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
Anyone else wanna drop out?
If U.N.C.L.E. can do it why not Bond? ............ Let me count the ways.
Because Bond has always been a contemporary piece and is always set in the era in which it's made. This is the first big screen outing for U.N.C.L.E. so it doesn't have the same problem.
There's over one billion of them.
That pretty much sums it up to me, really. That, and the fact that Perdogg refused to acknowledge that his Sherlock Holmes argument was blown out of the water and into the stratosphere very early on in this thread. And he cowardly retracted saying that he didn't give a fig about TV series, as if utterly irrelevant to the topic at hand... even though he is the one who brought up the Sherlock Holmes analogy in the first place. Surprisingly, he didn't show up again.
In a sadistic way, I am enjoying this thread.
The last two Sherlock Holmes movies took place in the 19th century.
Yes, and they had the characters played as anachronistically as they could! AND and ESPECIALLY, someone gave you an example of an adaptation of Conan Doyle's stories (MUCH closer in spirit to the source material, by the way) that was set in contemporary time. You rebuttal? You don't care about TV. That's not an argument, that's lalaland.
And we are talking about Sherlock Holmes, a character much more associated with Victorian England than Bond ever was with the Cold War, AND who had multiple incarnations in the past, in various mediums. Bond, from the beginning of his cinematic history, was set as an ever contemporary character. The novel Dr. No was set in the 1950s, the movie was set at the time the movie was shot.
So it doesn't matter that the man excellently portrays cinema's most beloved character, it just matters what his hair colour is?
I've argued in other threads and in other venues that the good people at EON Productions should focus more on moving Bond forward into the 21st Century, rather than on futile efforts to recapture "Classic Bond." It would thus be inconsistent of me to embrace this Retro-Bond idea. Though I'm intrigued by the idea of Bond period pieces, in the end I guess that's what the novels are for.
IFM everybody. His username says it all really.
Yes. And they are just one of many, many interpretations of Sherlock Holmes (and I will stress, although set as period pieces, they are very anachronistic). The OP statement is factually incorrect, as Soundsofthesinners pointed out early on, it is also worthless. And what does Perdogg do? Instead of saying his argument was wrong, he disregards it, saying he doesn't watch the BBC. Huge, gigantic, gaping argument from ignorance here. And a cowardly attitude to fair criticism too, I might add.
Exactly. A poser of the DCINB variety. We accept all Bond actors here and give all non-dark haired Bond actors of the official series, including Sir Roger who should be excluded from that site for his sandy blond hair and blue eyes if that's the criteria, a fair shake around here. How an actor performs as Bond is what counts, the only true criteria should be a heterosexual white man of British origin.
If someone makes a faithful to Fleming TV series, with a good director and good Bond, then yes I will watch it. Who would not?
Actually, we already have answered that question (I'll leave it to others to determine how well) but just to save folks the hassle of looking it up...
For myself, the series was in fairly dire jeapordy at that time. I liked the Bond of GF and TB just fine & wasn't particularly interested in the new fellow so I didn't go see OHMSS in its original release. DAF got a mixed review from me (didn't care for the humorous direction the series was beginning to take.) There was lots of other stuff going on culturally for me at that time and for a good while there I was viewing Bond as pretty much old hat. I finally grudgingly accepted Moore as Bond...and it wasn't until Dalton's turn as the character that I grew to be enthusiastic about Bond again.
And just so you won't think you don't need to read all those reviews over in the "Originals" thread: I just finished reviewing Dalton's second and final Bond film, Brosnan is up next. Check 'em out, we're having tons of fun over there!
THANK YOU. Everyone who bashes Craig for being blond conveniently "forgets" that Moore wasn't dark-haired by any stretch of the imagination.
Yes, we would all watch such project, but that would be a different medium altogether and it remains at best highly hypothetical and very unlikely to ever happen. The OP was asking about EON production though, and being categorical about it, asserting, completely inaccurately, that Sherlock Holmes would not be adapted in contemporary setting.