Leave Bond alone after Craig finishes

123457

Comments

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    RC7 wrote: »
    Bond films are and always have been a product of their time. Going 'period' would kill the franchise. The only reason we're still watching Bond films in 2014 is because the producers understood this.

    I agree that Bond films should generally be set in the present, but how about just a few films set in the past? How about a Bond movie trilogy set in the 60s? Or three movies set in the late 50s/early 60s acting as a prequel to the Connery era?

    Making a limited number of Bond films set in the past after the Craig era and THEN returning to making Bond films set in the present would really keep the franchise fresh, I believe.

    I don't think it's necessary, personally. I think there are other angles and facets of the character that can come to the fore to add a level of freshness. I wouldn't put it past them the way things are currently progressing, but I don't think it would add anything that you can't already get from a film set in the present day.
  • Posts: 4,619
    doubleoego wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    TripAces wrote: »
    If it had been up to me, I would have reset CR in the 50s (which was Tarantino's idea) and made all Bond films thereafter set in the 50s/60s time period, without any sense that the character is aging. They would all be period pieces, in that era, stuck there. Think MAD MEN without the time progression. But my guess is that it just becomes too expensive and difficult to continuously find locations to fir the period.

    Bond films are and always have been a product of their time. Going 'period' would kill the franchise. The only reason we're still watching Bond films in 2014 is because the producers understood this.

    BINGO!

    The franchise has been going on for 52 years. Sooner or later there will be an era set in the past. And why shouldn't there be? The great thing about the Bond franchise is that it's very flexible and the filmmakers can do many different things with it. They will never do 10 period pieces in a row but why are some fans so much against just a few Bond films set in the past? Imagine a trilogy of Bond films set in the 60s but as serious as the Craig films, it could be amazing.
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    Posts: 2,138
    Agreed its the complex multi layered charachter Fleming created that people love. Its credit to Fleming that 50 years ago and now that charachter is still interesting. The books are key you can read a book and picture the mission back in the 50's and Bond in your imagination could be Connery you can read it again and imagine modern day with Dan it still works.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    doubleoego wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    TripAces wrote: »
    If it had been up to me, I would have reset CR in the 50s (which was Tarantino's idea) and made all Bond films thereafter set in the 50s/60s time period, without any sense that the character is aging. They would all be period pieces, in that era, stuck there. Think MAD MEN without the time progression. But my guess is that it just becomes too expensive and difficult to continuously find locations to fir the period.

    Bond films are and always have been a product of their time. Going 'period' would kill the franchise. The only reason we're still watching Bond films in 2014 is because the producers understood this.

    BINGO!

    The franchise has been going on for 52 years. Sooner or later there will be an era set in the past. And why shouldn't there be? The great thing about the Bond franchise is that it's very flexible and the filmmakers can do many different things with it. They will never do 10 period pieces in a row but why are some fans so much against just a few Bond films set in the past? Imagine a trilogy of Bond films set in the 60s but as serious as the Craig films, it could be amazing.

    I don' have a crystal ball so I don't know what the future may hold in this regard; maybe the producers will make a period piece movie, maybe I might run into Monica Bellucci at the premier of SPECTRE and she'll come back with me to my hotel room and I'll convey to her my own big bang theory. However, the point and the fact remains, Bond isn't a period piece character and in fact that was somewhat of a point they made with GE. Bond's relevancy and appeal isn't tied to the cold war era, he moves with the times; it's the way the character is and the way Fleming intended. The 50s and 60s may have been more interesting eras and that's even in general but we have the Connery movies to satisfy that. Bond fans like what they like and they often pick and chose when and what they'd like to see as period pieces if at all but that doesn't change what tge fact is and that is, Bond isn't a period piece character.
  • Posts: 4,619
    doubleoego wrote: »
    Bond isn't a period piece character.

    But he can be a period piece character for a few movies in the future, just like he is a period piece character in some of the more recent novels.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Just because Bond CAN be a period piece character it doesn't mean that he is. Marvel can write spider-man and fantastic 4 adventures set in 1962 and 1961 respectively if they wanted but it doesn't make these characters period piece characters but like I said who knows, @PP, we may get period piece movies at some point in the future when the well has truly dried up. We'll see.
  • Posts: 1,574
    After six Bonds, the idea of new Bond is not going to be as traumatizing as two and three.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,334
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I would love a series of Bond films done in period.
    I'd like to see that done as HBO serial specials.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,334
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I would love a series of Bond films done in period.
    I'd like to see that done as HBO serial specials.

    I'm not completely against that, but my fear is that we'd get the same HBO formula, tone and casting that is prevalent in so many of their series ( the sophomoric sexuality and tendency to go for "cool" and shock over substance). If it could be done by a director and writing team that is somewhat seasoned, who were given autonomy, it could work. I would also prefer that, if it was to happen, it be finite (n more than 13 episodes or so) and that it be aired during one of the longer gaps (year two in a four year hiatus?) between films, so as to not lose the "specialness" of a live-action Bond. Nad, if it was to be done, I'd like to see such a show take advantage of the television format; extended story arcs, interweaving plot lines, more quiet moments (far less explosions) and character development (particularly when it comes to Bond himself). My dream would be for such a series to take place in the '50s, be filmed in B&W, adhere closely to Fleming's world and characterizations and, maybe most important, not feel like it is riffing from or stealing from anything else on television. I'm hardly the first to point this out, but there was a time when Bond films set the standard and the trends (DN-TB), rather than trying to catch up (just about everything after DAF, even some of my favorites).

    Agreed. After the disappointing FLEMING mini series. A lot of work and good talent would have to be behind such a project.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,554
    doubleoego wrote: »
    Just because Bond CAN be a period piece character it doesn't mean that he is. Marvel can write spider-man and fantastic 4 adventures set in 1962 and 1961 respectively if they wanted but it doesn't make these characters period piece characters but like I said who knows, @PP, we may get period piece movies at some point in the future when the well has truly dried up. We'll see.

    This is true. On the other hand, Marvel set Captain America in period...and it worked really well. Rocketeer (Timothy Dalton, with the Bond connection) was also set in period.

    I think the Bond reboot with DC could have been done this way, too, and it would have been kick-a$$. But it was really good done in contemporary, as well, of course--even though Kina Lillet (as a name) was more timely when CR was published.


  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,572
    I have always said it would be fantastic if Eon allowed a series of one hour TV dramas to be made of all the full length stories, set in the years they were released. Starting with CR through to TMWTGG.
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    Posts: 2,138
    TV adapts are always a let down.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,572
    No, not always. The BBC is very respectful of period dramas. These wouldn't be big action films - the books had considerably less action than the films. So they would focus on character and drama. The problem is FRWL would look a great deal like the film as that was quite faithful.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    NicNac wrote: »
    No, not always. The BBC is very respectful of period dramas. These wouldn't be big action films - the books had considerably less action than the films. So they would focus on character and drama. The problem is FRWL would look a great deal like the film as that was quite faithful.

    I honestly can't see the appetite outside a distinct section of the fan base. I'd enjoy watching a faithful MR piece as much as the next fan, but I'm not sure the man on the street would care less. If I want period Bond I just turn to Fleming.
  • Posts: 4,602
    re the period idea, product placement would be an issue so revenue is down before you start, production is much more expensive, references to the outside World are gone plus (as Nick Meyer pointed out) period movies including those set in the future will always have references to the era they were made (you know Star Wars 4 was not made last year) so they will date in a different way. For me, Bond has developed as a reflection of society and thats one of its great strengths, period a big no no IMHO
  • Agent007391Agent007391 Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start
    Posts: 7,854
    They could always follow the Sherlock example.
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    Posts: 2,138
    It dillutes the franchise. Seen it happen before. Sherlock for example and now we have elementary where does it end? at the point where its rammed in the audience face, it becomes over exposed disappears and reboots 20 years later.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    I am afraid they may want to do Young Bond when Craig is done.
  • Posts: 43
    The entire premise of this thread is absurd. James Bond will return...always.
  • Posts: 4,619
    aspie wrote: »
    The entire premise of this thread is absurd. James Bond will return...always.

    The premise of this thread is that they should leave Bond alone for 5-6 years after Craig, not that the should never make another Bond film after the last movie with him.
  • ThomasCrown76ThomasCrown76 Augusta, ks
    Posts: 757
    I feel sorry for whoever replaces Craig.
  • Posts: 12,506
    I feel sorry for whoever replaces Craig.

    I don't even want to think about that until Bond 25 is being filmed! Assuming he does not do a 6th film which i think is unlikely? One thing for sure is i certainly do not want to wait 5 or 6 years for the next James Bond actor and movie! [-X
  • Posts: 7,653
    I really look forward to the next actor and the bashing that comes with it, in either direction. :D ;)
  • Posts: 1,548
    Tom Hardy is Craig's natural successor imo. Brilliant actor and kicks serious arse.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I think the premise of this thread is unfortunate.

    My preference is for B25 to come 2 years after SP. The idea that they should 'give it a rest' for a while after Craig finishes his run, whenever that may be, is nonsense.

    At the end of the day, I'm only going to live for so long, and I want to have seen as many Bond movies as I can during my lifetime. I miss the days of the 2 year gap and think this new found enthusiasm for reboots and longer gaps is unforgiveable.

    So my comments are purely selfish, but I say bring them on sooner rather than later, thank you very much!
  • Posts: 12,506
    Yeah i am sincerely hoping it will not be another 3 year gap after Spectre is released!
  • SarkSark Guangdong, PRC
    Posts: 1,138
    I feel like the reason most people want a period piece is so Bond can get away with the things that have become frowned upon in 2015. I really cant see another good reason to do it.
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    edited January 2015 Posts: 2,138
    I get the point of the thread, too many reboots in quick succession can water down a franchise. Look at the Hulk and Spiderman films. We had three different actors as the Hulk within like 5 year and Toby McGuire had'nt had his mask of for 5 minutes before Andrew Garfield was in to his leggings. But I think Bond is an exception, time wont matter, like past Bond's it will come down to is there a good story?, is there a good director and is the actor playing Bond convincing in the role on screen. If the answer to all 3 is yes then it does'nt need a gap or "to be left alone for a while". The prior breaks between Bonds have never been deliberate, it has always been studio issues and funding the kind of money being brought in since the Craig reboot I can't see any studio getting off the gravy boat.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    While I think a reboot is likely in the future as is the nature of series these days to refresh things, I don't think rebooting Bond just because Craig isn't 007 anymore is a reason to do it.

    Also I don't think the next Bond isn't going to want to revert to type, whoever gets the role next will want to do it to capitalise on what DC bought to the role and no not to play man on a mission with witty quips with no emotional involvement.

    I think Bond has progressed past that, yes you can send him on a mission but for Bond to descend back to he's on a mission and goes from A to B with action sequences in between till we get to the villains lair and Bond takes him or her down in a spectacular battle like climax seems like regression and whereas older audiences might have been happier with this, Bond has gained a whole new generation that might not be satisfied and no Timmer not what you want is necessarily want other people want. Some of the detail fans want might entertain the general public but as fans we are wrapped up in mythology to what the series has given us before, why do we have to go over old ground once again?

    Audiences have come to expect more from Bond than this now, no reason why this model can't be used to some affect and I think Spectre maybe well taking this approach to a degree. I've just re-watched Sherlock series 3 (Christmas present from my Wife) and while I think it's still weakest it was still thoroughly enjoyable. The one thing that struck me was the cliffhanger, the one resolved at the start and the one that we are left with. Bond could do with doing something like this in the future, why do we want tried and tested when we can push the series into new ground an entry that leaves either Bond, the audience or both in jeopardy waiting baited breath for 2 years or 3 for a continuation would really up the stakes.

    I'm not suggesting this necessarily in the Craig era but I hope we get a continuation and this might be something to show Bond continually moves on not falls back on the same old same old for the sake of familiarity and not wanting to shake things up. Nothing wrong with taking inspiration from other franchises, Bond has been doing this for decades anyway.

    So no to leaving Bond when Craig finishes, we've established a new timeline with some great new additions why just abandon that because rebooting seems the done thing?
  • Posts: 832
    Absolutely not
Sign In or Register to comment.