Why?

 

For the reasons above. He's a bit of an anachronism now, and each iteration devalues the legacy of the past Bond movies. Why not take it in a new direction and give us an original and alternative take on the action hero spy movie.

 

This is the same argument as when people say 'X' band doesn't sound like they used to they should change their name. Why don't they? Cos the name is what pulls in the punters.

 

OK then, so it could still be a James Bond film, but the location of the opening scene is his funeral. New character, played by Idris Elba, investigates his death, and uncovers some sort of international plot involving the Chinese or the Russians (maybe a visit to Salisbury cathedral?). Cue lots of action (but a bit less of the old Aston Martins, casino scenes and baddy temptresses). At the end of the film, we see Idris being congratulated by top brass, whereupon he gets the new code number 007 and the pseudonym James Bond.

 

Yes... that could work. But, don't you think that what you've just described has parallels with 1985 and the renaming of Heuer as TAG Heuer?

People will simply say 'Oh I like James Bond, but not since the change'.

 

All this talk kinda ignores the fact that James Bond is a stale character and the movies, boring paint-by-numbers exercises in repetition.

Put Idris Elba (or a woman or whoever) into a new completely different role that's given the space to become something much more modern and interesting rather than adhering to strict, 60-year-old guidelines.

 

I would run with that, aside from giving him a new name but keeping the 007.

I do prefer the idea of a new character without constraints though.

 

As long as there is a Broccoli there will be a 007.

 

I agree, but I was pandering to @Aquagraph 's criterion that the name had to stay. This was the only way I could see it working and taking the spy movie in a new direction at the same time.

 

I need to clarify, I meant this is post- GoldenEye. I think GoldenEye was a timely update at the time, but they did not capitalize on it.

The Craig movies suck. Can't remember a single plot point from any of them

 

Yeah, because it's a cash cow. Just like people go to see every Marvel movie despite knowing exactly how it's gonna go, people go to see Bond movies cause they're familiar. But that's my point - the whole "the next Bond should be a __________ (more diverse actor)" conversation ignores the fact that the movies will still be boring no matter who's playing the character of James Bond or 007. So, let a white British guy keep playing them - I won't be watching them until they're on TV anyway. I'd much rather watch an original spy adventure with Idris Elba or a lady (Mary Elizabeth Winstead does an excellent job at this kind of stuff, go watch 10 Cloverfield Lane or Gemini Man)

 

You can't change everything at once. Either you make him black, or a woman, or a black woman, or a black woman in a wheelchair, or a black woman in a wheelchair with a wife and two ethnically different children (by her wife - who may or may not be a woman), or you change the plots. If you change everything at once it will fail dismally and lose a ton of money.

I remember when Bernie Ecclestone said he really wanted a black driver in F1, but he had to be REALLY good. Because he knew that if a mediocre black driver came in to the sport and he wasn't good then it wouldn't help matters at all. Same thing, if you're going to make Bond black (much preferable to making him a woman btw, just as Miss Marple should stay a woman) then it has to be a film so good that no one can criticize it. Which is gonna be tough given that if you change everything at once people will say 'it's not a Bond film'..

 

How about someone actually creates a 'NEW' character (that could be black) and a film good enough to start a new 'franchise'... and shouldn't we actually be celebrating the last Bond who is 53, the next one will probably be like 17 or something

 

Yes, that's exactly what I've been saying.

Not sure whether 'Salt' was a dismal financial failure or not but that could've been an interesting franchise that they didn't do anything with

 

I guess the Bourne films were kinda that...

 

But I guess as a brand 'James Bond' is probably up there with Rolex and Coca Cola. But like Rolex and Coca Cola, people know what it is and they don't want it messing with!

 

Yeah, and you can clearly see the influence of the Bourne films in Craig's Bond as they tried to adapt to modern sensibilities. But we still must have our man in a tuxedo, for some reason

 

Same as my point above.

It could be tied into the Bond films by using the same world and support characters or something completely different.

 

It all boils down to the fact that Bond is established, it's hard to establish something new - but equally I don't really see why something that is established has to be changed just for the sake of it. Are we going to end up with a situation where we have a black Bond, a black Spiderman, a black Batman and a black Poirot? Just so we can say 'we're promoting equality'? The problem is now it's not like 'oh we're taking a new direction and we've decided off our own backs to use an actor who happens to be black', it's all pressure and justification and being seen to do the right thing, even if the audience doesn't necessarily want that - which is where the problem lies. Do you give the audience what pressure groups are telling you they 'should' want, or do you give them what they actually want? Again, nobody wanted an all female Ghostbusters, but we got it and it was a terrible failure. So does each franchise have to go through this 'look we tried' situation before they can go back to where they were?

 

If it’s not broke, don’t fix it!
The new film seems to be getting rave reviews so let the franchise continue unchanged, if you want something different, character etc, new name, style and franchise, Bond is Bond, Shaft was Shaft, not a pic n mix sweety counter.