›

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

2

Comments

  • JWESTBROOKJWESTBROOK
    Posts: 5,745
    You don't think we'll run out of GOOD plots? You just can't get the same class, style, and suave out of a modern Bond. I liked how the movies were slightly sexist in the 60's, and it made Connery seem more of a true ladies man. I feel like many of the famous and best elements of Bond originate in the 60's, and can't be matched in any other time period.

    I do like your ideas of a TV show set in the sixties, though it would either require a hefty budget or good cgi. Shows like Boardwalk Empire and Mad Men here in the States are good examples of how a Bond show would be done. I would hope it would go for an hour, 30min kills any hope of a good action spy thriller, unless of course they go with a more Connery style of Bond with better story emphasis, less action.
  • Baltimore_007Baltimore_007
    Posts: 5,634
    It wouldn't work now, to state the obvious it isin't the 1960s, Bond today seems intent on getting more 'techno' and 'on the ball' with each release, and an attempt to recreate or go for a 60's setting or theme would seem dead in the water

    Some people have commented that gone are the days when we had our favorite spy being all suave and sophisticated and using his head to solve issues and relying on wits and charisma and the bare essentials and just recently it's been an array of modern equipment, cell phones, all the latest technology and just punch and kick your way to a solution

    Bond is only moving in one direction it seems, there's no place for the past in this current set up, it's really a case of give the audience all that you'd expect to see in todays day and age. Like it or otherwise.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,216
    I actually would not have minded, or would mind, a one off period piece. I realize this will never happen, but for Bond's 50th film anniversary, a miniseries on HBO or Showtime or BBC would have worked. Bond Classic, set in the 60's. I would have enjoyed that.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,216
    Quote "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."

    This IS when a period piece set in the 60's will work and the public will love it.
  • JWESTBROOKJWESTBROOK
    Posts: 5,745
    What made the pre-techno Bond so great was he was given key elements for a mission and sent off. He didn't have a cell phone to provide a status report, or a effing arm monitor flashing when he almost died in CR. He HAD to rely on wits. That is what every bond since Dalton has failed to succeed at. Technology is the root of the less and less memorable Bonds. I LOVE, and I think we all do, the idea of Bond being alone in the world to fend for himself.

    On another discussion I brought up Bond getting caught up in a situation, not being briefed or anything. This would FORCE him to rely on pure intelligence and physicality. All DC's have been is "Your in trouble come back!" "No, -kick, punch, shoot-". When has bond become a 12 year old? I actually think bringing back Q will only drive the franchise further from what Bond once was.

    I fear a period piece is necessary show Bond for what Fleming created him to be, a true master of espionage.
  • VirageVirage
    Posts: 1,856
    The only time a Bond film CAN go period is if they make the YB books into films
  • thelordflasheartthelordflasheart
    Posts: 1,370

    On another discussion I brought up Bond getting caught up in a situation, not being briefed or anything. This would FORCE him to rely on pure intelligence and physicality.
    Jwest, the thing that impresses me most about Craig's Bond is that he is shown to be both intelligent and physically capable; a highly trained agent much more so than any of his predecessors.

    Craig's Bond has been shown to be "caught up" in situations - his attempted "arrest" by MI6 agents in QoS being a good example. Another is the "Madagascar chase" in CR - when did an action scene in a Bond film ever show the character's intelligence, tenacity, and ego so well? And I thought that CR did a good job of showing Bond doing the "detective work" in the Bahamas and Miami to find out what was going on with the mystery of "ellipsis".

  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited September 2011 Posts: 15,718
    Jwest, the thing that impresses me most about Craig's Bond is that he is shown to be both intelligent and physically capable; a highly trained agent much more so than any of his predecessors.
    While I agree it is nice, Craig Bond seems too physically capable... Brosnan was a super-hero by his gadget, Craig is a super-hero by his physical strenght. I wished the last 2 films didn't put so much emphasis on Bond's strenght. Craig is too strong for my taste. I'd have prefered an approach closer to Connery - strong, but not too much. I hope for B23 they tone down the super-heroic strenght. In the fights Craig just seem to unleash his almighty power... I would like some comical aspect in the action scenes, like the Chateau fight and Spa fight in TB... Yes the action scenes are better in Craig films than Brosnan's, but they still are too gritty and realistic for my taste... A bit of lightheartedness please... Yes Craig can still beat people to a pulp, but please have some laughs. While I see Moore-type laughs are not preferable on this site... But Connery's films still had some good laughs from DN to TB. Maybe those type of laughs are more welcomed.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,582
    Bond will be 'relevent' until audiences stop going to watch him.

    Fleming? Do modern day audiences really care? Have they even heard of him? Bond films don't need to keep elements of Fleming to succeed. They just need to be good Bond films. Sad but true.

    Flying cars? Done it - TMWTGG ;-)
    Fighting robots? Done it - DAD.

    In 1964 when the Aston Martin flipped a man through the roof I bet audiences asked themselves if this could ever be topped, and someone would have said that Bond won't even be around in 30 to 40 years. And if it was around in 2002, would Bond be driving an invisible car? I can see them laughing at that very idea.
  • JWESTBROOKJWESTBROOK
    Posts: 5,745
    My point is, and I've said this for years now, that modern Bond films are good movies, but just not good Bond movies. QoS is an excellent film, and received 4 stars from anybody who looked at it as just a film. But as a part of the franchise, it is disliked by many fans because of how its not Bond tradition. The opening to Bond 23 should be how every movie is made. Traditional Bond, the suit, the car, the wits and skill, but mixed with modern filming techniques and adapted stunts for the modern age. That PTS is so beautiful in how it incorporates old and new. Why cant the rest of the film match that?

    There are certain Fleming elements that would make Bond better, and there's no way to say the opposite. ESPECIALLY if the movies are going for realism. Fleming is as real a spy as you can get. I'd rather see Bond use his gun in a tux than ju-jit-su in a t-shirt. Leave that for Bourne and MI:IV.
  • CoH_GHOST_007CoH_GHOST_007
    Posts: 303
    I agree with @DaltonCraig007,
    Bond just could not exist AS Bond in a future run by technology and advanced equipment, it just won't be right, they would have to return to the past times in order to keep the franchise the way it's meant to be.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,355
    What is "the way it's meant to be" though? Bond in 2012 will be very different to Bond in 1962. Going by that length of time it already "won't be right" and technology and advanced equipment is already a big part of the world, or at least much bigger than in the 60's.
  • JWESTBROOKJWESTBROOK
    Posts: 5,745
    I think what DaltonCraig and CoH mean is that eventually technology, instead of being a tool for Bond to use, will inevitably replace Bond. A future so reliant and so focused around technology will have no use for a human spy, by then the technology to find, kill, or spy on people will be far more reliable, effective, and accurate that anything Bond could offer. At which point Bond can only survive in the past.
  • DoctorKaufmannDoctorKaufmann Can shoot you from Stuttgart and still make it look like suicide.
    edited September 2011 Posts: 1,261
    image

    No, but he should done a beard ... *duckandhide"
  • SharkBaitSharkBait
    Posts: 2,107
    When we have flying cars and cyborgs, maybe then they should take Bond back to the 50-60's era.

    But until that time comes, I'm quite happy they stay in the contemporary times.
  • JWESTBROOKJWESTBROOK
    edited September 2011 Posts: 5,745
    If I'm honest, we're close to replacing field operatives already. We now have satellites that can see through walls, missiles that can hit a 1inch by 1inch target, and drones to deploy the missiles. Computers that can determine relevant information, and sort through umpteen trillions of things at once. There's not much else out there for the field operative.

    Even the US Government considered using a stealth drone to take out Osama, but considering it was still in its test phase that had to use Team 6... which was military, not even espionage really. All the CIA did was gather information.

    The light is dimming on Bond, Bourne, Hunt, and all the likes of them in the modern world. There's even nations, like the US, Russia, and China that have plans to replace entire parts of their military with drones.

    ..and @DoctorKaufmann, Bond with a beard I could be down for. I just don't think Craig could pull scruffy off very well. But it fits perfectly with the likes of Fassbender.
    Back on topic...
  • thelordflasheartthelordflasheart
    Posts: 1,370
    If I'm honest, we're close to replacing field operatives already. We now have satellites that can see through walls, missiles that can hit a 1inch by 1inch target, and drones to deploy the missiles. Computers that can determine relevant information, and sort through umpteen trillions of things at once. There's not much else out there for the field operative.
    Jwestbrook, I would agree that this may be true in the real world but since when do we go to films for reality? People will always want to see a human being as the centre of a film and the film will work the story around that accordingly. One could argue that the Bond films don't accurately portray the spy world now - or have for a long time - but we're going to see an escapist film, not a documentary.



  • JWESTBROOKJWESTBROOK
    Posts: 5,745
    Jwestbrook, I would agree that this may be true in the real world but since when do we go to films for reality? People will always want to see a human being as the centre of a film and the film will work the story around that accordingly. One could argue that the Bond films don't accurately portray the spy world now - or have for a long time - but we're going to see an escapist film, not a documentary.
    Well, I never said Bond 23 should be set in the 60's. Just, to continue a believable, traditional, GOOD Bond film, pretty soon Bond is going to move out of reality's time. While Bond isn't necessarily reality, he coincides with the time frame of reality.
  • VirageVirage
    Posts: 1,856
    Obama i think you mean Osama
  • Char35tChar35t
    Posts: 289
    The wisdom of the past was you could bomb the enemy into submission and wouldnt need boots on the ground...

    the discovered that you ALWAYS need boots on the ground...

    the only Bond films that should go back to the 50/60 should be on EON films...NSNA2..3...4.
  • JWESTBROOKJWESTBROOK
    Posts: 5,745
    Obama i think you mean Osama
    Um oops. Fixed :) (haha)
  • JWESTBROOKJWESTBROOK
    Posts: 5,745
    The wisdom of the past was you could bomb the enemy into submission and wouldnt need boots on the ground...

    the discovered that you ALWAYS need boots on the ground...

    the only Bond films that should go back to the 50/60 should be on EON films...NSNA2..3...4.
    The US never had boots on the ground in Japan. They were bombed into submission (well, not the navy)
  • AgentLeiterAgentLeiter
    edited September 2011 Posts: 39
    I've grown more and more agreeable to te idea as time matches on without a new installment, a 1960's Bond, if done right (perhaps with the pleasant retro sensibilities of X-men; First Class or Captain America) would be great fun. In fact the more I think on it, the more I feel I'd rather see that movie... though I would hardly object to a newer Bond either!
  • The_ReaperThe_Reaper
    Posts: 1,092
    Bond is much like Sherlock Holmes or any other icon, he will always be around. They updated Sherlock very well in the 40's with Rathbone and again with the BBC show Sherlock. Could they do the same with say, Robin Hood? I doubt it. Robin Hood works in the confines of Sherwood Forest during Medieval Times, not in a modern world. But Bond is different. He can change with the times and while I understand DC's concern with Bond fighting robots, I don't think that will come to be any time soon and forty years from now I might be ok with it as I will change along with the world at large.
  • JWESTBROOKJWESTBROOK
    Posts: 5,745
    New prompt:

    Would you consider any non-Eon productions in general? These can movie freely through time.

    So simply put, Do you WANT to see a new, 60's era Bond film?
  • JBFan626JBFan626
    Posts: 1,497
    New prompt:

    Would you consider any non-Eon productions in general? These can movie freely through time.

    So simply put, Do you WANT to see a new, 60's era Bond film?
    No, EON's exclusivity has worked well for maintaining the integrity of the series. Bond films are a tradition, with cast and crew linked across generations. It's like a really good family established restaurant. Things are run a certain way, yet keep up with the times.

  • JWESTBROOKJWESTBROOK
    Posts: 5,745

    No, EON's exclusivity has worked well for maintaining the integrity of the series. Bond films are a tradition, with cast and crew linked across generations. It's like a really good family established restaurant. Things are run a certain way, yet keep up with the times.

    Very well put. Perhaps a TV series though?

  • JBFan626JBFan626
    Posts: 1,497

    No, EON's exclusivity has worked well for maintaining the integrity of the series. Bond films are a tradition, with cast and crew linked across generations. It's like a really good family established restaurant. Things are run a certain way, yet keep up with the times.

    Very well put. Perhaps a TV series though?

    Yes, I always thought a TV series would be a good idea. You could have a 1 hour show on one of the premium channels like HBO or Showtime and it would be a good chance to faithfully adapt all the Fleming novels. They could even be period pieces. I would still want EON involved though at least from an executive producer level.

  • JWESTBROOKJWESTBROOK
    Posts: 5,745
    Well realistically Eon would HAVE to be involved. A tv series would be magnificent (with a sufficient budget) please no BBC cheap shows (which are good, but not Bond qual.)
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,355
    The BBC would likely co-produce in partnership with HBO/Showtime if such a series was made in my opinion. It would need some kind of British feel and input plus the BBC do put on some very decent drama on the budget they have.
Sign In or Register to comment.