›

Replay! Is it time to remake a Bond film?

CrabKeyCrabKey
edited August 2011 in Bond Movies Posts: 1,971
Almost fifty years after the appearance of Dr. No, is it time to remake a Bond film? If so, which film and why? (I don't count NSNA as it was made by another company and producers.)

Tops on my list is You Only Live Twice. Make it as dark and creepy as Fleming's novel.
«134

Comments

  • VirageVirage
    Posts: 1,856
    No it's not time to remake a bond film.
  • 00130013
    Posts: 1,817
    I say never!
    Is not on the franchise tradition. We could have great new stories.
    On the other hand, it would be interesting to have a film with unused elements of the story of YOLT the novel (e.g. Dr. Shatterhand's plot). It happened with LALD (the novel) in FYEO and LTK.
  • 00Beast00Beast
    Posts: 4,762
    @CrabKey: I don't think any Bond film should be re-made, because then it would make the original less special, and thus be the cause for much hate and negative outlook. However, I do think something could be done unofficially to make the movies more in line with the novels, like you said about YOLT. In some thread sitting hiding around here somewhere, one of our members talked about a TV show that would be based heavily on the novels, which then would be "unofficial." This is as far as I would like to go with the name "re-make."
  • SirHenryLeeChaChingSirHenryLeeChaChing
    Posts: 3,494
    Never. Even though I don't count NSNA either as an official film, it's still a remake of Thunderball for the most part and it definitely fails to match TB in every aspect. Some are brilliant, some hopelessly flawed, but they should remain as they are and NSNA vividly illustrates why remakes are not needed. There will always be fresh stories to add to the legacy.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Neverevereverevereverevereverevereverevereverevereverevereverevereverevereverever!!!
  • Baltimore_007Baltimore_007
    Posts: 5,634
    no, they should leave them as they are, although Moonraker seemed to be a carbon copy of the film before it, i.e. very wealthy man with warped ideas wants to wipe out the earths population and start a new civilization of his own, first it was at sea and the next in space etc
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Moonraker was a wannabe Star Wars.
  • Baltimore_007Baltimore_007
    Posts: 5,634
    It was merely to cash in on the craze of the time - and didn't fail

    Cost more to make than the first seven Bond movies put together so I understand it

    TSWLM seemed to have Sharks present a bit too soon after the Spielberg release of Jaws a year or two before it one would notice
  • SharkShark Banned
    edited August 2011 Posts: 348
    Casino Royale.

    Time to do Ian Fleming justice.
  • shadowonthesunshadowonthesun Banned
    Posts: 1,894
    Why?
    Tops on my list is You Only Live Twice. Make it as dark and creepy as Fleming's novel.
    That wouldn't be a remake. Given the differences between book and film, it would be an adaptation. It would just need a different title.
  • PrinceKamalKhanPrinceKamalKhan Monsoon Palace, Udaipur
    edited August 2011 Posts: 3,262
    Why?
    Tops on my list is You Only Live Twice. Make it as dark and creepy as Fleming's novel.
    That wouldn't be a remake. Given the differences between book and film, it would be an adaptation. It would just need a different title.
    They could call it "Shatterhand" instead.

  • shadowonthesunshadowonthesun Banned
    Posts: 1,894
    Except that "Shatterhand" is a stupid title. I know it refers to "Guntram von Shatterhand", but the problem with that name is that it's the world's most obvious alias. Coming from a man who is doing his best to remain anonymous.
  • SharkShark Banned
    edited August 2011 Posts: 348
    Except that "Shatterhand" is a stupid title. I know it refers to "Guntram von Shatterhand", but the problem with that name is that it's the world's most obvious alias. Coming from a man who is doing his best to remain anonymous.
    Who says it's got to be a villain? Can't it be some mysterious, ubiquitous deathcult - and "SHATTERHAND" being the closest translation from the Japanese.

    You can play around with the names, but keep the core story intact.

  • shadowonthesunshadowonthesun Banned
    Posts: 1,894
    It still doesn't stop "Shatterhand" from being a stupid name.
  • zebrafishzebrafish <°)))< in Octopussy's garden in the shade
    Posts: 4,341
    No, end of discussion.

    However, it could be interesting to redo Fleming's short stories as mini-feautures, each one helmed by a well known director and with various actors as Bond.
  • Agent7FAgent7F
    edited August 2011 Posts: 825
    No it's not time to remake a bond film.
    I say never!
    Is not on the franchise tradition. We could have great new stories.
    On the other hand, it would be interesting to have a film with unused elements of the story of YOLT the novel (e.g. Dr. Shatterhand's plot). It happened with LALD (the novel) in FYEO and LTK.
    I agree with both of you' s. Don't do remake of classics because it will hurt the like of Sean Connery & Roger Moore. & Recently Eon' did their own version of Casino Royale. The remake of Thunderball which was titled Never Say Never Again with Sean Connery doing Both which one rivalled Roger Moores Octerpussy. I should say it let it be for Eon production only This time. I know Never Say Never Again unofficial & was made by different production, So this time let Eon production do again if they want to & in their own way.
  • 007JamesBond007JamesBond
    Posts: 321
    They should never be remade. No need for it!
  • VirageVirage
    edited August 2011 Posts: 1,856
    I mean compared to those cheap cgi bits in DAD...
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    No they should NEVER remake Bond films,they are all classics and one-offs.
    If they start re-making them then that's the time i call it a day with Bond and just keep the DVD's i have.
  • Agent7FAgent7F
    Posts: 825
    They should never be remade. No need for it!
    No they should NEVER remake Bond films,they are all classics and one-offs.
    If they start re-making them then that's the time i call it a day with Bond and just keep the DVD's i have.
    I agree with both of you. So let it end this way & move on.

  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited August 2011 Posts: 15,713
    Why not remake Bond films ? They've already remade GE into a new game with Daniel Craig as Bond. Yes, it wasn't a Bond film, but for me, it counts. The GE legacy for me is butchered, so I don't see what's keeping EON for doing more insanities with the Bond legacy.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,978
    Remake Bond? No thanks. The original AVTAK was bad enough, I don't want to have to sit through AVTAK but now with terrible editing, and Hulk Bond climbing about the GG Bridge, with M a few steps behind, blathering on about Bond being untrushworthy.
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,129
    The Bond films have been remade for years. GF=AVTAK, YOLT=TSWLM and MR. Not to mention the 'Bond formula' effectively using the same elements in many of the films.
    But as a remake of a previous film goes, well I would think NSNA would help put anyone off.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,355
    There are so many other new places Bond could go before this has to be done. So I'd just not yet or boarderline never for remaking a film shot-by-shot.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited August 2011 Posts: 15,713
    Would remaking a film shot-by-shot be classified as period piece ? It would surely be set at the same time as the original film... The most likely remake would be to re-do the original film with today's technology (cars, phones, gadgets...) and set the film in 20?? rather than 19??
  • GeorgeLazenbyGeorgeLazenby
    Posts: 295
    I think it would be cool if they re-adapted some of the Fleming stories...especially those that weren't really done justice the first time around. The success rate of the films is much higher when it is based, loosely even, on Fleming material.
  • GeorgeLazenbyGeorgeLazenby
    Posts: 295
    And Shatterhand is not a stupid name.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,355
    Shatterhand as a film title is as stupid as Dr. No or Goldfinger, as they're all the names of villains.

    I see no problem with it.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,157
    Obviously we don't remakes. They can grab what's left unused of the Fleming stock and work out new films. They can come up with new, original material. When they start remaking the Bonds, that signals Bond fatigue to me.
  • SharkBaitSharkBait
    Posts: 2,107
    Not while I'm breathing...

    I'm all in for unused Fleming material to appear in a future Bond film. But it's not time for a remake. Let's wait till 2062 before even thinking of re-adapting any of the earlier films.
Sign In or Register to comment.