"In many ways, 2006’s Casino Royale was an attempted reboot for the series that ultimately failed because it refused to acknowledge the underlying problems of having a Cold War figure operating in a post-9/11 world. To be sure, they understood that any film overly dependent on gadgets and gimmicks ends up in trouble (see Moonraker and You Only Live Twice). Also, Daniel Craig’s Bond is closer to the literary Bond in some respects than Brosnan, even though he lacks the charm that made Connery’s take work well.
However, continual antagonism towards Bond is conveyed through Dench’s M throughout the Craig films. Bond is portrayed as insubordinate and rebellious, but also deficient in the kind of qualities that is expected of him. Bond is still the “hero,” but one can sense that he is fighting for a world that no longer wants him or likes him.
It all begs the question: what exactly about James Bond is cherished in the modern West?"
Bond is like Star Trek, both totally full of contradictions that are exposed by progressivism taking its beliefs to its logical conclusion. Men should be like Medieval Knights, not Bond
Nice. As far as film goes. Bond cannot work in today's environment. But what can be done in film is to look back to the original novels. Remake those stories as close to the books as possible and set in the year it was written.
I would be okay if they never made another movie, even a direct adaption of the novels. Franchises can't be eternal cash cows. We have to let them die at some point and let their memory inspire new things.
Generally, I agree. But, since nobody reads, I do sometimes wish the subtleties of the actual stories could be told in a medium people actually partake of.
"In many ways, 2006’s Casino Royale was an attempted reboot for the series that ultimately failed because it refused to acknowledge the underlying problems of having a Cold War figure operating in a post-9/11 world. To be sure, they understood that any film overly dependent on gadgets and gimmicks ends up in trouble (see Moonraker and You Only Live Twice). Also, Daniel Craig’s Bond is closer to the literary Bond in some respects than Brosnan, even though he lacks the charm that made Connery’s take work well.
However, continual antagonism towards Bond is conveyed through Dench’s M throughout the Craig films. Bond is portrayed as insubordinate and rebellious, but also deficient in the kind of qualities that is expected of him. Bond is still the “hero,” but one can sense that he is fighting for a world that no longer wants him or likes him.
It all begs the question: what exactly about James Bond is cherished in the modern West?"
https://terrorhousemag.com/bond/
Bond is like Star Trek, both totally full of contradictions that are exposed by progressivism taking its beliefs to its logical conclusion. Men should be like Medieval Knights, not Bond
Nice. As far as film goes. Bond cannot work in today's environment. But what can be done in film is to look back to the original novels. Remake those stories as close to the books as possible and set in the year it was written.
I would be okay if they never made another movie, even a direct adaption of the novels. Franchises can't be eternal cash cows. We have to let them die at some point and let their memory inspire new things.
Generally, I agree. But, since nobody reads, I do sometimes wish the subtleties of the actual stories could be told in a medium people actually partake of.
Hot take: Dalton was best Bond
No argument here. The Living Daylights is one of my favorite Bond films.