Posted 20 September 2016 - 07:11 PM
Same here - I'm afraid period films of that era made today often don't work for me, simply because they are so regularly infused with today's awareness of events. I've been very hard on TINKER, TAILOR, SOLDIER, SPY and I suspect a period Bond film would not fare much better in my judgement. We pick ourselves a period that we think is 'classic' in some way, but often enough the depiction of the period is what today's audience expects that period to have been like, not - of course! - the real thing. With Bond you arrive pretty fast at a point where even a serious tone and story would end up as caricature on the screen. After all, Bond was what shaped the 60s to an extent, so the protagonist would act in a bubble of 60s setting that he himself helped create.
At the time this worked because Connery, Lazenby and Moore all employed that little ironic wink, telling us it's a joke, a massively hot and trendy joke - but fluff nonetheles. Today, whatever story you try to tell, you will always end up with either a rose-tinted, selfindulgent piece of nostalgia nobody will much care for. Or with a mildly entertaining outright spoof that's been done before, and probably better. When the constant allusions to the so-called 'iconic' moments of the past stick out like sore thumbs in a Bond film of the present - what will they evoke when they turn up in a pseudo-period setting? A period Bond production would practically consist of little else.
No, on balance I don't think hiding out in the past is the way into the future for the film series. Or the books either. Young Bond worked splendidly, but that's mainly due to Higgson's talent and a big chunk of luck that happened to fall from the skies when this was conceived. Its success, that of YB, was the exception from the rule.