“Oh, do grow up 007.”
Since this blog’s inception in 2017, I have written a myriad of flavorful opinions related to the treatment of characters and the overall state of mind in the world of content creation. In an effort to avoid repetitiveness, I continually balance the fine art of recognizing, which one of the two hats are influencing my perspective: the one of a creator or the one of an enthusiast.
As I mentioned in my post from October 2017, Expectations: Pragmatic vs. Idealistic, I note how these two hats, more often than not, have intimately familiar perspectives who walk hand-in-hand. In this post, I want to take it a step further in a thought exercise on how certain content creation decisions can affect, what we refer to as a franchise.
Initially hesitant to use the term franchise out of fear it may have sounded too commercialized, I realized very quickly it was, indeed, the perfect phrase to use. Pick any lucrative, well-known piece of content, such as Star Wars, Star Trek, Marvel, etc., and what word do you see adjacent to them? Franchise. Labeling in this fashion, allows for convenient sanitization of our most beloved stories. In turn, it effectively removes adherence to proper storytelling elements, emboldening many individual and corporate content creators to churn out content, while continuing to make bad decisions.
The latest body bag added to the kill a character because we can and we do not care if you like or not is none other than Ian Fleming’s postwar spy extraordinaire, James Bond. It does seem a bit premature to mention this now but if you are fond of the James Bond lore and wish to avoid spoilers, divert your eyes now.
A few standard caveats for those who have bypassed any of my prior posts. As previously mentioned, this is a thought exercise as are most of my posts, with the intent of exposing my own biases while highlighting the dubious practices taking place in the creative content arena. When reading my posts, keep in mind I hold no ill will towards the actors, producers, directors, or writers; I certainly understand it takes large teams of creative people at all levels to produce what we now consume in seemingly vast quantities.
When I use pointed and hard-hitting terminology, I do my best not to attack people individually, unless it is fairly obvious who is at fault. For me, it is always about the how and addressing the mindset. Trust me when I say, I hold myself accountable to the very same measures, so I do not make the same mistakes in my own artistic endeavors.
In the latest Bond movie, No Time to Die, actor Daniel Craig stars in his last installment as 007 (pronounced “double-O-seven”), where fans are left both shaken and stirred, when they are led to believe a series of seemingly inevitable events bring about the demise of the super spy whose movie legacy began in 1962. I will not be synthesizing the vast body of work associated with James Bond, rather I have provided a number of links below for those who may have never heard of him.
The world of James Bond and the 25 films, which bare his name with titles typically no longer than five words with many containing the word die, is vast and set the bar for what truly good, spy stories should be made of. I grew up watching these movies beginning with Sean Connery up to the present.
I attribute my ability to convey action sequences in succinct and easily digestible tidbits of linguistic sustenance to how these movies inspired me to think beyond how action scenes are typically written. When I write, I want people to see words, not simply read them. When someone tells me they can actually smell the ocean air wafting in through my characters nostrils, I consider it mission accomplished.
What I am more concerned about is the mindset of those who, like 007, have a license to kill our most beloved characters simply because they have been infected with the same disease seen in other notable content, such as Marvel’s The Avengers series, Star Wars, and a plethora of content too numerous to mention. What is this particularly nefarious disease? I refer to it as the Resurrection Syndrome, which often involves providing an actor of a prominent character an easy out at the cost of flipping the middle finger to an audience who helps pay their ridiculously high salary.
Daniel Craig apparently wanted to be out from underneath Bond’s expensive shoe heel for some time. A quote from 2015 has him stipulating he would rather slash his wrists than return to the character. Harrison Ford similarly wanted the iconic character of Han Solo to be killed well before he got his wish in The Force Awakens. Supposedly, Ford practically begged George Lucas to perform the deed much like how Sean Connery wanted Bond dead after playing him seven times.
As one colloquialism wonderfully states; do not get it twisted. I am a staunch supporter of all artists to perfect their craft and challenge themselves to work outside their comfort zones. When your creative perceptions are challenged and stretched to new heights, it not only will enrich the understanding of your craft but bring joy to those who consume the content you create.
Let me now contradict myself by passing along a small piece of advice to those actors who crave identities outside characters who helped make them famous and/or continue to make them famous; next time consider not taking the role, especially ones so well established and idolized as James Bond.
A character should never be penalized or killed off simply because an actor happens to find themselves to be in the unique position of not wanting to portray them any longer. In these situations, I squarely place the blame on the shoulders of production companies, directors, and producers who flush their intellect down the toilet because they can think of nothing original and default to the kill, kill, kill syndrome.
Initially, my stoked criticism was pointed towards the keeper of the Bond franchise, Barbara Broccoli who would have been the one to make such a decision, not some ego centric director, producer or writer who thought their vision is the only one content consumers would agree with. In my research for this post, which resulted in the subsequent reference links below, I could not find anything definitive, effectively neutralizing my focused frustration into a steaming pile of Bantha poodoo. The last part is a Star Wars reference for you non-Star Wars geeks.
What I did find in my research surprised me and, ultimately, switched off my ire. I will point you, dear reader, to the Time article link below, written in October 2021 by Eliana Dockterman, who does an exceptional job at providing a lens to see this character and the franchise through differently. There are parts of the article I completely agree with, while others I could not disagree more. Ms. Dockterman’s article did what many others I had read did not; she performed no mental gymnastics to justify her position. The piece provided the correct succinctness, context, and common-sense reasoning as to the how and why the death of James Bond is mere metaphor.
Until I delved into the lore of James Bond more thoroughly, I saw the movies as one continuous series, where they recycled the character through each one of the actors who played him. In my opinion, the approach worked beautifully because it allowed 007 to remain for new and old audiences alike. When I viewed No Time to Die roughly three weeks ago as of this writing and witnessed the character, in my observation, being killed off, I proclaimed to my husband I would never watch any James Bond movie ever again. More importantly is why did they not do the very thing they had always done when an actor wanted to move on from playing the iconic spy by simply replacing them with another. Therein is where my fiery criticism stood, and I was sticking to it. Well as one Bond movie title notably said, Never Say Never Again.
You see, Bond did perish in No Time to Die making the title deceptive and deliciously nefarious like one of the Bond villains had concocted it to specifically teach us a lesson. In the research I conducted, an astute observation came forth, speaking to a much-needed reinvention of the character to fit more appropriately into our current society and not continue perpetuating societal norms related to hyper-masculinity from the 1960’s.
I will allow you to read the Time article to explore the facets associated with reinventing a character who really does have no time to die. As one who has watched James Bond since I could walk, I believe this is at the heart of not just the Bond franchise but the iconic character himself. Our desire to yearn for a fictional character who, in the end, always outwits both death and a loathsome villain will never abate. Dare I say, we need one now more than ever.
Here is where my post converges and diverges whilst I consider, which of the two hats wins in this assessment. In spite of how I began this post, you may be surprised when I say, I am wearing both because this thought exercise focused mainly on setting my own mind straight on how the enthusiast and writer personas can work together to have uniquely separate opinions. I strive to always do my best and be intellectually honest, no matter how hard it can be when you are personally struck in the feelers about something you care about.
On one hand, the enthusiast part of me reiterates what I just mentioned above; simply replace the actor with another like they have always done or better yet, allow this 007 to ride off into the sunset, content with being done with it all, and close the book on this version of the character. It is not like they have not put Bond in retirement, then brought him out of it, only to put him back in, then…you get my drift.
On the other hand, the creator in me demands adherence to proper storytelling mechanics, respect for characters, and intellectual honesty. The enthusiast side leans towards emotion, where the content creator side is more like a Vulcan receiving the Kolinahr (ko-li-naar) ritual, where all remaining emotion is purged. Generally, my benchmark in determining if certain actions taken by a content creator make sense is the level of mental gymnastics they perform in justifying their decisions. If a content creator immediately leaps towards the offensive, while telling followers of their content to go watch and/or read something else, it is a clear indication they really do not care.
When you consider the entire epoch of the Bond franchise, it makes sense for 007 to end his journey, albeit metaphorically, in a manner befitting the character. You have often read my thoughts on how characters, especially iconic ones, should be treated if a decision is made to end their existence. If it is within the character’s, character to perform an action resulting in their demise, and it makes sense, then it is obviously justifiable and appropriate. If you read any of the articles below it is clear those in charge of the James Bond moniker are looking for another actor to replace him as we speak.
The lesson I learned in this exercise is one I hope to impart, so other creators cannot only hone their craft but how they conceptualize the content they create and consume. I feel it is justified for many of us to get upset about the abuse of beloved stories and characters, which helped propel us forward to create our own worlds; however, we need to be mindful of how it influences our objectivity.
When I see how James Bond has been handled up to the present and know it is going to be managed by the same group of people who are charged with its care, I am confident they will craft a character who is more relevant, while retaining why I continued to watch him – Perseverance.
I end this post with the very same sentence found after the end credits came to a close in No Time to Die…
James Bond will return.
Feel free to post your questions or comments. I will respond when I am able. Be safe, be well and allow compassion to manifest while we continue to navigate a crazy but beautiful world.
Thank you for reading.
CNET Article: https://www.cnet.com/culture/entertainment/no-time-to-die-that-ending-explained-all-your-james-bond-questions-answered/
Esquire Article: https://www.esquire.com/uk/culture/a40105733/is-james-bond-dead/
Franchising: https://www.franchise.org/faqs/basics/what-is-a-franchise
Ian Fleming Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Fleming
James Bond Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Bond
Time Article: https://time.com/6103054/no-time-to-die-ending-james-bond-future/
