The series needs a mass overall: new Bond actor, new Bond writer, new Bond producer.
Daniel Craig has been in two good movies, but I have always held that he's the anti-Bond. He's a dull, bitter, sexless antihero. There's nothing wrong with him being an antihero. But he's meant to be suave and hyper-sexual. Craig is as suave as a rusty nail and only cares about sex when he's cuckolding the villain to prove he's the alpha male. You couldn't be further away from 007 if you tried. The cards and alcohol are also missing in action.
They've had the same writer since Tomorrow Never Dies. It's clear he was never a fan of the things that make 007 who he is. I don't know why they keep using him. Bond doesn't have to be a chauvinist. It's better to leave that in the past. But he should be classy, he should be a romantic, and his movies should have an element of fun.
For the most part, Bond movies were cartoon shows for adults. It'd be more profitable to get back to that. And if you want to be dramatic, which has served Bond well in movies like Casino Royale and From Russia With Love, be dramatic. But be Bond. Don't be whatever the hell Daniel Craig is. It's like they rebooted the series with Red Grant as the star instead of Bond.
I mostly agree with this. I like Craig as Bond, but the franchise as a whole could benefit from a number of changes.
iPhone_7 posted...
Whenever I picture what Bond is supposed to look like its usually Pierce Brosnan. I dont know why, Ive only ever seen one of his Bond movies & it was once.
I think that's the same for a lot of people, including myself. Probably has to do with him being Bond when most of us were children. I think Connery, Moore, and Dalton were all better too, but Brosnan is the first one I picture when I think of James Bond. ---
Ah, yes, the Negotiator: General Kenobi <sneaky beeping>