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
Definitely an interesting choice. I'd be all for it. He could also handle the humor well, which is something that recent directors have struggled with.
I still would like to see Benson's Union Trilogy get adapted. They'd have to be changed a bit, but I still believe that they are filmable. Just film them back to back to back, with the same production crew.
No precedent for it. Incossigle!
Well me too, but I think it has a good flavour to it for a spy story which the Roger and Gardner ones perhaps didn't quite tap. Or maybe 70s Bond hasn't quite been done: think of the Tinker Tailor film.
Ustinov's Poirot was both in period and contemporary too.
I'm quite firm that they should stay in the present, but I'll admit, a period film (or a novel) set in the post-60s era sounds more interesting to me than just going back to the 50s and 60s.
I guess Christopher Lee's Dracula would be another example, yes.
Though I love the UNCLE film, the general public is not predisposed to action/thriller films set in the past. It would be a really big risk to go period while introducing a new Bond.
TMWTGG or DAF. Neither have been properly adapted.
This is Nolan. There won't be any silly nods and winks.
But I don’t really want that or any period piece, and I don’t think it’d be a good thing for the future of the series (it wouldn’t help shake the perception of it being an old man thing to young people). I want them to do what they’ve always done. Move forward with new stories, to show everyone how timeless and adaptable the whole thing is. And I’d like less nods to the past in those stories too.
(People saying it will turn off audiences - Not with CHRISTOPHER NOLAN behind the camera it won't ;) )
Indy 5 sadly died on its arse at the box office though. I don’t think they can take these characters being relevant for granted anymore.
And I think most of the people who actually know who Nolan is, who’d get excited over his name alone, are probably already going to watch the new Bond film. Oppenheimer was a lightning in a bottle sort of thing that benefitted massively from Barbie, and I think a lot of people who jumped on that bandwagon were disappointed (I really liked it, thought it was much better than Interstellar and Tenet, but the reaction at my screening was pretty similar to how @jetsetwilly described his). Generally I don’t think his name has that much pull. The Dark Knight and Inception were ages ago now.
Not saying a period Bond film from him wouldn’t be successful. But I don’t think it’d bring in many new fans or do much for the future of the series, in the same way a GE/CR style update would.
Every Bond actor is a representation of
different eras, now if we're going to hire a Bond actor to play in a period piece, it would be devoid of identity, in style, in filmmaking, especially in time period, and what's worse in it are: it's no longer an authentic one (it's still a film made in present time just with a retro skin), second, it would show that the filmmakers are already frustrated and running out of ideas on how to make unique plots while still maintaining Bond in contemporary world.
Sure, it would be hyped, granted, it's made by Nolan, but it worked for other films, Bond is not a franchise going backwards, it's a representation of evolution through times.
The only way a period Bond could work, was in a spin off through a TV show (series), by episodes with different adventures set in 50's, but still after 50's, where would it go? It would complicate things, like new adventures set in 60's? But where the 60's Bond films would've worked in these? 70's? Because it needs to evolve, not just to stay in one timeline, man, Bond is not Doctor Who.
A period piece could bring more problems and could detriment the Franchise moreso than what TMWTGG and LTK did before (and they've almost put the Franchise in sleep).
If I were Nolan, I would just make my own Spy Franchise set in Cold War Era, but leave Bond alone.
Yeah I tend to agree.
DAF is an option, but it’s one of Fleming’s novels that tends to get criticised for a weak main villain so would need some work put into it. Even then the film we have already adapted things like Wint and Kitt (arguably done better than in the book) and the ending etc. The titles and character names would certainly have to be changed.
I dunno, I think EON have an interesting thing going - that’s to say using the novels as a basis for ideas but essentially crafting original stories.
Nolan’s films had been having diminishing returns after THE DARK KNIGHT RISES, with each new film making less and less. Granted, TENET suffered from COVID, but it’s also generally regarded as one of his weaker works too, so there was a moment where it looked like Nolan’s name started to lose the appeal. OPPENHEIMER is really a comeback film for him in terms of being a blockbuster director. It’s literally his biggest hit since his last Batman film.
If anything, that makes the chances of doing Bond more difficult. If OPPENHEIMER wasn’t the hit it turned out to be, I could imagine him going to Eon as a way of making a sure needed hit to rejuvenate career. Having even less clout, he’d be less inclined to push for things Eon wouldn’t go for. But now after OPPENHEIMER, he has the clout to be more pushy, which could potentially make him less desirable for Eon.
We’ll see.
Really? I'm not following the logic that adapting the novels down to the period in which they were set somehow robs the character of his identity, whilst changing the character keeps the character true to his roots. Surely you can't get truer to Bond than the original books?
This seems similar to to Steven Moffatt saying that updating Holmes to the 21st century was truer to the character than setting it in its original Victorian era. I like Moffatt's Sherlock just fine, but in no way is it truer to the character than the Jeremy Brett version that adapted the Conan Doyle stories.
I'm not saying I'm all for going period, but I totally see why fans of the books might want a close adaptation.
I think the point is moot anyway as I don't see it happening even if Nolan wants it.
Great post…
I think once you get into the realm of film adaptation it’s not about keeping everything the same as the source material. Just by nature of changing the medium it’s never going to be 100% ‘true’ to the original work. Still, in spirit the Fleming novels are set in their contemporary times as many have noted, touching on issues of the time. In that sense the films are truer in spirit to the books by modernising themselves rather than a period piece.
If these rumours are true, EON does not want to set it in the past so they cartainly cannot be accused of wanting to set it in the past because they’ve run out of ideas. It’s Nolan who wants to set it in the past. And there is no way he would not have like a dozen ideas for a present day set Bond that are far better than anything Purvis and Wade have ever come up with. No, if Nolan wants to set it in the past it’s not because he has no other idea. It’s because his BEST Bond idea demands it.
Yes, but we are talking about adaptations of the books. It's not the same thing.