You're Great... Now Leave

I admit that I was never the biggest James Bond fan. I thought some of the movies were quite good but, unlike some people, at no point did I think the franchise was the most important thing ever to be put on film. Still, I will concede that it is probably better for Hollywood when they are pumping out solid James Bond movies so I was happy to hear that the newest Bond film which came out today, "Skyfall", was receiving mostly glowing reviews. (Ads for this movie are everywhere and nothing is more annoying than seeing 50,000 ads for a movie everyone, even the producers, know is going to suck.) Critics are saying that this is the best Bond movie in years and that Daniel Craig has developed into one of the best Bonds in history. That is why I was so surprised to also read all the speculation that "Skyfall" may be Craig's last turn as 007. Everywhere you turn there are numerous people writing stories about who would make the best replacement and throwing out names left and right, all without answering the main question I have: why are people in such a hurry to get rid of this guy if he is just starting to hit his stride? It just seems to me that if you have finally started to get things working the way you want them to, now is not the time to tear it all down and start again.

My problem is that there are so few good movies being made these days that seeing people so anxious to hit 'reset' on what appears to be a successful endeavor is rather maddening. In an age in which anything that makes even a little bit of money is immediately repeated under the guise of being a 'sequel', even though it is essentially the exact same movie, you would think studio executives would be pleased with the box-office reception this film is projected to have. I can only assume this restlessness comes from the fact that Bond fans have become so used to change that they almost expect it. Of the six actors who have played Bond, none have done it more than 7 times. This is Craig's third Bond film, so it may be understandable why the producers are starting to get an itchy trigger finger. Plus, there is precedent for changing actors and it working out well - we've had almost as many people play Batman as James Bond and the Batman movies only seem to be getting better. I admit, a switch is pretty easy for this franchise because each movie can stand on its own, so it is never like trying to get someone besides Harrison Ford to play Indiana Jones. It probably helps that Craig is not the first person to have the role taken away from him, so fans have also learned not to get too attached to any one actor. Additionally, fake-casting movies is a fun way to kill some time. It's like fantasy baseball for movie nerds. Still, you have to wonder about how wise it is to make a change just for change's sake.

Beyond all that, I guess there is something to be said for getting out on a high note. The history of movies is littered with actors and studios who went to the well just one too many times. Besides, for all I know Craig started this speculation himself because he is afraid of being typecast or simply doesn't want to play the role anymore. If that is the case than not only can the studio replace him, I think they are obligated to. We have all seen movies where the actor clearly doesn't want to be there and nothing is worse than spending money to watch an actor play a role way beyond when they should have handed it off but didn't only because they were contractually obligated to pump out another film or the check was too big. By the third movie Tobey McGuire was a terrible Spiderman, but if that movie made as much as "The Avengers" the studio would still be forcing him into the suit. Craig should take pride in the fact that people are at least willing to admit he's doing a good job, because some of the old-schoolers refuse to acknowledge anyone but Sean Connery as James Bond. It's a little like taking over as "The Tonight Show" host - it doesn't matter how far removed you are from him, you will always be compared to Johnny Carson.

None of this is meant to imply that I don't understand when a franchise needs a reboot. All you had to do was watch the last film where Pierce Brosnan was Bond to see why they needed to make a switch at that time. (I say that, but I actually thought Brosnan was fine as Bond. No one could have made "Die Another Day" not suck.) The bonus about Bond films is that you don't even need to spend time re-telling the back story, just let us know which actor is playing which character and we'll be on our way. I just didn't think we had gotten there with the Craig-as-Bond films yet. I mean, it is not like he is in his 80s and can't handle the stunts anymore. In the end I will leave it up to the true Bond fanatics to go to the box office and vote with their wallets whether Craig should get another turn as Britain's most famous spy. A word of warning, though - it's always dangerous to leave this kind of thing up to studio executives. Remember, these are the same people who thought Ben Affleck could follow Harrison Ford as Jack Ryan. Sometimes it is just better to be happy with what you've got.