So we had some technical difficulties and some unfortunate lockouts. I think it’s been cleared up now. Hopefully? I can post at least so here’s something to make up for the extraordinary silence.

*  *  *

Sam Smith’s airy opening title card for SPECTRE probably reveals more than the producers ever wanted to admit. His spectral voice warbles over “giving everything up,” “being here before,” and perhaps most importantly, “I’m suffocating.” Overlaying his breathless gasps we see an impossibly omnipresent black octopus extending its multitudinous dark tentacles to choke everything that appears on the screen.

SPECTRE and James Bond belongs to Eon Productions, Iam Fleming, Sam Mendes and such.

Eon, you are that octopus. And you’re killing me.

By now anyone that will see the new James Bond has already. Unfortunately, Japan was not blessed with a worldwide release so I’m late to the party. However, it awarded me an enviable advantage that everyone else had not. I was prepared, nay–braced for SPECTRE. I knew this was a sinking ship. This was more Quantum than Casino and with my expectations dragging on the floor–sticking behind with its many suction cups hoping to not have to face the monstrosity–I settled in my seat with a half and half bin of regular and caramel popcorn.

I’m not a popcorn person but I have to say, what few handfuls I wrestled from Kait’s grip was probably the highlight of the evening for me. I wouldn’t think that caramel on popcorn would be all that great–and truthfully, I couldn’t eat an entire bin of it–but that sweetness mixed with the salt of the other half was just divine.

Bond, by the way, does not balance its duality with such sublime perfection. It’s meandering. It’s insipid. More than anything, it’s just boring. It’s a failure on nearly every front with even the remarkable result of presenting Christoph Waltz in an unentertaining role. He tried, I think. Insofar as anyone seemed to try. But while I could tell the production was earnest about this Bond product, they seemed like the only ones. Every actor plastered on the screen looked bored. They sounded bored. And their lethargic struggles were matched with stifled yawns from the audience.

I’m sorry, dear Bond, but I’m afraid the writing’s on the wall.

I feel that Sam Mendes has proven his point. Bond is an ancient relic. He’s a dinosaur dragged up from a time long since left in the dust. He’s brushed off, given a clean suit and dapper haircut, then sent stumbling and flailing into a world where he wholly does not belong. And I can’t shake the feeling that the director and writers know this.

Skyfall and SPECTRE are very keen to point out that how we conceive of Bond is an unwieldy, inelegant, almost grotesque tool. Who knew that Judi Dench’s speech would be so important when she addressed the internal review committee over the appropriateness of MI6 and it’s antiquated tradition in face of progress and change. Unfortunately for M, Tennyson and Mendes, it seems that the strength of tradition does have its failings. Skyfall and SPECTRE are the old Imperialist trying desperately to maintain his relevance and, ultimately, failing to do so.

You’ve moved heaven and earth, Bond, but it’s time for us to pause and consider what you truly are.

And from your greatest supporters, it seems you are that which you most feared.

There is no point in dissecting SPECTRE. There isn’t a single part of it that works. The scene between Bond and Monica Bellucci continues the creepy predatory nature that Craig’s Bond has exhibited towards his sexual exploits. The explosion of the secret desert base–itself mired in the worst ridiculousness of the golden age of Bond’s silliness–utterly shatters any suspension of disbelief. There’s no spy work involved, just a haphazard breadcrumb trail which isn’t exciting or even internally consistent (Mr. White sends Bond to his daughter and puts her in direct danger when he could have simply sent Bond to the hotel and protected his daughter from SPECTRE finding her which was his whole motivation in the first place). Why are we even trying to add moral depth to this throw-away henchman in the first place when everyone else is presented so shallow? It’s so bad that the hilariously cliched and ludicrous re-introduction of Blofeld doesn’t even cause anyone to blink their eyes while Waltz makes cuckoo noises while explaining their familial past.

Which, by the way, are we to assume that Bond suffers amnesia for not recognizing the name and picture of the man that was his younger brother after his parents died or is Bond just that much of an asshole to not even try and remember the people that rescued him?

But, for me, the worst offence is the desperate attempts by the creative team to constantly try and remould MI6 into the common man versus the oppressiveness of bureaucracy and government. Wake up, Eon, Bond is the government. He is that long, secretive arm sheltered from public scrutiny and oversight. Your whole character and even Judi Dench’s entire argument was that MI6, Bond and the entire cast are the antithesis of what democracy is. So don’t try and patronize us with Fiennes’ hilarious championing of democracy all the while he peers over the shoulders of voters to undermine the casting of secret ballots. Seriously, an intelligence committee agrees to have a vote with people seated right behind them? Why bother with the screens and the “9 vs 1” and simply have a show of hands for all the point that anonymity was meant to be.

It’s also rich that Fiennes is battling Andrew Scott’s Big Brother program giving the invasion of privacy that MI6 has utilized in the past.

I’m sorry, but no one is going to be sympathetic to the dismantling of a rather legally dubious covert operations branch. You want to know why Bourne resonates better with modern audiences, take a look at who the villain is. It’s American’s version of MI6 and the conclusion of that trilogy was with the protagonists dragging its masterminds before a public inquiry and holding them accountable for actions performed without democratic discretion. So spare me the moralistic bullshit. Bond has never been democratic and your best character (Judy Dench) adamantly argued against it.

But it’s as you’ve already said, Eon, MI6 is an antiquated relic of a bygone era. The Empire has crumbled. And in the times we face now, it’s all the more appropriate we draw the lens across the organizations, drag them out into the light and evaluate them on their merits and weaknesses.

And even the movies can’t justify their existence. But how could they?

If Bond is to survive, it’s going to have to change. That was the point of Casino Royale. It’s shocking how badly Eon Productions have completely missed their own point. The audiences were tired of all that old, goofy Bond baggage. We didn’t want stupid gadgets, ludicrous villains, two dimensional supports and outlandish patriotic chest pounding. Take a look at Casino Royale. Take a good, long look. What do you see? Bond is a psychopathic monster being wielded by an uncaring, hard hand interested solely in the mission. There’s no love in Royale’s MI6. But M is looking for results. She doesn’t care about those showy bomb-men. She wants the financiers of terrorism. Casino Royale is about trying to catch that white collar criminal. It’s weakest points were when it was coyly toying with those SPECTRE tentacles. It’s strengths were when a desperate banker was fending off a brutal African warlord looking for his money so he can continue his wars with countries the civilized world simply can’t be bothered with concern. It was an indictment of Western aloofness by peeling bare the weaknesses of our own perspective.

But when faced with its own shortcomings, the series turned back and fled into the open arms of its past. It enthusiastically clung to its traditions–the very traditions that ring so hollow and empty to an audience that holds no loyalty to outdated and harmful ideals.

It’s sad that after one of the strongest reboots for a franchise over fifty three years old, we need another reboot after just four movies. But you had your chance, Craig, and you’ve come up wanting.

Honestly, what I’d like to see is a complete remake of the whole franchise. Bond can’t be the star. There’s only so many ways we can dress up a tool that’s long become obsolete. At this point, we’re staring at a franchise whose entire identity is based on misogynistic imperialism. The efforts to update while still keeping to the core identity has been an exercise in futility. The Bond girls have never evolved into anything of value. Even in these more intensive character pieces which Craig’s Bonds have languished in, the supporting cast hasn’t been any more complex. The action beats are flat and undermine any point the movie tries to make about it’s covert branch that is anything but given the number of international incidents its titular character keeps cocking up.

So what’s my idea?

Retire Bond. I say this as a Bond fan who’s watched and owned (almost) all the movies. There’s nothing here anymore. It’s just a desperate man up to his neck still digging madly his hole. Retire and rebrand. Put the franchise through a transformation. Instead of relying solely on a character which has been thoroughly explored every imaginable direction, focus on the organization. Call this series MI6. Let’s have explorations of the other double O agents. Thus we don’t need to keep making ever sillier personal investments for a man that’s long past the point of believability. Elsewise, who will Bond have to face off in the next installment? His long lost child he didn’t even know he had (Oh God, I’m probably giving Eon ideas now).

Personally, I’d also like to have a greater examination of the issues we face today. Instead of trying to make MI6 the plucky underdog that has to struggle against its own government, let’s use it as a vehicle to explore those political ideals that we wish to criticize. Can you imagine how powerful a movie following an MI6 agent who has to heed the directives of an overly conservative or oppressive British parliament would be? It would raise some really interesting questions and lead to a more complex perspective of these secret agents who, theoretically, shouldn’t question their directives even if they didn’t agree with the goals of the ones issuing them.

We can also start looking into more interesting conflicts than Bond vs Sunday morning cartoon villain of the week.

Taking into account these ideas, here’s my rough, short synopsis for what I would have done instead of SPECTRE:

Below the Thunders (or some other reference to Tennyson’s The Kraken)

The movie opens to a political rally in Britain where a young man is condemning the current government and it’s misguided and brutish policy to foreign threats. Fabricate some sort of conflict which makes parallels to bombing runs in the Middle East (but to avoid offence, make a fictitious location and conflict). While this activist is using his poetic speech about the dangers and futility of using war to end war, we can have breaks (with the speech still overlaid) to some dark, sandy corridors as Bond stalks the shadows in a black operations outfit. Flip between the two to make clear that Bond is performing a covert operation wherever this political speaker is discussing. As he reaches the climax of his speech, Bond can quietly and expertly take down guards and approach his target. While Bond sneaks up to his mark (possibly ignorant of his approach as he’s on some radio communications device), we can have the perspective of the rally shift to a person pushing aggressively towards the front of the mob. The politician can evoke a Franklin quote (“He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither and loses both.”) or the like. The stranger at the rally reveals himself to be a suicide bomber, instilling panic just as Bond creeps to point blank range on his target. The bomber throws off his coat and reaches for a button. Cut to a finger pulling a trigger and an impossible explosion firing from the gun’s barrel right into the title music video.

Bond would return from his mission, learning of the terror attack that killed the political activist. He’s called into a meeting with M and Blofeld who is revealed to be the Minister of Whatever. And yes, I’m not going to play coy with the audience, let those who know Blofeld make the immediate connection. We’re not playing him as a super villain here. M explains that Blofeld’s operatives suspect that a terrorist organization seeking a radical, free nation from India is behind the attack. More importantly, Blofeld’s intelligence suggests that these radicals are in the market for something called “red mercury” that has a greater potency than a nuclear warhead. Bond is sent to investigate. To assist him, he has a young spy (not double O classified) to assist him that’s been working the area. He also crosses paths with a woman that turns out to be working for the United Nations (or the Indian Government) to investigate the radical group and the dangers it and this red mercury poses. This woman can be obviously Muslim and condemn the actions of this minority as well as serve as essentially a Bond girl that doesn’t end up sleeping with the character.

Investigating the issue can turn up uncomfortable truths about Blofeld and Britain’s meddling in Indian affairs, perhaps leading all the way back to issues that arose from England’s Imperialistic days. From there, Bond learns information that Blofeld has been feeding members of the organization information to direct their attacks against political dissidents and members that threaten the current government’s directions. With increasing attacks on the European Union, it’s clear that Blofeld and his associates in supporting countries are hoping for tighter regulations over its populace that will better enable them to maintain political hegemony within their elected seats. Bond, being the dutiful agent, seeks to hide this information from the UN as it would be a huge diplomatic issue for Britain and the allies implicated. His younger agent colleague, however, is more idealistic and would rather expose the “crimes” committed by the government.

When the young agent realizes that Bond is going to take out the leadership of this fringe group and destroy the evidence, he confronts him that he’s only repeating the same crimes that allowed this group to arise in the first place. Bond, sensing that this agent is going to defect, attempts to eliminate him. The agent escapes and intercepts the “red mercury” they’ve been tracking. As Bond gives chase, the agent declares that he’ll get the truth out no matter the cost. Can have the explodapolooza showdown in the radical’s base (and have the primary characters all collected there for whatever reasons). Bond works with the UN girl for the operation but during its execution gets separated from her as he confronts the rogue agent. Can have some speech as he tries to detonate the red mercury in defiance. There is no explosion, however, and Bond executes him for being a traitor. He takes the information from his body. As the girl arrives, she can remark about the seeming miracle that the red mercury didn’t work. Bond will say that it did and hand the information to the girl. She’ll ask what it is and he’ll simply say that she didn’t get it from him.

The conclusion can be a discussion between M and Bond and explain how red mercury was an old war trick used to make enemy spies run in circles over a fictitious substance. Blofeld, not being a spy and the young agent too young to know those old tricks, were unaware that it wasn’t real and typically used to “smoke out” agents. M can admonish Bond not being able to stop the information from leaking even if both men seem unperturbed about the issues it’s now caused for their administration. As Bond is leaving, M can remind him that their job is to serve regardless of who is in power and they should be careful of their actions lest they make monsters of their masters. Bond can make some remark that everything they do is of course for Queen and country.

Like I said, this is rough and short. Eon, if you want something better and fleshed out, I’ll be more than happy to arrange a date to expand on things.