|
wfo123
Original Poster
22 posts
17 months
|
This came from a discussion a few mates and I were having. We all sort of agreed to have a certain nostalgia for the Bond of old, the sort of Bond that they would never dare make now... Keeping in mind Mad Men was such a huge success with the retro spin on things, why not Bond?
|
|
|
BenM77
2,109 posts
33 months
|
Product placement might be a problem  There is something very cool about the early Films but I also enjoy things moving on, the next film needs to be better than QofS.
|
|
|
Crossflow Kid
4,613 posts
60 months
|
Thing is, Bond is always of its time, the here and now, partly to add to the belief that he's saving the World. That's the World we live in, not lived in. Once heard said "Bond is fifteen minutes in the future from wherever we are now"
|
|
|
Eric Mc
67,253 posts
134 months
|
Should really be set in the late 40s and 50s - if they wanted to be true to what Ian Fleming intended.
|
|
|
rumple
2,503 posts
20 months
|
Eric Mc said: Should really be set in the late 40s and 50s - if they wanted to be true to what Ian Fleming intended. Thought they were 50's and 60's, agree with the sentiment though
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
Eric Mc
67,253 posts
134 months
|
rumple said: Eric Mc said: Should really be set in the late 40s and 50s - if they wanted to be true to what Ian Fleming intended. Thought they were 50's and 60's, agree with the sentiment though Most of the books were written and set in the 1950s. In the novel Goldginger. the aircraft Goldfinger is sucked out of isn't a Learjet, it's a Boeing Stratocruiser airliner - a propellor driven airliner based on the B-29 Superfortress. Bond normally drives a pre-war Bentley as well in the books.
|
|
|
Simpo Two
54,215 posts
134 months
|
Eric Mc said: In the novel Goldginger... Damn gingers get everywhere!
|
|
|
rhinochopig
16,050 posts
67 months
|
Book bond was very different to film bond. But then most of the films took only the title. Bond was an amphetamine addict, drove an old blower (IIRC) Bentley, and was a real thug - no smooth chat-up lines.
Moonraker, for example, was set in cornwall of all places, on a missile base.
|
|
|
Crossflow Kid
4,613 posts
60 months
|
Eric Mc said: Most of the books were written and set in the 1950s.. Precisely. They're set in the present day, whenever that might be.
|
|
|
BenM77
2,109 posts
33 months
|
Crossflow Kid said: Thing is, Bond is always of its time, the here and now, partly to add to the belief that he's saving the World. That's the World we live in, not lived in. Once heard said "Bond is fifteen minutes in the future from wherever we are now" I agree with this post, there would be a sense of detachment if the films were set in the past. As said above, Bond is saving the world in present time which makes a better movie for each generation. IMO 
|
|
|
sparkythecat
4,945 posts
124 months
|
Regardless of period, Bond films should have most or all of the following ........
A decent plot
Plenty of action sequences filmed in exotic locations
Lots of scantilty clad top totty
Great Gadgets
A charismatic villain, preferably of foreign extraction
A memorable theme tune
QoS was a big disappointment
|
|
|
kiteless
6,281 posts
73 months
|
And a cool car. Don't forget the cool car.
It's just a shame that many Bond film directors and producers missed that important point.
|
|
|
Eric Mc
67,253 posts
134 months
|
Simpo Two said: Eric Mc said: In the novel Goldginger... Damn gingers get everywhere! Starring Chris Evans.
|
|
|
wfo123
Original Poster
22 posts
17 months
|
Interesting to see that views are more varied than with my initial group of mates. Maybe there isn't room for an old school Bond after all?
|
|
|
Eric Mc
67,253 posts
134 months
|
I'd like to see a film or TV series based on the original books.
|
|
|
birdcage
1,722 posts
74 months
|
The older films will definitely age better than the most recent one, they remind us Christmas day and they were cool and unique.
Goldeneye is good (for the opening scene alone),echoes of the older tongue in cheek Bond but with great action/driving sequences but the rest are shoddy.
John Cleese was awful casting too.
Now they aren't sure what they are, Bourne is much better at action and a dark, shadowy world.
I am a Daniel Craig fan but he is given bad scripts and poor plots, they have their moments but more aimed at children.
Bond was dangerous because his lifestyle was dangerous. In the books (which are absolutely brilliant) he once smoked 50 cigarettes in a day, he drank unbelievable amounts, his eating habits were epicurean.
He was also sexist and not particularly politically correct. Okay, some of these things if not all, don't work nowadays but he struggles to be dangerous without them.
Which means he does have to be a bit camp but Mission Impossible now have this element in their films.
Sam Mendes is a good choice of director, but I am looking forward to Batman more...
|
|
|
TimJMS
2,045 posts
120 months
|
Not often you need correcting Eric. In the film, the aircraft was a Lockheed Jetstar, not a Learjet.
|
|
|
dave stew
1,317 posts
36 months
|
My favourite Bond film is Goldfinger. Loads of lines we can all quote from it, the first outing of THAT car, Honor Blackman in her prime, etc etc...
My worst (by a long way) is Q of S. seen it once and once only. Miserable, depressing, far too serious. So far removed from a bit of glamorous escapism that the Bond franchise represented.
|
|
|
Eric Mc
67,253 posts
134 months
|
TimJMS said: Not often you need correcting Eric. In the film, the aircraft was a Lockheed Jetstar, not a Learjet. It's ages since I watched it. I knew it was one of the earlier generations of biz jets. I was more impressed with the Stratocruiser in the novel - but then I always liked big propliners. 
|
|
|
SV8Predator
765 posts
34 months
|
rhinochopig said: Moonraker, for example, was set in cornwall of all places, on a missile base. Umm, no it wasn't. . .
|
|
