Where does Bond go after Craig?

1362363365367368691

Comments

  • Posts: 133
    mtm wrote: »
    But, why? What's the point in a duller version of Goldfinger that has a plot incredibly similar to the movie, but slightly less interesting, without the cool music, the amazing sets or Sean Connery or Gert Frobe etc?
    They could make adaptions of yet (mostly) unfilmed material, like "007 in New York".
    If it's a mini series, I doubt Christopher Nolan would be a part of it, though. But there are many other talented series writers like his brother Jonathan Nolan, or Noah Hawley for example.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited October 2023 Posts: 16,574
    mtm wrote: »
    Venutius wrote: »
    The obvious option would be a series of multi-episode, period-piece faithful adaptations of the novels shown on Amazon, no? Bezos could fund it all out of his chump change and not even know he's spent owt. Come on, Jeff, what's not to love, man?

    But, why? What's the point in a duller version of Goldfinger that has a plot incredibly similar to the movie, but slightly less interesting, without the cool music, the amazing sets or Sean Connery or Gert Frobe etc?

    Exactly, leave them as they are, adapt the short stories faithfully instead.

    Most of those aren't really TV material though. I like them to read, but Quantum of Solace is a much like a Tales of the Unexpected only slightly less dramatic, and 007 in New York is a recipe.

    I like the books and stories, but it's fine to enjoy them as books, they don't need to be adapted to moving pictures.
  • Posts: 6,710
    I much prefer the bigger event that is a motion picture made for the big screen. Just saying.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,359
    THR is the only one that has any dramatic "oomph" left, IMO.

    I mean, you could develop a whole story around 007 in New York, but there isn't much story there to begin.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,574
    echo wrote: »
    THR is the only one that has any dramatic "oomph" left, IMO.

    I mean, you could develop a whole story around 007 in New York, but there isn't much story there to begin.

    And if you're adding story, then you're just doing what the films do anyway and adapting them for the screen rather than being 'faithful'. So I don't really see the point.
  • Posts: 133
    They could make "007 in New York", a period piece special directed by Wes Anderson for Amazon. Of course there will be a special chapter where Bond presents his recipe for Scrambled Eggs.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited October 2023 Posts: 3,154
    mtm wrote: »
    But, why?
    Well, why not? I dunno - just because. The original films would still exist, unchanged. Something like this would run in parallel, not instead of. The money and the means are there - why not let the purists (of which I'm not) finally have something they've wanted for decades? It'd be a relatively niche thing that wouldn't be in direct competition with the films. Why withhold it from the diehards? Let them have what they want. Chances are that something like this will happen once the books are in the public domain, anyway - might as well retain some control over the end result by doing it first.
  • edited October 2023 Posts: 6,710
    Kojak007 wrote: »
    They could make "007 in New York", a period piece special directed by Wes Anderson for Amazon. Of course there will be a special chapter where Bond presents his recipe for Scrambled Eggs.

    With Benedict Cumberbatch, no less. And they could keep Fiennes as M.
  • Junglist_1985Junglist_1985 Los Angeles
    edited October 2023 Posts: 1,036
    Okay given Nolan's penchant for time jumping, what if the pre-titles sequence ONLY is a period piece... which turns out to be Bond vividly dreaming about what his job as a spy would've been like in the 1950's: thinking full on smoke-filled casino, era-appropriate topics of conversation, wardrobe, decor, quick fling, and revealing the details of a mission that eventually turns into some action set piece - car chase (Bentley?) perhaps? Bond wakes up in the modern era as it was all "just a dream". Would be a 20-25 minute short film basically.

    Perhaps part of Bond's character arc involves him exploring the history and legacy of spies/their place in the world. Maybe his new mission requires digging into the past of his 007 counterpart from the 1950's on some unresolved failure by MI6.

    Anyway... this is where my "what would Nolan do" brain is going. Keeps both parties happy, and added bonus is the dream/flashback sequence would be a non-controversial way to bring back some Fleming era features like old cars, smoking, womanizing, etc. I feel like Bond's vices and bad habits need to be emphasized.
  • Posts: 230
    Kojak007 wrote: »
    They could make "007 in New York", a period piece special directed by Wes Anderson for Amazon. Of course there will be a special chapter where Bond presents his recipe for Scrambled Eggs.

    LOL, generally not into "AU" Bond adaptations but I could get into this.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited October 2023 Posts: 16,574
    Venutius wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    But, why?
    Well, why not? I dunno - just because. The original films would still exist, unchanged. Something like this would run in parallel, not instead of. The money and the means are there - why not let the purists (of which I'm not) finally have something they've wanted for decades? It'd be a relatively niche thing that wouldn't be in direct competition with the films. Why withhold it from the diehards? Let them have what they want. Chances are that something like this will happen once the books are in the public domain, anyway - might as well retain some control over the end result by doing it first.

    The 'why not' would be that no value is being added, other than some slightly more 50s than early 60s cars about the place etc.; and you are actively looking at a film like Goldfinger and taking away what a lot of people would see as the perceived value. 'Why not' isn't really a good enough to spend millions of pounds on something, especially if it is, as you say, relatively niche.
    If it were being re-adapted, with a fresh directorial vision and actually adding some new and interesting ideas and flavours, then great. But that doesn't seem to be what is being proposed here: folks are talking about 'faithful' adaptations which stick to the original text far closer than Broccoli and Saltzman ever did, and I don't really see what's exciting about that.
    The films adapt the books for the cinema: that doesn't mean that every word is put on the screen just as written, but the text is adapted to fit the new medium, that the spirit and flavour is brought across but the exact literal words get changed in order for the spirit to make that jump. And I think they do a great job of it.
    It's not as if everyone has the same experience when they read a novel anyway: everyone sees something slightly different in their head- if you aim for 'faithful' then you're always disappointing someone who didn't see it that way.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,904
    The reason to do it is because classic stories are retold all the time.

    And the book was published 64 years ago. Movie released, 59 years ago.

  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited October 2023 Posts: 16,574
    The reason to do it is because classic stories are retold all the time.

    But why re-tell this story? If there is a concept behind doing it I can get behind it, but I'm not really seeing one.
    What value is being added?
    And the book was published 64 years ago. Movie released, 59 years ago.

    And if the idea is to tell it in the correct time period, doesn't that suggest that it already has been? 5 years off is a lot closer that 64 years off.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited October 2023 Posts: 3,154
    All good points, mtm. But when the question is 'why?', the only appropriate philosophical response is 'why not?' Er, so I've heard. Although, I heard that from a first-year philosophy student who was three weeks into her degree, not an actual philosopher, so it's probably not true. Cough.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,574
    Yeah, I'm not sure that will stand up in an MGM budget meeting! :D
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited October 2023 Posts: 6,359
    It makes no sense to remake the '60s films or re-film the corresponding novels...the '60s films are amazing, as is. Even YOLT has its own unique charms that don't need to be touched.

    Well, maybe not TB but god knows I don't need to see that story redone.

    There is potential to re-do the '70s films/novels. Maybe a LALD/TMWTGG by-the-book mashup since they're both set in Jamaica anyway. And MR of course is crying out for a truer adaptation so maybe throw that in the blender with DAF.
  • Posts: 2,171
    The Bond series has a demographics problem. It is not brining in young audiences, and you need new fans to keep the series an ongoing viable prospect.

    I don’t see how going back to the 50s would help that.
  • Posts: 6,710
    Catering to the youth would/will be their doom.

    The youth should grow under the distic of 007’s fictional world. 007’s fictional world should not cater to the youth. Nor to any demographics besides the one Fleming’s novels were meant to. Adults.

    Let the children grow up to be adults. Not make adults servants of uneducated children’s whims.

    My two cents, anyway.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,359
    Mallory wrote: »
    The Bond series has a demographics problem. It is not brining in young audiences, and you need new fans to keep the series an ongoing viable prospect.

    I don’t see how going back to the 50s would help that.

    No, it doesn't have a demographics problem.

    I remember people in the '80s saying that too. And Bond's still here.

    Bond does big international business and always will, with the right actor in the role.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,641
    Univex wrote: »
    Catering to the youth would/will be their doom.

    The youth should grow under the distic of 007’s fictional world. 007’s fictional world should not cater to the youth. Nor to any demographics besides the one Fleming’s novels were meant to. Adults.

    Let the children grow up to be adults. Not make adults servants of uneducated children’s whims.

    My two cents, anyway.

    Perfectly put my friend
  • Posts: 1,864
    You guys are talking about the 50s like they were the 60s. That time was dull and boring with nothing in particular to distinguish itself. Eon knew from the beginning that Bond, in Dr. No, would have to operate in the current world as opposed to the drab 50s. As to using Bond's original Bentley, that would make Bond look a bit too much like Steed for my tastes.
  • They should take the films back to the 60s…..the 1860’s.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,641
    To my mind, the Bond's series greatest enduring strength is their ability to adapt with the changing times
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,438
    does anyone remember what the reason was for them originally moving off the 2019 release date? Was it Boyle leaving? I can't recall the exact chronology, but if we use that as an example, technically speaking there's still time for the film to release in 2025. 2 years if enough time, if they can find the write person to helm it who is hungry enough, like fukunaga was. Personally I think its between Nolan or Mylod. Nolan is they want to go "big" and Mylod if they want to dial things back slightly and go for the CR scale.
  • Posts: 1,864
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    To my mind, the Bond's series greatest enduring strength is their ability to adapt with the changing times

    Absolutely.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    Posts: 3,800
    Let's stop with this things, Film Bond should stay contemporary, there are a lot of issues in the modern day world that might be interesting to see Bond facing or addressing.

    Period Pieces, let's just wait for the Dynamite Comics release of Moonraker, it's been a while, what happened to those? In that way we could see the Fleming books visually presented, and more truer to the source.
  • edited October 2023 Posts: 3,327
    echo wrote: »
    THR is the only one that has any dramatic "oomph" left, IMO.

    I mean, you could develop a whole story around 007 in New York, but there isn't much story there to begin.

    There is still plenty of unused material in the full length novels that hasn't yet been adapted. THR and 007 in NY never even registered with me as material that's worth adapting.

    Personally I think these rumours of Nolan doing a period piece is just internet BS. Nolan may be in talks to do the next 2 Bond films but I am 95% certain it will be set in modern day.

    There may also be some truth in Nolan adapting what's left of the unused Fleming material, but again, this would be for 2 new films set in modern day, not a faithful adaptation of MR set in the 1950's, or a remake of GF set in modern times.
  • edited October 2023 Posts: 580
    I both really want to see a Bond 26 by Nolan and I’m also curious about what EON would come up with if Nolan didn’t work out. So I wish they made two alternate versions of Bond 26. :D
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,574
    I know what you mean. I guess the issue is that Nolan is not a future for the series- CR was the start of new kind of vision for the Bond series, but only Nolan is Nolan, and although his Bond film would probably be very well-received, if he doesn't return for the next one then you're back to square one really.
  • edited October 2023 Posts: 12,837
    echo wrote: »
    Mallory wrote: »
    The Bond series has a demographics problem. It is not brining in young audiences, and you need new fans to keep the series an ongoing viable prospect.

    I don’t see how going back to the 50s would help that.

    No, it doesn't have a demographics problem.

    I remember people in the '80s saying that too. And Bond's still here.

    Bond does big international business and always will, with the right actor in the role.

    I used to think the same but I don’t know if we can take that for granted anymore. And I think the reason Bond is still here is because EON answered that demographic crisis talk in the 90s, by modernising things. It annoyed some older fans (anyone else remember the stick the Brosnan era used to get on here for the machine guns, the electronic elements to the scores, etc) but the end result was it had appeal to a new generation.

    They started doing that again in the 2000s, but after Skyfall I think they’ve lent into the nostalgia a bit too much, and when you couple that with the longer gaps and the brand not having the presence it used to, I think we’re at a point where young people don’t seem that arsed again.

    It doesn’t mean Bond is dying, but it’s definitely something they should keep in mind imo. The new video game might help, and a younger actor. Personally I think they could do with some younger writers and creatives too. Didn’t really think until I read a great post from @007HallY the other day about the new Higson book about just how old some of the reliable hands have gotten. Purvis and Wade were writing them when I was still a kid.

    Basically, I reckon we need a modern day Goldeneye. And like @Mallory, I’m skeptical that a period piece would be able to deliver that. Maybe if you went a bit Peaky Blinders with it, had some fun anachronistic stuff. But if you did that you’d annoy the fans who want the time of the novels done faithfully, which would sort of defeat the point of doing it in the first place.
Sign In or Register to comment.