It would, had they tried to keep James Bond a Cold Warrior. They didn’t, of course, so he gets to die another decade, but if you think the only James Bond is the Sean Connery James Bond, well, he is for their generation only.
Much like your mother, Trebek.
I thought we had hit that point (certainly had for me), but then they released Casino Royale with Daniel Craig and the new attitude and approach. Now I’m enthused again.
Bond is like Batman - he’s a broad enough character that can be rewritten to fit the changes of society.
Bumping this to note that, adjusted for inflation, it’s now apparently passed Thunderball for the #1 slot.
Anyone think the PG-13 ratings of the Craig Bond movies have anything to do with the lack of kiddies at the theater?
I mean, the first Bond film I saw was “The Spy Who Loved Me” when I was maybe 5 years old. My dad would take me to see a PG movie, but probably not a PG-13 when I was 5, and in today’s era of overprotective helicopter parents, how many would let their under-13 year old go see one of those?
(That, and all the usual business about DVD/Blu-Ray sales, cable and pay-per-view taking a lot of the theater’s thunder, especially among youngsters.)
You haven’t been in a movie theater in many decades have you? PG-13 is no barrier for most parents and even R-rated films often have a smattering of 10-12 year olds in the audience today.
That said, every Bond movie since 1989’s License to Kill have been rated PG-13. If the rating had existed in the 70s, I’m sure some of the earlier films (especially The Spy Who Loved Me and its randy ice skater) would have received it.
First off, the “kiddies” the OP was lamenting were teens and twenty year olds, not munchkins.
Second, it’s hard to say. The movie rating system has changed since the movies you are comparing to. PG was a broader category, and so was G. Looking at, say, Moonraker*, I would imagine it would get a PG-13 designation today, both for violence as well as adult themes (Bond getting busy). It is true that parents seem more sensitized to those distinctions, scrutinizing movie selections for children more closely. So perceptions of appropriateness for a 9 year old to watch Bond in the Moore era vs Bond in the Brosnan era or Bond in the Craig era, have shifted, whether or not the content represented in the films is any different.
Both trends probably contribute to fewer children (under 13) being allowed to watch as opposed to the '70s.
*A popular movie that ran many times on TV - I know, because I was too young to stay up at night to watch the whole thing, and only got to see the first half - every time. After the trolley crash and Jaws getting up with his girlfriend, that was bedtime.
You kids get off my lawn with your Jason Bourne Identity!!
I see no reason why 007 can’t keep being reinvented/rebooted indefinitely. At its best, the franchise is a winning combination of action, adventure, thrills, gadgets, geopolitics, a handsome dude and beautiful women, great music, exotic locales, etc.
And here’s the Skyfall thread, for those who missed it: Skyfall for those who've seen it - open spoilers - Cafe Society - Straight Dope Message Board
I generally hit the later showings and also tend toward the Studio Movie Grill / Alamo Drafthouse type cinemas that have food and movies, so they’re not quite so teenager friendly.
I see. Wish I had one of those nearby.
They are nice; you can get a burger, fries and a beer and sit back and watch the movie.
I’m half your age and all of this is true for me and many people my age (except that I don’t have such a problem with QoS). Why on earth would James Bond appeal only to people that were alive for Dr. No? It clearly doesn’t, and there’s no reason that it would. That just makes no sense. Pessimism is fine, but this is just bad reasoning.
They wouldn’t make new Bond movies if it didn’t appeal to the 18-34 age bracket and James Bond will ALWAYS appeal to that age bracket. And age brackets below it. And age brackets above it. Like Elendil’s Heir said, the subject matter is timeless. I do wish for a return to the campy though. Testicularly-traumaed, falls-in-love, doesn’t-care-how-the-martini-is-prepared Bond is a good gimmick but it’d be nice if there was at least 1 classic Daniel Craig Bond movie with all the old tropes. Especially gadgets.
Be careful what you wish for, before you know it Bond’ll be driving around invisible cars again!
I knew the series would outlive me when Goldeneye was a success. I was worried people wouldn’t watch non-Fleming Bond films, but I’ve since realized that the films are much bigger than Fleming.
To steal an idea from Harlan Ellison’s old column in The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction, James Bond, Tarzan, and Sherlock Holmes will always be around because they are archetypes.
I’m the same age as the OP, and as far as adolescent fantasies go, we live on adolescent fantasies.
I agree that Bond is safe so long as there are enemies and so long as they refresh Bond and so long as they don’t let morons control the franchise. Ditto for Holmes - except no one controls Holmes any more.
Not so sure about Tarzan, though. Notice how most of the movies in the past 40 years have been origin stories? Once you get past that, it seems hard to do an acceptable plot with a white king of the jungle. A lot of ERB’s stuff depended on lost tribes and lost cities. Maybe a Tarzan story about Opar would be good, but I’m not sure if the current movie-going crowd would swallow it.
Actually, the best recent Tarzan movie was George of the Jungle.
Just like (arguably) the best Star Trek movie ever was Galaxy Quest - another affectionate, knowing, dead-on spoof.
Austin Powers was pretty popular as well.
Not nearly as good IMHO.