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
Exactly..................It is not rocket science.................but then what is?
I’ve always said Bond should be set in the present though (I feel setting a Bond film in the 60s is an admission the character can no longer be done in a modern setting, which I just don’t think has ever been true). That said we’ve had an Australian and Irish Bond so the ‘British’ rule isn’t as fixed in my opinion. But it’s ideal.
Just click it and read it, jesus.
It says Cuaron is in talks for two Bond films.
Oh, we'll have a period Bond someday, but I don't think it'll be now.
You can't always update the character.
Never say never, but I think you can. Otherwise there’d be no point continuing with him on film.
Anyway, a ‘period’ Bond film would simply be a modern film set in the past. It doesn’t mean the character will go back fully to how he was in those early films. I don’t think that would ever be the point of such a Bond film. So better to keep it in the present I’d say.
Why? It’s not going to be fully true anyway. Though it’s a good conversation starter for this thread I suppose.
It happened with the books after all. Why wouldn't it happen with the movies?
At some point, they'll realize that a modern Bond just doesn't feel right. It won't happen today, but it will happen.
Well, I personally don’t think IFP are a company to emulate having read some of those recent continuation novels and seen what they have lined up. But that’s just me.
Again, never say never, but I think a big part of Bond’s appeal on film is that it’s always modern, especially in terms of the threats he takes on. As it is now I don’t think it would feel like a cinematic Bond if we went back (or at least it would be a bit weird). I think it’s only a certain chunk of fans who want it really.
Worth saying creatively filmmakers always have agency in how they adapt the character. There’s a lot they can do. If we’re getting to this hypothetical point I’d say just scrap the character on film. If he can’t work in a modern film he won’t work on a modern film set in the past.
I do wish though sometimes folks would say what's in a link before posting it. Sometimes I don't want to go through all the pop-ups and GDPR cookies notices just to find out why it's been posted. I'm not saying that's fully the case here, just that it rankles on other occasions. And maybe I might not want to give the Mail any of my clicks! :)
There's not a huge amount in this one, although I thank weboffear for posting it. It's mostly just Matthew Field saying what's likely to happen (and I suspect most of the article is just the journa paraphrasing him where she's not quoting him) and he's not saying anything that isn't sensible, but it's not based on anything solid.
Yes, and I don’t think it’d give a majority of Bond viewers what they enjoy from Bond films ultimately. It might do for the novels (different mediums and often different fans). But in the short term I don’t think it’d work for a new Bond movie. Again, never say never. That said if a future Bond film was set in the past I’m not sure I’d go to the cinema and watch it. It just wouldn’t get me interested.
Take that away and you might have, say, a deferential tv series to Fleming’s novels (which is a bit pointless as many are already wonderful films which arguably surpass those novels) or perhaps a Guy Ritchie type Man From U.N.C.L.E. thing (which is ultimately a bit shallow and likely will dodge acknowledging Bond’s complexities). Even if you get a decent film set in the 50s/60s it’s just not the cinematic James Bond that’s gotten us to this point. And hey, maybe that’s what some fans want, but I think by the point we feel this is ‘needed’ the risk is being taken the character is no longer adaptable or relevant. Which would be a shame.
And hey, maybe Bond will get to a point where its audience is so narrow this would be the right thing to do. But we’re not there yet and Bonds audience is still pretty wide (and can get bigger) just by it being ‘the new Bond film’.
The thing is, one day it will be necessary. Someone drinking martinis in his tuxedo will no longer be modern. ;)
Spies can be computer nerds. No expensive clothes or fast cars.
It's the Mail 8-} 🤷
I wonder how much of the comments under the article are about how it'll be awful because of woke.
Thought so. I don’t think anyone’s expecting a period piece Bond 26 at any rate.
OMG, they're in a giant zoo transportation plane! And there's a tank with a shark. And another tank with a giant squid. And they all get dropped out of the plane with Bond and chaos ensues...
Nope.
The rumor mill now has Cuaron possibly directing two of the films. That might indicate that Cuaron IS the most likely director at this moment.
YOU ARE SOOOOO ONTO SOMETHING HERE !!!
I still think that the next two Bond films could be filmed back to back. They could learn from EON's mistake made from CR to QOS, or SP to NTTD. Every Bond actor's second film came no more than two years after their first. Matthew Field is just guessing, and that's fine. Also, I imagine that IFP might try to fix a relationship with Amazon, (originally a book publisher) to help them get better advertising campaigns for future Bond books. EON didn't help them out as much as they arguably could have.