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
I agree. Calling the Craig era TDK series of Bond is just laziness of the mind.
DC's Bond was way more than a reboot. It was a reimagining of Fleming's Bond transposed to modern times. With the exception of QOS it's worked well both critically and commercially albeit the lack of glamour is starting to disappoint some fans.
Against that backdrop eon need to do something really brave and my recommendation would be to return to the books and remake them in chronological order with, the exception of CR, as DC's version is too recent.
Fleming didn't write Bond as a period character and the films don't treat him as such either. Bond should always exist in the modern world. It's what keeps it ticking. Period is a bad, bad idea that will essentially ruin the franchise.
No. Firstly it's not obvious and secondly Bond isn't a period piece character. Seriously, I am so glad none of the fans here have no say on how to move forward with these films. The series would have been dead long ago if that were the case.
I disagree, in my opinion spy stories work better during Cold War, and since Bond himself was born during that time period, he belongs to that. Not that I'm against modern world-Bond, quite the opposite, but I prefer the 50s/60s as a setting.
Saying "Fleming didn't write it as a period piece" means nothing. He had no point in writing period pieces, the "golden age of espionage" was the 50s, not the 20s or the previous century. Does it mean that every single novel (not just Fleming's) should be adapted in modern times?
The reason James Bond has survived is because he's a modern beast. The fact it was the golden age of espionage is irrelevant. SF was concerned with the role of someone like Bond in 2012 and that resonated much more than it would have done had it been a yarn set during the Cold War. Bond should be forward facing in my opinion.
but, in your own words, 'if the film is good, people will see it.' Surely then the reason bond survives is because they are good films, not because they are modern films.
Irrelevant. My point relies on the constant that Bond operates in a world just a nudge away from our own. You could make a very good period Bond, but it would diminish the impact of the canon. You can write as many period continuation novels as you like, but the 'films' are the cultural currency on which Bond operates. Piss about with that and you're on a slippery slope.
Plus, there are lots of awesome stories to tell that are rooted in the present.
To quote Bond himself:
"It's what keeps him alive"
(sorry, couldn't resist)
let's hope he can give the character some of his pep back. I'd love to see a stand alone Bond adventure stripped of the emotional baggage inherent in a realistic approach and without bearing the brunt of constantly reintroducing familiarity. Just a fresh take, a cohesive story that includes all the elements shaken up and presented in a distinctly different way. Not until the Craig era have I realised how much I value the fact that unlike other franchises, Bond films are standalone. When you sit down to watch a Bond everything you need to know is presented concisely and Is wrapped up by the closing credits. With Craig it has taken 4 films of glacial character development to arrive at something resembling a finished character. Connery only needed one scene.
The cold war era was great but then again that was a period of far more inquisitive minds where a slow burning process of intrigue and mystery was the norm. As @RC7 stated, SF addressed the placement of agents like Bond in today's climate of espionage and the way the world is today is far more dynamically bleak, uncertain and treacherous. Fortunately Bond wasnt ever neant to and isn't bound by period piece staples for him to look out of place or redundant in today's spy climate and days yet to come. If people prefer tge cold war era setting that's fair enough but to think it's a better setting is down to not thinking big enough and confined to an imagination of limited flexibility.
EON should never listen to the general audience to chose the actor, as that would be catastrophic, but the tone of the franchise has to be largely based on what is currently popular for huge blockbusters.
I don't know. I think it depends on the genre and what we're dealing with. For instance, I don't think many people are clamoring for a Bond movie with the tonal mood of QoS. It just wasn't the sort of movie you walk away feeling pumped by. That being said, Bond is a spy, a hitman, a killer. His work is grim and brutal and for the sake of credibikity , especially in a post 9/11 world the serious, harsh and grim reality should never be underplayed. However, these films are fantasy and escapist and such gritty elements of Vond's character should be offset with dry with and humour (nothing pathetically cheesy), beautiful locations, gorgeous women, memorable villain's and above all a fantastic screenplay. Bond isn't some obscure indy brand where if it's a great movie but makes little to no money because no one knows about it, it gets lost in the corridors of time and ends up on some, movies you didnt no about but need to see before you die blog. He's the poster child for commercialization and in an era of social and mobile media and unlimited access to a wealth of news and information, as long as Bond movies are well crafted from the screenplay to the acting and direction, they'll continue to be successful and maintain mass appeal. Films akin to the likes of FRWL, TB, TSWLM, GE and CR going forward today will never lose it's appeal irrespective of what other movies are doing. Bond just needs to stay authentic and not submit to audiences a shitty movie because children won't save it like they bloody do for trans-bloody-formers.
Re:Bourne, the Bourne movies need to do 1 thing and that's keep in line with the tone of the original trilogy. It doesn't need to be anything else. These particularl movies have an established dynamic about them that is a staple to tge world in which those movies inhabit. It's not going to change and nor should it.
Is your username ironic?
However, seeing Kingsman recently got me thinking. There we had a Moore-type film in many ways - OTT gadgets, OTT action, OTT villain with an OTT plot to destroy the world, yet somehow the film also managed to contain some quite edgy moments throughout, particularly the skydive training scene, Colin Firth's shock death, and Eggsy's mum hacking at the bathroom door with her crying baby inside.
I'm wondering if this could be a template for the next Bond? Fusing OTT elements with edgy moments that actually work together. Not an easy thing to pull off, I know. But maybe it can be pulled off if done correctly?
I'm not saying they should go in the Kingsman direction. I was wondering if this is new trend, which EON often tend to follow.
Personally I agree. CR was perfect, far better than QoS or SF. This should be the template for success, but it is no coincidence that it followed a Fleming novel very closely for most part.
Which leads me back to my broken record again. Why, why, why are they not tapping into the unused Fleming material still out there?
And don't anyone give me that crap about the unused material not being good enough. There are scenes, moments, plots and characters from MR, DAF, TSWLM, YOLT and TMWTGG that are far better than most of the ideas that have spurned from the Bond writers over the past 20-odd years.
Maibaum managed to do this successfully in the 80's. Why can't they do it again?
The '60s Bond films were not standalone; SPECTRE *was* the continuity (despite the recasts of Blofeld). Even the sole standalone film, GF, was referred to twice in OHMSS.
I'd argue that CR was tonally perfect because Vesper died and Bond became heartbroken.
I don't want to see a reboot with the next Bond actor (Bond 26?). The current MI6 crew is young, not to mention amazing. They could continue beyond Craig.
I also think that since they have redone CR and Blofeld, they should redo MR.
I wonder what a Guy Ritchie Bond film would be like? That might feel different to the current Craig era films. His Man From U.N.C.L.E film looks like a less serious version of Bond. A throwback to 1960s Bond but aimed at a present-day audience. That approach could be done with the next Bond actor, perhaps? Not set in the 60s, of course, but a more flippant James Bond, not driven by personal demons or the past.
Use as much unused Fleming material as possible and steer clear of any pointless PC casting choices for Bond e.g. Edris Elba etc.
I will never understand how they could cast a short, blonde actor. Nothing against Craig but he simply doesn't look the part.
Henry Cavill would look the part perfectly in every way. That's not saying I want him as Bond, just as an example of what kind of man they should cast next.
Put the fun back into Bond. The taking itself seriously has not worked that well. It certainly doesn't have to go back to Moore-Fun but as an example take Casino Royale which in my opinion was perfectly balanced.
Choose a director that is not that known. Nolan would be a mistake, this would immediately divide people and that can't be good.
Take a director that has proven himself already at doing intelligent action thrillers, no experiments like Marc Foster or Sam Mendes again.
But maybe the most important thing of them all is: NEVER EVER SHOOT A BOND MOVIE IN 3D, that would be a crime of gigantic proportions.
After only three movies it is a bold statement to say Craig is the best since Connery.
Especially with one, QOS, undoubtably being one of the least good Bonds.
IMO Dalton oozes more Bond in any scene than Craig ever will. But that's me.