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
Fleming wrote him as a modern man. He kept that consistency across his ouvre. I would say the evidence points more favourably to Fleming envisaging his hero being rooted in modernity, than one strictly confined by the period he inhabited before Ian's death.
There's no evidence of Fleming saying Bond should stay as a modern man. That's only a rule started by fans.
And there's no evidence he would've wanted Bond to remain a product of the fifties, but I firmly believe had he kept writing he would've adjusted to the period. 70's etc. For me it comes down to taste, you cannot trump the atmosphere and world of the Fleming novels. Certainly not in the cinematic world of 2016.
And if you ask me, personally, characters like Bond don't really work in a 21st century setting. At least from my perspective. None of the pulp fiction era characters work in this current times. Nowadays, characters like Jason Bourne and Jack Bauer are the ones we see taking the helm of the thrilling adventures.
The new continuation novels that stick to Fleming's timeline run the risk of not being relevant to modern readers.
The film series would be even worse. Even just introducing Bond's "new" gadgets would be eh ok...
It's not just the fans. EON regularly reference the need for Bond to be contemporary. This is one such quote from Babs.
It basically comes down to Ian Fleming. I think he wrote a very complex character that has been able to evolve through the decades, with the assistance of the extraordinary men who have played the role, starting with Sean Connery who established the role to great effect in Dr. No, and all the subsequent actors have taken it and made it their own and made it of their time.
That sums it up for me. Fleming provided the raw ingredients, Bond's psyche can remain pretty much the same and his emotional core remains constant. It's the world around him that changes and you see incremental changes to the portrayal that reflect that. I don't think there's any pressing need to alter that trajectory. The hankering for the fifties reminds me of the fanboy crowing over things like the DB5. It's the comfort blanket of nostalgia that sounds wonderful in theory, but is never truly invigorating in practice. It's been done better before.
Agreed.
Personally any cinematic Bond outside contemporary seems boring and so what. Bond already has to battle naysayers that say he's done and we need let Bourne or whomever rule the roost...
Absolutely not. I'm with Babs...
Whereas Ian Fleming Publications had two of their recent novels set in a period piece, with only one of them post-Benson era had a modern setting that wasn't welcomed for a reason, and they keep doing period pieces all over again. I wouldn't be surprised if the next Bond novel also features a Cold War setting instead of modern-day ground. Dynamite Entertainment does the most sensible thing, releasing Bond comics with two different timelines: One in a 21st century universe, and the other a period piece (which is yet to be making its debut).
I think it's all about business as I said. Whatever they can hold onto, they'll play it safe. And no, I certainly am not being a fanboy at all, just wanting a direct point of mine to be proven wrong. If the author intended whichever setting he wanted his character to remain in, he would've stated so. But, he didn't. As for film producers, they'll say anything and only do business based on whatever works to grab money in the times they live in.
This isn't really an argument as there is nothing concrete from Fleming, so you'll find no one proving you either right or wrong. Logic says to me that Fleming would have continued to write Bond as a contemporary protagonist had he lived. There is nothing to suggest otherwise. The fact he did not specify would bolster that argument. If he were adamant his creation should remain rooted in the era he would've made it crystal. As it is, his depressingly short canon was always rooted in modernity.
That's naturally what happens with all literary work, which is why I'm happy with EON's ethos as torchbearers for what many see as the official canon. I enjoyed 'Trigger Mortis' as much as the next man, but regard the current official incarnation of Bond, I think its important they don't stray too far from the path that has served them well for 54 years. I genuinely think they have to keep moving forward and allow people to get their nostalgia kicks from ancillary channels and literary releases.
I do like Vargr. :)
Let me rephrase. I think CB underperformed because of the quality of the book not because of the modern setting.
I think IFF's solution to keep Bond dated isn't necessarily the answer to increase sales.
Fleming wanted the filmmakers to always set the films in the present.
I'm sure he did.
The Bond character, with all his quirks and behaviours, does exist more comfortably in an earlier time, and quite frankly I've not been happy about the watering down of some of the character traits over the years, and the attempts to inject contemporary sensibilities into his repertoire. Some of that is what makes Bond 'Bond', and differentiates him from more mundane fare.
I just don't see it happening though, so the discussion is moot.
Thank you!!
Like I said fleming's bond was always of the time as referenced in Ursula Andress showing up in the novel OHMSS
Plus I hate to sound like a purest but you can't do bond in the 60's better then the first few Connery films and for novels Fleming is the best for the 60's
With continuation authors and film makers really set it today bring bond firmly in the modern era. The only exception is a lot of people have come across s lack of 70's bond stories in a literary sense and I would be slightly intrigued with that but for the most part would prefer modern day stories in film and literature.
Agreed ...at least for the films.
And @fjdinardo maybe so.
Dishonesty is now regarded as a virtue rather than a flaw. O tempora! O mores!