25 replies to this topic

[zencat]

Eon is going to have a hard time topping DAD. From what I'm seeing, it looks like film #20 might be the penultimate modern Bond adventure. What could be more perfect or the 40th Anniversary film? But now they have a problem. How are they going to "top" DAD in BOND 21?

Simple. Do something radically different and daring.

I say make BOND 21 a period piece. Set it back in the late '50s or early '60s. In the time of Fleming. And I'm not talking about a timeline period piece in which we see Bond as a beginner (I hate this idea). I say we just plop him back in time unchanged and do a stylish, sexy Bond film set in the era when Bond was the "new male" and not a "sexist misogynist dinosaur." The Russians are back. The girls are big and busty. Everyone smokes and drinks, and there is not a hint of anything PC for 20 years to come. Just watch the original Pink Panther to see how COOL this time period can be (heck, just watch Dr. No!)

And it's doesn't need to be permanent. Just do it for one film, as an experiment. I think Pierce would dig this and it would be a great way to send him off (although I bet he'll be back for Bond 22). After 20 films, take a chance with the first film of the next twenty. The time is right and the film will stand out and, ironically, feel fresh and new. And I think the public is ready for this movie as they may not have been back in '87 when Eon first toyed with this idea.

Come on, Eon! Have some balls and go for this. I'll bet you Purvis and Wade would love to write a period Bond movie.

[Harmsway]

BOND 20 SPOILERS (VERY VERY MINOR)

That doesn't work, since Bond 20 needs a follow up piece (as a villain survives the film). Now, I like the idea, but I don't think they can go in that direction then suddenly flip back to modern day as quickly as you suggest.

[Carver]

This is a great idea Zen. They could do this, but I think that they may have already planned Bond21 out. Prehaps Bond22? It would be great for us Bond fans who started watching early Bond films at an early age (I'm only 15, but still, I watched GF at 4).

[Tedley King]

I'm guessing they were clever and used the 3 year break to write a few drafts for Bond 21 while re-drafting Bond 20. So I think Bond 21 will be a quick thing, a kind of finish Bond 20 and then a year later start filming Bond 21 (eg June 2003) ready for a Jan 2004 release, giving them more time for a new Bond if PB decides to leave and time for a Bond 22 script!

[zencat]

Guess I needed to read a few more spoiler threads before I suggested this idea. I didn't know DAD would end with a loose thread that may lead into Bond 21. Cool!

But I still like the idea of a period Bond movie.

[Blue Eyes]

Not suggesting that Die Another Day does end with a loose thread (that would be telling ) but we do know that Falco will return in Bond 21 as Michael Madsen is already signed up for it. So I guess we're going to get another modern film and that, perhaps, Purvis and Wade already have an idea for Bond 21!

[rafterman]

I'd wait until there's a new Bond for a retro period film.

[zencat]

Originally posted by rafterman
I'd wait until there's a new Bond for a retro period film.

Ah, but see, that would be the mistake. Eon always experiments when they have a new Bond: OHMSS, LTK, and the experiments fail (box office-wise). I think the best time to experiment when you have an established Bond who'll provide an anchor for the audience. (FYEO) Asking an audience to accept a new Bond AND a completely different style Bond film is asking too much. I say OHMSS needed Connery to be accepted by general audiences and LTK...well, it kind of looks like they are trying to do an LTK turn in DAD and this time it will work because Pierce is Bond to the audience.

[rafterman]

Possibly zencat, but then again an experiment like this with an established Bond could be jarring to the audience. They go in expecting one thing and suddenly it's like, "he's in the sixties again?" It could throw people off, since it would be such a giant experiment. Maybe a big break would help.
I'm not sure. I think it could be very cool, but I don't know if it would be accepted with or without a new Bond.
Personally I'd like to see Brosnan's Bond finish his little series without jumping around in time...

[brendan007]

its a good idea to start setting bond in the past, but not for the films.
with the quality of programs that are popping up on television now, this would be the perfect place to do serious adaptions of ian flemings novels.
this leaves the films do to what people have wanted from them for the last forty years, while fans can see flemings books adapted properly.

[walther]

I love Zen's idea. And the perfect story for that idea would be Casino Royale. Modern? Might be a good twist. Flashback? Ahh, that's what I'd be curious about. Bond on vacation from DAD and whatever's next, reminiscing about the old days and remembers his very first BIG mission, Casino Royale and the "bitch" Vesper Lynd.

[1q2w3e4r]

I think saying its a "period" piece is kinda wrong. I agree with what your saying and would LOVE to see CR. But I don't see why you can't pick it up from 1953 throw in a pretitle action scene and a few additional scenes perhaps from Moonraker (the novel) in the mix and have a bloody good film thats modern, it would be very much like The Thomas Crown Affair. Smoking, drinking, gals and guns... tick, tick, tick, tick

And I think this approach could work much better than having the audience know its a set periodic piece. Just pick a story up and plonk in in leave Bond unchanged and let him loose I say. They did it with Thomas Crown. It'd work with Bond. But id rather see it set in the present, it might confuse the general audience otherwise.

[Blofeld's Cat]

Not too sure about this whole retro idea. I'd need to think about it for a while.

However, if were decided to finish doing the Bond movies and there was one left to do, I'd like to see the current Bond (whoever that actor would be) on the mission that caused his gun to jam and put him in hospital for six months. A prequel to Dr. No so to speak.

That way the ending can appear to show that Bond is dead (a-la FRWL novel) thus ending the franchise, but bring the whole Bond cinematic saga full circle.

A bond movie timeline with no start or finish.

Hmm....maybe I have thought about it a bit.

Thinking about more just now, to have a retro adventure in the middle of the series could be detrimental to the noxt movie as well as it.

[rafterman]

maybe it could be like the Planet of the Apes series where it's all cyclic...

[walther]

The more I think about it, I would like to see CR in modern times. To have the classic flashback look is too cliched.


Moneypenny: What are you thinking about James?
James: Well, there was this time I was with M in Tokyo. We had a few drinks, then we ran into this white rabbit. He said he was late. (Flashback look, you know) We followed it to this tree that had a very small door on it...

[WC]

If Bond 21 was a period piece, then there's no excuse for not having Casino Royale now. That could be the film that Pierce Brosnan goes out with a bang.

[White Persian]

I'd love to see Bond done as a period piece as well, but the confusion factor for a large percentage of the audience (who don't even realise that Fleming wrote Bond novels in the fifties and sixties) would be too great.
I'd rather see the current Bond continuity carry on in the movies, and a separate smaller scale TV series produce faithful, period treatments of Fleming's novels, rather as Granada TV handled the Sherlock Holmes stories with Jeremy Brett, with the fidelity to Fleming being a selling point. This way the expectations of the audience wouldn't be to anticipate huge explosions and OTT gadgets, but to enjoy great characters, suspenseful stories and authentic ambience.

[zencat]

Originally posted by White Persian
I'd rather see the current Bond continuity carry on in the movies, and a separate smaller scale TV series produce faithful, period treatments of Fleming's novels, rather as Granada TV handled the Sherlock Holmes stories with Jeremy Brett, with the fidelity to Fleming being a selling point. This way the expectations of the audience wouldn't be to anticipate huge explosions and OTT gadgets,  but to enjoy great characters, suspenseful stories and authentic ambience.

I agree and I've suggested this very thing in other posts. To bad Eon will never do it.

[Spectre001]

If I was going to do this I would go for a Casino Royale attempt (even if it is just in the name) to tie off loose ends. Other options would be to carry on from Die Another Day (which is most likely what they are going to do) or go for a low key affair like they did after Moonraker with TSWLM.

[Loomis]

Of course, there is one Bond film that DOES go into the past: GOLDENEYE (or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that, since the pre-credits sequence is set in 1986 and the rest of the film takes place in 1995, it jumps into the future).
I wouldn't welcome a Bond film set entirely in the past, but there's no reason why one couldn't feature two or three long flashbacks, dealing with 007's past assignments. For such scenes, Brosnan's face could be digitally altered to make him look younger. The trouble is, given Brosnan's age you couldn't credibly have him working as a spy any earlier than the late 1970s or early 1980s, not exactly an exciting time to return to (I certainly don't want references to Wham! or Space Invaders, and Bond coming out with lines like: "Is this Boy George creature a man or a woman?").

[Xenobia]

I seem to be arriving at the party a little late, but I do have some thoughts:

I have always thought it would be cool if they did a Bond TV Miniseries. Pierce could be in it...or he could not...since this isn't the movie franchise. What this miniseries could be is a long story...spanning a couple of months, showing Bond not only at the face pace of the movie series (which is a tad unrealistic to the business) and Bond following someone around all day...not seeming to make much progress at all.

Depending on where and when this miniseries is set...yes it could be a period piece...and since it is not technically Bond 21..it does not have tie up the loose ends that B21 is required to do.

I was also thinking that Bond could be stuck fighting a particular demi villian in Bond 21 -- one that is obsessed with life in the 1950's, so everything in that part of the villian's story is retro...and Bond is forced to fit into that. That could be curious.

As for Casino Royale...Brosnan has said he would love to do that one. If he does come back for Bond 22, that could be his swan song...and with Bond 22 he would be free to do it as a retro piece...or they could update the book into the new century...while keeping some key story elements, and doing the sets in a retro design.

-- Xenobia

[zencat]

Originally posted by Loomis
Of course, there is one Bond film that DOES go into the past: GOLDENEYE (or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that, since the pre-credits sequence is set in 1986 and the rest of the film takes place in 1995, it jumps into the future).

That's true!

Originally posted by Loomis
I wouldn't welcome a Bond film set entirely in the past, but there's no reason why one couldn't feature two or three long flashbacks, dealing with 007's past assignments.[/B]

But that idea implies a real-world timeline and in order for Bond to remain ageless a timeline should never be established. This is at the center of my idea here. Bond is already a time traveler! We currently watch James Bond movies set in the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s and we don't question whether or not Bond should be there or what his relative age should be, because Bond belongs to all these times. Because we already accept Bond as ageless, I think we could make a Bond film set in anytime. A favorite period seems to be the 60s, so why not set a film there? Anyway, I know it's a bold (and for some, bizzare) idea and not feasible at this point, but I do see it happening--some day.

[Spectre001]

And the trouble with going back into the past is you run into the Connery or Moore era's.

[BondNumber7]

James Bond as Marty McFly
Q as Doc Brown

Oh, this is ridiculous.

I'm sure Q can create a time machine and send Bond back somewhere to investigate an unsolved mystery, but I'm for keeping Bond in the present because Bond is ageless and like the egyptian pyramids, he can last a long time. We don't need to see him to go back, but to keep on going forward as each new era is a challenge to 007. He's already tackled the sixties, seventies, eighties, and nineties so lets see what his contributions are to the twenty first century and beyond.

[Icephoenix]

MGM would not go near a project with so much potential It would be risky though, lets face it, the younger and 'newer' public wouldn't exactly be as thrilled as Bond fans.

[IrishCrown]

Bond has to go back to 1969 to convince George Lazenby as Bond to stick around for more Bond movies. Like Back to the Future Part 2, he will interact within the movie. Brosnan will get his wish to "remake" OHMSS.