I love how Casino Royale was set in the present, but felt like a classic James Bond movie. I think a Bond film should capture the feel and spirit of classic Bond, even if it is set in the present. This can be done by going to exotic locations, having a traditional musical score, and preserving the witty banter that the best Bond films are known for.
Casino Royale was definitely the best of Craig's Bond. Even one of the best of all the films. They nailed modernizing it while keeping that classic Bond feel.
Would it be relevant though? Even as early as 1979 it was deemed 'too dated' which was the point Cubby was making with his infamous 'science fact' quote. They did use the basic idea for Die Another Day. As good as the novel is they'd need to beef it up for a film-the faithful radio adaption needed extra material added and that is only 90 min long.
@@jamesatkinsonjait's about an unlikable, abrasive investor who became a private rocket company founder who has legions of fanboys and contracts with the government. "Hugo Drax" even sounds like "Elon Musk"
@@andrewdunn8778 It would make more sense making it a period piece given that Musk is such a self parody by this point doing a satire of him set in present day feels redundant but even a straight adaption would need a lot of extra material for a film [like Casino Royale having a new 'first act'] and would require a lot of exposition as to why Drax's invention is cutting edge for 1955. It would probably suit a tv series more if they ever did that [like the recent Ipcress file remake].
@@jamesatkinsonja I think faithful period adaptions of Bond novels as part of a tv series would work great. Bond novels are essentially detective stories/ pulpy noir so that would work as a long running tv series where the action doesn't have to be grandiose every episode and it can focus on espionage and mystery elements of the stories as oppose to spectacle.
My biggest issue with having modern Bond set in the 50s/60s is that it would end up just looking like a modern movie with period costumes and cars. Part of the endless charm of the early Connery movies is having a window into the past (there's something so engrossing about actually getting to see the Bahamas, Jamaica, Japan and Turkey in the 1960s on film), and part of that charm is simple things like the Technicolor filmstock, the sometimes Thunderbirds-like special effects and yes, even the hokey jump-cuts. Quite honestly, my pitch to keep everyone happy would be to set it in modern times, dealing with our modern world, but with some retro charm thrown in for good effects. Keep Bond in the 21st century, but let him have a foot in some classic 60s aesthetics!
Every James Bond movie was had settings close to the year of release. The character itself maintained that 50s/60s aesthetics and persona. The only movies that went overboard on the sci-fi stuff were Moonraker, Golden Eye and Die Another Day. James Bond should continue forward into the present timeline, while still staying true to his roots. It's always nice to see sensibilities (past and present) collide.
More than just Thunderbirds-like special effects - some of the effects team (including Derek Meddings) had worked on Thunderbirds, which was filmed just down the road from Pinewood!
I think this would be very cool, great looking and very fan-servicey, but I could also see it being hideously expensive and not hugely popular with modern blockbuster audiences. So no matter how much I'd like to see it, I agree that the prospect of doing it as a TV series instead would be much better and have lower expectations for the studio.
Very true on the hideously expensive point, Mike. Especially as there seems to be a lot of mega-budget films not making their money back these days I can't imagine EON would want to potentially add to their budgets anymore than they already do!
I'm very hard core, having read all the Fleming books, the later ones as they came out. If the only way to do a 'real' JB is a TV series, then OK. Otherwise movies.
@@calvindyson Modern big budget films only tank because they’ve gone woke. When they don’t, as in the case of Top Gun Maverick and the new Avatar, they make gazillions.
I’m not sure how well that would work. The appeal of Bond is that it’s an enduring concept but every film can clearly be dated. 60s Bond are blatantly set in the 60s, 70s Bond are blatantly set in the 70s, 2000s Bonds are blatantly set in the 2000s. It’ll just have to keep moving foreward. As much as we want a third Dalton film or the fifth Brosnan film, we can’t just launch the timeline back. We’ll just have to watch and wait.
I‘d really love the books to be made movies or, more probably, a streaming show of. Set in the 1950s and 60s, I think that would be really great to get genuine realizations of the novels and short stories on TV. I think it wouldn‘t work on the big screen for reasons you‘ve already given, but for a streaming show it might. 😊 But, please, no comedic spoofs…
I think it'd be like the "Young Indiana Jones" series they made in the 1990's - very high budget, and often spectacular, but possibly missing a bit of what made the original films great.
One thing I've seen is that some people want Bond to go back to the 60s because they don't think he works outside of a Cold War setting, and I think it's interesting that people say the Cold War is an integral part of Bond's character because the Bond films were kinda removed from the Cold War even at the time. Sure the books (at least initially) were very much rooted in that 'the USSR is the enemy' mentality, but the films? Cubby Broccoli stated he very much wanted to get away from that, that he was optimistic the Cold War would end eventually - that's why they swapped the KGB division SMERSH out for the apolitical SPECTRE. I mean yes, USA/USSR divisions are a part of the plots of several Cold-War era Bond films, but Bond himself never fights the commies. More often it's the opposite: in Octopussy M is having Gogol round to his office for tea and the only KGB higher-up antagonistic to the West is a rogue madman. If anything the villains of the Bond films aren't communists but wealthy capitalist industrialists, and they're still around today. The next Bond villain could easily be another Karl Stromberg or Hugo Drax type character. To be fair, yes the Bond films aren't totally removed from the Cold War - you do have something like YOLT and Spy where Blofeld/Stromberg uses USA/USSR divisions for his own ends, but then, conversely, the next films after that are OHMSS and Moonraker which are completely removed from all of that. Sure one might argue that the Cold War fear of nuclear annihilation helped fuel the Bond films (e.g. Thunderball, YOLT, DAF, Spy, FYEO, and Octopussy), but that fear that the world might all end tomorrow didn't just go away because the Cold War ended - we still have nuclear weapons and other doomsday machines today.
@@DafyddBrooks I suppose Goldfinger (along with YOLT) does have Red China as a background enemy - but even then they're pretty much just to fill in plot holes (how did Goldfinger get his hands on a dirty bomb? Why were SPECTRE trying to start a war between the USA and the USSR?). Neither film is "James Bond, dashing hero of the west, fighting for freedom against the evil forces of communism!"
@@BenCol Very good points as always chap. GOLDFINGER was always the movie that both gets praised and was most peoples first Bond movie during those years so maybe it gets a pass at what it does. If I may, theres a great RU-vid channel called 'ADV China' and both Winston and Matt are great at what they do and are very fair on what they have to say. Plus they are very fun guys it seems too , i recommend them ;)
Very good points! I agree that the films have never felt too tied to the Cold War setting and if anything it's more of a backdrop than anything totally integral to the plots. In many ways it feels like we're living through a new version of the Cold War anyway...
It really is a misconception that people seem to have that Bond was fighting the Russians. He even had a Russian ally in the form of General Gogol, who appeared somewhat antagonist at points but was mostly a help to Bond’s efforts, not to mention all the Russian baddies we get like Rosa Klebb, Koskov, and Ouromov are generally defectors or wild cards that go against even the USSR themselves. Even in something like From Russia With Love, I always got the sense that there was a sort of mutual respect that each side had for each other. I think Cubby Broccoli may have been a bit more forward thinking than Fleming in this regard.
@@joshslater2426 if i’m being honest, I can’t really see them using any characters from the films or novels except core mi6 regulars. They stated several times already that they want their Bond to be its own thing, so I can’t see them doing a version of Blofeld for example.
I think both ideas can work, but one of the key elements to the Bond formula that's often forgotten is that the themes explore a hypothetical threat in the near future, something real to us now, or close to it. I think there are enough of those to build future films in a modern context, eg. huge counties threatening to reclaim (or trying to) territory they believe is theirs, AI, viruses, issues connected ro climate,. They could, however, explore events in the past (eg. breakup of a superpower) in a present day context to make a point about where it might lead to today and soon after; history does have a habit of repeating itself. Bond movies always appealed because they took us into a world we don't have access to.
I'd like to see Eon do a set in the past limited TV mini-series, with more era accurate adaptations of the books, while also doing bigger budget event-movie releases. It's about time Bond had an adventure in Australia, or Antarctica (he's been on all the other continents).
If they were to have bond go back to the past for a film, I think there is really one particular time period I would love to see it during the time period of 1991-1993 because I feel it would really fill the only gap in the original continuity that exists between the Dalton and Brosnan eras. Being set in the era where the collapse of the Soviet Union is fresh in the world event sphere. Sure, we get a little of that in Goldeneye but I think that's a concept that could be very well expanded upon given the early 90s were pretty chaotic in global events.
I don’t think all that many people are nostalgic for the early 90s. The subject of Bond and the rest of the world dealing with the collapse of the Soviet Union might make an interesting book but it doesn’t sound like a compelling Bond film 30 some years later.
@@richardvinsen2385I will say the "if" at the beginning of my comment does a lot of heavy lifting on the concept of bond going back in time to be a good idea to begin with. Sure, it's not the most nostalgic time period, but it's the only one I can think of where 1) the most of world events and culture of the time hasnt been more deeply explored in Bond movies to this point, and 2) it's one of the few places where there's enough of a gap to where it gives a little bit of believability of putting another bond actor in -between two different ones with an obvious time gap, instead of say putting something in like 1966 which is smack in-between two Connery films. If they were to go back I'm time, I don't think it would be wise to play it more for nostalgia, but more towards the story, if it were even a good idea to do it in the first place, so far point to ya.
@@tannermartin7340 Honestly Goldeneye did a great job of dealing with Bond in a post Cold war world after the dust was allowed to settle, particularly in the mid section set and partly filmed in post Soviet, pre Putin Russia. I do think any 'set in the past' film risks confusing audiences as even if 'set in a gap' it's treading on the original continuity and most general audiences are not as geeky about the series as most of us are [it's why say having Silvia Trench in the Paris Carver role in TND would probably have fallen flat]. Still, it's nice to discuss ideas and it's more original than just 'setting it in the 60's like a lot of others have said.
@@jamesatkinsonja totally agree. I didn't mean to imply that Goldeneye did a bad job in any stretch of the imagination. I know the concept of treading on the original continuity is dicey even just in concept alone no matter whenever it would be done, even if it took place in the 50s. If that concept were to be done, I just feel that the early 90s would be the time frame to do it where the story could have the most creative freedom and originality to where it could be a self contained story that feels like it's in the timeline yet doesn't rely on it too heavily and you don't necessarily have to reference a specific other film. Just my humble opinion though for what I would want to see.
Setting Bond in the past would work… for a streaming series. It would be too risky for a big screen endeavour to take Bond to the past due to commercial reasons. Also your relevance argument is really sound and it would give ammo to naysayers who cannot see beyond. No, as much as I love the idea, it won’t be economically feasible.
If I could pitch to a streaming service, I'd pitch BOND, a series about young James, before Casino Royale: First season starts with the aimless young man joining the Royal Navy, where his reckless improvisation catches the eye of a recruiter, and the rest of the season is in "spy school", with he learns spycraft with a quirky cast of cadets. Plot twist: ONE of them is a spy, and Bond's unique attitude helps catch them by seasons' end. Next season has him actually join MI6, but just shadowing real agents to gain experience...you can imagine how well that goes! I couldn't see this going past two seasons unless you actually started to adapt the books, tho...
I would love a Bond TV series of the original novels, not remakes of the EON movies but straight adaptations of Fleming. Moonraker would be amazing. You could do each novel as a short limited series with recurring characters. Young Bond is a bit of a cliché now and too close to Kingsman imho.
@@andykey78 I agree I would absolutely love. I actually had that idea a while ago and started writing a hypothetical screenplay for Casino Royale just for the heck of it. I don’t think anyone’s ever going to see it though.
Excellent comment - and exactly right. As Calvin pointed out - The film series has ALWAYS been completely current. Setting Bond in the 60’s in a feature film would be a giant mistake and it will seriously cut down its audience. And it’s box office! A streaming series,however, would definitely be terrific - and a 1960’s setting could definitely work there! But idk… Is that what we want now? Are we so starved for new Bond product that we are ready to move from films to streaming? As much as we would love that - I don’t think that’s what we want. Because once that happens the film series and any idea of James Bond on the big screen is done. So sadly - we’ll all have to just sit back and patiently wait until the producers feel like making a Bond film again!
Three times they've featured flashback moments in the pre-title sequence. In my opinion that worked well and is a good storytelling technique that gives you the information you need without murdering the film's pace.
I had to deep-dive my brain to think of what other Bond films used flashbacks in the pre-title sequence besides Goldeneye...and all I can cone up with is Goldeneye, Die Another Day and Casino Royale?
For me its a case of 'do you want to set it in the past to follow the books faithfully in the 1950's or set it in the 1960's and have semi Memberberry moments of Classic Bond movie nostalgia through the eyes of Modern filmmaking? ' The latter would certainly have many creative action scenes, fashions and gadgets in those era's where as the former wouldn't allow for a lot of action set pieces at all, and most people see this series as an Action movie series. Everyone had their big doubts as to weather a Bond origin story and the casting of Daniel Craig would actually work at all in 2005 and 06. I feel strongly (regardless weather you liked Die another Day or not) that they could take a risk with the series then because they made loadsa money from the 4 previous movies and alot of confidence from the studio and with audiences. What do you know, it worked because they had clear confidence and alot of prep :) These days I'm not sure if EON want to take risks at the moment and its clear that EON really want to win the audience back and have us say "I cant wait to see the new James Bond movie" again. But it won't be for just one movie, they want us to be able to say that straight after the new one. 3:55 well from Casino Royale 06 they certainly made it clear that it was an entirely different universe, where as all the previous movies before from TSWLM would make some nod that Bond was once married. You have to stretch your imagination that Moore, Dalton and Brosnan was still somewhat spiritually the same Bond from OHMSS. The point is of course they'll have a new time line again because they did that before so there no reason why one would think they wouldn't. all the best Calvin. cheers :)
If it was a one-off or a set up for a tv show, a period piece would work, the novel for Moonraker would make a good base for a period Bond film, the plot is simple but has enough action to keep up with its sibling films
@@paulconway384 They actually dropped the innuendos due to Austin Powers because 'Pussy Galore' is not that far from 'Alotta Fagina'. As Daniel Craig said 'Austin Powers f-ked us' with tearing apart the old Bond formula.
@@paulconway384 You are aware that they ditched the innuendo's because Austin Powers parodies like Alotta Fagina killed it off [Daniel Craig 'Austin Powers F-Ked us']? So there not coming back [and they'd probably feel lame in the 2020's].
I hope they don’t for the simple fact that it would almost certainly require that they commit to multiple films that tie together somehow. I really hope the reboot focuses on one story at a time that can stand on its own.
The costs of making a Bond film these days is extraordinarily high and making it a PERIOD series, to boot, would add to what is already an astronomical budget to the point of madness, really. That and the fact that a majority of audiences these days are just not going to want to see that, as wonderful as it might be. So while it would be a great idea for hardcore Bond fans, just in terms of the logistics, budget and audience, I just doubt it's something they'll do. I think "Casino Royale" was the closest we'll get to something like that, as the poker scenes were such classic Bond moments.
I think a 1960s Bond film could fit in well with the idea you floated a while back, about Pierce Brosnan returning for one more encore. Brosnan's Bond would have been a teenager in the 1960s. Using flashbacks, the story could link old Bond's final case to his very first adventure, where an 18-year-old James Bond first came on radar of the British Secret service, as a future recruit to the 00s. This could open the possibility of a 'Young Bond' series, similar to the "Young Indiana Jones Chronicles" TV show of the 90s. (Does anyone else but me remember that show, with Sean Patrick Flanery as teen Indy having adventures around the globe in the 1920s?) You could still have the modern product placement with the Brosnan sequences.
I would much rather have it in the present. There is a lot that can be done with the present. Atmosphere in the world is quite similar to what it used to be before the fall of the Berlin Wall. Aside from terrorist threat other plots can be done.
I wouldn’t want the main series to take place in the past, but I remember Quinten Tarantino mentioning he’d love to direct one, so if it was like a one off by a famous Director, that would be cool to have it set in the past
Setting it in the past would be a much easier sell with a big name director. A biography of Oppenheimer doesn't scream 'summer blockbuster' but it being a Christopher Nolan film was a massive selling point.
Nope definitely not because I want the gadgets back, in all honesty a Pierce Brosnan era style bond in today’s world would be amazing. We could see bond with an iPhone because he should have the best.
Perhaps a streaming series, as many here have suggested. Something like "Peaky Blinders," that is set in the past and has a strong sense of time and place, but still reflects a modern "sensibility"/"aesthetic."
My theory: they are waiting for the MI franchise to end since it now dominates the genre (it was always around but its recent sequels have grown in popularity). At that point, Bond will emerge from the shadows.
I do wonder how much of the lack on movement on the next Bond is down to MI... I can imagine they'd like it to end so they're not directly competing with it but also (assuming these next Dead Reckoning films are a success) they may want to cherry pick some elements and fold them into the new reinvention of Bond like how they did with the Bourne series. My assumptions anyway!
@@questlive2338 I think Bond has more longevity given its pop-culture status and a ready format that can be retooled and reshaped to fit whatever time and place. I mean the character of Bond has more potential than Ethan Hunt. I love Mission Impossible, but like John Wick there's a reliance on the stunt set-pieces primarily, and story is a far far second, if a third behind the big name that stars in it. Without Keanu and Cruise, those franchises would struggle, but Bond doesn't suffer under those same burdens, and its much older, so i don't see it dying permanently.
Love this concept and I’m glad you touched on some of the glaring challenges this would present. I still think we should be looking ahead for future films
Set in the past (60s - 70s) with alternate history potential. Go crazy with the weird gadgets. I imagine it be like Kingsman a bit but maybe not that crazy. That is, if they decide to not be grounded/serious like Casino Royale. Which was a masterpiece.
Both possibilities are presented well here. Presenting Bond in a period piece presents more challenges than rewards. The early Sean Connery films downplay aspects of the Cold War with the exception being of From Russia With Love. Mainly Spectre/Blofeld were using as antagonists while making subtle references to geopolitics such as in Goldfinger. Present day the Cold War is still very much with us with the war in Ukraine, escalating tensions regarding Taiwan and the occasional rumblings from North Korea. I tend to favor moving Bond forward in time while carefully incorporating the present. Casino Royale did a great job of managing modern terrorism as a plot element intertwined with Fleming. After “No Time To Die” we need to see James Bond alive in our times again.
Calvin, Have you seen any of ITV's 'The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes' from 1984 starring Jeremy Brett? VERY faithfully adapted that show was and I'd love to see that with Bond in a Prime TV show :) Lets not forget Sean Bean in 'SHARPE' ofcourse ;)
I haven't seen either of those shows alas but I've been wanting to get around to Sharpe for a long time! My Grandad loved it and I remember him having a bunch of the DVDs so I have some strange nostalgia for it despite never having actually seen it 😂
I'd like to see a streaming series Set at MI6 in the background. A more procedural show MI6 surely does other missions that Aren't 00 level i'd like to see those
Honestly, this is a brilliant idea if done right. A retro spy-thriller with a booming John Barry-esque score could be what keeps the franchise fresh. It'd be weird to just return back to the formula after Daniel Craig set the bar. Especially with how the modern action thriller was escalated by films like John Wick.
I just don’t think it should be done. Bond has always been contemporary….that’s part of the appeal of it. Bond is timeless and it’s interesting to see what they do with the character in today’s world.
I would love it. For those people who say it's all about the high-tech gadgets, I say consider Sherlock Holmes. He is constantly being brought back and never leaves the 1890s.
I wouldn’t want it. To me it would feel like just a Connery fan film/nostalgia act. Plus I like the idea of bond films being a decade long property. Where it’s like Brosnan films are set in the 90s or Craig in the mid 2000s- late 2010s
When I saw the title of the video my immediate answer was "hell no!" and after watching I still agree. The way bond films change with the times and adapt to new political fears of the day is one of the most interesting things about the series. Going back in time would feel like trying to sell itself on nostalgia for the original movies when something made today will never match the Connery era at its own game, and modern audiences are often too young to have nostalgia for that era anyway. If they were to go back to the past, I think the angle of doing something more true to Fleming would be the way to go to set it apart from the original 60s movies, but I don't really want that clean of a break in the series. It would really feel like the start of something new, separate from everything that's come before and I would mourn the loss of that long standing continuity. So I think your idea of having something set in the past that's in a different medium and therefore already separate from the films makes a lot of sense.
Wow, how do you not have more subs? Is the James Bond community really that small? I just watched your From Russia with Love ps2 video and wanted to see if you still made videos, really glad you do. Excited to see more of your content!
I dont think it would ever happen, simply because of paid promotion and product placement being such a huge financial windfall for the Bomd series. They'd lose tens of millions off not having product placement of modern tech and vehicles and such.
Given recent world events, I do think Bond fits into our modern era moreso than ever before. So the question of "can Bond still be relevant in the modern day" feels irrelevant at this point. It made sense to ask during the "end of history" cultural moments that films like Goldeneye and Skyfall came out in, but at a time that some are calling a second cold war? No, not really. In terms of other Bond media set in the past, I know Anthony Horowitz's recent prequels have gotten a lot of acclaim, and I think some recent Bond comics that more explicitly adaptations of Fleming's work are period pieces as well.
Interestingly, the books have already tried this- in the last 15 years there have been three separate attempts to bring Bond back to the 50s and 60s: Devil May Care, SOLO, and the Horowitz Trilogy. They were all good stories, but they didn't go anywhere- they kept trying to 'pick up where Fleming left off', only for someone else to do the same thing a couple of years later and ignore the previous attempt. It meant we got almost no Bond novels set in the present day- until last year the only one we'd had since the Brosnan era was 2011's Carte Blanche. It basically felt like the series had stopped adapting to changing times, and got stuck. I think it would be better if the films didn't do this- maybe a one-off for an anniversary- but something running in parallel like a series while the films stay set in the present might work. The Bond franchise has survived by moving with the times, if it stopped doing that I'd be worried it wouldn't be able to start again.
I love how the Bond movies are time capsules of their eras, and more so than most movies because they’ve always got the latest fashions, tech, etc. It would be a shame to break up that tradition.
Would be a total dead end to set Bond back in the 60s ... 1 film of nostalgia cash in and then what? Who has 3-5 films ( at least ) worth of things to say about the 1960s that haven't already been done in films from the 1960s ? Whereas staying in modern times gives you a constantly new and evolving set of ideas and topics to use that have never been done before
I totally agree just one film and make it part of the marketing. Let them know this is a one-off special event. A deliberately one-time Bond actor in a special setting.
There's also the fact that the 60's films are...well old now. Someone who went to them as a kid will be 70+ now so you do wonder how big the audience would be for it.
I think to contrast it with more modern spy action films, the new films should set their stories in the mid 50's. Like the books. That might also help refocus the character to his core.
It suddenly occurs to me: There are two meanings to the idea that a new continuity should go "back to Fleming" or "back to the books." A period piece is kind of the first-blush interpretation of that. But to me, what would be more interesting would be a series (television or film) that adapted the Fleming novels *in order*. It could be set in the past, but it wouldn't have to be; the interest in it would be portraying the character development that happens throughout the original books. So an updated adaptation of each book, in order, would be just as fascinating. There's one big reason this will never happen: A series like that would have to start with an adaptation of CASINO ROYALE, a novel which already *has* a near-perfect 21st century adaptation. And however pleased I might be to see yet another screen version of that, the producers and general audiences would doubtless find it redundant.
What's more important is whether the story is good. Is the script good? Is the cinematography good? Are the actors well cast. Do the actors give good performances? There are lots and lots of other things that are more important than whether or not the movie takes place in the past.
Sooner or later there will be a TV series that faithfully adapts al the Fleming novels as period pieces. But the main film series will continue to be set in the present..
The thing about The Man From UNCLE is the original source material was much more forward-looking compared with the 2015 film. McGuffins in the original series included a virtually unlimited power source invented in case Earth was invaded (The Double Affair); a serum that greatly accelerates healing (The Girls of Navarone Affair); a mind-reading machine (The Foxes and Hounds Affair); a vaporizer (The Arabian Affair); a way to separate gold from sea water (The Five Daughters Affair); and a "thermal prism" (The Prince of Darkness Affair). None of this has been invented yet.
Makes sense Tarantino is a 60's Bond fan. I heard a podcast interview where he claimed he saw every movie made in 1979 at the movies and went over the list with his opinions. But when the interviewer mentioned "Moonraker" Tarantino said it was the only Movie he didn't see in 79 - he had no interest in it. So I guess he wasn't a RM fan!
I agree with you, Eon shouldn't have Bond go back to the 60s. They need to keep the movies contemporary like they always have. The Man From Uncle proved that not enough people want to see a period spy thriller. Same with The King's Man sadly. The franchise needs to push forward and having the next movie be set in the 60s is the total opposite of that even with a new actor.
@@postersandstuff 99% of Poirot adaptions are set in the period the novels were written. It's not a character that gets used in a modern setting often.
I think a one off film, set in the book-era 1950’s, which, of course, we’ve never seen, would be awesome! Kind of a palette cleanser before the next series of films. I am also aware that ZERO teenagers are asking for this and it would probably tank hard! I love it as a concept but, you’re right, that it doesn’t work with a 6 picture deal with an actor or contemporary product placement. Sigh…
It could be interesting as the pre-title sequence of a future Bond film having a flashback to something that happened decades ago, similar to what Goldeneye did. It'd have to be part of an extended opening, but it could definitely work as showing an old conflict continuing to today.
Seeing as we are back in something of a Cold War situation with Russia, Bond as he was originally conceived is probably more relevant than any point since the 80s.
As a one-off, I'm fine with switching up the the time period, but not for an entire run. Bond IMHO has always reflected current times, and I'd hate for that to be removed.
For me Fleming never wanted bond to be a period peice he was always making it modern for the time… personally i dont like period peice bond and its why the latest novel (on his majesty’s secret service) is far better then the Horowitz trilogy
I know some people want a 'accurate Fleming adaption' series but as Calvin mentioned previously most of the books have been adapted either pretty faithfully [e.g. Goldfinger, OHMSS, Casino Royale] or have had set pieces lifted [such as parts of Live and Let Die finding there way into For Your Eyes Only and Licence to Kill] so it might feel like treading old ground. The Toby Stephen's radio series are faithful adaptions if people haven't checked those out [tellingly they are only 90mins as even the most faithful film adaptions like Dr No have extra material for 2 hours].
I think they missed an opportunity not to have Bond be an alias. That would make much more sense especially given the carryover cast throughout the years
Completely agree with keeping Bond in the present. The franchise should not go backwards and should always be looking towards what modern challenges the world faces to take inspiration from for their films. I also agree with the product placement being integral to who Bond is, the nicest watches, the best cars, all of that should be there, should be modern and should be promoted. Fingers crossed that the DB5 is gone next era and we instead have a more interesting range of gadgets and new cars. Shouldn’t be Aston all the time.
I think for a big anniversary year a mini-series could do it best, each episode representing a different decade, with a different actor in each episode as Bond unless some decades overlap more in themes, would be a fun way to explore that idea and could in turn be used to hype up a new Bond theatrical film
I really really liked Man from U.N.C.L.E. and since the series run its course with the polarizing finale, and the modern times became too sensitive to portray them, I think why not?
Exactly. Wholeheartedly embracing the political incorrectness of the past would be oxygen to a drowning man given how tired we all are of PC gone mad. It would give the Bond movies a freshness too, because after Casino Royale they got left in the dust by the new king of action spy thrillers - Mission Impossible. Bond would stand tall once again instead of being an also-ran.
@@mowazeem644 I don't see 'none PC films' doing great at the box office-the Nice Guys was a throwback in 2016 and bombed for example. Desptie people online saying Top Gun Maverick 'wasn't woke' I doubt that was the intention of the filmmakers- the team was diverse and had Maverick settling down with Penny at the end and maturing to be a father figure to Rooster. Ethan hasn't even had a kiss on screen in the last 4 Mission films either. You have to appeal to a wide audience, hence why most franchise films are PG-13/12 and try for mass appeal.
Bond in the present has gotten boring. All tech is computer driven. All phones are traceable. Cameras are everywhere. Nanobots. Smartblood. Microchips. Woketivist appropriation of the characters and storytelling. The future sucks and so does the future of Bond. Unlike Indiana Jones, Bond has managed to evolve with the times. But like Indiana Jones, the best movies are the old school movies. The writing, the storytelling, the villains, allies, Bond girls, even the film making...all were better before computers and social politics took over everything. Spy work is just far more thrilling and dangerous when you can't trace the exact location of the bad guy just by pushing a digital button on a screen. So Bond in the past, for sure. The lack of tech forces Bond screenwriters to be more creative. And aesthetically, the 60s are just way cooler than the 2020s. And bring back the hat! Old school is the best school.
Finally someone who agrees now is bollocks. They'd be appalled back then about what passes today. The moral superiority is all bollocks and just for appearances sake. The only hope is that this is looked back on with the same distain
I’d love if they took the whole thing back to the 1960s and made it a period piece… but I honestly can’t see it happening because that would drastically increase the budget and they’d have significantly less opportunity for product placement.
This video has hit upon a lot of the things I’ve brought up over the last couple of years, especially regarding whether there’s an audience big enough to justify it at the box office. UNCLE and The King’s Man both not setting the box-office alight are pretty damning. Indeed, the only fairly recent Cold War spy film that made money was Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, made on a fraction of the budget of any Bond film made this century. Not saying it couldn’t or shouldn’t be done. The Anthony Horowitz trilogy proved it could be done, at least on the page. And as a fan, I’d be curious to see it, especially given how much I’ve enjoyed revisiting the From Russia With Love video game (thanks for inspiring that, Calvin!). But I question how big of an audience there is for it.
If they were to go down a period piece I think a streaming series done as a cartoon would be quite good, I think Flemings descriptions and pacing as well as the time period would lend itself to animation
Part of the reason Eon changed things in the early films (SMERSH to SPECTRE) is because they were actually keeping up with what Fleming was already doing at the time. When Eon began developing films, Fleming himself had retired SMERSH in favor of SPECTRE, because he thought having a group of international terrorists would make Bond’s adventures more timeless, and genuinely thought the Cold War would soon dissipate by the end of the 60s (optimistic!). This is reflected in YOLT where Bond and Tiger have conversations about the ever changing world. Fleming saw in his lifetime how power dynamics shifted in the 20th century. This is also why Eon never does period pieces, because Bond was never seen as a period piece by Fleming or Eon. He was always meant to be a contemporary hero, rather than a retro hero like Indiana Jones. A period piece Bond would probably be a fun take, but it would be another step away from what Fleming was trying to do (at least in the latter half of the novels).
I think the biggest challenge for setting a James Bond movie in the 60s wouldn't be the costumes or sets or any of that, it would be crafting a story that justifies that decision to the audience. X-Men First Class works so well because it needs to be set in that time period in order for all of the events to make sense. James Bond can pretty much go on any mission in any time period, so they would need to have a reason why it's the 60s and why it's him specifically. It could work if they really wanted to go for a more emotional angle with him, like he gets mixed up in a bunch of Cold War politics and gets way in over his head, maybe explore his origins or something a bit more, who knows.
I'm all for it! But I admit I hadn't thought of the product placement issue...Star Wars always struck me as a franchise that CAN'T have product placement (the day a SW movie ends with a pop song over the end credits, it's truly dead to me), so seeing the brand tie-ins was something new to me! Hey, Calvin, have you ranked the Evil Schemes of Bond Villains, yet? Personally, I think that Hugo Drax had THE most ambitious scheme of them all, if there's one that can top that, I'm blanking on it...
Yeah those tie-ins that Calvin mentions are NOT product placements. Product placement is literally marketing as part of the actual media (embedded marketing).
With due respect meant to Calvin, the Star Wars franchise has never been one that deals with "product placement"...its about MERCHANDISING, MERCHANDISING, MERCHANDISING (to steal from Spaceballs). Toys and books and video games and clothes get made to cash in on the films' popularity...but they don't appear in the films. Bond films, though....definitely made the concept of horse-trading free swag or companies helping to fund a production in exchange for their stuff appearing on screen. And I can't see EON stopping that kind of deal making.
I think a 4-5 movie run in the 1960's would be implausible, but I think one or two movies set in the 60's would be an excellent palette cleanser from the Craig era (and Bond's death) and allow them to reset the franchise in modern times at some point in the future.
It is indeed! It's from the GoldenEye TV movie where he plays Ian Fleming. I made a video on it a while back and it's a very strange film... The cast are brilliant (Dance is the best screen Fleming I've seen) but it's weirdly sporadic and almost plotless... Worth checking out if you can find it though!
I'd love if an entire movie was done in the style of the begining of Casino Royale. That whole black and white section had a great feel and look. Only don't keep it in b&w but in color but keep the look and feel. That scene took place in modern day but felt like it was set in the Cold War 60s.
I have always wanted to see some of the missions mentioned in the movies, eg. the Rome affair from LALD, Operation Bedlem from OHMSS. But also want to see a true follow up to the death of Tracy. Whether these could be explored in a streaming series, I don't know. The films have been rebooted before, it can be done again. But can we just get on with it already?
No offense but following up threads does feel a bit 'fan fiction'. The opening of FYEO felt like a good epilogue to Tracy/OHMSS [which was John Glen's intention].
One big problem is: what are they going to do with it afterwards? At some point they’re going to run out of time. Either it would become very unbelievable that a guy did all this in only the 1950s or he would be incredibly old in the future
Yes this would be a great idea. Or sign the new bond (and additional characters) to do series of films “set” in the various eras of bond - would be a great way to take the series in a different direction
I would like to see a Bond story being set in the past, but it would probably work better as a game or maybe an animated series (just as long as it's not like James Bond Jr) If an animated series were to happen, something that could be cool to see is a load of single episode stories but with each episode being helmed by different artists or studios. So we could have one episode by Gendy Tartakovsk and the next episode could be by Madhouse Entertainment or maybe an episode could be animated in the style of an old Hanna-Barbera cartoon of the time.
If you wanna go retro, animate it. Different narrative rules apply. I'd accept a Bond movie set in the past or in a multi-verse if it was animated in its own franchise, alongside the traditional.
We've seen a lot of characters taken out of their usual/original period setting: Dracula, Hercules, Sherlock Holmes, Ebeneezer Scrooge, Jekyll & Hyde, Captain America.... but they always go back to the original setting after a while. I think Bond is "of" the Cold War, and it only makes sense to return him to it for the most part, and bringing him into the modern era would have been seen as a novelty, had the franchise not continued through the end of the Cold War era.
If they look to any modern movies for success I think they should stick with Batman. I really enjoyed how "The Batman" was less a high octane action tentpole film and felt more like a police procedural with some action set pieces mixed in and how that version wasn't 100% perfect either. I would love to see Bond adopt a less action blockbuster look and become more of a thriller and suspense film with some action mixed in.
Remember how the titular character started Casino Royale by becoming 007 and ended it by saying his iconic line 'The name's Bond. James Bond' ? I really want a movie where the newly orphaned kid named James Bond starts by joining the army, becomes a war hero (WW2, if we are to follow the original timeline - or another war, if we are to only make a smaller trip to the past) and ends up becoming 007 (either like he did in the original novels or like the Daniel Graig version). Show us all his training. Show us all the sacrifices he made. Show us what drove him to live life to the fullest, knowing full well how likely he is to die young and violently, if he makes the smallest mistake. Show us how and why one can fully commit to a life of loneliness and deception.
One of the qualities that has made the series endure is its malleability - the way it reflects evolving attitudes of fashion, style, action movie trends, masculine ideals, feminine ideals, etc. I think it would be a mistake to do it as a period piece, except perhaps as a one-off, or a video game, a graphic novel, etc.
I think comic books would be a good format for that. The visuals cost the same regardless of era. Plus comic creators have sometimes taken familiar characters and created new versions of them in part eras (DC in particular has a history of this). But I also prefer the movies to be in the present.
We sure as heck would be interesting to get a TV show on HBO max or neflix to set up more of James Bonds origin for future film instalments, though thinking about it I don't think it should be a good idea as it could possibly fall into continuety issues...
What about having the main storyline set in current time but part of the movie is a flashback showing Bond's "origin story" of becoming a spy and is set 20-25 years in the past. Bond as a young Navy officer being recruited by MI6, his first mission, etc.
One other pro I thought of when I saw the title, but that hasn't been mentioned, is that movies set "in the present day" become dated incredibly quickly. They didn't make _Casino Royale_ as a period piece, but a period piece is definitely what it felt like the last time I watched it. If it's going to happen anyway, you might as well do it on purpose. You're right though, it's not going to happen. 😔
