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
Also, continuity-wise, making a period piece Bond would be hell for the writers. If it's situated in the 60's, do you take the Connery-storylines into account? As the movies often relate to one another in small details or dialogue-lines, do you let the period piece relate to DN, FRWL, GF, TB, YOLT or OHMSS?
Finally, I don't agree that this digital high-tech era doesn't allow for credible espionage-in-the-field storylines. Real life shows us quite different results: the tracing and capture of Bin Laden, the prevention of terrorist attacks, the uranium poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko all showed us field detective/espionage work remains important.
Q: "I'll hazard I can do more damageon my laptop sitting in my pajamas before my first cup of Earl Grey than you can do in a year in the field."
Bond: "Oh, so why do you need me?"
Q: "Every now and then a trigger has to be pulled."
Bond: "Or not pulled. It's hard to know which in your pajamas."
Also, with all Bond-actors you get the definite idea espionage is a team-activity (other 00's are often mentioned, or other field agents like Ronson in SF). We only get to follow the one.
Nope my profile pic facilitates an opinion that Connery looks cool. You're just confusing yourself with the distinction between fact and opinion.
Rolex will never pay to have their name/watches in a Bond film.
Ever seen "Keeping Up Appearances"? Onslow and Daisy with cigarette and sunglasses? Not that cool.
But more cool than without.
Absolutely.
A different genre but the success of 'Dowton Abbey' is a testimony to the commercial viability of period drama.
The 1950s was , at the top of society, such a glamorous era and affords so many opportunities for creating something that is visually stunning.
And even when they were written in the 1950s, Bond stories were not period pieces or historical dramas. Making them period pieces would add an extra risk of screwing it up: now we'd have to worry about a time period being authentically depicted.
I find this reasoning a little bizarre. Of course they weren't period pieces when written.
Neither was Sherlock Holmes but the fact of the matter is that the character of James Bond reflected post war sensibilities and that was a big part of his appeal.
As the movie franchise has developed it has taken Bond through multiple incarnations and we have long been at the point were the character bares scant relation to Fleming's creation.
As a Fleming fan, I believe the time is right to return to the books and give movie audiences the real James Bond. I happen to believe that there would be a huge appetite for this because I think audiences are becoming more discerning, are liking a good story and are becoming increasingly fed up with this CGI nonsense and this politically correct stuff.
Furthermore, as those of us that have read the books know, many of Fleming's stories remain basically untold and this in itself is a huge opportunity.
Ouch, buddy, not when you see the result: My dad was consumed by cancer. He was a smoker. There are many more like me who have seen how "cool" smoking is.
Mendes, how old are you?
Love Brosnan there. He was quitting at the time I hear...
:))
I didn't say smoking was cool, I said it looked cool. Smoking looks cool. So does wearing sun glasses. B-)
This is exactly what I was talking about. Bond would be a huge success as a period mini-series
That's a Fact !
( Isn't it great to state things as Facts with nothing to back it up but opinion ) :))
I’ve always thought a black and white one-off based on MR (as a TV special) would be a welcome anomaly, with impeccable attention to detail and adhering to the less action-oriented flavour of that period, but this idea of going back and recreating the novels and transposing the content (as one poster put it) “word for word”, sounds like fanwankery at its worst.
If you want fifties Bond, read Fleming. It doesn’t and never will get better than that.
he'd have set the books in the 30s. I think he wanted a contemporary, relivent
agent for the times. :)
Hit the nail on the head. Plenty of degenerate scallys in the UK smoke (have yellow teeth and bad skin). But I wouldn't class that as cool. Some cool people smoke though. But the act itself is largely pointless in todays society.
Well said.
Bond smokes.
Exactly.
I'm not sure I agree with this synopsis.
Of course Fleming didn't write movies - he wrote novels.That doesn't mean they can't be adapted without being destroyed.
Probably one of the best examples of adapting thriller novel's for the big screen has to be Fred Zinnemman's 1973 version of Frederick Forsyth's masterpiece 'The Day Of The Jackal'.
It was perfect in every way. The casting was spot on. It was brilliantly shot. It remained faithful to the novel whilst moving like a rocket.
When I imagine 'Moonraker' adapted with the same forensic detail, I get goose bumps and have no doubt that it would be a huge critical and commercial success with the right director.
In fact, when I think about the job that Sam Mendes did with 'The Road To Perdition', he would be a good choice for the project.
i understand the novelty of wanting to see Bond as Fleming imagined him in a 1953 setting - but it wouldn't work... so much of this series is already tied to it's ghosts of the past, that actually going backwards and doing a series with an actor in the 50s would be a detriment...
the truth is, Fleming wrote Bond as a man of his time - that time being present day.. the only difference is that the present day back then was 1953, and as Fleming continued writing the character, he set the time period accordingly to present day, and didn't keep him confined to one specific moment in time... and as such, Bond should always be rooted in the here and now... I've already seen how Bond would handle the 50s/60s - and every decade moving forward... and in the future, I want to see Bond battling the demons of our time, rather than being stuck in the past simply for nostalgia sake.
How insightful.
Yes, distressing that I had to point it out.