›

Do you think Bond would/should move back to the 60's? What if it was in a TV series?

JWESTBROOKJWESTBROOK
edited September 2011 in Bond Movies Posts: 5,745
I mean, the producers clearly want a limit on gadgets and sorts, and we all want a return of the smooth, suave Bond that Connery immortalized.

So the two questions are:

Do you think the producers/Eon WOULD actually consider a move back to the 60's?
(If so, it probably should have been done with CR and DC, w/ the whole beginnings plot)
AND
Do you think Bond SHOULD move back to the sixties, not as a remake, but a continuation with a uber traditional Connery-toned Actor, plot, and stories? (maybe Fassbender?)

If we're all looking for a way to keep the stories coming, why not move out of the present?

UPDATE:

Do you WANT to see a new, 60's era Bond film?
«13

Comments

  • CrabKeyCrabKey
    Posts: 2,026
    No.
  • shadowonthesunshadowonthesun Banned
    Posts: 1,894
    Do you think the producers/Eon WOULD actually consider a move back to the 60's?
    No. They spent a lot of time and effort talking everyone around the idea of a reboot with CASINO ROYALE. Why would they throw all of that away?
    Do you think Bond SHOULD move back to the sixties, not as a remake, but a continuation with a uber traditional Connery-toned Actor, plot, and stories?
    Why? The old adage, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" springs to mind.

  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    No. Bond isn't a period piece character, he's a contemporary character as Fleming intended. Also, making good Bond films and exciting stories has nothing to do with the era but more to do with the competency and craftsmanship of the people involved in making Bond movies. The 60s were great and an era of cool and the golden age for Bond movies but the fact is we are in the 21st century Bond doesn't need to be pushed back in time, he just needs a skilled production team who can deliver the same sort of dedication and skill back then for the era we're in now.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited September 2011 Posts: 15,723
    Making period pieces set in the 1960's will become the only option in order to make more Bond films in a not so distant future.
  • shadowonthesunshadowonthesun Banned
    edited September 2011 Posts: 1,894
    And that statement is based on ... what, exactly, is that statement based on?
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited September 2011 Posts: 15,723
    When the world will become much too technologically advanced, probably in 20/30 years time, the James Bond 007 character will become totally irrelevant in that world and to the original intent of Ian Fleming. So either call it quits on the franchise, or do period pieces. Matt Damon said the Bond character was 'irrelevant' in today's world. Well, he isn't wrong, he just said it too early. In a few decades time, it will be impossible to make Bond films set in present time, as the character and the world iit will be in will bare no ressemblance to the original Fleming intent.. I'd say the franchise is now in the 2nd half, even 2/3rd of it's existence. When we reach the end, period pieces will be the only way to go. I'd say the franchise will be near it's end when the Bond character of the actor #? will be born after the end of the Cold war. Craig Bond was born in 1968, so he still lived in and recalls the cold war. When that link to Fleming's Bond will be gone, I don't see the franchise lasting much longer. So yes, I give the franchise another 20/25 years before period pieces will be the only option available.
  • shadowonthesunshadowonthesun Banned
    edited September 2011 Posts: 1,894
    When the world will become much too technologically advanced, probably in 20/30 years time, the James Bond 007 character will become totally irrelevant in that world and to the original intent of Ian Fleming.
    I'm not buying it. If technology hasn't made Bond redundant in fifty years, I don't see why it will suddenly start, now or two decades from now. If the end of the Cold War couldn't kill him, I see no reason why technology could or will. So long as there are issues that affect the world, there will be a need for James Bond. That's the entire point of keeping him contemporary.

    I think you're just inventing arguments to make a case for period pieces.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited September 2011 Posts: 15,723
    I cannot even picture Bond fighting robots. or in flying cars... In 20/30 time we will only have DAD's after DAD's after DAD's. It is simply my opinion that the franchise is in it's final 3rd of it's existence. Craig Bond is said to be close to Connery's Bond and Fleming's Bond, so that means his take on Bond is still close to the original character. I can't possibly see how a Bond film set in 2050 will be anywhere similar to the original character. But personally the franchise will be over for me when one of the Bond actors will pass away, so I won't care for the franchise when it will be on it's last leg.

    So I say it one last time : IN MY OPINION, the franchise will be over in 20/30 years time, due to being totally irrelevant in a much too technologically advanced world, so period pieces will be the only option then. I know I will never watch a Bond film where Bond fights robots of drives flying cars or teleports himself to different locations or the M briefing takes place with holograms.
  • bond_azoozbondbond_azoozbond Portland,OR
    Posts: 97
    Yes .but after Craig period ..
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Since when was Matt Damon an authority on the relevance of Bond? This coming from an actor who played a character that didn't introduce anything new at all. Last time I checked, we didn't and I don't foresee our planet being some sort of utopian society in the next 100 years let alone 10 or 20. Also, are you using technology as an argument as to why Bond's relevance is and could be non existent??? Bond was at the forefront of introducing tech we have today and tech concepts being explored and developed and you think that'll put Bond to sleep? That's absurd and I don't mean to sound offensive but its quite clear you've posted your ideas without really thinking the matter through.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited September 2011 Posts: 15,723
    Since when was Matt Damon an authority on the relevance of Bond? This coming from an actor who played a character that didn't introduce anything new at all. Last time I checked, we didn't and I don't foresee our planet being some sort of utopian society in the next 100 years let alone 10 or 20. Also, are you using technology as an argument as to why Bond's relevance is and could be non existent??? Bond was at the forefront of introducing tech we have today and tech concepts being explored and developed and you think that'll put Bond to sleep? That's absurd and I don't mean to sound offensive but its quite clear you've posted your ideas without really thinking the matter through.
    I'm sorry I just can't see myself buying Bond driving in flying cars, fighting robots, teleporting himself to different locations or speaking to M through holograms. Yes, I am aware Bond is at the forefront of new technologies, but one day it will be too much. Just my opinion. And Bond is nolonger at the forefront of new technologies... I don't see anything that was revolutionary in CR or QOS... Cellphones ? Had one for the last decade. Laptops ? Had one for a long time as well.
  • shadowonthesunshadowonthesun Banned
    Posts: 1,894
    ... And you think all of this will be available in twenty to thirty years?
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited September 2011 Posts: 15,723
    ... And you think all of this will be available in twenty to thirty years?
    And you know all this will definatly won't be available in 20 years time? WHO KNOWS !! I am simply expressing my opinion that one day it will be impossible to make Bond films set in present time due to Bond being totally irrelevant.

    @doubleoego - When was the last time Bond was at the forefront of new technologies ?
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited September 2011 Posts: 15,723
    Double post deleted.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    I said Bond was at the forefront that introduced many tech ideas and concepts that are being used today and still being developed. The fact is, thanks to Bond most of the tech that we have available and we take for granted was due to the innovative ideas by those earlier Bond movies. Also, for all the great techno advances that YOU know of, robots won't be playing the role you envision any time soon. Bond isn't going anywhere, there will always be some sort of international conflict involving people, which is why Bond is a contemporary character and will always be relevant. It's actually quite short sighted to think otherwise.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited September 2011 Posts: 15,723
    Bond isn't going anywhere, there will always be some sort of international conflict involving people, which is why Bond is a contemporary character and will always be relevant. It's actually quite short sighted to think otherwise.
    I don't follow your opinion, so I am short sighted ? Sorry, I just don't believe Bond will be relevant for much longer. I honestly think that the franchise won't last another 50 years. Please don't think that your opinion is the correct one, @doubleoego, we're all entitled to our opinions. I have said many time in this thread that I was expressing MY opinion, not a fact or truth. We'll just agree to disagree, @doubleoego.
    robots won't be playing the role you envision any time soon.
    Because you know what the world will look like in 2040 ?
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    DaltonCraig, I don't think you quite understand how international affairs works and you're over-estimating the application of certain technology being utilised to the point of making certain government departments being rendered redundant. Do you think the police force are also going to be a non-entity too?
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited September 2011 Posts: 15,723
    DaltonCraig, I don't think you quite understand how international affairs works and you're over-estimating the application of certain technology being utilised to the point of making certain government departments being rendered redundant. Do you think the police force are also going to be a non-entity too?
    We are talking about James Bond, not the real world. Bond is a character that people will have views on how he must be written and portrayed. Who cares if police forces become non-entities ? We are about about James Bond, a character that we care about. It is MY BELIEF that James Bond will no longer be relevant in 2040/2050 in a much too advanced world. Am I entitled to my opinion ?
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    So? What's your point? Just because he was created in the 50s it doesn't mean his adventures need to be resigned to the 50s or 60s. Fleming created Bond as a contemporary character, he's a man of the times not of a certain period. We got Bond movies in 1962 and you can bet your bottom dollar we'll get Bond movies for many years to come. The only deciding factor for Bond to be relevant is if the movies are profitable and that's only down to the quality of the movies.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited September 2011 Posts: 15,723
    Many people thought the franchise would end when Connery departed after YOLT. Look at this thread http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/1050/bond-game-experience-time-travelling-and-reliving-past-events-of-the-franchise-as-they-happened.../p1 : the members acted the same way as people did in the 1960's - they thought the franchise would end without Connery. They were proved wrong, yes, but at the time they were entitled to their opinions. So I don't see how I cannot be entitled to my opinion about the franchise in 20/30 years. You are not the holder of the truth, doubleoego. No one knew if the franchise would continue long without Connery, so today no-one knows how long the franchise will last. I am simply expressing MY OPINION about the future on the franchise. Doesn't mean I am wrong and you are right. I don't see why there can be only one opinion on the future of the franchise. I don't see why there can only be one possible opinion on the future of the franchise... Wouldn't it be boring if everyone had the same opinion ?
  • MatteobinMatteobin
    Posts: 23
    I think James Bond is some kind of icon. He rappresens the cool, smart and good secret agent. Bond movies are not based on science fiction, but we must admit that the techonolgy always had his importance in these films (I believe everyone remeber the laser in Goldfinger).

    I don't think James Bond will never die, because if there will be a world... we WILL always need someone to save us from the actual villain.

    At least I personally hope that James Bond will be always our best chance to save the day.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited September 2011 Posts: 15,723
    Thank you @Matteobin for expressing your opinion in a great post without attacking the opinion of others ! I thought everyone was angry in this thread.
  • MatteobinMatteobin
    Posts: 23
    Ehi, thanks @DaltonCraig007! By the way, I understand your point of view and in some sort of way I must say that you're right. I mean James Bond in 2050 could be a really bad movie if the producers wouldn't knew 007 character very well.

    A big mistake could be to make another Moonraker style film: that might kill the secret agent that we all love.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited September 2011 Posts: 15,723
    Ehi, thanks @DaltonCraig007! By the way, I understand your point of view and in some sort of way I must say that you're right. I mean James Bond in 2050 could be a really bad movie if the producers wouldn't knew 007 character very well.

    A big mistake could be to make another Moonraker style film: that might kill the secret agent that we all love.
    We;; @Matteobin, I think I feel that way about the future because my favorite decades for Bond films are the 60's and 70's... None of the following decades come close. So I am probably feeling a wee bit nostalgic. ;-)
  • JWESTBROOKJWESTBROOK
    Posts: 5,745
    Now that everyone has calmed down, what if Eon allowed ither companies a stab at Bond movies. People like Christopher Nolan and Quentin Tarantino have all said they would love to do a Bond flick, but Eon would never let them on board b/c they write their own movies. What if Bond moved to the sixties through a non-eon preoduction? (While the traditional Bond moved foward)

    Or do you think Tarantino amd Nolan should just make their own spy movies?
  • thelordflasheartthelordflasheart
    Posts: 1,370
    I think that the character of Bond and his job (MI6 agent) are not confined to any one time period. In fact, if one is to look at the Bond films then the "Bond of the books" has been absent from the screen since the early 60s - Fleming's Bond was full of self-doubt, was philosphical and romantic, and rather casual in the way that he dealt with and spoke to other people (I recently re-read CR, LALD, MR, and the short stories).

    I really can't envision robots or flying cars becoming part of our world any time soon but we have so far been able to integrate new technology (faxes, email, the internet, cell phones) into the Bond films successfully. And, as pointed out, the Bond films have often pre-dated new tech (Connery's car phone in FRWL, for example, or the wireless video call made to the car in YOLT). Speaking about robots and flying cars seems to be a bit of an extreme argument to make seeing how we've been promoised them -over and over - since the 1939 World's Fair.

    and if there comes a time when that does happen then I'm sure that Bond can adapt. Look at Stephen Moffat's brilliant new take on Sherlock Holmes. Is it Conan Doyle's Holmes? Not exactly, but there are enough points of commonality in the stories and the character is essentially the same. I'm sure that England will still have enemies a hundred years from now so I think that Bond will continue even if there is a bit of tweaking now and then. He doesn't need the Cold War to justify his existence - there have been many films - starting the the 60s! that didn't have anything to do with the Cold War. If they didn't need it then surely the new films don't either.
  • myworldisenoughmyworldisenough
    Posts: 1,143
    I would love to see the movies remain contemporary as they have continued to be throughout the history of Bond. However other mediums, set in the sixties such as future novels and video games could do well prehaps? Personally I have always wished that a television series based on Bond during his early years in fifties would be great. Bond has never been given a television series but it would great to see this as an alternative to the movies and for it to co-exist and not compete, alongside the movies.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,723
    As I said, @thelordflaheart - for me, all the decades after the 60's and 70's have been worse than the one before :

    1970's
    1960's
    1980's
    1990's
    2000's

    So it's probably me being a tad nostalgic that the further the films move from the 60's and 70's, the less I will love the newer films.
  • M_BaljeM_Balje Amsterdam, Netherlands
    edited September 2011 Posts: 4,537
    QOS is already closer to the Moore / Connery Bond and i think also this change to a more humor or atleast les action Bond is needed now.

    If Bond (but also other movies) wil surive i think a Black Moneypenny be a start but i also think there should look back to the locations & cast members who be seen who be hired for DAF, Octopussy, TLD, Goldeneye to give a example.

    I like Mad Men because i like to see some 50-70's and mabey also some 80's elements in a speed of today, but only some litle things Bond ever did earlier i like to see in James Bond and that's not the time playing in element but time things like Bond visit a hotel or a girls home to have love, Fields (Red hair, white legs) at the airport or a Bond girl in her 40's (Age of the presents Bond girls is one of those things that stil should be inprove those days and destroy the Astin Martin in QOS be a good thing to show more/difrent cars in QOS.) or with a bit creative fantasy showing a lot of walking people on the streets whyle in presents days this be less.

    If Bond whant do some other simalars things like Mad Men did with Black & Gay people and Woman there should do this 2011 style without heavy Politic elements.
  • CrabKeyCrabKey
    Posts: 2,026
    Bond has always kept pace with the change of times. It doesn't bother me that personal computers, cell phones, etc. weren't part of Bond's world beginning with Dr. No in 1962. I see Bond as ageless; the same Bond keeping up with the times as we all do.
Sign In or Register to comment.