I think the classis films are great because they have that classic feel. Why remake them? Look at all the &$^% DAD got for it's use of CGI. i can't eveen start to inagine a remake of Dr. No
The only Connery films I'd like re-made would be YOLT and DAF. I like both, but would like to see something closer to the Fleming originals. YOLT: Kissy as the Japanese Garbo, a Tiger who is older, and powerfully built. Bond about to dig into a lobster, and it scurries away, "My, God, Tiger -- it's alive!" And Tiger's, Really, Bond-san! The Garden of Death could be horrific.... maybe so horrific it would seem like a Dracula film! The ending could still have ninjas, but maybe only four dozen to the same number of Blofeld's men. I can certainly envision the Castle. And Bond feeling as if someone walked on his grave as he studies it (or was that in another chapter?). The only drawback would be the lack of the great John Barry music. But if they could bring back the main theme(s), that would be agreeable.
DAF: here it would be more difficult. They would have to improve on the story. The Spang brothers, Wint and Kidd would have to become deadly adversaries similar to Francisco Scaramanga. It could be something like the Corleones ... and a Tiffiny Case / Lauren Bacall type. Ditch the space stuff. Maybe have Bond participate in a gigantic diamond heist to prove he's Peter Franks.
______________________
One of the Little People, G Section
"Surely, you're joking!!?"
"Don't call me Shirley."
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
Quoting Ali Tait:
Didn't Brosnan make a comment about him wanting to do a remake of OHMSS?
If remade today, OHMSS will be much shorter. Bond's line when he sees Tracy after escaping from Piz Gloria: "I'm ever so glad to see you, darling. Do you have a cell phone?" )
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
no no no, no more remakes... the early bonds are far more superior in style and class anyway...most of the last 6 - 7 bond movies are remakes of a kind... borrowing elements from each other...
Now that Casino Royale is making it's way into the Bond cannon as a re-boot of the series, it seems reasonable to re-raise this question.
I've often thought about the "where do we go from here?" question regarding how Bond films should be made post-CR. If the first 20 films are null and void in this new Bond universe that is slated to last at least as long as Craig is 007, why not re-make them? They effectively "don't exist" otherwise, right? If Casino Royaleis any indication, they could be more Fleming in the sense that more source material is used, and classics that sometimes go under the radar in the modern action/adventure genre could be appreciated appropriately by a whole new generation. Further, those films that weren't done as well could be given that much needed face lift and only increase the creative genius of the series. Of course there is the risk audiences would not except a series of re-makes, and much of this depends on whether or not audiences recognize/accept the re-boot Casino Royale offers. Nevertheless, it's clearly a question worth asking again.
Are some of my fellow Bond-fans even seriously discussing the possibilities of Bond re-makes? Shocking!
Worse than shocking! OUTRAGEOUS! I must be losing whatever I have left of my intelligent mind.
(Dont get me wrong. I would love to see TMWTGG, for instance, get remade. But should it? No. And therein lies the discussion).
With all due respect, V12Vanquish, your mate seriously needs to readjust his Bond worldview. Its one thing to say Brosnan films are the best in the series, its another to dismiss the first 16 films as "not worth bothering with." (?!?!?). Are you kidding me? I mean, seriously, is that that not one of the most jawdroppingly dumb (sorry to be rude) comments in the whole history of this website?
An opinion is an opinion but ...your mate CANNOT be serious.
Ladies and gentlemen, I have been a proud member of this special Bond site for over a year now and have tried to avoid any type of confrontation...until now.
V12Vanquish, next time you see your mate tell him that thank you, no, the Bond films should never be remade. Period. I am BEYOND sick and tired of living in a disposeable movie culture which feels the need to remake movies that don't need to be remade. Remake FRWL because the FX aren't CGI? That is, without a doubt, and far away, the single most ridiculous opinion I have ever read in over a year on this site.
Lets be clear about this, V12Vanquish. Bond fans come in all ages and sizes, and respective opinions. Make no mistake, a younger Bond fan might enjoy TND over, say, TB, and all power to his opinion. But to outright dismiss 30 years of Bond classics as "not worth bothering with" tells me one thing.
Your mate is NOT a Bond fan. (Let him know, by the way, just in case he deluded himself into thinking he was one) His opinion is not only relegated to the Bondian trash-heap in my books , but his comment taps into something larger which needs to be addressed.
AGEism is a two-way street and both sides of the street are not pretty. As much as some youth disregard their elders, they are no worse than the elders that disregard the younger generation. Both are dead wrong in the manner in which they dismiss each other's worldview.
I say this because V12Vanquish's friend is obviously not of my generation and, as such, has a different outlook than my own. As a Bond fan frow way back in the day... I can accept the fact that even a teenaged Bond-fan can be as passionate and expert about the series as an older fan. (Indeed, most hardcore Bond-fans begin early).
What I object to...and you can tell my anger starts to rise...is there is a certain dismissive attitude towards the past that every young generation falls prey to in the long run. This generation can produce a class act like Kanye West, who liberally samples Shirley Bassey from DAF in his song Diamonds, but is on record saying he thought she was an unknown, and was suprised to discover that she is suing him for royalties. Does that make any sense?
Kanye is a very bright man so it is a little sad that he could make that kind of blunder. Its as bad as the Beatles never having heard of Chuck Berry or Al Pacino saying Marlon Brando is too far in the past to care about. Or as bad as Sinatra dismissing the history of rock and roll (which he did).
Its out and out pure laziness to dismiss the past in art. And it smacks of a limited mind when an opinion is solely based on just the present, with no frame of reference to the past.
The reason for this rant? Very simple.
The attitude of V12 Vanquish's friend is the b.s attitude which permeates the world of Hollywood. To a tee. And I, for one, am getting sick and tired of years of sub-standard product from an industry that at one time, at least nominally, stood for quality.
Hollywood is nowadays generally run by scared people who (a) don't know who William Holden, William Wyler or, say, Robert Aldrich were back in the day but can tell you Jennifer Aniston's dating life from high school.
And (b) want to remake (in other words, cannibilize) everything in Hollywood's history because those bums in the market research dept say its "peak" time to remake Mod Squad or...ScoobyDoo...or... lets remake The Matrix, fellas. Its overdue. Its so '90's.
Hey. lets remake Sam Peckinpah's The Wild Bunch because...why not? (Sound familiar, V12).
And you know, somewhere in the bowels of Eon or Sony is some hungry young exec who in the future will have absolutely no problem in wanting to remake Goldfinger.
Why? Because the special F/X are not up to 21st century standards.
I despise that kind of creative thinking and believe that is the main reason Hollywood is not the glorious dream factory it once was...and should be.
So here's to your friend, V12, the shallowest amongst us all, who in believing pre-Pierce Bond "is not worth bothering" will pretty much guarantee him a top spot in any major Hollywood studio.
Big, I have never seen you so angry. Justifiably so IMO as I agree with everything you said. I remember some years ago talking to someone about a film that I had seen and loved (I forgot which one). The person remarked that the film was *'too old.' It was late 70's!
Anyway, I think that you're definitely correct in that it's fine to prefer DAD to GF but not to say that GF is 'not worth bothering with.' 8-)
*I'm 23 yet my definition of old would be pre-1960. Not that there's anything wrong with pre-1960 films of course.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Perhaps I overstated my case, but I stand by the comments. However, the tone of the post is, as you say, "angry" and there is no excuse for that.
I have always felt right at home at this sight. Bond fans are generally sophisticated in their opinions and, as such, they are reflecting the sophistication of their favorite character. The point? If someone wants to slag the first 16 films...all power to him. Its just an opinion. THAT would have been the sophisticated response to such an opinion. But...
I realized something else. Bond-fans can argue and dissect the films and performances with the precision of Swiss watchmakers and the discussions are spirited but remain polite. Get Bond-fans talking about, say, the performances of Roger and Dalton, and battle lines are drawn. And that's all wonderful. Its Bond talk between Bond-fans. Long live 007!
However...
And this is where I came in...
I realized that the Bond series can be loved, appreciated, hated, mocked, dissected and. yes, even. disrespected by one and all. The beauty of AJB is everyone's two cents is equal.
All opinions are welcome...EXCEPT dismissal.
Dismissal of the first 16 films? Not "'worth mentioning"? That kind of dismissive remark triggers my defense mechanism regarding the series. Its one thing for movie critics and historians to disregard the quality of the series, its another to read it from a "Bond-fan" on a forum that appreciates all things Bond. Sorry, thats a Bondian no-no.
"That's as bad as listening to the Beatles without earmuffs."
The old films should not be remade. There is plenty of Fleming material left to be used for new films: the titles of some of the short stories (Risico, The Hildebrand Rarity, Property of a Lady, Quantum of Solace), even if plot lines from those have been used in previous films. There's also the original plots from the MR, TSWLM that haven't seen film, as well as plot elements from other novels that haven't been used that could easily be expanded into a full-length film. (Such as the attempted assasination of M in TMWTGG)
I don't know if 007 films should have re-makes.. as each single one is unique on its own..
I do like some other re-makes though. such as the Thomas Crown Affair i think it's better than the original..
no keep them how they are I would not be a fan of a remake unless ofcourse they had all the same actors which would be unlikey maybe a moonraker returns or something like that might be intresting to see
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Big Zilcho
You talk a pretty good game, amigo, but your righteous anger is misplaced; save that fine speech-making for a cause that's worth fighting for. Personally, I wouldn't want to see the early classics remade, but the series' producers lost the moral high ground a long time ago, when they first thought to replace the original Bond with another for the sake of the "franchise". With that one craven move, they basically said "all bets are off...and we'll do anything for a buck". In comparison, thinking about re-making "Dr. No" with the flavour of the month is actually quite charming, and flattering. What's the big deal, anyway? We'll always have the Connery original.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
Big Zilcho
You talk a pretty good game, amigo, but your righteous anger is misplaced; save that fine speech-making for a cause that's worth fighting for. Personally, I wouldn't want to see the early classics remade, but the series' producers lost the moral high ground a long time ago, when they first thought to replace the original Bond with another for the sake of the "franchise". With that one craven move, they basically said "all bets are off...and we'll do anything for a buck". In comparison, thinking about re-making "Dr. No" with the flavour of the month is actually quite charming, and flattering. What's the big deal, anyway? We'll always have the Connery original.
I'm sure BZ appreciates your compliment in the spirit it was intended, ASP, and let me be the first to welcome you to AJB, the best Bond fan site anywhere. You will enjoy yourself here...
For my own part, I'm very grateful that Eon chose not to fold up the tent and go home when Connery got too bored to continue. Craven or not, I've enjoyed quite a lot of Eon's stuff since the Scotsman departed.
Again, welcome to the site. {[]
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Loeffelholz,
thanks for the welcome. I too am glad that the series didn't end with Connery, but in deciding to continue it the producers acknowledged that they weren't making art, at least in their own opinion (i.e. Da Vinci didn't paint the Mona Lisa over and over again with different models). So, if the makers themselves don't think it's art, who are we to treat it as such? Why not re-make Dr. No? Even a hack Hollywood screenwriter might be able to do a decent job if he was working again from Fleming's story/material; it's when these hacks start doing 'original' work that the series suffers. And yes, I hope Big Zilcho took the compliment the way I intended; he knows his stuff, better than I do, but on this one he was like Jack Wilson going up against Shane: fast on the draw, but not fast enough.
Thanks again L
ASP
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
edited September 2006
Well...artistic purity is at a premium in Hollywood, to say the least There's always a chance someone will swerve into it from time to time, even if by accident )
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Remakes? God, no. The original Fleming titles have either been done perfectly well (DN, FRWL, GF, TB, OHMSS, TLD), have a modicum of decency (DAF, YOLT) or have been forever badly disgraced by the garbage that was offered when Roger Moore was supposedly James Bond (LALD, TMWTGG, TSWLM, MR, FYEO, OP, AVTAK). If it does not have a Fleming title, the movie is not a classic, and there is no need to consider a remake.
Personally, I wouldn't want to see the early classics remade, but the series' producers lost the moral high ground a long time ago, when they first thought to replace the original Bond with another for the sake of the "franchise". With that one craven move, they basically said "all bets are off...and we'll do anything for a buck".
What does the 'moral high ground' have to do with anything? Why was it immoral to replace Connery? The producers replaced him because they understood that the series was bigger than one actor. Connery was the master but he was simply a hired hand. When he left after YOLT, the producers could have folded up the series but why would they when the the series revolved around a character who had featured in a dozen novels and numerous short stories? Plus, why is it so bad that the producers, god forbid, make films for financial reasons. Afterall, if I'm not mistaken, the major reason why Fleming became an author was financial.
In comparison, thinking about re-making "Dr. No" with the flavour of the month is actually quite charming, and flattering. What's the big deal, anyway? We'll always have the Connery original.
I completely disagree. Re-making DN 'with the flavour of the month' is IMO completely unnecessary and an insult to the original. The big deal is that if people want to watch DN, they should watch the original which was superb, instead of some stupid Hollywood remake.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Loeffelholz,
thanks for the welcome. I too am glad that the series didn't end with Connery, but in deciding to continue it the producers acknowledged that they weren't making art, at least in their own opinion (i.e. Da Vinci didn't paint the Mona Lisa over and over again with different models).
You're assuming that a Bond film can not be art because they feature different actors? I think that's a false assumption. The difference between the Mona Lisa and Bond is that all of the Bond films are different, even the ones that have the same actor. The fact that the producers continued does not mean that they acknowledged that the series wasn't art; they weren't repeating the Mona Lisa, they were simply creating new and different paintings.
So, if the makers themselves don't think it's art, who are we to treat it as such? Why not re-make Dr. No? Even a hack Hollywood screenwriter might be able to do a decent job if he was working again from Fleming's story/material; it's when these hacks start doing 'original' work that the series suffers.
Well, I treat it as art. I think that OHMSS was great art as was TSWLM. As for remaking DN, how can you say that any screenwriter could do a decent job when what made DN so great was the cast, the direction, the screenplay, the music and alot of other things which weren't in the novel. Finally, considering that I loved GE and TWINE, I don't think the series suffers when the writers start doing original work.
Look, I think that you underestimate the cinematic contributions to DN. There is no doubt that Fleming gave the filmmakers a solid foundation from which to work but to overlook all the unique cinematic contributions to DN (e.g.cast) quite honestly astounds me.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
The Fleming novels were recognized almost immediately as being a cut above the standard fare for the genre (later, and most famously, by John F Kennedy).
Even in the earliest Bonds, the producers/ writers took liberties with the original material, some for justifiable cinematic reasons, others for less justifiable ones. There was a wealth of fascinating details and story lines in the Dr No and Goldfinger novels that went unused (and I'm not being naive here - much of it COULD have been used; as Howard Hawks said to John Huston when the latter asked for advice on how to write and direct The Maltese Falcon, "film the book"...and Huston did almost exactly that, to great effect).
What does the 'moral high ground' have to do with anything, you ask? I'm surprised someone like you, who treats the Bond series with such respect and affection, would ask something like that. People who think the series trashy and irrelevant might laugh at the notion of a moral high ground in this instance, but I think it’s a valid approach.
It wasn't that the producers simply continued on after Connery left (and, by the way, I don't begrudge them or anyone else the attempt/right to make money; but I CAN question they value/ethics of HOW they or anyone else makes that money. As Bogart said: "It's not a thief I mind, it's a cut-rate thief"). They'd already showed themselves not the literary types by how they adapted the novels for the first few screenplays; but they made it worse by allowing into the mix -- after Connery left -- an almost tongue-in-cheek attitude that seemed to mock the whole seriousness of the enterprise; an annoying wink-and-a-nudge approach (exemplified at its worse by an aging Roger Moore) that further vitiated the power of the Fleming material.
The shame of it was that I believe you could have made serious, literary, adult entertainment that was also sexy and fast moving and exciting; the producers, evidently, didn't think so, IMHO.
So my point is, if the producers didn't handle the material like art, and if in the original material there is much left to be mined, why not give another screenwriter and an actor a chance to re-explore the possibilities of, say, Dr. No.
You seem to want it both ways, i.e. to say that talking about moral high ground is nonsense, while asking that the entire series (uneven at best, badly flawed and irrelevant at its worst) be treated with some high degree of respect.
The Fleming novels were recognized almost immediately as being a cut above the standard fare for the genre (later, and most famously, by John F Kennedy).
What does the 'moral high ground' have to do with anything, you ask? I'm surprised someone like you, who treats the Bond series with such respect and affection, would ask something like that. People who think the series trashy and irrelevant might laugh at the notion of a moral high ground in this instance, but I think it’s a valid approach.
Except I don't think that the producers lost the so-called 'moral high ground' simply because they decided to replace Connery; a hired hand.
It wasn't that the producers simply continued on after Connery left (and, by the way, I don't begrudge them or anyone else the attempt/right to make money; but I CAN question they value/ethics of HOW they or anyone else makes that money. As Bogart said: "It's not a thief I mind, it's a cut-rate thief"). They'd already showed themselves not the literary types by how they adapted the novels for the first few screenplays; but they made it worse by allowing into the mix -- after Connery left -- an almost tongue-in-cheek attitude that seemed to mock the whole seriousness of the enterprise; an annoying wink-and-a-nudge approach (exemplified at its worse by an aging Roger Moore) that further vitiated the power of the Fleming material.
I am a film Bond fan (I have never read the novels) and I have no problem with the approach that some of the post-Connery films took. The fact that some of the films weren't faithful to Fleming doesn't concern me. I hated AVTAK but I also hated TLD. So considering that I enjoyed most of the Bond films, I have no problem with the way the producers have made their money.
The shame of it was that I believe you could have made serious, literary, adult entertainment that was also sexy and fast moving and exciting; the producers, evidently, didn't think so, IMHO.
So my point is, if the producers didn't handle the material like art, and if in the original material there is much left to be mined, why not give another screenwriter and an actor a chance to re-explore the possibilities of, say, Dr. No.
You're assuming that only you know the meaning of art. I don't agree. I'm not concerned with the literally side of Bond. So Dalton may be very Fleming-like but he is my least favourite Bond. In response to your comment, I would say that the producer have handled the films like art; it's just that some films were better than others. I think that most of Moore's films were suprior to TLD (except for AVTAK which I think was the worst of all) and I also didn't like DAD. But each film has its own significance. I wouldn't want DN to be remade because not only was it superb but it's unnecessary. Why not remake every film that is ever made? I personlly wouldn't want to remake any Bond film, even the bad ones, because each IMO is special in its own way. But also, I think that all of the Bpond films are art. (It's just that some are of a higher quality art than others.) Plus, even though I hate AVTAK, TLD and DAD, they are not among my all-time least favourite films.
You seem to want it both ways, i.e. to say that talking about moral high ground is nonsense, while asking that the entire series (uneven at best, badly flawed and irrelevant at its worst) be treated with some high degree of respect.
Except I don't agree that the series is 'uneven at best, badly flawed and irrelevant at its worst.' I love the series and while there are some Bond films which I don't particularly like (in comparison to other Bond films) such as AVTAK, TLD and DAD, I generally like all the Bond films. Yes, I think the series should be treated with respect; I just don't agree with you abot what constitutes the 'moral high ground.'
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Dan,
no, you never insulted the novels, and I never said you did. But then you say:
"I am a film Bond fan (I have never read the novels) and I have no problem with the approach that some of the post-Connery films took. The fact that some of the films weren't faithful to Fleming doesn't concern me."
Understood, and it's your perogative, and I dare say you know the Bond series much better than I do. But to your comments I'd then say:
1) Do yourself a favour and read the books, e.g. Dr. No is a good place to start. You'll enjoy them.
2) If you haven't read the books, you'll never understand how much of their power and charm was taken out of them by the screenplays/movies, especially after Connery left. But perhaps this doesn't concern you.
3) If you have so little respect for the original material not to even have read it, and if it "doesn't concern" you that the films weren't faithful to the material (in short, if you don't think that the books are "art"), you'd be hard-pressed to convince me the the second-generation Bond material (i.e. the screenplays/movies) should be treated as such, even at their very best.
they do keep remaking Goldfinger they just give it a new title and a less coherent plot
that last one was a Moonraker remake deep underneath all the clever references and digital special effects
the one I want them to remake is You Only Live Twice
done properly, as the sequel to the events in OHMSS
with an unrelaiable despondent Bond whose past his prime,
a Blofeld whose gone round the bend this time with suicide garden and castle complete
and ending with an amnesiac Bond whose dead to the world
if theyre going to follow up a grim-n-gritty true-to-Fleming Casino Royale with another film in the same style, thatd be the one Id want to see
2) If you haven't read the books, you'll never understand how much of their power and charm was taken out of them by the screenplays/movies, especially after Connery left. But perhaps this doesn't concern you.
3) If you have so little respect for the original material not to even have read it, and if it "doesn't concern" you that the films weren't faithful to the material (in short, if you don't think that the books are "art"), you'd be hard-pressed to convince me the the second-generation Bond material (i.e. the screenplays/movies) should be treated as such, even at their very best.
Okay, two things; 1)I never said that I don't respect the books. Yes, I haven't read them and nor do I intend to any time soon, but that doesn't mean I don't respect the books. There are alot of books that I'm sure you haven't read. Your failure to read all of these books probably has less to do with your respect of the particular books and more to do with your priories. Reading the Fleming books is not a priority for me.
2)I don't know where you got that I don't consider the Fleming books to be art. I never said that, nor have I ever implied that. Yes, it doesn't concern me if the films are not faithful to the books, but that doesn't mean that I don't consider the books to be art. It simply means that if CR was unfaithful to the novel, I would not be among those who would be upset. I consider the books to be art just as I consider the 'second-generation Bond material' to be art.
ASP, I am delighted to be discussing Bond with a fellow fan, but please don't put words in my mouth. If I truly felt that the Fleming books weren't art, I would say so.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
My initial point was that, although I like the early films, I thought there was nothing inherently wrong with re-making them, especially as there was much left over in the original source material (i.e. Fleming's novels). This point of view "astounded" you.
I explained that, since the producers seemed content to take any liberties they wanted (e.g. with the original material, with casting etc), they had lost the moral high ground, IMO; and since they didn't treat the source material with respect (i.e., as art) I saw no reason to treat the films as such.
You responded that the way the producers treated the original material didn't "concern" you; and that their treatment had no bearing on how the subsequent flms themselves should be treated.
Comments
Does that include Never Say Never Again?
I like your positive waves, Jarvio.
No it doesn't. I must admit I don't like NSNA as I've stated elsewhere. Also, I don't really count it as a bond film as it's unofficial.
1 - Moore, 2 - Dalton, 3 - Craig, 4 - Connery, 5 - Brosnan, 6 - Lazenby
DAF: here it would be more difficult. They would have to improve on the story. The Spang brothers, Wint and Kidd would have to become deadly adversaries similar to Francisco Scaramanga. It could be something like the Corleones ... and a Tiffiny Case / Lauren Bacall type. Ditch the space stuff. Maybe have Bond participate in a gigantic diamond heist to prove he's Peter Franks.
______________________
One of the Little People, G Section
"Surely, you're joking!!?"
"Don't call me Shirley."
If remade today, OHMSS will be much shorter. Bond's line when he sees Tracy after escaping from Piz Gloria: "I'm ever so glad to see you, darling. Do you have a cell phone?"
I've often thought about the "where do we go from here?" question regarding how Bond films should be made post-CR. If the first 20 films are null and void in this new Bond universe that is slated to last at least as long as Craig is 007, why not re-make them? They effectively "don't exist" otherwise, right? If Casino Royaleis any indication, they could be more Fleming in the sense that more source material is used, and classics that sometimes go under the radar in the modern action/adventure genre could be appreciated appropriately by a whole new generation. Further, those films that weren't done as well could be given that much needed face lift and only increase the creative genius of the series. Of course there is the risk audiences would not except a series of re-makes, and much of this depends on whether or not audiences recognize/accept the re-boot Casino Royale offers. Nevertheless, it's clearly a question worth asking again.
Am I reading this right?
Are some of my fellow Bond-fans even seriously discussing the possibilities of Bond re-makes? Shocking!
Worse than shocking! OUTRAGEOUS! I must be losing whatever I have left of my intelligent mind.
(Dont get me wrong. I would love to see TMWTGG, for instance, get remade. But should it? No. And therein lies the discussion).
With all due respect, V12Vanquish, your mate seriously needs to readjust his Bond worldview. Its one thing to say Brosnan films are the best in the series, its another to dismiss the first 16 films as "not worth bothering with." (?!?!?). Are you kidding me? I mean, seriously, is that that not one of the most jawdroppingly dumb (sorry to be rude) comments in the whole history of this website?
An opinion is an opinion but ...your mate CANNOT be serious.
Ladies and gentlemen, I have been a proud member of this special Bond site for over a year now and have tried to avoid any type of confrontation...until now.
V12Vanquish, next time you see your mate tell him that thank you, no, the Bond films should never be remade. Period. I am BEYOND sick and tired of living in a disposeable movie culture which feels the need to remake movies that don't need to be remade. Remake FRWL because the FX aren't CGI? That is, without a doubt, and far away, the single most ridiculous opinion I have ever read in over a year on this site.
Lets be clear about this, V12Vanquish. Bond fans come in all ages and sizes, and respective opinions. Make no mistake, a younger Bond fan might enjoy TND over, say, TB, and all power to his opinion. But to outright dismiss 30 years of Bond classics as "not worth bothering with" tells me one thing.
Your mate is NOT a Bond fan. (Let him know, by the way, just in case he deluded himself into thinking he was one) His opinion is not only relegated to the Bondian trash-heap in my books , but his comment taps into something larger which needs to be addressed.
AGEism is a two-way street and both sides of the street are not pretty. As much as some youth disregard their elders, they are no worse than the elders that disregard the younger generation. Both are dead wrong in the manner in which they dismiss each other's worldview.
I say this because V12Vanquish's friend is obviously not of my generation and, as such, has a different outlook than my own. As a Bond fan frow way back in the day... I can accept the fact that even a teenaged Bond-fan can be as passionate and expert about the series as an older fan. (Indeed, most hardcore Bond-fans begin early).
What I object to...and you can tell my anger starts to rise...is there is a certain dismissive attitude towards the past that every young generation falls prey to in the long run. This generation can produce a class act like Kanye West, who liberally samples Shirley Bassey from DAF in his song Diamonds, but is on record saying he thought she was an unknown, and was suprised to discover that she is suing him for royalties. Does that make any sense?
Kanye is a very bright man so it is a little sad that he could make that kind of blunder. Its as bad as the Beatles never having heard of Chuck Berry or Al Pacino saying Marlon Brando is too far in the past to care about. Or as bad as Sinatra dismissing the history of rock and roll (which he did).
Its out and out pure laziness to dismiss the past in art. And it smacks of a limited mind when an opinion is solely based on just the present, with no frame of reference to the past.
The reason for this rant? Very simple.
The attitude of V12 Vanquish's friend is the b.s attitude which permeates the world of Hollywood. To a tee. And I, for one, am getting sick and tired of years of sub-standard product from an industry that at one time, at least nominally, stood for quality.
Hollywood is nowadays generally run by scared people who (a) don't know who William Holden, William Wyler or, say, Robert Aldrich were back in the day but can tell you Jennifer Aniston's dating life from high school.
And (b) want to remake (in other words, cannibilize) everything in Hollywood's history because those bums in the market research dept say its "peak" time to remake Mod Squad or...ScoobyDoo...or... lets remake The Matrix, fellas. Its overdue. Its so '90's.
Hey. lets remake Sam Peckinpah's The Wild Bunch because...why not? (Sound familiar, V12).
And you know, somewhere in the bowels of Eon or Sony is some hungry young exec who in the future will have absolutely no problem in wanting to remake Goldfinger.
Why? Because the special F/X are not up to 21st century standards.
I despise that kind of creative thinking and believe that is the main reason Hollywood is not the glorious dream factory it once was...and should be.
So here's to your friend, V12, the shallowest amongst us all, who in believing pre-Pierce Bond "is not worth bothering" will pretty much guarantee him a top spot in any major Hollywood studio.
"The things I do for England."
Anyway, I think that you're definitely correct in that it's fine to prefer DAD to GF
*I'm 23 yet my definition of old would be pre-1960. Not that there's anything wrong with pre-1960 films of course.
Perhaps I overstated my case, but I stand by the comments. However, the tone of the post is, as you say, "angry" and there is no excuse for that.
I have always felt right at home at this sight. Bond fans are generally sophisticated in their opinions and, as such, they are reflecting the sophistication of their favorite character. The point? If someone wants to slag the first 16 films...all power to him. Its just an opinion. THAT would have been the sophisticated response to such an opinion. But...
I realized something else. Bond-fans can argue and dissect the films and performances with the precision of Swiss watchmakers and the discussions are spirited but remain polite. Get Bond-fans talking about, say, the performances of Roger and Dalton, and battle lines are drawn. And that's all wonderful. Its Bond talk between Bond-fans. Long live 007!
However...
And this is where I came in...
I realized that the Bond series can be loved, appreciated, hated, mocked, dissected and. yes, even. disrespected by one and all. The beauty of AJB is everyone's two cents is equal.
All opinions are welcome...EXCEPT dismissal.
Dismissal of the first 16 films? Not "'worth mentioning"? That kind of dismissive remark triggers my defense mechanism regarding the series. Its one thing for movie critics and historians to disregard the quality of the series, its another to read it from a "Bond-fan" on a forum that appreciates all things Bond. Sorry, thats a Bondian no-no.
"That's as bad as listening to the Beatles without earmuffs."
I do like some other re-makes though. such as the Thomas Crown Affair i think it's better than the original..
Roger Moore 1927-2017
You talk a pretty good game, amigo, but your righteous anger is misplaced; save that fine speech-making for a cause that's worth fighting for. Personally, I wouldn't want to see the early classics remade, but the series' producers lost the moral high ground a long time ago, when they first thought to replace the original Bond with another for the sake of the "franchise". With that one craven move, they basically said "all bets are off...and we'll do anything for a buck". In comparison, thinking about re-making "Dr. No" with the flavour of the month is actually quite charming, and flattering. What's the big deal, anyway? We'll always have the Connery original.
I'm sure BZ appreciates your compliment in the spirit it was intended,
For my own part, I'm very grateful that Eon chose not to fold up the tent and go home when Connery got too bored to continue. Craven or not, I've enjoyed quite a lot of Eon's stuff since the Scotsman departed.
Again, welcome to the site. {[]
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
thanks for the welcome. I too am glad that the series didn't end with Connery, but in deciding to continue it the producers acknowledged that they weren't making art, at least in their own opinion (i.e. Da Vinci didn't paint the Mona Lisa over and over again with different models). So, if the makers themselves don't think it's art, who are we to treat it as such? Why not re-make Dr. No? Even a hack Hollywood screenwriter might be able to do a decent job if he was working again from Fleming's story/material; it's when these hacks start doing 'original' work that the series suffers. And yes, I hope Big Zilcho took the compliment the way I intended; he knows his stuff, better than I do, but on this one he was like Jack Wilson going up against Shane: fast on the draw, but not fast enough.
Thanks again L
ASP
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I completely disagree. Re-making DN 'with the flavour of the month' is IMO completely unnecessary and an insult to the original. The big deal is that if people want to watch DN, they should watch the original which was superb, instead of some stupid Hollywood remake.
Well, I treat it as art. I think that OHMSS was great art as was TSWLM. As for remaking DN, how can you say that any screenwriter could do a decent job when what made DN so great was the cast, the direction, the screenplay, the music and alot of other things which weren't in the novel. Finally, considering that I loved GE and TWINE, I don't think the series suffers when the writers start doing original work.
Look, I think that you underestimate the cinematic contributions to DN. There is no doubt that Fleming gave the filmmakers a solid foundation from which to work but to overlook all the unique cinematic contributions to DN (e.g.cast) quite honestly astounds me.
The Fleming novels were recognized almost immediately as being a cut above the standard fare for the genre (later, and most famously, by John F Kennedy).
Even in the earliest Bonds, the producers/ writers took liberties with the original material, some for justifiable cinematic reasons, others for less justifiable ones. There was a wealth of fascinating details and story lines in the Dr No and Goldfinger novels that went unused (and I'm not being naive here - much of it COULD have been used; as Howard Hawks said to John Huston when the latter asked for advice on how to write and direct The Maltese Falcon, "film the book"...and Huston did almost exactly that, to great effect).
What does the 'moral high ground' have to do with anything, you ask? I'm surprised someone like you, who treats the Bond series with such respect and affection, would ask something like that. People who think the series trashy and irrelevant might laugh at the notion of a moral high ground in this instance, but I think it’s a valid approach.
It wasn't that the producers simply continued on after Connery left (and, by the way, I don't begrudge them or anyone else the attempt/right to make money; but I CAN question they value/ethics of HOW they or anyone else makes that money. As Bogart said: "It's not a thief I mind, it's a cut-rate thief"). They'd already showed themselves not the literary types by how they adapted the novels for the first few screenplays; but they made it worse by allowing into the mix -- after Connery left -- an almost tongue-in-cheek attitude that seemed to mock the whole seriousness of the enterprise; an annoying wink-and-a-nudge approach (exemplified at its worse by an aging Roger Moore) that further vitiated the power of the Fleming material.
The shame of it was that I believe you could have made serious, literary, adult entertainment that was also sexy and fast moving and exciting; the producers, evidently, didn't think so, IMHO.
So my point is, if the producers didn't handle the material like art, and if in the original material there is much left to be mined, why not give another screenwriter and an actor a chance to re-explore the possibilities of, say, Dr. No.
You seem to want it both ways, i.e. to say that talking about moral high ground is nonsense, while asking that the entire series (uneven at best, badly flawed and irrelevant at its worst) be treated with some high degree of respect.
Except I don't think that the producers lost the so-called 'moral high ground' simply because they decided to replace Connery; a hired hand.
I am a film Bond fan (I have never read the novels) and I have no problem with the approach that some of the post-Connery films took. The fact that some of the films weren't faithful to Fleming doesn't concern me. I hated AVTAK but I also hated TLD. So considering that I enjoyed most of the Bond films, I have no problem with the way the producers have made their money.
You're assuming that only you know the meaning of art. I don't agree. I'm not concerned with the literally side of Bond. So Dalton may be very Fleming-like but he is my least favourite Bond. In response to your comment, I would say that the producer have handled the films like art; it's just that some films were better than others. I think that most of Moore's films were suprior to TLD (except for AVTAK which I think was the worst of all) and I also didn't like DAD. But each film has its own significance. I wouldn't want DN to be remade because not only was it superb but it's unnecessary. Why not remake every film that is ever made? I personlly wouldn't want to remake any Bond film, even the bad ones, because each IMO is special in its own way. But also, I think that all of the Bpond films are art. (It's just that some are of a higher quality art than others.) Plus, even though I hate AVTAK, TLD and DAD, they are not among my all-time least favourite films.
Except I don't agree that the series is 'uneven at best, badly flawed and irrelevant at its worst.' I love the series and while there are some Bond films which I don't particularly like (in comparison to other Bond films) such as AVTAK, TLD and DAD, I generally like all the Bond films. Yes, I think the series should be treated with respect; I just don't agree with you abot what constitutes the 'moral high ground.'
no, you never insulted the novels, and I never said you did. But then you say:
"I am a film Bond fan (I have never read the novels) and I have no problem with the approach that some of the post-Connery films took. The fact that some of the films weren't faithful to Fleming doesn't concern me."
Understood, and it's your perogative, and I dare say you know the Bond series much better than I do. But to your comments I'd then say:
1) Do yourself a favour and read the books, e.g. Dr. No is a good place to start. You'll enjoy them.
2) If you haven't read the books, you'll never understand how much of their power and charm was taken out of them by the screenplays/movies, especially after Connery left. But perhaps this doesn't concern you.
3) If you have so little respect for the original material not to even have read it, and if it "doesn't concern" you that the films weren't faithful to the material (in short, if you don't think that the books are "art"), you'd be hard-pressed to convince me the the second-generation Bond material (i.e. the screenplays/movies) should be treated as such, even at their very best.
ASP
that last one was a Moonraker remake deep underneath all the clever references and digital special effects
the one I want them to remake is You Only Live Twice
done properly, as the sequel to the events in OHMSS
with an unrelaiable despondent Bond whose past his prime,
a Blofeld whose gone round the bend this time with suicide garden and castle complete
and ending with an amnesiac Bond whose dead to the world
if theyre going to follow up a grim-n-gritty true-to-Fleming Casino Royale with another film in the same style, thatd be the one Id want to see
Okay, two things; 1)I never said that I don't respect the books. Yes, I haven't read them and nor do I intend to any time soon, but that doesn't mean I don't respect the books. There are alot of books that I'm sure you haven't read. Your failure to read all of these books probably has less to do with your respect of the particular books and more to do with your priories. Reading the Fleming books is not a priority for me.
2)I don't know where you got that I don't consider the Fleming books to be art. I never said that, nor have I ever implied that. Yes, it doesn't concern me if the films are not faithful to the books, but that doesn't mean that I don't consider the books to be art. It simply means that if CR was unfaithful to the novel, I would not be among those who would be upset. I consider the books to be art just as I consider the 'second-generation Bond material' to be art.
ASP, I am delighted to be discussing Bond with a fellow fan, but please don't put words in my mouth. If I truly felt that the Fleming books weren't art, I would say so.
no, you're doing all your own talking.
My initial point was that, although I like the early films, I thought there was nothing inherently wrong with re-making them, especially as there was much left over in the original source material (i.e. Fleming's novels). This point of view "astounded" you.
I explained that, since the producers seemed content to take any liberties they wanted (e.g. with the original material, with casting etc), they had lost the moral high ground, IMO; and since they didn't treat the source material with respect (i.e., as art) I saw no reason to treat the films as such.
You responded that the way the producers treated the original material didn't "concern" you; and that their treatment had no bearing on how the subsequent flms themselves should be treated.
I think we should agree to disagree.
ASP
Sometimes it's good to see another directors interpritation