The James Bond Effect

The James Bond Effect

An observation/analysis of a growing trend in the film industry, specifically with comic-book movies.

Editorial Opinion
By TheNameIsBetty - Dec 13, 2014 07:12 PM EST
Filed Under: Batman

     Recently, we discovered through the Sony hack that Andrew Garfield, who played Peter Parker and Spider-Man in the web-crawler's last two feature films, might not return in the next movie if there even is one.  At this point, we've now seen two actors portray Spider-Man on the big screen across five different full-length feature films, the ones we care to recognize at least (do a Google search, you might be surprised).  Personally, I think Tobey Maguire did a bang-up job, and I never considered all of his odd mannerisms such as his habit of ugly-crying until I became a part of the CBM community anyway; at any rate, Tobey Maguire has my vote for "Best Spider-Man" for now, because Andrew Garfield has a comically long neck and seems much too hipster new-gen-of-youngsters to really feel like the Peter Parker I know from the comics.  I'm sure I just russled some jimmies here.

At least we'll always have '60s Spider-Man.  Everyone's recasting superheroes, and I'm just sitting here mast...never mind.


     But -- this is all just my opinion.  Why do I bring this up?  Well, I bring this up to point out a recurring trend in modern-day superhero movies, a trend that I like to call the "James Bond Effect".  The reason I'm naming it after James Bond is because I feel the classic British secret-agent is the best shining example of the effect itself.  James Bond is a character that has been portrayed by six different actors to date, and each one of these actors has brought a different charisma and style to Bond.  Not only does James Bond's knack of actor-renewing keep the 007 franchise fresh, it also gives filmmakers an opportunity to recreate the character time and time again in order to keep making movies and also keep making money.  The best part is, everybody has their favorite Bond for different reasons.  Most people agree that Sean Connery was the best, and I'm not going to say anything else about that, lest I russle more jimmies.  Anyhow, how much longer do you think Daniel Craig, the current James Bond, will last in the role?  'Skyfall' was a tremendous success, so much so that the director of the movie is returning to direct the next one in the franchise.  The Daniel Craig era of 007 might be the best one yet, some claim, but when Daniel Craig finally gets the boot or quits, who will take his place?  Will they restart the franchise and tell the origin story again, or will they simply get a new actor and drop him into a brand-new James Bond adventure?  Only time will tell.  What we know for sure is that it will have a witty and intelligently ominous title, accompanied by a suitably unique theme song.  A different director will bring his own unique vision and style to the franchise, and fans will love it or dismiss it.

Daniel Craig doesn't need a gun -- he just shoots you with his blue eyes, and you fall over all helpless-like.  



     Does this sound familiar to you yet?  The same thing that happened to James Bond over the years is happening right now to the superhero movie genre: certain heroes are being reinvented, recasted, and ultimately rebooted over and over.  Spider-Man is just one example, and it might be wishful thinking to dream of a future where we look back at the 'Amazing Spider-Man' era and reflect on what Andrew Garfield's movies brought to the table.  Will we think of Tobey Maguire as the Sean Connery of Spider-Man movies?  Maybe, maybe not.  It all seems complicated now, what with Marvel and Sony fighting over him, but I'm certain that Spidey will return to the big screen in some form.  

     Another example of the James Bond Effect, and perhaps a more obvious one, is with Batman movies.  Batman has been reinvented so many times, it's difficult to track down and label exactly which incarnation of Batman is the canon one and which ones are the "what if" stories.  Batman has been portrayed in live-action by seven different actors to date, not including Ben Affleck, spanning over seventy years of caped crusading.  Let that sink in for a bit....the first actor to play Batman was Lewis G Wilson, in 1943.  Wow, what a long time ago that was!  And now we are seeing the recast happen again, with Ben Affleck, whom we have yet to see in action.  Arguments about who played the best live-action Batman can last hours, so I won't even bring it up (*cough cough Bale cough cough).  In short time, we will see Batman in action again in 'Batman v. Superman', which will hopefully see Bats launch himself into DC's hopeful shared movie-verse.  

Hehe, Robin has "big hair".



     Each of the actors who've portrayed Batman have brought with them a slew of weaknesses and strengths; for example, Christian Bale has a terrible Batman voice but plays a great uncostumed Bruce Wayne, Michael Keaton plays a well-balanced Batman and Bruce Wayne all around but has a terrible haircut, and George Clooney plays a decent older Bruce Wayne but doesn't fit the Batnipples very well at all.

     It seems as though the James Bond Effect is becoming more prevalent in superhero movies as time goes on, we've even heard murmurs and whispers of the near-perfect Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark/Iron Man being recasted.  I believe the James Bond Effect is a good thing for the comic-book movie phenomenon, and I also believe it would behoove the studios and powers that be to consider the idea of recasting and rebooting when they feel as though the franchise is dying.  Spider-Man might be the current best candidate, seeing as 'The Amazing Spider-Man 2' is now being considered a franchise killer, and now we're hearing rumors that the next movie might take inspiration from Spider-Man's most loved storylines.  I would love to see this happen, because it also means another chance that Venom, my favorite villain ever, will appear on the big-screen again and not in a shameful way (I don't blame Topher Grace, I like him, he's cool).  Hopefully our most favorite actors don't take their leave too soon, but I've got my fingers crossed that we at least get to see our comic-book heroes on the screen, even if it means separating their films by actor.  It sure seems to have benefited Batman, not to mention Superman who beats him in the number-of-actors department by a long shot.  The recasting of superheroes has happened more than you think, after all, comic-book movies aren't exactly a new thing, and some of the films from way back in the day will make you wonder "What the heck were they thinking?"  


     What do you think?  Is the recasting and revamping of superhero franchises a good thing, or is it just more evidence that Hollywood has no clue what they're doing?  Are you sad that Andrew Garfield might have come and gone already?  What other actors do you think should play currently casted comic-book movie characters?  I understand this editorial seems a little like, "Oh, thanks for pointing out what we already know", but I'm honestly interested in how other people feel about this trend in filmmaking.   

 

RUMOR: Marvel Studios Could Return To Plan For Street-Level DAREDEVIL Crossover With SPIDER-MAN 5
Related:

RUMOR: Marvel Studios Could Return To Plan For Street-Level DAREDEVIL Crossover With SPIDER-MAN 5

CLAYFACE Movie From Writer Mike Flanagan Rumored To Be Moving Forward At DC Studios
Recommended For You:

CLAYFACE Movie From Writer Mike Flanagan Rumored To Be Moving Forward At DC Studios

DISCLAIMER: As a user generated site and platform, ComicBookMovie.com is protected under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) and "Safe Harbor" provisions.

This post was submitted by a user who has agreed to our Terms of Service and Community Guidelines. ComicBookMovie.com will disable users who knowingly commit plagiarism, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement. Please CONTACT US for expeditious removal of copyrighted/trademarked content. CLICK HERE to learn more about our copyright and trademark policies.

Note that ComicBookMovie.com, and/or the user who contributed this post, may earn commissions or revenue through clicks or purchases made through any third-party links contained within the content above.

SauronsBANE
SauronsBANE - 12/13/2014, 8:47 PM
Honestly, this was a little like "Oh, thanks for pointing out what we already know", but it was so well-written and you managed to drop that glorious bomb of:

"Each of the actors who've portrayed Batman have brought with them a slew of weaknesses and strengths; for example, Christian Bale has a terrible Batman voice but plays a great uncostumed Bruce Wayne, Michael Keaton plays a well-balanced Batman and Bruce Wayne all around but has a terrible haircut, and George Clooney plays a decent older Bruce Wayne but doesn't fit the Batnipples very well at all."

so it was easy to look past that haha. Great stuff, and really good read!
nuyhm7ai
nuyhm7ai - 12/13/2014, 9:38 PM
Tobey was a terrible Peter Parker. He never act like a person. I don't see the appeal of him other than he was a nerd even though he rarely showed intelligence. His spiderman was just as bad as he never conveyed any emotions nor cracked any jokes.

Just bring back garfield and improve on the franchise.
Wolf38
Wolf38 - 12/13/2014, 10:14 PM
I've had basically the same thought myself. 007 is a good model for Spider-Man in the sense of (1) no need to keep telling the origin story and (2) focus more on standalone films.
TheNameIsBetty
TheNameIsBetty - 12/14/2014, 4:06 AM
@SauronsBANE

Haha, thanks! I was curious to see if anyone else had connected the dots yet, in regards to this trend. I knew right off the bat that I wouldn't be making any grand points or reveals in this editorial, but you know what they say about being a writer: it's actually writing that makes you a writer.

@nuyhm7ai

I think in hindsight, Tobey seems to not be a great Peter Parker, but at the time when the first Spider-Man came out it was pretty doggone awesome. I was just starting middle school at the time, and it completely blew me away. Like I said, it was only until I'd grown up and joined the internet community that Tobey's flaws came to fruition. Perhaps we've become too critical of our movies.....we shouldn't forget that Peter Parker himself isn't some cool swinger, he's a nerd through and through, and Tobey reflected that.

@Wolf38

I'm glad you think so. Maybe Sony has realized it too, after their plans have repeatedly failed now. James Bond needs no introduction, all he needs is a plot to unravel and a bad guy. If they apply the same structure to Spider-Man, we'll have twenty-four decent Spider-Man movies in no time at all. Now if we can only convince them to make original songs for Spider-Man movies....

@Scorpion8125

I feel the same way. It was exciting at the beginning, but clearly Garfield and Webb are not enough for this franchise. In all fairness, I loved Jamie Foxx's Electro, that line where Harry told him he needed him and Electro said, "You need me?". That sent shivers down my spine, it was so good. But beyond that, yeah, the Webb movies were oddly unsatisfying. I can't even begin to speculate on who should play Spider-Man next, but my fan-pick has always been Drake Bell.
MightyZeus
MightyZeus - 12/14/2014, 4:28 AM
This was indeed an interesting read. I actually liked Tobey Macguires Peter Parker, it felt very natural and actually made the audience care for him especially through out the first two Spider-Man movies.

If Marvel does acquire the rights to Spider-Man then the studio should just pull an Incredible Hulk where they establish the character already in the MCU with out an origin story or an origin story can be told through an opening sequence. Everyone still has Spider-Man's origin story fresh in there minds.
nuyhm7ai
nuyhm7ai - 12/14/2014, 6:03 AM
@Christuffer

Yeah no, I don't see how everyone thought he was good. Just because he portrayed a nerd doesn't mean he portrayed a good one. He played a nerd that everyone viewed is the opposite like that goofey smile and how he got picked on. Peter never gets picked on like this. Tobey was the Timothy dalton of spiderman.

With garfield he portrayed a modern day geek and let's not forget that Peter Parker never acted like tobey for years which is also why his performance in 2 was a vast improvement a reminded me of Peter in his college days and on the first one the ultimate/ditko. He's totally on par with sean Connery as the best live action spiderman.
nuyhm7ai
nuyhm7ai - 12/14/2014, 6:05 AM
@MightyZeus

Yeah, tobey portrayed a terrible Peter. Never confident, never funny, never youthful just bland and boring. He may had some trials and errors but his acting on Peter and spiderman was awful
TheNameIsBetty
TheNameIsBetty - 12/14/2014, 9:39 AM
@MightyZeus

Thanks. It would be neat if Marvel gets the rights back, I think they'd do him right. All they need to do is hit the ground running plot wise, no origin story needed.
nuyhm7ai
nuyhm7ai - 3/30/2015, 9:54 PM
yeah how can you compare tobey to sean connery? tobey never had any humor nor was he anything like peter from the comics. he's just george mcfly in a spiderman suit who rarely talks and rarely emotes. he's just an overhyped actors while Garfield was never really a hipster as you people accuse him of. he was obviously better in the role than maguire. maguire was like george labenzy as Garfield was to Roger Moore.
View Recorder