The world has had enough: why James Bond is lame today

Other reasons: Bond now plays as male fanatasy that is borderline pornographic, having long lost any tangible connection to reality, and enacting the same simplistic plots with little variation.

That said the series is too fiscally renumerative for them to stop any time soon.

Well 1.) I don't think the movies ever had a real connection to 'reality' and 2.) this could have been said about the Bond movies 40 years ago.

But still, the movies have been successful decade after decade. So i don't think it'll be over for Bond any time soon.

The beginings of the series was rooted in at least something more tangible; the first film is essentially a mystery, with 007 acting as a detective for most of the film. The second film is also more contained. The breaking point was Goldfinger. That said, the further the series went on the more removed from that it got, but, as the article mentions, Communism is over, evil terrorist agents aren't after money. The more important point is that all Bond films follow a very simple formula (created by Goldfinger and Thunderball) that usually involves Bond beddingat least two hot women, being smooth and killing people. The structure of a Bond has become so ritualistic at this point the only variable become the women, the toys and the explosions. And at that point, when you don't go to a film for it's story, then the porn comparison becomes apt. Hence the lameness.

That guy thinks way too highly of Austin Powers. The Bond series is on its last legs because of terrible producers, shoddy scripts and a lack of creativity away from the " formula ". Goldeneye proved Bond could be good. Sadly it went over the edge after that film.

On a side note I liked what Dalton brought to the table and his 007 was refreshingly different then the ones before him in my opinion anyways.

Agreed guys. That's the same reason xXx failed. Hell, Die Another Day essentially was xXx, what with that horriblly rendered CGI, parasurfing sequence. The Bourne flicks are today's answer to the Bond films, I think. They're spartan and intense, relying on character and taut suspense to craft a spy/assassin flick. And they're made by better filmmakers. Long Live Bourne.

Are we talking not cool in terms of quality or profitability? 'Cuz last time I checked, Die Another Day was the most successful Bond film yet (neglecting inflation, of course).

That said, and as much as I liked DAD on a pure cheese level, it's great to see Bourne Supremacy pull in more.

Die Another Day is enjoyable, and I say that with slight hesistation, on a velveta cheese level. I think the opening title sequence was probably the only attempt to do anything different than it's predecessors. That said, the idea of a mano-e-mano taking place on a plane falling apart is awesome. Unfortunately, it was ruined by the Emperor Palpatine suit the bad guy had and the stupid "bitch fight" between Halle Berry and that English babe. And poor direction. And poor CGI. Come to think of it, it sucked. But the point is, it could have been cool. The franchise ought to be laid to rest before it spoils all of the goodwill Connery and Goldeneye built up for it.

If you take out all of the xXx extreme stunts and the sci-fi super suits you have an ok movie. Sure Bond isn't fresh any more, but I still get enjoyment out of it. It's not like Bond is anywhere as bad as other movies out there like Racing Stripes. Whenever I saw previews for that fucking movie I just wanted to kill something in a really violent way.

Back to DAD, any time that a guy gets sucked into a jet engine makes for good entertainment. You all know it's true.

Nobody's mentioned the music. Sure, Die Another Day wasn't good, but I wasn't pissed off that I'd paid to see it. I really liked James getting caught, and it really gave me a good feeling for the movie right off the bat. The movie turned to crap. So what? It's just James Bond. There were a few cool scenes. I liked the car fight on the ice. Retarded and fun. So why do I hate Die Another Day so much? Madonna's song. That song makes me want to throw things. I fucking loathe it. It doesn't even kind of sound like a song that belongs in a Bond opening sequence. Ugh...I think Nick mentioned once that we need horns back in the Bond theme. I've never agreed with anything more.

The beginning sequence in Korea where Bond was being tortured was good stuff. Unfortunately the film went downhill fronm there.

And count me among those people who thought Timothy Dalton was a great 007.

It's really only the swordfight that is the highlight of the film. It's a pretty good swordfight. The rest is surprisingly amateurish, and dumbed-down. No wonder it made so much coin.

Hated DAD.

Love the two Timothy Dalton films.

XXX could have been good but the X-Sports felt forced.

Jason Bourne is our new James Bond.

Bond was a creature of the 60s. Back then, the Cold War had everybody paranoid, so the idea of spies being everywhere made sense. Back then, air travel overseas was the province of the rich (thus the term "jet set"), so to see Bond jetting off to London or Tokyo or Morocco or wherever had a sense of mystery and foreignness about it that you just can't get in today's world of instant CNN access from anywhere in the world.

Bottom line, any future Bond films should be period pieces.

In his commentary for the Bourne Supremacy, Paul Greengrass makes some fascinating comments regarding the Bourne/Bond comparison. He advises that Bourne makes a much more compelling figure because he used to work for the establishment but now works outside it and against it whereas Bond represents the establishment and there lies the difference, it's a different world, Bond represents the past where the government can still be trusted, Bourne is the flipside where they can't.

From the Guardian article:
I don't get where the dispute is, from the last few movies this is exactly what they've got. Spiderman in a tux who is still a sexist, misogynist dinosaur, who sprouts money. Where's the beef?

Oh darn.

Enjoyed Bond getting captured and not being able to escape until he is exchanged. Took him down a few pegs.

Enjoyed the swordfight. Badass and exhilerating.

Loved all of the references to the earlier Bond films. Anyone who didn't like the idea of the scene set in the old Q Dept. storage room is not a true 007 fan.

The rest of the movie speaks for itself, but like every Bond film it has some redeemable qualities. I agree with those who demand Bond be brought back to the Cold War. Set it in Berlin in the early 60s, make it dark, gritty, real-world, and utterly brutal. I want people to remember what a cold-blooded bastard 007 is.

Allow me to repent, Lord Devotchka.

Bond has rocked for four decades and he ain't stopping. Sure there's a dud now and again, but the series is still all kinds of cool. The Austin Powers argument is ridiculous.

I hope they tone down the Moonraker factor in the next film, but other than that I have no complaints.

Hmm... unable to tolerate others' opinions... lashing out at anyone who disagrees...

Who's the Republican here?

Judgemental elitists aren't in short supply these days...

Indeed. By the way, did they really pick the next Bond already, or was that just a rumor?

Last Bond film I liked was Goldeneye. I loathe Die Another Day and feel sorry for those that like it but thats their business.

Its rumor about the new Bond so far as I know.

Agree with those who say Goldeneye is the last good Bond film (its also my fave).

The problem with die another days is its two different films. The start with his capture and then where he is disgraced and works on his own is fantastic. Although i disagree with M's attitude (which is odd considering her capture in the previous film) i can see why she did what she did. But when he gets his "invisible car it just goes down hill.

I dont think they need to be period peices, all they need to do is go back to basics, if you recall the franchise was on the rocks pre goldeneye, they fixed it once they can do it again. Although prehaps a few more years are needed between now and the next film.

I am of the DID was a good film until they went to Iceland then it fell apart and beceme Moonraker 2 school.

"Judgemental elitists aren't in short supply these days..."
There is a difference between being a judgemental elitist and saying that everybody who disagrees with you is an idiot. Nada seems to do the latter on any topic and at every opportunity.
The term "smartass" comes into play and "troll" is being readied for use if this continues.
Even devincf is not quite as bad as Nada.

they suk

people love them for some strange reason in know several people that are glued to TNT or TBS or SPIKE or whatever lame channell runs a marathon of them every night.

Judging from that post Optimus is a socialist swede with a hangover.

I basically agree. I enjoyed it except for these appaling low points:

1) The utterly retarded innuendo between Jinx and Bond, especially in Cuba. Must have been written by ten year olds. A low for the franchise.

2) The incredibly fake looking and lame surfing "stunt" in Iceland. Bond is about real stunts, not crap CGI.

3) The ludicrous exoskeleton that the villain dons in his final fight with Bond on the plane. That was strictly Moonraker territory, and way out of place.

Goldeneye was the last great Bond film. Tomorrow Never Dies was a rehash of The Spy Who Loved Me, The World Is Not Enough was too melodramatic, and Die Another Day was a rehash of Diamonds Are Forever with a dose of Moonraker. While I am not happy with the current state of the franchise, I'm not going to kid myself into thinking there weren't bad installments before (Octopussy and A View To A Kill come to mind).

What's currently happening with the franchise?
- Martin Campbell (Goldeneye) has apparently been wooed back as the director for the new one, which gives one hope.

- Though the dreadful duo of Purvis & Wade are still the writers, they are apparently aiming at bringing back a lot of the older, more Fleming-esque elements of the series. If true, definately a plus. Rumors are the plot is very Casino Royale-influenced.

- David Arnold recently stated that with a new Bond, he will be changing to a new scoring style. One can hope for more bombastic orchestral work.

- They seem to be gunning for an unknown or lesser known actor for Bond. Don't give me this "A-List Star" crap we keep hearing on CNN and much. We all know that Wilson/Broccoli aren't going to pay a superstar to be Bond and that no such person would sign a 4 to 5 picture deal anyway. The only actor that we have any knowledge actually approached was Julian McMahon, who had to turn it down due to his long-term Nip/Tuck contract, and I don't think even that was officially confirmed.

- Since when has a high profile actor been chosen to play Bond or a high profile director been tapped to make an installment. Never. Tarantino is not and will not make a Bond film (Never trust his potential projects until they actually sign cast members). Both Clive Owen and Colin Farrell have stated they have no interest in playing Bond, even though CNN keeps announcing their names as potentials. Hugh Jackman and Christian Bale are most likely out of the running (if they were ever even in) do to other franchise obligations. Ewan McGregor and Jude Law are probably considered too high profile by the producers.


I have a strong feeling (and hope) that the Bourne franchise has given them as nice hard kick to the rear hint. One hopes they realize that while audiences will pay to see a Bond film anyway, they'll pay even more to see a smart spy film like Bourne 1&2. I expect a Bond casting announcement by the beginning of summer.

That's probably true. Moore, Dalton and Brosnan weren't total nobodies when they started though.


I don't think the Bourne movies really have anything to do with Bond. They're certainly good, but in a different genre. They're way too serious, dry, and focused on realism. Bond films have always been flamboyant adventures full of sly winks. Plus the last four Bond films all had considerably bigger box office takes than the two Bourne films.

I loved DIE ANOTHER DAY. Yeah, shoot me for that opinion but I seriously think it's one of the BEST Bond movies. Yes, of course it's over the top, ridiculous and all (superlasers, parasurfing etc, invisible car) but it perfectly represents one of the two BOND movie sides.

One, the utter unrealistic enemy bases like those of Blofelde etc., with ridiculous plans and henchman picked locations from the Roger Moore flicks. It's the one side of the Bond movies, and exactly like Die Another Day, those movies were stuffed with crappy fx (shots in front of a screen, for example), 1-dimensional Bond-Bimbo-Babes who are just there for the sake of it and the usual gadgets. Die Another Day is nothing different, it's the exact same formula just with a more modern design. There are at least 10 other Bond babes who lack the same amount of persona or depth as Jinx does. Graves isn't more stupid than Kananga, Scaramanga or Drax - face it.

Then you have Goldeneye, which perfectly represents the other side. Bond comes of more as an elegant agent, with a more serious background story and more realistic action sequences.

Guess most of you can only love the second, more serious version, but I tend to like both of them. After the boring The World is Not Enough and Tomorrow never dies, I for one was extremely pleased to see stuff like the ice palace, or the invisible car. You don't see big budget nonsense like that often on the big screen, so enjoy it.

And the Bourne movies ? Utter crap. Boring, predictable, unspectacular. They may seem more realistic, but what the? I want to see a fictious agent do things that DON'T happen in reality, like jumping in a falling plane and pulling it up, fighting diamond-scarred guys on an icelake or protecting the world by being grilled by a giant space super laser.

your post is well written.
but that ^ line ??
that line is incorrect.
actually theres such an abundance of big budget tomfoolery on the big screen it makes it all the more difficult for Bond to get noticed.

Why are earlier Bonds endlessly more watchable (in the opinions of some, including me) than the more recent ones ?? the answer is they were just better movies. it has little to do with the content, but more the execution.

Story(plot), character, dialogue.
That's what it takes and that's what's been missing recently. It's easier to forgive bad effects when you are being pulled along by a good tale. Even if Bond flicks are just hot ladies, and cool gadgets, the ones that succeed had better stories and treated Bond more than a tux.

Very much agreed.

Actor Scott is new Bond favourite

Right, because he really proved his Bondness in such outings as Mission Impossible 2, and Ever After...

By the way I agree with anyone who's been bashing Bond mercilessly in this thread.

Christopher Eccleston should be the next bond....

I actually kind of liked DID on some levels. I thought the set up was quite nice, as was the sword fight, and the fact that for a while Bond looked like he had a villain who could match him in a fight. But then it all goes to hell as soon as you introduce the obnoxiousness of Halle (I won an oscar so now I shall perform in every shit film possible) Berry, the general hokiness of the plot, the crappy cgi , and Judi Dench reverting back to her Goldeneye performance with no real explanation.

For my money Dalton was the best of the bonds, The Living Daylights and especially LTK being very gritty powerful films.

What is really missing from the bond movies is a sense of threat as Bond seems unbeatable nowadays.

In films such as From Russia With Love, Goldeneye, Man with the Golden Gun, and LTK bond had enemies who were his equals and as such an element of danger was introduced.

Super off topic but ...

What in the world is "C+"?

DIE ANOTHER DAY was horrible, is this the Bond movie where he has an invisible car? C'mon, when I saw that I thought I was watching Wonder Woman. This movie was ridiculous!!!

Have they completely written off Jeremy Northam, or is he out of the running because of his slight resemblance to Dalton? I think he'd be an excellent choice, if they're looking for a "name".

They need a good actor who fits the role well and is in their late 30s/early 40s that can stay with the series for 6 or 7 films.

Don't ask me who that is, because I do not know and I don't feel like spending the time to figure it out. I'm done with following the "potentials" and "favored" actors. It's a waste of time. Someone please be kind enough to wake me up when they finally OFFICIALLY announce Brosnan's replacement.

THANK GOD!!!! Finally....someone who's not a cynical movie extremist. I enjoyed DAD too, I thought the exotic weapons (invisible car, face-changer, super laser) and locations (ice palace) was exactly what the Bond movies needed to stay alive for another 3 movies!!!! You see, those serious Bond flicks can only last but so long before people start getting tired of the movies. Which is why it's good to have the more bizarre Bonds (DAD) every now and then to keep the franchise going strong. Not everybody likes those slow, boring British Bond movies with all that British sarcasm and wit that half the people in the world think is stupid. All the Bond flicks have been cheesy and over-exxagerrated, so I don't know why you people are acting like it's something that just happened.

As far as Bond becoming more like Bourne...well let's just say Hell will freeze over before that ever happens. That would totally kill the genre because that's not how the movies are supposed to be portrayed. Bond isn't a serious, calculating...watcher. He won't take survaillence of a place...he'd run in there guns blazing and shot everybody on site with some flashy weapon. Or he'd get with some woman and use her to get in.

Actually, he'd sneak in like an agent - then he'd present himself to the main baddie and his girl (he's the least secret secret agent on the world it seems - did he ever use a fake name? can't remember), and THEN he'd go out with guns blazing and the use of Q's new super gadgets that ALWAYS fit for the coming situation. If there's need for a glass laser, he'll get one earlier.

I wish they'd introduce a second villain in the next movie, who stays for at least 2 or three flicks. Like Blofeld, or Jaws. There are only good guys that appear more than once.

Personally, I believe that Brosnan should've counted on Die Another Day being his last film. They should've built on the opening and dealt with an agent that simply didn't want to James Bond anymore.

Show a character who acknowledges the rules of the game and quits out of digust. Along the way, revamp and cut away any parts of the Bond mythos that simply don't work in the 21st century. Build the film as an exercise in what makes James Bond tick (ala Born Again in the Daredevil comics). Make MI:6 the villain and deal with a character acknowledging his faults and then exiting into the sunset.

I know that it's a stretch in the mold of OHMSS, but it's what the franchise needed. With that the slate is cleared, and EON/DANJAQ/The Broccolis can usher in a tabula rasa for the Bond franchise.

I always believed Bond was at his best when he had a purpose. Specifically, Sean Connery/George Lazenby vs. Blofeld. A villain that can match Bond wit for wit and is willing to take away everything from him. The older I get, OHMSS keeps becoming the better Bond film to me. Is it the direction that the Bond franchise should head?

To an extent. For all the maturity found in the OHMSS, it still isn't Bond without a touch of Connery era gadgets, Roger Moore's humor and Brosnan's suave nature.

And, in rebuttal to earlier comments about the gender politics of Bond.

"Every scene in a Bond film is a sex scene". It is the greatest action packed campy porn when it's at its best.

And, if you have a problem with that...then, you'll never love the Bond films. It's not Merchant Ivory.

When I mention the Bourne films in connection with the Bond series, I have never meant that I want the Bond films to become like the Bourne franchise. What I meant was that we need good, solid stories. I was never suggesting that they take on the Bourne formula. Basically, I want the series to go off the auto-pilot state that it is in right now.

I also agree that we need a strong, reoccurring nemesis for Bond. Action movies are only as good as their villains. It's a common and very generic saying, but when it comes to Bond I tend to agree with it. Elliot Carver was not an imposing or threatening villain, and neither was Elektra King. Both Renard and Col. Moon/Gustav Graves had potential that was ultimately wasted. Alec Trevelyan is easily my favorite villain of the Brosnan-era. Why? Because he was an equal to Bond on almost every level. In fact, now that I think about it, Trevelyan should have become the reoccurring villain.

They are at the perfect point now with the introduction of a new Bond actor to introduce a new Blofeld-esque villain to be in the forefront/shadows of a couple of films. It would definately give them more of an edge and would help keep them from completely recycling the same formula over and over again.

Bonds last chance

the last few bond movieshave sucked ass yes, but they have a real chance to do somehting special with the remake of Casino Royale - this is the most violent and sadisitic of the bond novels (yes younger people they were books first) and if they get rid of all the CGI and gadgets and let Bond be the ladies butt slapping politically incorrect no nonsense guy he started out as, then this really could work. OK they need a good script and a good bond yes. If they screw this one up i can see the Brocolli Satans going back to hell and this franchise going the way of the dodo......

The frachise is far from over.

The recent announcement of "Casino Royale" is exciting. My only fear is that its too talky. Bond doesn't need some deep potification on the human condition. He needs to fuck tons of hot babes, fight tough assh0oles and kill the baddie.

I will agree that 007 needs some relevancy. He's getting too familiar. Brosnan mentioned once a few years ago that he wanted to remake OHMSS. I hate remakes, but a film certainly in the same tone and style would be fucking awesome.

I still like the idea of all of the previous 007s getting offed.


To what Anderson said:

"Every scene in a Bond film is a sex scene". It is the greatest action packed campy porn when it's at its best."

"And, if you have a problem with that...then, you'll never love the Bond films. It's not Merchant Ivory."


Goddamn right.

Peter Bart weighs in.. Is there a market for a used Bond?

IS THE WORLD REALLY READY FOR the 21st James Bond?
Word filtered out recently that the affluent and rather haughty proprietors of the Bond franchise had hired a director, Martin CampbellMartin Campbell, and are scratching around for a new star. According to the Bond rumor mill, Pierce BrosnanPierce Brosnan, who'd weathered four Bonds, had priced himself out of the market (his proposed compensation package would total out north of $40 million). Sony, which inherited the franchise with the acquisition of MGM, understandably favors Clive OwenClive Owen as his successor.

But does anyone care? London's Guardian delivered its vote recently, recounting Judi Dench's quote as M in "Goldeneye" that Bond is "a sexist, misogynist dinosaur"and observing that the public's "tolerance for snobbery had withered."

Ian Fleming, the Eton-educated journalist, created the character as his hallucinatory alter-ego, who battled the forces of Spectre and Smersh but occasionally behaved "like an ancient gay dress designer," in the words of the Guardian.

If the Bond character is a bit passe, part of the blame rests with "Austin Powers' " satiric forays, and part, too, with Matt DamonMatt Damon's "Bourne" thrillers, whose central character is far more accessible to today's audience.

Then, too, part of the problem rests with creaky scripts. The proprietors of the Bond franchise, Michael WilsonMichael Wilson and Barbara Broccoli (the daughter of Albert, the founder) live in a cocoon of wealth and autonomy. They've been free to take the Bond franchise wherever they want, and they've managed to take it downhill.

Actually, I was a semi-oblivious spectator to the process during my tenure as a senior vice president at MGM 20 years ago. The treatment for a Bond picture appeared one day and I was informed by business affairs that the film came under my purview. Before I'd even finished reading the material, however, the project had triggered a greenlightgreenlight along with a cascade of pay-or-play deals, which was just as well since the movie turned out to be "Octopussy," and I would have had no idea how to deal with either the title or the storyline.

After a series of misfires, Wilson and Broccoli, in the '90s, started hiring writers who, like Fleming, were former journalists and who managed to reconnect the character with credible heavies. Bruce Feirstein, for example, was brought in to shake, not stir, "Goldeneye," which shrewdly poked fun at Bond's elitist idiosyncrasies and served as the first "Bond" vehicle for Campbell, the New Zealand filmmaker. By the time "Die Another Day""Die Another Day" was released in 2001, however, this run had ended and even the good-natured Brosnan began to make noises about defecting.

Will another Bond be made? Probably some Sony executive will shortly be receiving a treatment and, before he knows it, a new "Bond" will be speeding down the assembly line. In the view of the Guardian, however, the next film should embrace "a gay Bond, a black Bond, a paraplegic Bond, an obese Bond ... Any Bond but James Bond."

I think it's interesting no-one's yet mentioned a female Bond, the one new twist that could actually work and give the Bond franchise a fresh start.

Zeta Jones after Mask of Zorro and Entrapment yes but now no.

Whatever happened to that spyflick with Beckinsale that sounded interesting.