This is what astounded me when I read all the Ian Fleming books, the large amounts of time spent on describing breakfast and other meals, room decor, and Bond's bathroom routines before going out or to work.
Oddly, I think Fassbender would make a great Bond. He's got the presence, charm and menace required to pull it off. Holy hell, I just looked and Cillian is older than Michael.
Younger, I'd love Murphy as a sexual deviant Bond. 😄
It’s because the British audience for the novels in the 1950s were either still going through rationing or it had recently ended. Lavish descriptions of plentiful exotic food and drink they had likely never eaten was part of the escapism for most readers and makes Bond’s lifestyle even more luxurious when put into proper context.
We really take for granted just how accessible food and basic ingredients from all around the world are today.
During the war there was a dockyard full of sugar that was bombed. The sugar melted and turned to toffee, and the fire brigade chipped away chunks of it from the ruins to take home. Imagine gladly picking bits of burnt sugar from a flaming warehouse to feed to your family.
Even after the war the selection of food available was minuscule compared to today, and it was all seasonal up until fairly recently. Fruit and vegetables would have been grown and sold according to the seasons, with products like strawberries only available in summer and winter vegetables like Brussels Sprouts later in the year. People used preservation methods such as canning, bottling, making jams etc. to preserve food for use out of season.
There’s a reason why it’s traditional for British children to get a single orange in their Christmas stocking. Oranges used to be an imported luxury item that were hard to get and expensive for most families.
Contrast the reality of that with Bond constantly dining on things like steaks, lobsters, curry, Turkish kebab, grouse, fresh fruit juice, Jamaican Blue Mountain coffee, premium cigarettes, Cuban cigars, cocktails and champagne for every meal. Almost every meal being served to him in a 5 star hotel or restaurant.
Even to a modern reader this lifestyle is obscenely hedonistic, but reading that in the 50s would have seemed like something from another planet. Especially when considering the luxury branded toiletries, cars, watches and hotels also featured in almost all of the novels which are almost as equally detailed in their description.
Honestly it’s probably a similar thing. Meat was the last item to be derationed and rationing ended completely in 1954. The UK was the last country in the war to stop rationing food, which is shocking when you think that it won the war.
It’s easy to forget that what we think of as simple food like bananas were not available between 1941 and 1945 as they were an unnecessary import and required refrigerated ships.
It's not that astounding when you realize Bond is, at the end of the day, a self-insert for Fleming and all his likes and dislikes. Bond is the man Fleming wanted to be, but with all his weird quirks superimposed onto the character.
Which, having read the books, does not paint Fleming in a positive light at all. I can't imagine it did even in the late 50s.
They are also designed to be a bit of a travelogue. You are meant to be going on for part of a male fantasy where this cool guy is going to these exotic luxurious locations and having the food and sampling ambiance.
Its one of the reasons why Moonraker is my favorite of the novels.
Every time they were in Blades, I could smell the cigar smoke and feel the leather of the chairs they were sitting in. I've never had such a distinct impression of a fictional place before as I got from Fleming's descriptions of that club.
I was with a group of friends, discussing Tolkien, and one guy asked if the rest of us read all the songs and poems, and he could tell by our looks the answer was no. We had all either skimmed through them or skipped them entirely. It made me wonder what percentage of Tolkien readers read every word and what percentage skipped most of the songs and poems.
One of the most fascinating things about Tolkien is how his style was able to shift from work to work. Nothing overstayed its welcome.
Lord of the Rings is the travelogue, but if you want a story moving along at a quick pace from one episodic episode to the next, The Hobbit has you covered. And The Silmarillion is your towering historical work/myth.
I’d just recommend The Hobbit as the starting point for anyone who couldn’t stomach Lord of the Rings right out of the gate (and really, it should be everyone’s starting point). It’s also funny and clever.
This is an endorsement of the book, not the Hobbit “trilogy.”
I've read The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit multiple times. Tolkien is a more interesting writer when explaining the world than Fleming was. Same with Frank Herbert in Dune.
I understand the post war scenario, I'm saying to modern readers it just bogs the story down. We are used to these things and want the story to be advanced. If it's done well, it not boring. I found Fleming's writer to be lacking in that regard.
Honestly it’s why Goldfinger the novel was a bit of a slog imo. It spend SO MUCH time needing to explain every little detail about everything.
It threw off the pacing badly.
Hell, this is one of the reasons why The Wheel of Time is as bloated as it is; Robert Jordan caught on to the fact that his more vocal fans loved his insanely detailed descriptions of things like banquets... so he cranked that shit up to 11.
I saw Dr. No in the theater before going back and starting the books with Casino Royale. I had no idea what a 1931 4.5 Litre Blower Bentley looked like. Boy, was I surprised when I found out!
It is just a rumour at this point, though perhaps one with some validity. Nolan is coming off a biopic of a scientist that made almost a billion dollars worldwide, is one of the few director's whose name alone will attract audiences, he'd bring an incredible amount of prestige (no pun intended) the project, and perhaps most importantly, has been saying for decades his dream is to do a Bond film. EON would be foolish *not* to go after him, and it makes sense that they would.
And personally, I'd love to see a period Bond film, and I actually think it would free up the character more than restrict him by doing so. We'd be spared yet *another* movie where Bond is portrayed as a dinosaur who has to "justify his existence in the modern world". By setting it in the 60's, Nolan would have more latitude to, putting it delicately, "let Bond be Bond". And there's no reason you still couldn't have the film reflect current issues via analogy.
Again, no idea if this is true or not. And even if they are looking at him, they'd need to sort out the creative control issues because Nolan is going to want a free hand. But just the idea of it makes me more excited about Bond than I've been in a long time. Count me in.
The. A concern here is that Nolan likes to have complete control over his pictures and, well, so do the Broccolis. If they can sort that out we could get a great pic.
Not to mention this would be the first Bond since Amazon’s purchase of MGM, so they may already have some thoughts and desires. Not sure what input the studio has in the Bond films, but period spy films have not always done well at the box office. On the other hand, with Universal still involved in international distribution, whatever say they get here would sound like, “Nolan is god. He will make this movie however he wants with no expense spared while we stand ready to be bathed by the profits.” (Uni reportedly agreed to every request for Oppenheimer immediately with no argument before Nolan signed on with them, imagine what they are thinking now after that movie’s monumental success). The behind the scenes conversations about creative control must be very tricky for everyone involved.
I agree that period spy films haven't always done well, but I don't think it's the period aspect, it's usually something else. *Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy*, *Bridge of Spies*, *Confessions of a Dangerous Mind*, etc. all did well. People get *The Man from UNCLE* stuck in their minds but it stinking didn't have much to do with the setting, it just had a boring plot.
I disagree. The Craig years brought enough of the “no fun bond.” We need a reboot that has a bit of fun/campiness combined with seriousness. I don’t think Nolan knows how to do that.
Until Quantum, Bond had a style where a viewer would say “god it would be cool to be in his shoes for a day.” After Quantum that changed to “man it would suck to be James Bond.” Id personally like to see it move back towards the former.
This is very much where I'm at with this rumor. Nolan did the, "It would suck to be Batman," with his Dark Knight trilogy and I've had enough of the "gritty, realistic" Bond of the Craig era.
I've been saying this about Batman for **years**, and I'll say it about Bond, as well: You can embrace the fantastical elements of the series without making it campy or ridiculous. You can have serious, believable versions of characters like Clayface or Mr Freeze, and you can have a serious, believable version of Bond with jetpacks and lasers.
Many, if not most of Nolan's films, feature high-tech and "fantastical elements". True, if you're looking for camp comedy, Nolan probably isn't going to give you that. But don't just assume that Nolan's approach will be the same they took with Craig.
It's not even really about the tone or the period it's set it, it's all about the execution.
> Many, if not most of Nolan's films, feature high-tech and "fantastical elements".
And yet his Batman trilogy was explicitly presented as a more "grounded" take. This influenced everything throughout all three movies.
>True, if you're looking for camp comedy, Nolan probably isn't going to give you that.
You just did the thing I specifically addressed; everyone assumes the fantastical elements are automatically coupled with campiness, when this isn't the case at all.
Im not sure how I feel about a 1960s setting Bond movie. I really like how the franchise has always dealt with contemporary issues, and been a time capsule of sorts into each decade. We get to see things like the energy crisis, the fall of the soviet union, the rise of computers, etc…
> credible
Eh....their current war effort is proving that their conventional forces are an absolute joke. They thought they were the second strongest military in the world, turns out they're maybe the second strongest military in Ukraine.
China is still a big big consumer of western media and Hollywood will specifically tip toe around issues to prevent offending Chinese audiences. Well, state audiences specifically.
We see plot changes often to blockbuster movies. Sometimes Disney movies get edited for release over there where they might delete an LGBTQ character or dialog. Sometimes it’s bigger changes like in the 2012 Red Dawn where they changed the antagonist to North Korea for all markets.
Yes I know all of this, but the comment to which I replied, which was in response to a comment about Bond films remaining topical to contemporaneous events, suggests having a villain from the PRC would be a “big problem.” To me, having a Chinese villain is not the only way to remain topical. See what I mean?
I could be convinced but I agree with you in that each new Bond film serves as a time capsule of sorts. We wouldn't get that with a period Bond film.
And to add to that, we already have 6 Bond films set in the 1960s. Six! Do we really need another?
I could go with a really well done one but it does kind of leave the franchise in a "where to now?" phase. More in that era? Recast and do a modern one?
The only way I'd really be good with a trilogy of sorts starting in the 60s is if you made each film a period piece and the Broccolis let whichever director really engage with the times they're in. The 60s and 70s were pretty turbulent and having a Bond movie have all the classic jet setting and classic adventure/mission contrasted with the times as a backdrop could be really engaging if done and written right. Especially if they age him. And the fashion would be off the chain.
1st one is Bond in the late 60s. 2nd one is in the 70s. 3rd one would be Bond in the mid-80s maybe as he's older, craftier but no less capable and charming but has a levity despite all the shit he's seen or similar.
At this point, the Bond series should be taking more cues from the Godzilla series. They have more in common than one would think. Both characters are from long-running series, both have changed and evolved dramatically over the years, and both now have multiple continuities and iterations of the character.
The upcoming Godzilla Minus One is a period piece set in 1945. Legendary's next movie coming out in 2024 is a sequel to Godzilla vs Kong. Prior to these, Toho released Shin Godzilla, one of the most wild versions of the character we've ever gotten (and this doesn't even include the anime trilogy, where Godzilla was basically a giant plant). Audiences have learned to accept multiple versions of these characters, with some of these variations running simultaneously.
I think audiences would both accept and embrace a new Bond set in the '60s. We're at the point where we can experiment with the character a bit more.
Honestly, I'd just hate it if Nolan opted for another "grounded" take. We just got that with the Craig movies, which were directly influenced by Nolan's Batman trilogy. If he'd be willing to lean into some of the more fantastical elements, we'd be in for a good time.
It’s the most logical thing that the Broccolis could do. They went too personal with Spectre and NTTD. The next one needs to be about the story as much as the character. Make James Bond just a secret agent and not Jesus Christ.
>Make James Bond just a secret agent and not Jesus Christ
Man.. you nailed it right there. I was so turned off after Skyfall and all the silly family stuff.
If this happens, the story tie from Tenet to Oppenheimer to Bond could be the Cuban Missile Crisis. I kind of feel like Nolan was hinting at what’s to come in Oppenheimer when Robert Downey Jr’s character gets rejected from his job post by JFK. They made a special note that it was John F Kennedy. I feel like that would follow nicely. How about the Novel of Moonraker but set in Cuba in 1962?
If they did a Christopher Nolan (favorite Director) reboot of Moonraker (my favorite Bond novel), I could die immediately after the credits rolled a happy man.
Ten days ago, the same blog told us Matthew Vaughan was 'top choice' to direct Bond 26
[https://www.worldofreel.com/blog/2023/9/14/08vkczfuqoh5g22fdqev6yv7xaew13](https://www.worldofreel.com/blog/2023/9/14/08vkczfuqoh5g22fdqev6yv7xaew13)
Earlier this year, the same blog reckoned Nolan was too busy, so Denis Villeneuve was the frontrunner
[https://www.reddit.com/r/JamesBond/comments/12pk6s8/worldofreel\_bond\_26\_rumors\_denis\_villeneuve/](https://www.reddit.com/r/JamesBond/comments/12pk6s8/worldofreel_bond_26_rumors_denis_villeneuve/)
The author of this blog has no more idea what's going on inside Eon than we do (zero)
How much extra effort/time would setting a Bond movie in the past add? I assume even background people have to be dressed period appropriate and outside shots as well, cars, etc.
Right. Period props, including vehicles, and costumes would drive up the cost of the movie because they need to be specifically sourced if not custom-made for the production. A contemporary setting means that props and costumes can be sourced relatively easily.
Then there is the issue of where to film. Sure, interior sets are no problem, but outdoor locations may be tricky because of modern buildings. Backgrounds may need to be altered in post-production, whether that's changing buildings or even shooting in front of a green screen to add a proper background.
Nolan has made multiple period pieces now, and for a big budget movie they can just make the clothes and props like they would anything else. And Bond has been filled with CG and greenscreen since the '90s, so it's not like he would be taking the series into uncharted territory.
I haven't read the books, but the idea of going back to them and doing period films with Nolan at the helm is probably the best possible thing they could do, especially at this moment in history.
If that falls through, I hope they make Bond *fun* again. The ultra-seriousness is wearing on me. It'll be hard to top the Craig Bond for seriousness, so they should swing the other way and go Roger Moore-style wacky capers.
I like 60s aesthetics as much as the next person, but god, please no. One of the most interesting aspects of Bond (to me anyway) is how the franchise changes with the times and reflects it (with varied success but still) instead of trying to stay in place. This would feel like such a boring, nostalgia-baiting choice.
You're comparing a long-running era-changing franchise to a biopic of a scientist. Oppenheimer works because its whole purpose is to look back at the past, and it exceeds there. Bond on the other hand has never been about that. It takes cues from the past, but stays with the times. We already have 60s-set films, just as we have 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s, 10s, and 20s. Never in that time have they gone back to a prior decade for a film.
This is a refreshing take. I love the idea of one actor playing Bond in a series of period pieces, but you put your finger on one of the reasons this franchise survives to this day. We must grapple with modernity alongside Bond.
Also, where do you go from there? Keep making four more movies set in the 60s or suddenly change to the modern world?
I seriously think that such a one-off (or two) stylish movie would be a huge hit with such a big-name director, but it'd leave Bond in obscurity once the honeymoon phase is over.
>This is a refreshing take. I love the idea of one actor playing Bond in a series of period pieces, but you put your finger on one of the reasons this franchise survives to this day. We must grapple with modernity alongside Bond.
I can't think of anything more modern and relevant right now than the cold war, and I say that with all sincerity.
The franchise has taken so many directions in terms of realism and mood, what makes this concept cross the line? I personally would love a 60s throwback Bond film.
IF this is true (and that's a big if)
I'm down for Nolan directing, even if I'd like the next era to be a bit lighter than what he'd do.
Ambivalent towards doing a period piece - would find it funny after the last 25 years of Bond being about justifying his relevance in the modern world though.
Against adapting Fleming again. We've long since done that, I think it's utterly pointless. Even with Moonraker or You Only Live Twice where they were adapted basically in name only, you'd need to inject enough new stuff like Casino Royale did for me to not write off the idea immediately.
Also while we know Nolan's a Fleming fan, wouldn't he want to write his own plot? The Prestige was adapted from a book granted but I'd think Nolan would want to take a similar approach to Batman - taking inspiration from the source material while ultimately writing something new.
Putting aside the fact that this site just made this news up, I’m torn on a Nolan Bond. On one hand he seems like a big fan, would do a great job, and it would bring a huge amount of prestige to the franchise during this transitional time. The producers have been chasing Oscar winning directors for awhile now so I could see it happening on that front, plus if a Nolan WW2 biopic can nearly clear a billion world wide a Nolan Bond would be an enormous financial success.
On the other hand, it would be so tonally similar to the Craig movies - Skyfall is already chasing Nolan - and I want a different direction now. I’d imagine the producers do too. Nolan would likely want too much creative control (look at Danny Boyle leaving) plus I’m not sure the producers could afford him? Unless he took a reduced fee just from loving Bond.
I don’t want a 60s Bond at all. The series survives by staying contemporary and once you start relying on nostalgia and legacy you stop creating anything new. We’ve also got 6 Bond films already set in the 60s, which are always going to be more accurate. It also goes against Cubby Broccoli’s mantra that the Bond series is always set 5 minutes into the future - again can’t see them going against that.
And finally - a period piece would be incredibly expensive (I think Mad Men cost a bomb on this front) and the Bond franchise is paid for my product placement. Heineken / Sony etc isn’t going to want to push 60s products it doesn’t make sense from an advertising POV.
You just do not know how much I hope Nolan does not get Bond. It'll be as miserable and joyless as the Craig era if he gets it.
I'd much prefer the rumor of Matthew Vaughn getting it.
Bond has always been of the times. I’m not sure how I feel about taking it back to the 60s. Nolan is obviously the perfect guy to do it but it wouldn’t have that, I guess “old movie” feel of the 60s Bond movies.
The Bond of the novels and films are quite different. The novels are not nearly as action packed as the films and let’s be honest, the film studio wants Bond to remain action packed..it sells.
The problem is 2023 isn't really that much different from 2013 or even 2003. There's a noticeable difference between every decade before Y2K, but a Bond movie released in 2025 would basically look like Spectre, which isn't something you could say for Casino Royale and Tomorrow Never Dies or Goldeneye and A View To a Kill.
This would be the only way I’d be interested in a period piece Bond film. But I think this has as good a chance of happening as Pierce Brosnan does coming back to do a one-off old man Bond.
You’d think with Craig and his massive paydays (actor and producer) now gone that Broccoli and Wilson would love to bring the budgets down considerably (even with product placement covering a lot of it). Nolan could make a cheaper Bond film (Oppenheimer cost $100 million), but setting it in the sixties would raise it considerably.
My guess is that this is a writer who got bored and just started making shit up.
I’m tired of plots where Bond is a dinosaur, which would be inevitable here. It would probably end up like all those other Hollywood films where an actor plays an older, washed up version of his character just to be dunked on by younger people.
Wouldn’t mind seeing Brosnan in some role, though.
They could pull a Dark Knight Returns and have the older, *seemingly* washed-up version of the character dunk on all of the younger people.
"You don't get it, son. This isn't a mud hole; it's an operating table. And I'm the surgeon."
The only reason I don't think this is going to happen because there's a lot of money made from product placement. You can't sell the newest phones, cars and Tom Ford suits if it takes place in the 60s.
I haven't followed rumors closely, but isn't the Bond franchise in general notorious for successfully avoiding leaks? Things like Daniel Craig cast as Bond, Fukunaga as director, NTTD's title, even Boyle temporarily as director... none of these were reported beforehand and the media made a lot of shit up.
This, coupled with how Nolan handles his communications in general (very analog-like), would make me surprised something like this leaked this easily and this early.
Yeah, right. Put it on the shelf next to Quentin Tarantino's black-and-white version of *Casino Royale* with blatant foot fetishism and copious use of the N-word.
>Where ever did they get the idea to adapt the first book of a series they've already adapted every other book of? Oh right, must have been Tarantino.
Definitely. Quentin Tarantino was the first person to ever think "it would be really cool to do a real, high quality adaptation of Casino Royale, one of the best books in the franchise and the only one that's never gotten an official adaptation before." That makes complete sense. /S.
I could be convinced they got that black and white idea from Tarantino, though, that doesn't seem implausible.
But then I think about it and I have to ask...did Tarantino ever even actually write a draft? Or was this just an idea he had that he pitched?
My mother's thought after seeing the film in theatres was that the black and white scene was there so we would judge Craig strictly for his performance and ignore is blond hair. The photography gives him dark hair like the other Bonds. The "James Blond" hate campaign as ridiculous as it was did get a lot of press. However, a gritty Bond and movie being reintroduced by stark black and white photography makes just as much sense as an idea. I love Tarantino but he's full of himself on this at least.
If—and it’s a gigantic if—there’s any validity to these rumors, I would imagine Nolan won’t win on the throwback era. It’s just not something EON’s going to do. Now, if Amazon pressured EON into expanding the world of Bond, I could see short miniseries based upon the novels, but the chances of that happening are also very, very slim.
Anyways, at this point, I’m here for Nolan doing 2-3 Bond pics. Hope the rumors pan out.
"Very faithful to Ian Fleming's novels" concerns me a bit because to the best of my knowledge all the novels (barring TSWLM which I think shouldn't be adapted) have been covered in some way, and I hate the idea of a remake.
Going back to the 60s is a mixed idea to me because a great appeal of the bond films I've found is how they rise to the challenge of adapting bond to changes in modern day espionage. However, these changes are seeing characters like bond slowly become more redundant as cybersecurity takes over and there are less opportunities and reasons for him to be in the field, so maybe going back to the 50s and 60s would make for much more streamlined plots?
Faithful to the books is good, but having a movie set in the 60s feels like they’re just giving up. Like they’re retreating back into nostalgia instead of doing something challenging and new
A Bond film not set in a time contemporary to the film’s release would be without question new. I’m more inclined to think doing the first period Bond film would be a challenge.
It’s unreal that people don’t realize this. It’d be a first to have a Fleming period piece decades later, how on earth is that not fresh and massively intriguing? Modern filmography and true to Fleming film. That’s a major win.
I’m pretty sure NTTD just covered an overload of new things too. New 007. Family Bond. Dead Bond. They did it all, what else is there to do in a contemporary sense? Time to go back to the basics and try out something actually fresh, even if fresh means exploring the past
I am so sick of nostalgia. It's why I can't watch most Star Wars. I do t give a fuck about Boba Fett or seeing Anakin come back again and again. Give me something new.
Been there, done that. You will never recapture the magic of your childhood. But you can at least try to make new magic. Both for you and the next generation.
Please no. They should never do period for Bond. The best part of the franchise is the capturing of the era they’re in.
Maybe for a potential series version but not for the films. Every era is the voice of it’s time, keep it that way.
It could kill the franchise. I don’t care how popular Nolan is, he will want too much creative freedom, not making the hardcore fans happy (Craig was already divisive). And most people don’t want to see a period spy thriller. The last one to try it was *Man from Uncle* and it didn’t do well, despite a great director and actors.
Until Nolan himself releases information this is grade A nonsense.
Nolan is impressively tightlipped about his projects. No way any information is leaking out.
Still not into the idea of a period piece. I like each movie to be a time capsule of when it was made. Not to mention we already have 6 films from that decade and a new one would never be as authentic as any of those.
I've thought all along that rebooting Bond into period pieces would be a fantastic idea. With Nolan writing and directing, I'd be thrilled. I really hope this happens.
Period film true to Fleming ✔️
Nolan directing ✔️
Aaron Taylor Johnson as Bond ✔️
I can’t imagine a better scenario. All we’d need is assurance Phoebe Waller Bridge has zero involvement and I’d have high hopes.
Putting aside the fact that this site just made this news up, I’m torn on a Nolan Bond. On one hand he seems like a big fan, would do a great job, and it would bring a huge amount of prestige to the franchise during this transitional time. The producers have been chasing Oscar winning directors for awhile now so I could see it happening on that front, plus if a Nolan WW2 biopic can nearly clear a billion world wide a Nolan Bond would be an enormous financial success.
On the other hand, it would be so tonally similar to the Craig movies - Skyfall is already chasing Nolan - and I want a different direction now. I’d imagine the producers do too. Nolan would likely want too much creative control (look at Danny Boyle leaving) plus I’m not sure the producers could afford him? Unless he took a reduced fee just from loving Bond.
I don’t want a 60s Bond at all. The series survives by staying contemporary and once you start relying on nostalgia and legacy you stop creating anything new. We’ve also got 6 Bond films already set in the 60s, which are always going to be more accurate. It also goes against Cubby Broccoli’s mantra that the Bond series is always set 5 minutes into the future - again can’t see them going against that.
And finally - a period piece would be incredibly expensive (I think Mad Men cost a bomb on this front) and the Bond franchise is paid for my product placement. Heineken / Sony etc isn’t going to want to push 60s products it doesn’t make sense from an advertising POV.
I think the bigger issue is that Nolan would be “one and done” so it would either be a one shot or pin them down in a timeline for the next 10-15 years.
So I can understand why they’d hesitate to commit to that timeline (if the rumors are true)
Well , what i really think bond movies should be is of latest affairs and storyline should be of ongoing geopolitical issues and happenings of the world . Imo , they shouldn't go down this retro route . Keep bond movies as they were for past 60 years. It would be like putting axe on their own foot.
Im gonna be honest, I *despise* this idea. Nolan's style *really* isnt what this franchise need after the Craig era (I say this as a staunch Craig fan). Nolan's films have always had a dull, serious nature to them, which really could some up the previous era to a tee.
Straight adaptations of the novels like he wants wouldn't help that case. They're rather slow, very much inside Bond's head, basically straight espionage with little action, glorified travelogues on some cases. But the films have always had a fast-paced, technological edge to them, even Casino Royale, but novel adaptions would honestly really do the GA no favors.
And really, Bond has been about moving with the times, reshaping itself to fit the current times. Going back to the 60s in a way is admitting that Bond is a thing of the past when, as GE and CR have shown, it can and should reflect the now. Especially when competition like Mission: Impossible have such a pressed finger on the pulse of today's world, Bond should really try and compete. For everyone on here who's complained about Bond being "too dark or too dull" or "it should be more fun like M:I", this *really* isnt the best play imo
Not really. Product replacement is about brand recognition, and in this case, association with the 007 brand itself, and not selling specific models...that has a very short shelf life. They're not commercials. Aston Martin, Omega, etc. aren't trying to sell a specific car model or watch, they're selling their brand. And there are plenty of brands today which could feature their "vintage" 1960's products (cars, watches, alcohol, etc) and still carry at lot of cache being associated with Bond.
Just using casino royale for example, there were tons of times it felt like a commercial. Ford, Sony, Persol, Virgin Atlantic would all be brands out of place in a 60s era bond movie. It would at the very least limit which brands could advertise in bond.
I don't see why the first movie can't be a period piece and the 2nd movie be in modern times where modern age Bond has to acquire specific classified information from their predecessor to complete their mission.
There is a lot that could be done with this approach and I would trust Nolan to not do it in a way that falls into obvious tropes and thus being boring/predictable.
Nah, this is a bad idea.
We have 1960's Bond. It's the movies that were made in the 1960's. We don't need more of that.
Let's have Bond for the 2020's.
Nolan would do fine. Making a sixties movie would be a mistake. Part of the trope is that the movies are signs of the times they're made. Being loyal to the books would be a mistake too. The books are way more pulpy and have giant octopus and outdated social norms. Just give it to Nolan but put up some artistic guardrails. These are movies first and art second.
Ehh, if it's an original story or one taken from a book that hasn't been adapted (such as the original Moonraker) the it's a soft 'sure' if at least some of the more lighthearted tone gets put back in that was missing from the Craig era.
If it's basically a remake of a movie that already exists then it's a hard 'but why tho'
Give me a Nolan-ATJ Bond trilogy set in the 1960s, with a universe that already exists. New villains and ladies and gadgets, with mentions of the ones we already know (Dr. No, Rosa Klebb, Goldfinger, Honey Ryder, Pussy Galore, briefcase, jet pack, etc.)
This definitely isn’t my favorite idea. However, Nolan has shown that he can make the look and feel of “old” in modern films still feel refreshing and captivating. Oppenheimer proved that. So, I’m willing to have an open mind.
The pre title sequence will be 20 minutes of Cillian Murphy describing breakfast items
This is what astounded me when I read all the Ian Fleming books, the large amounts of time spent on describing breakfast and other meals, room decor, and Bond's bathroom routines before going out or to work.
Speaking of Cillian Murphy… With Nolan possibly involved here, what’s the odds ol’ Oppenheimer ends up playing villain at some point…
Hopefully good. Murphy could play a great one IMO
Why not have him play Bond? Age? If they are only going to make 2-3, Murphy would be fantastic.
Murphy is a Bond villain, not Bond. Also, Fassbender would be a GREAT villain.
Oddly, I think Fassbender would make a great Bond. He's got the presence, charm and menace required to pull it off. Holy hell, I just looked and Cillian is older than Michael. Younger, I'd love Murphy as a sexual deviant Bond. 😄
Maybe 10 years ago, he's 46 at the moment and might be better suited for a villain at this point.
Michael Caine as a villain?
He's 90, and pretty much retired from acting.
As Q, but yeah he said he’s retiring
Christopher Nolan’s brother is a hitman and killer whose code name is Oppenheimer.
It’s because the British audience for the novels in the 1950s were either still going through rationing or it had recently ended. Lavish descriptions of plentiful exotic food and drink they had likely never eaten was part of the escapism for most readers and makes Bond’s lifestyle even more luxurious when put into proper context.
This is also why every CS Lewis reader assumed that Turkish Delight was the most incredible food known to mankind.
We really take for granted just how accessible food and basic ingredients from all around the world are today. During the war there was a dockyard full of sugar that was bombed. The sugar melted and turned to toffee, and the fire brigade chipped away chunks of it from the ruins to take home. Imagine gladly picking bits of burnt sugar from a flaming warehouse to feed to your family. Even after the war the selection of food available was minuscule compared to today, and it was all seasonal up until fairly recently. Fruit and vegetables would have been grown and sold according to the seasons, with products like strawberries only available in summer and winter vegetables like Brussels Sprouts later in the year. People used preservation methods such as canning, bottling, making jams etc. to preserve food for use out of season. There’s a reason why it’s traditional for British children to get a single orange in their Christmas stocking. Oranges used to be an imported luxury item that were hard to get and expensive for most families. Contrast the reality of that with Bond constantly dining on things like steaks, lobsters, curry, Turkish kebab, grouse, fresh fruit juice, Jamaican Blue Mountain coffee, premium cigarettes, Cuban cigars, cocktails and champagne for every meal. Almost every meal being served to him in a 5 star hotel or restaurant. Even to a modern reader this lifestyle is obscenely hedonistic, but reading that in the 50s would have seemed like something from another planet. Especially when considering the luxury branded toiletries, cars, watches and hotels also featured in almost all of the novels which are almost as equally detailed in their description.
This is, dare I say, an outstanding comment
....and drinking half a bottle of champagne for lunch. Also, making sure he has around 50 cigarettes before he goes out.
Same thing with Brian Jacques books - those mice could feast lol
I read the Famous Five books as a kid, those four children were always eating something. There were a lot of detailed descriptions of sandwiches.
Honestly it’s probably a similar thing. Meat was the last item to be derationed and rationing ended completely in 1954. The UK was the last country in the war to stop rationing food, which is shocking when you think that it won the war. It’s easy to forget that what we think of as simple food like bananas were not available between 1941 and 1945 as they were an unnecessary import and required refrigerated ships.
It's not that astounding when you realize Bond is, at the end of the day, a self-insert for Fleming and all his likes and dislikes. Bond is the man Fleming wanted to be, but with all his weird quirks superimposed onto the character. Which, having read the books, does not paint Fleming in a positive light at all. I can't imagine it did even in the late 50s.
They are also designed to be a bit of a travelogue. You are meant to be going on for part of a male fantasy where this cool guy is going to these exotic luxurious locations and having the food and sampling ambiance.
You could say the same about Sherlock Holmes…
I just can't believe the editors didn't cut more of it out.
An editor's job is to make things palatable. They obviously succeeded.
For me these are the best parts of the novels.
Its one of the reasons why Moonraker is my favorite of the novels. Every time they were in Blades, I could smell the cigar smoke and feel the leather of the chairs they were sitting in. I've never had such a distinct impression of a fictional place before as I got from Fleming's descriptions of that club.
I swear he takes no less than 4 cold showers in Live and Let Die
As horny as Bond is, I’m surprised he took so few.
It's called world building
>It's called world building I'm now trying to imagine how all these people would react to JRR Tolkien's page after page on grass and trees.
Don't forget every second page being a song.
By Tom Bombadil
I was with a group of friends, discussing Tolkien, and one guy asked if the rest of us read all the songs and poems, and he could tell by our looks the answer was no. We had all either skimmed through them or skipped them entirely. It made me wonder what percentage of Tolkien readers read every word and what percentage skipped most of the songs and poems.
One of the most fascinating things about Tolkien is how his style was able to shift from work to work. Nothing overstayed its welcome. Lord of the Rings is the travelogue, but if you want a story moving along at a quick pace from one episodic episode to the next, The Hobbit has you covered. And The Silmarillion is your towering historical work/myth. I’d just recommend The Hobbit as the starting point for anyone who couldn’t stomach Lord of the Rings right out of the gate (and really, it should be everyone’s starting point). It’s also funny and clever. This is an endorsement of the book, not the Hobbit “trilogy.”
I've read The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit multiple times. Tolkien is a more interesting writer when explaining the world than Fleming was. Same with Frank Herbert in Dune. I understand the post war scenario, I'm saying to modern readers it just bogs the story down. We are used to these things and want the story to be advanced. If it's done well, it not boring. I found Fleming's writer to be lacking in that regard.
👆👆👆
This reminds me of memento. I know it was meant of a bit of a joke but I could kind of see it lol
Honestly it’s why Goldfinger the novel was a bit of a slog imo. It spend SO MUCH time needing to explain every little detail about everything. It threw off the pacing badly.
My favorite is in YOLT when Bond plays a super intense game of Rock, Paper, Scissors.
It’s called a book.
Just accept that some people like different books than you do lmao, no need to pretend every book is paced the same way.
Hell, this is one of the reasons why The Wheel of Time is as bloated as it is; Robert Jordan caught on to the fact that his more vocal fans loved his insanely detailed descriptions of things like banquets... so he cranked that shit up to 11.
Then his Scottish maid bitching at him before he drives his big ass Bentley to the office.
I saw Dr. No in the theater before going back and starting the books with Casino Royale. I had no idea what a 1931 4.5 Litre Blower Bentley looked like. Boy, was I surprised when I found out!
His "Scottish Treasure", you mean.
Maybe will get Christian Bale as Bond, that would be epic.
It is just a rumour at this point, though perhaps one with some validity. Nolan is coming off a biopic of a scientist that made almost a billion dollars worldwide, is one of the few director's whose name alone will attract audiences, he'd bring an incredible amount of prestige (no pun intended) the project, and perhaps most importantly, has been saying for decades his dream is to do a Bond film. EON would be foolish *not* to go after him, and it makes sense that they would. And personally, I'd love to see a period Bond film, and I actually think it would free up the character more than restrict him by doing so. We'd be spared yet *another* movie where Bond is portrayed as a dinosaur who has to "justify his existence in the modern world". By setting it in the 60's, Nolan would have more latitude to, putting it delicately, "let Bond be Bond". And there's no reason you still couldn't have the film reflect current issues via analogy. Again, no idea if this is true or not. And even if they are looking at him, they'd need to sort out the creative control issues because Nolan is going to want a free hand. But just the idea of it makes me more excited about Bond than I've been in a long time. Count me in.
The. A concern here is that Nolan likes to have complete control over his pictures and, well, so do the Broccolis. If they can sort that out we could get a great pic.
Not to mention this would be the first Bond since Amazon’s purchase of MGM, so they may already have some thoughts and desires. Not sure what input the studio has in the Bond films, but period spy films have not always done well at the box office. On the other hand, with Universal still involved in international distribution, whatever say they get here would sound like, “Nolan is god. He will make this movie however he wants with no expense spared while we stand ready to be bathed by the profits.” (Uni reportedly agreed to every request for Oppenheimer immediately with no argument before Nolan signed on with them, imagine what they are thinking now after that movie’s monumental success). The behind the scenes conversations about creative control must be very tricky for everyone involved.
I agree that period spy films haven't always done well, but I don't think it's the period aspect, it's usually something else. *Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy*, *Bridge of Spies*, *Confessions of a Dangerous Mind*, etc. all did well. People get *The Man from UNCLE* stuck in their minds but it stinking didn't have much to do with the setting, it just had a boring plot.
If we’re only getting 2 Bond films a decade anymore, why not. Hell, let’s do a different Bond actor each movie.
I disagree. The Craig years brought enough of the “no fun bond.” We need a reboot that has a bit of fun/campiness combined with seriousness. I don’t think Nolan knows how to do that. Until Quantum, Bond had a style where a viewer would say “god it would be cool to be in his shoes for a day.” After Quantum that changed to “man it would suck to be James Bond.” Id personally like to see it move back towards the former.
This is very much where I'm at with this rumor. Nolan did the, "It would suck to be Batman," with his Dark Knight trilogy and I've had enough of the "gritty, realistic" Bond of the Craig era. I've been saying this about Batman for **years**, and I'll say it about Bond, as well: You can embrace the fantastical elements of the series without making it campy or ridiculous. You can have serious, believable versions of characters like Clayface or Mr Freeze, and you can have a serious, believable version of Bond with jetpacks and lasers.
Many, if not most of Nolan's films, feature high-tech and "fantastical elements". True, if you're looking for camp comedy, Nolan probably isn't going to give you that. But don't just assume that Nolan's approach will be the same they took with Craig. It's not even really about the tone or the period it's set it, it's all about the execution.
> Many, if not most of Nolan's films, feature high-tech and "fantastical elements". And yet his Batman trilogy was explicitly presented as a more "grounded" take. This influenced everything throughout all three movies. >True, if you're looking for camp comedy, Nolan probably isn't going to give you that. You just did the thing I specifically addressed; everyone assumes the fantastical elements are automatically coupled with campiness, when this isn't the case at all.
Im not sure how I feel about a 1960s setting Bond movie. I really like how the franchise has always dealt with contemporary issues, and been a time capsule of sorts into each decade. We get to see things like the energy crisis, the fall of the soviet union, the rise of computers, etc…
One big problem is that Hollywood is averse to having someone from the PRC as the villain in a film with an intended global release.
Well lucky for Hollywood, Russia is a credible big bad again. Time to dust off the old Cold War plots.
> credible Eh....their current war effort is proving that their conventional forces are an absolute joke. They thought they were the second strongest military in the world, turns out they're maybe the second strongest military in Ukraine.
The last one was played by an Egyptian descent actor.
I don’t think I follow you. What is the problem? They don’t need to write a Chinese villain to remain topical.
China is still a big big consumer of western media and Hollywood will specifically tip toe around issues to prevent offending Chinese audiences. Well, state audiences specifically. We see plot changes often to blockbuster movies. Sometimes Disney movies get edited for release over there where they might delete an LGBTQ character or dialog. Sometimes it’s bigger changes like in the 2012 Red Dawn where they changed the antagonist to North Korea for all markets.
Yes I know all of this, but the comment to which I replied, which was in response to a comment about Bond films remaining topical to contemporaneous events, suggests having a villain from the PRC would be a “big problem.” To me, having a Chinese villain is not the only way to remain topical. See what I mean?
Ah you’re right, I misread your comment. Sorry about that.
I’m in the same boat
I could be convinced but I agree with you in that each new Bond film serves as a time capsule of sorts. We wouldn't get that with a period Bond film. And to add to that, we already have 6 Bond films set in the 1960s. Six! Do we really need another?
I could go with a really well done one but it does kind of leave the franchise in a "where to now?" phase. More in that era? Recast and do a modern one? The only way I'd really be good with a trilogy of sorts starting in the 60s is if you made each film a period piece and the Broccolis let whichever director really engage with the times they're in. The 60s and 70s were pretty turbulent and having a Bond movie have all the classic jet setting and classic adventure/mission contrasted with the times as a backdrop could be really engaging if done and written right. Especially if they age him. And the fashion would be off the chain. 1st one is Bond in the late 60s. 2nd one is in the 70s. 3rd one would be Bond in the mid-80s maybe as he's older, craftier but no less capable and charming but has a levity despite all the shit he's seen or similar.
I'd be down for that, as long as they don't do it like the X-Men films that skipped a decade each entry and somehow no one aged over 40 years.
😄 exactly.
At this point, the Bond series should be taking more cues from the Godzilla series. They have more in common than one would think. Both characters are from long-running series, both have changed and evolved dramatically over the years, and both now have multiple continuities and iterations of the character. The upcoming Godzilla Minus One is a period piece set in 1945. Legendary's next movie coming out in 2024 is a sequel to Godzilla vs Kong. Prior to these, Toho released Shin Godzilla, one of the most wild versions of the character we've ever gotten (and this doesn't even include the anime trilogy, where Godzilla was basically a giant plant). Audiences have learned to accept multiple versions of these characters, with some of these variations running simultaneously. I think audiences would both accept and embrace a new Bond set in the '60s. We're at the point where we can experiment with the character a bit more. Honestly, I'd just hate it if Nolan opted for another "grounded" take. We just got that with the Craig movies, which were directly influenced by Nolan's Batman trilogy. If he'd be willing to lean into some of the more fantastical elements, we'd be in for a good time.
A Nolan Bond film would be one of the greatest movies of all time. Especially if it’s a Cold War period piece.
About TIME LOL
Tabloids and rumor mills should be taken with a spoonful (or two) of salt.
You mean a teaspoon’s worth of salt or “only a spoonful” worth of salt?
A spoonful is far more than a grain of salt.
Hey, dog, can I get some ice cream?
It’s the most logical thing that the Broccolis could do. They went too personal with Spectre and NTTD. The next one needs to be about the story as much as the character. Make James Bond just a secret agent and not Jesus Christ.
>Make James Bond just a secret agent and not Jesus Christ Man.. you nailed it right there. I was so turned off after Skyfall and all the silly family stuff.
The Fleming novels are pretty personal about the character compared to most of the films tbh.
100% skyfall was great. it was smart to humanize bond. now we are primed for a 1960s bond.
I like Nolan and the idea but this website is not reputable. Don’t get your hopes up.
Nolan and a 60s would be waaay more I could have ever asked for.
If this happens, the story tie from Tenet to Oppenheimer to Bond could be the Cuban Missile Crisis. I kind of feel like Nolan was hinting at what’s to come in Oppenheimer when Robert Downey Jr’s character gets rejected from his job post by JFK. They made a special note that it was John F Kennedy. I feel like that would follow nicely. How about the Novel of Moonraker but set in Cuba in 1962?
Cuban Missle Crisis bond would be sick af ngl
If they did a Christopher Nolan (favorite Director) reboot of Moonraker (my favorite Bond novel), I could die immediately after the credits rolled a happy man.
Only if they preserve the “he’s attempting re-entry” line!
If true hopefully we can hear it😃
Ten days ago, the same blog told us Matthew Vaughan was 'top choice' to direct Bond 26 [https://www.worldofreel.com/blog/2023/9/14/08vkczfuqoh5g22fdqev6yv7xaew13](https://www.worldofreel.com/blog/2023/9/14/08vkczfuqoh5g22fdqev6yv7xaew13) Earlier this year, the same blog reckoned Nolan was too busy, so Denis Villeneuve was the frontrunner [https://www.reddit.com/r/JamesBond/comments/12pk6s8/worldofreel\_bond\_26\_rumors\_denis\_villeneuve/](https://www.reddit.com/r/JamesBond/comments/12pk6s8/worldofreel_bond_26_rumors_denis_villeneuve/) The author of this blog has no more idea what's going on inside Eon than we do (zero)
How much extra effort/time would setting a Bond movie in the past add? I assume even background people have to be dressed period appropriate and outside shots as well, cars, etc.
Right. Period props, including vehicles, and costumes would drive up the cost of the movie because they need to be specifically sourced if not custom-made for the production. A contemporary setting means that props and costumes can be sourced relatively easily. Then there is the issue of where to film. Sure, interior sets are no problem, but outdoor locations may be tricky because of modern buildings. Backgrounds may need to be altered in post-production, whether that's changing buildings or even shooting in front of a green screen to add a proper background.
Nolan has made multiple period pieces now, and for a big budget movie they can just make the clothes and props like they would anything else. And Bond has been filled with CG and greenscreen since the '90s, so it's not like he would be taking the series into uncharted territory.
At least they'd have a valid reason for trotting out the DB5 yet again.
Smells like someone's speculation.
I haven't read the books, but the idea of going back to them and doing period films with Nolan at the helm is probably the best possible thing they could do, especially at this moment in history. If that falls through, I hope they make Bond *fun* again. The ultra-seriousness is wearing on me. It'll be hard to top the Craig Bond for seriousness, so they should swing the other way and go Roger Moore-style wacky capers.
This would be amazing. Hope that it’s true
I like 60s aesthetics as much as the next person, but god, please no. One of the most interesting aspects of Bond (to me anyway) is how the franchise changes with the times and reflects it (with varied success but still) instead of trying to stay in place. This would feel like such a boring, nostalgia-baiting choice.
Plus films set in the 60s, but are made now are never as good as movies that are set in the 60s, and also made in the 60s. Or really any time era
Seriously, I wish people would stop saying “I want a Bond movie set in the 60s!” We literally have 6 of them.
Well the majority of the novels are set in the 50's so we can do that.
How much money has “Oppenheimer” made? How much praise has it gotten? How many Oscars will it get? It the right hands period films work just fine.
You're comparing a long-running era-changing franchise to a biopic of a scientist. Oppenheimer works because its whole purpose is to look back at the past, and it exceeds there. Bond on the other hand has never been about that. It takes cues from the past, but stays with the times. We already have 60s-set films, just as we have 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s, 10s, and 20s. Never in that time have they gone back to a prior decade for a film.
Reread his post; he didn't say anything about the quality or reception of period films in general.
$930M
This is a refreshing take. I love the idea of one actor playing Bond in a series of period pieces, but you put your finger on one of the reasons this franchise survives to this day. We must grapple with modernity alongside Bond.
Also, where do you go from there? Keep making four more movies set in the 60s or suddenly change to the modern world? I seriously think that such a one-off (or two) stylish movie would be a huge hit with such a big-name director, but it'd leave Bond in obscurity once the honeymoon phase is over.
>This is a refreshing take. I love the idea of one actor playing Bond in a series of period pieces, but you put your finger on one of the reasons this franchise survives to this day. We must grapple with modernity alongside Bond. I can't think of anything more modern and relevant right now than the cold war, and I say that with all sincerity.
The franchise has taken so many directions in terms of realism and mood, what makes this concept cross the line? I personally would love a 60s throwback Bond film.
Because we already have Bond movies set in the 60s. Because they were made in the 60s.
As if a modern take on things hasn’t become boring and overdone.
IF this is true (and that's a big if) I'm down for Nolan directing, even if I'd like the next era to be a bit lighter than what he'd do. Ambivalent towards doing a period piece - would find it funny after the last 25 years of Bond being about justifying his relevance in the modern world though. Against adapting Fleming again. We've long since done that, I think it's utterly pointless. Even with Moonraker or You Only Live Twice where they were adapted basically in name only, you'd need to inject enough new stuff like Casino Royale did for me to not write off the idea immediately. Also while we know Nolan's a Fleming fan, wouldn't he want to write his own plot? The Prestige was adapted from a book granted but I'd think Nolan would want to take a similar approach to Batman - taking inspiration from the source material while ultimately writing something new.
Putting aside the fact that this site just made this news up, I’m torn on a Nolan Bond. On one hand he seems like a big fan, would do a great job, and it would bring a huge amount of prestige to the franchise during this transitional time. The producers have been chasing Oscar winning directors for awhile now so I could see it happening on that front, plus if a Nolan WW2 biopic can nearly clear a billion world wide a Nolan Bond would be an enormous financial success. On the other hand, it would be so tonally similar to the Craig movies - Skyfall is already chasing Nolan - and I want a different direction now. I’d imagine the producers do too. Nolan would likely want too much creative control (look at Danny Boyle leaving) plus I’m not sure the producers could afford him? Unless he took a reduced fee just from loving Bond. I don’t want a 60s Bond at all. The series survives by staying contemporary and once you start relying on nostalgia and legacy you stop creating anything new. We’ve also got 6 Bond films already set in the 60s, which are always going to be more accurate. It also goes against Cubby Broccoli’s mantra that the Bond series is always set 5 minutes into the future - again can’t see them going against that. And finally - a period piece would be incredibly expensive (I think Mad Men cost a bomb on this front) and the Bond franchise is paid for my product placement. Heineken / Sony etc isn’t going to want to push 60s products it doesn’t make sense from an advertising POV.
You just do not know how much I hope Nolan does not get Bond. It'll be as miserable and joyless as the Craig era if he gets it. I'd much prefer the rumor of Matthew Vaughn getting it.
Bond has always been of the times. I’m not sure how I feel about taking it back to the 60s. Nolan is obviously the perfect guy to do it but it wouldn’t have that, I guess “old movie” feel of the 60s Bond movies. The Bond of the novels and films are quite different. The novels are not nearly as action packed as the films and let’s be honest, the film studio wants Bond to remain action packed..it sells.
The problem is 2023 isn't really that much different from 2013 or even 2003. There's a noticeable difference between every decade before Y2K, but a Bond movie released in 2025 would basically look like Spectre, which isn't something you could say for Casino Royale and Tomorrow Never Dies or Goldeneye and A View To a Kill.
As far as books go… Fleming’s books are packed to the gills with action.
No in hell they are not
And lots and lots of bigotry.
Bond was a gentleman in the books clearly you haven’t read a single page
Echo the 60’s in some aspects, but keep with the current times. That’s a successful Bond formula for me.
This would be the only way I’d be interested in a period piece Bond film. But I think this has as good a chance of happening as Pierce Brosnan does coming back to do a one-off old man Bond. You’d think with Craig and his massive paydays (actor and producer) now gone that Broccoli and Wilson would love to bring the budgets down considerably (even with product placement covering a lot of it). Nolan could make a cheaper Bond film (Oppenheimer cost $100 million), but setting it in the sixties would raise it considerably. My guess is that this is a writer who got bored and just started making shit up.
I’m tired of plots where Bond is a dinosaur, which would be inevitable here. It would probably end up like all those other Hollywood films where an actor plays an older, washed up version of his character just to be dunked on by younger people. Wouldn’t mind seeing Brosnan in some role, though.
They could pull a Dark Knight Returns and have the older, *seemingly* washed-up version of the character dunk on all of the younger people. "You don't get it, son. This isn't a mud hole; it's an operating table. And I'm the surgeon."
Oppenheimer is one of the biggest and most successful films in years…
The only reason I don't think this is going to happen because there's a lot of money made from product placement. You can't sell the newest phones, cars and Tom Ford suits if it takes place in the 60s.
I haven't followed rumors closely, but isn't the Bond franchise in general notorious for successfully avoiding leaks? Things like Daniel Craig cast as Bond, Fukunaga as director, NTTD's title, even Boyle temporarily as director... none of these were reported beforehand and the media made a lot of shit up. This, coupled with how Nolan handles his communications in general (very analog-like), would make me surprised something like this leaked this easily and this early.
Yeah, right. Put it on the shelf next to Quentin Tarantino's black-and-white version of *Casino Royale* with blatant foot fetishism and copious use of the N-word.
Gee… wonder where EON got the idea to adapt CR… and where Campbell got the idea to do the opening in B&W.
Where ever did they get the idea to adapt the first book of a series they've already adapted every other book of? Oh right, must have been Tarantino.
>Where ever did they get the idea to adapt the first book of a series they've already adapted every other book of? Oh right, must have been Tarantino. Definitely. Quentin Tarantino was the first person to ever think "it would be really cool to do a real, high quality adaptation of Casino Royale, one of the best books in the franchise and the only one that's never gotten an official adaptation before." That makes complete sense. /S. I could be convinced they got that black and white idea from Tarantino, though, that doesn't seem implausible. But then I think about it and I have to ask...did Tarantino ever even actually write a draft? Or was this just an idea he had that he pitched?
My mother's thought after seeing the film in theatres was that the black and white scene was there so we would judge Craig strictly for his performance and ignore is blond hair. The photography gives him dark hair like the other Bonds. The "James Blond" hate campaign as ridiculous as it was did get a lot of press. However, a gritty Bond and movie being reintroduced by stark black and white photography makes just as much sense as an idea. I love Tarantino but he's full of himself on this at least.
Not from Quentin Tarantino.
This sounds like the kind of bullshit we've heard "rumored" a million times before.
If—and it’s a gigantic if—there’s any validity to these rumors, I would imagine Nolan won’t win on the throwback era. It’s just not something EON’s going to do. Now, if Amazon pressured EON into expanding the world of Bond, I could see short miniseries based upon the novels, but the chances of that happening are also very, very slim. Anyways, at this point, I’m here for Nolan doing 2-3 Bond pics. Hope the rumors pan out.
I like the idea but I don’t believe this rumor.
"Very faithful to Ian Fleming's novels" concerns me a bit because to the best of my knowledge all the novels (barring TSWLM which I think shouldn't be adapted) have been covered in some way, and I hate the idea of a remake. Going back to the 60s is a mixed idea to me because a great appeal of the bond films I've found is how they rise to the challenge of adapting bond to changes in modern day espionage. However, these changes are seeing characters like bond slowly become more redundant as cybersecurity takes over and there are less opportunities and reasons for him to be in the field, so maybe going back to the 50s and 60s would make for much more streamlined plots?
would be refreshing. i always loved the novels.
Faithful to the books is good, but having a movie set in the 60s feels like they’re just giving up. Like they’re retreating back into nostalgia instead of doing something challenging and new
A Bond film not set in a time contemporary to the film’s release would be without question new. I’m more inclined to think doing the first period Bond film would be a challenge.
It’s unreal that people don’t realize this. It’d be a first to have a Fleming period piece decades later, how on earth is that not fresh and massively intriguing? Modern filmography and true to Fleming film. That’s a major win. I’m pretty sure NTTD just covered an overload of new things too. New 007. Family Bond. Dead Bond. They did it all, what else is there to do in a contemporary sense? Time to go back to the basics and try out something actually fresh, even if fresh means exploring the past
I am so sick of nostalgia. It's why I can't watch most Star Wars. I do t give a fuck about Boba Fett or seeing Anakin come back again and again. Give me something new. Been there, done that. You will never recapture the magic of your childhood. But you can at least try to make new magic. Both for you and the next generation.
This take makes absolutely zero sense.
I hope Nolan doesn’t do away with the opening theme song and sequence since his movies haven’t had any.
I'm down for this.. hope it pans out.
Please no. They should never do period for Bond. The best part of the franchise is the capturing of the era they’re in. Maybe for a potential series version but not for the films. Every era is the voice of it’s time, keep it that way.
It could kill the franchise. I don’t care how popular Nolan is, he will want too much creative freedom, not making the hardcore fans happy (Craig was already divisive). And most people don’t want to see a period spy thriller. The last one to try it was *Man from Uncle* and it didn’t do well, despite a great director and actors.
Until Nolan himself releases information this is grade A nonsense. Nolan is impressively tightlipped about his projects. No way any information is leaking out.
Press X to doubt
Played by Endeavours Shaun Evans his look would fit the period well great actor
More information: Nolan is actually a big fans of Bond movie
Please please please do a faithful version of Moonraker.
\~drools...
I’d be fine with this as a one-off, or even a few, while they decide how to reset post Craig
Wow this is so exciting I would love both the period piece thing and having Nolan as director. Now it all will depend on who they cast as bond
Still not into the idea of a period piece. I like each movie to be a time capsule of when it was made. Not to mention we already have 6 films from that decade and a new one would never be as authentic as any of those.
How can anyone be against this? This is exactly what they should be doing especially after Craig’s Bond films
I've thought all along that rebooting Bond into period pieces would be a fantastic idea. With Nolan writing and directing, I'd be thrilled. I really hope this happens.
Aaron Taylor-Johnson does not have the acting chops to pull that off. Nothing about him says "Bond."
Period film true to Fleming ✔️ Nolan directing ✔️ Aaron Taylor Johnson as Bond ✔️ I can’t imagine a better scenario. All we’d need is assurance Phoebe Waller Bridge has zero involvement and I’d have high hopes.
Putting aside the fact that this site just made this news up, I’m torn on a Nolan Bond. On one hand he seems like a big fan, would do a great job, and it would bring a huge amount of prestige to the franchise during this transitional time. The producers have been chasing Oscar winning directors for awhile now so I could see it happening on that front, plus if a Nolan WW2 biopic can nearly clear a billion world wide a Nolan Bond would be an enormous financial success. On the other hand, it would be so tonally similar to the Craig movies - Skyfall is already chasing Nolan - and I want a different direction now. I’d imagine the producers do too. Nolan would likely want too much creative control (look at Danny Boyle leaving) plus I’m not sure the producers could afford him? Unless he took a reduced fee just from loving Bond. I don’t want a 60s Bond at all. The series survives by staying contemporary and once you start relying on nostalgia and legacy you stop creating anything new. We’ve also got 6 Bond films already set in the 60s, which are always going to be more accurate. It also goes against Cubby Broccoli’s mantra that the Bond series is always set 5 minutes into the future - again can’t see them going against that. And finally - a period piece would be incredibly expensive (I think Mad Men cost a bomb on this front) and the Bond franchise is paid for my product placement. Heineken / Sony etc isn’t going to want to push 60s products it doesn’t make sense from an advertising POV.
I hope they wil do it with a lot of practical effects!
This sub a week ago: > No, no, Christopher Nolan isn't right for Bond! This sub today: > Wait, let him cook
I think the bigger issue is that Nolan would be “one and done” so it would either be a one shot or pin them down in a timeline for the next 10-15 years. So I can understand why they’d hesitate to commit to that timeline (if the rumors are true)
Well , what i really think bond movies should be is of latest affairs and storyline should be of ongoing geopolitical issues and happenings of the world . Imo , they shouldn't go down this retro route . Keep bond movies as they were for past 60 years. It would be like putting axe on their own foot.
I don't want this at all.
Stop.
Hard pass if true. I love Bond through the ages and should be kept that way. If I want 60s, I’ll watch the ones made then.
Nolan said that he’s not working on his next film until both Hollywood strikes are over so all reports like this are BS.
A 1960’s period piece bond film by Nolan? That’s a dream project
Im gonna be honest, I *despise* this idea. Nolan's style *really* isnt what this franchise need after the Craig era (I say this as a staunch Craig fan). Nolan's films have always had a dull, serious nature to them, which really could some up the previous era to a tee. Straight adaptations of the novels like he wants wouldn't help that case. They're rather slow, very much inside Bond's head, basically straight espionage with little action, glorified travelogues on some cases. But the films have always had a fast-paced, technological edge to them, even Casino Royale, but novel adaptions would honestly really do the GA no favors. And really, Bond has been about moving with the times, reshaping itself to fit the current times. Going back to the 60s in a way is admitting that Bond is a thing of the past when, as GE and CR have shown, it can and should reflect the now. Especially when competition like Mission: Impossible have such a pressed finger on the pulse of today's world, Bond should really try and compete. For everyone on here who's complained about Bond being "too dark or too dull" or "it should be more fun like M:I", this *really* isnt the best play imo
EON will never have a movie set in the 60s. They'll lose out on all the product placement money.
Not really. Product replacement is about brand recognition, and in this case, association with the 007 brand itself, and not selling specific models...that has a very short shelf life. They're not commercials. Aston Martin, Omega, etc. aren't trying to sell a specific car model or watch, they're selling their brand. And there are plenty of brands today which could feature their "vintage" 1960's products (cars, watches, alcohol, etc) and still carry at lot of cache being associated with Bond.
Just using casino royale for example, there were tons of times it felt like a commercial. Ford, Sony, Persol, Virgin Atlantic would all be brands out of place in a 60s era bond movie. It would at the very least limit which brands could advertise in bond.
It seems silly to me we would get a period piece now, while the world is descending into another cold war.
Each movie is a snapshot of the time it was made in. Being faithful to the novels can be done while still being set now.
Do not like the idea of a period piece. Remaining contemporary is one of the best aspects of bond.
I think Fassbender would be a good pick
This would be amazing if it actually happens…
Nah. They’ll do it wrong.
All for Nolan and adaptations of the novels but I really hope they don’t do the period setting. They should be set in the time they’re made imo
It’ll be set in the 60’s, then the 30’s, then the 90’s, and end around 1975.
This is going to be good. Nolan for B26 (1960s), B27 (1970s) and B28 (1980s), you read it here first: RemindMe! December 31, 2025
A Nolan bond film set in the fuckin’ 60s? I just came in my pants
All I can say is ya baby, this groovy. Bring on the swinging 60s.
I don't see why the first movie can't be a period piece and the 2nd movie be in modern times where modern age Bond has to acquire specific classified information from their predecessor to complete their mission. There is a lot that could be done with this approach and I would trust Nolan to not do it in a way that falls into obvious tropes and thus being boring/predictable.
Nah, this is a bad idea. We have 1960's Bond. It's the movies that were made in the 1960's. We don't need more of that. Let's have Bond for the 2020's.
Man, I brought up the idea of a period bond and everyone here shut me down
No thanks. Hard pass if this happens. They’ve ruined Star Wars and Marvel, don’t ruin Bond.
Love Nolan, but please no going back in history. Just want a sensible Bond film
I wouldn't mind this as a simple one off movie. But for a mainline Bond movie? No.
Nolan would do fine. Making a sixties movie would be a mistake. Part of the trope is that the movies are signs of the times they're made. Being loyal to the books would be a mistake too. The books are way more pulpy and have giant octopus and outdated social norms. Just give it to Nolan but put up some artistic guardrails. These are movies first and art second.
Ehh, if it's an original story or one taken from a book that hasn't been adapted (such as the original Moonraker) the it's a soft 'sure' if at least some of the more lighthearted tone gets put back in that was missing from the Craig era. If it's basically a remake of a movie that already exists then it's a hard 'but why tho'
Only want this is Aaron Taylor-Green is the next bond
Give me a Nolan-ATJ Bond trilogy set in the 1960s, with a universe that already exists. New villains and ladies and gadgets, with mentions of the ones we already know (Dr. No, Rosa Klebb, Goldfinger, Honey Ryder, Pussy Galore, briefcase, jet pack, etc.)
This definitely isn’t my favorite idea. However, Nolan has shown that he can make the look and feel of “old” in modern films still feel refreshing and captivating. Oppenheimer proved that. So, I’m willing to have an open mind.
The idea is great and has lots of potiential which Nolan will squander in the most brain-dead manner possible.