That was the thing. The atmosphere in the late 60s was SO sucky - Viet Nam, student protests, civil rights battles, riots, police brutality, political assassinations - that trek was a bright spot of optimism that we really needed.
Are some things better done retro?
- Thread starter Warped9
- Start date
That was the thing. The atmosphere in the late 60s was SO sucky - Viet Nam, student protests, civil rights battles, riots, police brutality, political assassinations - that trek was a bright spot of optimism that we really needed.
I'm going to guess you're 25 or under.
This world is drastically different from the world I grew up in. you have all the information in the world (text, picture or video) at your fingertips (whether home or out and about). You can find your location anywhere in the world. You can whip out a little phone and talk to people. Whip out an ipad and you're talking face to face. Music came on little disks for a while, and now we don't even need those.
The transformations this world has gone through in a short amount of time are truly amazing. I can't wait to see what happens next!
Doubt it, and seeing as the only thing you remotely have to back success up is a two part episode from a show that was on it last legs and had pitiful ratings and fan films that aren't likely to attract anyone outside of the hardcore (which aren't enough for a successful movie) I don't see any reason not to doubt it.
It maybe looks good for TV, not a sever hundred million dollar movie.
And no I don't want to go back to the Berman era of putting a two hour TV episode on a movie screen and calling it a movie.
Entertainment fiction can also be political diatribe. A period Bond that regurgitates anticommunist hysteria would be a political diatribe.
As for the claim that you're living in the real world? Drivel, to put it kindly. There was no international communist conspiracy. There was no Soviet plan to conquer Europe, much less the world. There was no "human nature" discernible to out-to-lunch pontificators. Instead of James Bond there was Operation Gladio and other criminal operations against other countries. The openly acknowledged and official death toll inflicted upon humanity in the name of the anticommunist crusade is literally in the millions.
Even if you were gullible enough to swallow the official version of supposed victims of communism, it is frankly at best a wash. And to be even more frank, the deahth toll from WWI, when there was no communism, puts paid to any BS about capitalism being more humane.
The problem is the artist/writer having the backbone to stick to his guns against the overwhelming tide of all the other creatives with more clout like the art directors/designers, the network executives and in some cases the janitors and cave in to whatever everybody thinks makes everybody else happy and that leads to things with no moral integrity or artistic merit like the Mission Impossible movies, etc., etc. It's hard to take everyone on when the commandments come down from above or in this case below to highly susceptible wimpy writers and creatives who need the money and have to consider everyone else's side or the outside.. his way or the highway, when he has a family to support and rent to pay.
Clearly, some works would have to suffer major alteration to be transposed to other times.
If the parts in the Matrix were set during the French Revolution, then the film The Matrix couldn't tease its audience with the idea that the real world might be an illusion. Arguably, that's a big part of what The Matrix is about. Whether it could survive the transposition would depend upon whether being set in the French Revolution could be made as intriguing, simple as that.
True, it's very hard to imagine the story of the The Name of the Rose not losing a great deal, if it were adapted to Sherlock Holmes' time. A period piece transposition of Sherlock Holmes was the whole idea there. However, The Name of the Rose shows that character of Sherlock Holmes can be adapted to earlier times; Sherlock shows that the character can be adapted to later and contemporary times, as can many of his original adventures.
Adaptation is a trade-off. Obviously when an adaptation is made, some of the original is discarded. Whether the adaptation is successful depends in part upon whether there is something new gained in the process that is worthwhile in its own right that can compensate for what was changed.
If the parts in the Matrix were set during the French Revolution, then the film The Matrix couldn't tease its audience with the idea that the real world might be an illusion. Arguably, that's a big part of what The Matrix is about. Whether it could survive the transposition would depend upon whether being set in the French Revolution could be made as intriguing, simple as that.
True, it's very hard to imagine the story of the The Name of the Rose not losing a great deal, if it were adapted to Sherlock Holmes' time. A period piece transposition of Sherlock Holmes was the whole idea there. However, The Name of the Rose shows that character of Sherlock Holmes can be adapted to earlier times; Sherlock shows that the character can be adapted to later and contemporary times, as can many of his original adventures.
Adaptation is a trade-off. Obviously when an adaptation is made, some of the original is discarded. Whether the adaptation is successful depends in part upon whether there is something new gained in the process that is worthwhile in its own right that can compensate for what was changed.
Yeah, heard it all before for years on end. And he was no more convincing than you are. The western countries aren't saints, but neither were the communists.
Are you currently living in a communist country? Are you living in a communist state? Then you're no more enlightened than anyone else.
There's a lot of bullshit living in a capitalist country that we see very day, but don't begin to try selling me the communist paradise.
And if you want to spout the virtues of communism and their persecution then, please, don't do it in a thread meant to talk about entertainment fiction. Take it to the TNZ forum.
You seem to be ignoring the main point of the OP's post namely that the anti-communism efforts created monsters just as bad or even worse than the communist regimes such as Pinochet, Marcos, Banzer, Park, the Junta in Argentina, etc. Just because communism may have been a failed economic and political model does not excuse false imprisonment, tortures, extra-judicial killings and the litany of other crimes and atrocities that were committed in the name of halting the spread of communism.
I'm well aware of those things, but I'm not in favour of bringing that kind of discussion into the subject of this thread. I resist the attempt to try to turn the discussion here into a political one which seems to be happening anyway.
James Bond was a collection of adventure/thriller books and not a collection of political dramas or essays. And the movies were even more escapist fiction with a smattering of real world sensibility to them. Setting the character back in the '50s and '60s is not an attempt to reignite the east vs. west cold war mentality. It's simply escapist fiction with a touch of real world milieu to it to make it feel more authentic.
But like my former acquaintance stj is seeing a conspiracy where there is none. Hell my former acquaintance was extremely leftist and he didn't see that in the Bond flicks. In fact he enjoyed them.
James Bond is inherently political. He kills people for the British crown and fights the Soviet SMERSH for Queen and Country. A period piece that doesn't ignore the grisly details would show the character and his handlers for the villains they are.
Ooooo, can't have that. While we're at it lets stop making films about rogue cops as heroes as well as vigilantes in costume.
).All entertainment carries messages. Badly made entertainment carries unintentional messages.
And that brings us to bad entertainment. The difference between "retro" and a period piece is the intention to invoke a romantic illusion that has fallen to pieces. By and large, those illusions fell to pieces for good reason. Now, willful suspension of disbelief can be achieved only at a cost. That cost is generally a deliberate unseriousness. (This is usually disingenuously acknowledged as calling it "fun.") Well, things can be amusing, and the ingenuity can be appreciated, and nostalgia for the good times watching the originals can be indulged. But the willful irrelevance takes away any reason to really care. Any light amusement that tries to defy its own nature, to avoid the consequences of its inerently trivial aims, to evoke deep emotion become overwrought, hamhanded, pompous and bloated. None of this is very entertaining.
There is of course the exception of the people who actually like the retro message. Then the flagrant dishonesty is excused as mere style, simple escapism, "fun." Same old BS.
And that brings us to bad entertainment. The difference between "retro" and a period piece is the intention to invoke a romantic illusion that has fallen to pieces. By and large, those illusions fell to pieces for good reason. Now, willful suspension of disbelief can be achieved only at a cost. That cost is generally a deliberate unseriousness. (This is usually disingenuously acknowledged as calling it "fun.") Well, things can be amusing, and the ingenuity can be appreciated, and nostalgia for the good times watching the originals can be indulged. But the willful irrelevance takes away any reason to really care. Any light amusement that tries to defy its own nature, to avoid the consequences of its inerently trivial aims, to evoke deep emotion become overwrought, hamhanded, pompous and bloated. None of this is very entertaining.
There is of course the exception of the people who actually like the retro message. Then the flagrant dishonesty is excused as mere style, simple escapism, "fun." Same old BS.
I think you're reading way more into it than most people would see. There's no question that a story set in a retro setting or also known as a period piece can have a romanticized (or as someone upthread said a "perfected retro" feel) to it, but the intent of the filmmaker also plays a role.
A Bond film set back in the '50s or '60s wouldn't carry the same impact as a genuine spy story retelling an event that did happen in that era. Bond never aspired to telling "as it really is" stories. They were/are exaggerated fantasy depicting an international super spy. Yes, they were each a product and somewhat shallow reflection of their times simply because that was inescapable. But there was never any deeper meaning in a Bond film or any of the original novels. Indeed the Bond novels, particularly the earlier ones, do have a resonance or echo of the times from which they sprang, but it's really a matter of setting and atmosphere that flavours the stories. None of them were anything more than simple adventure thrillers whether you thought they were well written or not.
I would also think that if a filmmaker (or novelist) wants to tell a more critical look at an earlier era in a piece of fiction or even an adaptation of a real event then he or she isn't likely to try telling it as a Bond story. Despite some welcoming a grittier edge to Bond I think most fans and mainstream viewers wouldn't understand or embrace a 007 really brought down to earth.
Hell, the Bourne trilogy of movies doesn't shy from making American Intelligence operatives look really bad and even there it's still mostly simple escapism.
I'm more offended by filmmakers who go out of their way to revisit an actual event and knowingly ignore the facts to put their own spin on it. I give you Argo.
A Bond film set back in the '50s or '60s wouldn't carry the same impact as a genuine spy story retelling an event that did happen in that era. Bond never aspired to telling "as it really is" stories. They were/are exaggerated fantasy depicting an international super spy. Yes, they were each a product and somewhat shallow reflection of their times simply because that was inescapable. But there was never any deeper meaning in a Bond film or any of the original novels. Indeed the Bond novels, particularly the earlier ones, do have a resonance or echo of the times from which they sprang, but it's really a matter of setting and atmosphere that flavours the stories. None of them were anything more than simple adventure thrillers whether you thought they were well written or not.
I would also think that if a filmmaker (or novelist) wants to tell a more critical look at an earlier era in a piece of fiction or even an adaptation of a real event then he or she isn't likely to try telling it as a Bond story. Despite some welcoming a grittier edge to Bond I think most fans and mainstream viewers wouldn't understand or embrace a 007 really brought down to earth.
Hell, the Bourne trilogy of movies doesn't shy from making American Intelligence operatives look really bad and even there it's still mostly simple escapism.
I'm more offended by filmmakers who go out of their way to revisit an actual event and knowingly ignore the facts to put their own spin on it. I give you Argo.
No I don't anybody would like Bond in a genuine period piece that was faithful to the reality. And I must concede that if done with a light touch, a retro Bond could be clever, amusing and nostalgic.
But, isn't what people want from a retro Bond the opposite of a deft, knowing handling of a soap bubble version of the world? Don't they want the retro Bond to be someone whose violence, misogyny and heroism (and reactionary politics too) can be taken more seriously because it's encapsulated in a retro world?
The movies are of course much less lighter than the novels, and hardly merit discussion. But even though the novels were meant for escapism, the point is that a world where some ladykiller assassin is the hero is conceived as fun stuff, does indeed carrry a message. On one level, the Bond novels were saying that was the way Fleming and his audience wanted it to be. And I'm sorry I'm pretty sure that even Fleming thought that on one level it was really was the way the world was, that it really did have grotesque foes who could only be fought by men willing to kill without conscience. (Which is why Bond in particular gets my goat.) Saying it's not deep is a left-handed way of conceding it's kind of foolish. I too have enjoyed quite a bit of foolishness. But I find that Taking Nonsense Seriously is just not very entertaining, and goes overboard very quickly.
You don't have to camp up retro, as witness something like The Rocketeer, which still knew the whole time it wasn't serious. Retro is intrinsically difficult, as witness something like The Shadow, which slipped into wallowing.
But, isn't what people want from a retro Bond the opposite of a deft, knowing handling of a soap bubble version of the world? Don't they want the retro Bond to be someone whose violence, misogyny and heroism (and reactionary politics too) can be taken more seriously because it's encapsulated in a retro world?
The movies are of course much less lighter than the novels, and hardly merit discussion. But even though the novels were meant for escapism, the point is that a world where some ladykiller assassin is the hero is conceived as fun stuff, does indeed carrry a message. On one level, the Bond novels were saying that was the way Fleming and his audience wanted it to be. And I'm sorry I'm pretty sure that even Fleming thought that on one level it was really was the way the world was, that it really did have grotesque foes who could only be fought by men willing to kill without conscience. (Which is why Bond in particular gets my goat.) Saying it's not deep is a left-handed way of conceding it's kind of foolish. I too have enjoyed quite a bit of foolishness. But I find that Taking Nonsense Seriously is just not very entertaining, and goes overboard very quickly.
You don't have to camp up retro, as witness something like The Rocketeer, which still knew the whole time it wasn't serious. Retro is intrinsically difficult, as witness something like The Shadow, which slipped into wallowing.
Or written out as an epic ballad and sung by wandering minstrels to the accompaniment of a lute.
Hey, if a six-foot, 180-pound Scotsman can pass as Japanese . . .
I don't think people want a retro Bond because they want a more serious and realistic 007. In truth I think it's their own nostalgia and sentiment at play because perhaps they don't get as much enjoyment out of the more contemporary films as they did from the earlier ones. And hence the sense that Bond would seem to fit better in a retro setting. Although a character of fiction Bond is something of a product of the cold war era. The key to making Bond fit today is to find a way of bringing him into the contemporary world while not losing too much of his original personality and appeal. In any age Bond does represent a fantasized image that practically any male could aspire to even if but for a moment: to be confident and eminently capable, to do as he wills, and to be irresistible to most women. Thats an image most men have probably idolized since we started walking upright. The details can vary but the essential image of the alpha male remains.
I think the real heart of this discussion comes down to what one thinks people get out of film and television and literature as well as media like comics and video games. I fell it's similar to the argument that Looney Tunes and the Three Stooges are dated and too violent for kids. Same with the horror and superhero comics of the 1940s and '50s. And same thing with video games today. There is the concern that impressionable minds cannot filter that what they're seeing is make-believe with no connection to reality despite generations of people growing up with these things and knowing full well that hitting someone over the head with a crowbar is not an acceptable thing to do. Although I've never played the game I'm pretty sure the vast majority of players know well enough not to try re-enacting Grand Theft Auto or Hitman for real.
Anyone watching From Russia With Love (admittedly one of my favourite Bond films and book) should be able to see rather easily that it's not a reflection of what the world was really like back then. And I consider From Russia With Love one of the more (comparatively) down-to-earth Bond films. Indeed the early Connery Bonds are probably along the lines of what most people think of when they express interest in the idea of a retro Bond film.
In contrast lets look at something like Mad Men on television. It portrays a retro look at the 1960s in quite a fashionable way and yet it's not quite the same escapism a retro Bond flick would be. The distinction is that Mad Men (to the extent they're comfortable with) shows us some of the things that weren't so nice back then. It can fly in the face of many older folks longing for the "good ol' days" when they were younger and understood the world around them. Then you also have Game Of Thrones which is a totally fictitious depiction of medieval times while daring to show how brutal and miserable those times really were. Game Of Thrones is a successful and popular show (I quite like it myself) but I seriously doubt many viewers really long to live in the medieval times after watching it.
Last edited:
NO.
Why not a revisionist period Bond, though? In the mid-60s, 007 investigates a rogue Soviet general's plot to blow up Barcelona. Turns out, however, that a Yankee military-industrial tycoon is behind it all, hoping to make European countries spend just as much on weapons as the States. Bond kills both men, but the arms company retains its US federal contracts, and Bond is forbidden on pain of treason to ever tell the tale. Gritty, grim and realistic - all trendy buzzwords, and, as Warped9 notes, the Bourne series has shown today's public to be plenty willing to see our own government play the baddie so long as the thrills are delivered.
Just because a 1960s Bond smokes, sleeps around and kills for Her Majesty doesn't mean he's gotta be Studly Grover Norquist with a sidearm.
So, Stalin was justified in murdering millions of people? Mao? WWI killed roughly 15,000,000 people, Stalin killed 20,000,000 AFTER WWII and Mao killed 40,000,000.
China is justified in repressing its people and censoring the publication of IDEAS? Chavez was justified in shutting down television stations who disagreed with his ideas? Putin can jail anyone who disagrees with him? Correa can sue newspapers who disagree with him?
Back to the argument, a Bond film adaptation series staying true to the original novels can still portray a more nuanced view perhaps.
Similar threads
