It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
It's true. There was a mild reinvigoration when Brosnan appeared, a lot more spy films started appearing after GoldenEye created a stir.
Huh? That's literally what they're always attempting to do. Peirce Brosnans smoothness and the slickness to his movies is an update or refreshing from the more gritty 80's action films, which they did because they wanted to remain relevant to a young audience under 30.
No matter how you look at it, Bond 26 has to appeal to a younger audience, for them to then take the next actor as "their bond" in the same way as Brosnan was mine growing up, and Craig was for many here. Without that cycle continuing, the franchise will fade out with the audience.
Lol. If playing on it is connected to his mission. Then, Yeah...it could work. It just depends on how it's written, acted, shot, scored and directed. So it doesn't come off as goofy.
That has nothing to do with appealing to a younger audience. There's a difference between staying relevant and outright pandering to the youth. Of course they want to keep bringing in new fans, but they do that by staying current, taking what worked in the last era, while also bringing in new flavours to keep things fresh and interesting.
But the way they achieve "staying current" IS by appealing to the youth. You can call it something else if you wish, but functionally there's no difference. The franchise needs a generation of under 30 somethings to take up the next actor as "their Bond", just like millenials did with Brosnan/Craig, otherwise it won't last for much longer.
The good news is that Alien, a franchise which has been floundering for decades somehow managed to capture that demographic again with romulus, so we see that it is possible, but EON have a huge job on their hands. If I were them I would be praying that Project 007 is a huge success, and could potentially grease the wheels on getting the next era underway, similar to Hogwarts legacy and the upcoming Harry Potter series mega-reboot.
Then aside from the video game, tell me how Eon should go about appealing to the under 30s.
I’m not sure how adequate my response will be without getting into specifics, but it’s pretty much what I said before. They just need to make the best modern day Bond film they can. Find a lead who’s charismatic, fits the role, but still adds something a bit different. Make sure the film is relevant for today (again, the specifics of this can be anything from the actual plot to the take on Bond himself. I liked @Burgess ’s suggestion about a sort mix between Craig’s take on the role and something that reflects an optimism). Make sure the Bond girl, villain, supporting characters etc are all strong. Oh, and as usual creative, gripping action sequences, and a dash of sex, sadism and sophistication integral to Bond etc.
Basically, they broadly need to do what they’ve always done. Update the series and make the best film with the best team possible. No gimmicks (Bond will likely use a modern phone, have some sort of modern tech etc. but only insofar as it’s relevant to the story. We don’t need to see him scrolling through SnapChat or whatever).
Again, the specifics are anyone’s guess when it comes to character, plot etc. As much as we can speculate it’s something that’ll really only become clear and resonate with viewers when it’s released. I personally don’t think there’s need for a radical course correction as we got with CR, and the Craig era left us with a good mix of light humour and darker fatalism. But at the same time it’ll be a new beginning.
By being in tune with the gen z generation and the cultural climate of the time. For example, in the 70's and early 80's what was appealing to audiences was broad silliness on an epic scale. In the 90's young people were attracted to slick coolness and technology. If there is a scene which incapsulates brosnans bond its probably him walking through the casino with x-ray specs on, his smooth charm paired with futuristic gadgetry, or him riding the BMW through the parking lot. I don't exactly know what gen z finds engaging today, because as a millenial I'm on the outside looking in, but I know for a fact that gen z are far less cynical than millennials. They seem to have an innocent goofiness, which millenials would have viewed as lame and uncool. That being said, I think gen z is much more open to some silliness being brought back into the fold, and would call it "fire" or "lit" when Bond does something absurd, whereas late 2000's millenials would've rolled their eyes.
I really wouldn’t say that’s true at all 😂 In fact it’s something of a cliche that Gen Z find Millennial humour a bit too self deprecating and uncool, while Gen Z humour is darker and… well, quite frankly weird. I know plenty of youngish people who are cynical.
But to be honest, it’s a bit like going down a rabbit hole trying to pinpoint all this sort of stuff. Im not sure how relevant it is to making a Bond film.
Whether it's a commercial or autuer director, the film will be goofier to appeal to zoomers. Barbie had a autuer director and was still a silly movie.
These are all just generalisations and really not true to my experience. It's a good example of why trying to make a Bond film (or really any film) with the intent of having 'generational appeal' is just futile. And as you said yourself, this Gen Z brand of humour and silliness doesn't appeal to Millennials, or anyone older, so you'll only end up alienating them instead. It's a real case of trying to please everyone and ending up pleasing no one.
A great Bond film that reflects the world as it is in 2026, 2027, or whenever it finally comes out, will find its young audience, and hopefully continue to please the old.
I have issues with the way the Craig films went at the end, but overall the Craig era’s style was still working. It regained the credibility that was lost by the end of Brosnan’s era, I don’t imagine they want to lose that again. The stripped-down Casino Royale made people sit up and take notice, giving the franchise critical acclaim just when people thought it was tapped out, but it was Skyfall that made buckets of cash by bringing in everybody to the cinemas, and Skyfall was a mix of the harder, more psychological new style, with some of the popular elements of the old. They’ll try for that again I’m sure.
I think getting Billie Eilish to do the theme for NTTD was a spectacular coup, giving us a classic-style Bond theme (Oscar winning!) from a very young superstar, massively popular with the younger generation. Covid screwed that up somewhat, but it doesn’t mean it’s not a good example of something that puts the franchise on the radar of the younger generation that doesn’t alienate older fans. That’s the kind of thing I think they will go for (and putting 007 on game consoles, as has been pointed out, also fits that mould).
I agree that tonally Skyfall was spot on too, and I guess the two subsequent films pretty much stayed in that ballpark. If they continued to pitch it around that area I wouldn't be surprised.
I really don't know what 'zoomer goofiness' means or how it's relevant to Bond.
You're also talking about a generation with ages ranging from 14-28. That can potentially yield different strategies in theory (if such strategies even exist that can appeal solely to those specific demographics). I'm not sure if a more 'goofy' Bond film will appeal to any crowd anyway, and I think it'd be a weird move going down that route solely to appeal to a specific generation. Gen Z aren't known for having a 'silly' or goofy sense of humour stereotypically (again, that's something associated with older Millennials, albeit very stereotypically and perhaps even unfairly. Internet humour nowadays can be very dark).
If we want to go down this route, it's worth asking what are the big films that have resonated most with younger audiences. We can take one example when it comes to superhero films (and this example might be a bit more relevant to Bond) - The Batman had a pretty good showing for generally male viewers between the ages of 25-35, with a an ever so slight edge amongst the 13-22 crowd (sources can vary and it's tricky getting exact figures but sources include: https://www.tvrev.com/news/unmasking-the-demographics-of-superhero-movie-fans
https://stoppress.co.nz/news/the-batman-sees-impressive-audience-numbers-returning-to-cinema/
https://www.boxofficepro.com/early-weekend-estimates-the-batman/)
The Batman's a very dark film thematically and aesthetically. Optimistic by the end no doubt, but very dark all the same. It seemingly appealed to fans, and of course Batman as a series has had a few advantages which may have spurred younger viewers to tag along (among them include the Arkham games, the Nolan films having their acclaim/now being effectively a decade old, Ben Affleck etc). Bond may well get a similar boost if the new video game comes out just prior to Bond 26 and is successful, but we don't know the timeline for this.
The issue is that really doesn't provide any sense of where Bond should go creatively. Other hits amongst that Gen Z demographic include Barbie (https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/demographics-show-why-barbenheimer-meant-223840822.html) but that skews towards a female audience, which Bond doesn't. Very different films anyway. Barbie's on the surface a 'silly' film but with some pretty cynical undertones and a very broad dash of corporate feminism (one can tell Mattel approved the script - the CEO's are all very inept and comical, but the film ends with Barbie land effectively becoming a utopia again, albeit with some changes. Sorry, a bit of a detour, it's not a film I like at all). It's just not applicable to Bond beyond perhaps a well written Bond girl being needed, but that's very vague anyway.
I guess Top Gun had its younger audiences too, but again that's a different type of film to Bond (Bond films tend to be much more hardboiled and less 'flag waving'). Same for Oppenheimer (another darker films in terms of its themes).
My point is there's not a strategy that can be used to appeal to Gen Z. Much of the time audiences don't know what they want until it comes along. Again, just make a modern Bond film that's relevant. Make it fun but also hardboiled/dark when needed, and craft a story that's Bondian and interesting. And don't try to superficially appeal to arbitrary groups to sell tickets. It rarely works.
💯…. And another one: don’t write a script to catch a fad because, by the time the film is actually made (if it gets made), that fad will be yesterday’s news.
Just write the best story you can (with archetypes that are timeless (love revenge destruction etc etc).
Also the batman, while dark, is still a far more heightened and stylised setting than the Dark Knight films were. Its a film that plops the audience into a world where super villains and caped crusaders (much like Tim Burton's batman) are already a part of the status quo instead of The Dark Knight trilogy which is a detailed examination on how such a world could come to be. The Day After Tomorrow, Bourne Supremacy, War of The World's, these are grounded in a realistic setting that modern movies simply aren't. Compare the teenage horror of say the grudge with modern teen films like "happy death day" or "smile". Gen Z media is simply more zany, more stylised, and less grungey than millenial media was.
But to your other point,
Bond was definitely more in the zeitgeist and influential at that time than it is today. The combination of the Olympics, the 50th anniversary and the four-year absence after Quantum of Solace led to massive media coverage and $1 Billion at the box office.
I didn't go around polling members of the public but I definitely remember more interest in Bond from people i talked to and came across at the time than I do now. And like another member said there seemed to be a spike in spy-related movies and tv shows and Bond references in pop culture around the time as well.
As I'm active in the collecting side, Men were wearing skinny suits, ties and tab collars in a. way that I think Skyfall helped popularize.
If you don't recognize that, I don't know what to tell you.
They were clearly trying to net a younger demographic with Die Another Day.
I think the success of the Daniel Craig films amongst younger audiences started to taper off for a number of reasons.
One is he went from a young, rough around the edges, rookie agent in CR and QoS to a seasoned, worn out, retiree in just the next film. His first two films were energetic and cynical while Skyfall was slow, melancholic for the Old Ways, and reverential for the history of Bond.
Another is Dan actually got older, and his dark, brooding Bond became less attractive. The 18 year olds who saw Casino Royale in theatres were now 33 when NTTD was released.
I think the point i'm trying to make is Gen Z will go see a dark film if it has people their own age in them, but are more willing to go see a film starring an older leading man if the movie is more zany and humorous.
Not necessarily. Something relevant/that touches upon contemporary ideas can be made to appeal to very specific demographics.
A weird and probably extreme example of this point, but a film/documentary made for, say, The Daily Wire, is often 'relevant' in terms of the political topics it might cover, but it's made for that older, socially more hard right American audience. Gen Z wouldn't be its core audience.
Not that that dynamic is strictly relevant to Bond. I think with Bond the priority won't be designing something to appeal to a specific generation (at least on a story level), but trying to make something modern that's a fresh take on the character/formula.
I agree that The Batman was more heightened stylistically than the Nolan films (much better crafted too in my opinion, actually a wonderful piece of filmmaking! Reeves is a very talented director and everyone working on it did a great job). But I would say The Batman dabbles heavily into that idea of how 'such a world could come to be', and actually does so more than Nolan's films ever did. The Riddler is now a Zodiac-esque serial killer who uses social media to influence a group of disillusioned fanatics, the police are all corrupt and unlike even in Nolan's trilogy they all pretty much hate Batman, Bruce himself is a reclusive loner who seems to suffer from mental illness, and the film's core idea is that Batman's quest for vengeance alienates him from the citizens of Gotham, and has indirectly influenced Riddler and his group to become murderous vigilantes. There's that wonderful scene in the interrogation room that sums it up - Riddler even presumes that Batman was helping him all along, and Batman is confronted with the revelation that he's a sort of mirror image of Riddler. It's a film with a pretty heavy dose of reality in there, even though the world around them is effectively heightened reality. It's not all that different to the core ideas of something like Bourne in that sense, and isn't that far from many of Nolan's ideas. Reminds me a bit of some of the ideas in SF and NTTD personally.
Anyway, I'd say NTTD stylistically was very much in that stylised, heightened reality territory (and not as grungy or gritty as CR/QOS no less). So I think much like The Batman expanding upon the style/ideas of the Nolan trilogy, we might see a similar thing with Bond 26.
Worth saying as well that I guess these aren't so much examples of Gen Z media (the people making them are much older), but what appeals to audience nowadays. But that's a bit of an existential point...
So we agree that Bond 26 will be closer to modern than millenial media, in that unlike war of the world's, Bourne Supremacy, the day after tomorrow etc. it will feel much more stylised and in line with modern films. That's what I'm essentially saying, that whatever characterisation, themes and real world relevance they develop will be tailored to fit a more heightened and stylised package, much like Goldeneye after the edge of License to Kill or Octopussy after the groundedness of For Your Eyes Only.
I guess so. I mean, I don’t know for sure at the end of the day, but I would presume Bond 26 will look more like NTTD than QOS.
It's gonna be absolutely insane when we get a gunbarrel with moving graphics and blood dribbling down again, the hype for what's about to come will be incredible. :)
At this point I think EON are better off waiting until the 2028 European Cup in UK.