A James Bond Period Piece?

What if?

I know the franchise has already gone through a "major" change, but what if they decide (with the actor following Daniel Craig) to make a Bond adventure set in the 1960s? I usually am not really for "abstract" like this, but truth be told, I would be all for a period piece. To me it is a fascinating concept.

Old Aston Martin, pay phones, typewriters...sixities era charm? The one thing I wouldn't want thought is Russia as the main villain (a la Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull). Yes the Soviets would be in the background, but with a villain more like SPECTRE or Goldfinger....

Thoughts?

1) A 50s or 60s period piece the number one thing I believe the Bond series needs to do to become successful again.
2) EON will never, ever, ever do it. They are committed to the idea of a modern Bond with modern product placements.

I'd love to see a faithful Moonraker adaptation one day, preferably a TV-film or mini-series in black and white and targetted at adults. Bond can be played by Craig or someone else (ie. Fassbender). I see no problem in parallel Bond projects. Such a film wouldn't necessarily compete with the theatrical modern-day adventures. I'm sure something like that crosses EON's mind regularly, but they ultimately don't have the balls to do a period piece project. If Sherlock Holmes can have so many adaptations, I don't see why not Bond. Other than Moonraker, a proper Casino Royale, Blofeld trilogy, and the short stories would be excellent options as well.

I'd love a period piece. Though maybe the fifties, and not the 60s. There is no reason why they couldn't do this. Perhaps that Mendes "revolutionary" ideas were that his film would be set in the 50s?

Oh and I think Fassbender would be an excellent choice.

SJK91 wrote:

What if?

I know the franchise has already gone through a "major" change, but what if they decide (with the actor following Daniel Craig) to make a Bond adventure set in the 1960s? I usually am not really for "abstract" like this, but truth be told, I would be all for a period piece. To me it is a fascinating concept.

Old Aston Martin, pay phones, typewriters...sixities era charm? The one thing I wouldn't want thought is Russia as the main villain (a la Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull). Yes the Soviets would be in the background, but with a villain more like SPECTRE or Goldfinger....

Thoughts?

This has been discussed before at the Place we shall not name. It has numerous advantages from a quality point of view, not least of which the fact that you can then place the character in the era he was intended for. But it will never happen, and the reason is simply the slavish commitment to product placement. Bond needs to flog cars, watches and other assorted good and plenty before tiny little details like staying true to the character comes into play. And they can't do that in a period piece.

That product placement thing is tragic I agree.

And it is also bullsh*t.

But movies are all about making money first, I suppose. And especially a cash cow like James Bond couldn't afford to not have the ability to "product place". And to me that really, really sucks. It truly is tragic. :(

SJK91 wrote:

a cash cow like James Bond couldn't afford to not have the ability to "product place".

I personally think they can very easily afford to let the product placement go. These films make absolute bucketloads at the box-office. It's just greed, all about money as you said, though more a case of them having a s***load of it already but still greedily wanting more at the expense of the quality of the actual product. What happened with Dalton was a perfect example; Dalton's films made good money at the box-office (yes, even LTK), yet it wasn't enough for EON. So, at the expense of a great actor in the leading role, they cast a far less skilled but more child-friendly, American-friendly actor just to make a few more bucks. Films like LA Confidential more than prove that a thriller set in the 1950s can still pack all the punch of modern day-set thrillers and still pull in more than enough money at the box-office. Add the Bond brand name to that and you've got box-office gold. And LA Confidential will always tower above anything Barbara Broccoli ever puts her name to IMO. There's no reason Bond can't be a period film and still flourish. Heck, I think it would benefit the character greatly to be put back in his time; A time where he can't be pussified or Bourned any further.

GeneralGogol wrote:

I'd love to see a faithful Moonraker adaptation one day, preferably a TV-film or mini-series in black and white and targetted at adults. Bond can be played by Craig or someone else (ie. Fassbender). I see no problem in parallel Bond projects. Such a film wouldn't necessarily compete with the theatrical modern-day adventures. I'm sure something like that crosses EON's mind regularly, but they ultimately don't have the balls to do a period piece project. If Sherlock Holmes can have so many adaptations, I don't see why not Bond. Other than Moonraker, a proper Casino Royale, Blofeld trilogy, and the short stories would be excellent options as well.

I basically agree with this entirely.

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

1) A 50s or 60s period piece the number one thing I believe the Bond series needs to do to become successful again.
2) EON will never, ever, ever do it. They are committed to the idea of a modern Bond with modern product placements.

My thoughts exactly.

I'd love to see a period piece. Not only would it be a nice curveball, but done well, I think it could be very effective.

I agree with Fairbairn-Sykes, as well.

Most of EON's target audience today (teens) probably haven't even watched a Bond movie made before 1995. A Bond of the 50s would mean less political correctness, too, which is just out of the question these days. He'd be crucified for excessive smoking, drinking, gambling, and fucking.

Victory for kids.

GG had an interesting comment, though. We'd probably be better off finding a Bond period piece, or even a faithful adaptation of one of Fleming's novels, in a mini-series or on a radio program. Did anyone check out that radio program with Toby Stephens as James Bond? I believe they adapted "Dr. No", and was wondering how it turned out.

In another thread:

Vesper wrote:

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

]What I'm getting at is can you imagine if BBC or AMC or someone did a TV mini-series based solely on the books? Y'know, period and all. Racism, sexism, smoking, cigarettes, etc etc. Do six episode seasons with each season covering a book. That sort of thing.

It doesn't have to be INSTEAD of the EON series, but it would be nice if EON could lax up a little to have something like that running beside the movies. Certainly help keep interest afloat during the dry spells.

Heh. I almost started a thread with that exact idea before MI6 was wiped.

From my observations, part of the reason Bond thrives is from constantly being compared to itself, eg. what Bond girl was better, what Bond was better etc - not just on the internet but when it comes up in real conversation. So I hardly think something like that would dilute the brand as it were. Business wise, Bond is a big enough commodity that you'd probably be able to secure co-financing from a wide number of television networks around the world, and it would sell on home video for eternity.

Still, I can't see it happening. Certainly not anytime soon, then again, supposedly EON had a large role in those James Bond radio plays on the BBC...

I emphasise the bolded part because that's one point that may help with the reduced ability to place product affecting its viability (Though they'd still be able to fit some in, I'm certain). Of course the big problem with period pieces (especially any with lots of exterior action, like the Bond novels have) is they're exhorbidantly expensive. There's a reason Mad Men's almost entirely set indoors.

I think it might happen one day, but it won't be any time soon. I can picture it clear as day though in my mind and it's orgasmic.

I'm all for it. Never liked the "modern Bond" approach, neither in the novels nor in the films. Bond belongs to the 1950s-1970s. When they started to rejuvenate Bond (with Dalton) and still set the films in the current time they've lost their appeal, IMO. I would have loved it if they would have set Dalton's first film in the 1950s or early 1960s, and I would have loved a faithful period piece adaptation of CR, but that didn't happen.

I'm confident though that at some time in the future Bond will be "rediscovered" as material from a certain time period and that we some day will see new Bond films set in that period. I have no idea as to when that might happen, though. Perhaps in twenty or thirty years?

Shame EON snatched the rights to Casino Royale. As the series' first novel and (argubly) Fleming's magnum opus, it's surely the one that demands a faithful adaptation. No money spent on crane chases or sinking houses or anything concocted to eat up screentime, but rather the money would be spent on authenticity. Imagine how terrific Royale-les-Eaux could look with a decent budget.

As far as casting the lead, I've been watching Mad Men all week so I immediately picture Jon Hamm.

Perhaps the oft-touted Fassbender could do an admirable job.

Oh well, engaging in hypotheticals is depressing when you remember that the next time you see Bond in action, he'll be flogging iPads and discussing trust with Judi Dench.

If it was a one-off tv movie or something I wouldn't mind but not as Bond 24 or anything subsequent. I guess I prefer Bond to stay with the times.

I firmly believe that a character is a product of their times. Sometimes the character is broad enough that he can be reinvented for a modern era, for example Batman or Superman, but largely I think most fictional characters belong in their original eras -- Sherlock Holmes should stay in Victorian London, Dick Tracy in Capone-era Chicago and Bond in the Post-War Empire. When they set the new X-MEN movie in the 60s it really made me realize how many of the original themes of that comic (which debuted in 1963, I believe) were coming from the Red Scare, the Civil Rights Movement, and the Youth Movement of that era. The only real modern thematic allegory in X-Men comics now are gay rights.

If there was a Bond feature set in the 1950s or 1960s, my money would be on James Purefoy. He really looks the part of the lethal, Connery-style secret agent.

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

1) A 50s or 60s period piece the number one thing I believe the Bond series needs to do to become successful again.
2) EON will never, ever, ever do it. They are committed to the idea of a modern Bond with modern product placements.

Good points. But there's something else at play here as well. I don't think Barbara would allow the series to be done as a period piece and still retain the social prejudices of the time. What makes Fleming more interesting for me as a reader now as opposed to 20 or 30 years ago is that you have the advantage of seeing how the world has changed since the 1950's, and I think that that would be an added bonus for viewers as well. I'll give you a great example: MAD MEN. I have never been interested in the 50's or 60's until I saw MAD MEN. One of the two reasons I love the show is because I know how it's ultimately going to end for so many of these characters, but it's still fascinating to watch nonetheless. However, if you do show some of Bond or Fleming's "prejudices" in the films you're going to get a lot of resistance and blow-back from certain rights groups, and if you don't include them in your movie and show them in anything less than a flattering light you'll be accused of white-washing history (see criticism of: The Help, Captain America and X:MEN FIRST CLASS)

The other problem with doing a period piece is that, once again, EON would find itself following a trend instead of creating one. We've now got at least 3 big named 60's themed television shows on TV right now: MAD MEN, and then ABC has Pan Am coming out in September, and NBC has The Playboy Club coming out soon. Plus, quite honestly, Don Draper *IS* the James Bond so many of the fans have been waiting for. It's too bad this show wasn't set against the world of international espionage instead of advertising. I'm not sure after having watched all four seasons of MAD MEN on tv that I could imagine a James Bond being set in the 60's that wasn't also filmed in the 60's.

Unfortunately, I think EON's big opportunity to go back in time has passed them by. If they do it now they'll look like copycats.

Eon's Big Message is that Bond is still relevant to today's world. They're hardly going to undermine that by making a period piece.

Avarice wrote:

Eon's Big Message is that Bond is still relevant to today's world. They're hardly going to undermine that by making a period piece.

I apologize. My mistake. I must have misunderstood Barbara when she claimed she wanted to 'get back to Ian Fleming's Bond'

Avarice wrote:

Eon's Big Message is that Bond is still relevant to today's world. They're hardly going to undermine that by making a period piece.

And they need to flog as many contemporary crap as they can fit into 90-120 minutes of screentime.

Did anyone see Time After Time, where Jack the Ripper escapes to the 20th century in H G Well's time machine? That's the sort of 1950s-period Bond that Eon would be interested in making. After the invisible car, I give you Bond in a time machine.

Avarice wrote:

Did anyone see Time After Time, where Jack the Ripper escapes to the 20th century in H G Well's time machine? That's the sort of 1950s-period Bond that Eon would be interested in making. After the invisible car, I give you Bond in a time machine.

I saw that as a child. I even remember liking it... I can recall the scene where Wells comments about having eaten his first meal in the 20st century at that "Scottish restaurant" (McDonalds). :)

It''s actually a rather clever little film. Jack prefers the twentieth century because it's even more contemptuous of life than Victorian London.

I suspect the dream of a period Bond flick would most probably turn out to be the ultimate nightmare. Even if Eon didn't do their routine action and product placement job it still would be a 1950s or 1960s film produced fifty years later by a different generation and for a different audience. It would not be the same as an imagined Orson Welles Bond film of 1956 or so. It could look extremely stylish, like some of our wilder dreams. But in the end it would just be a 201X flick for the 201x crowd and would have to sell tickets to them. It's a dream I wouldn't want to come true.

There were Bond films set in the sixties - Sean Connery and George Lazenby were in them.

Devil May Care was an effort to return Bond to the sixties, and how well did that turn out? I found there was too much 2020 hindsight political commentary shoehorned in to take seriously. Fleming would not have written anything of the sort had he survived longer.

As time passes, there remains less real reason for Bond to remain an anachronism. It worked in NSNA, TLD and GE, but Craig's Bond is a product of the 80s and 90s, and would look like a reto-metro if he were to act any differently.

I for one don't need the series to take a bold step backward - I have my memories and the UE DVDs for that.