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
To be fair I've heard the counter argument that Amazon's involvement and how long some of the brands have been around (so similar to a Mad Men type way of doing 'product placement', if that show even had involvement with some of those brands, which I'm not sure of) means a period piece can be done in theory. But I think you're at least partially right, it'd be stupid to completely cut ties with many of these brands in their modern incarnations. That and creatively I think Bond hinges on being set in the 'modern world', whatever that may be at the time.
I'd be very surprised if EON went there to be honest. And I don't think it'd result in a successful film (creatively or financially).
This is my big sticking point against any period Bond — Fleming didn't write the novels/short stories as period piece, he wrote them contemporary to when he wrote them. As the geopolitical landscape of the world in the 1950s/early 1960s changed, so too does the world of the books.
Aren't they going to do it for ego reasons?
Trees falling in forests, no one’s around… sigh….
I don’t think it was ever a discussion with CR. They had already proved Bond could work in a post-Cold War world with GE, so they were gonna update CR for the 2000s no matter what.
Although I rewatched the Branagh Murder On The Orient Express the other day- I was surprised that I hadn't noticed a product placement warning on it and wondered what it could be. A bit later on on the train Poirot says how he like the little cakes, and there's a little sign saying Godiva on the counter! :D
They have flat out said they wouldn't do a period Bond film. I wish I could find the interview, but they've stated it outright. Not going to happen.
But has there been a period action film as big as Bond that was successful without using product placement (or even with product placement)?
EDIT: period pieces aren’t ideal for film investors. They’re very tricky to get financed.
Forget Bond for a minute: Superman comes from what time period? The late 30s. Why aren’t we talking about bringing The Man of Steel back to that era?
Or what about Batman? Let’s start a series of films starting in 1939.
I think that we can see that, apart from die hard fans, this idea would be a dead end to most worldwide audiences. I don’t think there’s an appetite to see heroes step backwards…
That's good then. Was that an old interview (ie. pre Nolan period piece rumours)? Regardless I do think EON generally have that sense of 'traditionalism' in them when it comes to the Bond series. They'll shake things up, but not at cost to what they see as fundamental to how the character works (and I personally think a big part of that is operating in the 'modern world'.)
Parts of MR could still be used - the game of cards with M at Blades, the car chase, Gala Brand, etc.
They killed Bond. At this point anything can happen.
Yeah a year or two back, but I feel like it was post NTTD- not that long ago.
Don't go changin' Deke.
I agree. Even if certain things are ruled out now, that doesn’t mean they can’t change at some point in the future, especially under inevitable future leadership.
That's what I've been saying for awhile now. EON should have Anthony Horowitz as a screenwriter. He knows his Fleming as much as P & W. Have Alec Trevelyan be the previous 007. Ralph Fiennes could be Sir Miles as M.
Yeah that’s why I disagree with the argument of “we need a period piece because Bond doesn’t suit the modern world”. Even if they somehow did get away with what they used to in a 12A, and we got something that actually reflected the period instead of (much more likely imo) a modern feeling Bond film in a 60s skin, isn’t it sort of admitting defeat to say that this character, who’s lasted as long as he has by changing and adapting, has reached a point where he can’t do that anymore? And I’m not sure he’s really at that point anyway, people have been saying the world is too PC for Bond now since the 80s and they always manage to keep it going. I think they should stick with a modern setting personally.
Depends on what we mean by Bond films always 'reflecting their times' and whose understanding of such times we choose to embrace.
Most of the examples above are thirty or more years old, when Bond was closer to his origins in the Cold War, and were safely uncontroversial for their largely North American and European audiences. To provide a colourful, exotic, politically uncontroversial backdrop to the world of the glamorous international spy.
Yet a widespread belief in a Bond unambiguously serving the righteousness of 'Queen and Country' might only be convincing in a Britain set in the distant past. Which may help explain why the cinematic Bond of more recent times has gone rogue so often. Does that more recent rogue Bond reflect in some measure a widespread diminished faith in governing institutions and elites? Indeed, in 2015's Spectre, going rogue was just about the only honourable thing for a superspy to do.
Fleming recognized the dilemma of wanting to situate Bond in a politically recognizable world but without wanting to give offense, at least in part, when he moved away from the real world Smersh in his invention of the fantastical SPECTRE.
And the films, from the start, followed that move ... so far culminating in the politically neutered, largely incomprehensible villain's plot of NTTD.
The series adapts by embracing big tonal and political shifts in the culture: the rise of feminism; anti-racism; populism; 9/11 ... as examples of a real-world consensus reflected in the films.
But for the potential Bond audience of today, the world is an ever increasingly different one, much larger, less Eurocentric, more divisive culturally and politically than ever before. And so how a post-Craig Bond might reflect this new era, both tonally and in terms of real world events, is anyone's guess.
In a way I think they've already been doing that in the last couple of movies; Bond and Madeleine listening to vinyl records in Matera, the consistent reappearance of the DB5, the Rolls Royce in SP, Blofeld and Safin's lairs, the MI6 offices, Craig's style being inspired by Steve McQueen, etc.
Since the end of the Cold War, the series have continued to reflect geopolitical developments and trends, take a look at the Brosnan era: GoldenEye is about post-soviet Russia (you have an unstable and weakened government that is on the verge of being overthrown by a military) and the dispersal of Cold War weaponry and their acquisition by criminal groups; this latter theme is again present in Tomorrow Never Dies (the pre-title sequence set in Russia that includes a weak post-Soviet Russian official who is not ready to launch an operation on his own territory); The World Is Not Enough continues to develop these themes and add the question of energy (the opening up of Central Asian countries and their opening towards the West with pipelines, etc); Die Another Day literally opens with Bond leading a commando mission in a hostile foreign country and here's what Matthew Field says about it in his book Some Kind of Hero:
While I agree all these cases may have been politically uncontroversial, it still shows that Bond movies were still very much about the world of their time. That's for global geopolitics, but you also have the Carver Media Group in TND that echoes the 24-hour news cycle and the evolution of media coverage started with the Gulf War.
Still regarding TND, the movie is so much a product of its time that its story would have been totally different if the film was released ten years prior: China is shown as the new superpower against which the West risks being at war, something that wouldn't have happened in the 80s, it's obvious that China would have been replaced by the USSR. Let's not forget that this movie (and Bond 17 for the matter) was originally about the handover of Hong Kong and abandoned this geopolitical background because the creative team realised that by the time the film was released, the handover would have already taken place. So, again, through the 1990s, Bond films were the reflect of their times.
This goes just as well for the Craig era. I have to find the quote, but I remember Mendes explaining that Skyfall reflected the world of intelligence after Julian Assange while Spectre reflected the world after Edward Snowden's revelations. Casino Royale obviously wouldn't have been the same if it was made before 9/11 (beyond the mention of the attacks, the whole plot about terrorism funding is something that was not in the news before) while Quantum of Solace continues on this trend of international terrorism, while the water supply issue is inspired by the Cochabamba Water Revolt. You also have US interference in foreign countries, something that became a particularly high-profile topic after the Iraq War (even if this type of problem in South America also echoes the 60s/70s).
Forster said that "because Bond plays it real, I thought the political circumstances should be real too, even though Bond shouldn't be a political film". In my opinion, it's a good representation of what most Bond films are.
As well as the return of the Cubby era MI6 office.
Matera is even full of classic cars in the background- a 60s Fiat here, a 60s Ferrari there: there are some choices being made to make that part of the film feel classic.
There's a lot of Skyfall I feel you could say is of 'no time' too.
I think an interesting thing about the later Craig films is that they feel slightly more impressionistic, especially in terms of visuals. Bond’s of course always had a sense of heightened reality, and there’ll always be a ‘timelessness’ to it just because of this, but I really get a much greater sense of it, for instance, when I see how overtly Gothic Scotland/the manor are depicted in SF, the yellow tinge to the visuals in SP (whether one likes this choice or not), the fact that as has been pointed out in another thread there’s often an emptiness to the locations even when this doesn’t always logically make sense. Heck, NTTD goes even further with that to the point its story has a tinge of sci fi.
It’s something I hope they continue to lean into, and I kinda suspect they will just going from precedent. In terms of film/the general ‘trends’ of the day we’re not in an era of gritty, and on the surface ‘realistic’ (at least superficially) action movies with shakey camerawork and quick editing. A lot of big films even have a similar leaning towards that Impressionism/heightened reality I’d argue (John Wick being a major example).
I'm definitely in the minority that would have loved that.