Where does Bond go after Craig?

1570571573575576699

Comments

  • Posts: 2,033
    @echo - On the heels of James Coburn and Dean Martin, which actors today would make a good Flint and Helm?
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,276
    echo wrote: »
    Maibaum was critical of his own films, notably AVTAK.
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    I wouldn't mind them taking a run at the unadapted aspects of YOLT, but that would mean we'd need to get an OHMSS-like film first.

    Personally, I'd like a break from the romance-heaviness of the Craig era. At least for one film. Give me MR. Then we can maybe have OHMSS/YOLT/TMWTGG again.

    The Bond/Vesper story was so successful and pervasive that I do think they will return to a romance angle before long. We won't see the casual likes of the Moore era again.

    I'd find it awkward if they did a MR type of fantasy first, only to proceed to more drama and seriousness with an adaptation of OHMSS - YOLT - TMWTGG. That 'MR' really can't be too 'MR' for that to work.

    That said, I'm all for a more "let's go nuts" vibe in the next Bond, but they'd have to work hard to make it good. We've seen a few rather adventurous spy/action films in recent times, and few of them found an audience. It could be an interesting challenge, of course: a Bond film that puts the 'fun' back in the spy genre (other than M:I).

    I'd love a return to Derek Flink and Matt Helm... but only within a Derek Flint / Matt Helm series. Bond is another kind of juice IMO, with more spice and less sugar.

    I'm thinking more of MR the novel. A low-key, gritty story that doesn't hinge on the love interest. I mean, the ending is interesting but it's a standalone.

    Oh, absolutely agreed. I was mistaken then. MR the novel would be a very good starting point.
  • edited June 18 Posts: 1,471
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    It’s funny how open Maibaum was about not being satisfied with Moore in the part, even sounding jealous at one point over NSNA having Connery, but Cubby kept him employed up to LTK.

    Cubby liked loyalty, and Maibaum showed it, to him at least. The NSNA crew probably didn't want Maibaum around because of his trademark criticizing. He would have been criticized as bad as Purvis and Wade are now, had the internet existed then. Same with Tom Mankiewicz and the other multiple writers. And at least they are more respectful of others. After reading some interviews with him, it's actually getting harder and harder for me to respect him. As with DC, no one person should have the power that those two had. Egos should always be in check.

    Why not? They treated Craig like they should have treated Connery in his day.

    Better late than never.
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,603
    I watched For Your Eyes Only the other night. While it's not my favorite Bond film, it's always nice to see how they were able to take two separate Fleming short stories (FYEO and Risico) and adapt those and still build a coherent story around it.

    There is still potential to build a film using bits and pieces of untapped Fleming material. Literally, the PTS could be a very shortened version of TSWLM novel. FAVTAK was never adapted with the exception of the title and Paris. Spangled Mob, Horror and Sluggsy which I guess is Jaws and Sandor to an extent and Gala Brand. I was going to say a villian who cheats at cards, but GF used that. There's probably even some good stuff in the Gardner novels that can be adapted. I'm reading For Special Services now and they can bring Felix's daughter into a story. They want a reinventing of the character but I don't think that's 100% necessary. I don't want to see a young Bond in the service or how he was recruited into MI6. Cast a mid 30s actor with Bond already an established agent and build something around unused pieces with more layers added. FYEO did it best in that regard.
  • Posts: 4,323
    I watched For Your Eyes Only the other night. While it's not my favorite Bond film, it's always nice to see how they were able to take two separate Fleming short stories (FYEO and Risico) and adapt those and still build a coherent story around it.

    There is still potential to build a film using bits and pieces of untapped Fleming material. Literally, the PTS could be a very shortened version of TSWLM novel. FAVTAK was never adapted with the exception of the title and Paris. Spangled Mob, Horror and Sluggsy which I guess is Jaws and Sandor to an extent and Gala Brand. I was going to say a villian who cheats at cards, but GF used that. There's probably even some good stuff in the Gardner novels that can be adapted. I'm reading For Special Services now and they can bring Felix's daughter into a story. They want a reinventing of the character but I don't think that's 100% necessary. I don't want to see a young Bond in the service or how he was recruited into MI6. Cast a mid 30s actor with Bond already an established agent and build something around unused pieces with more layers added. FYEO did it best in that regard.

    Weirdly I kinda wanna see one thing adapted from FSS. I know you’re still reading it/not sure if it’s your first time so…
    the mind control ice cream… not sure why as it’s such a daft idea, but I kinda want to see if it could be done effectively
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    edited June 18 Posts: 8,249
    The “too much ego” thing is a hilarious bit to me, that just strikes me as some of you fans being overdramatic. Bond is just a fictional character that doesn’t actually mean anything. The world doesn’t blow up just because Bond did in NTTD. Craig AND the filmmakers (seriously I want to stress that this was something the filmmakers actually engaged with, Craig was not holding a gun to their heads over this) wanted to do something different for an actor’s exit and they did it because they’re storytellers. Life goes on. I get it. Fans hate it when things are different. Like those fans in 2005 who cried about the sanctity of the Bond formula when it was announced there would be no Q or Moneypenny in CR. “But they’re always in Bond films! How could these producers ignore such a long held tradition?!”

    So please, stop with the pearl clutching over “egos”. These are just movies.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    edited June 18 Posts: 9,511
    ….
    wanted to do something different for an actor’s exit and they did it because they’re storytellers

    This. Beautifully stated @MakeshiftPython

    That’s all the ending of NTTD was. A part of a story. And a way of ending a Bond film, doing something they had never done in 60 years.

    And all the creatives, including the distributors, had to sign off on this (distributors have to sell to markets, and if they thought this end was negatively controversial and it’d muck up the marketing, they have the power to push back).

    And if we’re talking about egos, I don’t know how one could possibly measure who has theirs in check, and who doesn’t. This is showbiz. It’s a given that everyone from the Tom Cruises to the producers to Connery and Lazenby and Dalton and Craig and Brosnan and Moore, to directors to writers to developers to financiers…. ALLLLLLL have quite the egos, or they’d have chosen a quieter path in life.

    Craig became a partner with the producers. A partner. He didn’t bully his way into the position. He was creatively doing some producing work (by pulling in talent), and they just gave him credit for it in his last two films…

    Plus I know of several people who’ve worked with Craig (one was an actor in MacBeth, one was a stuntman who worked twice with him, and one was a set dresser (not on Bond); and from this small sample size, he received glowing reviews (especially the actor who played scenes with him in MacBeth)….

    I just don’t know how we can make these sweepingly negative statements about people we don’t know. 🤷‍♂️…
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,249
    And you know what? Bond will probably die again in the far future. Probably won’t be the next actor. And given we’ve only had one out of 25 films out of 60 years actually do that, Bond dying might not even happen again in some of our lifetimes.

    Though of course once the copyright expires, all is fair.
  • edited June 18 Posts: 628
    CrabKey wrote: »
    @echo - On the heels of James Coburn and Dean Martin, which actors today would make a good Flint and Helm?

    Flint was designed for James Coburn's particular brand of charm and wry humor. Without Coburn, there is no point to reviving the character.

    I'd love to see a Matt Helm movie that avoids the Dean Martin approach and sticks to the character from the original novels by Donald Hamilton. The Helm of the books is a professional spy but he also has no conscience, and, although there is some humor in Helm's first-person narration, the stories have a largely serious tone and can even be disturbing. Bradley Cooper had been in talks to play the role, and I think he'd be great.
  • SimonSimon Keeping The British End Up...
    Posts: 154
    And you know what? Bond will probably die again in the far future. Probably won’t be the next actor. And given we’ve only had one out of 25 films out of 60 years actually do that, Bond dying might not even happen again in some of our lifetimes.

    Though of course once the copyright expires, all is fair.

    I'm no lawyer (and having known some, have no wish to be...) but while copyright expires, hasn't EoN/Danjaq Trademarked (ie, renewable) pretty much everything distinguishable about the Bond movies to the point that any film using expired copyright is going to look like a knock off, even if completely legal? I vaguely remember a story about the name James Bond itself being trademarked, though long enough ago I can't remember how that went.

    Not saying they wouldnt be good and I wouldnt watch it, just interested how the whole copyright thing could play out - not sure if I am for/against it staying purely with EoN or opening the floodgates.
  • Posts: 1,471
    Simon wrote: »
    And you know what? Bond will probably die again in the far future. Probably won’t be the next actor. And given we’ve only had one out of 25 films out of 60 years actually do that, Bond dying might not even happen again in some of our lifetimes.

    Though of course once the copyright expires, all is fair.

    I'm no lawyer (and having known some, have no wish to be...) but while copyright expires, hasn't EoN/Danjaq Trademarked (ie, renewable) pretty much everything distinguishable about the Bond movies to the point that any film using expired copyright is going to look like a knock off, even if completely legal? I vaguely remember a story about the name James Bond itself being trademarked, though long enough ago I can't remember how that went.

    Not saying they wouldnt be good and I wouldnt watch it, just interested how the whole copyright thing could play out - not sure if I am for/against it staying purely with EoN or opening the floodgates.


    They are making their own knock offs. I don't think it makes much difference.


  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,648
    The “too much ego” thing is a hilarious bit to me, that just strikes me as some of you fans being overdramatic. Bond is just a fictional character that doesn’t actually mean anything. The world doesn’t blow up just because Bond did in NTTD. Craig AND the filmmakers (seriously I want to stress that this was something the filmmakers actually engaged with, Craig was not holding a gun to their heads over this) wanted to do something different for an actor’s exit and they did it because they’re storytellers. Life goes on. I get it. Fans hate it when things are different. Like those fans in 2005 who cried about the sanctity of the Bond formula when it was announced there would be no Q or Moneypenny in CR. “But they’re always in Bond films! How could these producers ignore such a long held tradition?!”

    So please, stop with the pearl clutching over “egos”. These are just movies.

    I was wondering the other day what happened to all those people who said they simply wouldn't accept someone else having the 007 number in NTTD, that you couldn't do that. I don't feel like I see that mentioned much anymore.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,511
    mtm wrote: »
    The “too much ego” thing is a hilarious bit to me, that just strikes me as some of you fans being overdramatic. Bond is just a fictional character that doesn’t actually mean anything. The world doesn’t blow up just because Bond did in NTTD. Craig AND the filmmakers (seriously I want to stress that this was something the filmmakers actually engaged with, Craig was not holding a gun to their heads over this) wanted to do something different for an actor’s exit and they did it because they’re storytellers. Life goes on. I get it. Fans hate it when things are different. Like those fans in 2005 who cried about the sanctity of the Bond formula when it was announced there would be no Q or Moneypenny in CR. “But they’re always in Bond films! How could these producers ignore such a long held tradition?!”

    So please, stop with the pearl clutching over “egos”. These are just movies.

    I was wondering the other day what happened to all those people who said they simply wouldn't accept someone else having the 007 number in NTTD, that you couldn't do that. I don't feel like I see that mentioned much anymore.

    It’s cuz Bond 25 sucks and no one talks about it cuz it sucks. In fact, it sucks so bad, I forgot what I’m complaining about, but something, something Babs, and the future something, something, and this is what every Bond fan wants something, something and no more pages and pages and pages devoted to trusting something, something and going rogue and yeah! So that’s the long and short of it.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,249
    mtm wrote: »
    The “too much ego” thing is a hilarious bit to me, that just strikes me as some of you fans being overdramatic. Bond is just a fictional character that doesn’t actually mean anything. The world doesn’t blow up just because Bond did in NTTD. Craig AND the filmmakers (seriously I want to stress that this was something the filmmakers actually engaged with, Craig was not holding a gun to their heads over this) wanted to do something different for an actor’s exit and they did it because they’re storytellers. Life goes on. I get it. Fans hate it when things are different. Like those fans in 2005 who cried about the sanctity of the Bond formula when it was announced there would be no Q or Moneypenny in CR. “But they’re always in Bond films! How could these producers ignore such a long held tradition?!”

    So please, stop with the pearl clutching over “egos”. These are just movies.

    I was wondering the other day what happened to all those people who said they simply wouldn't accept someone else having the 007 number in NTTD, that you couldn't do that. I don't feel like I see that mentioned much anymore.

    IIRC the big fear was potentially introducing a black girlboss one upping Bond at every opportunity and making Bond look like a loser. The first trailer even fed into that with Nomi telling Bond to stay in his own lane. Basically the kind of thing Kathleen Kennedy gets shit for.

    But then the movie came out and it was the polar opposite. And besides, there were two other things they felt were worth griping about. The very two things we’re unlikely to deal with in BOND 26 anyway.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited June 18 Posts: 16,648
    mtm wrote: »
    The “too much ego” thing is a hilarious bit to me, that just strikes me as some of you fans being overdramatic. Bond is just a fictional character that doesn’t actually mean anything. The world doesn’t blow up just because Bond did in NTTD. Craig AND the filmmakers (seriously I want to stress that this was something the filmmakers actually engaged with, Craig was not holding a gun to their heads over this) wanted to do something different for an actor’s exit and they did it because they’re storytellers. Life goes on. I get it. Fans hate it when things are different. Like those fans in 2005 who cried about the sanctity of the Bond formula when it was announced there would be no Q or Moneypenny in CR. “But they’re always in Bond films! How could these producers ignore such a long held tradition?!”

    So please, stop with the pearl clutching over “egos”. These are just movies.

    I was wondering the other day what happened to all those people who said they simply wouldn't accept someone else having the 007 number in NTTD, that you couldn't do that. I don't feel like I see that mentioned much anymore.

    IIRC the big fear was potentially introducing a black girlboss one upping Bond at every opportunity and making Bond look like a loser. The first trailer even fed into that with Nomi telling Bond to stay in his own lane. Basically the kind of thing Kathleen Kennedy gets shit for.
    Yes, but then they would say 'if it were a white man I still wouldn't like anyone else being called 007' if it were pointed out that it seemed like the reaction was down to her race/sex. But you're right, that seems a touch disingenuous now. Or maybe they just got used to the 007 thing and it wasn't as bad as they made it out to be, it's hard to know.

    I still think the movie actually failing to give her any victories at all was a mistake: it made her inconsequential to Bond, which is not what you need from one of your protagonists.
  • Posts: 1,471
    mtm wrote: »
    The “too much ego” thing is a hilarious bit to me, that just strikes me as some of you fans being overdramatic. Bond is just a fictional character that doesn’t actually mean anything. The world doesn’t blow up just because Bond did in NTTD. Craig AND the filmmakers (seriously I want to stress that this was something the filmmakers actually engaged with, Craig was not holding a gun to their heads over this) wanted to do something different for an actor’s exit and they did it because they’re storytellers. Life goes on. I get it. Fans hate it when things are different. Like those fans in 2005 who cried about the sanctity of the Bond formula when it was announced there would be no Q or Moneypenny in CR. “But they’re always in Bond films! How could these producers ignore such a long held tradition?!”

    So please, stop with the pearl clutching over “egos”. These are just movies.

    I was wondering the other day what happened to all those people who said they simply wouldn't accept someone else having the 007 number in NTTD, that you couldn't do that. I don't feel like I see that mentioned much anymore.

    IIRC the big fear was potentially introducing a black girlboss one upping Bond at every opportunity and making Bond look like a loser. The first trailer even fed into that with Nomi telling Bond to stay in his own lane. Basically the kind of thing Kathleen Kennedy gets shit for.

    But then the movie came out and it was the polar opposite. And besides, there were two other things they felt were worth griping about. The very two things we’re unlikely to deal with in BOND 26 anyway.

    After all, they said "James Bond will return" and not "007 will return"
  • SimonSimon Keeping The British End Up...
    Posts: 154
    After all, they said "James Bond will return" and not "007 will return"

    Yeah, but 'James Bond' is just a code name ;)

  • The “too much ego” thing is a hilarious bit to me, that just strikes me as some of you fans being overdramatic. Bond is just a fictional character that doesn’t actually mean anything. The world doesn’t blow up just because Bond did in NTTD. Craig AND the filmmakers (seriously I want to stress that this was something the filmmakers actually engaged with, Craig was not holding a gun to their heads over this) wanted to do something different for an actor’s exit and they did it because they’re storytellers. Life goes on. I get it. Fans hate it when things are different. Like those fans in 2005 who cried about the sanctity of the Bond formula when it was announced there would be no Q or Moneypenny in CR. “But they’re always in Bond films! How could these producers ignore such a long held tradition?!”

    So please, stop with the pearl clutching over “egos”. These are just movies.

    I mean, I would say that it's a sort of bold move to kill a character that's not yours. There's ego required in that, and I don't mean that in the negative or a positive sense. Anyway most people kick up a fuss because it was done poorly.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,249
    mtm wrote: »
    The “too much ego” thing is a hilarious bit to me, that just strikes me as some of you fans being overdramatic. Bond is just a fictional character that doesn’t actually mean anything. The world doesn’t blow up just because Bond did in NTTD. Craig AND the filmmakers (seriously I want to stress that this was something the filmmakers actually engaged with, Craig was not holding a gun to their heads over this) wanted to do something different for an actor’s exit and they did it because they’re storytellers. Life goes on. I get it. Fans hate it when things are different. Like those fans in 2005 who cried about the sanctity of the Bond formula when it was announced there would be no Q or Moneypenny in CR. “But they’re always in Bond films! How could these producers ignore such a long held tradition?!”

    So please, stop with the pearl clutching over “egos”. These are just movies.

    I was wondering the other day what happened to all those people who said they simply wouldn't accept someone else having the 007 number in NTTD, that you couldn't do that. I don't feel like I see that mentioned much anymore.

    IIRC the big fear was potentially introducing a black girlboss one upping Bond at every opportunity and making Bond look like a loser. The first trailer even fed into that with Nomi telling Bond to stay in his own lane. Basically the kind of thing Kathleen Kennedy gets shit for.

    But then the movie came out and it was the polar opposite. And besides, there were two other things they felt were worth griping about. The very two things we’re unlikely to deal with in BOND 26 anyway.

    After all, they said "James Bond will return" and not "007 will return"

    Just to be clear, the two things I’m referring to is Bond being dead and having a daughter. Neither of those will likely be seen in Bond 26.
    The “too much ego” thing is a hilarious bit to me, that just strikes me as some of you fans being overdramatic. Bond is just a fictional character that doesn’t actually mean anything. The world doesn’t blow up just because Bond did in NTTD. Craig AND the filmmakers (seriously I want to stress that this was something the filmmakers actually engaged with, Craig was not holding a gun to their heads over this) wanted to do something different for an actor’s exit and they did it because they’re storytellers. Life goes on. I get it. Fans hate it when things are different. Like those fans in 2005 who cried about the sanctity of the Bond formula when it was announced there would be no Q or Moneypenny in CR. “But they’re always in Bond films! How could these producers ignore such a long held tradition?!”

    So please, stop with the pearl clutching over “egos”. These are just movies.

    I mean, I would say that it's a sort of bold move to kill a character that's not yours. There's ego required in that, and I don't mean that in the negative or a positive sense. Anyway most people kick up a fuss because it was done poorly.

    Technically Eon owns the character, and they get to do whatever they want with it. Nobody forced them to do it. If they didn’t want to kill off Bond, that would have been their prerogative. Craig can’t be blamed for something Eon ultimately approved of.
  • Posts: 628
    My problem with the ending has less to do with Bond's death and more to do with the fact that by the time NTTD reached its climax, I just didn't care.

    The movie gets so bogged down in its own self-importance, sitting through it is, to me at least, a 160+ minute slog. And I should add that I really wanted to like the movie and gave it a second viewing, but it just didn't work for me either time.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited June 18 Posts: 6,403
    CrabKey wrote: »
    @echo - On the heels of James Coburn and Dean Martin, which actors today would make a good Flint and Helm?

    Ryan Reynolds and Ryan Gosling?

    Those damn Canadians. ;)
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited June 18 Posts: 16,648
    The “too much ego” thing is a hilarious bit to me, that just strikes me as some of you fans being overdramatic. Bond is just a fictional character that doesn’t actually mean anything. The world doesn’t blow up just because Bond did in NTTD. Craig AND the filmmakers (seriously I want to stress that this was something the filmmakers actually engaged with, Craig was not holding a gun to their heads over this) wanted to do something different for an actor’s exit and they did it because they’re storytellers. Life goes on. I get it. Fans hate it when things are different. Like those fans in 2005 who cried about the sanctity of the Bond formula when it was announced there would be no Q or Moneypenny in CR. “But they’re always in Bond films! How could these producers ignore such a long held tradition?!”

    So please, stop with the pearl clutching over “egos”. These are just movies.

    I mean, I would say that it's a sort of bold move to kill a character that's not yours. There's ego required in that, and I don't mean that in the negative or a positive sense. Anyway most people kick up a fuss because it was done poorly.

    I don't know: I think Bond is theirs. Not just in the legal sense, but the way that Eon have co-authored the world's perception of Bond since 1962. Say James Bond to most people and they'll be thinking of something from the movies.
  • Posts: 1,871
    Escalus5 wrote: »
    CrabKey wrote: »
    @echo - On the heels of James Coburn and Dean Martin, which actors today would make a good Flint and Helm?

    Flint was designed for James Coburn's particular brand of charm and wry humor. Without Coburn, there is no point to reviving the character.

    I'd love to see a Matt Helm movie that avoids the Dean Martin approach and sticks to the character from the original novels by Donald Hamilton. The Helm of the books is a professional spy but he also has no conscience, and, although there is some humor in Helm's first-person narration, the stories have a largely serious tone and can even be disturbing. Bradley Cooper had been in talks to play the role, and I think he'd be great.

    I too, would LOVE to see a Matt Helm film based on the tone of the Hamilton novels. I always found Hamilton a better read than Fleming, surprisingly enough. Read the script to the recent proposed remake and it too missed the mark. I think "Kingsman" was close to a Flint or U.N.C.L.E. style film and boy, did it not work for me. Just too crude.
  • Posts: 2,033
    Many years ago I saw a bumper sticker on a car that read "I brake for no apparent reason." It amused me, stayed with me, and I often make up my own variation. For instance, on this site "I complain for no apparent reason." While there are some here who are disturbed by the continual griping and complaining about everything and nothing -- (good Bond title: Everything and Nothing) -- so what?
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,511
    delfloria wrote: »
    Escalus5 wrote: »
    CrabKey wrote: »
    @echo - On the heels of James Coburn and Dean Martin, which actors today would make a good Flint and Helm?

    Flint was designed for James Coburn's particular brand of charm and wry humor. Without Coburn, there is no point to reviving the character.

    I'd love to see a Matt Helm movie that avoids the Dean Martin approach and sticks to the character from the original novels by Donald Hamilton. The Helm of the books is a professional spy but he also has no conscience, and, although there is some humor in Helm's first-person narration, the stories have a largely serious tone and can even be disturbing. Bradley Cooper had been in talks to play the role, and I think he'd be great.

    I too, would LOVE to see a Matt Helm film based on the tone of the Hamilton novels. I always found Hamilton a better read than Fleming, surprisingly enough. Read the script to the recent proposed remake and it too missed the mark. I think "Kingsman" was close to a Flint or U.N.C.L.E. style film and boy, did it not work for me. Just too crude.

    Do you know who's lined up to direct the remake? And is the script readily available, or is it difficult to find?
  • Posts: 1,871
    peter wrote: »
    delfloria wrote: »
    Escalus5 wrote: »
    CrabKey wrote: »
    @echo - On the heels of James Coburn and Dean Martin, which actors today would make a good Flint and Helm?

    Flint was designed for James Coburn's particular brand of charm and wry humor. Without Coburn, there is no point to reviving the character.

    I'd love to see a Matt Helm movie that avoids the Dean Martin approach and sticks to the character from the original novels by Donald Hamilton. The Helm of the books is a professional spy but he also has no conscience, and, although there is some humor in Helm's first-person narration, the stories have a largely serious tone and can even be disturbing. Bradley Cooper had been in talks to play the role, and I think he'd be great.

    I too, would LOVE to see a Matt Helm film based on the tone of the Hamilton novels. I always found Hamilton a better read than Fleming, surprisingly enough. Read the script to the recent proposed remake and it too missed the mark. I think "Kingsman" was close to a Flint or U.N.C.L.E. style film and boy, did it not work for me. Just too crude.

    Do you know who's lined up to direct the remake? And is the script readily available, or is it difficult to find?

    Peter, no idea if there is a director at the moment. The only constant is Spielberg, who optioned the rights. Hamilton, during the D. Martin years sold his rights in Helm to Columbia in perpetuity. I found this out while inquiring about optioning the rights to Helm myself. After I found that out I didn't think anyone would pick up the Helm property. Didn't figure on Spielberg. Script not available as far as I know, I read an associates copy.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,511
    delfloria wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    delfloria wrote: »
    Escalus5 wrote: »
    CrabKey wrote: »
    @echo - On the heels of James Coburn and Dean Martin, which actors today would make a good Flint and Helm?

    Flint was designed for James Coburn's particular brand of charm and wry humor. Without Coburn, there is no point to reviving the character.

    I'd love to see a Matt Helm movie that avoids the Dean Martin approach and sticks to the character from the original novels by Donald Hamilton. The Helm of the books is a professional spy but he also has no conscience, and, although there is some humor in Helm's first-person narration, the stories have a largely serious tone and can even be disturbing. Bradley Cooper had been in talks to play the role, and I think he'd be great.

    I too, would LOVE to see a Matt Helm film based on the tone of the Hamilton novels. I always found Hamilton a better read than Fleming, surprisingly enough. Read the script to the recent proposed remake and it too missed the mark. I think "Kingsman" was close to a Flint or U.N.C.L.E. style film and boy, did it not work for me. Just too crude.

    Do you know who's lined up to direct the remake? And is the script readily available, or is it difficult to find?

    Peter, no idea if there is a director at the moment. The only constant is Spielberg, who optioned the rights. Hamilton, during the D. Martin years sold his rights in Helm to Columbia in perpetuity. I found this out while inquiring about optioning the rights to Helm myself. After I found that out I didn't think anyone would pick up the Helm property. Didn't figure on Spielberg. Script not available as far as I know, I read an associates copy.

    Oh wow! Very cool! Thanks for the reply, @delfloria !
  • Posts: 2,033
    We're still waiting for word on Spielberg's Bullitt. Things seem to have gone quiet on that film.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,264
    CrabKey wrote: »
    We're still waiting for word on Spielberg's Bullitt. Things seem to have gone quiet on that film.

    At this point, it appears that his next directorial effort will be his UFO film. Either this has been placed on the back burner or it will be directed by someone else, possibly Bradly Cooper, who is also set to star.

  • Posts: 2,033
    Cooper has shown he can do that. I hope, as has been reported, this is not a remake of Bullitt, but another episode. After all, Bond has been doing that for almost sixty years.
Sign In or Register to comment.