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’m sold :)
Yes, I think they can pretty easily do this with MR. Less so with DAF or TMWTGG. A climax with a bunch of dead mobsters in a train car doesn't scream "film me!"
Do you think Michael G. Wilson return as a producer? Remember, he will turn 82 in January. I think he is either completely retired or will return as a "consultant producer", which Cubby Broccoli was unofficially when they did GoldenEye. Also, will Gregg Wilson finally get a full producer credit? Furthermore, if Nolan directs, will he and/or his producer wife Emma Thomas get any kind of producer credits? If so, full producer credits or will they be credited as co-producers/executive producers?
I don’t think I, or SIS said that though. She said it would be less authentic that the other films on the series which were actually genuinely made in these times, and it would feel a bit like the series is running out of ideas and having to retreat backwards.
Well I think that's a matter of opinion. I'm of the opinion that these reboots that are fracturing Bond's loose continuity into totally separate and distinct realities are a sign of the filmmakers running out of ideas and direction. I'd also argue that we have never had a proper adaptation of many of these stories, so it isn't a case of going backwards as opposed to trying to do a more faithful adaptation. Again, just my opinion.
As it happens I'm not a huge fan of the novels, I've not read many Bond books (Moonraker is the only Fleming Bond I've read - I liked it but wasn't blown away by it) and I'm not desperate to see them adapted, but I don't have an issue with others wanting faithful tries at putting some of the books on screen either.
I don't think all period films are inauthentic, but Bond is a series which has run so long that it has films in the series which were actually made at or near the time which is being discussed as being evoked here. There's even an iconic bit of music which is very 60s in style which is still being played in every movie. So you would have the situation where you have two movies in the same series which are put on the shelf together and compared, one of which is going to be more authentically evoking that period than the other, because it's genuinely been made then. And being in the same series, with the same music and iconography etc. will invite that comparison.
I’m afraid most fans will talk about Bond being a sure thing, and that they - the producers - don’t owe us anything (which is true, but then again, it’s not about owing us, it’s about not alienating their audience); but I think that they should be a little more careful and clever. We’re not in the 90s and the beginning of the century. Things are volatile in this stupidily instantaneous society.
So, yes, small news would be big news. Official ones. Rumours and fake news only serve click baits nowadays. We need something real. We need to truly hope, and not to conjure false hope.
What does setting a Bond film in the sixties bring to the table?
I doubt it.
But with the Craigs being sparsed out from a 2-year to a 4-year to a 3-year to a 6-year interval, Bond was put in the freezer rather than in the fridge. People have told me that NTTD, to them, felt like an afterthought to a series that virtually ended in 2015. And the pandemic did the film no favors either. NTTD was going to happen, but then didn't happen, and then happened sometime later when many still weren't eager to go back to public film screenings. My point is that long hiatuses and a pandemic may have caused the star power of 007 to simmer down.
Which means that the hype will have to be rebuilt. And it can be. Bond has some strong survival genes in his DNA after all. A new guy, a new creative route, a new sense of style and tone, new blood... if they hit all the right spots, Bond can come out of the shadows to emerge victoriously once more. But the hype, as I see it, is in the freezer now, not in the fridge, which means they will need to slowly thaw it again rather than let it adjust to room temperature for a few minutes. Raise awareness, let people know that Bond will be back, throw us a few bones from time to time... a little of that goes a long way in helping people to (re-)discover Bond, talk about him, and look forward to seeing Bond 26 when it happens.
Exactly!
Brilliant post, @DarthDimi, my friend, as ever.
And the internet shouldn’t be taken as a direct expression of the real world, IMO. Again, most people I know aren’t even aware of these rumours. Now, something concrete, something real, that travels above and beyond the internet. I’ve seen it happen countless times.
It seems ATJ or Nolan rumours are contained within the web. So is the enthusiasm they produce. We need something that transcends that to the real world, IMO. And starts the slow build, or rebuild, of interest on Bond.
Yes, @Univex, well put. I miss the days of announcements in magazines, on TV, on the radio, ... The Internet is an incredibly powerful marketing tool, but it is also a wasteland of rumours and wishful thinking. A teaser poster, merely showing the gun barrel for all I care, that finds its way to cinemas and train stations in an official and physical form, now that would get me to jump up. The Internet always leaves me wondering whether I'm looking at something authorised, or just another bit of fan art or fan-fabricated fake news.
Absolutely. My godfather is a Bond fan and he’s on his 70s, still working and a part of a very active and info centred area of society - just for some context. And he is always aware of Bond news when they figure on paper, tv, and sometimes on some valid online publications. He followed with interest, for example, NTTD’s complications, but only the ones that figured as news, not the rumours. He wasn’t remotely aware of the rumour mill on the internet. We are. But even some Bond fans aren’t.
Producers should know this. I’m sure they do. I hope they start the real build soon. We ALL need that. As much as we needed something to elevate our spirits above the gloom from the pandemics and get us into theatre rooms in front of the magic big screen.
Well, for one thing I didn’t say that I’m full behind the Idea; I want a great Bond film no matter the time in which it’s set. As far as a period piece set in the 60s , I’m not for it or against it, but I am open to the idea.
And I thought Christmas only came once a year.
Waiting for real news, I suppose, just like all of us, but in a sort of privileged front line :)
Shall we contact him to know if he's heard something credible? Would that spark his own initiative to ask? I reckon not. But hey, no harm in asking.
https://variety.com/2011/film/news/bond-to-return-with-daniel-craig-sam-mendes-1118030077/
https://deadline.com/2010/01/exclusive-sam-mendes-about-to-be-hired-as-consultant-on-bond-23-21327/
https://www.mi6-hq.com/sections/articles/bond_23_report_janb10
Even down to the point of returning him back to the time period where he came from.
"Because, what? We need to do this in order to make the Franchise alive, it's our business, we need to keep him today, but we have no ideas, what to do? Okay, what if we do period piece?"
It's a lot more worse, because it's a sign of frustration to make Bond alive, it's the literal quantity over quality, it's a literal cashing in, they've made those just for money, because Bond needs to be profitable, but never in spirit that we need to see Bond addressing the problems of modern society.
Period piece is the laziest idea that they could think of, no efforts in there.
That's not what I'm trying to say, what I'm trying to say is, you have Connery and he'd played Bond in the 60's, you have Moore in the 70's, and the likes, now if we're hiring a Bond actor and to have him play in a period piece would be like devoiding of identity because he should play in the era that he's in, instead of trying to take someone's place.
The identity that I'm talking about is the era of the Bond actors.
What if you have (for example) Cavill, he played a period Bond in 60's, he had no identity, why? Because the 60's Bond was already played by Connery, now, Cavill (or any actor that would be hired for that period piece) would have no identity, because there's already a Bond actor in that era, they're literally copying what's in that era.
And if that's the case, I'd better watch the Connery ones, they're more authentic, I don't liked the pretentious, trying hard, fake 60's period Bond, neh! 😝
That's why, like what I've said, the only way you could do a period piece was in a TV series by episode, in something that one couldn't affect the films, and like what I've said, it would even make a confusion, because if you have a 50's Bond, of course, let's say in Season 2, you have a 60's Bond, now it would complicate things because there were already Bond films made in 60's, so where such episodes would've fit? You couldn't have the whole series just revolve around Bond in 50's alone, you need to evolve the time period, because if not, it would make the audience lose interest.
The Craig Era was an experiment, just like the ones that came before (at least since Moore Era) some worked and some didn't, that's what you call discovering, exploring, you need to explore Bond rather than just keep him in his limited circle.
With contemporary times, you could do a lot more things with the character, it's the most interesting to see him act in the issues of this modern world (and some of them aren't even addressed in the Bond films before), I'd argue, there are a lot of issues in these present times that was yet to discussed in the Bond lore, let's wait for them, don't be hopeless and impatient.
So what about those books adapted in the 60's? Are they not faithfully adapted?
And mind you, not all the Bond fans in the world have read the books, the most faithful adaptation of a Fleming book is OHMSS (discounting Thunderball, as it originally came from a screenplay and even that had deviations like the addition of Fiona Volpe), yet many people are criticizing the film's bizarre plot about brainwashing and the slow pacing (despite of it being more action oriented than the book), let's face it, as much as I liked the books, you couldn't have them 100% faithfully adapted on screen and be completely accepted by the Public.
So, while you have Nolan in there, don't expect it to make a success, heck, the majority of criticisms regarding Oppenheimer was the slow pacing and found it to be boring, and let's face the facts: It's outgrossed by Barbie (maybe counting more against Oppenheimer), yes, Barbie is the winner of the two.
Because when it comes to Bond, you need to please all audiences, say what you say about how the Craig Era was disliked but they've made more in the box office, and not just that, it made the Bond Fandom more bigger by adding in (younger) new generation of fans, like me
Sure but hiring Chris Nolan would be one of the least risky bets EON has ever made.
That would be great, but I don't think we will hear anything soon. The writers strike just ended a few days ago and we don't know if any writers are working on Bond 26 now. They probably need at least a short story outline to continue with the production, I guess?