A James Bond Period Piece?

A series of period productions of the Bond novels wouldn't have to be usurpative of the film series. They could quite easily be complementary. I reiterate what I said earlier: I think without a doubt a massive part of Bond's appeal is the comparison between different actors, different films, different periods. A series of mini-series productions would only add to that, and while a massive undertaking, if pulled off to a high standard could attract a demographic or audience that aren't the usual type to see Bond films.

And while it would be an epic and expensive undertaking, with the new business model for television being long term profitability via dvd/home video sales with some product placement vs outright ad sales (though I doubt they'd struggle on that front either), and the fact that Bond has universal appeal that would see plenty of people keen to chip in to produce it, it doesn't seem impossible. Especially given the long term viability of the Bond franchise would no doubt see it re-run every year or two.

A series of adaptations of Fleming's novels, set in or around the original time in which they took place, is something that I've been calling for for years. I think that if EON set this up with a network like HBO or Showtime, they could do something really interesting that would in no way harm the main film series. It might even help the main film series, with those working on the TV version being able to try new things, tweak the formula, or give their work a harder edge, which might make EON more open to trying new things outside the formula if the audience reacts favorably to them in the TV adaptations of Fleming's work.

I advocate a series of faithful Fleming adaptations. Sort of like Agatha Christie's: Poirot.

Except without the humourless David Suchet.

It would be great if the Bond franchise had the same freedom as other big tentpoles.

Look at Batman, or Sherlock Holmes or Star Trek. The Batman in the video games is not the same as the Batman in the cartoons or comics or movies, and no one gets confused. Sherlock Holmes gets to be in a period action movie while he's in a contemporary serial. I don't think the whole stack of cards would fall down if EON licensed television rights to Bond to BBC to do period adaptations of Fleming's work --- say six episode series that adapt one book each or something like that. (Actually the Fleming books are very slight so I'm not sure what the episode to book range would be).

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

It would be great if the Bond franchise had the same freedom as other big tentpoles.

Look at Batman, or Sherlock Holmes or Star Trek. The Batman in the video games is not the same as the Batman in the cartoons or comics or movies, and no one gets confused. Sherlock Holmes gets to be in a period action movie while he's in a contemporary serial. I don't think the whole stack of cards would fall down if EON licensed television rights to Bond to BBC to do period adaptations of Fleming's work --- say six episode series that adapt one book each or something like that. (Actually the Fleming books are very slight so I'm not sure what the episode to book range would be).

TV movies would probably be the best way. Few times each year.

Kennon wrote:

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.

I don't quite agree. MAD MEN has more period truth to it than most pictures of the actual 60s, at least in terms of character behavior, so being at a remove from the time doesn't guarantee it coming up short. I don't know much about England in the 50s (well, I've read Fleming and seen ROOM AT THE TOP several times), but I absolutely love THE HOUR to death.

The thing that would most compromise a period film in look is that nobody has filmstocks like they used to use. There is still 50speed stock, but it doesn't look like the old stuff. Pouring a ton of light on a scene to get it to read because the film was too slow otherwise created a look of richness that hasn't been around since the 60s/early 70s, when faster (and crappier-looking) filmstocks came out. You can get the look a bit of the way with the digital intermediate process, but I find that most films misuse the DI to create the monochromatic crap that is everywhere these days. MAN WHO WASN'T THERE managed to take color stock and do a really good job of B&Wing it photochemically, so in theory you should be able to do better with the DI, but then again most DIs are 2K, not 4K, so you're losing a ton right off the top.

Mentioning Welles and Bond makes me think of that phony Welles-shoots-MOONRAKER website. Now THERE is an alternate reality i'd really like to visit (it's probably the same universe where we had Eric Braeden as Bond instead of Moore, and a moonbase and folks on Mars by 1985, a reality where solar power satellites provide a significant percentage of the world's energy, and the US has become the superest superpower by mining that drunk-with-platinum asteroid out in the belt (there's enought on that one hunk of rock to cause a total redistribution of wealth, which is I think why even Perot was talking about going to the belt with manned ships 20 years back.)

EDIT ADDON: I'd really LOVE to see period Bond done like FOYLE'S WAR, a few TVmovies per year The way STAR TREK should have been brought back in 1975, for that matter.

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?

I doubt very much whether Eon will do it, unless it's proved successful by another film franchise. They had the chance to make a period flick, but clearly elected against it.

Besides, the Bond films are made for a mass market. The franchise is one of MGMs major cash cows and period pieces won't cut it with a mainstream audience. They want to give it sleek cinematography/grading (high production values) and explosive action. That sells these days - hello, Michael Bay. That said, I'm expecting good things from DOP, Roger Deakins.

Having said all that, I'd really like to see a string of period Bond films.

AdamFarr wrote:

I doubt very much whether Eon will do it, unless it's proved successful by another film franchise. They had the chance to make a period flick, but clearly elected against it.

Besides, the Bond films are made for a mass market. The franchise is one of MGMs major cash cows and period pieces won't cut it with a mainstream audience. They want to give it sleek cinematography/grading (high production values) and explosive action. That sells these days - hello, Michael Bay. That said, I'm expecting good things from DOP, Roger Deakins.

Having said all that, I'd really like to see a string of period Bond films.

Well, everything that you've stated that is essential to selling Bond as a modern-day hero could just as well apply to a Bond film set in the 50's. And period pieces have been proven successful by other franchises: the Indiana Jones films were all set from the mid-30's to the mid-50's. The latest X-Men movie did reasonably well, and it was set in the 60's.

There are massively successful period pieces on television right now, from MAD MEN to DOWNTON ABBEY. But EON seems to follow trends more than creating them these days. LIVE AND LET DIE followed the trend of blaxploitation movies coming out in the early 70's. GOLDEN GUN capitalized on the popular Kung Fu movies trend. MOONRAKER was unquestionably influenced by STAR WARS. OCTOPUSSY (while a great film) was influenced by RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK. EON specifically mentioned The Bourne Series as their rationale for ditching Brosnan and going in a different direction. When U2 made their very popular version of the MISSION IMPOSSIBLE theme, EON followed it up a year later with Moby doing his theme (which was great as well).

MAD MEN has shown you can do a period piece with a not necessarily wholesome, likable character, and people will embrace it. The problem is that the first few seasons of MAD MEN's Don Draper felt so much like Fleming James Bond to me that I now consider Jon Hamm to be an honorary 007, and I'm not sure if EON went with a period piece that it could avoid the comparisons (which they could have done had they opted for a set of period pieces back in 2005 before anyone had ever heard of MAD MEN). Now it's probably the wrong time.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

AdamFarr wrote:

I doubt very much whether Eon will do it, unless it's proved successful by another film franchise. They had the chance to make a period flick, but clearly elected against it.

Besides, the Bond films are made for a mass market. The franchise is one of MGMs major cash cows and period pieces won't cut it with a mainstream audience. They want to give it sleek cinematography/grading (high production values) and explosive action. That sells these days - hello, Michael Bay. That said, I'm expecting good things from DOP, Roger Deakins.

Having said all that, I'd really like to see a string of period Bond films.

Well, everything that you've stated that is essential to selling Bond as a modern-day hero could just as well apply to a Bond film set in the 50's. And period pieces have been proven successful by other franchises: the Indiana Jones films were all set from the mid-30's to the mid-50's. The latest X-Men movie did reasonably well, and it was set in the 60's.

There are massively successful period pieces on television right now, from MAD MEN to DOWNTON ABBEY. But EON seems to follow trends more than creating them these days. LIVE AND LET DIE followed the trend of blaxploitation movies coming out in the early 70's. GOLDEN GUN capitalized on the popular Kung Fu movies trend. MOONRAKER was unquestionably influenced by STAR WARS. OCTOPUSSY (while a great film) was influenced by RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK. EON specifically mentioned The Bourne Series as their rationale for ditching Brosnan and going in a different direction. When U2 made their very popular version of the MISSION IMPOSSIBLE theme, EON followed it up a year later with Moby doing his theme (which was great as well).

MAD MEN has shown you can do a period piece with a not necessarily wholesome, likable character, and people will embrace it. The problem is that the first few seasons of MAD MEN's Don Draper felt so much like Fleming James Bond to me that I now consider Jon Hamm to be an honorary 007, and I'm not sure if EON went with a period piece that it could avoid the comparisons (which they could have done had they opted for a set of period pieces back in 2005 before anyone had ever heard of MAD MEN). Now it's probably the wrong time.

Mad Men is one of my favourite shows but it plays on a premium cable network (AMC), which consistently gets 2 million viewers, plus a few extra million across the internet and world. Compare that to 10 million-plus viewers for the major US networks. Mad Men (unfortunately) is incredibly niche. Downton Abbey is slightly different, but not a phenomenon enough to substantiate the period flick.

Meanwhile, every second television show these days is period drama. And as has been shown by a few ordinary major network shows (The Playboy Club, Pan Am etc), unless the characters and situations are as well drawn as they are in Mad Men, they lack major appeal.

That said, I'd agree that Eon has been reactive, rather than proactive since the 60s. But that has enabled them to continue the franchise and exploit the success of the films around them.

I don't think a period piece would work. It would inevitably be compared to TINKER TAILOR SOLDIER SPY. And I also think it would alienate audiences who have grown used to Bond moving with the times.

I've always toyed with the idea of doing one. The best shot would be as an indie art film and see where it leads. Of course, the hardest part would be the period setting as this is where the production will have it's greatest challenge on a small budget. Probably best to start with the lesser involved novels or those not done primarily in the films.
And if you do a period Bond based on Fleming-YOU DO IT FOR REAL. YOU GO FOR BROKE. YOU DO NOT PANDER TO MODERN SENSIBILITIES AND POLITICAL CORRECTNESS.
I think the biggest hurdle would be convincing EON that it would be no detriment to the box office prospects of the series.

hegottheboot wrote:

I've always toyed with the idea of doing one. The best shot would be as an indie art film and see where it leads. Of course, the hardest part would be the period setting as this is where the production will have it's greatest challenge on a small budget. Probably best to start with the lesser involved novels or those not done primarily in the films.
And if you do a period Bond based on Fleming-YOU DO IT FOR REAL. YOU GO FOR BROKE. YOU DO NOT PANDER TO MODERN SENSIBILITIES AND POLITICAL CORRECTNESS.
I think the biggest hurdle would be convincing EON that it would be no detriment to the box office prospects of the series.

I really think that is almost exactly what Tarantino was proposing when he wanted to do CR (well before Eon officially decided to do it.) It was supposed to be about 40mil, so it would have been down and dirty, and you know it would have HAD to be an 'R' - which Eon and Sony are never going to buy off on.

I absolutely see Fleming's early Bond as a major QT influence, and as much as I liked Robert Meyer Burnette's idea in the 90s of letting QT write an R-rated DEEP SPACE NINE movie, I think he'd have done much better with the Bond universe, where you don't have magic box (something for nothing) technology making everything too easy.

Tarantino has expressed his desire to do CASINO ROYALE as early as 1997 when he was on CHARLIE ROSE reviewing TOMORROW NEVER DIES with critics. After talking about that flick he started going on making his own CR and how it was likely not to involve a motorcycle chase.

Found the video. They talk about Bond starting at 8:50



Tarantino starts talking about CR at 9:30, though he inaccurately says that Bond kills Vesper.

Maybe he meant Bond just slayed her sexually?

seriously though - a good find, thanks.

CR is set in 1964 and Bond kills Vesper... wha?

Those folks were certainly right about Broz-Bond being a generic action hero though.

I don't always agree with those critics but they're on the money concerning TND. Of all the Bond films, TND is as generic as it gets. Even as a kid when I first saw it (my very first Bond film) it bored me to tears and I couldn't finish past the garage sequence, and I was an action junkie as a kid.