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 don't think it's necessary, personally. I think there are other angles and facets of the character that can come to the fore to add a level of freshness. I wouldn't put it past them the way things are currently progressing, but I don't think it would add anything that you can't already get from a film set in the present day.
The franchise has been going on for 52 years. Sooner or later there will be an era set in the past. And why shouldn't there be? The great thing about the Bond franchise is that it's very flexible and the filmmakers can do many different things with it. They will never do 10 period pieces in a row but why are some fans so much against just a few Bond films set in the past? Imagine a trilogy of Bond films set in the 60s but as serious as the Craig films, it could be amazing.
I don' have a crystal ball so I don't know what the future may hold in this regard; maybe the producers will make a period piece movie, maybe I might run into Monica Bellucci at the premier of SPECTRE and she'll come back with me to my hotel room and I'll convey to her my own big bang theory. However, the point and the fact remains, Bond isn't a period piece character and in fact that was somewhat of a point they made with GE. Bond's relevancy and appeal isn't tied to the cold war era, he moves with the times; it's the way the character is and the way Fleming intended. The 50s and 60s may have been more interesting eras and that's even in general but we have the Connery movies to satisfy that. Bond fans like what they like and they often pick and chose when and what they'd like to see as period pieces if at all but that doesn't change what tge fact is and that is, Bond isn't a period piece character.
But he can be a period piece character for a few movies in the future, just like he is a period piece character in some of the more recent novels.
Agreed. After the disappointing FLEMING mini series. A lot of work and good talent would have to be behind such a project.
This is true. On the other hand, Marvel set Captain America in period...and it worked really well. Rocketeer (Timothy Dalton, with the Bond connection) was also set in period.
I think the Bond reboot with DC could have been done this way, too, and it would have been kick-a$$. But it was really good done in contemporary, as well, of course--even though Kina Lillet (as a name) was more timely when CR was published.
I honestly can't see the appetite outside a distinct section of the fan base. I'd enjoy watching a faithful MR piece as much as the next fan, but I'm not sure the man on the street would care less. If I want period Bond I just turn to Fleming.
The premise of this thread is that they should leave Bond alone for 5-6 years after Craig, not that the should never make another Bond film after the last movie with him.
I don't even want to think about that until Bond 25 is being filmed! Assuming he does not do a 6th film which i think is unlikely? One thing for sure is i certainly do not want to wait 5 or 6 years for the next James Bond actor and movie! [-X
My preference is for B25 to come 2 years after SP. The idea that they should 'give it a rest' for a while after Craig finishes his run, whenever that may be, is nonsense.
At the end of the day, I'm only going to live for so long, and I want to have seen as many Bond movies as I can during my lifetime. I miss the days of the 2 year gap and think this new found enthusiasm for reboots and longer gaps is unforgiveable.
So my comments are purely selfish, but I say bring them on sooner rather than later, thank you very much!
Also I don't think the next Bond isn't going to want to revert to type, whoever gets the role next will want to do it to capitalise on what DC bought to the role and no not to play man on a mission with witty quips with no emotional involvement.
I think Bond has progressed past that, yes you can send him on a mission but for Bond to descend back to he's on a mission and goes from A to B with action sequences in between till we get to the villains lair and Bond takes him or her down in a spectacular battle like climax seems like regression and whereas older audiences might have been happier with this, Bond has gained a whole new generation that might not be satisfied and no Timmer not what you want is necessarily want other people want. Some of the detail fans want might entertain the general public but as fans we are wrapped up in mythology to what the series has given us before, why do we have to go over old ground once again?
Audiences have come to expect more from Bond than this now, no reason why this model can't be used to some affect and I think Spectre maybe well taking this approach to a degree. I've just re-watched Sherlock series 3 (Christmas present from my Wife) and while I think it's still weakest it was still thoroughly enjoyable. The one thing that struck me was the cliffhanger, the one resolved at the start and the one that we are left with. Bond could do with doing something like this in the future, why do we want tried and tested when we can push the series into new ground an entry that leaves either Bond, the audience or both in jeopardy waiting baited breath for 2 years or 3 for a continuation would really up the stakes.
I'm not suggesting this necessarily in the Craig era but I hope we get a continuation and this might be something to show Bond continually moves on not falls back on the same old same old for the sake of familiarity and not wanting to shake things up. Nothing wrong with taking inspiration from other franchises, Bond has been doing this for decades anyway.
So no to leaving Bond when Craig finishes, we've established a new timeline with some great new additions why just abandon that because rebooting seems the done thing?