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.
@@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.
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.
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 UA-cam 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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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!
One thing that could do this (I have heard SOME stories about this) is the possibility of adapting the Young Bond Book series (Charlie Higson and Steve Cole. I may have misspelt their names). into an animated series. I loved those stories back then and even now and it would be an interesting way to be able to set a bond adventure back in the past. While also showing off who Bond was before he became 007. You could have fun with altering some aspects of each of the stories and maybe even merging some of them together. Think the one thing that wouldn’t make this do well is simple. It’s set before Bond ever became an MI6 agent, so long before the book Casino Royale ever happened (I believe at the beginning in Silverfin he is around maybe 13 or 14, and given the timeline it seems that it’s mostly happening throughout the 1930s heck he even ends up fighting the Nazis and Soviets in the Steven Cole ones). And as such you don’t get any of the characters like Q and M, none of the gadgets that we know and love, and the tone would be more on par with License to Kill as the book series takes time to go into Bond’s head when he thinks about his parents. (Not saying that is a bad thing but everyone has their likes and ik not a lot of people would consider License to Kill to be their fav, which is fair enough). Personally I would love to see this get turned into an animated series, animated by Studio Mir and evoking the same type of atmosphere from something like Batman The Animated series. Like I would give anything to see stories like this ”Blood Fiver” or “Double or Die” being turned into an animated episode and there is even one villain who evokes Elliot Carver yet his gimmick is more towards films (which makes sense given the setting and the period of that story). Though I would be interested in to hearing your thoughts on the books and the possibility Calvin.
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.
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.
That's an interesting concept that I had not thought of before. First, before I put in my opinion, I need to divulge that I am 56 and I was a huge "Bond fan" when I was in high school and college in the early and mid 80's. I've seen the films Dr. No through Living Daylights multiple times over the past 35 to 45 years. I read through the entire Fleming novels in my late teens also. I was also a big fan of the other spy films that regularly showed up on cable tv in the 80's - The Ipcress FIle, Quiller Memorandum, the Flint movies and so forth. In fact, these films and reruns of 60's spy shows on cable tv in the early and mid 80's created such an interest in the Cold War in me that I chose to study international relations, emphasis on the Communist Bloc, when I started college in 1984 and after a stint in the US Army I was hoping for a career waging the Cold War, perhaps in the State Department. Alas, to my disappointment, the Cold War ended while I was in the army and I had to rethink my whole future. I was the world's youngest dinosaur it seemed. So - I miss the Cold War and am nostalgic for it. This fact may strongly bias my opinion here. But, like me, I think James Bond never did fit into the Post Cold War world. I went to the theater to see the three Bond films from 1989 to 1997 and never watched any of them again, and watched the first Daniel Craig film in a theater and never watched it again, and I have not even seen the other Craig and Brosnan films. I dislikes License to Kill because Bond was fighting some penny ante drug cartel, not saving the world, and the Brosnan and Craig films left me flat because they were so remote from the world that Bond was created in (and for). In fact, I'm not to keen on any espionage fiction written and set after the Cold War ended. But I still regularly re-watch (maybe two or three of them a year) the Bond films made from 1962-87, especially the ones from the 60's. All of my favorite films of the series are from the 60's, and although For Your Eyes Only and Living Daylights are great Cold War films, I would even go so far as to say Bond was out of his element after the 60's ended. And I reread the Fleming novels at a pace of about 1 or 2 of them each year. So speaking for myself (and I've explained why I am probably different from most people), I would ONLY watch a new Bond movie if it were set back in the Cold War era of the 50's and 60's. I wouldn't mind seeing some of the Fleming novels re-filmed in a more faithful to the novel way, but new stories set in the Fleming years would appeal to me. (Or even BEFORE the 1952 writing of Casino Royale, Bond after all was a World War II agent, why not a few movies set in that war, as well?) I agree with you when you outline all of the reasons why this will never happen, at least for the big screen, but they have recently re-done The Ipcress File in a 6 or 8 part tv/streaming format (and very faithful to the novel) so as you said, maybe that would work with a "Retro-Bond". I do know that I've no interest in a 21st Century Bond, and will continue to avoid any new modern-day films as I have since the 1990's. Yeah, I know - listen to the old man yell at the kids to get off his lawn...... (But, hey, I was still a YOUNG man in the 90's and even then I didn't care for Post Cold War Bond) But for those of you who can't remember the Cold War, you missed the most fascinating geo-political event in human history.
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.
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 would really love to see a 007 trilogy set in the 60s. And I think it would be very interesting if they took some inspiration from the Kingsman movies in regards to the pacing and action
Honstly, I'd rather they let Kingsman be it's own thing. It's OTT style [along with violence and swearing] makes it stand out away from Bond or other spy franchises. It'll be interesting to see how Matthew Vaughn's 'Argyll' goes regarding action and pacing. 'The King's Man' is a good argument against a Bond period setting [given it made far less than the contemporary films and wasn't well received critically]. Be interesting to see if the franchise bounces back when the Eggsy sequel eventually gets made.
No because we have the old 007 movies to enjoy all of them are reflective of the year they were made and that's how it should be. The producers are consistent that Bond has to always be updated for the current year there's no way they would ever do this.
I've seen somewhere else that a 007 movie set in the past would not go well because there are sponsors and branding associated with every movie that won't be able to do product placement if it's going to be a period piece (as you pointed out). But as a fan, it would be nice to see a film set in early 70's at least.
I've thought about this.. but if you read the original Fleming novels he's a former operative that served behind enemy lines at the end of WW2.... I always wanted them to kick start the films from that point on...
There could be retro product placement for companies that existed then and now. And you would still have plenty of sponsors to choose between. Aston Martin, Rolex, Heineken all existed in the 60s.
I've always liked the idea of bringing it back to the past for a faithful adaption of the Fleming works. But, doing it in a high budget TV Series where two episodes would cover one of the books. Once they make it through the series, we can return to a modern setting for the films and it works as a nice pallet cleanser
I think a period piece could be very enjoyable, but I am not sure the filmmakers would want to recreate the tone of the 60ies movies, and a movie with a modern feel set in the past just does not feel like Bond. I did consider whether it would be fun to see Bond involved in real-world historical events. Maybe Bond played a crucial role in stopping the Cuba crisis turning into war? But on the whole I think I prefer Bond staying in a fantasy world.
My dream is to have two Bonds. One is a new high-budget TV-series with each series being pretty faithful Flemming adaptation in original timeline. For example, every episode could be a single book and/or short tale. But second is our usual EON films, business as usual. I wish to enjoy both at the same time.
I would love to see a Bond story brought to life in a period setting. Bringing the world I imagined from Casino Royal, Moonraker and Live and Let Die, to life. Although without the racism and sexism. But then it becomes a watered down pastiche. Not because those are good things, but it's the way the world was. Thank goodness we've made a little progress. It's also worth remembering that Fleming always set the Bond novels in the present. That said, the clips of Henry Cavil looked amazing.
Whilst it would address the problems of modern technology (CCTV mobile phones etc) and also allow Bond to be the misogynistic dinosaur we all love without any backlash I don't think it would work for the mainstream cinema audience. The producers always said the movies were set slightly into the future and as it's closest rival the Mission Impossible franchise is doing well I think that Bond should remain in the present. Also I believe The Man From Uncle movie didn't do too well at the box office so that's another factor to consider.
Not sure The Man From UNCLE comparison is very relevant. Imho UNCLE was never very good. It was always a bit lightweight and lacked tension and its fanbase is minescule compared to Bond. Bond also had a literary past to draw on.
@@vordmanThey could write off Uncle as being a flawed product but taking a established contemporary franchise in King's man historical also produced dire financial results which would put them off.
BTW I wouldn't expect a period Bond to have him being a 'misogynistic dinosaur' as it's still a 2020's film-The newer books set in that period don't include that aspect.
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
The product placement situation would change if it took place in the 1960s, but not impossible. Classic brands like Heineken, Omega, Coca Cola, Ford etc. could have a lot of fun with it. Even Sony could.
One idea that I think could work is doing a sequel to On Her Majesty’s Secret Service. Like a retroactive sequel set in the 60’s, early 70’s. The opening could feature the death of Tracy Bond after their wedding and the rest of the movie seeing Bond as a broken man, to his vengeance on Blofeld and Irma.
You might as well just do that or a similar set up in a rebooted time line. OHMSS was so long ago now and with different actors any connection would be lost [especially to a casual audience]. Quantum of Solace also showed how thin a 'vengeance' mission could end up being as a story. Interestingly, I believe Tarantino's 'Casino Royale' pitch was [oddly] supposed to be set straight after OHMSS.
I kind of like the idea as a one off but dont think I'll ever happen. What i what like to see if the opposite; going back to the books and adapting them more faithfully in a modern setting. Most of the films only share a title with the their film counterparts. They could do the same with Trigger Mortis a a time to kill maybe?
Nice video. I think a Bond film set back in the 1960s would be an interesting experiment, especially with Michael Fassbender as 007. He is very much like Connery, especially in the first half of X-Men First Class. That menace, that class, and that suaveness. A trilogy based on Anthony Horowitz's Forever and a Day, Triggermortis, and With a Mind to a Kill could be adapted to suit Fassbender and slot in between some of the existing Connery films. It would also be great to see a Bond film set in Swinging Sixties London, which never happened when Connery was Bond. I also would not mind if they redid Diamonds Are Forever following the unfilmed script that had Bond seeking revenge on Irma Bunt and Blofeld for killing Tracy. That scene of Bond chasing Bunt through a London subway sounded so atmospheric. Lazenby would have been great, but Fassbender would be even better. None of this will ever happen, but it is one of those nice what-if moments.
I think they'd want to stay well clear of 'Swinging London' as it could get too 'Austin Powers'. The unused 'revenge' script was deemed poor back in the day and wasn't going to be used even if Lazenby stayed on.
@@jamesatkinsonja I'm pretty sure they could do a Bond film set in 1960s London without it becoming like Austin Powers. The 'Swinging Sixties' was a time of great social and cultural upheaval and youth culture. It doesn't just refer to flamboyance like what is depicted in Austin Powers. A lot of what Bond represents is challenged during that time. Bond already mentioned how he hates the Beatles in Goldfinger, and it would provide an interesting contrast. Bond also is quite comfortable in that environment when it comes to the sexual revolution at the time as well. The rejected script was actually deemed too edgy for Bond back then. (It was a vengeance film long before Licence to Kill, and dealt with Bond's grief for his wife). Nobody said they should film it as is. Sections could be rewritten. It certainly has some good ideas. And let's be honest, Diamonds Are Forever is not a good film. It is one of the weakest Bond films and the most Austin Powers-like film in the series. So, I guess they've already done with that film what you're warning about keeping away from.
@@danielscott8180 But DFD was actually made in those times which is a big difference! I'm not saying it couldn't be done well but they'd have to be very careful. A good point Calvin made in his Letterboxd review of 'The King's Man' is that felt it too often got bogged down in exposition of the history. The Ipcress File remake did touch on those themes but as a TV show had more time to do it more naturally which is why I think that's the best avenue for a Bond period piece. Quantum for me showed why the 'revenge' OHMSS sequel struggled to work on the page [and ended up just being the pre-title sequences of DAF and FYEO] as Bond killing his way up the chain is a thin story, not helped by the first act [Vespers Death] being in another film unlike Bourne Supremacy or LTK [and why Peter Hunt considered holding back Tracy's death until DAF until plans were changed]. Even Fleming's sequel holds the revenge aspect back until the 3rd act with Bond instead recovering as character.
@@jamesatkinsonja DAF was most likely campy for the early 70s. There had been some pretty serious Bond films beforehand, and tbh DAF's campy tone seemed like an overreaction to teh serious tone of OHMSS. Lazenby's one-and-done film made ONLY $80 million off a $6 million budget or something. Not as much as Connery's past films but still huge. And the lower returns were likely because of the new guy in the role, not the film. The idea of Bond "killing up the food chain is a thin storyline". Is it? Or do you mean its not a big enough plot for a globe-trotting film involving world domination? I guess it depends if you like revenge stories or not. (Maybe you do not like LTK for that same reason). Maibuam fought hard for DAF to be a revenge flick and wrote Tiffany Case as a character who had also experienced loss and both characters helped each other heal. There was a larger plot dealing with diamonds as well, though I doubt it was a space laser like the final film. Why do we need heavy exposition for a 60s Bond movie? We didn't need it for X-Men: First Class or Days of Futures Past. Both films wove fiction into history well with minimum exposition. The Kings Man is also, I would say, not the best comparison for why we shouldn't have a 60s Bond film since the exposition in the film largely deals with a complex history dealing with treaties that were triggered by the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand that forced countries to join a war. (The film is weak and actually deflects from the very real history describing these treaties. Various historians actually blame elite Brits for causing the Great War. Cecil Rhodes is the one that is most blamed. He was a bit of a bad guy in history, despite what the Rhodes Scholarship would like people to think. This film tries to make some shadowy SPECTRE-like organization responsible instead.) And didn't Peter Hunt want to include Tracy's death in the pre-titles for DAF precisely so the film dealt with Bond hunting Blofeld? (Not only because he wanted to end OHMSS on a lighter note). Anyway, Hunt left. But Maibaum wanted the revenge plot and told Cubby that Bond needed to settle his account with Blofeld, or they needed to go in a different direction with a new villain. Which is true. DAF just showed the producers were too scared to go down dark path with Bond seeking vengeance. I guess it all depends on where you stan with LTK. I think it's one of the best in the series! For me, Bond's low point was DAF through to and including TMWTGG, all written by Mankiewicz. (The racism and sexism in all three are really ugly). Still, none of this actually discounts why a 60s Bond film would or would not work. Quentin Tarantino thought it could be done with Casino Royale, but it would require the Broccoli family to take a big risk with $150 million, and I can understand why they do not want to. At the end of the day, I'm just speculating along with Calvin's video. I'd like to see a 60s film just because after 25 films, I want to see something different. But it is not my preference. What I really want to see is a Christopher Nolan Bond trilogy set very much in the present.
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!
Calvin, have you ever watched a British sitcom called The Piglet Files? It's a spy show..sort of! Imagine a show about a younger Q (codenamed "Piglet" as all the cooler animal names were taken), who mainly goes into the field just to ensure he gets his equipment back from somewhat incompetent agents...
Can't see it happening much like the idea of an old man Bond idea that I have seen floated around. However that's not to say that I don't think it could work. The obvious choice for me would be to make a proper Moonraker film based on the book. It's one of the best books and you could make a great film from it.
James Bond- The series (Not HBO MAX or something not many UK people have) I think could work as a progression through a decade... Take any of the books (Flemming and others) and span it over a series of 6-8 hours rather than cramming it into a at max 2.5 hour film... Otherwise I think a film 'might' be better off following in a contemporary time line but with changes to the bond himself... But I would like to see a more suave sophisticated bond, over just action
I still believe it would be fun to do a series of one-off Bond movies with different directors and actors. Really play with things: era, geography, race... whatever you like. On the flipside, the cinema industry is in a challenging state at present. Many of the most popular movies are still comic-book or fantasy-derived, but there are signs of those trends slowing. Other tentpoles are unique entities with strong backgrounds, such as Christopher Nolan films, Mission Impossible (anything Tom Cruise), etc. My read is that people are buying into consistency, and want to be sure of enjoying the film they spent hard-earned cash on.
Why don't they film Devil May Care the fantastic Sebastian Faulks Bond book set in 1967 ...it has a great plot, characters, Bond girl and memorable villain, Faulks is an amazing author he's written some of my very favourite novels, but here he writes as if he was Fleming, it was written specifically for Fleming's 100th birthday, it would be a perfect story to kick-start a retro Bond
Easy solution: Split the franchise into two. Main "line" of films would be new, original stories in a contemporary setting. The other line would be simply adaptations of the original novels and stories - but this time the adaptations would actually stay faithful to the book-stories. Could be accomplished by producing the retro entries for TV/streaming - so more like a big budget TV-series à la Rome or Game of Thrones. Probably the biggest drawback would be that you'd have two different sets of actors portraying the same characters in two time-lines - including Bond himself which could be viewed as awkward. Speaking of awkward: Some of the stuff in the books is probably not going to fly too well with all audiences. M may call Brosnan's Bond a misogynist, but that's a bit of a joke when you compare that Bond (or most other film-Bonds, really) to book-Bond.
I always wondered why Tarantino and Brosnan didn't make a spy film to rival Bond. I hope they keep Bond series contemporary part of the appeal is the gadgets and technology and fantastical elements science possible if not science fact.
Unless I'm mistake it's curious that Tarantino has never cast Brosnan in one of his films after Casino project didn't materialise. Tarantino did talk about adapting the Len Deighton's 'Berlin Games' to 'rival Bond' with Brosnan not involved but like a Modesty Blaze film, it ended up being one of his 'unrealized projects'.
I think product placement could work well with a movie set in the past if it was managed appropriately with a focus on timeless items: Omega Seamaster was released in 1948 and could easily be tied into a re-release of limited edition James Bond special of the older designs Aston Martin DB5 is a no brainer Parker pens or Mount Blanc etc that have timeless designs Saville Row suits Luxury items that have tradition and style that has remained consistent could definitely get on board and it would just take a different perspective.
If you're not going to find a❤️ neo'Connery? then a faithful adaption of the novels is an obvious choice. If going "Retro" I recommend 👌 Toby Stephens, as a Fleming (posh) Bond. After all, he can 🎬 act and even played Villain Gustav Graves in "Die another day"
rebooting the series in the past would help bring BOND to new audiences without CHANGING or adapting the character to today's sensibilities. (Like in the TV show MAD MEN), It can finally be able to adapt Fleming's books more faithfully, and even explore some elements of Bond's past. (his work during WW2 or his missions before joining MI6). the main point is that BOND can be reinvented by bringing him back to his Ian Fleming roots. As for the product placements, many brands that existed in the 50's and 60's still exist today and can easily be incorporated)
I've never been a fan of the idea of setting Bond films in the past. I think it could end up being a gimmick who's novelty wears off very quickly [similar to why I don't like the idea of bringing old cast members back in a new role such as having Brosnan playing M] and lack authenticity compared compared to Bond films already made in that era [The excess CGI in 'The King's Man' to maintain the period setting takes me out of the film]. While I agree it's something to be explored in other media [such as Books] we have Bonds already made in each decade from the 60's onwards and we can just watch those again.
7:36 You talk about Bond borrowing from Christopher Nolan, what about Nolan borrowing from Bond movies. Note how Batman's escape from Hong Kong in the Dark Knight mirrors the end of Thunderball or how the aircraft hijack in Dark Knight Rises mirrors Licence To Kill's opening scene.
No need for a massive reboot or to start setting it in the past. The next set of films just need to focus on making great action spy thrillers for the fans and move completely away from focusing on the personal journey of Bond. The Mission Impossible franchise is an example of how to do this. The only reason a massive reboot is being suggested is because of the decimation of the Bond character over the last few movies. The next movie doesn't have to be authentic and all deep and meaningful or pander to a 'modern day audience' it just has to be fun and thrilling with a cool Bond like most Bond movies and a tonne of money will be made. I think that way of thinking is mostly lost on the film studios these days though. They would rather go authentic, all deep and meaningful, pander to a 'modern day audience', alienate fans, and lose a tonne of money, for whatever reason.
Wasn't Mad Men very successful for product placement despite it's 60's setting? I could be off but I think at least the stock in the company that made the suits the guys wore and booze that HHM drinks went up?
I would rather if they didn’t set it in the past, but perhaps a few years in the future. I like near-future settings. My main request, however, is that they take some queues from John Wick in how to present action. That long take at the end of No Time To Die was fantastic, and I'd like to see them take a more dedicated approach to shooting action like that. I want Bond to be an action icon again, and to do that, you need to show him being an action hero. That said, in terms of overall tone, I would aim for some Denis Villenueve-esque. Introspective, critical, and unflinching. I would like to see Bond used as a means of critical examination of Western influences in global politics. Perhaps have Bond wrestling with the ramifications of helping the CIA install a dictator in South America, or quash resistance to colonial influences in Africa, only to wrestle with the reality that his own morality has been completely warped by the system he belongs to, leading him to do terrible things for king and country even though he can see the harm he is doing. The Craig era very nearly went there, but always felt like it shied away before it had anything real to say. Make Bond provocative. Make Bond critical of the status quo. Make Bond great again.
This would be a great idea! I also believe this would've been great for The Batman. Tweak the technology and Matt Reeves film could've been set in 1940.
I'd like to see a straight adaptation of Moonraker set in 1955. It could be a one off, it's a great story but only works in the time it was written. Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy did a quite convincing version of the 1970s so I'm sure Eon could do the same for the 1950s.
Period Bond might work, they still make Westerns on occasion. I liked The Man From Uncle but it often felt like modern sensibilities and attitudes in period clothes. A new Bond should be like The Spy Who Came in From the Cold, more gritty and atmospheric.
Due to all the reasons mentioned in this video (budget, product placement, etc.) it looks highly unlikely that we'll see a Bond film set in the past far enough back to be considered a period piece. It would only be possible for it to be in the recent past before "No Time to Die" but the amount of time possible to use before having to do special set and costume alterations is limited. It's also looking dicey for one set in the present thanks to the special screenplay contributions of a certain Phoebe Waller-Bridge that ended with Bond dying at the conclusion of "No Time to Die" is a cataclysmic explosion on an island. Either this film would have to be forgotten entirely with future scripts not even acknowledging that it's timeline even existing or some ridiculous explanation of why Bond would have survived, standing up exposed, would have to be invented. This, like the invisible car in the last Pierce Brosnan effort, is unlikely to be accepted. For all intents and purposes the series in now dead along with the character.
Bond's death was actually going to be in Danny Boyle's version so it's nothing to do with PWB [and the director of NTTD discussed that it was the ending when he joined long before PWB was hired]. Boyle said he actually liked the way it was handled in the final film. PWB actually wrote the Cuba sequence which people generally seemed to like. There is a simple way to continue-just reboot it [which was the whole point of that ending-a clean slate to start again]. Nolan ending Batman firmly [why having Batman 'die' as far as the world was concerned] hasn't stopped them making Batman movies in different continuities without having to 'undo' the Dark Knight conculsion..
i can't see them going backwards, but what they should not do is acknowledge current events. they really didn't do that much when Cubby was in charge. the last couple decades they did it a lot more and it instantly dated the films.
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.
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 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 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.
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.
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.
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 😂
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.
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
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).
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 :)
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.
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!
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.
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’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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
How old is Casino Royale now???
Or to put it another way, they could make an actual James Bond movie!!!!
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.
@@jamiemunn9200came out in 2006 I think
And a proper and iconic James Bond song. Sam Cooke or that Ellish kid was a serious downgrade.
Honestly I’d love if Project 007 and any future games in that series were set in the 60’s rather than the films
But would we still get classic characters not from the 60s if they did that?
@@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.
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.
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.
True, Goldfinger truely seperates itself from the previous 2 by not having SMERSH or SPECTRE or much politics in it at all.
@@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 UA-cam 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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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!
Thanks so much! Very kind of you and hope you enjoy more of the channel 😁😁
Fantastic points made Calvin! Summed it up perfectly I think.
One thing that could do this (I have heard SOME stories about this) is the possibility of adapting the Young Bond Book series (Charlie Higson and Steve Cole. I may have misspelt their names). into an animated series. I loved those stories back then and even now and it would be an interesting way to be able to set a bond adventure back in the past.
While also showing off who Bond was before he became 007. You could have fun with altering some aspects of each of the stories and maybe even merging some of them together.
Think the one thing that wouldn’t make this do well is simple. It’s set before Bond ever became an MI6 agent, so long before the book Casino Royale ever happened (I believe at the beginning in Silverfin he is around maybe 13 or 14, and given the timeline it seems that it’s mostly happening throughout the 1930s heck he even ends up fighting the Nazis and Soviets in the Steven Cole ones). And as such you don’t get any of the characters like Q and M, none of the gadgets that we know and love, and the tone would be more on par with License to Kill as the book series takes time to go into Bond’s head when he thinks about his parents. (Not saying that is a bad thing but everyone has their likes and ik not a lot of people would consider License to Kill to be their fav, which is fair enough).
Personally I would love to see this get turned into an animated series, animated by Studio Mir and evoking the same type of atmosphere from something like Batman The Animated series. Like I would give anything to see stories like this ”Blood Fiver” or “Double or Die” being turned into an animated episode and there is even one villain who evokes Elliot Carver yet his gimmick is more towards films (which makes sense given the setting and the period of that story).
Though I would be interested in to hearing your thoughts on the books and the possibility Calvin.
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.
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.
That's an interesting concept that I had not thought of before. First, before I put in my opinion, I need to divulge that I am 56 and I was a huge "Bond fan" when I was in high school and college in the early and mid 80's. I've seen the films Dr. No through Living Daylights multiple times over the past 35 to 45 years. I read through the entire Fleming novels in my late teens also. I was also a big fan of the other spy films that regularly showed up on cable tv in the 80's - The Ipcress FIle, Quiller Memorandum, the Flint movies and so forth. In fact, these films and reruns of 60's spy shows on cable tv in the early and mid 80's created such an interest in the Cold War in me that I chose to study international relations, emphasis on the Communist Bloc, when I started college in 1984 and after a stint in the US Army I was hoping for a career waging the Cold War, perhaps in the State Department. Alas, to my disappointment, the Cold War ended while I was in the army and I had to rethink my whole future. I was the world's youngest dinosaur it seemed.
So - I miss the Cold War and am nostalgic for it. This fact may strongly bias my opinion here.
But, like me, I think James Bond never did fit into the Post Cold War world. I went to the theater to see the three Bond films from 1989 to 1997 and never watched any of them again, and watched the first Daniel Craig film in a theater and never watched it again, and I have not even seen the other Craig and Brosnan films. I dislikes License to Kill because Bond was fighting some penny ante drug cartel, not saving the world, and the Brosnan and Craig films left me flat because they were so remote from the world that Bond was created in (and for). In fact, I'm not to keen on any espionage fiction written and set after the Cold War ended.
But I still regularly re-watch (maybe two or three of them a year) the Bond films made from 1962-87, especially the ones from the 60's. All of my favorite films of the series are from the 60's, and although For Your Eyes Only and Living Daylights are great Cold War films, I would even go so far as to say Bond was out of his element after the 60's ended. And I reread the Fleming novels at a pace of about 1 or 2 of them each year.
So speaking for myself (and I've explained why I am probably different from most people), I would ONLY watch a new Bond movie if it were set back in the Cold War era of the 50's and 60's. I wouldn't mind seeing some of the Fleming novels re-filmed in a more faithful to the novel way, but new stories set in the Fleming years would appeal to me. (Or even BEFORE the 1952 writing of Casino Royale, Bond after all was a World War II agent, why not a few movies set in that war, as well?)
I agree with you when you outline all of the reasons why this will never happen, at least for the big screen, but they have recently re-done The Ipcress File in a 6 or 8 part tv/streaming format (and very faithful to the novel) so as you said, maybe that would work with a "Retro-Bond".
I do know that I've no interest in a 21st Century Bond, and will continue to avoid any new modern-day films as I have since the 1990's.
Yeah, I know - listen to the old man yell at the kids to get off his lawn...... (But, hey, I was still a YOUNG man in the 90's and even then I didn't care for Post Cold War Bond)
But for those of you who can't remember the Cold War, you missed the most fascinating geo-political event in human history.
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.
At least that would be before the film series started so wouldn't be compared to films made during that time.
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 would really love to see a 007 trilogy set in the 60s. And I think it would be very interesting if they took some inspiration from the Kingsman movies in regards to the pacing and action
Honstly, I'd rather they let Kingsman be it's own thing. It's OTT style [along with violence and swearing] makes it stand out away from Bond or other spy franchises. It'll be interesting to see how Matthew Vaughn's 'Argyll' goes regarding action and pacing.
'The King's Man' is a good argument against a Bond period setting [given it made far less than the contemporary films and wasn't well received critically]. Be interesting to see if the franchise bounces back when the Eggsy sequel eventually gets made.
No because we have the old 007 movies to enjoy all of them are reflective of the year they were made and that's how it should be. The producers are consistent that Bond has to always be updated for the current year there's no way they would ever do this.
Also don’t think the audience would really care for an action movie in the 50s or 60s
I've seen somewhere else that a 007 movie set in the past would not go well because there are sponsors and branding associated with every movie that won't be able to do product placement if it's going to be a period piece (as you pointed out).
But as a fan, it would be nice to see a film set in early 70's at least.
I am definitely in the camp of taking the Series back to the 60's Bond Geek Out
I've thought about this.. but if you read the original Fleming novels he's a former operative that served behind enemy lines at the end of WW2.... I always wanted them to kick start the films from that point on...
It'd be interesting to see a tv series do more faithful adaptations of the novels as a way to explore Bond set in the past.
There could be retro product placement for companies that existed then and now.
And you would still have plenty of sponsors to choose between.
Aston Martin, Rolex, Heineken all existed in the 60s.
Id love it. One problem is with modern tech we dont get cool gadgets anymore:p
I've always liked the idea of bringing it back to the past for a faithful adaption of the Fleming works. But, doing it in a high budget TV Series where two episodes would cover one of the books. Once they make it through the series, we can return to a modern setting for the films and it works as a nice pallet cleanser
I think a period piece could be very enjoyable, but I am not sure the filmmakers would want to recreate the tone of the 60ies movies, and a movie with a modern feel set in the past just does not feel like Bond.
I did consider whether it would be fun to see Bond involved in real-world historical events. Maybe Bond played a crucial role in stopping the Cuba crisis turning into war? But on the whole I think I prefer Bond staying in a fantasy world.
My dream is to have two Bonds. One is a new high-budget TV-series with each series being pretty faithful Flemming adaptation in original timeline. For example, every episode could be a single book and/or short tale. But second is our usual EON films, business as usual. I wish to enjoy both at the same time.
I don't think so. Bond has always been reflective of the era his movies made in.
I would love to see a Bond story brought to life in a period setting. Bringing the world I imagined from Casino Royal, Moonraker and Live and Let Die, to life. Although without the racism and sexism. But then it becomes a watered down pastiche. Not because those are good things, but it's the way the world was. Thank goodness we've made a little progress. It's also worth remembering that Fleming always set the Bond novels in the present. That said, the clips of Henry Cavil looked amazing.
Whilst it would address the problems of modern technology (CCTV mobile phones etc) and also allow Bond to be the misogynistic dinosaur we all love without any backlash I don't think it would work for the mainstream cinema audience. The producers always said the movies were set slightly into the future and as it's closest rival the Mission Impossible franchise is doing well I think that Bond should remain in the present. Also I believe The Man From Uncle movie didn't do too well at the box office so that's another factor to consider.
Not sure The Man From UNCLE comparison is very relevant. Imho UNCLE was never very good. It was always a bit lightweight and lacked tension and its fanbase is minescule compared to Bond. Bond also had a literary past to draw on.
@@vordmanThey could write off Uncle as being a flawed product but taking a established contemporary franchise in King's man historical also produced dire financial results which would put them off.
BTW I wouldn't expect a period Bond to have him being a 'misogynistic dinosaur' as it's still a 2020's film-The newer books set in that period don't include that aspect.
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 really want an adaptation of the history of a very young James Bond and how He evolved to a high trained secret agent.
The product placement situation would change if it took place in the 1960s, but not impossible. Classic brands like Heineken, Omega, Coca Cola, Ford etc. could have a lot of fun with it. Even Sony could.
One idea that I think could work is doing a sequel to On Her Majesty’s Secret Service. Like a retroactive sequel set in the 60’s, early 70’s. The opening could feature the death of Tracy Bond after their wedding and the rest of the movie seeing Bond as a broken man, to his vengeance on Blofeld and Irma.
You might as well just do that or a similar set up in a rebooted time line. OHMSS was so long ago now and with different actors any connection would be lost [especially to a casual audience]. Quantum of Solace also showed how thin a 'vengeance' mission could end up being as a story. Interestingly, I believe Tarantino's 'Casino Royale' pitch was [oddly] supposed to be set straight after OHMSS.
I kind of like the idea as a one off but dont think I'll ever happen. What i what like to see if the opposite; going back to the books and adapting them more faithfully in a modern setting. Most of the films only share a title with the their film counterparts. They could do the same with Trigger Mortis a a time to kill maybe?
Nice video. I think a Bond film set back in the 1960s would be an interesting experiment, especially with Michael Fassbender as 007. He is very much like Connery, especially in the first half of X-Men First Class. That menace, that class, and that suaveness. A trilogy based on Anthony Horowitz's Forever and a Day, Triggermortis, and With a Mind to a Kill could be adapted to suit Fassbender and slot in between some of the existing Connery films. It would also be great to see a Bond film set in Swinging Sixties London, which never happened when Connery was Bond. I also would not mind if they redid Diamonds Are Forever following the unfilmed script that had Bond seeking revenge on Irma Bunt and Blofeld for killing Tracy. That scene of Bond chasing Bunt through a London subway sounded so atmospheric. Lazenby would have been great, but Fassbender would be even better. None of this will ever happen, but it is one of those nice what-if moments.
I think they'd want to stay well clear of 'Swinging London' as it could get too 'Austin Powers'. The unused 'revenge' script was deemed poor back in the day and wasn't going to be used even if Lazenby stayed on.
@@jamesatkinsonja I'm pretty sure they could do a Bond film set in 1960s London without it becoming like Austin Powers. The 'Swinging Sixties' was a time of great social and cultural upheaval and youth culture. It doesn't just refer to flamboyance like what is depicted in Austin Powers. A lot of what Bond represents is challenged during that time. Bond already mentioned how he hates the Beatles in Goldfinger, and it would provide an interesting contrast. Bond also is quite comfortable in that environment when it comes to the sexual revolution at the time as well.
The rejected script was actually deemed too edgy for Bond back then. (It was a vengeance film long before Licence to Kill, and dealt with Bond's grief for his wife). Nobody said they should film it as is. Sections could be rewritten. It certainly has some good ideas.
And let's be honest, Diamonds Are Forever is not a good film. It is one of the weakest Bond films and the most Austin Powers-like film in the series. So, I guess they've already done with that film what you're warning about keeping away from.
@@danielscott8180 But DFD was actually made in those times which is a big difference! I'm not saying it couldn't be done well but they'd have to be very careful.
A good point Calvin made in his Letterboxd review of 'The King's Man' is that felt it too often got bogged down in exposition of the history. The Ipcress File remake did touch on those themes but as a TV show had more time to do it more naturally which is why I think that's the best avenue for a Bond period piece.
Quantum for me showed why the 'revenge' OHMSS sequel struggled to work on the page [and ended up just being the pre-title sequences of DAF and FYEO] as Bond killing his way up the chain is a thin story, not helped by the first act [Vespers Death] being in another film unlike Bourne Supremacy or LTK [and why Peter Hunt considered holding back Tracy's death until DAF until plans were changed]. Even Fleming's sequel holds the revenge aspect back until the 3rd act with Bond instead recovering as character.
@@jamesatkinsonja DAF was most likely campy for the early 70s. There had been some pretty serious Bond films beforehand, and tbh DAF's campy tone seemed like an overreaction to teh serious tone of OHMSS. Lazenby's one-and-done film made ONLY $80 million off a $6 million budget or something. Not as much as Connery's past films but still huge. And the lower returns were likely because of the new guy in the role, not the film.
The idea of Bond "killing up the food chain is a thin storyline". Is it? Or do you mean its not a big enough plot for a globe-trotting film involving world domination? I guess it depends if you like revenge stories or not. (Maybe you do not like LTK for that same reason).
Maibuam fought hard for DAF to be a revenge flick and wrote Tiffany Case as a character who had also experienced loss and both characters helped each other heal. There was a larger plot dealing with diamonds as well, though I doubt it was a space laser like the final film.
Why do we need heavy exposition for a 60s Bond movie? We didn't need it for X-Men: First Class or Days of Futures Past. Both films wove fiction into history well with minimum exposition.
The Kings Man is also, I would say, not the best comparison for why we shouldn't have a 60s Bond film since the exposition in the film largely deals with a complex history dealing with treaties that were triggered by the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand that forced countries to join a war. (The film is weak and actually deflects from the very real history describing these treaties. Various historians actually blame elite Brits for causing the Great War. Cecil Rhodes is the one that is most blamed. He was a bit of a bad guy in history, despite what the Rhodes Scholarship would like people to think. This film tries to make some shadowy SPECTRE-like organization responsible instead.)
And didn't Peter Hunt want to include Tracy's death in the pre-titles for DAF precisely so the film dealt with Bond hunting Blofeld? (Not only because he wanted to end OHMSS on a lighter note). Anyway, Hunt left. But Maibaum wanted the revenge plot and told Cubby that Bond needed to settle his account with Blofeld, or they needed to go in a different direction with a new villain. Which is true. DAF just showed the producers were too scared to go down dark path with Bond seeking vengeance. I guess it all depends on where you stan with LTK. I think it's one of the best in the series!
For me, Bond's low point was DAF through to and including TMWTGG, all written by Mankiewicz. (The racism and sexism in all three are really ugly). Still, none of this actually discounts why a 60s Bond film would or would not work. Quentin Tarantino thought it could be done with Casino Royale, but it would require the Broccoli family to take a big risk with $150 million, and I can understand why they do not want to.
At the end of the day, I'm just speculating along with Calvin's video. I'd like to see a 60s film just because after 25 films, I want to see something different. But it is not my preference. What I really want to see is a Christopher Nolan Bond trilogy set very much in the present.
It would be interesting if the Bond films had a complete reset by going with the secondary Bond continuity with Deavers Carte Blanche
I think it’s the only way to go. Set it in the late 50s/early 60s and go back to the books. If not flashy enough for film then do it as a TV series
Is that Charles Dance at 10:00? What's that from, looks awesome!
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!
Oh yeah! I remember your video now, I need to see that! Thanks so much for the reminder!!!! Above and beyond as always Mr. Dyson.
Calvin, have you ever watched a British sitcom called The Piglet Files? It's a spy show..sort of! Imagine a show about a younger Q (codenamed "Piglet" as all the cooler animal names were taken), who mainly goes into the field just to ensure he gets his equipment back from somewhat incompetent agents...
Can't see it happening much like the idea of an old man Bond idea that I have seen floated around. However that's not to say that I don't think it could work. The obvious choice for me would be to make a proper Moonraker film based on the book. It's one of the best books and you could make a great film from it.
I good idea for the next JB film would be for him to be in the navy as a Commander so he is a bit younger and how he is recruited into MI6.
I was thinking about a spin-off franchise about Felix Leiter some time ago. Wondering if I’m alone thinking that it’s a decent idea.
James Bond- The series (Not HBO MAX or something not many UK people have) I think could work as a progression through a decade... Take any of the books (Flemming and others) and span it over a series of 6-8 hours rather than cramming it into a at max 2.5 hour film...
Otherwise I think a film 'might' be better off following in a contemporary time line but with changes to the bond himself... But I would like to see a more suave sophisticated bond, over just action
I still believe it would be fun to do a series of one-off Bond movies with different directors and actors. Really play with things: era, geography, race... whatever you like.
On the flipside, the cinema industry is in a challenging state at present. Many of the most popular movies are still comic-book or fantasy-derived, but there are signs of those trends slowing. Other tentpoles are unique entities with strong backgrounds, such as Christopher Nolan films, Mission Impossible (anything Tom Cruise), etc. My read is that people are buying into consistency, and want to be sure of enjoying the film they spent hard-earned cash on.
Why don't they film Devil May Care the fantastic Sebastian Faulks Bond book set in 1967 ...it has a great plot, characters, Bond girl and memorable villain, Faulks is an amazing author he's written some of my very favourite novels, but here he writes as if he was Fleming, it was written specifically for Fleming's 100th birthday, it would be a perfect story to kick-start a retro Bond
Easy solution: Split the franchise into two. Main "line" of films would be new, original stories in a contemporary setting. The other line would be simply adaptations of the original novels and stories - but this time the adaptations would actually stay faithful to the book-stories. Could be accomplished by producing the retro entries for TV/streaming - so more like a big budget TV-series à la Rome or Game of Thrones. Probably the biggest drawback would be that you'd have two different sets of actors portraying the same characters in two time-lines - including Bond himself which could be viewed as awkward. Speaking of awkward: Some of the stuff in the books is probably not going to fly too well with all audiences. M may call Brosnan's Bond a misogynist, but that's a bit of a joke when you compare that Bond (or most other film-Bonds, really) to book-Bond.
I would love to see Moonraker filmed as the book.
Retro tech getting released in modern day would be amazing! Bring out the MP3 players and dumb phones!
I always wondered why Tarantino and Brosnan didn't make a spy film to rival Bond. I hope they keep Bond series contemporary part of the appeal is the gadgets and technology and fantastical elements science possible if not science fact.
Unless I'm mistake it's curious that Tarantino has never cast Brosnan in one of his films after Casino project didn't materialise. Tarantino did talk about adapting the Len Deighton's 'Berlin Games' to 'rival Bond' with Brosnan not involved but like a Modesty Blaze film, it ended up being one of his 'unrealized projects'.
I think product placement could work well with a movie set in the past if it was managed appropriately with a focus on timeless items:
Omega Seamaster was released in 1948 and could easily be tied into a re-release of limited edition James Bond special of the older designs
Aston Martin DB5 is a no brainer
Parker pens or Mount Blanc etc that have timeless designs
Saville Row suits
Luxury items that have tradition and style that has remained consistent could definitely get on board and it would just take a different perspective.
If you're not going to find a❤️ neo'Connery? then a faithful adaption of the novels is an obvious choice. If going "Retro" I recommend 👌 Toby Stephens, as a Fleming (posh) Bond. After all, he can 🎬 act and even played Villain Gustav Graves in "Die another day"
Bond in the Mad Men era-that could frickin’ rock! I’d love to see that!
rebooting the series in the past would help bring BOND to new audiences without CHANGING or adapting the character to today's sensibilities. (Like in the TV show MAD MEN), It can finally be able to adapt Fleming's books more faithfully, and even explore some elements of Bond's past. (his work during WW2 or his missions before joining MI6). the main point is that BOND can be reinvented by bringing him back to his Ian Fleming roots. As for the product placements, many brands that existed in the 50's and 60's still exist today and can easily be incorporated)
I've never been a fan of the idea of setting Bond films in the past. I think it could end up being a gimmick who's novelty wears off very quickly [similar to why I don't like the idea of bringing old cast members back in a new role such as having Brosnan playing M] and lack authenticity compared compared to Bond films already made in that era [The excess CGI in 'The King's Man' to maintain the period setting takes me out of the film]. While I agree it's something to be explored in other media [such as Books] we have Bonds already made in each decade from the 60's onwards and we can just watch those again.
What is interesting is watching Bond working in the world of today.
7:36 You talk about Bond borrowing from Christopher Nolan, what about Nolan borrowing from Bond movies. Note how Batman's escape from Hong Kong in the Dark Knight mirrors the end of Thunderball or how the aircraft hijack in Dark Knight Rises mirrors Licence To Kill's opening scene.
I’ve been saying for a long long time, set it when the books were written 50s and 60s
No need for a massive reboot or to start setting it in the past. The next set of films just need to focus on making great action spy thrillers for the fans and move completely away from focusing on the personal journey of Bond. The Mission Impossible franchise is an example of how to do this. The only reason a massive reboot is being suggested is because of the decimation of the Bond character over the last few movies. The next movie doesn't have to be authentic and all deep and meaningful or pander to a 'modern day audience' it just has to be fun and thrilling with a cool Bond like most Bond movies and a tonne of money will be made. I think that way of thinking is mostly lost on the film studios these days though. They would rather go authentic, all deep and meaningful, pander to a 'modern day audience', alienate fans, and lose a tonne of money, for whatever reason.
Wasn't Mad Men very successful for product placement despite it's 60's setting? I could be off but I think at least the stock in the company that made the suits the guys wore and booze that HHM drinks went up?
But Mad Men was a TV series so there isn't the same box office pressure.
I think so - start filming all the novels as written, as period pieces.
Interestingly Quentin Tarantino suggested that recently.
I would rather if they didn’t set it in the past, but perhaps a few years in the future. I like near-future settings. My main request, however, is that they take some queues from John Wick in how to present action. That long take at the end of No Time To Die was fantastic, and I'd like to see them take a more dedicated approach to shooting action like that. I want Bond to be an action icon again, and to do that, you need to show him being an action hero. That said, in terms of overall tone, I would aim for some Denis Villenueve-esque. Introspective, critical, and unflinching. I would like to see Bond used as a means of critical examination of Western influences in global politics. Perhaps have Bond wrestling with the ramifications of helping the CIA install a dictator in South America, or quash resistance to colonial influences in Africa, only to wrestle with the reality that his own morality has been completely warped by the system he belongs to, leading him to do terrible things for king and country even though he can see the harm he is doing. The Craig era very nearly went there, but always felt like it shied away before it had anything real to say. Make Bond provocative. Make Bond critical of the status quo. Make Bond great again.
As a one off or season of a tv show, it’d be cool. However I don’t want Bond to forever be stuck in the 50’s
I think a one-off, non canon, standalone Bond might work as a period piece.
This would be a great idea! I also believe this would've been great for The Batman. Tweak the technology and Matt Reeves film could've been set in 1940.
I'd like to see a straight adaptation of Moonraker set in 1955. It could be a one off, it's a great story but only works in the time it was written. Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy did a quite convincing version of the 1970s so I'm sure Eon could do the same for the 1950s.
Period Bond might work, they still make Westerns on occasion. I liked The Man From Uncle but it often felt like modern sensibilities and attitudes in period clothes. A new Bond should be like The Spy Who Came in From the Cold, more gritty and atmospheric.
Due to all the reasons mentioned in this video (budget, product placement, etc.) it looks highly unlikely that we'll see a Bond film set in the past far enough back to be considered a period piece. It would only be possible for it to be in the recent past before "No Time to Die" but the amount of time possible to use before having to do special set and costume alterations is limited. It's also looking dicey for one set in the present thanks to the special screenplay contributions of a certain Phoebe Waller-Bridge that ended with Bond dying at the conclusion of "No Time to Die" is a cataclysmic explosion on an island. Either this film would have to be forgotten entirely with future scripts not even acknowledging that it's timeline even existing or some ridiculous explanation of why Bond would have survived, standing up exposed, would have to be invented. This, like the invisible car in the last Pierce Brosnan effort, is unlikely to be accepted. For all intents and purposes the series in now dead along with the character.
Bond's death was actually going to be in Danny Boyle's version so it's nothing to do with PWB [and the director of NTTD discussed that it was the ending when he joined long before PWB was hired]. Boyle said he actually liked the way it was handled in the final film. PWB actually wrote the Cuba sequence which people generally seemed to like.
There is a simple way to continue-just reboot it [which was the whole point of that ending-a clean slate to start again]. Nolan ending Batman firmly [why having Batman 'die' as far as the world was concerned] hasn't stopped them making Batman movies in different continuities without having to 'undo' the Dark Knight conculsion..
Yes! Absolutely. In fact, set it in the 50s. Stripped down like the original novels.
i can't see them going backwards, but what they should not do is acknowledge current events. they really didn't do that much when Cubby was in charge. the last couple decades they did it a lot more and it instantly dated the films.
Commercially it’s too difficult to make a period piece work. High risk of a box office financial failure.
Which is why it will never happen.
Harry Gavel features a big in this post! 😂
I think we all know the future now they have kilked off the character. James Bond jr
Prime should adapt each novel into an entire season. Set it during the 50’s & 60’s, and for God’s sake make it British. 🇬🇧
James Bond and the Dial of Destiny.
You could TOTALLY do a straight adaption of Fleming's Moonraker set in 1955 and it would be VERY culturally relevant.
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.
You are so right
@@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.
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!
Well Amazon prime who owns mgm isn’t afraid to spend a stupid amount of money. Especially with lord of the rings
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.
You're probably 100% correct.
@@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.
It would be cool to see a Bond "Thriller" type film that leans more on Espionage than huge action sequences. Make it mysterious and shocking!
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 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.
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!
Tom has said he wants to do MI until he is 80 so if that is the case then Bond is over lol
@@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.
As the saying goes… when you’re the 800Ib gorilla, you sit where you want. I doubt they care, which I think is a mistake. Total complacency.
@@questlive2338He just turned 61 so they don’t have that long to wait.
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.
"You have to keep the Bond films current."
-Yaphet Kotto
I hope it stays this way myself.
voodoo is timeless tho ;) (saw a docu about a criminal from Haiti , his mom legit believed in voodoo to this day)
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 😂
@@calvindyson haha that is strange but wonderful :) i hope you get to it one day, Over the hills and faraway ;)
@@calvindysonthe Jeremy Brett show is a must watch!
@@DafyddBrooks Of course a certain Daniel Craig pops up in Sharpe...
@@jamesatkinsonja ah haaaaaaa your right, even more reason for Calvin to re veiw. all the best chap :)
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.
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
Even the radio show had to add extra material and that was only a 90 mins run time.
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).
The budget is a really great point that I hadn't thought of. It would be remarkably expensive to have Bond action setpieces set back in the 60s.
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 :)
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.
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.
@@HandofOmegathat’s exactly what I would do it allows for more world building and more detailed writing
@@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!
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.
Might go into Austin Powers parody territory if mishandled
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’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.
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.
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
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.
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.