66 replies to this topic

[MHazard]

I think the worthiest for a re-make would be You Only Live Twice. The remake should take place right after the events in On Her Majesty's Secret Service and follow the novel's plot. It's not that the original movie was bad (others were far, far, worse), it's just that a great opportunity was missed for a fantastic movie (Bond, in the park, ignoring his beeper. M trying to decide if he should be fired). A Daniel Craig Diamonds Are Forever (sticking closer to the book wouldn't be bad either).

[Zorin Industries]

OHMSS: though I still love the original, a remake with a great not a good Bond would be still more spectacular. And it would pave the way for another remake, this one offering the closure we missed the last time.

"Closure"? It's a Bond film. Since when did Bond films need closure? In a series of this kind, "closure" is for the die-hard fans, not the series future at the box-office.

[dodge]

In a way I'd be happy to see remakes of any of them, simply because it means more Bond. However I dread the odious comparisons, that would be truly awful. What I'd like to see is the unused Fleming material from books such as LALD, MR etc., but giving the films different titles to avoid such comparisons.

Same here. It has been done to some extent of course (e.g. Moonraker material has been used in movies other than Moonraker, although I can't be bothered to give any examples at the moment...).

I would like to see remakes of the less 'true to the book' movies that take a differen approach, perhaps closer to the source.

OHMSS: though I still love the original, a remake with a great not a good Bond would be still more spectacular. And it would pave the way for another remake, this one offering the closure we missed the last time.

Never. Please. Never.

Let me clarify: 'another remake' refers to YOLT. The Connery film was shot out of sequence, depriving fans of the closure a faithful version would have offered. Many members yearn for the real YOLT. But I see no way to have that without remaking OHMSS. Too many years have passed since then, leaving too many blanks for new viewers to fill in. OHMSS is a brilliant film--one of my top three--with a wonderful performance by Lazenby. I'd hate to see his thunder stolen. But YOLT would mean nothing without the history and emotional context provided by OHMSS.

Has anyone stopped to think whether or not the public want this? I think it would sound the death-knell for BOND on screen. If reasoning such as "that was a bit campy", "that missed out that bit" and "that ignored the chronology of whatever" was followed, then EVERY Bond film would be ripe for the rehauling. How on earth would the series evolve to a point where 007 the character was cinematically relevant? Daniel Craig has not given Bond a refreshing burst of iconography and cultural importance to waste that momentum on a fan-pleasing remake.

The films are what they are at that time. The 007 series has more at stake than Fleming's chronology of the books. Why remake LIVE AND LET DIE to rid the blaxploitation overtones when the film came out at the peak of that filmic movement and has its cultural place accordingly?! The films have been interpreted as they were at the time. Let's not pretend Fleming's characters, nuances and cultural commentary is akin to Shakespeare, Austen or Dickens - and hence ripe for re-imagining once a decade.

I don't know about the others, but I'm not quite ready to yield, thanks. There's still fertile grounds for discussion for those of us who have minds of our own. Shakespeare and Dickens, by the way, were seen as popular hacks in their day. The hellos and the halos from critics came much later on.

[Zorin Industries]

[/quote]

I don't know about the others, but I'm not quite ready to yield, thanks. There's still fertile grounds for discussion for those of us who have minds of our own. [/quote]

I take it "fertile grounds for discussion" implies those who believe remaking Bond films could be damaging move to Bond do not have a mind of their own...?! ;o)

Dodge, are we to put our drinks down and take this to the parking lot once again..?! Let's not confuse opposition to a theory as a hindrance to discussion...

[Skudor]

I see nothing wrong with reusing some of the original material - there's no need for the titles to be reused (or the character names).

[dodge]

Quoting Zorin:

Dodge, are we to put our drinks down and take this to the parking lot once again..?! Let's not confuse opposition to a theory as a hindrance to discussion...

I'd be perfectly happy if you didn't seem to be signing off with 'Thus Spake Zorin'.

Good to...er, run into you again!

[Santa]

The films are what they are at that time. The 007 series has more at stake than Fleming's chronology of the books. Why remake LIVE AND LET DIE to rid the blaxploitation overtones when the film came out at the peak of that filmic movement and has its cultural place accordingly?! The films have been interpreted as they were at the time. Let's not pretend Fleming's characters, nuances and cultural commentary is akin to Shakespeare, Austen or Dickens - and hence ripe for re-imagining once a decade.

Er, I'm not sure anyone is suggesting remaking LALD to rid it of blaxploitation overtones, isn't it simply the case that there is material in many of the films/books that could have been interpreted differently/better? As most of the general public don't seem to be aware that NSNA was a variation on TB, surely they're not going to be fretting about other 'remakes'?

[Judo chop]

I would not be in favor of repeating a film for improvements equivalent of a face lift

Edited by Judo chop, 07 March 2007 - 05:36 PM.

[Santa]

[quote name='Judo chop' post='709797' date='7 March 2007 - 18:28']I would not be in favor of repeating a film for improvements equivalent of a face lift

[Judo chop]

As most of the general public don't seem to be aware that NSNA was a variation on TB, surely they're not going to be fretting about other 'remakes'?

And that is another good point. What does the public know?

I'm not saying they should, but it's not unbelievable that they could remake YOLT, same title, same characters, reduce the ninja factor, bring it into the new millenium, and feed it to the public with success. Remakes are all the rave now, at least in the horror genre. It's a hip thing to do. Bond could do it if anyone could.

I suffer the same fear as many who think this idea or that idea is going to 'spell the end of the Bond franchise'. Then I am reminded that it's been a long time that people have been saying that and eating their words. You'd think they'd be full by now.

[Santa]

As most of the general public don't seem to be aware that NSNA was a variation on TB, surely they're not going to be fretting about other 'remakes'?

And that is another good point. What does the public know?

Thank you, dearheart, but I would definitely prefer it if these potential remakes did not use the same titles and characters. I think that's just asking for trouble, among the fans if not the plebs.

[Judo chop]

Ah, Judo Chop, you explain it so well. Are you this wise in all matters?

I would like to say yes, but a recent experiment in starting my own fortune cookie business was met with considerable disaster. The year of the Rat was no friend to Judo chop.

[dodge]

[quote name='santajosep' post='709798' date='7 March 2007 - 17:29'][quote name='Judo chop' post='709797' date='7 March 2007 - 18:28']I would not be in favor of repeating a film for improvements equivalent of a face lift

[Santa]

Yes, he is. And that's why we all await 'Memoirs from a Judo Chop', coming our way shortly. Advance word is, it may even help you enjoy coffee.

There's only one thing that could accomplish that, and it's certainly not JC's memoirs.

[Judo chop]

As most of the general public don't seem to be aware that NSNA was a variation on TB, surely they're not going to be fretting about other 'remakes'?

And that is another good point. What does the public know?

Thank you, dearheart, but I would definitely prefer it if these potential remakes did not use the same titles and characters. I think that's just asking for trouble, among the fans if not the plebs.

No, I wouldn't prefer it either. At least I don't think I would. I was just (hopefully) making the point that it might still work with success - that the public wouldn't care about such things as a remake.

It'd be a balsy move by EON though, wouldn't it?

"Daniel Craig is back as Bond in You Only Live Twice!"

Don

[Santa]

Ahhhh bless. You seem like a lonely chap

[MHazard]

I think for many, certainly me, the basis for a "remake" is that many of the original Fleming novels, which I love, have never really been filmed at all. With the exception of OHMSS, the movies after Thunderball have very little resemblance to Fleming's novels. Lets face it: The Man with the Golden Gun, Live and Let Die, Moonraker, Spy Who Loved Me (in this case it may not be such a bad thing), Diamonds are Forever, and YOLT, have very little to do with what Fleming wrote. Casino Royale 2006 did have quite a bit to do with Fleming's novels and it worked. The reason I want a re-make is I haven't seen a movie based on most of these books. I don't think you would want to re-make Dr. No, FRWL, Goldfinger, or Thunderball because they're pretty close to the books. One of the problems is that the Bond franchise fell into was that after Goldfinger they kept trying to make every movie Goldfinger instead of going back to the source (with the exception of OHMSS). Anyway, sorry for going on, but I'm new to the site and excited that there are others who share an interest in these issues.

[Bryce (003)]

I'll jump in on this and say Moonraker.

Straight shot. No Chaser.

Having recently re-read it, there's a lot of intriguing elements that set amongst the almost simple plot, could be very well retold. Especially given the same contemporary angle of CR.

Too many great elements and when I envision it being done in the new model of the Bond universe with Craig, it could be really strong.

- The mundane intro to what Bond deals with when not on assignment.
- M turning to Bond to ask a favor.
- The Bridge game.
- Gala and "Fives" involvement
- Plot to use an experimental rocket to blow up London under the guise of getting the UK's own manned space program established.
- Drax and Krebbs
- Attempt on Bond and Gala's lives under the Dover cliffs.
- Gala's kidnapping, the chase (put Bond in the DB5 he took off Demitros) *
- The steam vents.
- Bond doesn't get the girl, but nor does she die.

Simple storytelling yet dramatically, not flamboyantly, done. Drama punctuated with action, rather than action punctuated by drama.

Just a few notes. The more I think about it, the more I like it.



* OK, yes, given CR, seeing Bond trash another Aston (especially the beloved DB5) would seem a rehash, but it worked in the books. At the end, he could be informed his new car is downstairs. His response: "As long as it isn't another Aston...I don't have much luck with them."

Just my two pence.

[Judo chop]

Just my two pence.

But worth at least twice that amount!

A 'remake' of Fleming's Moonraker would certainly be my 2nd pick behind YOLT.

[MHazard]

I think a Craig Moonraker re-make would be great. But, in the book Drax is a Nazi. What do you make him in the year 2007 so it still makes sense?

[DamnCoffee]

I feel Cubby would be mortified if his children were remaking his work, i love the Bond movies for what they are - crap (AVTAK?, DAD)or not (CR, OHMSS), they're all good in their own way. Eon shouldn't be remaking old movies, they should be concentrating on new and fresh ideas.

[Zorin Industries]

I feel Cubby would be mortified if his children were remaking his work, i love the Bond movies for what they are - crap (AVTAK, DAD)or not (CR, OHMSS), they're all good in their own way. Eon shouldn't be remaking old movies, they should be concentrating on new and fresh ideas.

Exactly. Well said Mharkin. Remaking EON's back catalogue is not the gameplan. Barbara Broccoli would never on her own doorstep (excuse the phrasing here ladies...). I know for a fact that upholding his work and canon of cinema is of great importance to her.

Someone inevitably used the NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN example when it comes to discussing Bond remakes. The viewpoint was that the public didn't notice. I would actually disagree. The cinema-going public of 1983 wanted a new Bond, not a rehauled, recycled, retoupeed 007 that remade Fleming's original book.

I will certainly agree that many elements of the books have been ignored or barely used and that there may be scope to include them in future 007 films. But surely that is a completely different argument to the 'remake' one?

However, EON plough through the Fleming books constantly when drafting new screenplays. It may be no coincidence that - aside from CASINO ROYALE - not that much of Fleming's original tomes have been used since THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS. Maybe the writers cannot see a narrative way of using Fleming's work left, right and centre?

Hang on Mharkin...."crap (AVTAK)...". Can we take this one outside please...?

[Zorin Industries]

Quoting Zorin:

Dodge, are we to put our drinks down and take this to the parking lot once again..?! Let's not confuse opposition to a theory as a hindrance to discussion...

I'd be perfectly happy if you didn't seem to be signing off with 'Thus Spake Zorin'.

Good to...er, run into you again!

And you too Dodge!

Though I will take umbridge (obviously) to your last quip. Was that the Bond fan equivalent of kicking the shins of someone before you run away and hide?! I don't think I cast a "the trash-heap has spoken" wisdom to my arguments. My viewpoints are often just from a perspective that is more concerned with Bond's present and future rather than nit-picking through its past (not that I strictly mean you here...!).

Thus I have spaken....

[Bryce (003)]

I think a Craig Moonraker re-make would be great. But, in the book Drax is a Nazi. What do you make him in the year 2007 so it still makes sense?

A good point. Drax - the man with no past - could eventually be tied to whatever aparatus of Mr. White as a possibility or simply (for some reason) bent on destroying the monarchy and economy of Great Britain. Certainly not out for world domination, but some sort of chip on his shoulder against the UK or the UK joining the "space race".

As to all those that feel the films should not be redone, I'm with you, but if so, I'd love to see a contemporary take on MR.

What if MR had been the first book, the rights sold off, made as a spoof in '67 only to have Eon regain the rights and remake it now?

We'd be screaming for it. Isn't this just a "what if?" thread anyway?

Just my thoughts and my vote.

[MHazard]

In my view the movie Moonraker was made as a spoof.

[Bryce (003)]

Heh-heh..

In some ways, yes.

Product of the times etc. etc.

Actually, I read an early draft of the Moonraker screenplay, and the first two thirds were almost more of Bond being a detective (there was no gondola hovercraft bit, but it did have a hidden inboard motor) and parts of it were quite dark.

Point being: After Bond searches Drax's wharehouse, he finds Manuele hung on a fence with her throat cut. Rather - nibbled on by Jaws. I *think* that bit remained in Christopher Wood's novelisation, but I'd have to check. Although I do clearly remember reading it in a script.

Again, my initial post on the subject states my thoughts such as they are.

As to remakes and CR, reinventing is fine, but remaking won't and shouldn't be done.

[Binyamin]

Going back to the Moonraker/ Space Race discussion.... could this possibly be modernized to an X-Prize style private space race?

During the run-up to the X-Prize there were quite a few extremely interesting millionairs and billionairs (Richard Branson as Drax!) from all different countries with many interesting spaceship designs.

There are even more X-Prize style contests for millions of dollars ongoing now, such as the Bigelow Prize for the first private orbital spacecraft. Robert Bigelow himself, with his secretive Area-51 type headquarters and space station plans, is extremely interesting. (Google or Wikipedia for more info.)

I've had a few Guinnesses.... so yes, no, maybe?

[Bryce (003)]

Fine thought Binyamin.

Given the "race" and the characters involved along with Richard Branson's plans for an orbital airline - LA to London in 45 minutes at only $5000 a head - it could certainly lend itself to a Moonraker revamp.

Seems I've lit a bit of a fire around here.

...and there are a few of CBn's own "Bond girls" who would like to see Gala Brand brought to the screen. Especially with Craig as Bond.

*psst...*Gala* - that's your cue*

*psst...Barbara and Michael...We're past the shuttles and the space race now...Why not?*

[Binyamin]

For those of you not familiar with Robert Bigelow:

The man built a multi-million (billion?) dollar fortune in hotels, apparently with the sole purpose of funding his vision for space.

His company, Bigelow Aerospace, has already in fact launched a private space station. Bigelow Aerospace headquarters is a highly secretive compound guarded by a private security force armed with sub-machine guns.

Bigelow has been fascinated with his vision for mankind in space since a child, and has worked his entire life to fulfill that vision.

He is extremely secretive, refusing to be photographed by the press, and does not do TV interviews.

Quote:
"The idea is to create space stations. The big thing, of course, and what's in it for human beings-- it's the enormous technology promise that space holds and offers to the human race."

He also has a grudge against NASA and government space programs. Quote: "NASA is an organization without a vision, and because they don't have any vision, they don't have missions that make much sense."


Bigelow. Branson. Drax. Very interesting things happening in the real world. The point here is, a realistic Moonraker using the incredibly fascinating egos and personalities of the new space race is *not* far-fetched at all.


EDIT: Oh yes, and Paul Allen, secretive billionaire and initial funder of the SpaceShipOne program, owns one of the largest yachts in the world. It has a helicopter...
... and a *personal submarine*. Just a thought.

Edited by Binyamin, 09 March 2007 - 06:01 AM.

[Bryce (003)]

All good info.

Hmmm....

We really are on a roll here.

Almost to the point of "men in black" showing up at our doors Binyamin.

*checks Casa Bryce security system*

Bring it on!