Daniel Craig will soon be suiting up for his fifth and final James Bond film, titled "No Time To Die", set to release spring 2020. The film will reportedly see Bond retired in Jamaica (a familiar spot for the Bond series and original author Ian Fleming) at the start of the film. Presumably, Bond is reluctantly called back for one last mission. With this being Craig final Bond film, changes are on the horizon for the massively successful and long enduring franchise. Rumors have long been floating around the internet that the next bond may break gender or color barriers with the casting of the next 007. After Craig's final film, will the James Bond producers make ambitious changes to its iconic character, or will chose to continue the series's status quo?
If we're going to see a Jane Bond, then I demand to see a Marty Poppins! – Amyus5 years ago
I have a feeling that they will go hard in one of two directions. In one they go even darker and more gritty than they have before, OR they decided to go goofier and more comedic. Either way I will be right there watching. Great idea! – tredmond5 years ago
I think it'll be interesting to compare it to the Mission Impossible series where you have multiple directors of varying backgrounds using an established IP to experiment and tell a new story. Obviously exploring the potential casting decisions is a hot topic right now but what would a James Bond film look with an expressive and experimental director aiming to turn the genre on its head? – CAntonyBaker5 years ago
I don't think James Bond will be as relevant anymore. He'll just be another action star/spy like John Wick or Jason Bourne, no longer as unique. With the #MeToo movement and political correctness, his character would also be more different than it was in the 60's and 70's. Maybe better, but not as distinct.
And no, I don't believe he should change genders. It's James Bond. 007 as a woman isn't James Bond. People watch 007 because he's a man. I feel a gender change would lose more people. Better yet, do a different agent - you don't need a female 007.
Given the fact that he's been a racist at least once and was written as white, it probably also wouldn't be a good idea for him to change races. I wouldn't be against it, but it wouldn't make sense. – OkaNaimo08195 years ago
I'm interested in examining a few monsters that appear in horror films (ie zombies, ghosts) and how these monsters reflect racist ideologies of marginalized bodies. For example, the zombie emerged in Haiti as a result of the transatlantic slave trade and a reflection of the feeling of enslavement. I want to closer analyze how these monstrous figures are embedded in racist histories (maybe examining 2-3 films).
This is a really great topic I'm actually exploring now. For suggestions, I would look at how Frankenstein's monster often represents the Other, especially women. Dracula was full of Eastern European stereotypes and a fear of London being imperialized--like they did to much of the world. The xenophobia and racism I'm exploring are tied to Lovecraft--the "fear of the unknown," which may be helpful to explore. I'd also add, since the topic is films, I'd look at Peel's US (the underprivileged and economically disadvantaged are quite literally in the underground) and The Shape of Water, where a disabled woman, a gay man, and a black woman all connect to the "monster" in some empathetic way because they're underestimated or communicate differently. – Emily Deibler5 years ago
It might also be worth it to bring up Candyman, which explores both racism and classim in complicated and sometimes problematic ways. – Emily Deibler5 years ago
I would also consider addressing the sympathetic monster in The Shape of Water. Most monsters are rooted in racism, but even the simple concept of the other, racist, sexist or otherwise. Even going back to older monsters like Grendel's mother in the Beowulf, and the other to the normative Anglo-Saxon woman implied there. Not really a modern horror film I know but there are several adaptations that stray considerably from the source material to reflect the "horrors" the modern audience would understand. – TabathaCass5 years ago
There are musical films like "Walk the Line" that tell the story of legendary real-life musicians, and then there are those like "Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story," that, while perhaps equally legendary, bring to life new, fictionalized musical talents. In the case of one of the more well-known fictional bands of all-time, Spinal Tap from "This Is Spinal Tap," the band ended up becoming something of a reality. After making their film debut, Spinal Tap actually went on to record a few albums and even embarked on concert tours. Is the experience of Spinal Tap something of an anomaly? Has Hollywood missed out on opportunities to capitalize on a potentially successful musical acts from film that could have been something more than just fictional? If so, what bands/artists from film might have made it in the musical industry?
This is an exciting and intriguing topic. My favorite is "Stillwater" from Almost Famous, which is almost the prototypical 70s rock n rock band. – Sean Gadus5 years ago
I sort of love this topic! I'll admit, I'm a big sucker for transmedial narratology and anything that blurs lines between fiction and reality, so this just pushes all the right buttons. Two more "anomal-ish" examples that come to mind are The Monkees and Hannah Montana, although they operated as almost an inverse of Spinal Tap, being conceived from the outset as both TV characters AND actual pseudonymous touring musicians, as opposed to Spinal Tap having (as you mentioned) only beginning to tour in response to the success of the film. Honestly, I think leaning into the anomalies might make for a more fruitful and thought-provoking discussion than what might otherwise read a bit like a Buzzfeed-esque list of micro fan-fictions about "what if Dewey Cox/Conrad Birdie/Llewyn Davis/Stacee Jax/School of Rock/Hedwig and the Angry Inch/Stillwater/Chum Bukkit/Mouse Rat/etc were real." Anyway, just some food for thought. Looking forward to reading the finished article! – ProtoCanon5 years ago
I’m not going to lie, I don’t think I’ve ever genuinely thought about this topic. But I would have loved to see school of rock tear it up as a kid, Jack Black is something else. – ShaniaRachelle5 years ago
Even prestige television shows require something of an episodic format, and the plot must progress as a series of mini-climaxes and narratives for each episode. One of the advantages of television is the fact that the repetitive nature of the episodic structure lets us see the character in a gradient of contexts. Some recent films and "cinematic universe" projects seem to be following the television model, and place characters through iterative encounters to reveal more and more about them. The Marvel films are the most obvious example, but even series like John Wick are taking this approach. As big "intellectual properties" and sequels grow increasingly important to the success of films, is film starting to treat its characters more like television's and less like the traditional film protagonist?
While it is crucial to note the profitability of franchise in the movie industry, and that has been a huge trend since the start of this century really, but it is undeniable that this television-style arcs have established better understanding and depth of the characters (I’m referring to the multidimensional ones worth dwelling into), consequently audience connections. To answer your question, yes, the movie industry has been going at length to, say, milk every possible layer of a blockbuster. That’s partially, in my opinion, because us the fans are curious to see if the sequel lives up to or outdoes its predecessor. However, no franchise can be in existence if creators are not sharp in stearing the wheel. – LisaV1325 years ago
History has given us many amazing and unbelievable stories which have inevitably been immortalised in cinema for the better or for the worst. Due to the enormous exposure that mainstream cinema can have, many historical inaccuracies have become embedded in the popular public's consciousness. Gladiator (2000) being just one contention. Should films be required to be entirely historically accurate to teach as well as entertain, or is this really the domain where artistic license is, and should be, paramount? Because after all, films are fundamentally works of art.
I think this is an interesting and timely topic--and certainly one I want to read more about. My only suggestion is that it seems, at the end of the topic, that you are biased towards films being allowed to take creative liberties ("after all, films are fundamentally works of art"). I'm not sure if you meant to include your opinion in there or not or if you wanted to remain subjective. – rachelwitzig5 years ago
So sorry--I meant "objective" and not "subjective" at the end of the last comment. – rachelwitzig5 years ago
Yes I do see what you mean. I suppose I more included it as part of the counter argument. Fundamentally I believe films should be as accurate as possible but on the other hand, film is an art form and doesn't have to be strictly educational. – Thomas5 years ago
Great topic! I would also consider the effects of marketing/reception. The public in general has become more and more attentive and vocal about historical inaccuracies and depending on the reception (or backlash) during the marketing campaign and initial release, it can spell success or failure for those movies. – kpfong835 years ago
I am certainly intrigued to see where you go with this topic. If you haven't already thought of it, I hope you consider some discussion of Quentin Tarantino's recent films like Inglorious Basterds and Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. While these movies both deal with real world events and people who actually exist/existed, historical accuracy is largely thrown out the window on purpose in favor of creating a sort of alternate Tarantino universe. This sort of thing is quite a bit different from something like Gladiator in that, with a film like Gladiator, which also draws from history and contains representations of historical figures, I think that there's more of an intention to have the audience perceive that there's some truth in the story, even if many of the facts were changed for the story. In Tarantino's case though, I think he might agree that the point of his blatantly inaccurate historical pieces are fundamentally to produce works of art meant to entertain. Because these are re-imagined histories, and marketed as such, it seems permissible. However, he is still portraying people on screen who are actual people, and likely doing so without consent of those who might be able to give it, which makes it kind of a complicated issue. Personally, I appreciate his movies as works of art, but I'm not entirely sure about how I feel about some of the issues that arise from his choices. Either way, it might be a possible topic of interest to explore in this piece. – bradleyhewittk5 years ago
While, I, as the viewer struggle with screaming at the screen over historical inaccuracy when watching a film, primarily due to my fact-checking nature, I think that it is acceptable to bend the facts a bit as long as there is a disclosure that the film is "based on a true story". I also think artistic license takes priority over historical accuracy. Given that history is long and often has large portions that are irrelevant to the meat of the story, it is necessary to keep the story interesting and compelling and that is the job of the artist, even if he/she has to manipulate the facts. In the end, a film is just a story. And history is essentially the same. The idea that what we know as our history is actually accurate is improbable. – govalen295 years ago
Over the past year I have watched more action movies than I had ever cared to and I couldn't help but notice that each one is exactly the same. Sure, the plot might be altered just slightly but they follow an identical formula in an identical pattern: brief exposition – initial complication – bland nothingness – punching – running – car chase – running – punching – final monologue – more punching – and everything's fine. If we can sit through this repetitiveness over and over again then are we not complacent with repetitiveness in our lives?
I couldn't agree with you more, although many at the Artifice would disagree with your opinion. Perhaps an angle to take would be to look at why formula works - and not just in action movies. Romance films also have a formula, as do crime films, detective films etc. I'd therefore suggest that people sit through the same old same old, over and over again because of its familiarity and the sense of comfort that offers. We know that the hero/heroine will always beat the bad guy, we know that when boy meets girl (or vice versa), boy will inevitably lose girl, only to find girl again and all will be fine. Is this complacency? To a large degree, yes, but then many mainstream cinema goers are there to be entertained not challenged. – Amyus5 years ago
I think something that could be helpful here is clarifying whether or not you believe the comfort of repetitiveness is inherently wrong or not. It seems that you are inclined to think it is not a virtue. Also, another thought--does repetitiveness of a movie necessarily reflect the lives/characters of the audience enjoying said movie? – rachelwitzig5 years ago
Since the early 2000s, the superhero genre has saturated our screens with no intention of slowing down. And I wonder why this is. Why are Marvel and DC superhero movies the front runners in the current cycle of action cinema? What might be the cultural conditions which boosted the popularity of this genre? Is it simply a matter of evolved special effects adding a more realistic spectacle to the narrative, or does our love of superheroes expose a wider cultural anxiety about the need for national protection (an after-effect of 9/11, perhaps)?
I've always wondered this myself. A great source for this piece would be Robert Kirkman's Secret History of Comics, because viewers see just where these superheroes came from and how they affected society at that time and continue to do so now. Everyone wanted to BE Superman or HAVE a Superman. Marvel comics took a step forward from black-and-white "bad guys" to villains with complex backstories and motivations. I believe that the heart of superheroes continues to be so relevant and prevalent nowadays because we still have that yearning to see good triumph over evil, as well as see these comic book characters come to life. – EJSmall5 years ago
On top of all the factors which you have mentioned, part of me (the optimistic side) believes that the superheroes genre provides a fertile ground for experimentation especially with diversity. Though it is not perfect, superheroes movies tend to make an effort to be inclusive with diverse casts and I believe, rightly or wrongly, that it has contributed to the success and appeal of the cycle of those movies. – kpfong835 years ago
The release of Todd Phillips's Joker film is imminent. With Joaquin Phoenix in the title role, the film received honors and praise at the Venice Film Festival. Though the film has been generating controversy for its content, the film is projected to have an opening week of about $80 million dollars when it debuts on October 4th. This is a massive projected gross for a R rated film. Will the critical and potential commercial success of stand alone (and more mature) films like Joker influence the direction of Warner Bros. and D.C.'s future films?
I notice that you write about Batman quite consistently. But, this new chapter in the scheme has definitely caught my attention. I watched with awe at Cesar Romero in the 1966 TV series, Jack Nicholson in 1989, and the role that brought me back into the mix, Heath Ledger in 2008. Don't see why this highly anticipated depiction would disappoint. I would like to see a good block of writing on Heath Ledger's outstanding and highly acclaimed characterization. – L:Freire5 years ago
I think this is a valid question to ask and unless this movie somehow becomes a stunning flop (which, let's be honest, is unlikely) then I think it will have a major impact on future D.C. films. Taking in the poor reviews for Suicide Squad and other D.C. films lately, it appears that D.C. definitely wants to go in a more artsy and niche direction, something that previously hasn't existed (at least to my knowledge) for comic book adaptations. I think D.C. has been criticized a lot for its inconsistency in regard to the tone of their movies, and this new Joker movie may solve that problem for them. – BakerQ5 years ago
