Bond, James Bond

London Pearlies

Anne, Joan, Pat and I attended Science on Tap, the monthly lecture series hosted by Washington University professors and curated by Dr. Cynthia Wichelman. This month’s lecture was entitled, “Serial Bonds: 007 Storytelling since Casino Royale (2006)”. It was given by Colin Burnett, PhD. This talk was a bit of a departure from the scientific origins of this lecture series, but it was not its first trip away from science and towards art. The crux of Burnett’s argument was that the four Bond films starring Daniel Craig represent a departure in the 26 film Bond series. Previously, Bond films all followed the same formula and were cookie cut from that mold. Now, in the Craig era, Bond movies have adopted serialization, just like almost all other blockbuster franchises have since Star Wars. As late comers to this party, this begs the question, what took them?

Burnett touched on the revenue benefits of serialization to the Bond franchise. In my mind these monetary gains are more tangible than any artist ones. I’ve seen all four Craig Bond films and can’t say that they were any better than their predecessors. For me, James Bond has become an anachronism. As a murderous and misogynist white male, is he really what we need now in the #MeToo era?

4 thoughts on “Bond, James Bond

I Want to Hear What You Think, So Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s