Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
Is Now The Time To Go Back To 1953 ?
After all the hype, I have to confess to being disappointed by 'Spectre'.
The much acclaimed 'Skyfall' worked in some ways but 'Spectre' just left me cold.
Months after seeing it at the cinema, I gave 'Spectre' another go but it only confirmed that my memory of the movie as a flashy homage to previous Bond films, with Craig bouncing around in an awful suit whilst working his way through a 'who cares' plot was spot on.
In fact after 53 years of Bond fandom I have come to the conclusion that the only 007 movies that resonate with me in a lasting way are DN, FRWL, GF,TB & OHMSS. And, when I ask myself why - the answer is painfully obvious - they were reasonably close to Fleming's terrific novels and very importantly, they were released at a time when the concept of the solo agent saving the world held good.
Nowadays, espionage is a team game and the advent of the digital world has rendered the idea of a lone secret agent chasing villains in glamorous locations whilst bedding femmes fatales en route, defunct.
His digital foot print would give him away in 5 minutes assuming that his face book page or linkedin cover wasn't blown before that.
Spying today is a team game played with technology and this, together with today's insufferable sense of political correctness risks rendering the Bond franchise superfluous unless it reboots as a period piece.
The writers of the Bond continuation novels have, with the notable exception of Jeffery Deaver who produced the thoroughly awful 'Carte Blanche', realised this and Anthony Horowitz very wisely set his very creditable adventure 'Trigger Mortis' in 1957, directly after 'Goldfinger'.
As a consequence, Horowitz was able to give us a blistering yarn that cooked the Fleming ingredients to perfection.
We had our hero back as he should be, driving his 1938 Bentley supercharged by Amherst Villiers, with his gunmetal cigarette case in the breast pocket of an impeccably tailored Savile Row suit on the way to defeat a completely unhinged villain. Taking time out only for a martini or a liaison of the red blooded heterosexual kind.
In short, unlike 'Spectre', 'Trigger Mortis' really worked and methinks it's time eon really rolled the dice and took Bond back to 1953, the era when he was really comfortable. Then, we could welcome back the true 007 and look forward to some sex and gratuitous violence. Frankly they could start with CR and shoot the whole lot all over again and whats more, Bond could even get to wear suits that fit properly !
The much acclaimed 'Skyfall' worked in some ways but 'Spectre' just left me cold.
Months after seeing it at the cinema, I gave 'Spectre' another go but it only confirmed that my memory of the movie as a flashy homage to previous Bond films, with Craig bouncing around in an awful suit whilst working his way through a 'who cares' plot was spot on.
In fact after 53 years of Bond fandom I have come to the conclusion that the only 007 movies that resonate with me in a lasting way are DN, FRWL, GF,TB & OHMSS. And, when I ask myself why - the answer is painfully obvious - they were reasonably close to Fleming's terrific novels and very importantly, they were released at a time when the concept of the solo agent saving the world held good.
Nowadays, espionage is a team game and the advent of the digital world has rendered the idea of a lone secret agent chasing villains in glamorous locations whilst bedding femmes fatales en route, defunct.
His digital foot print would give him away in 5 minutes assuming that his face book page or linkedin cover wasn't blown before that.
Spying today is a team game played with technology and this, together with today's insufferable sense of political correctness risks rendering the Bond franchise superfluous unless it reboots as a period piece.
The writers of the Bond continuation novels have, with the notable exception of Jeffery Deaver who produced the thoroughly awful 'Carte Blanche', realised this and Anthony Horowitz very wisely set his very creditable adventure 'Trigger Mortis' in 1957, directly after 'Goldfinger'.
As a consequence, Horowitz was able to give us a blistering yarn that cooked the Fleming ingredients to perfection.
We had our hero back as he should be, driving his 1938 Bentley supercharged by Amherst Villiers, with his gunmetal cigarette case in the breast pocket of an impeccably tailored Savile Row suit on the way to defeat a completely unhinged villain. Taking time out only for a martini or a liaison of the red blooded heterosexual kind.
In short, unlike 'Spectre', 'Trigger Mortis' really worked and methinks it's time eon really rolled the dice and took Bond back to 1953, the era when he was really comfortable. Then, we could welcome back the true 007 and look forward to some sex and gratuitous violence. Frankly they could start with CR and shoot the whole lot all over again and whats more, Bond could even get to wear suits that fit properly !
^ 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
@PussyNoMoore, are you really that old? 100 or so?
Very good reasoning, it comes with age.
Not sure if they should re-do all the books though.
Of course, if a period piece Bond should do the insane BO numbers that SP and SF did, then they can do another, possibly with the same actor.
Yes, YES!!! Make it SO, EON!
Not sure about that age but given that I was 10 years old when I read my first Bond book and that was 53 years ago, you can probably do the maths.
I'm also particularly proud that I was born in the year that 'Casino Royale' was published.
I like to think that Ian had me in mind when he wrote it. He certainly provided me with a lifelong friend in Bond !
Back to the subject.
Unlike BondJasonBond006, I do think that eon should return to Fleming's work and shoot the whole lot in chronological order but probably start with LALD as CR was used for the Craig era reboot and is probably too recent.
Personally, I think that well executed, the period Bond could match the box office numbers of SF and SP and what's more, would prove a hell of a lot more sustainable.
Fleming's stories taken in their purity are such great vehicles and the era of '53 to '65 was just so glamorous, I'm sure faithful movie adaptations would appeal to both existing aficionados and a whole new audience.
Furthermore, screenwriters and directors would be able to stop twisting and distorting the character of Bond into some ridiculous, politically correct, action man caricature.
Of course, it is interesting to contemplate who would play the 'real' Bond ?
In my opinion it calls for a new face and I'd go out on a limb and root for Dominic Cooper - I think he did a great job playing Fleming.
I agree, but DN and FRWL felt more like fifties movies than sixties, probably because they weren't massive budgets back then. GF made Bond modern in the sixties, IMO.
The sex and gratuitous violence makes no difference. If we're getting comparatively tame stuff now, it won't change just because it's set decades earlier. People need to remember what these films spoken are, who they're made for and why they're made in the first place. You want Bond back in a Rolex, you want him driving a Bentley, Saville Row suits? Great! Are these companies willing to put up finance to get the movies made? Can they produce enough product in time for one movie alone? What are the partnership contracts like with Omega, AM?
There are so many logistical and ancillary legal stuff involved that to be honest it's probably not even worth the headache. Rolex will never sponsor a Bond film; they just won't and don't need to. Omega, however, don't need to anymore either but they will because their strategy is different and far more fluid than Rolex' and EoN will take any sizeable amount of pesos they can get. As for tailoring, there's nothing wrong with Ford's suits, he just has the capacity to produce a lot more as and when needed. The fit of the suits is a stylistic (horrible)choice by Craig and the cd.
The 50s/60s era of Bond and I suppose in general is far more romanticised than the post cold war geopolitical climate but again, irrespective of the advancements of technology in the world of espionage, a good writer can use that to their advantage and still tell a cracking story about one man and his mission, while keeping his support cast to minimum use.
We still have somewhat decent violence but the sex scenes are pathetic and you can blame EoN for that. Other movies with the same rating that appeal to either the same audience or a younger audience have delivered better on these aspects. Changing the era in which these films are set isn't the answer; it's the fundimental change in storytelling and characterisations that need to be addressed.
Maybe a lot of movies in the early 60s felt like set in the decade before. There is not clear cut between two decades anyway, except a very arbitrary one. In any case both DN and FRWL were contemporary movies with the villains having different allegiances than in the source material for instance.
Some interesting points from doubleogo particularly with regard to sponsorship.
That said, I wouldn't be so quick to rule out companies like Rolex and Bentley when it comes to sponsorship dollars.
Bentley have already dipped their toes into literary Bond with fabulous special editions and certainly have much deeper pockets than Aston Martin.
That said, the real point is about the best route forward and here I obviously have a different perspective.
For me, despite the fact that both of Mendes Bond movies were well made they - Spectre in particular - completely lacked tension.
Ironically, CR got it nearly right because it strayed perilously close to Fleming's novel.
Just think how great it would be if somebody actually made the books into movies!
Moonraker would make a brilliant period piece. Imagine the Card game with Drax and the Bentley crash brought to life on screen!
Wouldn't mind seeing an adaptation of the story FYEO as well.
It is an absolute sacrilege that Fleming's Moonraker has never made it to the screen.
What a great story that was. Unfortunately those that have only seen the pastiche movie and who haven't read the book won't have a clue what they are missing.
Brilliant, brilliant novel and it would be a perfect vehicle for a period re-boot.
Clearly Birdleson is a fan with great taste. TSWLM would indeed make a great movie but it would need the most skilful direction. A shame Hitchcock isn't around to helm it!
Moonraker is my favourite Fleming novel.
Such a shame it probably will never be adapted. Wouldn't have to have a huge budget either!
You've got very good taste as it's my favourite too!
:\"> Thanks. Just love the fiendish plot and the character of Drax is Fleming's best ever villain!
Read it at least once a year
Pop soundtrack?
However also these considerations are narrow-minded. Given the success of productions like Mad Men, Catch Me If You Can, X-Men: First Class and in a slightly more moderate aspect The Man From Uncle and Pam Am, there is definitely a good market potential for a period piece.
Although it would be better, Fleming's work doesn't have to be followed to the core. There would be more room again for gadgets for instance. While I've personally always regarded remakes are sacrilege, I can see a more faithful adaptation of Moonraker working, as well as Diamonds Are Forever and even You Only Live Twice. Combining that with David Arnold's work that would more closely resemble John Barry's soundtrack, even using the same title songs, would provide solid ground for EON.
One should be careful with remakes though, since the movie Live And Let Die would be regarded as a classic for instance and novels like TMWTGG and TSWLM didn't really do it for me. An original story set in the '60s would work for me as well.
Finally, since the Bond from the novels is actually in his mid 30's, I can imagine who would play him:
As for the various ancillary product placements/sponsorships, they are a very big deal and pivotal to financing these movies in the first place. To dismiss them so trivially is short sighted and furthermore it's not looking for problems but just so happens to be an obvious one anyone who understands business can immediately recognise. You mentioned a bunch of period piece TV shows, which is fine and something I personally wouldn't mind BUT again, TV shows aren't theatrical cinema. UNCLE was essentially a flop and not a mumer of a sequel is on the table and X-men first class was great but was a one off as the subsequent movies left the 60s and time jumped, exploring the 70s in DoFp and now the 80s with Apocalypse. Mad Men was a great show but the series was 2 seasons too long for me. That level of writing and characterisation is something EoN should be paying an arm and a leg for but sadly I doubt we'll ever see such talent lend itself to Bond any time soon.
Regarding keeping up with action, it doesn't need apocalyptic type destruction and ppintless explosions. Keep the focus more on great hand to hand combat, actual car chases and an explosion here and there and you're sorted. Create and build tension and suspense, lets feel the gravity of whats at stake. This is possible for television because just look to TV shows like 24; that approach for action scale should be the ceiling and it's overall production value to adapt the Bond novels is beyond capable.
Smoking still looks cool, that's a fact.
Classic brands like Martini and Rolex wouldn't mind to be attached being attached to the series I take it. Nor would Bentley:
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-2573099/New-small-Bentley-tempt-James-Bond-away-Aston-Martins-considered.html
I agree it might be unconventional for the producers to go into the '60's. Yet, as he would put it, I think the stakes are right.
Your profile PIC says otherwise.