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
Also, the Nolan "brand name" probably does monetarily offset what they would lose by not having any product placement.
Personally I want to keep Bond’s world modern, as that was ALWAYS the conceit even from Fleming. Bond stories were never period pieces. That desire only came about in the 90s once nostalgia for 60s aesthetics became a thing, especially among boomers.
Oh, if they move quickly, they can release it before the end of 2025. Let's say Nolan starts writing the screenplay in January 2024, which is entirely possible. Then he can finish the script by summer 2024 and they can start filming by the end of 2024. Boom, then they are on track to release it in November 2025.
* I'm trying to see how many times I can sneak in the word shtuff in a post today. Three so far.
** Seems like my posts are mostly driven by quotes at this point, logic be damned.
The problem with a period Bond is that like 999,999,999% of the fandom would instantly hate it.
Wow! All my Christmases would come at once if that happened. I wouldn't just be back on board as the world's biggest Bond fan, I doubt I'd be able to sleep for weeks with excitement!!
... I really hope not.
And driving a Delorean rather than an Aston Martin. :D
I mean, I'm gonna watch it either way, but I'd prefer they kept it in the present. It's exciting to see Bond out and about in the present.
I doubt they monitor our discussions at all.
The problem with "fandom" these days is that it hates pretty much everything, which is why fans masochistically send each other videos explaining everything that's wrong with their favorite movies within minutes after seeing them for the first time. If I were EON, "fan reactions" would be the least of my concern. "Fans" got cranky when "James Blonde" was announced in 2005. "Fans" get sick from eating shellfish and want the woman they so disrespectfully refer to as "Babs" fired over it. "Fans" demand that the EON folks sit down with them to "exchange creative ideas".
Nah, I'd make the next Bond film for the casual moviegoer out there. We, the "fans", are too fickle and flammable to worry about. ;-)
No, we're going ultra slick, ultra cool, ultra modern. New, new, new.
Ultra modern, then. Dewi, are you ready to get to work?
Connery/Lazenby: 60's
Moore: 70's/early 80's
Dalton: 80's
Brosnan: 90's
Craig: 2000's
So, I think the next Bond actor should do the same, and in my opinion, making period pieces would mean that the Producers are already desperate and running out of ideas on how to create plot in the contemporary world.
Period pieces for me were not authentic in the way those previous Bond eras are, it's still a modern film hiding in a retro/vintage skin, I don't need pretentious films like that.
If the Classic Bond Era (Connery-Brosnan) didn't happened, then I would welcome it, but, since that's the reality, where we've already Bond films set in the past, there's no need to retread an old ground.
What we need is a new and fresh scriptwriters, not changing the direction like making period pieces.
We need bunch of new ideas.
It's not work if you love what you do. Is the world ready for another Bondmania ;)
The question is whether a film like that can hold up to scrutiny once people actually see it. Hype and a big opening day are one thing. What really differentiates the good from the great (box office-wise) is word of mouth and the film having legs over a month. And if the verdict out of the first weekend is "it's just Connery karaoke without Connery" there's a problem.
Again, according to this rumour it’s Nolan who wants to make it period piece and the producers would prefer a modern day setting.
#:-S thankfully, it's just a rumour.
Because if not, he'll be barred from the James Bond Enclosure of mine for life! As much as he's a good director.
But for many people today, any film older than say 25 years is just old and not relatable. A film made in the 60s and a modern film set in the 60s are two very different things and I would bet there is a large group of people for whom f.e. something like the UNCLE film with Cavill feels way more "real" or understandable than the original UNCLE TV show, because they are more used to the way the cinematography looks and the pacing and lighting and all of that.
Just to be clear: I also am absolutely in favour of them staying modern. For all of the reasons already mentioned, but mainly for the one @SIS_HQ mentioned: The films represent the era they were made in and are timecapsules. That's one of the most interesting things about the series to me and while you can argue that not actually engaging with anything modern and instead fleeing into nostalgia is just about the most modern thing they could do, I want films to look back on 10, 20, 30 years later and go "oh yeah, that is what the 2020s were like"...
The period piece element would in itself be a publicity boost (I don’t personally believe Nolan’s name is quite as big a draw for the average viewer as many think, as many simply don’t know or care who he is beyond his films) because it’s so different, but it wouldn’t necessarily ensure success. On a fan level I don’t think having it set in the past would even ensure a more Fleming-esque interpretation (the novels themselves are quite modern in spirit I’d argue, representing the era it was written in for all its social/political ills and excitement, which is very similar to the films). Honestly, it’s a bit strange if true that a director quoted about ‘reinventing’ Bond would want to look backwards in this way. If anything it shows a lack of creativity and an inability to imagine this character working beyond a certain time period, which I don’t think is true, nor does it do the franchise any favours.
As for faithful adapting one of the novels, I'm not really a massive fan of, because we know what's coming. I'd rather pluck passages and scenarios from the novels, that are relevant to the story they're trying to tell. Just please adapt faithfully, I'm looking at you Blofeld's death in NTTD, they butchered that
It’s funny you mention this; I know that it’s unlikely but I was thinking, what if a period Bond was done as a bridge. Say there is some truth to the Nolan period piece Bond, I can see it a a self contained project, two or three films, that would be followed by a new , modern era, Bond
Why pay when your sponsors can pay?
Nah, it's just a silly rumor.
It's an interesting point, but I'm not sure the texture of it feeling genuine and a later film just being more enjoyable to a modern audience are quite the same thing. Hopefully not anyway.
And just the sheer expense of doing it in period feels like a major reason not to. UNCLE is all set in empty back streets and deserted warehouses and clearly doesn't have much cash: just doing the street scenes we see in FRWL in period now would be a big expense they don't have to spend if doing it contemporarily. Look how much the last Indiana Jones film cost.
Yes I think if anything it makes Bond less relevant to today, and they need to find a way of doing the opposite.
Agreed. Plus we already have pretty close adaptations in the first few films: I don't need to see Goldfinger without Connery, Ken Adam or John Barry, with a boring buzzsaw instead of a cool laser beam, and in a fake, less-believable version of the mid 20th century than the original. Plus with Nolan we'd be getting it without the sexiness or jokes... I do hope it's not true.