The Future of Old Franchises

[Mercurius]

Out of curiosity, how many times were previous Bond story elements with different actors mentioned in some way in later films? I believe that Roger Moore visited the grave of George Lazenby's dead wife, and there was of course continuation with different actors (e.g. Q, Money Penny, etc). But it seems that the story elements were almost entirely distinct.

But I agree with you, Morrus. Bond will be fine. I think Bourne is more uncertain, though in a way it could be considered as the "American Bond" (or is that Mission Impossible?) - or at least it has that potential. But as someone mentioned, they'll need to expand what it is, as there's only so much that can be done with the core Bourne storyline.

 

[overgeeked]

I also have no faith in Amazon doing justice with the Bond franchise. Bezos is a third-rate Bond villain, he’s not going to allow the franchise to attack people like him.

Other than a few unique elements, Bourne never stood out as much more than a slightly less generic than bog standard spy franchise. You could swap in or out just about anything and it would be basically indistinguishable from any other high-action spy movie or TV show.

I’m sort of looking forward the the Mutant Saga in the MCU. But I’ve basically lost interest in the seemingly infinite movies and TV series there are to keep up with. The last series I watched was She-Hulk. I love the character and loved the show. But of course, the internet did what the internet does. The last movie was maybe a Thor or Black Panther. I don’t remember.

Short of recasting and bringing in alternate reality variants, life model decoys, or de-aging potions, they don’t have young enough actors to keep playing some of these parts. Xavier, Magneto, Wolverine, etc.

I honestly hope they hand the reigns to Chris Claremont and let him go. He’s still the best writer any X-book has ever had. I know there’s zero chance of that, but still. Or just adapt his run. Again, never happen.

 

[Morrus]

O I think Bourne is more uncertain, though in a way it could be considered as the "American Bond" (or is that Mission Impossible?)

Both lack the depth (which comes from longevity). The iconic elements. While both have some, Bond just has so many. Neither franchise is even close. Despite Tom Cruise’s best efforts the new Bond will be the sort of event that neither MI or Bourne can hope to emulate. There’s a reason why there’s an article about who’s the front runner for Bond every other day; nobody’s asking about the next Bourne or MI film.

 

[Mercurius]

Both lack the depth (which comes from longevity). The iconic elements. While both have some, Bond just has so many. Neither franchise is even close. Despite Tom Cruise’s best efforts the new Bond will be the sort of event that neither MI or Bourne can hope to emulate. There’s a reason why there’s an article about who’s the front runner for Bond every other day; nobody’s asking about the next Bourne or MI film.

Well, I wasn't really comparing them in that way, and don't disagree - though also don't see the need to pull out the measuring stick to compare them. Ha. If anything, I was saying something similar - that Bond is iconic and has attained a kind of "permanence" to it, where death is only temporary, and that it could be revived in different ways. Not so sure about Bourne, or if its basic approach could be adapted to a wide enough range of stories to come back. I'd like to see them try, though - and given the money invested, they'll give it a shot.

 

[Thomas Shey]

For whatever reason, I think Sadie Sink would make a better Rachel than a Jean.