35 replies to this topic

[KM16]

http://www.express.c...eyday-era-1960s

 

 

Producers aim to reboot the £4billion film franchise by turning back the clock to its original time period following the departure of Daniel Craig. Last week he declared he would rather slash his wrists than be 007 again after Spectre, his fourth Bond film, is released later this month. Studio bosses have asked TV’s award-winning Mad Men creator Matthew Weiner to head a new team to oversee Bond’s return to his heyday 1960s.

 

An MGM executive said: “This won’t be a retro one-off. We’re taking him right back to his roots. We’ll go forwards by taking 007 back to the era in which we believe he fits most comfortably.”

 

Thoughts on this latest media hogwash?

[Jim]

I can't summon up any polite ones.

[Guy Haines]

The clue is in the name; Daily Express, home of, amongst other things, some of the least accurate weather forecasts the UK has ever seen.

 

"He (Matthew Weiner) may even bring in some of the Mad Men cast". Jon Hamm for James Bond? He'd look the part, and that British accent can be worked on. (Seriously, if Hamm can do a British accent he'd be in with a shout).

 

What else? "Roger Sterling" could replace Gareth Mallory as M and Eve Moneypenny could find herself replaced by "Peggy Olson" (who actually aspires to be M herself, eventually!). Bond could go through regular existential crises, and we would find out early on that his real name isn't Bond, that he swapped ID tags with the real, dead Bond during the Korean war, and that this sixties reboot's real name is Don Draper, or Dick Whitman.

 

(Bond swapping ID tags would at least account for the "codename" theory liked by some here! )

 

Sorry, but I can hardly contain my sarcasm. A sixties reboot might work, although "The Man From UNCLE" movie had its sixties imagery all over the place considering it was meant to be set straight after the Cuban Missile Crisis. But, to borrow and adapt a line from Mad Men's Don Draper himself; "We have a series which goes in only one direction - forwards."

[seawolfnyy]

I think we're more likely to find out that the James Bond we've been following during the Craig era is actually a doppelganger that took over while the real Bond went into hiding following his escape from the British ship in Die Another Day. Oh wait, that was the plot of Metal Gear Solid V. Still makes more sense than this nonsense.

[Odd Jobbies]

No a bad idea at all, really. Pity Fassbender's too old - he does retro very well.

[Dustin]

MGM? Hum hum...MGM...MGM...rings a bell somewhere, doesn't it? Was that this backlot enterprise that trumpeted not so long ago how they would magically rise from the ashes of their own mess and move into a brilliant future? Well, didn't that work out fine...

Anyway, it's pretty pointless what their spin doctors want or not want, publicly or otherwise, as long as they don't have the Broccolis on board. And something tells me if they had them on board with this splendid idea it would be Ms Broccoli herself making the announcement, not some McSuit to a publication that rivals a graffito wall in terms of quality.

[Agent 76]

Well, no.

[stromberg]

Stranger rumors have shown up in the world of James Bond and have drawn their fair amount of mockery upon them. But it also happened that some of them turned out to become true. But I doubt it for this one.

 

But it brings us to the question about what direction the Bond franchise should take after the Craig era. Bond will have lost Vesper, killed Blofeld off and defeated SPECTRE, his childhood secrets will all be revealed etc. One-off missions or a new story arc for three or four movies? On what basis? Retro or re-making the classics (faithful adaptions)? More Sci-Fi and OTT action? Re-inventing the Bond franchise once again will be a tough act, no doubt.

[bond_azoozbond]

Stranger rumors have shown up in the world of James Bond and have drawn their fair amount of mockery upon them. But it also happened that some of them turned out to become true. But I doubt it for this one.

But it brings us to the question about what direction the Bond franchise should take after the Craig era. Bond will have lost Vesper, killed Blofeld off and defeated SPECTRE, his childhood secrets will all be revealed etc. One-off missions or a new story arc for three or four movies? On what basis? Retro or re-making the classics (faithful adaptions)? More Sci-Fi and OTT action? Re-inventing the Bond franchise once again will be a tough act, no doubt.

It is , unless they already prepared a long term ideas.. After Craig they better stick with the same story but a different face and maybe no more childhood related problems..

The new bond will have the same history : lost vesper , defeating spectre etc . But the type of missions could return back to normal..

[Harmsway]

I think it's fair to say that Bond after Craig will probably need *something* to signal a change of direction.

But, while this is a direction I wouldn't entirely mind, I have a hard time seeing EON go for this. It would embalm the series, marking Bond as a dinosaur.

[billy007]

Casino Royale was the re-boot. Anything after Craig's departure should remain in the same timeline.

From Dr. No to Die Another Die were exploits of the same agent during different times in his career.

I don't like the 'James Bond /007 code name for different agents" theory. It's too similar to 1967 Casino Royale.

[hoagy]

Regardless of Mr. Weiner as writer and the flimsy rumor that the series would return to the 60s:

  Jon Hamm as Bond ?  Really ?

This is rather like the proposition that Damian Lewis could be the next actor to portray Bond.  Why, gee !  Mr. Lewis appeared in Homeland !  So there !  No.  So, not there.

Aside from Hamm being distinctly American, LOOK AT HIM.  Sure, many panties hit the floor during his time on television's Mad Men, but LOOK AT HIM.  You know, his shirt did come off several times during the tv series, and....no.  Additionally, he'd never need to carry luggage onto a plane while traveling, with those bags under his eyes.  It worked for Mad Men, but most certainly would NOT work for portraying Bond !

[sharpshooter]

I can't see this happening, and I hope it doesn't. 

[coco1997]

Aside from Hamm being distinctly American, LOOK AT HIM.  Sure, many panties hit the floor during his time on television's Mad Men, but LOOK AT HIM.  You know, his shirt did come off several times during the tv series, and....no.  Additionally, he'd never need to carry luggage onto a plane while traveling, with those bags under his eyes.  It worked for Mad Men, but most certainly would NOT work for portraying Bond !

 

I dare say Hamm resembles Hoagy Carmichael far more than any of the six actors who have played Bond so far.

[SecretAgentFan]

But, while this is a direction I wouldn't entirely mind, I have a hard time seeing EON go for this. It would embalm the series, marking Bond as a dinosaur.

 

Perfectly put.  And that´s why this will not happen.

[Simon]

And they would lose 90% of the sponsorship funds.  Not many people wanting to advertise their wares from the '60s...

[thecasinoroyale]

If they take Bond back to the sixties, it will simply mean there's no room for James Bond in the modern-day, which is a lie. Going up against Russian bad-guys or megalomaniacs? It's been done, by 007 before and thousands of other dated spy films and shows.

 

Bond has made it into modern day and still going strong. To take him back to the 60s, effectively re-making an era defined by Sean Connery, will be a bad move and show that MGM has no faith in 007 going forward after Daniel Craig.

[sharpshooter]

And they would lose 90% of the sponsorship funds.  Not many people wanting to advertise their wares from the '60s...

That too.

 

I think Bond movies should reflect the times - the current world we live in. 

[Pierceuhhh]

Bond has always been a contemporary character. Fleming never wrote period pieces and was always fascinated by the NOW.

There's a lot to complain about re: the Broccolis, but to give them credit, they'd never do this. I shudder to think what their successors would do. Period piece, no opening credits, a Bond girl with kids, etc. For everything the Broccolis get wrong, there are a million things a less-versed dumbbell Hollywood producer would do if given the chance.

Also a period piece would needlessly eat up a huge chunk of their already stretched budgets.

[SecretAgentFan]

There's a lot to complain about re: the Broccolis, but to give them credit, they'd never do this. For everything the Broccolis get wrong, there are a million things a less-versed dumbbell Hollywood producer would do if given the chance.

 

Or fans on a message board.

[AMC Hornet]

Strange that, linked to this article is another in the same rag titled " 'Forget Idris Elba and Tom Hardy' says Daniel Craig – 'I'm not done with James Bond yet' " wherein we are reminded that he's still contracted for one more (by which time all the current contenders will be too old to start).

 

But his off-the-cuff remark about slashing his wrists rather than start another Bond film NOW makes such good rumour fodder!

[The Dove]

I have two words for this rumor...UTTER CRAP!!

[marktmurphy]

I think they can be quite brave sometimes so it's not something I'd rule out, but the Bond films can afford to be so opulent thanks to their product placement deals- if a company can't have 007 promoting their latest product then I imagine it looks a less appealing deal. And shooting everything in period is either going to limit your options or simply cost more money, isn't it?

 

I dunno; it's possible but I'd be surprised. And when you have stuff like the card game in Casino Royale and the ending of Skyfall, both of which could pretty much be in the 60s anyway, what do you gain?

[coco1997]

I love the idea of a television series of faithful Fleming adaptations set in the 1950s. It's a shame Hamm is American because he'd make a great Bond for such a project. But I can't see EON ever returning Bond to the '60s. It would probably kill the franchise. 

[stromberg]

But his off-the-cuff remark about slashing his wrists rather than start another Bond film NOW makes such good rumour fodder!

Perfect as a filler between the adverts

[marktmurphy]

I love the idea of a television series of faithful Fleming adaptations set in the 1950s.

 

This is often talked about, but I think the problem is that these books have already been adapted, and really well. Imagine the 'faithful' TV version of Goldfinger: it'll look more or less like the 60s version as there's not huge amount of difference between 1959 and 1964, except you'll have worse sets that someone who isn't Ken Adam designed, worse music by someone who doesn't begin to approach the genius of Barry, and if they really do it faithfully, you'll actually have a worse script losing all of the polishing the film producers did to the original story (e.g. Goldfinger no longer exploding a bomb but just stealing everything). And you ain't getting a Connery on the small screen. Hell, even the Bond films haven't managed to find another Connery.

You have the novels, and you have a really great set of adaptations already; there's no need for anything more faithful because it's only going to be worse.

[coco1997]

 

I love the idea of a television series of faithful Fleming adaptations set in the 1950s.

 

This is often talked about, but I think the problem is that these books have already been adapted, and really well. Imagine the 'faithful' TV version of Goldfinger: it'll look more or less like the 60s version as there's not huge amount of difference between 1959 and 1964, except you'll have worse sets that someone who isn't Ken Adam designed, worse music by someone who doesn't begin to approach the genius of Barry, and if they really do it faithfully, you'll actually have a worse script losing all of the polishing the film producers did to the original story (e.g. Goldfinger no longer exploding a bomb but just stealing everything). And you ain't getting a Connery on the small screen. Hell, even the Bond films haven't managed to find another Connery.

You have the novels, and you have a really great set of adaptations already; there's no need for anything more faithful because it's only going to be worse.

 

 

Ok, maybe not *all* the Fleming novels, but how about ones like "Moonraker," "Live & Let Die," and "TSWLM?"

[Jim]

I think they can be quite brave sometimes so it's not something I'd rule out, but the Bond films can afford to be so opulent thanks to their product placement deals- if a company can't have 007 promoting their latest product then I imagine it looks a less appealing deal. And shooting everything in period is either going to limit your options or simply cost more money, isn't it?

 

^This.

 

An (sic) MGM executive, eh? Does MGM have any money? Or clout? Cloth-eared lion and a back-catalogue it stretches thin. Sorry, "an" back catalogue.

[stromberg]

 

I think they can be quite brave sometimes so it's not something I'd rule out, but the Bond films can afford to be so opulent thanks to their product placement deals- if a company can't have 007 promoting their latest product then I imagine it looks a less appealing deal. And shooting everything in period is either going to limit your options or simply cost more money, isn't it?

 

^This.

 

An (sic) MGM executive, eh? Does MGM have any money? Or clout? Cloth-eared lion and a back-catalogue it stretches thin. Sorry, "an" back catalogue.

 

Where there's a will, there's a shrubbery. They managed to get Volkswagen as a main sponsor for King Kong. That Film is set in 1933 when VW didn't even exist. Not advocating this, just saying that it could be done and has been done. But I doubt that it would work for more than one movie.

 

MGM. Was tempted to stop reading the article on the first mentioning. Sure indicator that all this is utter bogus.

[Guy Haines]

I refer back to the comments I made about the weather forecasts. The Express predicts forty days of rain - get out your bucket and spade and your swimming costume! Heatwave? Get out the winter woollies!