in the given time frame. Probably why Pattinson was “against” the crazy bodysize workouts for Batman which was twisted to Pattinson didnt want to work out to play a superhero. The body image is insane of you compare it to past movies (Keaton’s Batman, Ford’s Indy, etc.) While these actors were fit in their roles, they werent exactly the bulging muscles six pack adonises that we have today.

While Cavill may be old, he is working with Amazon on the Warhammer series and they do own the Bond IP now so maybe why not. He is a big name to draw attention, free, and can do a couple of films even it his tenure would be on the shorter side.

I just wish Bond returned to the cutting edge, almost sci-fi gadgets and cool cars pre-Craig Bond. Bond also just being a kind of suave guy whose loyalty to Britain is absolute and comes out the winner despite the odds is always fun. Ive actually shifted more toward the Mission Impossible series because those movies give me what I want in a special operative focused movie but I wouldnt automatically reject a new Bond.

I do think the concept of Bond itself is hard to play straight now though. Not only is Bond as an idea antiquated, there has been so much media subverting or analyzing the “Bond” ideal that a simple “Bond” is now “boring.”

 

[batguy]

The guy in always Sunny also basically all but stated that PEDs are essential to get the body shapes they need, in addition to all the access they have with trainers, personal chefs, and time to fit in two workouts a day with optimal rest. Its not that they dont work hard but they also get that extra edge to get in the shape they need in the given time frame. Probably why Pattinson was “against” the crazy bodysize workouts for Batman which was twisted to Pattinson didnt want to work out to play a superhero. The body image is insane of you compare it to past movies (Keaton’s Batman, Ford’s Indy, etc.) While these actors were fit in their roles, they werent exactly the bulging muscles six pack adonises that we have today.

Yeah the demands for muscles have gotten completely unrealistic.

The superhero body doesn't really exist in nature. It's a product of steroids and crash-dieting right before a contest or movie scene. Not just in recent years but even in the Schwarzenegger/Stallone era. Those guys were steroid users and they still didn't 100% live up to their shirtless scenes all year around.

Olympic athletes are actually healthy and pass drug tests. They look better than most of us but they don't have Hollywood superhero bodies.

While Cavill may be old, he is working with Amazon on the Warhammer series and they do own the Bond IP now so maybe why not. He is a big name to draw attention, free, and can do a couple of films even it his tenure would be on the shorter side.

I just wish Bond returned to the cutting edge, almost sci-fi gadgets and cool cars pre-Craig Bond. Bond also just being a kind of suave guy whose loyalty to Britain is absolute and comes out the winner despite the odds is always fun. Ive actually shifted more toward the Mission Impossible series because those movies give me what I want in a special operative focused movie but I wouldnt automatically reject a new Bond.

I do think the concept of Bond itself is hard to play straight now though. Not only is Bond as an idea antiquated, there has been so much media subverting or analyzing the “Bond” ideal that a simple “Bond” is now “boring.”

Cavill could totally do a few Bond movies right now. I don't think anyone disputes that.

But the thing is, this conversation happens every time. People always point to famous actors and rationalize that "he could do a short stint". That's never NOT a temptation when it comes time to recast Bond.


I think the problem with sci-fi gadgets is the modern era. What gadget could you give James Bond that 'Mythbusters' hasn't already debunked? 60 years ago there was a lot more room between "we already have it" and "we know it's impossible." Today that window is pretty narrow when it comes to physical gags.

Today there is a big gap between 'available' and 'implausible' other tech fields, like AI intelligence. But that just doesn't lend itself to action movies as well as car ejection seats & flying rocket backpacks.

 

[Strikerkc]

I guess I've never seen an issue with Bond gadgets being unrealistic. That's always been half the charm.

If I want "grounded reality" spy schlock, I have Bourne and Jack Ryan.
If I want "Judo Chops" and machismo, I have Bond.




and if I want "grounded reality" done by writers who think research and fact checking is a sign of weakness, I'll fire up the new Reacher show.

 

[Cephus]

I guess I've never seen an issue with Bond gadgets being unrealistic. That's always been half the charm.

If I want "grounded reality" spy schlock, I have Bourne and Jack Ryan.
If I want "Judo Chops" and machismo, I have Bond.




and if I want "grounded reality" done by writers who think research and fact checking is a sign of weakness, I'll fire up the new Reacher show.

This is supposed to be entertainment. If I wanted reality, I'd go watch a documentary.