has anyone else lost their love of the bond series?

[pahonu]

2 hours ago, Augusta said:

LOL, it's like I said.  

Each of you posting feels you were introduced to Bond through "actor-X", and you "bond" to the attitude of that batch of films that included him. (Actually, since each of us watched a particular decade of Bond films, and the franchise seemed to hold onto an actor no longer than roughly five years at a time, you've each been familiarized with TWO Bond actors depending on our decade).  You each come away accepting the WAY in which Hollywood chose to align the movie with the current culture.   (for example the Hip humorous 70's with Moore, the vengeful stealth relentlessness of the 80's with Dalton), so the other Bond actors will never please you like those you were introduced to first.  Part of you will always be saying "That's not how Bond is supposed to do it--this movie needs more "blank" in it, like my Bond in film no 14."  (Mine's Connery and Lazenby, and right down to the ladies in their movies THEIR attitudes toward the storyline appear perfect to me---Live and Let Die was the only amount of Moore I could accept before I started criticizing every next Bond picture he did).

That's one weird magically fun anomaly that we have to give the Bond franchise kudos for creating, that I don't think other franchises could ever create. 

I agree, and you make a great point.  My circumstances might be a little different though.  The first Bond I ever saw was Goldfinger, but it was on TV as my dad was a fan.  I saw one or two more Connery films in TV and Lazenby’s.  My first Bond experience on the big screen was For Your Eyes Only, but that wasn’t typical of Moore’s films being quite realistic and tough, for him anyway.  I saw his next two films in the theater and was less impressed.  
 

At that point I began reading the books and had read them all before I ever saw all the movies.  I’ve read several more than once.  When Dalton came along, I liked him the best because of his similarities to the novel character.  When he proved unpopular, I was a bit disappointed.  I eventually saw all the earlier films but the literary Bond has remained the James Bond I think of first.  
 

Perhaps it’s because I saw several actors in the role and, while they each had qualities to be enjoyed, the Bond of the novels was already established in my mind.  I have only seen one of the Brosnan and Craig films, the first for each. I suppose I’ll see the others at some point but, as you wrote earlier, the books are what I return to.

[fakespyder]

I like the Craig films, but it is definitely not aimed at me. I can't help but wonder where the fun went. To be fair, I haven't seen this last one yet though.

I grew up with Moore so I kind of love those ones and they were more light hearted and fun. Jaws scared me as a kid. It was weird when he turned into a love struck nice guy.

I think Brosnan looked the best for Bond. His first film Goldeneye started strong but following films declined in quality.

Judy Dench's M calling Brosnan's Bond a "sexist, misogynist dinosaur...a relic of the Cold War" and Brosnan's lack of reaction was the highlight of the series for me. 

Both characters unapologetic and having a grudging respect by the end.

 

[Robbie C.]

Brosnan suffered from a series of poor scripts, honestly. I also seem to recall a quote from Christopher Lee saying he felt Brosnan was the closest to what Fleming viewed as being Bond, and given he was Fleming's step-cousin and knew him pretty well I think that's a comment with some weight.

In any case, I tend to keep the literary and screen Bonds very separate in my mind. The movie Bond is occasionally interesting, but that's about it. Fleming's writing style, on the other hand, is quite fluid. You can tell he got tired of Bond later on, as the quality starts to slip a bit, but the majority are quite good.

[Eillio Martin Imbasciati]

20 hours ago, Augusta said:

Speaking of Moonraker...

Eillio, have you ever listened to one of those 70's interviews of Jaws actor Richard Kiel just being himself?  
BLEW ME AWAY!!  No way that's the real guy!  

Reads great literature, so down to earth in the interviews, the kind of person poets and artist would want to invite to their high-art parties.  Had a rich voice that makes women turn all gooey inside---I stopped going to the theaters with my girlfriend when Roger Moore's Bond movie was around, cuz I knew she was smokin for Jaws to say something in the movie with that voice of his.  
Crush on Roger Moore I'm okay with--cuz he's nearly an old man.  But crush on Richard Kiel--nope, we're leaving the theater now.

Oh yeah, Richard Kiel was a true artist; completely fascinating guy all the way around. I'm glad he became known, so we had a chance to enjoy who he was as a person. I definitely think he was a brilliant man, and a lot of fun on TV & film.

Ha ha, I can understand your girlfriend having a crush on Richard Kiel; I think he has a certain charm & charisma that ladies would really go for. Plus, he seemed sensitive, tender, and from what I've listened to was humorous (didn't take himself too seriously either). He's also one of those people who simply cannot be duplicated; he just had too many various quality (height, voice, mind, perspective, someone who one would like to learn more about). I bet we'd have a better chance eating a cheeseburger with The Man on the Moon than there being anyone like Richard Kiel ever again.

[Eillio Martin Imbasciati]

3 hours ago, Robbie C. said:

Brosnan suffered from a series of poor scripts, honestly. I also seem to recall a quote from Christopher Lee saying he felt Brosnan was the closest to what Fleming viewed as being Bond, and given he was Fleming's step-cousin and knew him pretty well I think that's a comment with some weight.

In any case, I tend to keep the literary and screen Bonds very separate in my mind. The movie Bond is occasionally interesting, but that's about it. Fleming's writing style, on the other hand, is quite fluid. You can tell he got tired of Bond later on, as the quality starts to slip a bit, but the majority are quite good.

The Brosnan films after "Goldeneye" are where I began having issues with the series. It's nothing against Brosnan for sure; I think he's debonair, cares about the art of acting (and I feel he's very good at it), and in general is pretty awesome (I always liked that 1989 TV movie he did, "The Heist". For a bonus that film also has Tom Atkins and Tom Skerritt, but in general I've liked Brosnan's work outside Bond, like "Nomads", "The Fourth Protocol", his bit part in "The Long Good Friday"--as an Irishman, he was built to be in that film--  & "The Lawnmower Man").

[Ferrariman]

I liked Brosnan and wonder what the movies would've been like if he had been able to get the part earlier. Unfortunately he was under contract for "Remington Steele"  (1982-1987)

To answer the main question, no. I've been loving Daniel Craig as Bond.  I didn't think I would like Craig at first but I love the way the series got back to serious business. Not a ton of gadgets, just Bond, his fists and his weapon!   I think one of the best moves they made though was to get rid of (much as I like him) John Cleese as Q.

[pahonu]

3 hours ago, Robbie C. said:

In any case, I tend to keep the literary and screen Bonds very separate in my mind. The movie Bond is occasionally interesting, but that's about it. Fleming's writing style, on the other hand, is quite fluid. You can tell he got tired of Bond later on, as the quality starts to slip a bit, but the majority are quite good.

Hey Robbie, have you ever read Umberto Eco’s scholarly analysis of Fleming’s writing style?  He particularly focuses on his use of hooks in plotting the story.  He even developed a outline that applies to most of the novels following Casino Royale.  Kingsley Amis had earlier called it the Fleming Sweep.  It’s called “Narrative Structures in Fleming”.
 

Others have analyzed his use of brand name objects, along with setting details, as a way of grounding the otherwise fantastical elements in his stories.  Amis called this the Fleming Effect.  Amis himself wrote a Bond novel I finally read a few years ago, Colonel Sun.  It’s perhaps the only non-Fleming Bond novel that I have really enjoyed.  

[Robbie C.]

1 hour ago, pahonu said:

Hey Robbie, have you ever read Umberto Eco’s scholarly analysis of Fleming’s writing style?  He particularly focuses on his use of hooks in plotting the story.  He even developed a outline that applies to most of the novels following Casino Royale.  Kingsley Amis had earlier called it the Fleming Sweep.  It’s called “Narrative Structures in Fleming”.
 

Others have analyzed his use of brand name objects, along with setting details, as a way of grounding the otherwise fantastical elements in his stories.  Amis called this the Fleming Effect.  Amis himself wrote a Bond novel I finally read a few years ago, Colonel Sun.  It’s perhaps the only non-Fleming Bond novel that I have really enjoyed.  

I have. I've also read Fleming's analysis of his own writing style, which is really interesting: almost equal parts hubris and dismissive. There's also a pretty good recent bio of Fleming out, along with a "bio" of Bond by an author who also wrote a bio of Fleming (John Pearson did the Bond bio, and the Fleming one I'm referencing is by Andrew Lycett).

Oddly, the novelizations of some of the Bond movies aren't bad, either (Moonraker and The Spy Who Loved Me by Christopher Wood are the two I'm thinking of). I couldn't stand the John Gardner Bonds, and most of the others since have been pretty thin when compared to the original. Carte Blanche (one of the latest wave of Bond things) had its moments, and started to postulate that Bond's mother was actually a spy of some kind. Characters weren't bad, but the plot really lurched and fizzled (at least for me).

[Robbie C.]

2 hours ago, Eillio Martin Imbasciati said:

Oh yeah, Richard Kiel was a true artist; completely fascinating guy all the way around. I'm glad he became known, so we had a chance to enjoy who he was as a person. I definitely think he was a brilliant man, and a lot of fun on TV & film.

Ha ha, I can understand your girlfriend having a crush on Richard Kiel; I think he has a certain charm & charisma that ladies would really go for. Plus, he seemed sensitive, tender, and from what I've listened to was humorous (didn't take himself too seriously either). He's also one of those people who simply cannot be duplicated; he just had too many various quality (height, voice, mind, perspective, someone who one would like to learn more about). I bet we'd have a better chance eating a cheeseburger with The Man on the Moon than there being anyone like Richard Kiel ever again.

He was also on The Wild, Wild West back in the day.

[pahonu]

3 hours ago, Robbie C. said:

He was also on The Wild, Wild West back in the day.

Dr. Loveless’ henchman Voltaire!  Too bad they didn’t keep him after the first season.

Edited November 14, 2021 by pahonu

[pahonu]

17 hours ago, Robbie C. said:

I have. I've also read Fleming's analysis of his own writing style, which is really interesting: almost equal parts hubris and dismissive. There's also a pretty good recent bio of Fleming out, along with a "bio" of Bond by an author who also wrote a bio of Fleming (John Pearson did the Bond bio, and the Fleming one I'm referencing is by Andrew Lycett).

Oddly, the novelizations of some of the Bond movies aren't bad, either (Moonraker and The Spy Who Loved Me by Christopher Wood are the two I'm thinking of). I couldn't stand the John Gardner Bonds, and most of the others since have been pretty thin when compared to the original. Carte Blanche (one of the latest wave of Bond things) had its moments, and started to postulate that Bond's mother was actually a spy of some kind. Characters weren't bad, but the plot really lurched and fizzled (at least for me).

I read a Fleming biography I found in the library in the late 80’s, maybe 90, and it was already an old book.  It can’t be the more recent one you reference but I don’t recall the author, perhaps Pearson.  I’ve noticed Fleming was pretty dismissive in public statements about his writing but I always chalked it up to British understatement.  I’ve not read his own analysis.  It sounds interesting.  Eco’s analysis really boosted Fleming’s writing academically.

I read the first Gardner Bond in high school after finishing all the originals.  I wasn’t impressed and read no more.  I knew of Colonel Sun but couldn’t find it at the time.   I thought of it years later and got it used online.  I’ve been thinking of trying one of Horowitz’s novels, particularly the one set before Casino Royale.  I don’t recall the title.  I doubt I’ll read any of the modernized Carte Blanche books.  I prefer the Cold War stories, I suppose.  I recall reading that all of Fleming’s novels included Cold War elements except Diamonds are Forever.  

 

Edited November 14, 2021 by pahonu

[agent 47]

I've read a few Bond continuation novels (from John Gardner and Raymond Benson) and found them too dull and pedestrian to be Bond stories. The Fleming novels might not have been as fantastical as some of the movies later on they still were grand and exotic novels that laid the framework for the films. The Gardner and Benson novels feel like you could just easily replace the main character with a generic detective/spy and wouldn't be able to tell it was originally a Bond story while Fleming's novel you can tell immediately what you're reading. 

On Fleming's own views of his novels. I think there were some dismissive criticism towards his work at the time and his own home life didn't help as I heard that his own wife used to make fun of his work which has got to be tough to deal with. I think if he lived long enough to see how the film series would take off after Goldfinger he might have felt a bit differently.

[Robbie C.]

18 hours ago, pahonu said:

I read a Fleming biography I found in the library in the late 80’s, maybe 90, and it was already an old book.  It can’t be the more recent one you reference but I don’t recall the author, perhaps Pearson.  I’ve noticed Fleming was pretty dismissive in public statements about his writing but I always chalked it up to British understatement.  I’ve not read his own analysis.  It sounds interesting.  Eco’s analysis really boosted Fleming’s writing academically.

I read the first Gardner Bond in high school after finishing all the originals.  I wasn’t impressed and read no more.  I knew of Colonel Sun but couldn’t find it at the time.   I thought of it years later and got it used online.  I’ve been thinking of trying one of Horowitz’s novels, particularly the one set before Casino Royale.  I don’t recall the title.  I doubt I’ll read any of the modernized Carte Blanche books.  I prefer the Cold War stories, I suppose.  I recall reading that all of Fleming’s novels included Cold War elements except Diamonds are Forever.  

 

It was most likely Pearson. I think he was one of the first to really do a bio of Fleming.

Kiel did appear on The Wild, Wild West again, though, although not tied to Loveless. The Night of the Simian Terror if I remember right.

[pahonu]

Just now, Robbie C. said:

It was most likely Pearson. I think he was one of the first to really do a bio of Fleming.

Kiel did appear on The Wild, Wild West again, though, although not tied to Loveless. The Night of the Simian Terror if I remember right.

I had forgotten.  I’m a big fan of that series also.  Do you recall the title where Fleming analyzed his own writing?  Thanks in advance.

[Robbie C.]

5 hours ago, pahonu said:

I had forgotten.  I’m a big fan of that series also.  Do you recall the title where Fleming analyzed his own writing?  Thanks in advance.

It was a magazine article, I believe. I found it on a different site and saved it as a PDF, but the basis of that article is here.

[Kalci]

To be honest I have never liked really Daniel Craig as James Bond. To me the last real Bond character was Pierce Brosnan, in my view he is much better looking much more a gentleman type person than Daniel Craig could ever be. Daniel much more like a Jason Statham type actor, no real emotions can come up on his face except fury. Charm ? I don't think he has any of it.

 

Edited August 14, 2022 by Kalci

[Tom]

I think they killed the franchise with the (end of the) last movie. Bond was always a lady man with a lot of irony, humor and some twinkle twinkle over the top attitude, the earlier movies did not take themselves too serious especially with Moore and Brosnan (invisible car). There was a certain formula for Bond, as there was for MV (MM did the same mistake with the MV movie to violate the formula and just kept the name).

Craig was an unemotional guy with no humor, just brutal and then suddenly in the last movie (spoiler!) he turns to a whiny sentimental family man and they killed him off in the end when he sacrificed himself. Now I know why the former director was changed during pre production as there were „artistic differences“. 

Given the end, most likely a gift to Craig to get a big walk-off, they can only pull the same stunt like in „Dallas“ in the 80s where characters got killed but then suddenly returned as the whole killing was just a „bad dream“. Otherwise I see no logic explanation how he could survive this. Or they start the series again with Bond‘s birth or start in MI6?

Either way they have burned the character forever and turned James Bond into a bad spinoff of his former self, a kind of Jason Bourne replica. I was always a Bond fan but that was it for me.

[Robbie C.]

1 hour ago, Kalci said:

To be honest I have never liked really Daniel Craig as James Bond. To me the last real Bond character was Pierce Brosnan, in my view he is much better looking much more a gentleman type person than Daniel Craig could ever be. Daniel much more like a Jason Statham type actor, no real emotions can come up on his face except fury. Charm ? I don't think he has any of it.

 

I think Statham would have made a better Bond, honestly. He does have a sense of humor in many of his roles and something of the Moore ability to wink at his own antics on occasion (think of the Crank movies). But for me Brosnan was the best Bond. He just got stuck with terrible scripts (The November Man, while not a spectacular movie, shows what he could have done with the role).

[RedDragon86]

Timothy Dalton in my opinion is the perfect Bond, even though his films are no where as good as Sean Connery's.

I agree that also Pierce Brosnan fits the role perfectly as well, convincing agents.

I do like Rogers Moore bond films, live and let die ect but he is not convincing as Bond, he fights like a stiff robot and he has got no moves. It's just hard to believe that he was trained by MI5.

 

Edited August 14, 2022 by RedDragon86

[Augusta]

On 8/14/2022 at 9:15 AM, Tom said:

I think they killed the franchise with the (end of the) last movie. Bond was always a lady man with a lot of irony, humor and some twinkle twinkle over the top attitude, the earlier movies did not take themselves too serious especially with Moore and Brosnan (invisible car). There was a certain formula for Bond, as there was for MV (MM did the same mistake with the MV movie to violate the formula and just kept the name).

Craig was an unemotional guy with no humor, just brutal and then suddenly in the last movie (spoiler!) he turns to a whiny sentimental family man and they killed him off in the end when he sacrificed himself. Now I know why the former director was changed during pre production as there were „artistic differences“. 

Given the end, most likely a gift to Craig to get a big walk-off, they can only pull the same stunt like in „Dallas“ in the 80s where characters got killed but then suddenly returned as the whole killing was just a „bad dream“. Otherwise I see no logic explanation how he could survive this. Or they start the series again with Bond‘s birth or start in MI6?

Either way they have burned the character forever and turned James Bond into a bad spinoff of his former self, a kind of Jason Bourne replica. I was always a Bond fan but that was it for me.

"Best Bond" is always a pitfall for fans.  No, not a BAD or negative pitfall, LOL, but just an impulse we all tend to make, without realizing we've each been heavily influenced to think that way, by the era we grew up in, or the time in our lives when we were first introduced to 'Bond', or even whether we've read any of Ian Fleming's books.  
OR, any combinations of what I just wrote here.  

Example, I grew up watching Moore as Simon Templar, youthful, well educated, non-ruthless, refreshingly devil-may-care, and popular yet considerate with each of the numerous lady-friends he's constantly taking out to dinner in his car.  
The first Bond film I ever saw was either On Her Majesty's Secret Service or Dr. No.  (witnessing Connery shooting a dying man in the spine with a silencer on, and Lazenby's wife getting a bullet in her forehead).  I was a hardcore fan of Stephanie Zimbalist's Remington Steele from pilot episode to series ending, and Pierce Brosnan played his role with a delightful Cary Grant kind of delicacy---a delicate perfect woman-charmer.  
In spite of any of the logical reasoning I mentioned in previous posts about my preference for Connery's Bond, I know also that these in-my-youth facts put an subconscious PREJUDICE in my head against anyone who plays the role besides but Connery or Lazenby (or Craig) as my "best Bonds".  
I even started reading pages from Fleming's books, and Fleming SWEATS contempt for women out of his MI5 agent's pores---his Bond is not a lover or women, he's a USER of the women.  
Somewhere in my subconscious head, I'm saying to myself Simon Templar was fun and gentle to the ladies---so he can't be cruel enough to be Bond.  Remington Steele was an adorable bullshooter and sweet-talker, he'd never strangle a woman with her bra-strap or screw her all night just because she'll lead him to the villain's safety deposit box.  So these actors can't possibly be good Bonds---you need Sean Connery to be cuddly AND ruthless-womanizer simultaneously.  
It's a ridiculous reason for rejecting any other actors in the role, but I know the prejudice is always there in me, and not by my doing.  It's just literally the circumstances of each fan's youth.

What Connery, Terrance Fisher, and Monty Norman created can't be destroyed, don't worry.  What technical people were able to do with Craig (realize there is gritty more bruising immorality in Fleming's novels that was untapped by past films and was ripe to be presented to a novice audience) "saved" Bond from the franchise-direction it had fallen into with inviso-cars.  Somewhere ahead of us, some new technical collaborators will find a way to tap something from Fleming's works that will "save" Bond films again, balanced somewhere between humorous past James Bond and present rough James Bond.  
What Lucas created with Star Wars is dead, and can't be restored.  But a ruined Bond franchise tends to be restorable.

Edited August 15, 2022 by Augusta

[jpaul1]

been rewatching for your eyes only. and in term of richness value it's uncomparable in comparison with latest Bonds. in FYEO, everything is great, and most important plausible. I'm not starting a bashing of latest Bond scenarists here. But if i had just one advice it's if you don't have a good idea please refrain. these nano bots viruses got me traumatized. how can you go that dumb with such a great series

now watching Live and let die

[Tom]

vor 14 Minuten schrieb jpaul1:

been rewatching for your eyes only. and in term of richness value it's uncomparable in comparison with latest Bonds. in FYEO, everything is great, and most important plausible. I'm not starting a bashing of latest Bond scenarists here. But if i had just one advice it's if you don't have a good idea please refrain. these nano bots viruses got me traumatized. how can you go that dumb with such a great series

now watching Live and let die

There were most bond movies to watch for free on Amazon recently due to the 60 year anniversary of the series. 
 

I rewatched them and got re-confirmed that the Connery/Moore/Brosnan movies were the best for me overall (disregarding some ridiculous things in latest Brosnan movies like invisible cars). I have to acknowledge that even the first movies had impressive action scenes way beyond everything else at the time. The only aspect of the old movies that looks ridiculous now are the fight scenes and techniques used. This is the only asset of Craig‘s movies that fights were choreographed much better, realistic (and brutal). The change in overall tone of the movies from an ironic/bit funny/over the top Bond to a Bourne type only brutal and lacking any humor is obvious but maybe also a bit due to zeitgeist.

Any way after binge watching 23 of 25 Bonds over a few weeks my verdict still stands that they ruined the franchise with the latest movie (Leiter dies, Bond dies, Wonder that London did not get nuked…!) and a very nihilistic type of Bond played by an uncharismatic actor whose biggest asset is a nice six pack at 50. 

 

[jpaul1]

there are two things that make the making of a new Bond nowadays quite difficult, not to say very difficult

first, travel. people don't realize it, but in the 70s, or even 80s travelling was reserved to an elite. I was born in the 70s, and i remember names like Honk-Kong represented dream to an extend it's hard to imagine for nowadays people. nowadays, you google Hong-kong you get thousands of high resolutions pics. you can even roam the streets in street view. If you fall in love with the place, even with a low income you can save a bit, and go there physically

the second thing is women. in Bond women aren't objectized, but not far away from that. they are fantasms, shown as the ultimate reward. in the world we are living, which praises the strict equality between man, and woman, these things can't go through anymore

and if you remove these things which represent a big part of Bonds dream, there's sadly very few material left

But it's important not to create new episodes if there's no good idea. because we can go through a few bad things. But when they become numerous, and sadly this is the case right now, then like you say @Tom they're simply killing the series. death of Eva Green, one of Bonds greatest Bond girl. death of Waltz, one of greatest actors of the series all episodes included. track down, and death of M, which pulls the plot onto an uncertain, and quite unreal path. blood based GPS microship. totally unrealistic in a country like UK, with the ethics of theirs. nanobots viruses. this is not a spy movie anymore, but clearly sci-fi. this becomes to be a lot. and i don't talk of Brosnan villain who owns a jaguar with miniguns on it in the north pole. a jaguar with miniguns in the north pole for what. for polar bear hunting, seriously. not even mentioning the helo mounted saw. go speak of that to an helo pilot, he'll tell you this is pure idiocity

I'm personnally still convinced that there's still room for good Bond scenarios. creativity is something endless. But i think it's important not to do it, if you're not sure of what you're doing. there have been too much damage, and more will kill the series

[Tom]

vor einer Stunde schrieb jpaul1:

there are two things that make the making of a new Bond nowadays quite difficult, not to say very difficult

first, travel. people don't realize it, but in the 70s, or even 80s travelling was reserved to an elite. I was born in the 70s, and i remember names like Honk-Kong represented dream to an extend it's hard to imagine for nowadays people. nowadays, you google Hong-kong you get thousands of high resolutions pics. you can even roam the streets in street view. If you fall in love with the place, even with a low income you can save a bit, and go there physically

the second thing is women. in Bond women aren't objectized, but not far away from that. they are fantasms, shown as the ultimate reward. in the world we are living, which praises the strict equality between man, and woman, these things can't go through anymore

and if you remove these things which represent a big part of Bonds dream, there's sadly very few material left

But it's important not to create new episodes if there's no good idea. because we can go through a few bad things. But when they become numerous, and sadly this is the case right now, then like you say @Tom they're simply killing the series. death of Eva Green, one of Bonds greatest Bond girl. death of Waltz, one of greatest actors of the series all episodes included. track down, and death of M, which pulls the plot onto an uncertain, and quite unreal path. blood based GPS microship. totally unrealistic in a country like UK, with the ethics of theirs. nanobots viruses. this is not a spy movie anymore, but clearly sci-fi. this becomes to be a lot. and i don't talk of Brosnan villain who owns a jaguar with miniguns on it in the north pole. a jaguar with miniguns in the north pole for what. for polar bear hunting, seriously. not even mentioning the helo mounted saw. go speak of that to an helo pilot, he'll tell you this is pure idiocity

I'm personnally still convinced that there's still room for good Bond scenarios. creativity is something endless. But i think it's important not to do it, if you're not sure of what you're doing. there have been too much damage, and more will kill the series

They killed the series already IMHO:

1. they killed the formula by massively changing the main character (Bond´s personality, his motives, his MO)

2. they killed all main (recurring) characters. Bond is dead. Blofeld is too, as well as Leiter. How to go back and continue? Say like in Dallas when JR was shot at the end of one season that it was just a bad dream and not reality?

[jpaul1]

idk if it's already dead, but it's true that it's gone very badly. there had been lot of errors. And the one that will have to fix that will need a lot of talent