If the franchise was to be rebooted again.........

MilleniumForce

.........should it be set in the past?

Personally, I would quite like to see that, as it allows the series to be more creative and unique than other big current franchises, in terms of aesthetically, story wise, gadgets, characters etc.

I'm not saying once Craig has left, but maybe further down the line.

Sir Miles

No...Bond needs to be 'current' or 'five minutes into the future'...a 'one off' retro film could work, but I don't think it would be commercially successful to set them in the past...

Matt S

Sir Miles wrote:

No...Bond needs to be 'current' or 'five minutes into the future'...a 'one off' retro film could work, but I don't think it would be commercially successful to set them in the past...

I've always been against a period Bond film for this reason. Younger people especially won't be interested in it. And I love how Bond is 'five minutes into the future'. The new Man from UNCLE movie completely lost that part of the Man from UNCLE TV series because something set in the past can't be futuristic (unless it's Star Wars). And if something set in the past tries to be futuristic, it comes off as cheesy or as a complete joke. Bond's futuristic gadgets were always cool.

I also think Bond needs to be current to stay relevant. Since the 90s, there has been much within the Bond films to prove he's still relevant. In SF and SP, Bond has to be proven relevant within the film, and I think that's saying something about the reality of a 60+ year old character. Men want to be like Bond, and women desire Bond. If he's back in the 1950s that will change because Bond won't be relatable in the same way. The essence of Bond will be lost in a period film. A film set in the past can allow Fleming's stories to be more closely adapted. But because Fleming set Bond in the present, I think Bond should always stay in the present to stay truer to what the character represents.

Thunderpussy

Although with the money to be made from Box sets, Perhaps eon could,using the time
between movies, a short TV series set in the late 50s. Covering the Fleming short stories ?
.... I know I'm only dreaming, but it's an idea.

Gassy Man

MilleniumForce wrote:

.........should it be set in the past?

Personally, I would quite like to see that, as it allows the series to be more creative and unique than other big current franchises, in terms of aesthetically, story wise, gadgets, characters etc.

I'm not saying once Craig has left, but maybe further down the line.

Depends on who the audience is. Mass audiences tend to think anything contemporary is automatically better than anything from the past or set in the past. For lack of a better term, more refined audiences are able to make the leap and may even prefer it artistically.

Given that it takes so long to make Bond movies these days, I think it would be a mistake. For instance, right now, fad and fashion is robbing the mid- to late-1960s, so a Bond film set in that period might seem "fresh" and vogue to even young audiences, who don't know any better. But two or three years from now, we might be regurgitating the 1980s again, in which case a 1960s Bond won't seem "current."

However, should they make a TV series along the lines of Endeavour or Downton Abbey, then it could and probably would work. A mini-series, as we call them in the U.S., of the Fleming books set in their time period might actually work well, especially if it has high production values and the gravitas of other successful series.

Sir Miles

Thunderpussy wrote:

Although with the money to be made from Box sets, Perhaps eon could,using the time
between movies, a short TV series set in the late 50s. Covering the Fleming short stories ?
.... I know I'm only dreaming, but it's an idea.

It's an idea I floated over 10 years ago...and probably someone else thought of it 20 years before that...it's a lovely dream but I reckon that's all it will ever be

Gassy Man

MilleniumForce wrote:

.........should it be set in the past?

Personally, I would quite like to see that, as it allows the series to be more creative and unique than other big current franchises, in terms of aesthetically, story wise, gadgets, characters etc.

I'm not saying once Craig has left, but maybe further down the line.

Depends on who the audience is. Mass audiences tend to think anything contemporary is automatically better than anything from the past or set in the past. For lack of a better term, more refined audiences are able to make the leap and may even prefer it artistically.

Given that it takes so long to make Bond movies these days, I think it would be a mistake. For instance, right now, fad and fashion is robbing the mid- to late-1960s, so a Bond film set in that period might seem "fresh" and vogue to even young audiences, who don't know any better. But two or three years from now, we might be regurgitating the 1980s again, in which case a 1960s Bond won't seem "current."

However, should they make a TV series along the lines of Endeavour or Downton Abbey, then it could and probably would work. A mini-series, as we call them in the U.S., of the Fleming books set in their time period might actually work well, especially if it has high production values and the gravitas of other successful series.

Loeffelholz

First of all, I hope that they don't reboot again anytime soon, save for the 'soft reboot' that always happens when a new guy steps into the role.

That said, I agree with those who maintain that Cinematic Bond should always be very much 'in the moment;' in the here and now.

I've said it countless times here, but I strongly urge Eon to consider a separate animated series of films or episodes (for mature audiences) strictly based on the original Fleming novels and period-correct, from 1953 to 1964, sold to HBO, Netflix, Hulu or Amazon streaming services. This would widen the character's pop-culture footprint, create an additional revenue stream for Eon, and be entirely separate from the existing film franchise.

eric7064

As much as I'd like to see it, it won't happen. As others have said it needs to stay modern to grab new audiences. That's why Bond is great, how long is has endured for over 50 years.

MilleniumForce

I disagree that audiences automatically think modern is better. The X - Men franchise has moved to be set in the past, and now it's doing better than ever, with both First Class and Days of Future Past doing well critically and box office wise.

Gassy Man

MilleniumForce wrote:

I disagree that audiences automatically think modern is better. The X - Men franchise has moved to be set in the past, and now it's doing better than ever, with both First Class and Days of Future Past doing well critically and box office wise.

I wouldn't say everyone does, but mass audiences tend to. I see it in my students, for instance, all the time. It's trickier with franchises, though. We've been inundated with comic book movies for at least the past decade -- something I'm incredibly tired of -- the same way that sci-fi and space opera inundated theaters in 80s and 90s because of Star Wars. At some point, people get fatigued, and they have to start doing something to differentiate them, especially if they are adapting them already from some other source, like comic books.

But Bond these days is more of an event than a trend. We get the films every two or three years. The spy genre hasn't dominated since the 1960s, and arguably, what we usually get these days are really action movies with a marginal spy setting, or they're reboots of classic TV shows, like The Man from UNCLE. If many spy movies were coming out every season, though, I could them considering a Bond film set in the past to differentiate, the same way a comic book franchise might.

Matt S

Bond copied Bourne because it was successful in the same genre. It's not going to copy the failure of the genre, The Man from UNCLE.

Miles Messervy

Matt S wrote:

But because Fleming set Bond in the present, I think Bond should always stay in the present to stay truer to what the character represents.

This has always been my argument against it. It's also why I dislike the recent insistence on setting Bond novels in the past. By design, the character was meant to live in the present times.

welshboy78

They need to put it back a few years so they can re-use the real MI6 building again!!!! Unless of course it is rebuilt just like the Death Star!!

For some reason I keep thinking about that building and what an odd decision to demolish it in SPECTRE

MarcAngeDraco

Not in the main series.

Like others, I'd love a James Bond television series of the quality of Mad Men that faithfully adapt Fleming's novels, and is set in the 50s and 60s.

chrisisall

MarcAngeDraco wrote:

Not in the main series.

Like others, I'd love a James Bond television series of the quality of Mad Men that faithfully adapt Fleming's novels, and is set in the 50s and 60s.

From your mouth to EoN's ear.

IanT

The next film should be a soft reboot, set in the present with a new Bond but the current supporting cast.

Blofeld should return but drop the foster brother thing.

MarcAngeDraco

chrisisall wrote:

MarcAngeDraco wrote:

Not in the main series.

Like others, I'd love a James Bond television series of the quality of Mad Men that faithfully adapt Fleming's novels, and is set in the 50s and 60s.

From your mouth to EoN's ear.

Ha hopefully. Wasn't there a rumour flying about that Matthew Weiner was developing the next Bond film?

IanT wrote:

The next film should be a soft reboot, set in the present with a new Bond but the current supporting cast.
Blofeld should return but drop the foster brother thing.

This, though I wouldn't be too upset to lose Naomie Harris. Fiennes and Whishaw are two of the best casting decisions that the series has made, with solid characterisation and writing to back them up (though they, in my book, treaded a very fine line by having M in on the action again in SP, and those juvenile stickers on Q's laptop, but minor gripes in the grand scheme of things). I'd much rather Rachael Stirling or Rose Leslie as Moneypenny.

HowardB

If Craig returns for 25, obviously no reboot; but I would like to see them get back to a tighter leaner storyline and move on from the obsessive nods to the past. If a new actor comes on board it all depends who that actor is. If it is Michael Fassbender or possibly Dan Stevens then they can pretty much continue on from SPECTRE. With Tom Hiddleston a more traditional "mild reboot" would be in order.
Personally I'd prefer Craig return to finish up the Blofeld/SPECTRE story arch. After that they can recast, reboot, reload, and re whatever.

zaphod99

MarcAngeDraco wrote:

chrisisall wrote:

MarcAngeDraco wrote:

Not in the main series.

Like others, I'd love a James Bond television series of the quality of Mad Men that faithfully adapt Fleming's novels, and is set in the 50s and 60s.

From your mouth to EoN's ear.

Ha hopefully. Wasn't there a rumour flying about that Matthew Weiner was developing the next Bond film?

IanT wrote:

The next film should be a soft reboot, set in the present with a new Bond but the current supporting cast.
Blofeld should return but drop the foster brother thing.

This, though I wouldn't be too upset to lose Naomie Harris. Fiennes and Whishaw are two of the best casting decisions that the series has made, with solid characterisation and writing to back them up (though they, in my book, treaded a very fine line by having M in on the action again in SP, and those juvenile stickers on Q's laptop, but minor gripes in the grand scheme of things). I'd much rather Rachael Stirling or Rose Leslie as Moneypenny.

Likewise. Fiennes and Wishaw are inspired choices, but I have never quite bought Harris as Moneypenny. I have seen her elsewhere and she can be superb, maybe the writing is not quite as sharp for her.

Matt S

zaphod99 wrote:

MarcAngeDraco wrote:

chrisisall wrote:

From your mouth to EoN's ear.

Ha hopefully. Wasn't there a rumour flying about that Matthew Weiner was developing the next Bond film?

IanT wrote:

The next film should be a soft reboot, set in the present with a new Bond but the current supporting cast.
Blofeld should return but drop the foster brother thing.

This, though I wouldn't be too upset to lose Naomie Harris. Fiennes and Whishaw are two of the best casting decisions that the series has made, with solid characterisation and writing to back them up (though they, in my book, treaded a very fine line by having M in on the action again in SP, and those juvenile stickers on Q's laptop, but minor gripes in the grand scheme of things). I'd much rather Rachael Stirling or Rose Leslie as Moneypenny.

Likewise. Fiennes and Wishaw are inspired choices, but I have never quite bought Harris as Moneypenny. I have seen her elsewhere and she can be superb, maybe the writing is not quite as sharp for her.

Lois Maxwell hasn't been surpassed. Harris has had some awful dialogue. And making her a bad field agent who M-Mans trusts over Bond makes her worse. I don't dislike Harris like I dislike Samantha Bond. Her writing was too inconsistent, and I didn't like that she didn't seem to care for Bond at all half the time. It wasn't even playful with her like with Maxwell. I think Harris could be great if she's written better/differently.

IanT

I agree, Harris had a bum deal when her character was written. Could have been far better.

chrisisall

I actually love Naomi in the role. :x